Any reasonable person should hate these hate laws. Andrew Hastie for PM.
Mr Hastie on Wednesday afternoon doubled down on his opposition to the bill, which he said was “an attack on our basic democratic freedoms, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of religion”.
Just get out of the way for Andrew, Susan. You’re putting Pauline in charge in record time.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has told senior colleagues she has major reservations about Labor’s proposed hate speech laws, in the strongest indication yet the Coalition will oppose them in Parliament.
Yours truly has finally roused Wokey from its suicidal slumber. Bernard Keane.
In the wake of terrorist atrocities, it seems axiomatic that poor decisions are made. Australia, like other countries, has witnessed several over the last quarter-century. Disastrous wars are launched. Liberties are undermined. Communities are vilified. Intelligence and enforcement agencies are enriched and empowered despite repeated failures. Individuals are caught up and broken in security bureaucracies. But no matter what, governments always end up with more power, no matter how much their failures contributed to the original atrocity; no matter how much their panoply of poor decisions contribute to a perpetuation and often strengthening of the very terrorism they have pledged to eradicate.
…What’s different in the wake of the Bondi atrocity is that Australia’s largest media company Nine Entertainment has joined the push for power speech — especially the Financial Review, which is now the most-reliably pro-Israel, and pro-Israel lobby, mainstream outlet in Australia, a place where attacks on Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah and the scores of writers who opposed her censorship are standard stuff. In a particularly telling moment, The Sydney Morning Herald raced to apologise for running a Cathy Wilcox cartoon that accurately portrayed the push for a Bondi royal commission as an entirely political exercise.
This is Wokey’s first critique of the laws, in support of its chosen identity groups, so perhaps a little self-reflection is in order.
Nine does attack the laws today in defence of MB.
At the centre of the controversy are new criminal offences for racial vilification and “inciting hatred”, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. Civil liberties groups warn the bill’s language – including prohibitions on “promoting hatred”, glorifying past acts or conduct that might cause “fear or intimidation” – is alarmingly broad and risks criminalising mainstream political speech.
They argue a social media post questioning multiculturalism, immigration policy or religious practices could fall foul of the laws, encouraging widespread self-censorship among Australians fearful of prosecution. Critics say the bill risks emulating the United Kingdom’s approach to online speech, where arrests over contentious posts have become increasingly common without addressing the underlying drivers of extremism.
Professor Anne Twomey, emerita professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, has warned the bill is likely to collide with the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Constitution.
The Australian also seems to have suddenly realised that its shift into identity politics will destroy itself, with a string of articles attacking the legislation.
Meanwhile, a dire scenario is unfolding in which the Albanese government will now engage in negotiations with the Greens to expand the definition of hate to encompass any identity that they can conceive of.
They had better outlaw the hatred of politicians as well, because that is what they are creating in record time.
