Australians lack the First Amendment rights Americans take for granted, but free speech is a universal value, and the rush Down Under to criminalize “hate speech” following the horrific massacre of 15 Jews celebrating Hanukkah at Bondi Beach in Sydney will not stop future acts of terrorism.
Governments naturally overreact after terrorist attacks, and most people go along with curbs to civil liberties because of a human desire to stop something bad from happening again. The U.S. experienced this after 9/11. Australia risks repeating the same mistakes.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is proposing a series of laws to combat hate speech and antisemitism. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns is moving to enact a separate spate of laws that would ban “hateful symbols” and give police the power to prohibit demonstrations for up to three months following a terror attack.
The Muslim father and son behind the Bondi Beach attack were inspired by the Islamic State. Governments must forcefully respond to the threat posed by radical Islam while finding the right balance between enhancing security and protecting individual rights, especially for law-abiding citizens.
Albanese told reporters his proposed speech restrictions target only “those who spread hate, division and radicalization.” Of course, he wants his government to determine who qualifies. His definitions of hate speech and antisemitism are disconcertingly vague.
While a grotesque phrase to say, should shouting “globalize the intifada” become a jailable offense, as New South Wales plans? How about chanting “from the river to the sea” at a peaceful protest? That’s a ghastly call for the eradication of the Jewish state, in addition to being historically illiterate, but that alone is not a legitimate reason to take away someone’s liberty.
Albanese’s other plans include making “aggravated hate speech” by religious and political leaders a federal crime, canceling or refusing visas for foreigners deemed to be spreading hate and creating a new task force to respond to reports of antisemitism in the education system. Another law would allow the government to create a list of organizations whose leaders traffic in hate speech.
It’s justifiable to not let people into your country who hate you and your way of life, but Australian citizens need to be able to challenge the government, march in the streets and engage in robust debate, however distasteful. That’s especially true in a political context.
Allowing the government to make a list of organizations it deems as advocating hate speech would mark a troubling expansion of executive power. For that reason, new laws will be challenged before Australia’s High Court. While there is no written bill of rights or constitutional speech guarantees, the court has previously recognized an implied right to political communication. The court has also struck down other examples of executive overreach.
Albanese appears motivated by political self-preservation. For months before the shootings, he was accused of ignoring warnings about the risks of rising antisemitism. He concedes he could have done more sooner. Indeed, some of his proposals echo recommendations given to him in July by his antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal.
Segal’s report said antisemitism had become “ingrained and normalised” since the Oct. 7 terror attacks. She recommended monitoring schools, the arts and the media; creating a national database of antisemitic incidents; and developing a “report card” for every university that could lead to funding cuts.
Following complacency, the national and state governments are overcorrecting. Democracies combat terrorism not just by deterring future attacks, but by preserving the freedoms the terrorists seek to undermine.
The post Australia is reeling — and overreaching appeared first on Washington Post.
