Australia: A Case Study On Hate Speech And A Worrying Global Trend

THE BRIEFING 

Here’s what’s happening in geopolitics today.

From violence spilling onto the streets of Antwerp to a new global peace body being unveiled in Davos, today’s headlines span unrest, diplomacy and power politics.

We’re also tracking fresh US-Ukraine-Russia talks in Abu Dhabi, a French move against Russia’s shadow oil fleet, and leadership continuity in Vietnam as Hanoi looks ahead to the rest of the decade.

In today’s deep dive, we’re analysing the new hate speech laws in Australia and how they are part of a much wider global trend — especially in the west.

A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR

But what can you actually DO about the proclaimed ‘AI bubble’? Billionaires know an alternative…

Sure, if you held your stocks since the dotcom bubble, you would’ve been up—eventually. But three years after the dot-com bust the S&P 500 was still far down from its peak. So, how else can you invest when almost every market is tied to stocks?

Lo and behold, billionaires have an alternative way to diversify: allocate to a physical asset class that outpaced the S&P by 15% from 1995 to 2025, with almost no correlation to equities. It’s part of a massive global market, long leveraged by the ultra-wealthy (Bezos, Gates, Rockefellers etc).

Contemporary and post-war art.

Masterworks lets you invest in multimillion-dollar artworks featuring legends like Banksy, Basquiat, and Picasso—without needing millions. Over 70,000 members have together invested more than $1.2 billion across over 500 artworks. So far, 25 sales have delivered net annualized returns like 14.6%, 17.6%, and 17.8%.*

Want access?

[Click here to skip the waitlist →]

_{Investing involves risk. Past performance not indicative of future returns. Reg A disclosures at masterworks.com/cd}

THE LAST 24 HOURS IN GEOPOLITICS 

1. 6 people stabbed during pro-Kurdish demonstration in Antwerp, Belgium
Six people were injured in a mass stabbing at a pro-Kurdish demonstration near Opera Square in Antwerp on Thursday evening, with two of the victims reported to be in critical condition, Belgian police said. The attack occurred shortly after 7:20 p.m. as roughly 50 protesters were dispersing, and authorities said the suspects appeared to have blended into the crowd before the violence. Belgian police arrested four people following the incident and are investigating the stabbings as attempted murder, while forensic teams review CCTV footage to determine if additional suspects were involved.
read more 

2. Trump officially launches Board of Peace at signing ceremony in Davos  
Trump officially launched the Board of Peace, assuming the role of Chairman and unveiling its mission to drive global stability and lasting peace, starting with the reconstruction and stabilization of Gaza in the wake of the recent ceasefire. The Board functions through a founding Executive Board that includes U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, World Bank President Ajay Banga, Apollo CEO Marc Rowan, and security advisor Robert Gabriel, who will oversee strategy, resource mobilisation, and implementation.
read more

3. US, Ukraine & Russia delegations head to Abu Dhabi for their first trilateral talks
Delegations from the United States, Ukraine and Russia are heading to Abu Dhabi this week for trilateral talks aimed at advancing peace negotiations. The meetings, scheduled to begin Friday and continue into Saturday, are intended to involve technical and security discussions among representatives from all three countries as part of ongoing efforts to end the war. Witkoff and Kushner travelled to Moscow to meet Russian officials before proceeding to the United Arab Emirates, where security-focused working groups will convene and Ukraine hopes Russia will show readiness to compromise, although core issues such as territorial control remain unresolved.
read more

4. French navy seizes suspected Russian ‘shadow fleet’ oil tanker
The French navy has intercepted and seized an oil tanker in the Mediterranean Sea suspected of being part of Russia’s “shadow fleet,” a network of vessels used to move Russian oil around international sanctions. The vessel, named the Grinch, was boarded in international waters after departing from Murmansk under what French authorities allege was a false flag, and is being escorted for further inspection as a judicial investigation proceeds. France’s operation was conducted with the support of allies including the United Kingdom under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
read more

5. To Lam wins second term to rule Vietnam through 2030
Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party has unanimously re-elected To Lam as its General Secretary for a second five-year term, effectively positioning him as the country’s top leader through 2030. The decision, made by 180 members of the new Central Committee at the conclusion of the party’s National Congress in Hanoi, signals continuity in leadership as Vietnam charts its political and economic course for the next five years. Lam has pledged ambitious economic goals, including targeting annual GDP growth above 10% through 2030, and may also seek the presidency, a move that could further consolidate his authority.
read more

DAILY DEEP DIVE

Australia: A Case Study on Hate Speech And a Worrying Global Trend

Australian hate speech laws have now come into full effect, a little over a month after the Bondi terrorist attack that killed 16 people. Today, we’ll provide context on what both the new gun laws and hate speech laws are focused on. But I also want to express concerns about these measures and the short-sightedness behind how such laws are often implemented.

Australia’s new federal hate group laws, passed on 20 January 2026, significantly expand the government’s powers to designate and criminalise organisations deemed to promote hatred or violence. Introduced following the Bondi attack, the legislation was supported by Labor and the Liberals, while the Greens, Nationals and One Nation opposed it over civil liberties concerns.

The laws do not criminalise general hate speech. Instead, they establish a formal framework for listing “prohibited hate groups.” A group can be listed if it has engaged in, planned, assisted, or advocated conduct defined as a hate crime. Hate crimes are broadly defined and include actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel intimidated, fear harassment or violence, or fear for their safety, based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin.

Crucially, a group can be listed without any member being convicted of a crime. The Home Affairs Minister may recommend a listing based on advice from the ASIO Director-General, with final approval by the Attorney-General and Governor-General. The process does not require procedural fairness, meaning affected groups are not entitled to prior notice, hearings, or an opportunity to respond before designation.

Once listed, serious criminal offences apply. Membership carries penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment, while directing, recruiting for, funding, training, or supporting a prohibited group can carry sentences of up to 15 years. These provisions closely mirror Australia’s existing terrorism organisation laws.

The government argues the laws are aimed at groups such as neo-Nazi organisations and extremist Islamist movements that previously fell below criminal thresholds. Critics, including legal scholars and civil liberties groups, warn the breadth of definitions and absence of judicial safeguards could allow future governments to target protest movements or politically contentious organisations.

In practice, the legislation concentrates substantial discretionary power within the executive, with limited oversight until after enforcement actions occur. How narrowly or expansively these powers are used will depend heavily on future political and security judgments.

Australia’s new gun law bill tightens access rather than overhauling the firearms system. It strengthens background checks, expands police powers to suspend or cancel licences on public safety grounds, and improves information-sharing between agencies. Penalties for illegal possession and trafficking are increased, and storage and transport exemptions narrowed. The government says the reforms close gaps exposed by recent incidents, while critics argue they expand discretionary powers without clear evidence the changes would have prevented the attack.

An Opinion
At its core, the problem with the term “hate speech” is that it functions as a catch-all rather than a precise concept. When the phrase entered mainstream political discourse in North America over a decade ago, it was primarily used against right-wing figures and movements. By 2025, it had been deployed against the left following the Kirk assassination. This shift is not accidental. It reflects the inherent ambiguity of a term that is difficult to define objectively and often depends on perceived harm rather than clearly bounded conduct.

Because “hate speech” lacks a fixed definition, almost any form of expression can be framed as such under the right political conditions. This creates a structural vulnerability: laws designed to protect one group today can be repurposed against another tomorrow. Political power changes hands, but the legal tools remain.

This is why hate speech and surveillance laws are rarely opposed in principle by opposition parties. Despite public rhetoric, these measures are often bipartisan. From a realist perspective, the explanation is straightforward. Governments, regardless of ideology, have a natural incentive to reduce dissent, manage instability, and maintain social control. Legal frameworks that expand state discretion over speech serve that purpose.

Once established, such laws rarely shrink. Instead, they persist as instruments of authority, justified by shifting threats and moral narratives, but ultimately aligned with the enduring interests of the state rather than any single political faction.

Another point worth noting is the speed at which these laws were introduced. The knee-jerk nature of the response is telling: measures with long-term consequences for civil liberties and social norms were drafted, debated, and passed in under a month. For legislation of this magnitude, affecting speech, association, and state power, that pace is extraordinary. It is reasonable to ask whether there was sufficient time for public consultation, legal scrutiny, and sober assessment of unintended consequences, or whether urgency and political pressure simply overrode caution.

A Worrying Global Trend
As the old world order continues to fracture and we slide back toward an era of spheres of influence reminiscent of the 19th century, another trend is re-emerging alongside it. Civil liberties across the West are being steadily reduced. And this is not limited to the West alone — many middle powers and great powers are moving in the same direction. But I specifically want to highlight liberal democracies. They are increasingly recognising how vulnerable mass opinion has become — to external influence, information warfare, and internal fragmentation — and are responding not by strengthening public trust, but by attempting to control narratives through law, regulation, and enforcement.

To me, this signals increasingly turbulent times ahead. Historically, periods of crisis almost always lead to the erosion of civil liberties, justified in the name of national security and stability. As we move deeper into the 21st century, the opinions and political weight of the lower classes appear to be shrinking further. Political elites are increasingly open (through their actions, corruption, and brazenness) about how little these voices matter. In many ways, it feels less like progress and more like a return to the age of the plebs.

Sources
News/Journal sources available upon request, not shown to maintain visual integrity of page.

TWEET OF THE DAY

Wild.

TODAY IN HISTORY

(January 23, 1997): Madeleine Albright sworn in as U.S. secretary of state

On this day in 1997, Madeleine Albright, who had earlier served as U.S. ambassador to the UN, assumed under President Bill Clinton the office of secretary of state, becoming the first woman to hold that cabinet post.