This week, the discussion around the “religious text” exemption in Australia’s hate speech laws exploded even further. Now powerful voices, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are calling on the Biden administration to remove this notorious provision. Peter Wertheim, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has been uncharacteristically outspoken in his disquiet. Um asks whether the phrase “religious text” is even meaningful, particularly in faiths that do not have one clearly defined central text. He stated that the deliberate incitement to violence is unacceptable and must not be protected under any guise of religion.
As the government seeks to pass a legislative response to the Bondi terror attack within two days, the issue has gained significant traction. Wertheim called the current exemption “totally misconceived and outdated.” His comments come out amidst a last minute parliamentary inquiry. The pioneers of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Australian National Imams Council are at issue, highlighting the seriousness and urgency of the issue.
The Nature of the Exemption
Religious text, Wertheim noted, is a term that can be intimidating. This is particularly so for religions that are non-doctrinal in nature. He contended that this lack of clarity would allow for circumvention of the legal system through exploitation. This would allow people to escape responsibility for fomenting bigotry under the guise of defending their faith.
“This is a very wide loophole that would be exploited to render the introduction of this offence ineffective.” – Peter Wertheim
He went on to emphasize that no kind of hate speech should be sheltered under readings of religions. We’ve raised this concern in recent cases, notably the case of Wissam Haddad. His lawyers maintain that his speeches are firmly rooted in scripture, even cited passages from Koran. Wertheim claimed that so long as such an affirmative defense was allowed, Haddad would be able to escape punishment.
“If the identical circumstances arose with Mr. Haddad, there is a significant chance that he would escape liability under this section and for that reason, probably escape even the attempt at prosecution.” – Peter Wertheim
Government’s Stance and Opposition
In response to criticisms, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese provided a vigorous defense of the need to maintain the religious exemption. He quoted the Old Testament, reminding us about the growing importance of religious texts in America’s freedom of expression debate.
“I encourage you to read the Old Testament and see what’s there and see if you outlaw that, what would occur.” – Anthony Albanese
While Albanese has defended this, a number of members from the opposition have countered their displeasure and opposition with this exemption. Andrew Hastie announced that he will cross the floor to vote against the bill next week. He labeled it as an attack on the most basic democratic freedoms.
“This bill is an attack on our basic democratic freedoms, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” – Andrew Hastie
The Coalition has expressed concern about the chilling effect of the prevailing legal climate on hate speech laws. They maintain that the gaping racial hatred exception would do more to weaken these efforts than to maintain freedom of speech and religion.
Perspectives from Faith Leaders and Advocates
Faith leaders have taken to Twitter, too, to add their voice to the controversy. Shadi Alsuleiman made a compelling case for why faith communities should be where we allow the freedom to interpret one’s scriptures. He further recognized that definitions of hate speech can differ from community to community.
“We reject any form of hate or violence towards any community… however, this needs further consultation because we understand that what’s been perceived to one community as hate, is freedom of speech to another.” – Shadi Alsuleiman
Giridharan Sivaraman, Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, highlighted the risk of confusion and discrimination in interpreting and applying the exemption. He thinks a narrowly tailored legal defense could help manage the conflict between protecting against hate crimes and protecting rights.
“Our position is, as it stands, based on the limited capacity to digest and consult, that the defence, if narrowly put, is a defence that can still maintain that balancing of rights.” – Giridharan Sivaraman
The minister admitted that more and deeper consultations are needed to engage all perspectives.
Legislative Implications
The proposed bill aims to impose maximum penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment for those found guilty of hate speech offenses. Strong enhanced penalties would automatically attach if these types of offenses are classified as aggravated. The full committee reviewing this legislation is set to report its findings by this Friday.
This hotly contested debate reveals an important intersection between freedom of belief and the combating of racial hatred in Australia. The understanding that this conflict requires our attention and action. Public leaders and advocates are rushing to put out their opinions. Now, it remains to be seen how lawmakers will address these thorny issues.
