The Editor
Dear Sir
RE: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
It is ironic that at the same time there are mass demonstrations in France and elsewhere in Europe in favour of freedom of speech, Tasmania’s conservative government is determined to destroy the right to freedom of speech in Tasmania.
The government proposes to amend the Tasmanian Defamation Act 2005 to confer upon large corporations the right to sue for defamation.
That Act came about after decades of lobbying by the media for the defamation laws to be reformed so there was a greater freedom of speech.
All the Australian states eventually agreed to those reforms and the Tasmanian Act is part of uniform national legislation.
The Tasmanian government wants to break up the uniformity to enable extremely wealthy and powerful companies to silence any criticism of them by threatening to sue people for defamation.
This tactic was used by the now bankrupt Gunns Corporation to silence any criticism of itself when it brought an action against a large number of people.
The purpose of these actions are to frighten people into silence with the prospect of getting awarded against tens and thousands of dollars in legal costs and putting them to the anxiety of having to defend themselves against an extremely powerful and wealthy opponent.
One of the reasons why large corporations were excluded by the uniform national defamation legislation was because if someone lies about a corporation and causes them economic harm with the intention of causing that harm, the corporation has an action in the ancient tort of injurious falsehood.
The principles of that tort were restated by the English High Court in the case of Fraser v Evans in 1969 and in the High Court of Australia in the case of Palmer Bruyn & Anor v Parsons in 2001.
… that tells you the Tasmanian government is an extremist government that is determined to destroy freedom of speech …
The spurious reason given for the change to the Tasmanian Defamation Act is that it was alleged that lies were told about Ta Ann and 40 jobs were lost.
If that was true Ta Ann would no doubt have sued the persons who lied about them by using the tort of injurious falsehood.
That is a tactic that is being used by the Copping Waste Site Disposal Authority against its critics.
The same tort is available to Ta Ann.
The fact that Ta Ann has not sued anybody leads one to believe that no lies were told about them or if any lies were told about them it did not harm their business.
The government now has a track record of anti-democratic activity and this is the second attempt to take away the basic right of freedom of speech.
The first attempt was its bill to outlaw all political demonstrations in a public place including all cultural demonstrations.
It was so widely drawn that it would have made the Hobart City Council’s Christmas parade illegal and its participants subject to a $2,000.00 on the spot fine or a mandatory prison sentence.
That is because the Christmas parade was a demonstration of a cultural nature and thus caught by the definition of a demonstration that was banned and since it disrupted traffic it arguably could adversely affect business.
A blatant and extreme attack on freedom of speech …
The anti-protest bill was so undemocratic that even the conservative Legislative Council refused to pass it and the bill was emasculated in the upper house.
When a conservative government has its legislation emasculated by a very conservative upper house, that tells you the Tasmanian government is an extremist government that is determined to destroy freedom of speech.
The members of the cabinet ought to have known that their bill would ban all demonstrations and was not confined to people who wanted to chain themselves to bulldozers.
Clearly the Attorney-General has a university degree and is capable of reading and capable of understanding a bill. She knew or ought to have known that an anti-protest bill was a blatant and extreme attack on freedom of speech and the right to demonstrate to support one’s beliefs.
If all the government wanted to do was to stop people chaining themselves to bulldozers, they could have increased the penalties in the Trespass Act and extended that to trespass to goods as well as trespass to land.
Instead they chose to try and ban all political demonstrations.
The fact that a large number of people who are not usually involved in politics mobilised to oppose the bill is evidence of its extreme nature.
Clearly this government has contempt of freedom of speech and its deserving of the condemnation of all citizens.
One can only hope it meets the fate it deserves at the next elections.
Yours faithfully.
JOHN GREEN LLB
• Hilary Burden: Love is stronger than hate
• Anonymous (but known to TT), in Comments: Amazing! An article gets published in Mercury … Mercury: Tasmania is the crime dropper state … and absolutely no-one comments on the elephant in the room, that here we have a core Government agency whose key performance indicators unequivocally show a substantial, long term decline in workload yet whose political masters have campaigned on increasing taxpayer funded resources (108 new police) and mandatory sentencing to solve a problem that simply does not exist.
• Dr Eric Woehler, Vica Bayley, Jenny Weber, Peter McGlone, Nick Sawyer: Public urged to act to save Tasmania’s World Heritage Area from ruin for private profit Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area provides secure habitat for some of the world’s most unique animals and protects one of the last true wilderness regions on Earth, it encompasses a greater range of World Heritage listed natural and cultural values than any other region on Earth. Environmental groups are committed to ensuring the current agenda by Tasmania’s Government to weaken the protections of this unique wild landscape are met with opposition. Dr Eric Woehler …
• Matthew Groom: Greens Hypocrisy
• Chris Sharples, in Comments: By its own account, right wing ideology is supposed to be about protecting freedom above all. However it is at times like this that we see the ugly truth revealed: the only freedom that genuinely matters to right wing ideologues is the freedom of the rich and powerful to profit at the expense of society and the natural environment, with hindrance or botheration. Any other more trivial freedoms – like freedom of expression – that might interfere with this must be suppressed, it seems. Correct Vanessa? And Vanessa, please don’t give us that tripe about how nobody need be worried by the proposed new defamation laws as long as they are telling the truth. That is naive nonsense. It is obvious that the proposed laws will encourage powerful companies to threaten defamation proceedings against anybody who criticizes them – irrespective of who is telling truth or porkies – just to intimidate their critics into remaining silent. That’s precisely why the proposed defamation laws are wrong, and why people with legitimate and truthful criticisms to make have every reason to be worried about them. Or could it be that you honestly don’t believe a large company would ever distort the truth, and that the job of company spin doctors is only ever to present straight-forward unvarnished facts? Hmm.
• Mike Buky, Rocky Cape: Protests regarding the proposed 68 hectare Lapoinya coupe are increasing as the sheer illogicality of the clear-fell is exposed.
From every aspect the coupe fails to have any benefit:
• Economically, it will lose Forestry Tasmania an estimated $20/ton of timber cut. The timber itself is not even mature while the coupe is mainly to provide ‘peelers’ for Ta Ann.
• Environmentally, it is a disaster not only for the displaced or killed fauna and flora, but also the estimated 1,000 tons of CO² that will be emitted from the burning. Freshwater lobster, devils, quolls and 28 bird species are all threatened by this loss of habitat
• Socially, it is threatening with the loss of a prime recreation area for residents and visitors. The Lapoinya coupe is an exquisite example of native forest whose beauty deserves iconic status.
• Future accreditation for Forestry Tasmania by FSC is threatened by this clear-fell as it fails to comply with any of the required criteria.
Readers are invited to express their views at:
https://www.communityrun.org/petitions/lapoinya-clear-felling
EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …
• FT and FSC: Accreditation is simply not possible …
• Christine Milne: The Tasmanian Government is desperate Here in Tasmania we have a government intent on looking after the interests of corporations with their defamation law proposing to give companies the right to sue people in the community for defamation – that has to stop. Tim Wilson is out today saying that it is a bad move and when you get Tim Wilson out saying it is a bad move it just gives you a real indication of just how far Tasmania has been brought into disrepute by this government trying to prop up the logging industry by now saying people cannot criticise it. If it cannot stand on its merits then it cannot stand. JJust trying to jail people, accuse people of defamation, for coming out talking about the ills of the forest industry shows how desperate the government has become.
• Bryan Green: Time for Hodgman to dump defamation changes
• Dr Alison Bleaney, OBE, Tasmanian Public & Environmental Health Network (TPEHN): Download submission to Forico which details TPEHN paper newly published in the IJES re the E.nt toxin in the water ….and Preliminary investigations of toxicity in the Georges Bay catchment …
Download:
1-15_Sub_to_Forico_re_FMP__HCV_MP.pdf
2014_Bleaney_Preliminary_investigations_of_toxicity_in_the_Georges_Bay_catchment,_Tasmania.pdf
ABC: Decision on ‘super merger’ of Tasmanian superannuation funds expected soon
