Netanyahu Criticism & Hate Speech Laws in Australia

The Greens have claimed Labor’s newly passed hate speech bill could⁤ criminalise reasonable expressions of contempt or ridicule by individuals and groups, and see critics of the government of Israel targeted ⁣for prosecution.

The Greens justice spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said rushed amendments⁢ – agreed between Labor and the Coalition in the wake‌ of the Bondi terror attacks – represent an unprecedented expansion of political power to ban organisations and criminalise speech ​based ⁣on vague standards.

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese,⁢ and the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, rejected the claims on ⁢Wednesday, insisting the laws were needed to protect Australians, including members of ‍the Jewish community.

Shoebridge said ‍legitimate criticism of⁢ Israel or the country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, might potentially be offences, if they cause psychological harm and prompt warnings to the government⁤ from intelligence agencies.Sign up: AU Breaking News ⁤email

“People don’t realize that the Coalition cut a deal with Labor yesterday that didn’t narrow the scope of this legislation to ⁣groups​ that are promoting violence or ‌breaching​ the law,” he⁣ said.

“The deal the Coalition cut with ⁤Labor in the ⁣last‌ 24​ hours massively expanded it.

“It roped in seven different state laws and said conduct that⁢ breaches any of those seven state ⁤laws, which includes tests⁢ like ‘ridicule’ and ‘contempt’, that can​ lead to the banning‌ of organisations, the criminalisation of being an ⁣informal ⁤member of those organisations, and‌ people going ‍to jail for five, 10 or 15 years.”

Related: For all the talk ​of Australian values our‌ rights as citizens ‍and humans remain fragile ‍| ⁤Julianne Schultz

He welcomed the laws‌ to prohibit hate groups, describing them as part of Australia’s⁢ international⁤ treaty obligations.

“Procedural fairness is a standard requirement when government officials are making decisions that affect the interests of people and broadly it requires that you give the affected person an chance to be heard about the issue that is being decided,” he ⁢said.

“That means they have a chance to explain,if relevant,why they think the decision shouldn’t be made.

“That is a real safeguard against inappropriate decisions being made and⁢ helping to ensure the⁢ law is being applied properly and for its intended purpose.”

Burke told ABC radio any action under the ‍new​ laws required a advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio).

“There’s a first step from Asio and if they don’t⁤ open the door,there ‌is nothing for​ a minister to do,” he said.

“It is important that no minister, ⁤whether it is me⁣ or anyone into the future, is able to start using powers like this to try to make things difficult for political opponents and start playing legal games.”

Albanese defended ⁣the amended laws, which he said included appropriate protections.

“You will see ‌it in operation, what it dose,” he ⁤said.​ “I’m not going to pre-empt those processes.”

Albanese pointed⁢ out the home affairs minister could‌ not predetermine which groups would be formally designated as extremist organisations.

“people will have tried to draw all sorts of analogies around ‌this legislation, both on guns and on hate. None of them are based on reality. This is sensible reform.”