Protecting minorities does not require sacrificing free speech

Protecting community safety and free speech is possible. Governments considering changes to their vilification laws should adopt the model NSW introduced last year.

The NSW parliament passed the Crimes Amendment (Publicly Threatening and Inciting Violence) Act, which criminalises incitements and threats of violence against an individual or group who possess a protected attribute.

In addition to setting a high threshold for proving an offence, these laws vest investigative powers to the police as opposed to the anti-discrimination board of NSW. This allows for a more thorough investigative process, minimising the risk trivial complaints will be brought. 

These laws passed with bipartisan support, and the support of community and ethnic lobbies, satisfying an objective of these laws that they are required to ensure minorities feel safe in their community.  

Any law that restricts speech needs to be scrutinised and the NSW approach is obviously not perfect. But it presents a workable model - akin to the old criminal laws against incitements and threats of violence.

By ensuring we have strong criminal laws against incitements and threats of violence, at the state and territory level, we can satisfy the concerns of minorities and protect free speech.

Free speech does not need to be become a victim of poorly implemented and unnecessary ‘hate speech’ laws.