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

Margaret Chambers I 23 July 2024 I The Spectator Australia

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.’

The absence of clear definitions of what constitutes ‘hateful’ conduct violates a basic principle of our legal system – that the law must be clearly known and easily understood by all who are subject to it.

We can see this principle in operation in our road rules. Our speed limits set a clear expectation of how fast vehicles can travel. If there were no speed signs, it would be completely unfair to be pulled over and fined for speeding. This is the problem with the proposed bill, as it contains no objective standards that indicate how it will be interpreted. It is therefore impossible to know whether something will be considered ‘hateful’ before you have said it.

It is this ambiguity that could very well see activists use the legislation as a sword to silence debate. They would be empowered to do so by simply claiming that any speech they do not like is ‘hateful’ in a vilification complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission. The complainant is also able to name their preferred outcome, including an apology, or even financial compensation.

The merits of the complaint would then be assessed in a star chamber by fellow activist human rights bureaucrats. There would be little oversight of, or transparency in, the process – just an assurance that the QHRC ‘will not take sides’.

The complaint would then proceed to a conciliation conference managed by the QHRC. The respondent would be required to sit through an airing of the complainant’s grievances, without interrupting. If a resolution is not reached, the complainant could further escalate their complaint to a tribunal.

Here, as usual, the activists understand that the process is the punishment.?The threat of being dragged before a QHRC inquisition would be enough to deter Queenslanders from expressing themselves freely.

The Queensland government’s proposed reforms will have a chilling effect on free speech in the Sunshine State. It is yet another reminder that the political and activist class will stop at nothing to silence mainstream opinion, which they detest.

?Author: Margaret Chambers

Margaret Chambers is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs