Nick Cater describes Albanese's response to Bondi as “clueless”, and entering a more dangerous phase, with urgency replacing seriousness, leading to mistakes being made.

Parliament should reject the botched hate speech legislation.

Unless we want to lose democracy altogether, this Albanese rubbish must go. No amendments from the daft Opposition; just get rid of it.

Hatred is/will be defined by the prevailing ideology, and under Albanese's ideology, he, or the captured judiciary, would decide what constitutes hate speech - without anybody having to make a complaint. Another leap towards totalitarianism. The judiciary has been trashed by the likes of the Supreme Court judge who deemed the illegal hate-march across Sydney Harbour Bridge was OK because it was “in the public interest”.

The legislation is so vague that terms like offensive, vilifying, humiliating, and harmful will mean what some judge or political commissar wants them to mean.

Legal precedents show that a neutral stance from politicians and government officials cannot be expected.

Cater warns us against being “railroaded” by Albanese’s “policy hyperactivity, the chief aim of which is to obscure his feckless response (to) the tragedy so far”.

Then there is the Left's tendency to judge policy by its ‘intended’ results instead of real world outcomes.

It is highly unlikely that Albanese's dog's breakfast legislation would result in stopping another Bondi-type incident occurring in the future. And, the unmentioned matter of Islamic terror could not be openly discussed. The cause of it all could not be discussed. Pure politics making Australian society more unsafe than it is now.

Additionally, lawyers advise that the legislation just requires a hatepreacher to quote a religious texts to avoid hatespeech prosecution.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/notorious-preacher-wissam-haddad-plans-to-target-young-children-with-cartoon-broadcasting-his-preachings/news-story/670c1744f4d797db8bd69db7dcc04d86

Paul,

I'm sceptical of the idea that Hitler genuinely dabbled in communism. As you may recall me mentioning once before, I've read Mein Kampf (although not five different editions of it in seven different languages like mhaze) and in it he portrays himself as hostile to Marxism from very early on, even describing how isolated he was from other workers because of their union affiliations.

It's clear he encountered communist activity in post-war Munich. At that point, however, he was keeping an eye on radical groups for the German army. His his later politics look much more like a deliberate attempt to outflank Marxism than a path that ever meaningfully passed through it.

Marxism-crushing conservatism at it's finest - not like today's wets!
_____

ttbn,

You keep asserting that this legislation allows people to be punished for "holding beliefs", or that the government or judiciary can act without any evidentiary threshold.

That claim still isn't supported by the bill.

The offences relate to conduct that incites hatred, violence or discrimination, not to private beliefs, opinions, or criticism. "Without a complaint" does not mean "without evidence", nor does it mean the executive gets to declare something hateful by fiat.

If you think a specific provision does what you're claiming, point to it. Otherwise this remains rhetoric, not analysis.

Hi again John,

I agree with what you say about Hitler, there's no real evidence that he went "commo", but its a fact he was enlisted as an agent for the German Army to spy on the GWP, rather than spying he become the party leader.
BTW, Something against Hitler joining the German Communist, is the KPD was top heavy with Jews, Hitler wouldn't have liked that.

Yes, the Trumpster claims to be as learned as that well known part time Greek philosopher, and full time owner of the "Parthenon" take-a-way in downtown Marrickville, ARSETHROTTLE. Even if his philosophy isn't all that good can't deny Arsethrttle does a bloody excellent Greek Souvlaki at the Parthenon late on a Friday night. Trumpster can testify to that fact in five different languages.

The Institute of Public Affairs submission on the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 (the bill):

. The Bill criminalises opinions about key matters of public policy and would allow the government to imprison its political opponents.

.Criminal penalties will apply even if there is no victim and harm is hypothetical, which would lead to Australians being imprisoned based on entirely fictitious scenarios.

.The bill violates basic rule of law principles, and will open the door to a police state.

.The bill confers on a government minister an anti-democratic power to prohibit groups which will allow the government to disband its political opponents.

.The overly broad application of the provisions in the bill will result in mainstream Australians being targeted.

The IPA list is just a series of conclusions, ttbn, not explanations.

Saying "the bill criminalises opinions" doesn't make it so. You still have to point to a provision that does this. So far, nobody has.

Criminal law routinely operates without a named victim (conspiracy, incitement, threats, terrorism, organised crime). That isn't new, and it isn't a police state. Harm being prospective rather than retrospective is exactly why those offences exist.

Likewise, ministers already have powers to proscribe organisations under counter-terror and criminal law, subject to judicial review. That isn't the government "disbanding its political opponents", it's standard state authority bounded by courts.

If the argument is that thresholds are too low or definitions too broad, that's a legitimate drafting critique. But jumping straight from "I don't like this law" to "police state" without engaging the text is just rhetoric.