Dragged kicking and screaming to respond to the cold-blooded, premeditated and religiously motivated murder of Jewish Australians at Bondi, the Albanese government is passing legislation to outlaw “hate groups”.
On the face of it, this sounds appealing. The simple logic is if a group exists for the purpose of expressing hatred toward others then it should be disbanded. Except, the key question is how will “hate” be defined?
The legislation to solve this problem stipulates an organisation could be prohibited in order to “protect the Australian community against social, economic, psychological and physical harm”.
Here’s the problem: You could drive a truck through that definition.
And perhaps that is the point. It is hard to think of any politically active organisation that could not be said by at least someone in the community to be causing psychological harm. If this law were in place during the Voice to Parliament referendum, the No campaign could have been outlawed by the government under the pretext that it was causing psychological harm to the community.
While we are not quite yet at UK levels of tyranny, where police routinely knock on doors and lock their citizens up for social media posts, we are not far off. These laws, for example, could easily be weaponised against political parties, and civil society groups to censor debate.
The government claims these laws shut down groups such as radical Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.
However, far from achieving this, it is likely the problem will be made worse. Firstly, because even if Hizb ut-Tahrir were disbanded, the individuals who comprise that group would still be in Australia, and thus potentially continuing to express certain views.
Secondly, because it creates a strong incentive for extremist groups to form into political parties protected under freedom of political communication in the Constitution. In other words, expect to see a radical Islamist party on the ballot at the next election.
The reality is everyone knows these laws will do practically nothing to stop another Bondi-style attack.
Instead of this week’s political kabuki theatre in Canberra that was designed to save Anthony Albanese’s political skin, the Coalition should have been in the community outlining an alternative approach.
This approach should emphasis enforcing existing laws; purging the police and security agencies of woke diversity, equity, and inclusion agendas; stopping mass migration; deporting those who are an existing threat; and dramatically reducing the appeal rights for migrants who have a dim view of Australia in relation to their visa status.
Unfortunately, until such time, Australia risks continuing its slide into the reality of European life where sectarian violence has become normalised.
