Why woke left victories in the war over free speech are dangerous

Adam Creighton discusses the kneejerk response of banning certain topics from discussion in the media (“Rogan ban a sign of elite’s reluctance to allow free speech”, 8/2), increasingly only subjects which have the approval of left-wing sensitivities appear acceptable. A current example is the ignoring of the Canadian truckers’ protests until they became “a threat”, whereas “good protests” about BLM or Extinction Rebellion, with their risk of disease spread, are allowed in the pandemic situation.

The advent of social media has dramatically increased the flow of mis and disinformation, what has been labelled the infocalypse, but non-PC views, as was confirmed with Donald Trump, are also more likely to be shut down. Restricted discussion has become more extreme with Covid, but has a long pedigree; differing views, for example on climate change, have been severely limited by the “open and impartial” ABC – we are fortunate that the tweets from their journalists confirm their biased view of events.

As John Stuart Mill stated, “If an argument is false then exposure reveals it, if true there is no case to repress”. Free speech is increasingly under threat.

Graham Pinn, Maroochydore, Qld

Question of faith

Rod Wise (Letters, 8/2) makes some rather uncharitable assertions regarding people of “deeply held personal belief and faith” when he claims, “the possible offence their views may cause other people is hardly relevant” because “They regard their relationship with their God as being on a completely different plane from their relationship with the rest of society”.

Perhaps Wise is thinking of insular, cult-like religions that do indeed separate themselves from the world. However, regarding Judaism and Christianity, a central tenet of both is to love your neighbour as yourself – regardless of race or creed. Then there is Victoria’s Sikh community which has been cooking and providing food to those in the wider non-Sikh community who are doing it tough during Covid. Islam too places importance on caring for others in its zakat pillar of almsgiving.

Indeed for many people of “deeply held personal belief and faith”, the love of God and their relationship with him is what motivates them not to cause hurt or offence, and is what impels them out into the “rest of society” to love, serve and care for others.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic

Report back

While Alex Ryvchin is undoubtedly entitled to his opinion and to disagree with Amnesty International’s report, his article “No amnesty for NGO’s false claims of Israeli apartheid” (2/2) contains serious claims which are not based in fact.

Opponents of the disturbing findings in Amnesty International’s landmark report Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System Of Domination And Crime Against Humanity, including Ryvchin, who dismiss it as a slur do so without engaging with the content of the report. To be accused of a crime against humanity is confronting, yet when credible organisations like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Israel-based B’Tslem and Yesh Din raise this claim, we do so on the basis of a compelling body of evidence.

Anecdotes of people having positive personal experiences are not equal to compelling evidence, our evidence on which these findings are based, have been complied over four years and reviewed by experts in apartheid and international law, which show systemic discrimination documented over many years.

The charge of apartheid as described in international law has also been made by Amnesty in Myanmar. To suggest that describing the state of Israel’s system of apartheid against Palestinian people is anti-Semitic is disingenuous and again refuses to engage with the substance of the report.

Apartheid is sometimes used only to describe the South African regime form which the term derived. However, apartheid is defined in three international human rights treaties: Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Apartheid Convention, and the Rome Statute – as well as in Australian law.

The report does not at any point or in any way question the right of the state of Israel to exist. Amnesty works fearlessly in other areas around the world where self-determination is a contested issue such as Xinjiang and Kashmir, and Amnesty does not take a position on self-determination.

Amnesty International’s research, campaigns, advocacy, and statements pertaining to Israel are focused on the actions of the Israeli authorities – they are not, and never will be, a condemnation of Judaism or the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism is antithetical to everything Amnesty represents as a human rights organisation.

Sam Klintworth, national director, Amnesty International Australia