Hate speech law needs caution

Editorial

The public consultation announced by the Government around updating laws on “hate speech” has seen journalists put various scenarios to the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister. The question has been asked — would or should these words used in this scenario be against the law? 

The answers have tended to be vague, possibly not surprisingly during the “discussion document” stage, but this has not inspired confidence.  

One example put to the Justice Minister concerned past statements made by rugby league player Israel Folau, which involved quoting the Bible. The minister effectively stated that, if the comments were looking at inciting hatred, then they could run foul of a future law. 

Other commentators have opined that merely standing in a public place and reciting passages from the Bible or the Koran could do likewise. 

The discussion document issued by the Government proposes criminalising the intentional stirring up of hatred against named specific groups of people by various means, including being “insulting”. Many commentators have focussed on the word “insulting”, and have questioned its subjectivity.  

At the same time, most commentators have not qualified this by stating that the proposed changes actually raise the bar on hate speech, in one sense, because the standard in the current law is “exciting hostility against or [to] bring into contempt” certain groups, which is a lower liability threshold than “hate”. The royal commission on the terrorist attack in 2019 said the current law has too low a liability threshold, which invited rewriting by the courts and public confusion. So, following the royal commission’s report, it is proposed that the threshold for prosecutions be raised, and likewise the penalties, but the protective scope is also being broadened to include, among other things, religion. But the proposed “incitement to discriminate” civil provision has potential to be more problematic for churches.   

In many countries, concerns have been voiced  that outlawing some types of speech does not overreach into criminalising or penalising Christians for speaking openly about their faith. Since the Public Order Act was passed in Britain last century, there have been arrests, charges laid, court cases and fines against people who have used traditional religious language — such as the concept of sin — concerning same-sex acts. UK police have also dropped charges in similar cases, and have issued apologies and have paid compensation. A campaign by a Christian group, alongside activists like comedian Rowan Atkinson, saw the word “insulting” removed from one section of the UK act some eight years ago.  

Pressure from churches in Scotland led to last-minute concessions over a similar law there, most notably that an “intent” to stir up hatred has to be proven for any prosecution to be successful, CNS reported. 

And the commission of bishops’ conferences in the European Union stated this year that, while hate crimes are a grave phenomenon, to be condemned without reservations, the use of “uncertain and vague” terms such as “hate speech”, with no globally agreed definition, could be “used as a pretext for censorship”. 

“It is important to distinguish between hateful, nasty, vicious or malevolent attacks on the person on one hand, and disagreement or dispute with an ideological position on the other,” the European bishops stated. 

The Vatican has recently warned the Italian government that elements of a draft law there could violate the freedom of Catholics to teach and practise their faith. 

The modern Church is sensitive to the hurt that language can cause. But it also has a mandate to teach from its Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. So, while the Church must use care and sensitivity in the wording of its official teaching, it must also be bold and confident about the basis for that teaching. These are not irreconcilable aims. Nonetheless, it would be ironic indeed if an attack on people because of their religion led to a law that sees religious voices driven out of the public square, or otherwise gagged. 

fb-share-icon
Posted in ,

Michael Otto

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Nigel Williamson says

    The EU is known to tap into Catholic
    Brussels, Belgium. Catholic King Phillipe
    is King of Belgium. The EU has NOT respected
    the values of member states – Catholic Poland was
    asked for funds to support global pro-choice,
    which clearly is a plus for atheistic secular
    Humanism while a negative for Catholicism.
    Of course, Catholic Poland refused- having succumbed
    to both Nazis and Communists.
    Member states have reacted to this white-anting
    of their Judaeo-Christian heritage and value systems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *