We don't need more laws, we need more law enforcement

Dear ,

This federal government has a preference for talk over action, and thinks that making an announcement will guarantee an outcome. The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill is just another act in this street theatre.

Last night I put out the release below. It was in part a response to Julian Leeser’s question to his fellow Liberal MPs and Senators as to what would happen to them if they didn’t pass the Prime Minister’s bill and another Bondi Massacre happened.

This is the wrong question and shows just how bamboozled and ineffective the opposition is.

Australia already has laws that criminalise terrorism and acts of terror, as well as terrorist sympathisers and supporters, but as far as I can tell no prosecutions have been brought despite there being a lot of seemingly low-hanging fruit.

You can read all the laws in the Commonwealth Criminal Code at Chapter 5. If you can find any areas of vulnerability not covered by that act, let me know, because I can’t find them. What I can identify is a long list of potential offences that have occurred, some of which surely should have been prosecuted by now.

The only sort of “hate” speech that ought to be regulated is the hateful speech that calls for violence against people or things, and the legislation already does that.

Can I suggest you write to your local, or favourite, member of the commonwealth parliament and suggest they put pressure on the government to enforce the laws they already have, before rushing to put new laws through the parliament?

What the government is doing with this legislation is classic misdirection. They want us arguing about the details of their new bill and ignoring their negligence in not doing anything with the existing legislation.

They think they can tie the opposition up in knots, caught between wanting to do something to help Jewish Australians, but not wanting to erode free speech. The good news is there is no bind if you are talking about speech that urges violence because it sidesteps the free speech issue.

I’m as close to a free speech absolutist as it is possible to get, but I have no problem in saying it should be unlawful to call for violence. And that includes phrases like “Globalise the Intifada,” “Where’s (or possibly ‘gas’) the Jews”, “From the River to the Sea”, or sporting paragliders on your social media profile just after October 7 and celebrating that massacre.

I find it hard to think that any member of the Opposition parties (including One Nation, Jacqui Lambie, or even the Teals) would have any problem with that proposition either, or the proposition that the government has been at the very least negligent in not acting against real threats of violence.

And that proposition would have so much more support amongst the public than a technical squabble about what is, or isn’t hate speech, and who might, or might not, be criminalised by it, because the public have already made up their minds that the government is insincere and ineffective.

I have attached two files with lists of federal members and senators, and their email addresses. Emails are most effective if they are written in your own words, and they don’t need to be long. They probably won’t be read in their entirety anyway, but as long as your subject line tells them your principle objection they will get the story.

Wishing this wasn’t my first email of the New Year to you, but events don’t care about the calendar, they just happen.

Kind regards,

GRAHAM YOUNG
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE FOR PROGRESS

https://aip.asn.au/newsletter/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill/

Bill dumped – government must now enforce existing terrorism laws

The Australian Institute for Progress has welcomed the government’s decision to abandon the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill and has called on it to enforce the laws that already exist.

Executive Director Graham Young said the proposed legislation would have done nothing to prevent another massacre like the one at Bondi Beach, because the powers to prosecute terrorists, their supporters and those who urge violence are already contained in the Criminal Code.

“What matters is not simply what people say, but what they do – and what they urge or encourage others to do,” Mr Young said.

“Hate speech was always a diversion. The bill itself became a diversion from the government’s failure to tackle the root causes of terrorism and antisemitism.”

Mr Young said the clearest evidence that the law has not been enforced is the government’s decision only now to move against Hizb ut-Tahrir and the National Socialist Network, a neo-Nazi organisation.

“These organisations could have been dealt with at any time during the past four years under existing law,” he said.

Mr Young called on the government to explain why action has been so limited.

“When can we expect action against hate preachers, many of whom can be seen on YouTube urging violence, apparently in breach of the Federal Criminal Code?”

“When will authorities examine the social-media activity of prominent activists whose conduct suggests prima facie support for Hamas, a listed terrorist organisation, and consider appropriate enforcement action or formal warnings?”

Mr Young said public controversy surrounding figures such as Randa Abdel-Fattah highlighted the broader problem.

“It has been widely reported that her X account displayed a paraglider image shortly after the 7 October Hamas massacre in Israel. She is not the only public figure whose online activity has raised serious questions. The public deserves to know whether such material has been assessed by law-enforcement agencies and, if not, why not.”

Mr Young said that while antisemitism is vile, it is not new.

“Antisemitism has existed for at least 2,000 years. Eliminating it entirely may be impossible, but limiting its effects is a moral necessity.”

“We cannot stop people from saying bigoted things, but we must take responsibility for arguing against them so that such views are not normalised.”

“The government has failed to argue against antisemitism and has substituted legislation for action.”