Five Years for Words They Won’t Define: Australia’s New Speech Law
Prosecution for future speech. Deportation for past speech.
On Tuesday 20 January 2026, the Australian Parliament will debate and vote on a 136-page bill with a 600-page explanatory memorandum. The government’s stated aim is passage through both houses in a single day. Most of the politicians voting on it will not have read it.
The bill is called the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. If enacted, it will criminalise speech that “promotes or incites hatred” or “disseminates ideas of superiority” on racial or ethnic grounds. The maximum penalty is five years imprisonment. The three words in its title—antisemitism, hate, extremism—are not defined.
The pattern is now visible across the English-speaking world. The UK’s Online Safety Act. Canada’s Online Harms Act. Ireland’s Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill. The EU’s Digital Services Act. Each arrives with the same justification—protecting vulnerable groups from hatred—and each expands the state’s power to criminalise speech that was legal the year before.
Australia has now produced its contribution. The exposure draft was released on 13 January 2026. Parliament was recalled specifically to pass it.
This is not only a bill about speech. It is a bill about what speech is permitted during a period of deliberate demographic transformation. Australia’s Treasury projects the nation reaching 40 million by the early 2060s—a near-doubling, driven by sustained high immigration. The policy direction is set. The question is whether citizens can oppose it without legal risk.
Most Australians will never read the bill. Most of the politicians voting on it Tuesday won’t have read it either—not the full 136 pages of statutory text, not the 600 pages of explanatory memorandum. Australians will learn what it prohibits only when someone is prosecuted—or when they find themselves weighing whether a Facebook comment, a sermon, or a sign at a rally might end in a criminal charge.
The bill’s stated purpose is protecting vulnerable communities from hatred that can escalate to violence. Laws against inciting violence already exist and remain. This bill criminalises speech that falls short of that threshold—speech that “promotes hatred” or “disseminates ideas of superiority,” assessed against what a reasonable member of the targeted group would find intimidating.
What follows is what ordinary Australians need to know, drawn directly from the statutory language.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
The Legal Mechanics
Section 80.2BF creates the offence. A person commits a crime if they engage in public conduct intending to “promote or incite hatred” of a person or group, or to “disseminate ideas of superiority over or hatred of” a person or group, on grounds of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.
The conduct must be of a kind that “would, in all the circumstances, 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.”
Three elements of this construction warrant attention.
The reasonable person is redefined. The test is not what a general reasonable person would find intimidating. It is what a reasonable member of the targeted group would find intimidating. The explanatory memorandum states this is “intended to acknowledge the unique experiences of members of these groups, which may include historical oppression and the experience of being a marginalised community.” Courts are directed to consider “the experiences, perspectives and characteristics of a person with the lived experience” of the targeted group. The threshold for what constitutes intimidating speech is therefore not fixed. It varies by group and by whatever courts determine their “lived experience” to be.
Strict liability applies. The prosecution does not need to prove the defendant knew or intended their speech to cause fear or intimidation. They need only prove the defendant intended to promote hatred or disseminate ideas of superiority. Whether the speech would cause a reasonable group member to feel intimidated is a question for the court—the defendant’s own belief about that effect provides no defence.
“Public” includes almost everything. The bill defines public conduct to include “communicating through social media and other electronic methods,” “speaking, writing, displaying notices, graffiti, playing of recorded material, broadcasting,” and “any conduct... that is observable by the public.” A person “may engage in conduct in a public place even if the conduct occurs on private land.”
The bill goes further. As commentator Andrew Doyle has observed, section 80.2BF(2) specifies that it does not matter whether the target actually belongs to the racial group, whether the conduct “actually results in hatred,” or whether it “actually results in any person feeling intimidated, fearing harassment or violence, or fearing for their safety.” Under these provisions, even if no one felt intimidated and no hatred was actually incited, the accused could still be found guilty with a maximum penalty of five years.
The burden has shifted. Existing laws prohibiting Nazi symbols and terrorist organisation symbols previously required the prosecution to prove the display was not for a purpose a reasonable person would consider in the public interest—such as religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary, scientific, or journalistic purposes. The bill moves these public interest elements from the offence to the defence. Police can now arrest and prosecutors can charge without first establishing the display was illegitimate. The accused must raise the defence and provide evidence supporting it. The speaker is presumed to be acting illegitimately until they prove otherwise.
The Undefined Terms
The bill is titled “Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism.” None of these terms is defined.
This is not an oversight in a 600-page explanatory memorandum. The bill runs to 136 pages of statutory text. The drafters defined terms with precision where they chose to: “hate crime” has a technical definition in section 114A.3. “Member” is defined. “Organisation” is defined. “Prohibited hate group” is defined through a detailed listing mechanism. “Recruit” is defined. The drafters demonstrated they know how to define terms when they want to.
The three words in the bill’s title receive no definitions.
Undefined terms serve several functions. When parliament defines a term, the definition is public, debated, and fixed. When parliament leaves a term undefined, definitional power transfers to prosecutors (who decide what to charge) and courts (who decide what the term means case-by-case). Citizens cannot know in advance where the line falls.
A precisely defined offence tells citizens exactly what is prohibited. They can approach the line. An undefined offence forces citizens to guess—and rational actors stay far from uncertain boundaries. The speech that doesn’t happen is invisible and unmeasurable.
Vague terms permit equivalent conduct to be treated differently depending on who does it, who complains, and what political priorities prevail. The law on the books and the law in practice diverge. And as political conditions change, undefined terms can expand or contract through prosecutorial and judicial interpretation. No parliamentary debate required.
The bill’s drafters made a choice. They chose precision for the mechanisms of enforcement and vagueness for the concepts being enforced.
“Antisemitism”
The word “antisemitism” appears in the bill’s title and throughout its explanatory materials. It is not defined anywhere in the statutory text.
The only reference appears in Notes to the migration provisions, which state: “Antisemitic statements are an example of statements that involve harmful ideas based on superiority over or hatred of other persons on the basis of ethnic origin.”
This is not a definition. It is an example given to illustrate the provision’s scope. The term “antisemitic” is not itself defined—neither in the bill nor by reference to any external definition.
The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism—which Australia has endorsed in various policy contexts—is not referenced. That definition includes among its examples:
Applying double standards to Israel
Denying Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., claiming Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour)
Drawing comparisons between Israeli policy and Nazi policy
The bill’s explanatory memorandum and the statutory Notes specifically identify “antisemitic statements” as the paradigm example of the offence. An example in the Notes to section 80.2BF clarifies that the offence would “target the incitement of antisemitic hatred against Jews in a public place where a reasonable member of the Jewish community would be intimidated or fear violence.”
This framing raises questions the bill does not answer.
Would “I hate Israel” be caught? Israel is a nation-state. It is not a person or group of persons. The statement “I hate Israel” is directed at a geopolitical entity—a government, a country, a political project. On its face, this is different from “I hate Israelis” (people of Israeli nationality) or “I hate Jews” (people of Jewish ethnicity).
The bill’s language requires hatred directed at persons distinguished by national or ethnic origin. Hatred of a country is not the same thing, linguistically or conceptually. A strict reading of the statute suggests “I hate Israel” does not meet the elements of the offence.
But the bill’s framing creates uncertainty. Prosecutors might argue that “Israel” functions as a proxy for “Jews”—that hatred expressed toward the Jewish state is, in effect, hatred toward Jewish people. If prosecutors characterise the target group as Jewish Australians, the question becomes: would a reasonable Jewish person feel intimidated or fearful upon seeing “I hate Israel” posted publicly? Courts are directed to consider “the experiences, perspectives and characteristics of a person with the lived experience” of the targeted group, including “historical oppression.”
The bill provides no guidance on how to resolve this. It could have included language like: “Criticism of a nation-state, its government, or its policies does not constitute hatred of persons on the basis of national origin.” It includes no such language. The omission is informative.
Would “I hate Zionism” be caught? Zionism is a political ideology—the movement advocating Jewish self-determination and statehood. It is not a race, colour, national origin, or ethnic origin. People of any ethnicity can hold it or oppose it. Many Jewish people are non-Zionist or explicitly anti-Zionist. Many non-Jewish people are Zionists.
On a strict reading of section 80.2BF, “I hate Zionism” cannot constitute the offence because the target is an ideology, not a person or group of persons. Political opposition to nationalist movements is ordinary political speech. This should be the end of the analysis.
The contested question—politically, not legally—is whether anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. Some argue that because Zionism is the Jewish national movement, opposing it uniquely among all national movements constitutes discrimination against Jews. Others—including many Jewish individuals and organisations—argue that anti-Zionism is a legitimate political position with a long history, including within Jewish communities. Conflating opposition to a political ideology with hatred of an ethnic group, on this view, is a category error that suppresses political speech.
The bill takes no position. It does not define antisemitism. It does not reference the IHRA definition. It does not distinguish between criticism of political movements and hatred of peoples. It does not carve out political ideologies from its scope.
The determination would be made by prosecutors deciding whether to charge, and courts deciding whether the elements are met.
The asymmetry problem. Consider parallel statements:
“I hate Zionism” — targets a Jewish political movement
“I hate Islamism” — targets a Muslim political movement
“I hate Hindu nationalism” — targets a Hindu political movement
“I hate white nationalism” — targets a political movement associated with white identity
All of these express opposition to political ideologies associated with particular ethnic or religious groups. Under a consistent application of principle, either all are protected political speech or all are potentially prohibited hatred of ethnic groups.
The bill’s explicit identification of antisemitism as the paradigm offence—with no corresponding examples involving other groups—signals a particular application. Whether prosecutors and courts would apply the provisions symmetrically across all political movements associated with ethnic identity is untested.
The bill could have included: “Opposition to political ideologies, including nationalist movements, does not constitute hatred of persons on the basis of ethnic origin.” It includes no such language.
The omission leaves the question formally open—which is itself the mechanism of chill. The person considering posting “I hate Zionism” must assess not the probability of conviction, but the probability of prosecution, the cost of defence, the reputational damage of being charged with a hate crime. When expressing opposition to a political ideology requires calculating legal risk, something has shifted in the relationship between citizen and state.
“Hate”
“Hatred” as used in the racial vilification offence (section 80.2BF) has no statutory definition. “Hate crime” has a technical definition in section 114A.3—it means conduct constituting specific existing offences (threatening violence against groups, Nazi symbols, etc.) where the target is distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin. But the core term “hatred” receives no definition.
The closest approximation appears in the sentencing provisions: “the offence is motivated by hatred if, at the time of the conduct, or immediately before or immediately after the conduct, the person demonstrated, or expressed, hostility, malice or ill-will.” But hostility, malice, and ill-will are—like hatred—human emotions that cannot be wished away by statute. As Doyle observes, “Laws against inciting violence are justifiable, because violence impinges directly on the human rights of others. But laws against inciting negative human emotions veer directly into the territory of the Thought Police.”
Courts will determine what “hatred” means case by case. The citizen posting on Facebook, speaking at a rally, or giving a sermon cannot know in advance whether their speech crosses the line.
The Facebook comment. A man posts on a community Facebook group about crime in his suburb. He shares a news article about a robbery and writes: “Every week it’s the same. [Ethnic group] gangs are out of control. Our politicians won’t say it because they’re cowards. These people don’t share our values and never will.”
Under the bill, this is public conduct (social media). The question is whether it was intended to promote hatred or disseminate ideas of superiority on ethnic grounds, and whether a reasonable member of that ethnic group would be intimidated or fear for their safety.
The man might argue he was commenting on crime statistics and government failure—political speech. The prosecution would argue the statements “these people don’t share our values and never will” disseminates ideas of ethnic otherness, that characterising an ethnic group as criminal promotes hatred, and that a reasonable member of that group—considering their “lived experience”—would feel intimidated reading such posts in their community.
The man’s intent regarding intimidation is irrelevant. Strict liability.
The sermon. A pastor preaches on a passage from scripture addressing sexual ethics or religious exclusivity. He states that his faith teaches certain practices are sinful, and that salvation is found through one faith alone. Members of his congregation share clips on social media.
The bill contains a narrow defence: conduct that “consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.” The defendant bears the burden of proving this applies.
The pastor’s sermon does more than quote scripture—it interprets, applies, and exhorts. Whether this falls within “referencing... for the purpose of religious teaching” will be determined by courts. The prosecution might argue the sermon went beyond scriptural reference into promotion of religious superiority. Strict liability applies to whether a reasonable member of another faith would feel intimidated.
The explanatory memorandum clarifies: “quoting a religious text and then sharing an interpretation of that text to encourage listeners to act with hostility toward a racial group would not” be covered by the defence. The quoting “needs to be sufficiently connected to the religious text.”
Religious leaders in Australia must now consider: does this sermon, if clipped and shared, expose me to prosecution? The safest course is silence on contested topics. That is the function of such laws.
The rally sign. A woman attends a protest about immigration policy. Her sign reads: “Australians First—Stop the Invasion.” She chants with the crowd.
The word “invasion” to describe immigration is political rhetoric, used across the spectrum. Under the bill, the question becomes whether a reasonable member of an immigrant ethnic group would find this intimidating or fear for their safety—considering their “lived experience” of such rhetoric.
The woman intended political protest. The effect on a hypothetical reasonable group member, assessed by a court, determines whether she committed a crime.
The private conversation made public. A man is at a backyard barbecue. He complains about changes to his neighbourhood, makes derogatory comments about an ethnic group, and says they’re “taking over.” Someone films it on their phone and posts the video.
The bill states a person “may engage in conduct in a public place even if the conduct occurs on private land.” The question is whether the conduct was “observable by the public.” A video posted online is observable by the public. The man’s private complaint becomes public conduct.
He did not choose to make his speech public. Someone else did. His criminal liability follows the video, not his intent.
The podcast discussing statistics. A podcast host discusses crime statistics. She notes that a particular ethnic group is overrepresented in certain offence categories, cites official data, and argues this reflects cultural factors that need to be addressed through policy change. She is critical of multiculturalism as an ideology.
She would argue she is engaged in political commentary on public policy, supported by government data. The prosecution would argue that attributing criminal behaviour to cultural factors disseminates ideas of ethnic inferiority, and that a reasonable member of that ethnic group would feel intimidated hearing their community characterised this way in public discourse.
The bill does not exempt speech because it is factually accurate. The data may be real. The crime may still be committed.
“Extremism”
The word “extremism” appears in the bill’s title. It receives no statutory definition. “Violent extremist material” is defined elsewhere in the Criminal Code, but that’s a distinct concept dealing with material that counsels or promotes terrorism. “Extremism” standing alone is undefined.
What counts as extreme? The bill doesn’t say. Prosecutors and courts will decide.
The prohibited hate groups framework provides a window into how “extremism” might be applied. Organisations can be listed for “praising” hate crimes in circumstances deemed to create an “unacceptable risk” of leading others to similar conduct. The risk is assessed by the AFP Minister based on ASIO advice.
“Praise” as a trigger for listing is not limited to organisations directly inciting violence. An organisation could be listed, and its members criminalised, for praising past hate crimes in circumstances deemed to create an “unacceptable risk.” What constitutes an unacceptable risk is determined by intelligence services and ministers, not courts.
Once listed, supporting a prohibited hate group—including providing “support” broadly defined—carries up to 7 years imprisonment. Membership alone carries up to 7 years.
The citizen opposing immigration policy. A man runs a Facebook group advocating for reduced immigration. He argues that current intake levels are unsustainable, that housing affordability has collapsed, that infrastructure cannot keep pace, and that the character of Australian communities is changing faster than residents can absorb. He posts government statistics on intake numbers. He uses phrases like “demographic transformation” and “mass migration.”
Is this political speech or extremism? The bill provides no definition. His arguments are policy-based, his data drawn from official sources. But the explanatory memorandum states the bill aims to prevent speech that could “escalate.” If members of immigrant communities argue they feel targeted by his advocacy—that a reasonable member of their group would feel intimidated by rhetoric about “transformation” of their communities—the question becomes live.
The man has not incited violence. He has advocated for policy change through democratic means. Whether that constitutes “extremism” depends on how prosecutors and courts interpret a word the bill does not define.
The question this raises: If government policy moves in a direction citizens oppose—demographic transformation, housing pressure, infrastructure strain—at what point does opposition become “extremism”? The bill provides no answer. The absence is the point.
The Migration Provisions
Non-citizens face additional exposure. The bill amends the Migration Act’s character test. A person fails the test—and can have their visa refused or cancelled—if they have made public statements, including online, that “disseminate ideas based on superiority over or hatred of other persons on the basis of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin,” where there is a risk of harm to the Australian community.
No criminal conviction is required. No criminal charge need be laid. The Minister exercises discretion.
The threshold has been lowered. Previously, the test asked whether the person would engage in harmful conduct if allowed to remain. The bill changes this to whether they might.
The explanatory memorandum notes specifically that “antisemitic statements are an example of statements that involve harmful ideas based on superiority over or hatred of other persons on the basis of ethnic origin.”
A visiting academic, a business person, a family member on a visa—any non-citizen who has posted statements deemed to disseminate hatred or superiority can be excluded from Australia. The assessment is made by the Minister, personally, with power to deny natural justice where cancellation is deemed “in the national interest.”
The criminal offences in this bill are not retrospective—a citizen cannot be prosecuted for a Facebook post made before the law commences. But the migration provisions operate differently. The explanatory memorandum states that visa decisions “may take into account any conduct occurring before, on or after” commencement. A non-citizen who posted something in 2020 that was entirely legal at the time could have their visa cancelled in 2026 based on that historical speech. The law doesn’t reach backward to prosecute citizens; it reaches backward to deport non-citizens.
The effect: two tiers of speech rights in Australia. Citizens face prosecution for future speech. Non-citizens face deportation for past speech.
Gaza
Consider a man who arrived from Lebanon twenty-two years ago. He is a permanent resident. He owns a home in western Sydney. His children were born here. He has built a business, paid taxes, coached his son’s football team. He is Australian in every respect except the passport.
In 2023 and 2024, as images from Gaza filled his social media feed, he posted. He shared videos of destroyed hospitals. He wrote that Israel was committing genocide. He called Israeli politicians war criminals. He shared posts describing Zionism as a racist ideology. He attended a protest and was photographed holding a sign that read “Stop the Genocide.” His posts were angry. They were political. They were legal when he made them.
Under this bill, his visa can now be cancelled. The Minister need only determine that his statements “disseminate ideas based on superiority over or hatred of other persons on the basis of national or ethnic origin” and that there “might” be a risk of harm to the Australian community. No criminal charge. No conviction. No court. The Minister exercises personal discretion and can deny natural justice where cancellation is deemed “in the national interest.”
The bill explicitly identifies “antisemitic statements” as the paradigm of prohibited speech. It provides no definition of when criticism of Israel becomes hatred of Jews. The man’s posts about Israeli government policy, about Zionism, about Gaza—whether these cross the undefined line is a question for the Minister, not a judge.
He faces deportation to a country he left more than two decades ago. His Australian-born children face losing their father. His employees face losing their jobs. Everything he built, erased—not for what he might say, but for what he already said, when saying it was legal.
The Muslim community in Australia includes hundreds of thousands of permanent residents. Many have posted about Gaza. The bill has made their past speech grounds for future deportation.
The Chilling Effect
Laws operate through two mechanisms: prosecution and deterrence. The second is larger.
Most Australians will never be prosecuted under this bill. But many will adjust their speech in anticipation of it. The man who would have posted about crime in his suburb will hesitate. The pastor will soften the sermon. The podcast host will avoid certain topics. The protester will leave the sign at home.
This is the intended function. The explanatory memorandum states the bill aims to prevent “vilification from escalating to violence” by providing “an avenue for law enforcement to intervene early.” Early intervention means intervention before violence—at the speech stage.
The question Australians must ask is not only “would I be prosecuted?” It is “am I willing to risk it?” The width of the provisions, the subjective standard, the strict liability, and the undefined terms combine to make that risk difficult to assess. When risk is uncertain, rational actors avoid it.
Speech that would have occurred does not occur. That absence is invisible. It cannot be measured. But it is the law’s primary effect.
The Global Pattern
Australia is not an outlier. It is a participant.
The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 creates duties on platforms to remove content that is “legal but harmful” and criminalises false communications and communications intended to cause psychological harm. The threshold for harm is not fixed in statute.
Canada’s Online Harms Act proposes a Digital Safety Commission with power to order content removal and compel testimony. It includes provisions for peace bonds—judicial orders restricting future speech—for persons feared likely to commit a hate propaganda offence. No offence need have been committed.
Ireland’s hate speech bill criminalises communication that is “likely to incite violence or hatred” against persons on grounds including race, nationality, religion, and gender. The bill originally criminalised possession of material “likely to incite hatred” even if never shared. Penalties include up to five years imprisonment.
The EU’s Digital Services Act requires platforms to remove “illegal content” and to assess “systemic risks” including “negative effects on civic discourse.” What constitutes a negative effect on civic discourse is determined by regulators.
The pattern: vague standards (hatred, harm, negative effects), subjective thresholds (likely to, would cause), liability for platforms as well as speakers, and expanded state power to intervene before any concrete harm occurs.
Each jurisdiction presents its law as necessary, targeted, and proportionate. Each claims to protect the vulnerable while respecting free expression. And each expands the category of speech that can result in criminal sanction or state-compelled removal.
Rotherham
In 2014, an independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the English town of Rotherham found that approximately 1,400 children had been sexually exploited over a sixteen-year period. The Jay Report documented children as young as eleven raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns, doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. The majority of perpetrators were described by victims as “Asian”—specifically, of Pakistani heritage.
The inquiry found that staff were “nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist.” Some received “clear direction from their managers not to do so.” A researcher who documented the abuse was suspended for “gross misconduct” after her report reached the Home Office. The Council’s approach of “avoiding public discussion of the issues,” the inquiry concluded, “was ill judged.”
In June 2025—six months before Australia’s bill was released—Baroness Casey published a national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation, updated in January 2026. Her findings: “The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years.” The system, she wrote, “claims there is an overwhelming problem with White perpetrators when that can’t be proved. This does no one any favours at all.”
Children were raped for sixteen years while authorities avoided discussing who was raping them.
If Rotherham had occurred in Australia under this bill, the citizens who broke the silence could face prosecution. A father posting online that his daughter’s abusers were Pakistani men: public conduct, identifying persons by ethnic origin, potentially promoting hatred. A journalist reporting the ethnic patterns in offending: disseminating ideas that could cause a reasonable member of the Pakistani community to feel intimidated. A councillor demanding answers about why ethnicity data was suppressed: strict liability applies—her intent is irrelevant if the court determines a reasonable group member would feel fearful.
The speech that eventually exposed Rotherham—the speech that protected children—is the speech this bill criminalises.
The Documentary Record
Australia’s population is projected to reach 40 million by the early 2060s. This is not speculation; it is Treasury’s Intergenerational Report projection. The policy direction—sustained high immigration to offset an ageing population and maintain economic growth—is established.
This policy direction has a documentary history.
In March 2000, the United Nations Population Division published a report titled Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? The document studies eight countries—France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and United States—plus two regions: Europe and the European Union. The time period covered runs from 1995 to 2050.
The report examines “the international migration that would be needed to offset declines in the size of population, the declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population.” It runs scenarios calculating the migration levels required to maintain total population, maintain working-age population, and maintain the ratio of working-age to elderly population.
This is official UN policy analysis. The term “replacement migration” appears in the document’s title. The scenarios are modelled with demographic precision. The report’s major findings include:
“The populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of below-replacement fertility and increased longevity.”
“The projected population decline and population ageing will have profound and far-reaching consequences, forcing Governments to reassess many established economic, social and political policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.”
“The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support ratios) are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past.”
The report also anticipated resistance: “In many countries, additional large volumes of immigrants are likely to face serious social and political objections, even as a means of slowing population decline and population ageing.”
The document is publicly available on the UN website. It has been there for twenty-five years.
When governments pursue demographic policies that will transform their societies over decades, laws that criminalise undefined “hatred” and undefined “extremism” acquire a function beyond their stated purpose. The bill does not mention population policy. It doesn’t need to. The architecture is in place.
Citizens who object to the pace or scale of demographic change will need to calculate: does this post, this sign, this comment expose me to prosecution? The undefined terms provide no guidance. The reasonable-member-of-the-targeted-group test ensures the threshold varies by group. The strict liability means good intentions are no defence.
What Remains
The bill is scheduled for debate and passage on Tuesday 20 January 2026. Both houses. One day. A 136-page bill with a 600-page explanatory memorandum, transforming the relationship between Australian citizens and their speech.
Section 80.2BF, as drafted, makes it a criminal offence punishable by five years imprisonment to engage in public conduct—including social media posts—intending to promote hatred or disseminate ideas of superiority on ethnic grounds, where a reasonable member of the targeted group would feel intimidated. Strict liability applies to the intimidation element. The burden of proving legitimate purpose has shifted to the defendant for related offences. Non-citizens can lose visas for speech without criminal process.
The three terms in the bill’s title—antisemitism, hate, extremism—are undefined. The architecture transfers definitional power from parliament to prosecutors and courts. Citizens cannot know where the line falls until they cross it.
The document exists. The bill exists. The trajectory is set. What Australians can say about it—and whether they have time to say it before the vote—is now the question.
References
Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 (Exposure Draft), Australian Government
Explanatory Memorandum, Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026
Alexis Jay OBE, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997–2013 (2014)
Baroness Casey of Blackstock, National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (June 2025, updated January 2026)
United Nations Population Division, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? (2000), ST/ESA/SER.A/206
Australian Treasury, Intergenerational Report 2023
Andrew Doyle, “Australia’s dangerous new hate speech bill,” Substack (15 January 2026)
Book: Medicalized Motherhood: From First Pill to Permanent Patient
Available as a free download. 123 interventions documented across six phases—from pre-conception capture through postpartum surveillance. Includes practical tools: birth plan template, provider interview questions, quick reference card, and a new chapter on interrupting the cascade. Download it, share it with someone facing their first prenatal appointment, their induction date, their cesarean recommendation. The cascade works because women don’t see it coming. This book makes it visible.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Bitcoin: 3Q6BK8x8zjoPaXykQggzvoJxg5FiEbkb3U
Ethereum: 0x4CB0d39d8466a34609318FC1B003B745893788b3
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
This brings to mind Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 451 where when interviewing a senator that senator says, 'do you think we have the time to read all the legislation we pass?' Even in the USA with the Constitutional right to free speech people are being targeted indirectly for speaking inconvenient truth. Without free speech we are lost.
Criminalizing a human right is enslavement.