One of the pillars, among many, of a free and just democratic society is the protection of civil liberties, the peoples right to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.

Following on from its get tough on juvenile crime legislation, with; "adult time for adult crime" slogan, the Crisafulli LNP government in Queensland has introduced new "Hate Speech" laws. The objective being to silence anyone perceived as espousing anti-Jewish sentiments by exercising free speech, writings or even the displaying of unauthorised symbols. With the government of the day being the determinant of what is acceptable and what is not, and without an upper house of review in Queensland, it would be very easy for the government of the day to turn this legislation onto those, who would through freedom of speech criticise the government. On of the shocking aspects of this law, was the notion that the police should be the arbitrator of acceptability! Now that would be a dangerous precedent, by any stretch of the imagination.

Magistrate; What is the boy changed with Officer?
Copper; "Violation of Hate Speech laws"
Magistrate; "What did he say?"
Copper; "He called me a PIG your Honour!"
Magistrate; "Guilty...first offence...adult time for adult crime my boy...HANG HIM HIGH!"

The civil libertarians have found an odd ally in the former Queensland Premier, and conservative Campbell Newman, but not necessarily for the reasons of civil liberties for all.

"Former premier Campbell Newman has criticised the government's new hate speech laws, arguing they are a "slippery slope" and could be used against conservatives under future governments.

The new laws will allow the government to ban phrases it deems problematic by regulation once the legislation passes state parliament.

The government has confirmed it intends to ban the phrases 'from the river to the sea' and 'globalise the intifada', along with a number of Nazi and hate symbols."

Strangely this is the same government that will allow radical extremists to own as many guns as they want, totally out of step with the rest of the nation.

I wish that Queensland could be free and peaceful like Iran, Russia or China. You never see any big protests here about those countries, so they must be wonderful places.

The ABC reporters are beside themselves about the actions of fascist leader Trump and the Zionists against the peace loving democracy of Iran currently.

I think that another protest march across Sydney Harbour Bridge is called for. Great Satan America needs to be called out.

Hi Fester,

I get your sarcasm, but its for that exact reason of not allowing government authoritarian powers that Australia is not like Iran, Russia and China.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," Edmund Burke

It seems you are accepting of some minor erosion of civil liberties, of course for the greater good, and of course its not to the extreme of Iran, Russia and China. Anyway, the life of the "silent majority" wont change radically, if it changes at all. After all its only targeting those "ratbags" you don't agree with in the first place.

"the Crisafulli LNP government in Queensland has introduced new "Hate Speech" laws. "

Not just Queensland. The rush to censorship is occurring throughout. NSW also has these vile laws although, since they are Labor government we won't hear Paul lamenting that.

Recently in NSW a man was charge with saying, during a 40 second speech to a rally, "that the Jewish community was the “greatest enemy to this nation” and to “Western civilisation”. Result. One year in gaol. Oh and that's a true story as opposed to Paul's fairy-tale stories.

Governments the world over (with the exception of the US) are trying to rein in the freedom of speech of their people. Its vile.

Trumpster,

Agree, Minns in NSW has overreacted on this as well. Qld happens to be where I live, and its news this week. I agree with your right to goose-step around in your snappy black uniform, giving the Donald salute. I don't agree with your extreme far right opinions, but you are welcome to them.

"Governments the world over (with the exception of the US) are trying to rein in the freedom of speech of their people. Its vile." Donald is as guilty as the rest

There are two separate issues being blended here: civil liberty concerns, and rhetorical escalation.

It's entirely legitimate to question whether allowing phrases to be banned by regulation creates scope creep. Any power framed broadly deserves scrutiny. That's not paranoia, just constitutional hygiene.

But slippery-slope arguments only hold if we identify the mechanism of the slide. Does the legislation criminalise mere political criticism? Or does it target incitement to violence and serious vilification, which are already restricted under Australian law in every state?

Australia has never operated under a US-style absolutist free speech model. Courts recognise an implied freedom of political communication, but it's not unlimited. Laws are tested for proportionality and compatibility with that freedom. Police don't determine guilt. Courts do.

So the real question isn't whether "hate speech" is distasteful or whether Iran and Russia are worse. The question is much narrower:

- What is the legal threshold in this bill?
- How is it defined?
- What safeguards exist against arbitrary enforcement?
- Is there judicial oversight?

If the law merely reinforces existing incitement standards, calling it authoritarian overreach is hyperbole. If it meaningfully expands criminal liability into ordinary political speech, that's where serious objection lies.

Precision matters more than slogans, whichever side they come from.

Hi JD,

My concern is control by regulation/decree, which in the wrong hands is extremely dangerous, in my opinion. If one accepts that certain phrases are deemed unacceptable, that's all well and good, but in the wrong hands such authority can be a slipper slope to authoritarianism. If the power is there, then politicians will use it.

Any law that puts a man in gaol FOR A YEAR for saying that the Jewish community was the “greatest enemy to this nation” and to “Western civilisation” is definitionally wrong.

“There is no time in history where the people who were censoring speech were the good guys.” RFK Jr

Paul,

Concern about regulation-by-decree is fair. Delegated legislation always deserves scrutiny because it shifts detail-setting away from full parliamentary debate.

But two points matter:

1. Regulations are still disallowable by Parliament.
2. Any criminal offence remains subject to judicial interpretation and constitutional challenge.

The power to regulate symbols or phrases doesn't exist in a vacuum. It sits inside a legal framework with review mechanisms. That doesn't eliminate risk, but it's not executive fiat in the Iranian sense either.

The slope only becomes real if:
- the definitions are vague,
- enforcement becomes selective, or
- judicial review is effectively neutered.

Those are concrete concerns. "Politicians will use it" is a prediction. The question is whether safeguards meaningfully constrain them.
_____

mhaze,

That NSW case wasn't someone saying "I dislike Israeli policy."

It was a man publicly declaring an entire religious community the "greatest enemy to this nation and Western civilisation." Historically, language like that is not neutral political critique. It is dehumanising group attribution that has preceded violence in multiple societies.

Australia has never had an unlimited speech doctrine. We criminalise threats, incitement, harassment, defamation, and conspiracy. The line has always existed.

If your position is that all group-based incitement must be legal unless it is an immediate call to physical violence, that's a US First Amendment model. That's a coherent position. But it's not the model Australia has ever adopted.

As for "censors are never the good guys" - history is more complicated than slogans. Laws against inciting racial violence were introduced after very real episodes of extremist mobilisation.

The real debate isn't "censorship good or bad." It's where the threshold sits and whether it is proportionate.

JD,

I'm not sure if suppression is the answer to curbing anti-anything. I would rather keep these things out in the open, where rebuttal is the way to deal with incendiary opinion of extremists. I'd much prefer to have the Neo-Nazis marching in the streets, than plotting in basements.

"Regulations are still disallowable by Parliament."

Yes, but here in Queensland we don't have a second house of review, so the parliamentary control is in the hands of the executive of the governing party (LNP). Parliament is unlikely to overturn the decisions of the few.

"Any criminal offence remains subject to judicial interpretation and constitutional challenge."

The judiciary can only act as the law allows, our last defence is the Constitution and the High Court.

Trumpster,

We seem to be somewhat on the same side on this, strange!

Paul,

The "keep it in the open" argument has weight. Liberal societies do tend to prefer exposure and rebuttal over suppression.

But two distinctions matter.

First: rebuttal works when speech remains opinion. It works far less well when speech shifts into organised targeting of a defined group. History isn't short on examples where "let them march" didn't defuse radicalisation but helped normalise it.

Second: banning incitement is not the same as banning unpopular ideas. The threshold matters enormously. There's a real difference between:

- "I oppose Israel's policies."
- "I dislike multiculturalism."
- "Group X is the enemy of the nation."

Only the third begins to move from political disagreement toward collective attribution and potential hostility. That's why line-drawing matters.

Regarding unicameralism, yes, Queensland has no upper house. That's been the case since 1922. But Parliament is not simply the executive. Regulations are disallowable. Courts interpret statutes. The High Court reviews constitutional limits. Those guardrails are imperfect, but they exist.

So the deeper question isn't "free speech or authoritarianism." It's whether rebuttal alone is sufficient when speech crosses into sustained group vilification, or whether narrowly defined prohibitions on incitement are part of preserving civil peace.

I share the instinct to be wary of concentrated power. I just don't think every restriction equals a slide toward tyranny. The drafting, the threshold, and the safeguards are what matter.

That's where the real debate sits.

JD,

Yes agree, the threshold is extremely important, but possibly there's no way that the threshold can not be prevented from being advanced. In your example you rely on the judicial system through the Constitution to be the gate keeper, preventing excessive over reach by the political class.

I believe the wall between a democratic society, and a authoritarian one is not made from solid brick, but rather from flimsy sticks! We rely heavily on good people doing good things that maintains the wall and prevents the wall from being breached.

Interesting, many years ago I had a conversation with an old woman from Austria, who had witnessed first hand what happened to the Jews in her neighbourhood during the time of the Nazi's, they were simply carted off, never to be seen again. I asked why was nothing done, they were friends and neighbours, there was no hatred of these people. Her reasons given, were (1) Not something concerning us, (2) Powerless to do anything, and (3) Fear of what might happen to us, if we try to interfere. I think that is still relevant today, as to how people react to these kinds of changes.

>>- "I oppose Israel's policies."
- "I dislike multiculturalism."
- "Group X is the enemy of the nation."<<

Group X and the right to discriminate?
What happens when the dangers Group X represent are valid?

Let's say for example Group X is 'Islam' and many Aussies 'feel' it's somewhat valid to discriminate based on religion, and lets also argue that although many are acting 'hateful', that it's not simply 'hate for hates sake', but it's actually borne through fear, a fear of losing what they have come to know and love to people with different culture, beliefs and values.

A lot of people here think it's at least somewhat valid to openly discriminate against Islam, because they 'feel' we are losing their country and it's near impossible to stay silent, because not only is their nation changing that it also feels like an attack on their very identity.

It'll never end, until they undermine all others and get all of it.
They'll never stop, what happens then?

I read this article..
http://www.futureofjewish.com/p/its-impossible-to-be-an-anti-zionist
Seems to me Jews / Israelis religious aims and VERY IDENTITY itself is built around that land, and they will obsessively beg, borrow, steal, blackmail, murder, genocide, blow up hospitals, inc. doctors, nurses and paramedics, destroy and deprive sources of food and water and medicine, assassinate foreign leaders and use other nations to make war for them - basically DO ANYTHING to secure that land as they believe they should as a part of their very identity.

What if some groups and ideologies are inextricable linked to present and future conflict?
'Don't speak hatefully' isn't going to change that recurring conflict, and breeding grounds for the resulting hate.

This Israel stuff is poisoning everything.
Look at our democracy.
The right is openly allied with a foreign nation engaged in genocide
And the left is trying to pretend it isn't, when really it is.

And look how our claimed moral standards have been shown to be fraudulent.
We support kidnapping foreign leaders, murdering foreign leaders, starting wars, piracy on the high seas, stealing other nations resources.

The West can't speak with any moral authority anymore.
When you have a criminal record like this, all you can do is stand in the corner with your head down and stfu.

They're both traitors our glorious democratic heads, just one is still hiding in the closet.
Which makes me wonder, 'Was Albo present at the Mardi Gras his year?

This whole mess, it's just religious based racism and land theft.
Palestinians just play the unfortunate role of 'happening to be there'

I made a mistake in my comment above..

This -

"It'll never end, until they undermine all others and get all of it.
They'll never stop, what happens then?"

- It related to the paragraph beneath it - Jews connected to the land as a part of their very identity.
It was meant to come after that paragraph, not before it.
Seems I must've cut and pasted wrong.

Paul,

I don't disagree that democracies are more fragile than we like to think. They aren't self-executing machines. They depend on norms, restraint, and people acting in good faith.

But fragility cuts both ways.

The Austria example you cite wasn't a case of too much judicial oversight or too many narrow hate-speech provisions. It was a case of:

- collapse of democratic institutions
- politicisation of the courts
- dismantling of opposition
- state-controlled media
- paramilitary intimidation
- removal of constitutional constraints

By the time neighbours were being "carted off," the wall wasn't flimsy. It had already been dismantled plank by plank.

That's why I'm less persuaded by the idea that a narrowly drafted prohibition on incitement is the first crack in the dam. Authoritarian transitions don't usually begin with courts enforcing speech thresholds. They begin with courts being weakened or ignored, as is happening currently in the US.

You're right in that thresholds can drift. That's why clarity in drafting and judicial review matter so much. But I'd draw a distinction between:

- laws that criminalise criticism of government, and
- laws that criminalise incitement against identifiable groups.

Those are structurally different categories.

The real warning signs aren't "the existence of limits." They're things like:

- vague laws enforced selectively
- courts losing independence
- executive bypassing legislative scrutiny
- erosion of electoral integrity

If we see those patterns, alarm is warranted.

I don't think vigilance and proportional regulation are opposites. Democracies survive not by having no guardrails, but by having guardrails that are tightly defined and independently policed.

That's the wall I see - not flimsy sticks, but overlapping checks that fail only if multiple layers collapse at once.

"That NSW case wasn't someone saying "I dislike Israeli policy.""

Well no one said it was, but okaaaaay!

As I said, and as you tried hard to ignore, it was someone saying the Jews were “greatest enemy to this nation” and to “Western civilisation”. If that's an offence justifying a year's gaol then we live in a very different nation that even ten years ago. If that's gaolable then "Death to Jews", "River to the Sea", "Hitler should have finished the job" etc should have seen our gaols overflowing. But.... those things were said by favoured groups and are therefore okey-dokey. Its only when they are said at right-wing rallies that it becomes a threat to democracy.

Two separate issues are being run together, mhaze.

First: whether declaring an entire religious community "the greatest enemy to this nation and Western civilisation" should meet the legal threshold for serious vilification. That's a debate about proportionality.

Second: whether enforcement is politically selective. That's a debate about consistency.

On the first point, Australian law has long treated public incitement against identifiable groups differently from ordinary political speech. This isn't a ten-year-old novelty. The Racial Discrimination Act amendments in the 1990s and state vilification laws have existed for decades. The threshold has always been higher than "offensive," but lower than an explicit timetable for violence.

On the second point, if you have concrete examples where "Death to Jews" or "Hitler should have finished the job" were publicly uttered and not prosecuted despite meeting the statutory elements, then that's a serious enforcement concern. But that's an evidentiary claim, not a rhetorical one.

Selective enforcement would be a problem. The existence of a law applied consistently is a different question.

If your argument is that no group-based vilification should ever be criminal unless it includes an immediate call to violence, that's a coherent US-style First Amendment position. But that's not the framework Australia has operated under for decades.

The real question is whether the threshold is proportionate and applied evenly - not whether speech has ever been unlimited here. It hasn't.

"if you have concrete examples where "Death to Jews" or "Hitler should have finished the job" were publicly uttered "

So much of what JD writes is him saying he's ignorant of this or that well established fact.
On October 9, 2023, during a pro-Palestinian protest outside the Sydney Opera House, participants chanted phrases including "Gas the Jews!" , "Death to Israel", "** ** (system won't let me quote the profanity) the Jews!", and "Where's the Jews?". This rally was organized by the Palestine Action Group Sydney. On November 22, 2023, in Double Bay (Sydney), graffiti reading "Bring back Hitler. Finish the job" was scrawled in a public area.



"As for "censors are never the good guys" - history is more complicated than slogans. "

What do you say when the whole issue is summarised in one pithy quote that you don't like? Call it a slogan and try to skate over it.

"Laws against inciting racial violence were introduced after very real episodes of extremist mobilisation."

I'm sure you got lots of examples. So show us.

Excellent, mhaze! Now let's slow this down.

You've cited:

- Offensive chants at a protest
- Graffiti in Double Bay

They're ugly incidents. The question isn't whether they're reprehensible. It's whether they resulted in charges - and if not, why not.

In the Opera House case, police investigated. Some reported chants were disputed or unclear on review. Charges were laid where evidence met the threshold. In other instances, identifying specific individuals beyond reasonable doubt in a moving crowd proved difficult.

That's not proof of ideological favouritism. It's an evidentiary constraint.

If you can point to cases where:

- identifiable individuals
- clearly met the statutory elements
- and prosecutors declined to act despite sufficient evidence

then you'd have a serious selective-enforcement argument.

Absent that, it's a suspicion, not proof.

//I'm sure you got lots of examples.//

Indeed I do.

Australia's racial vilification provisions in the late 1980s and 1990s expanded following organised neo-Nazi activity and racially motivated intimidation, including groups like National Action. These weren't abstract fears. Legislatures were responding to real-world group-based targeting.

You may disagree with where the legal threshold sits. That's a legitimate debate.

But these laws weren't invented in a vacuum. They were enacted in response to movements that used collective demonisation as a tool of intimidation.

If your position is that no group-based vilification should be criminal unless it includes an explicit and immediate call to violence, say so clearly. That's a coherent position. It just isn't the framework Australia has historically adopted.

JD.... show examples
Mhaze... here are examples.
JD... no those examples don't count because....well just because

That's not what I said, mhaze.

You provided examples of offensive incidents. I asked a narrower question:

Were identifiable individuals who clearly met the statutory elements not prosecuted despite sufficient evidence?

That's the selective-enforcement claim you're making. It requires more than pointing to something ugly and saying "no one went to jail."

In large protest settings, two things matter legally:

1. Can specific individuals be identified beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Do their words meet the statutory threshold for serious vilification or incitement under the relevant Act?

If either element fails, prosecution fails.

If you have a case where both elements were satisfied and prosecutors declined to act, that would support your argument. If not, then what you have are incidents that may not have met evidentiary or statutory thresholds.

That's not "those examples don't count." It's applying the legal test you're criticising.

Hi JD,

The new 'Hate Speech' laws in Queensland are turning into a real kerfuffle, the LNP government now saying the new law will only apply to two specific phrases; "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada", any other words or phrases will require new legislation. They have dropped the idea that the Attorney-General of the day would be given the power to add additional words or phrases by decree at their discretion (imagine Pauline Hanson as the Qld Attorney-General). Fortunately there was widespread community condemnation of the original proposal from legal, political, religious and civil libertarian people, the only real gung-ho support came from the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies. Democracy almost won out, but there was a victory of sorts, next time we might not be so fortunate.