Australia likes to pride itself on being a democracy, embodying governance by the people and for the people. But this hasn’t stopped New South Wales Premier Chris Minns from claiming that speech should be regulated by the government, suggesting that freedom of expression poses a risk to our “fragile” multicultural society.
Minns said, “Australians don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States, and the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community…”
"Australians don't have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States, and the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community…"
— Caldron Pool (@CaldronPool) March 17, 2025
When did Australians choose to trade their freedom for multiculturalism?pic.twitter.com/P98nqTMlj1
The Premier has framed the matter as a stark either/or option: Australians must choose between either free speech or multiculturalism. We can’t have both. In their view, it’s a zero-sum game, and they’ve already made the decision on our behalf—multiculturalism it is! Consequently, free speech must be forfeit.
Yet, it appears they have failed to fully consider the broader consequences of prioritizing their deluded vision of a “multicultural” society. Free speech—the unrestricted ability to debate ideas without fear of reprisal or prosecution—is not merely an optional luxury; it is the bedrock of democracy. Without it, the democratic process crumbles.
What chilling impact might such threatening laws have on open discussions about the merits of multiculturalism itself, immigration policies, foreign interference, religious violence, or even topics like sexual morality and the Bible?
While ever there are laws that threaten citizens with prosecution for wrong-speak, ideas cannot be freely debated. Even where there is no will to enforce the laws, the fear of being hauled before a court for uttering forbidden words will remain an oppressive and psychologically restraining force over all public discourse. Thus, the stakes extend beyond just “losing free speech.” It’s a threat to the democratic process.
To regulate speech is to regulate “democracy,” and a democracy regulated by the state—determining what ideas can and cannot be communicated—is no democracy at all. If multiculturalism can only survive with the suppression of free expression, then it inherently demands the undermining of democracy itself. You might be able to maintain a “multicultural” community without freedom of speech, but you won’t be able to maintain a meaningful democracy.
In other words, sacrificing free speech to protect multiculturalism essentially equates to abandoning the very system that allows a diverse society to function democratically. Without freedom of speech, there is no freedom of thought, no diversity of opinion, and therefore, there is no government by the people and for the people—at least, not in any meaningful sense.
