Neo-Nazi and Hizb ut-Tahrir target new hate speech laws
New hate speech laws are facing a potential legal challenge from a prominent neo-Nazi, just days after the legislation passed federal parliament.
The legislation, which passed late on Tuesday night, aims to curb the ability of extremist groups to incite violence based on religion, while also strengthening powers to deport extremists and prevent them from entering Australia.
The laws were drawn up following the December 14 antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach, in which 15 people were killed when gunmen opened fire during a Chanukah celebration.
Thomas Sewell is seen as Neo-Nazi and Transgender rights supporters face off at a demonstration in Melbourne, Saturday, March 18, 2023 Photo: James Ross/AAP
The bill passed the Senate during a late-night sitting with the support of most Liberal senators, while the Nationals voted against it, citing concerns about freedom of speech.
Liberal senator Alex Antic crossed the floor to oppose the bill, while NT senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price abstained.
Thomas Sewell, the former leader of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network, is now raising funds to mount a High Court challenge.
“This will be a landmark case in protecting the rights of all Australians to politically communicate and organise for generations to come,” Sewell said on his fundraising page.
“I have enquired with a number of highly respected law firms who wish to take the case to the High Court of Australia and challenge the existing and the proposed anti-free speech legislation.”
As of Tuesday evening, almost $130,000 had been raised.
The National Socialist Network, which has staged a series of increasingly public actions promoting a white Australia, has said it will disband in response to the new laws.
Jewish organisations have welcomed the legislation as an important first step while arguing that stronger measures are still needed.
Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Leibler said provisions allowing authorities to shut down extremist groups were a positive move. He said those affected would likely include the National Socialist Network and the radical Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Jeremy Leibler
“These are very, very sinister organisations who for years have been promoting extremist ideology and antisemitism and have been doing so in a way that very carefully skirt around the law,” he told AAP.
This afternoon, radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir has also signalled it may mount a legal challenge to Australia’s new hate speech and extremism laws. The group has condemned the laws as an attempt to silence its political views and has said it is seeking legal advice on how to contest any designation as a prohibited organisation under the new framework. 
Critics of the group and some legal experts say any court challenge would test how far authorities can restrict organisational activity while balancing free speech protections, particularly where groups argue they do not endorse violence even as they are named in new national security measures.
The government removed several tougher elements from the bill, including proposed new criminal offences for racial hatred, in order to secure passage through parliament.
Mr Leibler said those provisions should be reconsidered.
“We are about to commence a royal commission into antisemitism. No doubt the royal commission will investigate some of these issues,” he said.
“I don’t think that we as a society can afford to abandon the possibility of strengthening hate speech laws.”
There is no need for hate speech laws ! A rational government or person will recognise that all that is required is for all to follow the golden rule “Treat others as you wish to be treated” Having said that, what child has not gone through school without having another say something uncharitable towards them? I experienced taunts re physical appearance to which my mother advised “Nothing hurts you unless you allow it to do so.” and a verbal response “Stick and stones may hurt my bones but names never do”
Laws will not curtail the activities of the unbalanced. The Bondi shooters is a prime example. One held a gun license the other did not. The license holder would have been informed that it was illegal for him to provide an unlicensed person with a firearm. That law did not stop him nor did the law against committing murder stop the unlicensed party committing same.
Thus it can be seen all the laws be they simple or complex will not deter the unbalanced nor those brought up with hate instilled into them.
It is in early childhood that we need to teach children compassion and tolerance. Unfortunately the education system is unable to do that my school ager says “There is too much freedom!” and has to tolerate those whom care not to learn, preferring to lark about, a situation over which the teacher has little control given the child is entitled to freedom of expression. Much like Dr Abul-Fattah it seems demands, in as reported a hypocritical manner having requested Adelaide Writers Festival withdraw the invite of another with whom she disagreed. The Dr having her invite withdrawn by the festival on the basis of her stance being insensitive in view of the Bondi attack. It is to be noted the Dr lectures at an educational institution and one may well wonder how balanced the information is that she passes on to young students.