A Hobart City councilor reprimanded for referencing a woke “mind virus” is threatening a court challenge against the Tasmanian government over alleged censorship. Louise Elliot in November 2023 criticised a proposal to fly the Palestinian flag outside Hobart Town Hall, saying she “truly worried” about the mind virus that brings these concepts into the council chamber”, and refused to “support terrorism, genocide and repulsive brutality”. In response, fellow councillor Mike Dutta filed a complaint to the Tasmanian Local Government Code of Conduct Panel – administered by the Office of Local Government – which decided the phrase could reasonably be read as an accusation councillors were “suffering from a form of mental illness or condition”. Hobart councilor Mike Dutta lodged the complaint against colleague Louise Elliot. Ms Elliot, a Nationals member, rubbished the accusation and has retained lawyers Katherine Deves and Bridie Nolan – the legal team behind Sall Grover’s Giggle for Girls defence.
Intending to fundraise a challenge in the Federal Court, Ms Elliot has argued the code of conduct she was held to laid an unconstitutional burden on the implied freedom of political communication, with councilors seemingly held to more onerous standards than private citizens or politicians in higher jurisdictions. The complaint determination dismissed three of Ms Elliot’s five alleged breaches of the Hobart City Council code of conduct. It, however, found she had showed “a lack of respect for her fellow councilors” and her “conduct had the potential to adversely reflect on the reputation of council”, upholding two complaints. In her 2023 tweet, she said a proposal to raise the Palestinian flag on council grounds was “sickening”. “How on earth anyone can propose flying the flag of a country that is governed by terrorists is beyond me,” she wrote. “I truly worry about the mind virus that brings these concepts into the council chamber. It’s sickening. “I will not in any way – however lame and symbolic – support terrorism, genocide and repulsive brutality.”
The conduct panel’s determination said it had “not before come across the term ‘mind virus’” and did “not know precisely what is meant by ‘woke culture’” but said it was “inherently offensive” to say “someone has been infected by a transmissible mental illness because they hold particular political beliefs”, despite there being “no evidence … to support the claim that council has suffered reputational damage”. “The manner in which Councilor Elliot describes her fellow elected members as having a ‘mind virus’ can reasonably be construed as suggesting they are suffering from a form of mental illness or condition which could lead to a perception that those colleagues do not have the capacity to function capably or bring rational ideas to council,” the declaration reads. “Further, Councilor Elliot’s comments could be taken to suggest that members of council were supporting terrorism and genocide and were attempting to involve council in such support.”
Ms Elliot said the findings were a “bewildering” and “absurd” interpretation of her remarks. “They have chosen to take my use of the idiom ‘mind virus’ literally, as if I had stated that an unidentified person was biologically infected. Any grounded person that’s even slightly tuned into contemporary media or politics would understand that this is inoffensive political slang,” she told The Australian. “Taking ‘mind virus’ literally is an absurd stretch, just like it would be to say that if someone is starting a ‘culture war’ that they’re literally gathering soldiers and ammunition, or that ‘dog-whistling’ is literally rounding up neighbourhood hounds.” Ms Elliot was reprimanded by the Office of Local Government and ordered to undertake an unspecified “appropriate training course”. Councilors subject to repeated reprimands face the threat of expulsion by the Minister for Local Government. She was not required to give an apology.
“The most concerning part is that the freedom of political communication has been disregarded when assessing a politician’s communication. This is so fundamental to our democracy, electoral choice and our system of representative government that it must be challenged,” Ms Elliot said. “If I wasn’t elected, I would be bound by laws that apply to everyone – like those related to discrimination, privacy and defamation – and that’s fair. What isn’t fair – and I argue unconstitutional – is restricting my speech as a politician so that it is less than the everyday person’s.” She faces an uphill legal challenge after the Tasmanian Supreme Court last year ruled the conduct panel was not obligated to consider the implied freedom of political communication, given the High Court defined political communication as relating to “the choice that the people have to make in federal elections or in voting to amend the Constitution”, with some extensions to state and territory affairs.
“The Supreme Court decision purports to conclude that the freedom of political expression constitutionally owed to all Australians does not apply to councils in Tasmania. With the greatest respect to the former Chief Justice of Tasmania, the decision is simply wrong, and we intend to prove that,” Ms Deves said. “The significance of Councilor Louise Elliot’s matter cannot be overestimated because codes of conduct for local councils gag councilors all across this nation. Councils are meant to focus on rates, roads and rubbish yet they increasingly pursue issues far beyond their remit, including concerns of federal and international importance.” Ms Elliot recently led a failed bid to scrap mandatory acknowledgments of country at council-run events.
Source: Compiled by APN from media reports
Print This Post
Comments are closed