New Zealand Human Rights Commission: Te Kähui Tika Tangata Part IV: Hate speech laws in other countries National hate speech laws vary in countries that New Zealand often compares itself to. In some countries, incitement to hatred is a criminal offence, while in others, it is an offence under both criminal and civil law or under civil law only. This part of the paper will outline national hate speech laws in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States. Annex 2 of this paper includes a table comparing what characteristics are protected under national criminal hate speech laws in the various countries. Australia Australia’s laws that prohibit hate speech are known as “vilification” or “serious vilification” laws. Antivilification laws exist federally, in all six states and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The focus in Australia is mainly on civil, rather than criminal, anti-vilification laws. Under the civil anti-vilification laws, if a person feels that an incident of unlawful vilification has occurred, they can lodge a complaint to the relevant state authority, such as the New South Wales AntiDiscrimination Board or the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). After a person lodges a complaint, the authority will assess whether the allegation falls within the definition of unlawful vilification. If so, the authority will investigate and attempt to mediate a resolution. Around 200 complaints are lodged each year and less than two percent of those complaints end up in a court or tribunal. national or ethnic origin. Section 18C(1) of the Act provides: It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. A person can make a complaint to the AHRC about unlawful acts under section 18C(1)124 and the AHRC will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the AHRC cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant’s only redress is through the Federal Court or through the Federal Magistrates Service. In 2017, the Turnbull government introduced legislation in an effort to replace the words “offend, insult or humiliate” in section 18C(1) with the term “harass”. A majority of the senate rejected the legislative proposal and the section remains in its original form today. State and territorial This section sets out the law in each of Australia’s six states and two territories. Four of the states and territories have civil and criminal hate speech laws (New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and the ACT). The protected characteristics vary between states and territories. Federal New South Wales Australia does not have a federal law criminalising hate speech. However, a civil remedy is provided under the Racial Hatred Act 1995 based on race, colour, or New South Wales law provides for both civil and criminal anti-vilification laws. The civil remedy is set out in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (ADA) which makes Katharine Gelber and Luke McNamara “Anti-vilification Laws and public racism in Australia: Mapping the gaps between the harms occasioned and the remedies provided” (2016) 39 UNSW Law Journal 488 at 494; Gelber and McNamara, Katharine Gelber and Luke McNamara, ‘Private Litigation to Address a Public Wrong: A Study of Australia’s Regulatory Response to “Hate Speech”’ (2014) 33 Civil Justice Quarterly 307 at 314. 124 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. 123 26