Australian Politics

1774 readers

17 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

No plans to ban more phrases under hate speech laws, Queensland premier says (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 1 month ago by zero_gravitas@aussie.zone to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In short:

Religious groups and unions have made submissions to a Queensland parliamentary committee probing new laws that would ban certain phrases and expressions.

The Islamic Council of Queensland and the Archdiocese of Brisbane raised concerns about religious freedom and civil liberties.

What's next?

The committee will table its report on February 27.

The legislation before the parliament does not specifically ban any phrases, but it gives the government of the day the power to outlaw a phrase through regulation.

The legislation would allow the government to ban an expression if the attorney-general was satisfied it was regularly used to incite discrimination, hostility, or violence towards a relevant group.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The government has already confirmed it intends to use the laws to ban the phrases "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada".

Asked on Thursday if his government was open to outlawing more expressions in the future, Mr Crisafulli said: "No. No, we've said the two phrases."

That's already a red line. Banning phrases that call for resistance to oppression and for freedom from that oppression is disgusting.

But let's say it's not. Let's say their claim that these are hateful calls to violence wasn't an antisemitic lie predicated on the idea that all Jews are complicit in the crimes of Israel. Think through the consequences of that.

Maybe Crisafulli is being honest and only these two phrases are planned. But circumstances change. What if there's another event that can be tied via a similarly roundabout route to another phrase? Or what about the next government? Crisafulli won't be in charge forever, and he's just handed his successor some immense power.

And that power would be so easy to abuse.

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But let's say it's not. Let's say their claim that these are hateful calls to violence wasn't an antisemitic lie predicated on the idea that all Jews are complicit in the crimes of Israel. Think through the consequences of that.

I don't really understand what your saying in this bit.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Could you elaborate? I don't really understand what bit you don't understand. Particularly since the quoted bit that you said you didn't understand leaves off the payoff that that was an introduction to?

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think its the first sentence that throws me,

But lets say its not,

I'm not sure what 'it' is in this sentence.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"it" is "banning phrases that call for resistance to oppression and for freedom from that oppression". I had just said "it" is disgusting, and then say "but let's say it's not?"

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Cheers :) I don't know why that threw me, maybe Sunday morning, brain not switched on.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

Glad we worked it out.