Labor’s New Hate Speech Laws are Indefensible
Australia’s new national “hate speech” laws are being prepped to persecute.
Labor plans to infuse existing vilification legislation with new powers to criminally prosecute any Australian for speech that Canberra or the states decide is harmful or violent.
Talking up the plans, Labor’s Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, said that increasing the reach of current laws would solve the disintegration of social cohesion.
“We will not tolerate the kind of hatred and abuse on the basis of people’s race or religion,” she explained.
Riding concerns about antisemitism to justify the government policing speech, Rowland argued,
“Where there needs to be further penalties in place, and where they need to be strengthened, … we’re determined to do that.”
Asked if these laws would punish incidents like the protest where Muslims and pro-Hamas supporters were chanting “gas the Jews” at the Opera House earlier this year, she replied,
“Potentially, if that satisfied the criteria for hate speech, then this could operate in any scenario.”
Sentencing for speaking outside parameters set by the Australian government is likely to include gaol time.
Rowland didn’t rule out the prospect, saying,
“The area of penalties is one that is being examined very closely in terms of ensuring that these laws are effective.”
The planned legislation is being debated amongst Labor’s elite.
Matrix of Laws
“Hate speech” laws will sit alongside unpopular misinformation/disinformation legislation, and coincide with Labor’s plan to ban kids from social media.
If you think these are unconnected, you’d be wrong.
The correlation is a centralisation of power.
Note:
- The Misinformation/Disinformation Bill — a mass censorship, no dissent bill.
- Banning kids from social media – a government-as-parent bill.
- New hate speech laws – a ban-the-Bible bill.
- A weak religious freedom bill – written for Labor’s LGBTQ+/Islamist voter base.
- The Digital ID bill
All five, and more, benefit the self-interests of left-wing activism, and the Australian Labor Party.
These involve an expansion of government by a further transference of power from the Australian people to the Canberra bubble.
Divergent Values
If Michelle Rowland wants to mend social cohesion, the communications minister should look away from expanding laws, and take an honest look at multiculturalism.
In particular, the emergence of sectarian voting blocs.
Multiculturalism has failed, so declared former UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
“Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven to be a toxic combination.”
Braverman paid for her honesty by being removed from the UK cabinet.
The late Jean Bethke Elshtain argued something similar, in the early 2000s.
Elshtain believed democracy was on trial, stating she didn’t think democracy would outlast what it allowed.
Elshtain was only half-right.
It wasn’t democracy that was on trial, it was multiculturalism.
To borrow from both her and Bravermen, I don’t think Western democracies and multi-ethnic social cohesion can survive what multiculturalism allows.
In sum, new hate speech laws will do nothing to solve the deterioration of social cohesion in Australia.
Labor is doing the equivalent of shearing a pig, and asking to be rewarded for it.
Totalitarian Tendencies
There’s nothing inherently harmful about protecting people from abuse, or abusive environments.
There is when protectionism amplifies the arrogance of power, by way of safetyism – a term unpacked by Salvatore Babones in 2018, as the new authoritarianism.
Hate speech laws are inherently harmful, when big government bullies its way past classical liberal boundaries; when individual responsibility is replaced with “collective responsibility.”
This is to say that “hate speech” laws are themselves inherently hate-filled.
They’re often devoid of proper definitions, and lack the necessary checks and balances to stop those laws from being weaponised.
Australians who support safetyism, at the cost of individual rights and responsibilities, are giving pre-approval to Babones’ new authoritarianism.
They are consenting to the abuse of power.
This includes the Liberal-National coalition, who, so far, have indicated that they’re on board with increasing the surveillance state.
Turbo-injected hate speech legislation will further deteriorate social cohesion by opening doors to blasphemy laws.
Policing speech quickly becomes about imposing new cultural norms around a vocabulary of protected speech.
The only talk allowed is that which honours the glorious leader, and serves the saviour state.
Overreach
Those who govern are not a substitute for the God of the governed.
Discernment matters.
When you have two opposing viewpoints, both as equally persuasive as the other:
Paul the Apostle doesn’t say, “run with the most convincing,” nor the “most safe”; he says, test the spirit behind each viewpoint. (Eph. 4; 1 Thess. 5)
The Apostle John does the same when he urges Christians in 1 John 4 to test for the spirit of error and the spirit of truth.
Not all policies are plausible.
As such, I’m a sceptic when it comes to social programs.
Sometimes government needs to get out of the way.
New hate speech laws join a list of bad ideas proposed by Albanese’s activist regime.
They are, in sum, a recipe for disaster.
___
Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
3 Comments
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
6 August 2026
2.4 MINS
One Nation has built its appeal on personality rather than policy detail. A recent pitch from Pauline Hanson covered immigration, child care and Net Zero — but will she deliver on it?
6 August 2026
3.3 MINS
Facing closure, St Mary's church congregation has refused to surrender. The 900-year-old medieval building's dedicated parish has secured a crucial heritage grant to begin its long-overdue restoration.
6 August 2026
2.2 MINS
Transgender actress Elliot Page has sparked debate by citing chimpanzee behaviour to justify gender ideology. We’ve lost God, and now our spiritual collapse means we’re taking moral cues from monkeys. What could possibly go wrong?
6 August 2026
5.3 MINS
Boy George's new song "We Will Dance Again" challenges the anti-Israel narrative dominating cultural discourse. The British pop icon has risked his career to stand for Israel and Jewish people — but the backlash has been swift and severe.
6 August 2026
13.2 MINS
Fauci's dairies reveal a tale of national devastation and generational harm, tracing one soul's descent through ambition, ego, and corruption—from social climbing and fame through megalomania, deceit, and malice, culminating in defeat.
5 August 2026
6.9 MINS
Census night is less than a week away, and the religion question is more confusing than it should be. Here’s exactly how Christians — practising or not — should answer it, and why the ABS’s design deserves scrutiny.
5 August 2026
2.3 MINS
What happens when the side arguing 'the West shouldn't be suspicious of Islam' essentially tells their opponents: 'Be nice to us or the mob outside will get you'? An Oxford debate provides the answer.
Thank you Rod for the warnings of what else the Govt is trying to introduce. The Digital ID was so quickly accepted (coming in by stealth) and now the attempts to curb all freedom of speech that the Govt sees as ‘hate speech’ show great danger is afoot.
So far the Govt has allowed pro Palestinian protesters to rally in all cities, to use terms like ‘gas the Jews’ (and then deny these words were chanted) and for them to camp in universities and refuse to move, and the media has been like a runaway horse reporting against the Jews in most mainstream papers (The Australian thankfully looks at both sides of the argument).
All this is like a forerunner to the WW2 Nazi take over of Germany where much indoctrination and propaganda and restriction of speech was introduced very quickly with centralized Govt censorship.
Why would we want to hand over the freedoms we have had as a democracy and allow the Govt to censor free speech that defends Jewish people. We give away the right to have the Bible read and taught in RI classes? Why give up the freedom to write in and speak up when one group of people is being persecuted or abused? And why would we want the Govt to take over the right to say what gender children should choose and to forbid (by law) parents, counsellors or youth leaders to guide them?
It all adds up to a type of New World Order system or centralized secular Govt that has its own agenda afoot, but which is also anti Christian, anti Jewish and intent on penalizing any who speak up against the system. Why we want to hand over all power to such a Govt?
We are being told stricter laws will help end social issues of hate or conflict but as you said “In sum, new hate speech laws will do nothing to solve the deterioration of social cohesion in Australia.”
That’s it is a nut shell.
It used to be said that you need a good memory if you want to tell lies. Soon you will need a very good memory if you want to stay out of jail. (Or maybe become mute)