Bondi shooting flips the script on Australia hate speech laws

Loading

“We have people like John Howard and other Coalition party members who have argued against hate speech laws in parliament for 40 years on the grounds of freedom of expression, and now argue that the Albanian government is not doing enough,” he says.

“This is despite the Albanian government passing more laws restricting speech than previous governments to protect minorities. Antisemitism is on the rise and is a scourge that must be addressed, but I have spent my career arguing against people who use freedom of expression to block these laws. The hypocrisy of what is happening now is extraordinary.”

It is clear that the heated debate over the war in Gaza and now Sunday’s attack has tipped the scales on what Australia will tolerate as it strives for a harmonious society.

“I think the climate is changing,” Gelber says. “Context matters, and so does what happened at Bondi… The fact that someone took a gun to Hanukkah celebrations changes the context. Even when it comes to the term ‘intifada’ that many people use to mean resistance against marginalization, this incident changes how you understand that.”

That’s the point Burke is making this week. “We are no longer the nation that we were a decade ago where the government of the day claimed that the right that matters is the right to be bigoted. What matters is the right of people to be free, to celebrate on the beach, and to do so safely,” he said.

It is easy to see new penalties being imposed on hate preachers who attract public support. To date, radical sermons promoting hatred have not crossed the legal threshold to constitute a criminal offence.

Western Sydney preacher Wissam Haddad, for example, was found in federal court earlier this year to have perpetuated “age-old tropes against Jewish people that are fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic.” The court ruled that he had violated the Racial Discrimination Act, which is part of the civil code. Conclusion? Deleted online classes and paid legal fees.

Laws will test protest chants

Defamation law will be more complex. Anti-Semitic slogans were at the center of many Australian Jews’ concerns Hymns sung at Sydney Opera House protest in October 2023 – and the use of more controversial phrases such as “globalize the intifada” and “from river to sea” in pro-Palestinian protests since then.

“There are currently significant disagreements about whether things like accusing Israel of genocide or being a settler-colonial state cross the line into anti-Semitism,” says Gelber. Police in the UK arrested two pro-Palestinian protesters for calling for an “intifada”, the Palestinian uprising against Israel. On Thursday, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey said he viewed “globalising the intifada” as an example of hate speech.

Loading

Burke said the legal threshold for hate speech would be lowered as much as possible under the Constitution. “What I can’t do is play the game of this sentence will go in, this sentence will come out, these words will come in, these words will come out,” he said Friday.

The courts will decide this. But first the laws need to be prepared. Gelber says the threshold they set will be important. For example, will they need proven documentation? intent To incite racial hatred? Will there be a situation where there are words or not? likely to do this? Or will be indifference Is it enough? “We don’t yet know what standard will emerge, and it’s a matter of how widely this provision will be applied,” he says.

Context will be important when it comes to phrases like “from river to sea.” “If someone uses this phrase in conjunction with other hate speech or banners suggesting the end of Israel’s existence, that strengthens the claim that he or she is crossing the line. But if he uses it in the context of supporting Palestinian human rights and ending suffering, and admits that Hamas is a terrible organization, he is not crossing that line,” he says.

Gelber says it’s not just about having the right laws, it’s about understanding when they need to be enforced. “When the Nazi protest took place outside the NSW Parliament recently, the police allowed the march to go ahead despite the provision that incites racial hatred in NSW. Their view was that the march did not breach that provision because the banner said ‘Destroy the Jewish lobby’,” he says.

“The whole concept of the ‘Jewish lobby’ is anti-Semitic. This decision was incomprehensible.”

The decade-long debate over libel

Jewish groups have been demanding stronger libel laws for years. Just like Muslims, Sikhs and LGBTQ+ Australians. Former attorney general Mark Dreyfus attempted to make a proposal last year by proposing criminal penalties for serious examples of libel targeting people on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, disability or religion.

Loading

This was intended as a compromise to faith groups dismayed by the Labor Party’s aftermath. He gave up his election promise enact a civil anti-defamation law through now abandoned religious discrimination law.

However, it was abandoned in the final stages. There was a lot of wrangling among stakeholders over the balance between free speech and ensuring protections were strong enough to win cases.

Chief among these was the Australian Christian Lobby, which has historically pushed back against legislation that would criminalize the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression or religion. Hence the “Israel Folau clause” proposed by former prime minister Scott Morrison in his religious discrimination bill initiative years ago, to protect those whose statements of religious belief might be considered discriminatory against others (in Folau’s case, because of sexuality).

This also never became law.

This time the government will sidestep the argument by limiting libel law to race and racial superiority.

Case law has determined that race applies to: jewish peoplewhose Judaism is accepted as both ethnicity and faith. It was not applied to MuslimsReligious identity not tied to race. For years, Muslims and Sikhs have joined Jews in seeking stronger protections, given that expressing their religious identity (for example, wearing a headscarf or turban) makes them vulnerable to abuse. They have reason to demand better protection.

The same goes for LGBTQ+ Australians, who are still campaigning for law reform to protect them from discrimination on religious grounds, such as expulsion from religious schools or dismissal from employment. But any attempt to combat it would still revive an uphill battle with Christian groups that the government has made clear it wants to avoid.

Bondi terror attack given more coverage

Our Breaking News Alert will I will let you know Important breaking news when it happens. Get it here.