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.