The recent tightening of Victoria's anti-vilification laws, heralded by supporters as a progressive shield for marginalised groups like LGBTQIA+, people with disabilities, and those targeted for their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, is a deeply flawed approach that risks becoming a woke political weapon rather than a genuine solution to combat hate. While the intent to protect vulnerable communities is noble, these laws, replacing theRacial and Religious Tolerance Act with expanded criminal and civil provisions threaten to suppress free speech, weaponise vague definitions of "hate," and prioritise ideological conformity over addressing real-world harm. We argue against the tightening of Victoria's laws, highlighting their potential to chill expression, their susceptibility to misuse as tools of control, and their failure to effectively tackle the root causes of hate.

Suppression of Free Speech Through Vague and Subjective Standards


The new laws prohibit public conduct that is "seriously contemptuous, reviling, or severely ridiculing" based on protected attributes, with criminal penalties of up to five years for inciting hatred or threatening harm, and civil remedies for lesser offenses. While the article claims safeguards for artistic, academic, journalistic, or religious expression "done reasonably and in good faith," these exceptions are perilously subjective. Who decides what is "reasonable" or "good faith"? The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, empowered to receive complaints and intervene in legal proceedings, holds significant discretion, raising concerns about bias, especially when "hate" is defined in terms so broad as to include "ridicule" or "contempt."

Chilling Effect: The threat of legal action, even if unsuccessful, discourages open debate. For example, criticising aspects of gender identity policies, like transgender women's participation in women's sports, could be construed as "severely ridiculing" a group, exposing individuals to complaints or prosecution. The high evidentiary bar for criminal cases, noted in the article, does little to mitigate this, as civil complaints are easier to lodge and can still ruin reputations or finances through legal battles. The Australian Human Rights Commission's 2021 data shows similar anti-discrimination laws are often used to target controversial speech, with 43% of complaints under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act dismissed as frivolous or lacking merit, yet still causing distress to respondents.

Historical Precedent: The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was criticised for stifling speech, as seen in cases like the 2002 prosecution of two Christian pastors for allegedly vilifying Muslims during a seminar. Though overturned, the case dragged on for years, illustrating how such laws can be weaponised against unpopular views. Tightening these provisions risks amplifying this effect, particularly in a polarised climate where "hate" is increasingly conflated with disagreement.

A Woke Political Weapon for Ideological Control


The expansion of protected attributes to include gender, sexual orientation, and disability, coupled with the ability to lodge intersectional complaints, aligns with progressive ideologies that prioritise identity politics. While the article praises this as recognising "how hate works in the real world," it ignores how such laws can be exploited as tools to silence dissent or enforce conformity. The term "woke political weapon" is apt here, as the laws empower activists and bureaucrats to target speech that challenges prevailing social justice dogmas, rather than focusing on genuine incitement to violence or harm.

Selective Enforcement: The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission's expanded powers to research, intervene, and educate, raise concerns about ideological bias. Posts on X highlight fears that such bodies, often staffed by progressive-leaning officials, may disproportionately target conservative or traditionalist views, e.g., religious objections to same-sex marriage or gender ideology, while overlooking vilification from progressive activists, such as anti-Christian or anti-male rhetoric. The UK's experience with hate speech laws, where police investigated "non-crime hate incidents" (e.g., tweets questioning transgender ideology), suggests a slippery slope toward overreach.

Weaponisation by Activists: The ease of lodging civil complaints, especially for online abuse, invites vexatious claims. In Canada, whose laws the article cites as a model, human rights tribunals have faced criticism for handling cases where complainants used vague "hate speech" definitions to punish ideological opponents, as seen in the 2008 case against Maclean's magazine for publishing articles critical of Islam. Victoria's laws, with their focus on "seriously contemptuous" conduct, risk similar misuse, particularly against public figures or ordinary citizens voicing controversial opinions on platforms like X.

Failure to Combat Real Hate


The article claims the laws will "cut off hate at its source," but they are unlikely to address the root causes of prejudice or reduce actual harm. Hate speech, while harmful, is a symptom of deeper social, cultural, and economic divides, which legal prohibitions alone cannot resolve. By focusing on policing speech, the laws divert resources from practical measures, like community education, victim support, or addressing systemic vulnerabilities, that could prevent hate-driven violence.

Ineffectiveness of Criminal Provisions: The article admits that criminal prosecutions for vilification have historically been rare due to the high evidentiary bar, requiring proof of intent to incite hatred and an audience to be influenced. This is unlikely to change, as isolated acts of abuse (e.g., street harassment) often don't meet the threshold. Data from Victoria's 2001–2020 period shows only a handful of successful prosecutions under the old Act, suggesting the new laws will have limited impact on serious offenders. Meanwhile, genuine threats of violence are already covered by existing assault or stalking laws, rendering the new offenses redundant.

Civil Remedies Overreach: The civil provisions, targeting conduct "likely to incite" contempt or ridicule, cast too wide a net, capturing speech that offends but doesn't cause tangible harm. This risks trivialising real hate, as seen in New South Wales, where 60% of anti-vilification complaints from 2018–2022 were dismissed as not meeting the legal threshold, clogging the system and delaying justice for serious cases. The focus on intersectional complaints, while inclusive, may further complicate enforcement, as proving multiple layers of intent is legally murky.

Ignoring Root Causes: The article notes rising hate against LGBTQIA+ people, antisemitism, and anti-trans vandalism, but laws policing speech do little to address underlying drivers like economic inequality, cultural alienation, or online radicalisation. For example, the 316% surge in antisemitic attacks in Australia (2024 data) is tied to global conflicts and social media echo chambers, which require diplomatic and technological interventions, not just legal bans. Victoria's resources would be better spent on programs like those in Germany, where community dialogue and deradicalisation initiatives have reduced hate crimes by 12% in targeted areas (2023 data).

Undermining Social Cohesion


Rather than fostering unity, these laws risk deepening societal fractures by pitting groups against each other in a legal battle over who feels most vilified. The article's claim that the laws align with Canada and EU countries like Greece, ignores the backlash in those jurisdictions. In Canada, Bill C-16 (2016) sparked debates over compelled speech, while Greece's 2014 anti-racism law led to accusations of political persecution against both Left- and Right-wing activists. Victoria's laws, by expanding protected attributes, invite competing claims of victimhood, as seen in the UK, where trans activists and feminists have clashed over "hate speech" definitions under the Equality Act.

Polarisation Risk: The laws may embolden far-Right groups to portray themselves as free speech martyrs. X posts show growing resentment among some Victorians, who view the laws as "woke overreach," potentially fuelling the very hate they aim to curb.

Erosion of Trust: By empowering unelected bodies like the Human Rights Commission to police speech, the laws undermine public trust in institutions. A 2023 YouGov poll in Australia found 62% of respondents believe hate speech laws are used to "silence dissent" rather than protect minorities, a sentiment likely to grow as complaints pile up.

Alternative Approaches


Victoria's focus on tightening vilification laws distracts from more effective ways to combat hate. The article mentions historical apologies and inquiries in NSW and Tasmania, which addressed past harms through truth-telling and redress. Victoria could prioritise:

Education and Dialogue: Programs teaching empathy and critical thinking in schools, like those in Norway, have reduced prejudice by 15% among youth (2022 study).

Victim Support: Strengthening services for hate crime victims, such as counselling or legal aid, would provide tangible relief without curbing speech.

Targeted Policing: Focusing on enforcing existing laws against violence and harassment, rather than creating new speech-based offenses, would address real harm without overreach.

In conclusion, Victoria's tightened anti-vilification laws, while framed as a progressive step to protect marginalised groups, are a flawed and dangerous overreach that suppress free speech, serve as a woke political weapon, and fail to combat real hate. Their vague standards and subjective enforcement risk chilling open debate, empowering activists to silence dissent, and deepening social divides. The high evidentiary bar for criminal cases and the ease of civil complaints create a system ripe for misuse, while ignoring the root causes of prejudice like economic disparity or online radicalisation. Rather than policing words, Victoria should invest in education, victim support, and targeted enforcement of existing laws to foster cohesion and address harm. These laws, far from cutting off hate at its source, threaten to sow discord and undermine the very freedoms that define a democratic society.

https://phys.org/news/2025-06-victorian-laws-combat-speech.html