Language is a living thing. It grows, stretches and contracts. It can be ugly and crude or beautiful and heavy with nuance. A single word, depending on the listener, can convey irony, humour or menace. That's part of its magic.

Login or signup to continue reading

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........

© The Examiner