(LifeSiteNews) — The Australian government recently introduced legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023, that, on the face of it, would make it a crime, punishable with up to five years in jail, to view online material that “describes or depicts serious violence.” It is based on wording so loose it opens the door to criminalizing large amounts of online viewing, including video games, any kind of war coverage, and entire genres of Hollywood movies.
Defenders of the legislation would no doubt protest that this is not the intention of the amendment. But, if taken to its logical extreme, it could be the effect. And there is little reason at this stage to trust the legislative and executive branches of government in Australia given their repressive behaviour during the COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates – entirely unchecked by the judiciary. It is also reasonable to ask: “Why has such obviously loose language been used?” Is this sloppiness or something more sinister?
The potential for overreach is clear. For example, the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus – which has 14 deaths and characters are fed to their mother in a pie – could readily be described as the depiction of “serious violence.” Is this to be banned online, along with many of the Bard’s other tragedies? Novels like A Clockwork Orange or American Psycho could, at least prima facie, be categorised as descriptions of “serious violence.” Should they go too? And what about a video game like Mortal Kombat, where the violence depicted is extreme?
What makes the catch-all wording more suspicious is that it was inserted while the main intent of the legislation was directed elsewhere. According to the Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, the principal purpose of the amendment is to stop the use of Nazi images and gestures.
“It is now unlawful to perform the Nazi salute in public or to publicly display, or trade in, Nazi hate symbols,” he said. “The new laws also ensure that glorifying and praising acts of terrorism are criminal offences under Commonwealth law.” Dreyfus added that the passage of the bill “sent a clear message: there is no place in Australia for acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist acts.”
READ: Australian actress’ UK COVID jab injury payout would’ve never happened back home
A think tank, The Australia Institute, warned that “any legislation directly impacting free speech must be clear enough in its wording and structure to ensure that restriction does not occur without good reason (preventing overreach).”
That seems to be exactly what was not done with the use of the term “serious violence.” What does “serious” mean in this context? And when is violence unserious?
The Australia Institute also claimed that allowing exemptions only for police and approved journalists is a mistake. It called for broadening the protected circumstances for those who are not professional journalists to allow them to report on prohibited symbols in the public interest. “Defining things narrowly in this instance creates legal boundaries that are too limited and increases the chance for government overreach.”
It is unclear why such legislation needed to be introduced at all. The laws in Australia against advocating terrorism were already extremely strict, although it does toughen the stance against the use of Nazi symbols or claims questioning the Holocaust.
The amendment’s vagueness does not stop there. It goes on to proscribe any viewing of material that “a reasonable person would consider that, in all the circumstances … is intended to directly or indirectly advance a political, religious, or ideological cause.” Taken at face value this seems not just sloppy, it is absurd. What is wrong with advancing a political or ideological cause? Isn’t that what Australia’s politicians do all the time?
Next is another phrase whose meaning is not clear: “intimidatory act.” The amendment bans looking at material that “a reasonable person would consider that, in all the circumstances, … is intended to assist, encourage or induce a person to:
(i) engage in, plan or prepare for an intimidatory act; or
(ii) do a thing that relates to engaging in, planning or preparing for an intimidatory act; or
(iii) join or associate with an organisation that is directly engaged in the doing of any intimidatory act, or that is preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of any intimidatory act.”
What constitutes an “intimidatory act”? Whereas a phrase like “encouraging acts of violence” is straightforward and easily evaluated, “intimidation” is dependent on the vagaries of psychology. It might be added that there has been significant, community-wide intimidation in Australia since 2020, but it came from the government in the form of lockdowns and threats over vaccine mandates. Giving those same bureaucrats more tools to intimidate the populous is especially ominous.
What emerges is that the decline of reasonableness in government in Australia continues. Either this is just poorly crafted, ill thought out law, or it is something much darker: a further step towards tyranny.
READ: Australian archbishop ousts rector of thriving Latin Mass church after years-long conflict