(LifeSiteNews)— The Australian Federal government has passed aggressive hate speech laws that entail mandatory minimum sentences and can be applied to children under 14 years old. The legislation is focused on expressions of antisemitism, but it will have much broader implications.
People who are to be protected under the legislation include those defined by: “race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion.” It is hard to imagine a broader framing.
The legislation at least does not target people’s intent in the way that the failed Misinformation and Disinformation bills did. It rather looks at “urging or threatening violence,” which is a more objectively assessable act.
It nevertheless raises problems of intent. Under these laws, if a teenager says: “We are going to beat you up because you support the wrong political party” to another teenager that might qualify as a hate crime. But is it meant literally? What is said and what is meant are often very different and there is no effort to distinguish between them.
The law is arguably designed to do the opposite. According to the Federal government committee report, the bill removes the good faith defence whereby an accused person can argue that they acted honestly and without the intention to deceive or harm another person or group. This looks suspiciously like undermining the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It certainly removes an important potential defence.
READ: Soros-backed politician tapped to lead EU initiative against ‘hate speech’
Senator Ralph Babet, one of only six senators to vote against the legislation, said the new laws represent an attack on the free speech of ordinary Australians. “While the speech laws may well punish a very small group of extremists, they will also capture everyday Australians, who now run the risk of being criminalized for no more than expressing unpopular political or religious views.”
Babet said the laws lower the threshold of prosecution from “intent” to cause harm to “recklessness”. “It means you simply have to be reckless with your words; if you are, then you could have committed an offence. Who decides what is reckless? As sure as night follows day, these new laws will be weaponized by activists to go after people they disagree with.
“If you dare to say there are only two genders, you could run the risk of being accused of harming trans people and run the risk of criminalization. If you dare suggest that some religions are not peaceful you could run the risk of being prosecuted for stirring up hatred.”
Debate was gagged both in the parliament and at the committee stage, according to Senator Gerard Rennick, who also voted against the bill. Describing the legislation as “an insult”, he pointed out that it undermines the principle that the law should apply equally to everyone (something that both state governments and the Federal government have made a practice of ignoring over the last five years).
“What group deserves greater protection than other groups?” asked Rennick. “All Australians should be protected against violence regardless of their background.” He believes there is a relentless effort by the two major parties in Australia to shut down free speech.
Christian schools are expressing concern that the hate-speech laws could be “weaponized” against them. The Australian Association of Christian Schools’ executive officer, Vanessa Cheng, said the broad definitions and expanded list of attributes could criminalize religious teachings.
“We are concerned the law could be weaponied and lead to a chilling effect on free speech and undermine the ability of churches and faith-based schools to teach and promote their deeply held beliefs.”
The Australian Christian Lobby voiced similar misgivings, warning that the bill had the “clear potential to serve as the instrument of viewpoint suppression on ideological grounds, even to criminalize political beliefs and expression contrary to a government-approved orthodoxy”.
The removal of judicial discretion has attracted criticism. The Law Council of Australia (LCA) said it was “extremely disappointed” at the imposition of mandatory sentencing and noted the government had contravened its own 2023 National Platform. “Mandatory sentencing laws are arbitrary and limit the individual’s right to a fair trial by preventing judges from imposing a just penalty based on the unique circumstances of each offence and offender,” said LCA President, Juliana Warner. “This has the potential to disproportionately impact vulnerable groups. To our knowledge, no security or law enforcement agency has asked for these extraordinary measures.”
Perhaps worst of all, according to Rennick, a motion to stop the bill applying to Australians under 14 was defeated. “Children under 14 can be locked up for hate crime speech in this country,” he said. “That is an absolute disgrace.”
READ: ‘Transgender’ neo-Nazi criminal shows how the ‘abnormal has become the norm’ in Germany