The Claim
“Claimed that all Australians have the 'right to be a bigot'.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Quote and Context:
In March 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis did make a statement defending free speech that included the phrase "right to be a bigot." The comment was made during Senate Question Time on March 24, 2014, while defending the Abbott government's proposed changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA).
The full context was Brandis arguing against what he saw as excessive restrictions on free speech. He stated: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country, people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted." [1]
The Policy Context:
The comment arose during debate over proposed amendments to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Section 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. The Abbott government proposed removing the words "offend" and "insult" from the provision, arguing they constrained legitimate free speech.
What Actually Happened:
- Brandis made the comment during Senate Question Time on March 24, 2014
- It was in defense of free speech principles, not an endorsement of bigotry
- The proposed 18C amendments were eventually abandoned by the government in August 2014 after significant public backlash
- The comment became one of the most controversial statements of the Abbott government period [2]
Missing Context
The Full Statement:
The claim presents the quote without the surrounding context that Brandis was discussing free speech principles in a liberal democracy, not advocating for bigotry. The comment was part of a philosophical defense of allowing offensive speech, similar to free speech arguments made in many Western democracies.
The Policy Was Abandoned:
Critically, the proposed changes to 18C that Brandis was defending were ultimately abandoned by the Abbott government in August 2014. After community consultation and backlash, including from ethnic communities and Indigenous groups, the government dropped the proposed amendments. This outcome is not reflected in the claim as presented.
Free Speech vs Anti-Discrimination Balance:
The claim omits that this was part of a broader philosophical debate about balancing free speech with protections against racial discrimination. Brandis was articulating a classical liberal free speech position - that offensive speech should be legally permissible even if socially condemned. This is a mainstream position in many liberal democracies, even if controversial in Australia.
Source Credibility Assessment
ABC News:
The original source cited is ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), which is Australia's public broadcaster and generally considered a credible, mainstream news source. ABC News is subject to editorial standards and is not a partisan advocacy organization. However, headlines can sometimes sensationalize comments for impact.
The headline "Brandis defends right to be a bigot" captures the controversial nature of the statement but may not fully convey the philosophical free speech context in which it was made.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have a different position on 18C?
The Labor Party (ALP) strongly opposed the proposed changes to Section 18C. Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus was particularly vocal in criticizing both the amendments and Brandis's "right to be a bigot" comment.
Historical Context:
Section 18C itself was introduced by the Keating Labor government in 1995. The provision was championed by Labor to strengthen protections against racial vilification.
However, on free speech issues more broadly, Labor governments have had their own tensions:
- The Rudd/Gillard governments maintained 18C without changes
- Labor has generally positioned itself as stronger on anti-discrimination protections
- Both parties have struggled with balancing free speech concerns with anti-discrimination principles
Comparative Analysis:
Labor positioned itself as the defender of multiculturalism and anti-racism protections during this debate, while the Coalition framed itself as defending free speech. The "right to be a bigot" comment became a gift to Labor politically, allowing them to paint the Coalition as insensitive to racial minorities.
The core philosophical tension - between unfettered free speech and legal protections against racial offense - exists across the political spectrum, though the parties have landed on different sides of this specific provision.
Balanced Perspective
What the claim gets right:
- George Brandis did say that people have a "right to be a bigot"
- The comment was made in an official capacity as Attorney-General
- It was controversial and widely reported
What the claim omits:
- The comment was made in defense of free speech principles, not as an endorsement of bigotry
- The government ultimately abandoned the proposed changes to 18C that sparked the comment
- The statement was part of a broader philosophical debate about free speech vs. anti-discrimination
- Labor introduced the original provision (18C) in 1995, so the Coalition was challenging existing Labor policy
The Political Calculus:
Brandis's comment was politically damaging because it allowed opponents to frame the Coalition as defending bigotry rather than free speech. The comment became a symbol of the Abbott government's perceived insensitivity to multicultural Australia.
However, from a policy perspective, the government ultimately backed down, meaning the "right to be a bigot" comment did not translate into actual policy change. The status quo (with 18C intact) was maintained.
Comparative Context:
Labor's position on 18C was more popular with multicultural communities and the broader public. Polls showed majority opposition to changing 18C. The Coalition's free speech argument never gained sufficient public traction to overcome concerns about protecting racial minorities from abuse.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
George Brandis did make the statement that people have a "right to be a bigot." The quote is accurate. However, the claim as presented lacks important context:
- The comment was made in defense of free speech principles, not as a statement of government policy endorsing bigotry
- The government ultimately abandoned the proposed changes that sparked the controversy
- The framing omits the philosophical debate about free speech vs. anti-discrimination
- Labor introduced the original provision (18C) that the Coalition was proposing to amend
The claim presents the quote as a standalone position without the full context that this was part of a free speech debate, and that the government ultimately did not proceed with the changes.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
George Brandis did make the statement that people have a "right to be a bigot." The quote is accurate. However, the claim as presented lacks important context:
- The comment was made in defense of free speech principles, not as a statement of government policy endorsing bigotry
- The government ultimately abandoned the proposed changes that sparked the controversy
- The framing omits the philosophical debate about free speech vs. anti-discrimination
- Labor introduced the original provision (18C) that the Coalition was proposing to amend
The claim presents the quote as a standalone position without the full context that this was part of a free speech debate, and that the government ultimately did not proceed with the changes.
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.