This is not a gun article, but a demonstration of how what our Declaration and Constitution see as unalienable rights are taken away…

–
NATIONAL

Finding ‘restricts’ freedom of speech

By MIKE SECCOMBE

A finding that The Australian Financial Review had vilified Palestinians by publishing a
critical article on its opinion page established a precedent more threatening to freedom of
the press than Australia’s harsh defamation laws, a lawyer for the paper said yesterday.

Mr Richard Coleman, a lawyer for John Fairfax Publications, said the decision by the
Equal Opportunities Division of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal, if upheld,
posed “very severe restriction” on freedom of speech in the media.

He was backed by the Federal secretary of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance,
Mr Chris Warren, who called it “clearly inappropriate for a government body to interfere
in this way in the rights of a paper to comment”.

The case concerned a brief comment piece by journalist Tom Switzer, published on
December 23, 1998, on the opinion page of the paper, which suggested the Palestinians
could not be trusted in the Middle East peace process, had engaged in acts of terrorism,
and remained “vicious thugs who show no serious willingness to comply with
agreements”.

Mr Ali Kazak complained the article vilified Palestinians. The paper argued that while the
article was strongly worded, it was clearly marked as opinion, and the Financial Review
had published a letter to the editor in rebuttal from Mr Kazak the following day. A week
later it had run a balancing piece by Mr Jim Hannah of the Australian Arabic Council in
the same place on the same page.

But the tribunal rejected any defence of comment – something accepted in defamation law
– and also refused to accept the paper had provided adequate balance by publishing
responses.

It found it was irrelevant whether the author intended to incite racial hatred or whether
anyone had in fact been incited. The tribunal is yet to decide on a “remedy” for the
vilification. It has the power to order a retraction and apology, and to order the paper to
“implement a program or policy aimed at eliminating unlawful discrimination”.

The paper is likely to appeal the decision. Mr Coleman said the finding amounted to a
significant restriction on the ability to comment on international matters in a “full-blooded
way”.

“Under defamation law you’re allowed to be obtuse and over the top, to be biased and to
be prejudiced,” he said. “If it’s comment and it’s the honestly held opinion of the person
making it, you are allowed that as a defence. Here, the Anti-Discrimination Act and the
tribunal are providing a much stricter test on what you can publish.”