I haven’t been paying attention to this, but apparently the Victorian government is proposing to change the State’s anti-vilification laws. I cannot see anywhere that draft legislation is visible, but a summary of the proposed changes seems to make it pretty clear (and see the extensive consultation papers here). Currently anti-vilification laws apply to the attributes “race” and “religious belief or activity”. The proposal (p 7) is that the laws to be expanded to cover the attributes:
• race
• religious belief or activity
• disability
• gender identity
• sex
• sex characteristics
• sexual orientation
The proposal is that the laws also cover
“personal association (whether as a relative or otherwise) with a person who is identified by reference to any of the above attributes”.
How are people to be so protected? Well, as background (p 8),
The current serious vilification offences require proof that a person has incited hatred and threatened physical harm or property damage on the ground of a person’s race or religious belief or activity. (emphasis in the original)
The conjunction is apparently a problem (p 8):
Needing to prove both incitement and threat has made the offences difficult to successfully prosecute. (emphasis in the original)
The proposal, therefore is to replace the conjunction with a disjunction (p 8):
Proposed new serious vilification offences
It is proposed that it would be an offence to:
• Incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule of, another person or a group of persons on the ground of a protected attribute (the incitement offence).
• Threaten physical harm or property damage on the ground of a protected attribute (the threat offence).
The current maximum penalty for serious vilification offences is is six months (p 10), but it is proposed that this be upped (p 10):
• the incitement offence would have a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment, and
• the threat offence would have a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
A few more details for those who care:
- The incitement or threat must be either intended or (new) reckless (p 9).
- The offences cover “both public and private conduct” (p 9).
- There is a defence to the incitement offence only, for “conduct engaged in for a genuine political purpose” (p 11).
- Prosecution can be commenced by either the Director of Public Prosecutions or (new) by Victoria Police (p 11).
Three years for inciting “serious contempt” or “severe ridicule”? For all, or indeed any, of the listed attributes? In your own home? With the prosecution then initiated by a cop?
Is there anyone who can defend this proposal? Is there anyone who doesn’t find the proposal childish and chilling and obscene?
Australia seems to be governed and to be led by a censorious Ruling Class, which is desperate to make it a crime to be Stupid, to make it a crime to be Not Nice, and to make it a crime to object to the current orthodoxy. A few idiotic Nazi salutes and they lose their tiny minds, acting as if civilisation is coming to an end.
Thankfully, being a member of the censorious Ruling Class is not a protected attribute, at least for now. I am therefore free to declare my serious contempt for these severely ridiculous people. I don’t quite hate them, but God I feel revulsion towards them.
I have noticed that students often describe a statement as “racist” if they do not agree with it.
What does that tell you?
It tells me that they don’t understand the meaning of the word. “That’s racist” has more punch than “I beg to differ”.
If a kid calls something “sick” or “cool” to mean the thing is really good, does that tell you they do not understand the meaning of “sick” and “cool”?
Terry, I have noticed the same with my kids. As they moved into secondary school age all of a sudden they started to describe many things as racist. In nine out of ten times, the description is wrong. The thing I have noticed is that in many cases the statement ‘it is racist’ is used when they encounter something they aren’t comfortable with and it doesn’t matter if race is involved or not.
My guess is that ‘racist’ is a bit like how ‘nazi’ used to be used as an insult, being something utterly beyond the pale.
My guess is that all this (including outlawing the nazi salute, eighty years after nazism was defeated and really mattered) is a reflection of the pathetic state of our politics as you say Marty. In the 50s, the same party that banned the nazi salute stopped the proposal to ban the communist party. Neither the left nor the right can be trusted to maintain our liberty, which relies upon people being allowed to say stupid and very offensive things and then letting the public judge.
There are all sorts of nutters out there – some more and some less dangerous. Rather than banning their stupid gestures and speech, perhaps the deeper causes of extremism like rising inequality could be tackled. Instead short-sighted simple gesture politics which ultimately harm our democracy seem to be in order.
Being infantile when one is 13 years old is somewhat okay. Being infantile when one is over 20 isn’t OK. However, being childish at any age and while one is in a government is a crime.