A guide to the Dehumanisation Framework

A shared platform of dignity but no ceiling on human rights advocacy

The substantive principles of dehumanisation

Dehumanisation is the process of stripping a group of its human qualities, paving the way for violence against that group.

This is the easiest explanation of those principles. Dehumanisation includes portraying a group based on their protected attribute as:​

1. animals, insects, filth, disease, or bacteria, inanimate or mechanical objects, supernatural beings such as aliens or demons; ​

2. polluting, despoiling or debilitating society or an ingroup; ​

3. lacking the capacity for human emotion, independent thought, or reason; ​

4. a uniform threat to society, whether overt or concealed; ​

5. collectively responsible for the real or alleged crimes of individuals in their group; ​

6. inherently criminal, dangerous, violent, or evil; ​

7. incapable of love or care for their own children; ​

8. predators upon children, the elderly, or vulnerable people; ​

9. unworthy of empathy in relation to past suffering, or deserving that such suffering be trivialised, mocked, or celebrated; ​

10. primitive, inferior, or incapable of achievement equal to others; ​

11. reducible to racial categories, including notions of purity or hierarchy; or ​

12. unfit to belong in public life and therefore to be excluded, expelled or erased from neighbourhoods or our nation.​

Who it protects (everyone)​

No group should be dehumanised on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender identity, sex, sex characteristics, or sexuality (or other protected attribute as set out in Australian hate speech law). ​

Who can use it

• Community

• Public Institutions

• Decision makers in administrative complaint processes

• Scholars

• Political leaders

Governing Principles​

1. Dehumanisation includes portraying a human group in certain ways based on their protected characteristic. Refer to the 12 substantive principles above.

2. ​Decision-makers should consider the speech’s context.

3. Speech against governments, militaries, states or political ideologies (and their adherents) is protected under this framework to maximise political communication, human rights advocacy and academic freedom.​

4. In a complaint context,

   1. where a complaint does not cross the line under the dehumanisation framework, it may be better considered by a judge under Australia’s vilification laws to allow for proper consideration of evidence, witnesses and public interest exceptions.​

   2. An assessment of a complaint should be principles-based, with reasoning for the outcome.

   3. Responses to a contravention should be proportionate— prioritising education, warning, and dialogue where appropriate.

A recent and detailed explanation of the benefits, use and development of the dehumanisation framework is available in the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN)’s submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The chapter on this framework is here.