A great success for Fred Nile and the Libs! Seriously though, it's fine. If anything it didn't go far enough, it should simply be 'any person or group'. There is no reason to apply it to some...
A great success for Fred Nile and the Libs!
Seriously though, it's fine. If anything it didn't go far enough, it should simply be 'any person or group'. There is no reason to apply it to some groups but not others. Violence hurts regardless as to why you're being threatened or assaulted.
Is the DPP forced to act or is it in their discretion? I would be very concerned if it's the latter.
It was already a law in New South Wales (a state in Australia). This change is to make the law clearer and stronger, and close some loopholes. Like the article says: Seeing as the old version of...
It was already a law in New South Wales (a state in Australia). This change is to make the law clearer and stronger, and close some loopholes.
Like the article says:
in 2015 [...] the director of public prosecutions was unable to charge the leader of fringe Islamic movement Hizb ut-Tahrir, Ismail Al-Wahwah, who had called for a “jihad against the Jews”.
Seeing as the old version of the law didn't result in any prosecutions (because it was too complicated and patchy), we don't know what sort of speech is necessary to get the maximum fine or a jail sentence. That'll be up to the judges to decide.
It's worth noting that there's also a federal Australian law against hate speech: it is "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
A great success for Fred Nile and the Libs!
Seriously though, it's fine. If anything it didn't go far enough, it should simply be 'any person or group'. There is no reason to apply it to some groups but not others. Violence hurts regardless as to why you're being threatened or assaulted.
Is the DPP forced to act or is it in their discretion? I would be very concerned if it's the latter.
I've had no idea this wasn't already a law in NS Wales. What do you have to do to get the max 55k fine?
It was already a law in New South Wales (a state in Australia). This change is to make the law clearer and stronger, and close some loopholes.
Like the article says:
Seeing as the old version of the law didn't result in any prosecutions (because it was too complicated and patchy), we don't know what sort of speech is necessary to get the maximum fine or a jail sentence. That'll be up to the judges to decide.
It's worth noting that there's also a federal Australian law against hate speech: it is "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
Oh, when I said Wales I meant New South Wales. I didn't think I had to specify since the article did that for me. Thanks for the Deep dive.
New South Wales is to Wales as New York is to York. :)
We never refer to NSW as just "Wales".
Yay! - though I initially misread the title to mean something far worse.