VICTORIA, Australia (LifeSiteNews) — Once politicians start creating legislation that is predicated on treating citizens differently, it can easily open the door to legal and social confusion. That is what is happening in the Australian state of Victoria with what looks to be a failed legislative initiative.

The governing left wing Labor Party drafted the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill purportedly to “protect people from hate speech based on their protected attributes.”

The reference to “social cohesion” in the title is ironic. If anything, it is designed to do the opposite. Fortunately, it is not likely to become law.

The proposed bill stipulates that it is illegal to “incite hatred, revulsion, or ridicule based on protected attributes” or to “threaten physical harm or property damage based on protected attributes.” It looked to increase penalties to up to five years in prison and to expand the list of groups protected. In addition to race and religion the bill also seeks to protect the LGBTQIA+ community and people with a disability.

The current laws require proof that a person demonstrably incited hatred and threatened harm to persons or property. In the new bill, the legal test would be lowered to ban conduct that is “likely” to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards, or severe ridicule of a person considered to have a protected attribute.

READ: Pro-life UK woman faces trial for offering ‘harmless chat’ outside abortion center

It is not explained who decides what is and isn’t likely, or the way that the relevant probabilities are arrived at. Is “likely” a more than 50 per cent chance? Or 20 per cent? Or 80 per cent?

The bill passed the Victorian Parliament’s Lower House on February 20, 2025, but the government does not seem to have the numbers in the Senate, where Labor does not enjoy a controlling majority. It has not been formally withdrawn, but there are no signs it will be revived.

The loudest criticisms came from Jewish organizations, who argued that the legislation should remove the “political defence” in the proposed laws, claiming it will become a catch-all defence that will seriously weaken the reforms.

By attacking a provision in the legislation that is designed to protect political communication, these groups went against what the High Court decided is in the Australian Constitution. Although there is not a blanket protection of freedom of speech in Australia, the court found that there is an implied right to free political communication.

But to the Jewish groups, allowing some types of political communication is unacceptable. Sharyn Kolieb, writing in The Australian Jewish News said the “genuine political purpose” defence would undermine the ability to counter antisemitism, “as those promoting hatred against Jews could claim it is against Zionism.” The presidents of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV), Zionism Victoria, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Zionist Federation of Australia all called for the removal of the defence.

Other critics targeted the implicit reliance on subjectivity rather than objective evidence. The Australian Christian Lobby’s Victorian state director, Jasmine Yuen, launched a billboard truck campaign against the legislation arguing that it “will not only put Christians in danger of being targeted by activists, but … also expose any Victorian to the risk of litigation if what they say, do, or post online is deemed offensive by someone with a protected attribute.”

She said it will neither foster social cohesion nor address antisemitism, but instead turn “what is meant to be a tool for protection into a weapon that anyone with a protected attribute could use against their opponents.”

The bill could have severely restricted Christian religious practices, according to an article by the think tank Freedom for Faith (FFF). “The “harms-based” provision is extremely dangerous,” the FFF article says. “This introduces a completely subjective test where a person or group gets to decide if they have been harmed by language that is “hateful”. The definition of “public” would cover all social media posts, and most likely sermons and group teaching. This gives unprecedented authority over religious speech, including sermons.”

There was also opposition from Islamic groups and even some LGBTQIA+ groups. As one member of parliament said: “Very rarely do you have rainbow, Jewish and Islamic groups all opposed to something.”

The collapse of the legislative initiative is a consequence of crafting legislation that does not start with the premise that everyone is equal before the law. Some of the protected groups think the legislation is too weak while others, including some LGBTQIA+ groups, have become concerned that the law might end up hurting them because the evidentiary bar is so low.

There is also no obvious need for the legislation. Laws that deal with offences of this type already exist in Australia. This was demonstrated with an incident of alleged anti-semitism in Sydney in early February. Two nurses were filmed, via a Youtube video exchange with an Israeli influencer, allegedly making death threats against Jewish patients attending Bankstown Hospital.

READ:Scottish health system suspends American midwifery student over pro-life social media posts

One of the nurses, Sarah Lebdeh, has been arrested and charged with three Commonwealth offences: threatening violence to group, using a carriage service to threaten to kill, and using a carriage service to menace/harass/offend. The other, Ahmad Rashad Nadir, was charged with using a carriage service to menace, harass and offend. Anti-vilification laws were not required.

Victorian Labor’s bill is another example, amongst many, of Australian politicians using the law to play politics – crafting legislation that ignores fundamental principles of equality and universality. Happily, in this instance, it seems sure to fail.