SUBMISSION Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill

This raises the problem of citizens not knowing precisely where the boundary of criminality of speech begins.” Historian and Professor (AUT), Dr Paul Moon1 What constitutes “abusive” and “insulting”? Who gets to decide? Who will be the moral arbiters who determine when and if someone is guilty of “hateful” speech? CULTURAL FRAGILITY Another problem is the growing fragility of a society increasingl. [...] THE TRUE GOAL: INTIMIDATION AND SELF-CENSORSHIP The hidden agenda behind such laws is the development of a culture of fear and self-censorship for the purpose of political intimidation and control. [...] Mr Bean)6 The most prominent recent case of cancel culture and the consequence of perceived ‘hate speech’ is Israel Folau who tweeted firstly his personal view opposing the redefinition of marriage, and then in response to a specific question put to him, a paraphrase of a bible passage. [...] Will it be legal to call out a religious cult? In fact, David Seymour highlighted that the Royal Commission of Inquiry themselves admitted the problems with introducing hate speech laws: “The difference between legally criminalised hate speech and the vigorous exercise of the right to express opinions is not easy to capture in legislative language. [...] As well, the more far reaching a law creating hate speech offences, the greater the potential for inconsistency with the right to freedom of expression” 8 (our emphasis added) National MP Chris Penk said, “It’s inappropriate for this Parliament to be making laws that protect merely the sensibilities of those who have a religious belief or, again, a lack of religious belief.