You would be aware that a parliamentary inquiry in NSW is considering whether specific slogans (eg “globalise the intifada”) should be banned as hate speech, with a report due at the end of January.
We all believe that we should enact hate speech laws but struggle to agree what form they should take. Perhaps because there is a deeper question we need to answer – can the law really stop us from hating?
Lawyers are familiar with a famous 1932 case in which a woman named May Donoghue sued a ginger ale manufacturer, claiming a dead snail dropped from her bottle into her glass in a café and that the amount she had already consumed made her sick.
One of the enduring legal questions is, was there a snail in Mrs Donoghue’s ginger ale bottle? We will never know because the House of Lords didn’t address this. But what they did look at was the limit between the reach of the law and the reach of religious principles.
It’s an important question with which we still grapple today, particularly in the context of the awful events at Bondi Beach on 14 December, and what the correct response should be.
In the ‘snail in a bottle case’ the House of Lords looked at how far a legal duty of care may extend, and in their discussion the Court specifically referenced the parable of the Good Samaritan.
But as Lord Atkin noted: “The rule [of religion] that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question [in the parable], ‘Who is my neighbour?’ receives a restricted reply”.
Religion, certainly the religion of the New Testament, challenges us to see the entire world as our neighbours, and to act lovingly to all.
Whereas the law draws a more limited compass of obligations – an enforceable duty to take care not to harm our neighbours, defined as those we should reasonably foresee will be affected by our actions.
A century ago, the House of Lords recognised that the reach of the law is more limited than the reach of religion. And that the law alone cannot prescribe love, nor can it deal with hate, or its many manifestations.
We need laws to publicly declare that hateful words and actions are unacceptable to all in society and should be prohibited.
But unless they are also accompanied by a moral discussion about love and hate they will always be insufficient.
We have become scared as a society to talk about religious truths.
Multiculturalism – where we also welcome people of different faiths – is a social good but has wrongly led us to believe that we should not be discussing religious truths, because these may not be shared.
Certainly, there will be differences of worship and practice, but the core concepts of love and forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance, patience and kindness, respect for the truth and struggling against selfishness to live a good life are surprisingly common. And this should be shared and recognised.
We have also become a society where we no longer feel we need religion.
But as the events of Bondi have shown us, we need now more than ever to reflect on the fundamental truths of existence – and need the help of a community to order our lives toward the good (and often God).
The hate speech discussion would be more fruitful if we recognised – like the House of Lords 100 years ago –that the legal response is part of the answer. But that we also need a moral discussion about love and hate, and we need our leaders not to be afraid to talk about fundamental truths.
Hate speech laws are important and necessary, but by themselves can never be a complete answer. Because as a reformed hater once said, “Love is the fulfilment of the law.”
