Really going full mask off these days eh?
Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT; Arabic: حِزْبُ الْتَّحْرِير, romanized: Ḥizbu t-Taḥrīr, lit. ‘Party of Liberation’) is an international pan-Islamist and Islamic fundamentalist political organization whose stated aim is the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate to unite the Muslim community (called ummah)[3] and implement sharia globally.[a][b]
“One does not have to agree with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and can in fact be strongly critical of it, but banning Hizb ut-Tahrir under the pretext of hate is wrong and misleading,” they said.
“We cannot ignore the genocide in Gaza, which pro-Zionist advocates have spent the last two years defending.
“If hate speech is really a crime, then the words of pro-Zionist advocates, who have provided a cover for genocide, should first be prosecuted.
“Whether it is individuals or groups, we must reject any attempt to silence our voices through executive overreach.”
“When power to outlaw organisations rests on secret evidence and political discretion, it stops being about the law and becomes ideology and politics with the force of the state behind it,” Dr Rateb Jneid, president of AFIC, said. “This is not how a democratic country should define or punish hate.”
Sounds a fair assessment. Similar to the points the Liberals and Greens were making over the week about those proposed laws going too far in curtailing speech freedoms.
Tolerance and freedom of speech is an agreement. Every party must agree and abide by the principles for it to work.
When one group no longer wants to be tolerant or recognise freedoms for all then they opt out of the protections.
People or groups who break these laws will be prosecuted.
Part of the protection of these freedoms is responsibility, is not lying, is accountability. People and groups must be prepared to back up everything they assert with verifiable facts.
I think their point is from what they’ve seen so far, these laws are open and likely to be applied unevenly and arbitrarily against groups that ministers and governments of the day don’t like. Tony Burke has already said as much. Their response is much in line with the assessment of the laws that Matt Canavan had on the radio this morning.
Jail time and criminality for hate speech is a very large increase in consequences for sonething ‘deemed’ as hate speech. We currently have civil remedies for hate speech, so people can be and are held to account now.
So its calling into question whether tolerance and freedom of speech for all is going to be upheld and extended with these laws, or whether the laws introduce an inequity based on the Minister responsible’s whims and biases.
The propsed penalties for hate speech of a decade or so in prison is such life altering criminal penalties the Minister responsible has available that in future could arbitrarily use these laws to harass and destroy the lives of people they disagree with.
so people can be and are held to account now
That doesn’t seem to be the case as the minister has pointed out, Nazi’s and Islamic State running around doesn’t exactly inspire confidence the laws are working as intended.
In that section I’m drawing a comparison to where the laws have been drawn, and where the laws are proposed to be drawn. Trying to show that these laws are a heavy increase to what exists, and questioning whether that is the appropriate extent to go to.
Although, i want to say, I haven’t actually read the legislation on this, and i did hear something about a 2 year assessment period. So I don’t want to claim these laws are definitely going too far. But I do want to draw attention to the fact that unintended people and groups can get caught by laws that were designed for others.
So they want to build a giant world empire and impose their extremist laws on everyone. How is this not a bad thing?
