Does it do any good

Does it do any good to expose hate- and fear-mongering by government in a free society?
The standard answer is Yes, that is the role of the citizens and the Press in a free society, to remain forever vigilant against those who will seek to use their office to put forward a radical agenda for their own gain.
Without such a dialogue, a society cannot be called free.
This is the dialogue that must enforce the system of checks and balances built into the structure of a free society.


Vigilance is the price of freedom.
That has been the watchword of every free society throughout history. Whenever and wherever the Press and the citizens let themselves grow slack in their duty to remain vigilant, some element in society will step forward to abuse the tolerance of a free society to curtail the rights of all. The price of freedom must be the courage to speak out against injustice.

That speech then tests the character and quality of the government.
It tests first the character of the individuals in government to respond to injustice and prejudice. Most governments fail to listen. The individuals seek to maintain the structure and attitudes that have brought them to power. Their fear of losing power prevents them from acting from their best judgment and purpose.

It then tests the structure of the government. Are rights truly protected and guaranteed? Are they available to all equally?

If a right is protected in law, then it is the duty of the government to enforce it. It becomes available to all.

This is where the price of freedom can be demonstrated in bare, monetary terms. If the rights of a society are only available to those who have the substantial amounts of money necessary to hire attorneys to defend those rights, then the society is not truly free. It is simply for sale. The freedoms the citizenry assume to belong to all are only available to a select few.
Sadly, as the society becomes less free, that select few becomes smaller. They are selected by those who seek to hold onto power. It could be said that these two groups select each other in a way: one protects the privileges and power of the other.

Prejudice and fear are a means to hold onto power.
Perhaps a good watchword for citizens of a free society would be:

Whenever the government seeks to make you afraid, look to how it intends to take more power unto itself.

And take more rights from you, the citizen, and your voice: the Press.
And then ask: Why?

There are many examples of this sort of thing in history, and even in day to day living.
Hitler made the whole world afraid of the Jews, and he took over almost complete control of one of the world’s longest-standing societies. Tojo made the Japanese afraid of the rising influence of the West. He and Hitler started a world war.

Those were not free societies, of course. Germany’s parliamentary structure was still roughly formed. It was a nascent democracy, at best, in a time of great social upheaval and economic pressure. Fear and privilege held Hitler in power. Germans lived a privileged life throughout much of WWII.
In both societies, the government took over the Press. This was made possible because of the pressures on the societies, and the increasing control of the government on the economic structure of the country.

Australia is still a nascent democracy, based on a parliamentary structure – a roughly formed democracy. In this way, Australia truly has been lucky.
Human and civil rights are not guaranteed in law. Some will cite common law, but common law is very flexible. It can easily be twisted in the wrong direction.
Others will cite international treaties which hold Australia to a high standard of human and civil rights. The assumption there is that the articles in UN declarations and treaties are binding on the Australian government.
They are not.

As Brian Walters pointed out in The Age (20 July 2006):

… Australia has never legislated to protect properly the human rights set out in the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Australia in 1976).
In the US, for example, a ratified treaty is part of the law of the land. Not so here. For a treaty to be legally enforceable in Australia, legislation must be passed to give effect to it. Britain, New Zealand, Canada and other Western nations have all enacted laws giving effect to the ICCPR. In 2004 the Australian Capital Territory took the first step when it passed the Human Rights Act, which protects the rights recognised in the ICCPR.

(Going the wrong way on rights)
Australia remains a rich, ripe plum for those who seek to curtail and abuse human and civil rights. In fact, the history of Australia can be seen as one abuse after another.
Perhaps that’s why American and UK history is taught in Australian schools; not the history of Australia.

There are few Australians who want to acknowledge such things. The national character seems to be to assign such ideas to the “too hard bin”, and go on in the bliss of ignorance.

So the question remains, and is especially poignant in Australia in this time of so many social and economic pressures: “Does it do any good to expose hate- and fear-mongering by government in a free society?”
This question tests first the character and courage of the people of Australia.