Frank wrote on Jan 14
th, 2026 at 9:07pm:
The new vilification offence is clearly targeted at those who promote racial hatred. But it has a fatal flaw. Its legitimate goal is at risk of being undermined by the proposed defence which protects those who include a quote from a religious text or even a mere reference.
Unless this defence is removed, it would amount to a betrayal of members of the Islamic community who might oppose religious leaders using their position to promote Jew hatred.
It would be seen as encouragement for hate preachers who have promoted Jew hatred in recent years by linking their statements to the reading of religious texts. This cannot be what parliament seeks to achieve.
The defence amounts to a guide for hate preachers. It tells them exactly what they need to do in order to continue promoting racial hatred with impunity.
Removing this defence would mean that the new offence of promoting racial hatred would apply to everyone. It would be impossible to avoid liability by the simple method of reciting a few words.
This requires parliament to accept that religious freedom, like free speech generally, can be restricted in order to place greater emphasis on public safety.
This should not be seen as contentious. The law already prevails over passages in the Bible such a Leviticus 20:13 which seeks to impose the death penalty for homosexuality.
The point here is that we do not live in a theocratic society. Laws made by parliament prevail to the exclusion of any conflicting mandate in any religious text. That principle should not be eroded.
I am also concerned that the test for liability in subsection (c) of the vilification offence has been drafted in a way that does not invoke the standards of the general community.
Instead, it would impose criminal liability using a test for liability that seems overly subjective and closely related to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Under section 18C, civil liability is imposed when a reasonable person in the position of those complaining, would be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated.
Under the proposed vilification offence, criminal liability would be imposed when the conduct in question causes a reasonable person “who is the target or a member of the target group” to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.
Because the vilification offence will impose criminal liability, not civil liability, it seems logical that the test for liability should invoke general community standards, not those of the individual or group that is the target of the speech in question.
Chris Merritt is vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia. This was his opening statement to Wednesday’s parliamentary inquiry into the government’s proposed hate speech bill.
We know full well what the problem is, but we all dance around it. It is Islamic fundamentalism in the most extreme way from certain sections of Sydney… But the government’s too weak to actually deal with the actual problem.
Joyce
👮Say the 'wrong thing' about Islam, multiculturalism, immigration, diversity → 5 years jail for "causing fear"
🚔Wrongthink arrests incoming
https://x.com/Katherine_deves/status/2011244150042358138These thought and speech control laws are causeing millions f Australians fear - can we sue Albaweasel?
What kind of 'social cohesion' is it weher thought and speach have to be legally regulated and controlled? Iranian, East German, Soviet, Nazi German 'social cohesion'.
Forum
Pages: 
