Writing legislation is not

simple or straightforward. It is almost certainly the most difficult form of writing there is. The legal profession is in love with legislation. It keeps them in business. The more complex the legislation the better. It will allow them interpret, misinterpret and attempt to reinterpret. The placement of a comma matters. The use of one word rather than another matters. Barristers send their staff hurtling down rabbit holes to find examples of interpretation in past cases. Judge's associates are sent off to find even more examples in the vast network of cases that have been decided.

Nothing is simple in law. "Murder" might appear to be quite a simple concept to a lay man. You killed someone? Then you are a murderer. It is far from so in the world of the law and the courts. You take something which does not belong to you? Then it is theft isn't it - or is it? Again it can become very complicated.

They are apparently simple ideas which can become very complex. Now we have legislation in front of our federal parliament which is attempting to deal with a much more complex idea, the idea of "hate speech". Perhaps it sounds simple to some but is it?

What is "serious vilification" and who can commit it? Is it possible to bring in a law which effectively changes the way people think and then prevents them from telling others?  The proposed law will hit a roadblock in the Senate - and rightly so. It is not going to prevent the harm it is intended to prevent but it will almost certainly prevent free discussion of issues which are causing social harm.

The proposed legislation has exceptions for "religious texts" and discussion of them. It fails at that point. There is a vast difference between the commandment to "love one another" and a commandment to "love those who believe as you are told to believe". People with far more expertise than me are already expressing concern that the proposed legislation is a form of back door blasphemy law. They are suggesting it will not be possible to say you believe certain wrong doers should be deported while protecting those who have done this wrong. 

We already have a range of laws which can and should cover these things. This is a knee-jerk reaction designed to placate, to look as if something is being done and, much more worryingly, to bring in restraints on speaking about issues which do need to be discussed.  We will not be better off under such laws. There is a potential for far more harm than good here.