Enacting law to control language is full of peril

But the law requires certainty. It insists on rigidity and clear definitions, despising those grey areas where double meanings dwell. It's why attempts to legislate language almost always fail. The two are incompatible: language is a fidgeting toddler, the law a tired old man demanding obedience.

That tension between the looseness of language and the law's desire for stiff boundaries lies at the heart of the federal government's proposed hate-speech legislation in the wake of last month's Bondi massacre.

Few dispute the need to confront hatred and those inciting violence. But there's a profound difference between acknowledging a problem and rushing to legislate a solution. When emotions are raw the political pressure to be seen to respond quickly to an event of national trauma can overwhelm the obligation to move carefully and wisely.

With the exception of Australia's gun reforms after the Port Arthur massacre, laws born out of catastrophes tend to be performative rather than measured, with far-reaching consequences. Unlike guns, words are not inanimate objects. They are shaped by tone and the audience for which they are intended. Putting the petty, almost childlike state of our politics aside, these proposed laws enter treacherous terrain. What constitutes incitement to violence to one listener can be heard as innocent religious teaching to another.

Anthony Albanese hinted at such complexity this week when explaining how the legislation will contain an exemption to the quoting of religious texts. "I encourage you to read the Old Testament and see what's there," he said. "See if you can outlaw that..."

The Qur'an and the Bible, especially the Old Testament, boast many passages advocating murder, violence against unbelievers and the subjugation of women. Sacred texts, selectively quoted and aggressively interpreted, have long been used to justify acts of extreme violence. Exempting such language and not others invites confusion.

Just as importantly, why couldn't Albanese wait to draft such complex legislation until after the findings of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion - an inquiry he stubbornly resisted for weeks? Australia already has a patchwork of state and federal provisions dealing with incitement to violence, harassment and racial threats. Why add another layer now when further recommendations are inevitable?

The answer, unsurprisingly, appears political. The Prime Minister's commanding public standing at the beginning of his second term diminished sharply in the weeks following the Bondi massacre. Having proudly recognised Palestinian statehood a few months earlier, his stalling on the need for an inquiry was a bad look.

But that wasn't all. At a time when the nation needed a steadying, commanding voice - particularly in those hours after the bloodshed on the beach - Albanese, an inconsistent public speaker who can make simple sentences sound mildly concussed, came across as nervous and hesitant.

And so the urgency to recall Parliament next week to debate and vote on the Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill. It smacks of theatre rather than reassuring governance. Laws designed in haste and passed under pressure deliver precisely what the law abhors about language in the first place: complex weaponry laden with ambiguity.

History offers many examples: The US rushed through the Patriot Act in the aftermath of September 11, granting the government sweeping surveillance powers intended to target terrorists. But those powers were soon deployed against journalists, activists and ordinary citizens, often with minimal oversight. Britain's post-terrorism laws expanded stop-and-search powers and permitted detention without charge, measures that were later found to have disproportionately targeted minority groups while doing little to prevent the spread of radicalisation.

None of this is an argument for complacency or a defence of hate speech. But right now there is a need for restraint, a virtue often unfashionable in times of crisis.

Legislating against language is a perilous business. When a parliament gets to decide which words are permissible depending on who speaks them and in which context, language ceases to be a living thing.

It becomes a battlefield instead - the very place where extremists feel most at home.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Should the government wait on the findings of the Royal Commission into anti-Semitism before expanding hate-speech laws? Are there other measures the Albanese government could take to combat extremism and violence? Has your opinion of Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister fallen or risen in the wake of the Bondi massacre? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au

SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:

- Volunteer firefighters say the scale of the unfolding Victorian bushfire crisis was preventable and came after years of ignored warnings about underinvestment.

- The Opposition Leader has rejected assertions she is being hypocritical after urging Labor to rush hate-speech laws, saying proposals drawn up aren't good enough.

- Adelaide Writers' Week has issued a fresh apology and invited a Palestinian-Australian author to its 2027 edition after her controversial removal generated a massive backlash.

THEY SAID IT: "The language of the law must not be foreign to the ears of those who are to obey it." - Learned Hand, US federal judge

YOU SAID IT: The whiplash politics that's emerged in the aftermath of the Bondi attack serves no one, apart from those who seek to sow division and fear.

"Ley, McCormack and the rest of the pack are increasingly derisive," writes Susan. "This ongoing attempt to diminish the man also diminishes and belittles the office. They should remember that Prime Minister Albanese and the team roundly won the last election, the opposition are by reflection attempting to diminish the choice of voters."

Rather than backflip, Ian prefers the analogy "stampeding from one side of the ship to the other". He writes: "Members of the Coalition find themselves bumping into each other as they stampede in opposite directions, carrying the deckchairs they are attempting to rearrange. In my view there should be no religious-based exemptions allowing for anything related to hate, prejudice, or discrimination. The rules should be the same for all. As for archaic religious texts, surely some commonsense can prevail? The line between hate and objective discussion is surely one of tone, context, and purpose. It may be hard to legislate the difference, but the courts do have a 'reasonable person' test. Anyway, just get on with it."

"One wonders if Mr Hastie or Mr Canavan would be so keen on free speech if all their election posters were defiled or if a news item incorrectly defamed them," writes Phil. "Free speech has limits. Hastie and Canavan know this. They are using the Bondi attack as a political weapon. Shame on them."

Arthur writes: "There is no simple answer to the problem of hate speech and racist comments. The politicians are trying to find a simple solution but they are hamstrung by the 'vote for me' rule."

"The trouble is that if the stuff you just wrote, John, were a part of a novel by, say, George Orwell, or Joseph Heller, we'd probably nod and say, 'Poor people, yes, that's what happens in those places'," writes Old Donald. "When it actually does happen, here, we shake our heads and say, 'How sad... thank God (sic) this will be over and forgotten soon.' As Robert Frost wrote, 'And they, since they were not the one dead, turned to their affairs.'"

Kevin writes: "If Sussan Ley and her colleagues had responded in a thoughtful, non-politicised way to the horror of Bondi, they wouldn't now be showing themselves as a bunch of clowns (again), driving furiously in six different directions. Insisting anti-Semitism or Islam is the only issue, mindlessly ignores ASIO's assessment that right wing hate groups are the major danger (though clearly not the only one)."