Why would a state Liberal premier try to out-do Nicola Roxon on speech laws?
I was surprised to read this piece. I thought the last area that a state government would need to go harder on was speech laws. The Federal Government seems to me to be taking the running with this. Why would Barry O'Farrell's state Liberal Government feel the need to strengthen laws further?
O'Farrell moves to strengthen hate laws
- Date
- January 13, 2013
On the witness list ... Alan Jones. Photo: Supplied
The controversial commentators Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are due to be called before an inquiry that will consider strengthening anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to convict people for serious racial vilification.
The inquiry was ordered by the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, who is concerned there have been no successful criminal prosecutions in the history of the NSW laws and that they have fallen out of step with community expectations.
The move is likely to inflame the debate over freedom of speech, amid warnings that broadening the laws could be dangerous and unacceptable.
To face an inquiry ... Andrew Bolt. Photo: Supplied
It is understood Jones and Bolt are on a witness list drafted by the inquiry, which will hold public hearings in early April.
Last month, Jones was ordered by the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal to apologise on air for describing Lebanese Muslims as ''vermin'' and ''mongrels'' who ''simply rape, pillage and plunder a nation that's taken them in''.
In September 2011, Bolt was found by the federal court to have contravened the federal Racial Discrimination Act in newspaper columns which accused prominent light-skinned Aborigines of choosing to identify as black for personal gain.
Jones was on leave and unavailable to comment, while Bolt did not respond to a request for comment.
The parliamentary inquiry will focus on Section 20D of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, which deals with the criminal offence of ''serious racial vilification'' and requires proof ''beyond a reasonable doubt'' for a prosecution.
Penalties of up to $5500 and six months' jail apply to anyone found guilty of inciting ''hatred'', ''serious contempt'' or ''severe ridicule'' of a person or group by threatening physical harm to them or their property or inciting others to do so on the basis of their race.
The vilification laws have been in place in NSW since 1989. According to figures supplied by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, 27 complaints have been referred by the board for criminal prosecution since 1998 the period for which records are available. But none were prosecuted as the Director of Public Prosecutions did not feel the burden of proof required by the legislation would have been achieved.
A spokesman for Mr O'Farrell said it was ''questionable'' whether this section of the act ''constitutes a realistic test or is in line with community expectations''.
"The Premier has therefore asked the [parliamentary law and justice] committee to report on whether section 20D is effective and if not, provide recommendations that will improve its efficacy with regard to the continued importance of freedom of speech,'' he said.
In NSW complaints about racial vilification must first be brought to the Anti-Discrimination Board, which will attempt to resolve them through conciliation.
If that fails the board's president may refer a complaint to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal if it is deemed an unlawful act or, in the case of serious racial vilification, to the DPP.
The inquiry was welcomed by the secretary of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks, who said serious racial vilification should be treated differently from actions or material that simply causes offence. ''It is treading on free speech but it's speech which has very direct consequences,'' he said. ''And it's quite right to criminalise that sort of speech''.
The president of the NSW Anti- Discrimination Board, Stepan Kerkyasharian, said the inquiry was overdue. ''It's a great opportunity to deal with this matter,'' he said.
The chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, said the NSW law was ''completely ineffective in that for all practical purposes it is impossible to prove the elements of the offence in any specific case''.
But director of the Legal Rights Project at the Institute of Public Affairs Simon Breheny, warned against broadening the law.
''The government is justified in restricting threats of physical harm,'' he said.
''The current Section 20D is therefore appropriate as far as it restricts conduct of this kind. However, any weakening of Section 20D risks impacting on our fundamental right to free speech.''
The NSW inquiry comes amid the furore about a proposed overhaul of federal anti-discrimination laws, which would make it unlawful to offend a person. The draft laws have been criticised by the former chief justice of NSW, Jim Spigelman, who believes they risk putting Australia in breach of its international obligations to protect free speech.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ofarrell-moves-to-strengthen-hate-laws-20130112-2cmh5.html#ixzz2HtiB4YGY