Hate speech reforms need major consultation, Law Society says

A review by a former chief justice into hate speech and incitement laws should consider the expert opinion of a range of legal professionals, the NSW Law Society said.

Naomi Neilson • 23 January 2024 • Big Law

The former chief justice and current chairman of the NSW Law Reform Commission, Tom Bathurst AC KC, will lead the Minns government’s review of the objectives and value of hate speech laws under the NSW Crimes Act.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

While the current section 93Z makes it an offence to publicly threaten or incite violence on the grounds of race or religious belief, there have been concerns about its effectiveness.

Premier Chris Minns told media the review “will be considered and thorough and help provide the community with confidence that our laws are operating effectively”.

“There is no place for hate speech or incitement to violence. We live in a multicultural society, and it is vital that we have laws that protect people who come from communities all around the world and call NSW home,” he said.

Brett McGrath, president of the NSW Law Society, welcomed Mr Bathurst’s review and noted the “flow-on effects” from international conflicts have created a “heated and contentious environment for public discourse”.

VIEW ALL

“Threats and incitement of violence, including those which are racially motivated or directed to adherents of certain religions, are entirely unacceptable,” Mr McGrath said.

Mr McGrath urged Mr Bathurst and the Minns government to consult with legal and community experts, including Law Society members with “long experience in this area”.

He added the Law Society has expressed the view on a number of occasions “that the piecemeal nature of anti-discrimination and anti-vilification reform over many decades has resulted in inadequate protections”.

“Changes to the criminal justice system passed without adequate scrutiny may carry significant unintended consequences that undermine their objectives, including public safety and confidence in the rule of law,” he said.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.

You can email Naomi at: naomi.neilson@momentummedia.com.au

Diogenes Tuesday, 23 January 2024

“There is no place for hate speech or incitement to violence.
Well, he's half right. Incitement and threats are already illegal. There is no need to make it extra illegal if those threats or incitement are based on certain special characteristics. Hate speech is a nonsense term without meaning and has no place in the law.

0
- Jricard Thursday, 22 February 2024
  
  I see your point, but is there merit in making it 'extra illegal' in the form of a higher maximum sentence? By way of analogy, burglary was already illegal, but the law also defines various circumstances of aggravation that provide for a higher sentence. In the same way, inciting violence against a group of people based on an inherent characteristic, as opposed to inciting violence against an individual due to a personal dispute, could (or should) be considered an aggravated offence.
  
  0
  - Diogenes Wednesday, 28 February 2024
    
    Fair - but adding this element not merely makes the law harder to prove, it also obscures it. Remember that freedom of speech is a jealously guarded right in the whole western world, even without an express First Amendment like the Yanks have - and any limitation of that right should not only be limited to the least absolutely necessary, but clearly ascertainable. If you are not sure if an offense has been committed or not - then the law is not well written.
    
    0
    - Jricard Tuesday, 26 March 2024
      
      With respect, it does not make it harder to prove at all. As you said in your original comment, incitement and threats are already illegal, so nothing changes in regards to proving the basic elements of the crime. The only difference is that, if the extra aggravating factor of racially motivated intent is also proven, then the higher maximum sentence will apply.
      
      0

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

SECTIONS

MORE

Hate speech reforms need major consultation, Law Society says

Naomi Neilson

OUR PLATFORMS AND BRANDS

EVENTS AND SUMMITS

PODCASTS

LEARNING AND EDUCATION

MOMENTUM MARKETS NETWORK

LINKS

STAY CONNECTED