Hate speech or censorship? Queensland to give more power to activists

What began as a worthy goal to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace has been hijacked by activists seeking to shut down and censor debate ahead of a critical state election.

The Queensland government’s Respect at Work and Other Matters Amendment Bill 2024 was tabled in Parliament last month seeking to amend the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath has sought to justify the changes in the belief it will better the lives of women. However, in practice, the bill threatens free expression through its expanded ‘vilification’ provisions, which make unlawful speech that could be considered ‘hateful’.

Existing legislation already renders it unlawful to ‘incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of’ a person based on their race, religion, sexuality, or gender identity. While this is already a vague standard, the current bill lowers the standard even further by making unlawful a public act that a ‘reasonable person’ would consider ‘hateful’. Worryingly, there is no definition of ‘hateful’ in the bill.

Take, for example, last year’s Voice to Parliament referendum. Countless ‘Yes’ campaigners regularly accused their opponents of ‘hate’. The co-chair of the Referendum Council lamented, ‘The hate is raining down on us. This is not new, but it is in such a concentrated form, and it is nasty and malevolent.’ Activist Thomas Mayo decried the ‘sheer volume of hatred, lies, and misinformation’ in the lead-up to the vote.

Had this lower standard of hate in relation to speech been applied at the time, how many of the 68 per cent of Queenslanders who voted ‘No’ would have been targeted by this legislation for simply seeking to have a free and honest debate about the proposal?

‘Hateful’ is not an objective standard; it means different things to different people. In a recent article for The Spectator, American author Lionel Shriver wrote, ‘Deeming a statement hateful is a supremely subjective exercise. Britain characterises as a hate crime anything the ostensible victim claims is a hate crime, which is legally absurd, relying as it does on no objective, statutorily specific standard. This eye-of-the-beholder definition is a formula for the pursuit of frivolous litigation and petty personal vendetta.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/hate-speech-or-censorship-queensland-to-give-more-power-to-activists/

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************