ABSTRACT
When it comes to human rights controversies, few have been as enduring, and as thoroughly scrutinised, as the question of the legitimacy of legislative restriction on various forms of ‘hate speech’. Provisions rendering it unlawful to engage in public conduct that incites hatred against certain identified groups are now a common component of the criminal laws or civil human rights laws of many countries. Hate speech laws, in various forms, have been enacted in all four countries that are the subject of the present study. The majority of hate speech laws are concerned with the promotion of hatred or ill-feeling (and associated action) against individuals or groups identified by ethnicity, or country of origin – motivated by the obligations to legislate assumed by all parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination,1 including Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) – but in some jurisdictions, equivalent laws apply to hate speech directed at individuals defined by other identity characteristics, including religion and sexual orientation. At the same time, free speech is a prominent human right and democratic principle in all four countries. Indeed, a central theme in political debates, academic scholarship and litigation on hate speech laws has been whether the legal regulation of hate speech in order to support human rights in relation to cultural diversity and non-discrimination can be reconciled with the human right to exercise free speech or free expression.
