Free Speech is Dead
Yesterday I managed to get in a three minute speech against the proposed hate laws before the bill was guillotined.
Normally you’re allowed to speak for 15 minutes on the bill. I didn’t get a chance to explain just how draconian these laws are. Before this bill, prosecutors had to prove intent— that your words deliberately incited harm. Not anymore.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 lowers the bar so drastically that you can now be jailed for reckless speech.
“Reckless speech” without any intent is now criminalised. Even if you accidentally offend someone you can be charged, found guilty and go to prison. A number of amendments to put in safeguards were moved including:
1) Removing mandatory sentencing
2) Excluding children under 14 from the bill and
3) A good faith carve out to prevent these rules from being used as a form of lawfare to shut down debate such as any of the below statements could soon land you in prison.
• Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
• The LGBTQIA2S+ lobby keeps pushing radical gender policies on our kids. Maybe it’s time we show them we won’t stand for it anymore. Let’s take action!
• We need to stop mass immigration and expect assimilation because it brings division and poverty to our country.
• The idea that gender is entirely a social construct is not supported by biological science. Those groups forcing people to accept this concept are dangerous.
The major parties and One Nation did not vote for any of these amendments. In fact Malcolm Roberts voted against the exemption for children under 14 year olds.
Pauline didn’t turn up to vote on anything. This is not unusual as Pauline didn’t turn up last year to vote on the 30 bills rammed through parliament on the last sitting day including the Online Safety Bill.
When I said in my clip yesterday that One Nation voted for the bill that was what I was referring to.
They didn’t vote on the final vote but if they were serious about wanting more debate then they should have expressed their view through voting on the amendments. To claim they needed more detail was a cop out.
Clearly they supported children under 14 getting locked up for saying something offensive. By voting against stopping this and not voting for other amendments, Malcolm indicated more support for the bill than opposition.
As someone with three children under 14 I was furious that any politician would agree to this.
These laws are another nail in the coffin of democracy in this country.
Item: BILLS – Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 – Second Reading
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (12:57): Today, I rise to speak against the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is the third week in a row that we have come to Canberra and the two major parties have tried to introduce laws that will prevent free speech in this country. I don’t know about you, but I come down to Canberra to serve the people, not to control the people. That’s what this bill is all about: it is a political stunt, and it is a political stunt because the two major parties don’t have any solutions to the real crises in this country, which are the cost-of-living crisis, the energy crisis and the housing crisis. Instead, what they want to do is basically dog whistle about race in order to deflect from their own ineptitude at solving problems.
We already have laws in this country that deal with violent acts and sedation. We do not need more laws in this country that target certain statements against certain groups on the basis of violence. Why? Because we already have these laws. What is the purpose of this bill if we already have laws against violence? I note Senator Cash was at pains before to stress that this was only with regard to violent acts and not psychological acts. Well, I want to know why the Liberal Party think that it’s necessary to bring in laws for violent acts when we already have laws for violent acts. Of course, the only answer to that is that they want to dog whistle and play games with race when they should be focused on solutions.
Here’s the thing: how do you identify a hate symbol? Someone’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. How do you actually identify what someone thinks about a particular ideology? Who’s right, and who’s wrong? If you don’t believe another person’s point of view, why can’t you debate them? Why do you want to gag them? What is it that you’re hiding? Is it because the two major parties lack the intellectual capacity to have a debate about these issues? Of course, the answer to that is, yes, they do. They are nothing but puppets on a string that have survived in these political parties for far too long by being nothing but obedient.
I’d like to reference my good friend in the House, the member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt. He said he was not going to contest again because the whole idea of sticking to the script and discipline is nothing more than obedience. That’s why, for the Liberal Party—I can’t speak for the Labor Party, even though it seems they’re pretty much the same as the Liberal Party—it’s all about obedience in their eyes. It’s nothing to do with free thought or their capacity to have a rational debate and put the opposite point of view across and let the facts make the case.
I mean, look at last week’s hysteria over the bombs in a caravan. Senator Babet, please remind me the next time I decide to blow something up to leave bombs in a caravan with a handwritten note that I’m going to do it and where I’m going to do it. I mean, this type of fearmongering over allegations that somehow a couple of meth-heads, who’d be lucky to find their next hit, were somehow organising a terrorist plot are absolutely absurd. While I don’t agree with the Prime Minister on many things, I think the attack on him, that somehow he’s playing games with this, is absolutely absurd. And that’s what this bill is all about. It’s a political stunt and it’s going to circumvent free speech.
