On the fringe: Queensland senator Fraser Anning at the St Kilda rally last Saturday. Credit:AAP In the latest in a series of recent and disturbing anti-Semitic attacks around Melbourne, an aged care facility with many residents Holocaust survivors was desecrated by a neo-Nazi group with a swastika. The St Kilda rally last Saturday was evidence that, while pathetic, efforts by certain small outfits to kindle prejudice, and potentially disorder, cannot be dismissed. On the contrary, while nascent, these movements ought to be taken seriously without assumptions that widespread opprobrium will suffice to discourage their further efforts to build momentum, especially towards parliamentary representation. To be sure, the public reaction to these recent affronts to the civility and cultural diversity we overwhelmingly cherish was swift and fitting. That said, it’s how we tackle this that will matter most.

In many situations like these, laws against incitement don’t usually have a direct role to play as the thresholds for action are typically high. As a matter of policy, we wouldn’t want it any other way as freedom of speech is a basic human right that should be subject to only the most reasonable limitations. And in any event, it’s cultural and behavioural change that represents the best means of arresting any extremist trends. Loading It’s worth noting, however, that at some stage such laws may have a part to play. Protesters, for example, waving swastikas and performing Nazi salutes doubtless covet the attention and exult over the reactions they provoke, but they might benefit from a little knowledge that their actions could see them incurring criminal or civil liability. In Victoria, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was introduced in 2001 with bipartisan support after several amendments were made to better balance affected rights. As it should, it establishes a relatively high bar for action against incitement, which has been evidenced over the years by the relatively small number of cases that have been brought.

It sets out civil offences for conduct, regardless of motive, that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of others on the basis of race or religion. But the act makes it a criminal offence where someone on the ground of race or religion intentionally incites hatred against others and threatens, or incites others to threaten, physical harm towards other people. A similar provision applies to inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, others based on race or religion. Loading For individuals, a maximum prison term is six months and they can also be fined.

Despite all this, the law as an instrument of social cohesion will always have its limitations. To change individual behaviour, reform cannot hinge solely on the injunctions and sanctions the law enacts. Any reform will depend on efforts to enlighten and temper individual conduct to foster greater civility, respect and courtesy. In his second reading speech on the Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill in 2001, then premier Steve Bracks said, “While the rule of law can influence behaviour, I want to emphasise that the government sees legislation as only one plank of the strategy in dealing with racial and religious vilification … we will focus on a range of non-legislative measures designed to promote tolerance and mutual respect, and to deal with conduct that vilifies.” I agree. While there have been too few cases under the act since its introduction 18 years ago to suggest any need to change it, one irony is that the only prosecution under the act involved two of last Saturday’s leading participants at the St Kilda rally. The most recent annual report of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission highlighted an increase of 88 per cent in the number of complaints about race, although there was a fall in vilification complaints. While this takes the number back to slightly more than it was in 2015-16, race generally remains a challenge.

More needs to be done to target resources at those cohorts most susceptible to extremism, whatever the form. To this end engagement is not easy. The cohorts to be focused on are disparate with some animated by different factors ranging from rank populism to ethno-nationalism and prejudice to hostility towards globalisation. In fairness, the commission and other agencies active in this area run a wide range of programs and activities in the community as part of their operations, but a more active focus on these groups will make a difference. Ultimately, the law is only a part of the wider answer. Changing behaviour in the manner envisioned by the late president Mandela is the best long-term answer. We cannot afford to do any less. John Pesutto is a lawyer and was Victoria’s shadow attorney-general from 2014 to 2018.