“This is not about free speech”

5 Comments

1. 

   Phill Parsons

   December 22, 2004 at 12:01

   Moral or ethical, Abetz, Barnes and Zeeman all know Gunns action is not about free speech, but about the right to make money without public scrutiny of the impacts of those activities.

   As anyone with political experience knows it is bit by bit that the political debate is conducted and changes in society wrought. As much as it has been the way of the Howard government in moving Australia to the political right it is the way that citizens who disagree with policy act to change public opinion.

   The Gunns 20 action may not end all free speech, Gay et al has not made demands on religious beliefs for example. However he has drawn into court 2 forms of protest, direct action and direct appeal to corporate ethics that have shown some efficacy.

   Will free speech only remain safe as long as the proprieties are retained, to wit no impact on the worship of mammon wrought from the destruction of nature.

   Cleverly, Barnes brings together an old style of protest with the alleged actions of an individual “It is one thing for protesters to stand with banners at logging sites and shout slogans, and another for them to steal the keys of a piece of machinery”.

   He omits to mention that a large part of the 215 page writ refers to alleged communication with those giving the Banksia Award, with Japanese and Belgian customers for the woodchips from Tasmanian forests and the banks financing Gunns buyout of North Forests products and thus its domination of the Tasmanian forest extraction industry and the global hardwoodchip export market.

   Barnes draws in “The University of Wollongong’s Sharon Beder, who has written extensively on environmental activism, who that “many SLAPPs have little legal merit. Rather their aim is to harass, intimidate and distract industry opponents.”

   Then he claims that “The Gunns lawsuit, on the face of it, does not seem to be such an action. The claims made against the protesters are voluminous and if proven in court, serious”.

   As though the number of pages are a measure of legal merit. Many people named in the writ are not defendants.

   Whether “it also deters other citizens from speaking freely and confidently about similar issues” and so acts as a SLAPP is yet to be determined.

   In Australia this has not yet been the result of the many litigations about such matters, our character not yet so bowed by the oppressiveness of legality when used against morality.

   Whilst the Supreme Court of Victoria will be “determining the limitations on freedom of speech and the balance between the exercise of that freedom and how it impinges on other rights”, I am not sure that Justice Micheal Kirby was refering to the corporate sector when he wrote “Even in terms of individual human rights, freedom of expression, however important, is not absolute. International statements of human rights themselves acknowledge other rights or considerations which may conflict with free expression and which should also be respected and upheld.”

   Barnes claims anarchy will break out if the “if companies have no rights to seek legal redress to protect their rights and interests against what they regard as unlawful actions” .

   Accordingly their needs to be a “balance between competing rights” that “ appears to be lost on many of those who are lining up to support the green protesters that Gunns has targeted”.

   Somehow our right to a healthy and livable planet is excused as it is not the subject of statute law.

   Contrarily, I opine that rightly those lining up to support green protestors are of similar beliefs to the people lining up against other immoralities, the treatment of assylum seekers and the twisting of truth during the 2001 election or the attack on Iraq based on a large parcel of lies about weapons possesed by the brutal dictator Hussein.

   Instinctively they can smell rats and fish even though they may be unable to clearly define motive.

   The destruction of nature contuinues at many levels and we are implicit in this by our belonging to society. Stepping outside of society to oppose and attempt to end unsustainable practices and the destruction of ancient forests is unacceptable for those who support democracy, hence the importance of upholding free speech and the right to be heard.

   In a democracy it is also incumbent on its members to behave ethically. If a corporation wishes to claim the status of a natural person it must behave as a moral as well as letter of the law legal one.

   It is that behaviour pattern that makes life liveable in the street and at home, not just the rule of law. Were corporations the dions of ethicallity then no questions would need to be asked, no anomalies pointed out and no immoralities exposed as James Hardie belatedly recognizes.

   Mother nature may be denied the rights of a natural person able to defend herself in court. Gunns, through the arrogance of a Lord has granted her a hearing.
2. 

   pat

   December 23, 2004 at 17:01

   Well said Phill – its time for this corporation to release its unethical, immoral and unacceptable control on Tasmanias heritage.

   Mother Nature and her Beloved Tree Kingdoms may well be denied the rights of a natural person, but this also will be her strength, to inspire and instill the human to speak for her. Many do, and many will, and with great dignity and passion.

   Yes, this is, indeed, her hearing.

   And I know Earthmother .. she is listening. And, I bet there will be some amazing synchronicities and coincidences, for many ignorant people to now see, there must be HONOUR FOR ALL SPECIES to be upheld.

   Without honour, we are less.
3. 

   Dr Kevin Bonham

   December 24, 2004 at 12:50

   One of the defining character flaws of the Tasmanian green left is its habitual burdening of the concept of “democracy” with irrelevant luggage that happens to support their position. It is considered acceptable in this clique to label opposing positions and practices as “undemocratic” but provide no evidence of why they are so. For those who came in late, a democracy is simply any system where decisions are made by voting, either directly or, as in our case, indirectly through representatives. A liberal democracy is one which includes such a system of voting but also includes limits on the ability of the majority to infringe upon defined rights of the minority (or vice versa). That is all there is to it.

   In a hopelessly garbled sentence, Phill Parsons appears to be saying either that there is something undemocratic about supporting forestry practices at all (a complete non sequitur) or else that there is something undemocratic about a corporation making use of rights it has under laws maintained by democratically elected governments. There is nothing undemocratic about what Gunns are doing at all, it is simply politically inconvenient for those who Mr Parsons agrees with.

   Parsons also argues that in a democracy it is incumbent on members to behave ethically to “make life liveable in the street”. Actually all that is necessary for that to occur is that citizens refrain from those acts that make life unliveable in said proverbial streets. Different citizens will have different motives for this restraint – in some cases rule of law, in some cases self-interest, in some cases their own particular ethics, but it is certainly not necessary that everyone be restrained by ethics alone, let again (as Parsons would need to be the case) by the same common set of ethics. Mr Parsons and anyone else wishing to run this sort of argument would do well to be aware that it has been done to a well-deserved death in political theory. From very different backgrounds, Isaiah Berlin’s concept of “agonistic liberalism” and Jurgen Habermas’ “intersubjectivity” provide illustrations of how a liberal democracy can be functional and secure without complete agreement on so-called ethical standards.

   The function of trade libel laws in Australia is certainly not to protect companies from all public scrutiny of impacts; it is, largely (in this context), to protect companies from demonstrably injurious and malicious false claims. These limits have long existed in Australia and have hardly been flagged as much of a threat to any kind of worthwhile freedom of speech before.

   Not having yet read the lawsuit in full, I would not care to comment about its overall validity. I do think that Gunns made a serious error of judgement in adding the so-called “corporate vilification” angle to the claim, instead of just concentrating on the simpler economic damage issues associated with protests. Further I am mystified at the timing of the writs. However I expect the debate to be dominated by melodramatic cry-wolfing about this storm-in-a-teacup lawsuit being more or less the end of free speech in Australia. Mr Parsons’ contribution certainly meets that expectation.
4. 

   Pilko

   January 14, 2015 at 19:04

   I was in two minds about posting this because it takes a big person to admit they are wrong. Nor do i want to appear to be gloating – or for this thread to become a Greg Barns bashing session.

   However the Gunns 20 Slapp suit (and all that ensued) was of such huge public interest that it’s place in the nation’s history of environmental politics is assured.

   Greg Barns is a high profile lawyer & media spokesperson. I’ve never met him but i like most of his work. Asylum seekers, social justice, mental health etc. Barns was very public in 2004/5 with his views about the Gunns 20 law suit. He supported it. Indeed Greg Barns was one of few legal commentators at the time to defend the lawsuit. I along with many, many others criticised Greg Barns for taking the position he did.

   I think its fair & its important in terms of the written history of this issue & the massive public interest that I post this. In some ways the information I’m about to share gives the debate about the Gunns 20 Slapp Suit a little more closure.
   Last night (14/01/15) via social media i put a few Q’s to Greg Barns about his vocal opposition (which I welcome) to the Hodgman Liberal Government’s proposed defamation laws. (http://www.news.com.au/national/tasmania/state-governments-planned-defamation-laws-spark-national-backlash/story-fnn32rbc-1227180907863). I did so as a veteran of the pulp mill campaign and someone who very clearly remembered the position Greg took in 2004 on Gunns Slapp Suit.

   I essentially asked Greg if he now admitted that his 2004 position in support (see Age article above) of Gunns slap suit was wrong.

   Greg Barns replied – “I think in hindsight i got it wrong”.

   Could of knocked my socks off.

   Takes a big man to admit they are wrong publicly. Thanks for your openness & honesty Greg Barns & well done on your public opposition to the Hodgman Government’s planned defamation laws.

   To see the discussion as it unfolded go here – https://twitter.com/Rickpilk/with_replies
5. 

   phill Parsons

   January 15, 2015 at 09:48

   Let us imagine that the Gunns 20 SLAPP suit went to court and Gunns won with massive costs awarded against the 20. Do you think for one moment this would not unleash an avalanche we would still be smothered by.

   Yes it does take a man who thinks he is big some effort to admit error but let’s not get carried away.

   Barns is trapped in his belief sets, somewhere between conservative and libertine. Those who have them are all defined by them.

   He should have thought it out better in 2004. Many others were able to see SLAPP was wrong then and the defamation changes are now.