In an additional post also referring to the proposed Australian laws, Rogers said: “Religious freedom is a core value of our administration, but protecting speech *only* if it’s religious, while arresting people for secular rejoinders, may distort the public sphere in ways that even progressive censorship enthusiasts dislike.”
Loading
Responding to another X user who claimed the Australian bill contained no protections for “white Aussies or Christians”, Rogers said: “Still digging into this, but that’s egregious if true.”
This masthead has requested further comment from Rogers.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the carve out yesterday by referring to the Old Testament, implying that without an exemption, someone reading from that document would be in violation of the proposed laws.
But he said the government wanted to avoid unintended consequences and had referred the legislation to a committee.
Loading
The laws are being introduced to combat antisemitism and other forms of hatred following the December 14 terrorist attack at Bondi Beach that targeted Jews.
Some Coalition figures have pointed to the same flaws in the bill as Rogers. Western Australian MP Ben Small said the exemption could allow Islamist preachers to foment hate while imperilling criticism of Islam.
“The test for this legislation is whether or not it makes it harder for radical Islam to spread in Australia. This legislation fails that test by making it more difficult for secular criticism,” Small said.
