Queensland University case shows how fragile is freedom of speech

The case of Drew Pavlou and the University of Queensland is a troubling reminder of how fragile freedom of speech has become at our leading universities (“Anti-China student walks out on uni ‘kangaroo court’ ” , 21/5).

While UQ rejects the claim that freedom of speech is the issue, it defends its right to uphold a “safe environment” and the welfare of students and staff. One such apparent threat to safety is Pavlou’s alleged use of bad language on social media to describe feelings towards students enrolled in a particular course. If this petty act is hard to take seriously, then consider that Pavlou is also charged with “borrowing” a pen in a university shop to write on a greetings card.

The situation is a reminder of the fate awaiting dissenters and whistleblowers who tangle with authorities. These authorities go to extraordinary lengths to build cases against individuals. Minor transgressions, imaginary and real, are dug up to try to taint the motives or character of the individual dissenting. By going to such lengths, they draw attention to their own intolerance for dissent generally.

Andrew Goldsmith, College of Business, Flinders University, SA

Border balancing act

The Constitution states that trade, commerce and the movement of people among the states “shall be absolutely free”. There are exceptions, however, and defending the public’s health is one of them, but the evidence in such a case must be firmly premised on science, not politics.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a clear necessity to close state borders but from July 1 the justification for doing so is not so strong. The states and territories balance with health concerns the increasing national imperative to reopen their borders and get their economies moving again.

The Australian Tourism Industry Council wants to kick-start the industry during the July school holidays but it is all about aviation policy and flight capacity. The national cabinet has spoken and indicated a July 10 start to interstate travel but some premiers are now playing politics and are not acting in the national interest. Constitutional law is against them and they risk a High Court challenge if they persist.

Brian Winship, Port Macquarie, NSW

The national economy is in hibernation with some prospects of reawakening, but Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and other premiers have decided to euthanise what remains of their state economies. With one stroke they have decided — against all available medical evidence — to keep their borders closed.

It is imperative to keep safe, but that includes mental health. Have they factored in what the loss of the national tourist dollar will do to their economies and the mental health of those who will lose jobs due to such closures? The onflow of job losses and consequential economic devastation could be catastrophic. Open the borders by July 1 and allow those who want to travel interstate the freedom to do so and help the tourism industry.

Debbie Wiener, Melbourne, Vic

I agree with Nick Cater (“We can’t spend the rest of our lives avoiding risks”, 21/5). Enough data exists to prove that the majority of people do not face dire consequences from coronavirus infection. It is evident just which groups need careful management and who must endure constraints on their liberties.

The nation has responded very well to the need for spacing, sanitising and the like. What a pity it is that governments have so little respect for the intelligence of those they serve.

State border closures are not in place for the protection of the general public, but rather so that state governments are protected from blame in the event of a secondary outbreak. The same thought applies to other edicts being enforced despite their obvious stupidity.

L. J. O’Donoghue, Richmond, Vic