Why do politicians get to inflame, but citizens don’t?

Democracy is not a tea party where everyone chats politely – disorganized and confrontational, sometimes even aggressive – If we can’t deal with this, we should stop pretending it’s a free society, writes James Stekhoven.

THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT has passed the strongest hate speech laws in our nation’s history. Citizens now face up to seven years in prison for publicly inciting hatred against groups based on race or ethnicity. Religious and community leaders who abuse their positions will face up to ten years in prison.

But as I write this, our political leaders continue to make statements about foreign conflicts that could put any ordinary citizen in legal jeopardy. The double standards are astounding.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating hate speech. Racist slurs have no place in a civilized society. Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026 Swiftly passed through parliament after Bondi terrorist attackbut its stated intention to protect communities from hatred that could incite violence is legitimate.

But here’s the hypocrisy the political class doesn’t want us to consider: Politicians are left untouched by the same laws that silence ordinary Australians.

Two sets of rules

The new legislation makes it an offense to publicly encourage or incite hatred against a person or group based on race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.

It targets:

‘Spreading ideas of racial superiority’ And ‘Serious forms of antisemitic rhetoric, as well as white supremacy and other racist rhetoric’

The test is partly subjective; If a member of the target group feels threatened, fears harassment or violence, or fears for their safety, the law can be invoked regardless of the speaker’s intentions.

However, our esteemed Prime Minister, Anthony Albanesesanctions foreign military actions that kill children; When he aligns Australia with policies that will almost certainly anger Muslim communities around the world, his words are treated as legitimate policy debate, not incitement.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi To put it clearly:

“Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred have become more normalized, bolder and more dangerous. Rather than confronting this hatred, politicians and the media continue to inflame and legitimize it.”

Constitutional fiction

Ours Australian Constitution It does not include the right to freedom of expression. Instead, the Supreme Court found: ‘Freedom of political communication is implied’ Provisions establishing representative government arising from chapters 7 and 24. This freedom is not the right of citizens, but the limit of legislative power. It exists to protect the process of politics, not the person expressing himself.

Note the hierarchy: representatives and those represented. But in practice, representatives have almost complete immunity in their speeches, while those represented walk on eggshells.

What political speech is actually protected?

Implied freedom protects communication on political matters. A citizen’s claim that supporting foreign military action would anger Australian Muslim communities is a political prediction about the consequences of government policy.

However, under the new laws, such statements can theoretically be investigated if a “reasonable person” from the target group is intimidated. The law does not require intent to intimidate; only a reasonable person would feel intimidated.

Immunity of the government

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security He noted that the proposed racial libel offense would not proceed. But the framework remains worrying.

When political leaders describe entire nations or movements in dehumanizing terms, aren’t they creating the conditions for hatred to flourish?

But political speech is practically, if not legally, exempt. No politician will ever be charged under these laws for statements made in his official capacity, no matter how provocative the foreseeable consequences.

cooling effect

The practical result is a chilling effect on political debate. Otherwise, citizens who could speak openly will now hesitate. They fear that if a member of a group becomes offended, their words could be interpreted as “inciting hatred.”

Like Audience Australia observed:

‘The more a group deserves criticism, the more protection it receives from such legislation… intolerant people tend to offend themselves more easily. In this way, the more radical or extreme a person is, the greater the opportunity there will be to use legislation as a tool of persecution against those who disagree.’

Center for Justice and Equality In his presentation, he noted that protections should be extended to other vulnerable communities, but that the principle of protecting expression from criminalization is vital.

What democracy requires

In true democracies, citizens can speak publicly about their beliefs; even if these beliefs make others uncomfortable. Like Salman Rushdie expertly observed:

“Defending freedom of expression begins at the point when people say something you cannot stand. If you cannot defend their right to say it, then you do not believe in freedom of expression. You only believe in freedom of expression as long as it does not come down to your nose.”

European Court of Human Rights noted:

“Those who choose to exercise their freedom to manifest their religion… cannot reasonably expect to be immune from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial of their religious beliefs by others and even the dissemination of doctrines hostile to their own beliefs by others.”

This principle applies equally to political beliefs.

remaining question

So I return to my original question: Why do politicians get angry but citizens don’t?

If new hate speech laws are truly about protecting communities from hate that leads to violence, they need to apply to everyone, including those in power.

If these are aimed at controlling the speech of ordinary Australians without touching the political class, they are certainly not anti-hate laws. They are tools of authoritarian control dressed in the language of compassion.

The implied purpose of freedom of political communication was to protect democratic debate. But when politicians spoke freely and citizens were afraid to speak out, that freedom became a one-way street.

We must either demand that our leaders be held to the same standards as the rest of us, or that the laws be reformed to protect genuine political communication, no matter how uncomfortable it may make the powerful.

Democracy is not a tea party where everyone chats politely. He is disorganized, confrontational and often aggressive. If we can’t deal with this reality, we should stop pretending to be a free society.

The choice is ours; But we must do this before the silencing process is completed.

Dr James Schuurmans-Stekhoven has had a career defined by a high level of academic rigor, a polymatic research approach and a commitment to strategic optimization across many disciplines.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.