Hate Speech or Speech They Hate?
Nation First sounds the alarm on the anti-free speech Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024.
Dear friend,
They’re coming for your words. Your thoughts. Your beliefs.
Under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism, the Albanese government—with full support from Peter Dutton’s opposition—is on the verge of passing the most draconian hate crime laws Australia has ever seen.
Yes, you read that correctly. The so-called “conservative” Liberal-National Coalition has joined forces with Labor to push for new restrictions on speech, harsher penalties for politically incorrect opinions, and a dangerous expansion of state power.
The Albanese government, with bipartisan support, has introduced strict new hate crime laws, expanding state power and limiting free speech.
The bill criminalises speech deemed “reckless,” removing intent requirements and eliminating protections for political and religious expression.
The law will disproportionately target conservatives, Christians, and opponents of progressive ideology while exempting leftist rhetoric.
The law’s vague definitions could lead to criminalising historical and religious symbols, further expanding government censorship.
Once enacted, such laws tend to grow in scope, threatening broader freedoms beyond the initial justification of combating anti-Semitism.
Why are these laws being pushed by both sides of politics? Because of the radical Islamic attacks on Jews taking place in Australian suburbs—essentially a Middle Eastern problem that both sides of politics have imported to our shores by virtue of out-of-control immigration policies. Now, in their rush to appear “tough on hate,” they are laying the groundwork for a full-scale assault on free speech.
This isn’t just about punishing neo-Nazis or radical Islamic extremists. This is a sweeping, vague, and dangerous law that will criminalise ordinary Australians for their political views, religious beliefs, and even casual remarks online. Think that’s an exaggeration? Let’s break it down.
Before this bill, prosecutors had to prove intent—meaning you had to actually intend harm for your words to be considered criminal. Not anymore. The Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 lowers the bar so drastically that a person can be charged for reckless speech. What does that mean? If the government decides your words might lead to violence—even if you never intended that outcome—you can go to jail. Imagine this: you post on social media, passionately opposing radical gender ideology being pushed onto children. A left-wing activist claims your words could potentially lead to someone committing an act of violence. Congratulations, you’ve just committed a hate crime.
Journalists, religious leaders, academics, and political commentators—pay attention. The bill removes the good faith defence, which previously protected people engaging in religious teachings, political debate, or satire. Now, a pastor preaching traditional marriage, a professor questioning gender ideology, or a comedian mocking identity politics could all face criminal charges. This is not about stopping violence. It’s about silencing opposition to an agenda.
The bill expands protections for gender identity, intersex status, and sexual orientation—but not political beliefs. If a radical leftist calls for violence against conservatives, don’t expect them to be prosecuted. But if you dare to criticise mass immigration, gender fluidity, or radical feminism with gusto, then expect the full weight of the law to come down on you. This isn’t about stopping violence. It’s about censoring the criticism of certain agenda.
If you think I’m over-egging consider this: Teal MP Allegra Spender went on ABC TV a few nights ago (and then backed it up in parliament) suggesting that the law was need to stop people with banners that said “Destroy Paedo Freaks”.
Here are four examples of statements that may run afoul of the law:
Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Society is being corrupted by unnatural lifestyles, and we must resist these dangerous ideologies before they destroy our families.
Why it might be criminal under this bill: If someone interprets this as a call to action against LGBTIQ+ individuals, it could be considered “reckless” urging of force or violence (even if the speaker did not intend violence). The good faith defence has been removed, meaning the speaker cannot argue it was a legitimate religious expression.
The LGBTIQ lobby keeps pushing radical gender policies on our kids. Maybe it’s time we show them we won’t stand for it anymore. Let’s take action!
Why it might be criminal under this bill: Authorities could claim the phrase “take action” is a threat or urging of violence against LGBTIQ+ groups. The recklessness standard means even if the poster didn’t intend violence, they could still be charged if it was deemed “reckless.”
We need to stop the mass immigration from certain areas because they bring division to our country and refuse to integrate. If we don’t stop this, we’re going to lose our country.
Why it might be criminal under this bill: Previously, this would have been protected political speech. Now, it could be seen as “urging violence” against immigrants, particularly if someone in the audience acts on it. The expanded protected attributes mean this covers nationality and ethnicity, increasing the likelihood of prosecution.
The idea that gender is entirely a social construct is not supported by biological science. Those groups forcing people to accept this concept are dangerous.
Why it might be criminal under the bill: If an activist claims this statement “incites hatred” or “threatens the safety” of transgender individuals, it could be prosecuted. Context no longer matters—a person merely "fearing violence" is enough under the new threshold.
What’s more, displaying a “prohibited” symbol—now expanded beyond Nazi imagery—will carry a mandatory jail sentence. The bill adds new victim classes based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status to the list of those whom symbols can “offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate”. The bill is so vaguely worded that religious and historical symbols could be caught in the dragnet. A Christian cross used in opposition to same-sex marriage could be a hate symbol. A cartoon criticising radical gender ideology could be a hate crime. A historical image discussing gender roles? You’d better lawyer up!
It’s obvious why Labor is backing this bill—they’re socialists who always want more control over speech and political debate. But why is the erstwhile “conservative” Liberal-National Coalition supporting it? As mentioned, it’s because they see it as a tool to crack down on radical Islamic anti-Semitism. After a wave of anti-Jewish attacks—including firebombings of synagogues, violent threats, and even an attempted terror plot involving a caravan full of explosives—Petter Dutton and the Liberals have pushed for even harsher laws to send a message to the extremists in our midst.
Here’s the problem: this bill won’t just be used against radical Islamists. Once they’re on the books, they’ll be used to censor anyone who opposes progressive ideology. Labor, the activist class and the media will twist these laws to target those who speak out against mass immigration, question gender ideology, or defend traditional values.
Today, it’s about anti-Semitism. Tomorrow, it’ll be about protecting fearful trans folks. Next year? It could even be the radical Muslims who are upset that they’re being targeted for criticism! We’ve seen it happen before. Every time a government gets new censorship powers, it expands them. This is the road to tyranny. And make no mistake—it’s conservatives, Christians, and free thinkers who will suffer most.
The Liberal National Coalition’s approach is short-sighted. In trying to fight one form of extremism, they’re handing the government the ultimate censorship weapon. And history tells us the bill won’t be used against the people they intended.
This is a defining moment for Australia. We either stand up now, or we lose our freedoms for good. Contact your MPs. Demand that free speech be protected. Expose this legislation.
Share this article, talk to your friends and family, and refuse to stay silent. Support organisations fighting for free speech: CitizenGO, and the Free Speech Union are just two that spring to mind.
The government is counting on people being too scared to resist. Prove them wrong. Because once free speech is gone, we won’t get it back.
Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.
Take care,
George Christensen
George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.
George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:
“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”
— George Christensen.
Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.
This madness won't stop me, for one, telling it as it is. Dutton has disappointedly proven that the LNP today are as corrupted and useless as the majority of these parasites in parliament.
This country is beyond help - we'll be on par with the ruin that is the UK within the year, regardless of which major party wins government next. How many times do Labor and the LNP have to prove that they don't serve your interests but rather the interests of those powerful vested interests who determine who gains power here? Been sleeping through the last five years have we? Or too afraid to face reality?