Margaret Chambers: Proposed changes to anti-vilification laws an attack on freedom of speech

The rise of abhorrent anti-Semitism has rightly shocked many but Victorians should also be concerned the Allan government is trying to use it as a pretext to attack freedom of speech.

Following the attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue, Premier Jacinta Allan claimed her government’s proposed changes to Victoria’s anti-vilification laws would “restore social cohesion”.

The rise of anti-Semitism has rightly shocked many in the community who have never witnessed such acts.

But Victorians should not be misled. In the coming days, the Victorian parliament will debate these proposed changes, that far from being a response to the rise in anti-Semitism, originate from a 2019 bill introduced by former upper house MP Fiona Patten.

Proponents claim the proposed legislation is targeted at incidents likely to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards, or severe ridicule of another person or group of people based on certain protected attributes, including sexuality and gender.

The proposed changes originate from a 2019 bill introduced by former upper house MP Fiona Patten. Picture: Ian Currie

As has been witnessed in other jurisdictions with similar laws, the proposed legislation creates multiple avenues for activists to legally pursue mainstream Victorians if they do not agree with their genuinely held beliefs.

Institute of Public Affairs research shows the proposed changes are flawed and will make Victoria the censorship capital of Australia. In fact, the proposed changes will mean activists can haul others, no matter where they live in Australia, before the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission if they disagree with them.

The legislation also includes a “harm-based protection” that will make it unlawful to engage in conduct that someone could consider to be “hateful or seriously contemptuous”.

It is no surprise the Allan government has sought to delay the start of sections of the proposed law. Picture: Luis Enrique Ascui

Yet, “hateful” is not defined in the bill, nor is it an objective legal standard. Under the proposed changes, there is no way for a Victorian expressing a genuinely held political, religious or personal belief to know what a potential complainant could consider to be “hateful”.

It is no surprise the Allan government has sought to delay the start of sections of the proposed law, which deal with the censoring of individuals, until well after the next state election. This tactic alone confirms fears that the legislation will create an activists’ paradise, enabling them to target mainstream Victorians they want to silence.

Every Victorian should be concerned that the state government is attempting to use the abhorrent rise in anti-Semitism as a pretext to attack Victorians’ freedom of speech.

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

Originally published as Margaret Chambers: Proposed changes to anti-vilification laws an attack on freedom of speech