As the filth of anti-Semitism more and more pollutes the public sphere, the inevitable clamour of “the gummint should ban it!” rises.
No one outside of the Greens or Lakemba Mosque would dispute that governments and public institutions have so far woefully failed to do anything meaningful to tackle anti-Semitism. If anything, the reverse: the Greens cheerfully march with Muslim mobs chanting “Gas the Jews!”, the Human Rights Commissioner refuses to condemn Hamas, and the PM refuses to censure his own MPs mouthing genocidal anti-Jewish slogans.
But are tougher “hate speech” laws really the best move?
After all, we already have hate speech laws. They’re just not being used.
Well, not against anti-Semites, at least. But they have been used to silence people criticising Islam, for instance. But Islamic preachers celebrating October 7, and urging their congregations to spit on Jews have escaped scot-free. When the mob chanted “Gas the Jews!”, the only person arrested was a Jewish man carrying an Israeli flag.
Instead of vowing to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators, the NSW government told Sydney Jews to stay home and not attend a tribute to Jews murdered on October 7.
Clearly, the political will to tackle anti-Semitism in any meaningful way is completely absent. What, then, does anyone think the same governments, police and bureaucrats will do with “strengthened” hate speech laws?
Australian Jewish Association (AJA) CEO Robert Gregory caught up with me to discuss worrying new federal hate speech laws being drafted by Attorney General Mark Dreyfus.
While the laws are being sold to Aussies as a tool to combat antisemitism, Gregory explained how they would be misused and potentially target the very communities they are supposed to protect.
“Once these laws come in, who knows what it will be used for, who knows who it will be used against. We should be very, very careful with trusting the government, which has failed our community on many, many occasions,” Gregory said.
It’s notable, too, that the Australian government’s most doggedly pursued case of “online safety” is its attempt to stop Australians even seeing the footage of a Christian bishop attacked in a Sydney church by a knife-wielding Muslim.
The AJA, advocating for free speech, is actively involved in a legal case supporting X against the Australian government’s attempts to censor content through its contentious eSafety Commissioner office.
Gregory criticised platforms like Meta for banning footage of news events, which he argued only fuels denialism and misinformation.
He urged caution within the Jewish community, advising against supporting new laws without considering their potential implications.
Rebel News
It should never be forgotten, after all, that the Weimar government in post-WWI Germany had strong hate speech laws. These laws were used to vigourously prosecute the rising Nazi party. It did nothing to stop them: indeed it helped them immeasurably.
And, of course, once the Nazis seized power, they used the full extent of the law to crack down on dissent.
The fact is that free speech can be ugly. Even people with views we detest have the right to vent those views publicly. In free society we should draw the boundaries of free speech widely because if we don’t the law will be used to shut down views that some people simply find offensive.
So, what should we do?
Our best weapon against offensive speech is condemnation […]
We don’t need government or police to protect our feelings from offensive words. We might argue over the need for, and proper reach of, vilification laws. But we sure as heck should be able to agree on the need for laws that protect us from people who incite others to violence. Incitement to violence is the bright line where free speech stops because if we tolerate those who incite violence, we won’t stay free for long.
The Australian
And we indeed have laws against incitement. The only problem is that they are never used. Not when Muslim preachers call for “jihad against Jews”, nor when they say that Jews are a “cancerous tumour” that “must be uprooted and thrown back to where it came from”.
So, who would have any confidence in them to act against anti-Semites, when armed with even stronger laws?
What does anyone think they will use the laws to do?
