“Everybody needs to stand against this. The Australian government is rushing through a new ‘hate-crime’ bill which criminalises association rather than conduct and applies terrorism-law logic to political activism, protesters and online community groups.”—Blair Cotrell on Gab
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
In the video below, Blair demonstrates why Australia’s proposed new “hate crime” bill – which also gives one person the power to ban what he/she deems a “hate group,” the same way as banning terrorist organisations – is so insidious.
The “hate crime” bill that is being rushed through by the Australian government is officially called the ‘Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill’. It is a sweeping piece of legislation introduced in response to the December Bondi Beach attack, so it is claimed.
Related:
- Bondi Beach Bloodbath: What Lit The Fuse?
- Bondi terrorist attack exposes that left-wing radical activists have infiltrated Australia’s local councils
The Bill aims to crack down on “hate speech,” particularly from religious or spiritual leaders (“hate preachers”), with a maximum penalty of 12 years in prison for inciting violence or promoting racial hatred.
“The ban on hate symbols will be strengthened, including by requiring a person caught displaying a symbol to prove that it was legitimate – a reversal of the burden of proof requiring prosecutors to prove a crime occurred,” The Sydney Morning Herald reports.
Adding, “Changes to migration law will allow the immigration minister to refuse or cancel visas if a person has associated with hate groups or made hateful comments, including online.”
It also introduces a new federal offence for inciting racial hatred or disseminating “ideas of racial superiority,” which carries a potential five-year prison sentence, and grants the Home Affairs Minister power to ban “hate groups” in the same way as terrorist organisations.
“The home affairs minister flagged the National Socialist Network and Hizb-ut-Tahrir as two possible targets of the law, but we don’t yet know which organisations might qualify as hate groups and be listed down the track,” an article in The Conversation pointed out.
Critics, including legal experts, civil liberties groups and opposition figures, have raised serious concerns about the speed and lack of scrutiny of the Bill. The government released the draft bill with only three days for public submissions and held a snap parliamentary inquiry with limited participation.
Experts warn the legislation may undermine free speech, fail constitutional tests and risk unintended consequences due to vague language and rushed drafting.
The Guardian pointed out yesterday that as Members of Parliament (“MPs”) prepare for an early return to Canberra to consider Labor’s draft bill, the bill looks friendless as criticism and opposition to it are coming from all quarters.
“The Greens represent the only viable pathway for the legislation in the Senate,” The Guardian said. “[Greens] Leader Larissa Waters said on Friday that negotiations would continue but the risk that the legislation could criminalise legitimate political expression was too great based on the current draft.”
“That is a dangerous path,” Waters said, asking why legal protections would be extended to one vulnerable group in the community but not others. Labor says it is open to passing new laws to include protections for LGBTQ+ Australians and people with disabilities in the future.
In the following, Nation First looks into how the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 criminalises belief, punishes influence and puts ordinary Australians at risk for speaking their minds.
Inside Australia’s Most Dangerous Anti-Free Speech Law
By George Christensen, Nation First, 14 January 2026
If the latest anti-free speech law proposed by the Albanese Labor Government passes, you can be investigated, charged and potentially imprisoned for speech that harms no one, threatens no one, and is lawful today.
Not for violence. Not for incitement. Not even for intimidation that anyone actually experienced. For speech that a court later decides might have caused fear to a hypothetical person, judged through historical grievance and group identity.
That is not an exaggeration. That is what the ‘Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026’ does as drafted.
Article summary:
- The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 allows Australians to be investigated and jailed for speech that causes no harm and threatens no one.
- It punishes beliefs and motives, not just actions, and treats religious and community leaders as inherently dangerous speakers.
- It removes the need for real victims by criminalising hypothetical fear judged through historical grievance.
- It turns ordinary political and online speech on immigration, culture and religion into legal risk.
- It replaces free expression with opaque censorship that scares people into silence.
The Government says this Bill is a necessary response to rising hatred and extremism following the Bondi Beach terror attack of 14 December 2025. That attack was real. The suffering was real. But the legal justification collapses the moment you read the Bill itself. Australia already had extensive criminal laws covering terrorism, threats, violence, harassment, intimidation, and incitement. This legislation does not fill a gap. It builds a new structure, one that reaches far beyond violence and directly into lawful speech, belief, and political expression.
This is not a single bad clause that can be fixed with a tweak. It is a cumulative legal architecture. Expanded hate offences. Motive-based punishment. Speaker-based penalty escalation. Strict liability fear standards. Heightened penalties for offensive communications. Risk-based enforcement replacing harm-based law. Together, they create a system where speaking plainly about religion, culture, immigration or national identity becomes legally hazardous.
One of the most dangerous features is the creation of aggravated offences targeting religious and spiritual leaders. Schedule 1 amends the Criminal Code so that multiple hate-related offences are aggravated where the conduct is engaged in by a religious official or spiritual leader (however described).
That phrase matters. “However described” is not narrow. It does not limit itself to radical Imams and crazy Sheikhs. It can capture pastors, priests, rabbis, monks, nuns, church elders, lay preachers, chaplains and informal community leaders who provide moral or spiritual guidance. Religious leadership itself becomes an aggravating factor.
The Explanatory Memorandum justifies this on the basis that leaders have influence. Influence is treated as inherently dangerous. The result is that the same words spoken by an ordinary citizen carry one level of risk, while the same words spoken from a pulpit can carry penalties of up to twelve years’ imprisonment.
This is not about coercion. It is not about violence. It is about controlling influential speech.
Layered on top of this is the Bill’s reliance on hate motivation as a punishment multiplier. Courts are instructed to treat motive as an aggravating feature across multiple offences. This shifts criminal law away from what a person did and toward why they believe what they believe.
Motive is inferred from expression, sermons, articles, social media posts, speeches, associations and prior statements. Speech becomes evidence not just of opinion, but of a criminal mindset. Two people can engage in identical conduct, yet the one whose views are characterised as hostile faces harsher punishment.
In practice, this opens the door to belief-based punishment. Mainstream right-wing positions on immigration levels, multiculturalism, cultural compatibility, religious doctrine, gender ideology or national identity can be reframed as hateful when assessed through a politicised lens. Once motive aggravation exists, punishment is no longer neutral between ideas.
The most liberty-destroying element of the Bill is that it abandons any requirement to prove actual harm. Proposed section 80.2BF establishes criminal liability where conduct would cause a reasonable person who is the target, or a member of the target group, to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence or to fear for their safety. Strict liability applies.
The Explanatory Memorandum is explicit. The prosecution does not need to prove that anyone actually felt fear. There does not need to be an identified victim. It is immaterial whether the conduct resulted in any person being intimidated at all.
Liability is triggered by speculation.
Worse still, the reasonable person is not an ordinary objective standard. Courts are directed to assess fear through the perspective of a person with the lived experience of the target group, including historical oppression and marginalisation. Judges must also consider the cumulative effect of conduct by others, not just the accused. Your words are judged against historical grievance and third-party behaviour you did not commit and do not control. Individual responsibility is diluted. Context becomes elastic. Lawful speech can be reinterpreted as threatening simply because of who is discussed and what history is invoked.
The Bill also creates unequal speech protections. Quoting religious texts is categorically exempt if done for religious teaching or discussion. There is no equivalent exemption for secular critique, political commentary, policy analysis or journalistic examination of the same texts.
Identical words can be lawful or criminal depending on who says them and why. That is not content neutrality. It is the state privileging certain forms of expression and punishing others based on framing.
Online speech is almost entirely captured. Penalties for using a carriage service to cause offence are increased from two years to five years’ imprisonment. Public conduct is defined broadly to include social media, blogs, videos and online platforms. In modern Australia, this means virtually all political debate.
The situation can be aggravated if a court believes that the offence also threatened the “peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth” (whatever that means). The penalty could then be 10 years’ imprisonment.
Offence is the basis of all of this, but offence is not harm. Offence is an unavoidable feature of democratic life. This Bill converts that reality into criminal exposure.
The Government frames all of this as prevention, stopping risk, radicalisation and future harm. This replaces harm-based criminal law with risk-based enforcement. Speech becomes punishable not for what it does, but for what authorities believe it might lead to.
There is no meaningful protection for political communication in the Bill. No explicit safeguard. No proportionality analysis. No serious engagement with the implied freedom of political communication recognised by the High Court. The burden is shifted onto people to become constitutional test cases after enforcement has already occurred.
Even without convictions, the process itself is punitive. Investigations, complaints, platform moderation, employment consequences, reputational damage and institutional over-compliance occur long before any court rules. Churches pull sermon recordings. Publishers decline controversial pieces. Platforms over-moderate. Ordinary Australians choose silence over risk.
That is how free speech dies in a country like ours. With opaque censorship of certain undefined discourse and breaches of that censorship regime punishable with severe jail sentences. That inspires fear, which leads people to remain silent instead of saying what they want to say.
To understand how far this Bill reaches, consider six illustrative hypotheticals that expose its outer limits.
1. A Christian pastor delivers a sermon stating, “Islam is an ideology that is destructive, incompatible with Western civilisation and must be resisted if Australia is to survive.” There are no threats and no incitement. Because the speech is delivered by a religious leader, aggravated provisions apply. Prosecutors could argue the language is hostile, infer hate motivation from theology and rely on hypothetical fear. Twelve-year penalties become possible.
2. A political activist posts online, “Mass immigration has destroyed social trust. Non-European cultures are fundamentally incompatible with ours, and continuing the policy of mass migration from the Middle East, Africa and China will fracture the nation.” This is classic political communication. No violence. No threats. Yet it can be reframed as hostility toward groups defined by ethnicity or national origin, triggering online communications offences.
3. A journalist writes an opinion piece stating, “This Islamic religious worldview produces intolerance, misogyny and social division. Australia must stop accommodating it.” This is opinion journalism. Under the Bill, hostile framing combined with historical grievance analysis could justify investigation and prosecution, chilling public debate.
4. An activist at a rally says, “The wearing of full-face coverings like the burqa and niqab should be banned in Australia because they undermine our values and social order.” This is advocacy for law reform. Yet it may be reframed as targeting people rather than conduct, particularly if the speaker is an organiser or community figure.
5. A social media user posts crime statistics showing that crime in Melbourne comes from the African community is wildly disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups and adds, “Ignoring who is responsible for this crime wave is destroying our country.” The post relies on data and interpretation. Prosecutors could infer hate motivation and argue the post creates fear, despite no threats and no actual harm.
6. A policy paper by a think tank argues, “Australia should prioritise migrants from culturally compatible nations such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Europe to preserve social cohesion.” This is an immigration policy debate at the core of political communication. And yet distinctions by national origin could be characterised as discriminatory hostility under this proposed law.
None of these scenarios involves violence, threats or conduct which is criminal under existing law. Yet all could plausibly trigger enforcement under this Bill.
From a constitutional perspective, the problems compound. The Bill burdens political communication in its terms and effect. It criminalises speech without proof of harm, applies strict liability to fear, replaces objective standards with historically weighted ones, attributes third-party conduct to individual speakers, escalates penalties based on status and expands offence-based online crimes.
Preventing violence is a legitimate aim. But criminalising hypothetical fear, belief and offence fails necessity and proportionality. Less restrictive alternatives already exist. The balance struck is constitutionally fragile.
Individually, several provisions raise serious constitutional questions. Cumulatively, they present a profound threat to free political discourse.
The most bizarre and perverse thing about this proposed law, which has been crafted supposedly in response to the Bondi Beach terror attack, is that it will undoubtedly be used to clamp down on those who are critical of Islam and its anti-Semitic and anti-Christian tendencies.
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 does not abolish free speech outright. But it renders it conditional, unstable and punishable by interpretation. Once that framework exists, the decisive question is no longer who uses those laws today, but whether any future government can resist using them against their political opponents.
If you value the right to speak openly about faith, culture, identity and politics in Australia, this Bill must be confronted now. Read it. Share it. Challenge it. Because once speech is criminalised by perception rather than harm, reclaiming that freedom becomes extraordinarily difficult.
About the Author
George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News