Australia passes law on Religious vilification

NOTE: Please keep this civil, while discussing this especially we all still have to abide to GS ToU.

Source

The University of South Australia had found about 10 per cent of Australians were highly Islamophobic, and while the ACT showed the lowest rates in the country, Islamophobia was still significant here.

"It is clear [Muslims] are frequently, almost constantly, exposed to discrimination, vilification and targeted offensive behaviour," he said.

Thursday's changes to the Discrimination Act also added disability to the list, so it is now illegal to vilify someone because of disability, religion, race, sexuality, gender identity, and HIV/AIDS status. Vilification can include social media posts, actions in a workplace and wearing clothes, signs or flags that would incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion.

Liberal leader Jeremy Hanson said the Liberals wanted a harmonious, multicultural society free from extremism. He had been shot at by Sunni and Shiite extremists and by the IRA, so he knew firsthand the consequences of extremism, but others in the community experienced the consequences daily.

Christians and Jews were also vilified for their beliefs and would be protected by the new legislation, he said.

----

So 10% of Islamophobia in a University is to justify this law to pass?

I am by no means an expert on this but BASED SOLELY ON YOUR POST: Jeremy Hanson said the Liberals wanted a harmonious, multicultural society free from extremism.

Also sounds like he wants a society void of freedom of speech. I mean, this pretty much ruins most comedian's routines!

Seems like a good thing to me. I don't think that anyone should have the right to vilify anyone else simply because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

And society should call them out for that.....but it does remove liberty.

Well, this is the country that has passed laws to protect underage cartoon characters from sexual exploitation, so we shouldn't be surprised by these latest laws.

Simpsons, Powerpuff Girls porn nets jail time for Australian

The problem is that the wording is pretty vague. Any clothing or words that may incite hatred contempt or ridicule? Who decides what that is? This is a blow to free speech no matter how you look at it.

It would be nice if the simple act of hatred could be considered illegal. Prejudice and phobias would be a think of the past, but peoples love their freedoms...

In my opinion 0.0000000001 % islamophobia or whateverphobia is enough for such law to pass

Not a fan of the law. Freedom of speech trumps the possibility of being offended.

Are you hinting that you now support Donald for president?

:-P

Vilification can include social media posts, actions in a workplace and wearing clothes, signs or flags that would incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion.

Did not say anything about free speech (though "speech" often implies "expression", which is more than what is spoken so....maybe?). Overall I think it is a good thing because I feel it will limit more official, technical, and so forth discrimination in the workplace and every day life.

You can still talk shit about fundamentalists, just not the religion.

I don't know, I want to like stuff like this but at the same time I think it is a slippery slope. Then again, if this were a law in the US, Trump would literally be unable to say 90% of what he has said, and that would be a beautiful thing because literally all he has is hate speech and lies.

Not sure about this... admittedly this is the first time I've heard about it however. But like mentioned above, things like this can end up being a slippery slope.

It seems like Australia doesn't explicitly have freedom of speech in the same way as, the First Amendment in the US. It's something more implied and even then this implication of freedom of speech only came in a 1992 court case. Speech (and by extension political discussion) is a patchwork of laws and bylaws in Australia.

Seeing other laws of this type already seriously abused, not liking the implications already.

I'm left wondering how well defined the legislation makes it's use of the term "vilify". If it's as vague as it sounds then this seems to be a bad move.

Yeah, the "Freedom of speech" as Americans are accustomed is a bit of a United States aberration. I'm referring more to the concept, as in I'd prefer countries move towards freedom of speech rather than away from it.

You got me. I'm on the trump train, baby!

That may be a dangerous precedent. Thin skinned people often mistake criticism for vilification.

Broad based wording, that has never ended in anything bad in any country, has it?

Why cant people be trusted to not be idiots? Attack Islam and it's ideology, NOT MUSLIMS!! It's pretty simple, considering most religious people had no choice of their childhood indoctrination, and the people who need protection from Islam the most are Muslims......

but it's them ............ who always threaten secular way of life .......

(if you wanted to know why the phobia exist)

No one seems to care here in Australia. I'm not surprised by their attitude.

Religion is disgusting. It should be villified.

Sounds good

Oh well, I don't live in Australia so it's not my problem.

Religions deserve to be ridiculed and criticized. What's not acceptable is physical violence or intimidation towards a specific religious group. People seem to lack the ability to differentiate the two.

Feminist and SWJ has been pretty powerful down there. Canada is getting pretty bad too.

The UK is still fighting its Feminist and SJW cancers, but it doesnt look hopeful.

The US... we will find out just how bad it will be under Hillary's Tyranny

What about Scientologists?

Hilary wont do dick about religious protections. Her party would tear her a new pussy for that.

The law doesn't work based on how the individual feels. They use a hypothetical reasonable person.

For example if I ask someone the time and they attack and then argue in court that what I said provoked them because they felt threatened by what I said, then obviously that person is just crazy and their claim of being threatened is meaningless. However if I'm waving around a baseball bat screaming "I'm gong to smash your skull in" then it's an entirely different story. So even though in both cases the person felt threatened in only one would the defence of "I felt threatened" hold up.

I highly doubt this law will work differently. You can't just accuse someone because of how you feel, the court will have to demonstrate that the defendant had a malicious intent.

I see nothing wrong with this.

No one should be attacked verbally or physically due to something like religion, race, gender etc.

I'm not religious myself but I know that it's important to many people, so it must be doing something right. (Despite it's many wrongs)

Oh its South Australia, no-one likes them anyway :p

This is a little complicated, since I do not know the extent of the law. Imagine I post on my facebook account something along the lines of "I knew this Indian film would suck, because all muslims blow... BECAUSE ALL OF THEM ARE TERRORISTS!!! GET IT!! GET IT!??"

Do I get sanctioned by the state? Does this mean that my facebook post which vilifies a group is considered hate speech, thus making me a criminal? I think we should separate things like mean comments from serious things like a call for violence.

Just a way to enact more control over the people and make them believe it's for their benefit.

The freedom of speech would normally allow people to express whatever is on their minds so long as it does not incite physical harm against another party. It also entitles those who disagree with what is said to laugh and criticize those who say such things.

This runs in direct opposition to the idea of freedom of speech/expression.

So will they finally start cracking down on those hate preachers/imams?..ah South Australia..the always wannabee important. :P

In your dreams.

The more AU bitch about China ...the more AU is becoming like China. :P

I guess this would be okay for you then? As long as you're not being targeted like the Koreans in these protests... In fact why not legalize the waving of the Nazi Germany flag in Europe like in here?

Japan didn't have law about hate speech. Hate speech had become a problem in the country that the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has urged the Japanese government to regulate hate speech. Just watch the video I posted in this thread. Japan has just passed a law to curb hate speech but it's only in name. People are still free to incite physical harm mostly against the Koreans and Chinese. There are also counter protests but it doesn't negate the fact that there are people inciting physical harm to a specific nationality. The good news is the number of hate speech protests have dwindled for the past year although I suspect this is because of the return of the conservatives in the Japanese government and thus no reason to protest anymore.

@lordlors: It's funny because the Japanese don't want to admit their atrocities they have caused in World War II, especially in China where the Chinese really hate them about.

What's funny is that Korea and even China has never invaded Japan nor committed any atrocity against the Japanese (only Americans and Mongols have invaded Japan throughout history) and yet minor but extreme hate groups against Koreans/Chinese still sprout in Japan to this day. Just goes to show there's a sick part within the country that needs to be addressed.

A lot of people in this thread think that laws regulating speech is a threat to freedom because they haven't experienced being targeted by hate speech like in the video I posted. Supposedly, the display and waving of Nazi and ISIS flags in USA is protected by the 1st Amendment but no one does it do they? Just imagine if there was a group of people parading the streets of any Western city waving the Nazi flag and chanting "Kill Jews. Exterminate Jews. Bring back the gas chambers." I guess it should be deemed okay and thus such protests should be protected by the police from the public for the sake of supposed "freedom."

Dude, what is a Gook ? And why to Chinese hate Korean folks ? When growing up, i had a best friend who was Chinese, and he had a friend who was Korean. They still buddies today, and i am still in touch with them. What seems to be the problem over there ? Sorry about my lack of history on the eastern world, i'm not really into politics.

Gook - "A term used to describe Koreans. Gook is still a controversial slur. Some Koreans may take it as a joke but some may take as a serious racial slur."

A lot of Chinese are flocking to Japan either legally or illegally. Some Japanese don't like it. Sort of like what Americans think of Mexicans. There are Koreans who have been living in Japan during WW2. They were brought here to do some labor. After WW2, some returned to Korea while some stayed. Those who stayed want privileges or be deemed/treated like a Japanese citizen. This apparently made some of the Japanese very angry for to them they will never be Japanese even if they are born and grew up here including their parents.

I may be wrong though as I'm not 100% completely sure about these things.

I'm currently living in Tokyo for more than 4 years now. I did come across one of these protests but good thing it wasn't a big one like those shown in the video. Just so you know, these kinds of hate speech protests are in the minority in Japan (not extremely minor but it's not prevalent) but still, just the existence of them unnerves me. Japan took the 1st Amendment of USA further wherein anyone is completely free to say anything to anyone. That is if you're not being against Japan though. I wonder what will happen if there is an Anti-Japan protest here. Haven't heard of one yet. Japan has recently passed a law to curb hate speech but it still doesn't give punishment so it's kind of just a ceremonial move probably to appease the UN.

Wow, thats deep. Thanks for the insight, now i understand more.

Noone does it but people have the freedom to do it. However freedom to be absolute idiots does have its consequences...even if it is legal to be dumb.

If you look at the video I posted, being absolute idiots don't seem to have consequences in Japan. Japanese police are also there to protect the hate speech protesters from the public or prevent them from doing any physical harm in case things get ugly. If it were in America though oh I'm sure there will be violence. I'm not Korean or Chinese but man it must feel something if you were present in these kinds of protests in Japan and are being targeted. In the video, the old Korean lady was being harassed verbally it was kind of scary and nobody stood up for her.

@lordlors: [Note: I didn't watch the whole video as time is short, so there may be *something* in there I object to on legal grounds such as attempting to incite violence. That being said, from the short while I watched:]

Yes, I I find the actions morally repugnant yet desirable to allow from a legal perspective. One man's criticism is another man's hate speech, as it were, and people can use such laws as excuses/outlets to silence legitimate criticism.

Coincidence that these occurred shortly after?

• Anti-Islam group storms Anglican church in Australia

Right-wing protestors dressed in mock Muslim outfits chanting anti-Islamic slogans have stormed a church service on Australia's east coast.

• David Leyonhjelm: Australian politician makes race hate complaint

An Australian politician has lodged a complaint with the country's Human Rights Commission after a newspaper article labelled him an "angry white male".

I don't see how hard it is to distinguish criticism from inciting violence and hatred towards a specific ethnicity/group. "Kill the Koreans" is very different from "The Korean government is..." A simple law like no one is allowed to chant "Kill/Exterminate [insert specific ethnicity/nationality/group here]" should suffice enough to regulate speech. The keywords required here is "kill/exterminate" and a mention of a group of people based on ethnicity/nationality/religion not some politician or more specific people. It's a matter of deeper specification of a law to extinguish ambiguity thereby protecting freedom of speech. Ambiguous laws are there to control people but laws where there is clear specification will definitely help the society.

@lordlors: and I explicitly stated that I wasn't including inciting violence in that statement. So we agree, eh?

This is just in the ACT. A small territory that houses the Australian government and capital city. It isn't a nation wide policy. In fact last I heard the federal government was looking for make these laws more liberal and lenient.