Across Australia, workplaces, universities, and organisations like media watchdogs are increasingly handling complaints about racism and hate speech, not just to call out harm, but to educate and create safer, more respectful spaces.

How these complaints are managed can shape institutional culture, values, and public trust. Racism and dehumanisation aren’t just social issues—they affect mental and physical health, so institutions are under pressure to act proactively.

These complaint processes, led by non-judicial staff, happen outside the courtroom, yet can carry serious consequences. The challenge is ensuring fairness and protecting people from harm without infringing on free speech or worsening the issue.

Civil complaint systems need a consistent standard for defining hate speech. Different definitions for different communities risk injustice and other rights violations.

Since the 2019 Christchurch attack, AMAN has been working on a clear and fair way to spot hate speech—by focusing on “dehumanisation.” That’s when people are treated or talked about like they’re less than human.

The aim is to create a simple guide for education and resolving complaints that helps people think critically, using logic and treating others the way they’d want to be treated.

AMAN’s definition of dehumanising material protects humans on the basis of protected attributes. It does not protect states, militaries, governments or political ideologies. This means it sits solidly within Australian legal standards and human rights.

📄 Get the Full Factsheet
The AMAN factsheet gives you practical steps, legal context, and expert guidance in clear language. It is designed to protect and empower professionals who are being unfairly targeted for standing up for human rights.

Download or read it here:
AMAN Factsheet: Human Rights Advocacy is Lawful

Here’s our current definition of what counts as dehumanising material.

(1) Dehumanising material is the material produced or published, which an ordinary person would conclude, portrays the class of persons identified on the basis of a protected characteristic (“class of persons”) as not deserving to be treated equally to other humans because they lack qualities intrinsic to humans. Dehumanising material includes portraying the class of persons:

(a) to be, or have the appearance, qualities, or behaviour of

(i) an animal, insect, filth, form of disease or bacteria;

(ii) inanimate or mechanical objects; or

(iii) a supernatural alien or demon.

(b) are polluting, despoiling, or debilitating an ingroup or society as a whole;

(c) have a diminished capacity for human warmth and feeling or to make up their own mind, reason or form their own individual thoughts;

(d) homogeneously pose a powerful threat or menace to an in-group or society, posing overtly or deceptively;

(e) are to be held responsible for and deserving of collective punishment for the specific crimes, or alleged crimes of some of their “members”;

(f) are inherently criminal, dangerous, violent or evil by nature;

(g) do not love or care for their children;

(h) prey upon children, the aged, and the vulnerable;

(i) was subject as a group to past tragedy or persecution that should now be trivialised, ridiculed, glorified or celebrated;

(j) are inherently primitive, coarse, savage, intellectually inferior or incapable of achievement on a par with other humans;

(k) must be categorised and denigrated according to skin colour or concepts of racial purity or blood quantum; or

(l) must be excised or exiled from public space, neighbourhood or nation.

(2) Without limiting how the material in section (1) is presented, forms of presentation may include,

(a) speech or words;

(b) the curation or packaging of information;

(c) images; and

(d) insignia.

Intention component
If the above definition was used as a standalone civil penalty, it should be complemented by an intention component:
in circumstances where a reasonable person would conclude that the material was intended to portray the class of persons as undeserving of equal treatment compared to other humans.

Adding an intention element will make enforcement more difficult. It may not be necessary, especially if the definition is part of a legal framework where intention components or public interest exceptions are already available.

Contextual factors

The Rabat Plan of Action outlines a six-part threshold test taking into account (1) the social and political context, (2) status of the speaker, (3) intent to incite the audience against a target group, (4) content and form of the speech, (5) extent of its dissemination and (6) likelihood of harm, including imminence.

AMAN cautions against the latter point about imminence being used by administrative decision makers to exclude action on dehumanising material, as dehumanising material is a harm and psychological violence.

Updated 27 April 2025
The last change included the Rabat Plan of Action context factors and amended the intention component.

Are we suggesting replacing terms like Islamophobia (or other specific forms of racism) with the concept of dehumanising material?

Not at all. Research and discussion around Islamophobia remain essential to understanding how racism and dehumanisation are directed at Muslim communities. Communities must always retain the right to name and describe their experiences of prejudice—and to define, analyse, and critique how that prejudice operates.

However, there’s a key distinction between the language used in community advocacy, education, and research, and the standards applied by powerful institutions when managing complaints and disputes.

When it comes to formal complaint schemes, we advocate for a single, consistent standard rather than multiple definitions tailored to different groups, which can create confusion and lead to unequal outcomes. Researchers and communities should absolutely be invited to provide context within these processes, but the core standard must remain unified to ensure fairness and integrity.

Are we suggesting that having one standard of dehumanising material will eliminate double standards?

No. Institutional bias and racism continue. But it will reduce the scope for double standards.

Don’t we want to avoid criminalising people?

Yes we agree! AMAN does not advocate for incorporating this definition into criminal law or for expanding criminal laws regarding hate.

AMAN advocates for a singular definition to be used in civil complaint schemes currently administered by various bodies.

In relation to dehumanising material in the media or online media, AMAN advocates that media watchdogs should apply civil penalties where an actor engages in serial or systematic publication of dehumanising material, focusing on those deriving a business, power or profit from it.

AMAN developed this working definition after spearheading a study of five information operations online (Abdalla, Ally and Jabri-Markwell, 2021). The first iteration of this definition was published in a joint paper with UQ researchers (Risius et al, 2021). It continues to develop with input from researchers, lawyers and civil society.

Possible dehumanising conceptions are surfaced through research and then tested against Haslam‘s frame of whether it deprives a group of qualities that are intrinsic to humans.

If a subject is dehumanised as a mechanistic form, they are portrayed as ‘lacking in emotionality, warmth, cognitive openness, individual agency, and, because [human nature] is essentialized, depth.‘ A subject that is dehumanised as animalistic, is portrayed as ‘coarse, uncultured, lacking in self-control, and unintelligent‘ and ‘immoral or amoral’ (258).
Some conceptions are found to fall outside the frame of dehumanisation but could still qualify as vilification or discrimination, for example, using anti-discrimination laws.

The three categories of dehumanising comparisons or metaphors in Clause (a) are drawn from Maynard and Benesch (80), and fleshed out with further examples from tech company policies (refer to Meta for example).

• Clause (b) is derived from Maynard and Benesch (80).
• Clause (c) is derived from Haslam (258).
• Clauses (d) and (e) are elements of dangerous speech that Maynard and Benesch refer to as ‘threat construction’ and ‘guilt attribution’ respectively (81).

However, Abdalla, Ally and Jabri-Markwell’s work shows how such conceptions are also dehumanising, as they assume a group operates with a single mindset, lacking independent thought or human depth (using Haslam’s framing), and combine with ideas that Muslims are inherently violent, barbaric, savage, or plan to infiltrate, flood, reproduce and replace (like disease, vermin)(15). The same study found that the melding and flattening of Muslim identities behind a threat narrative through headlines over time was a dehumanisation technique (17). Demographic invasion theory-based memes (9) or headlines that provided ‘proof’ for such theory (20) elicited explicit dehumanising speech from audiences.

Maynard and Benesch write, ‘Like guilt attribution and threat construction, dehumanization moves out-group members into a social category in which conventional moral restraints on how people can be treated do not seem to apply’ (80).

Clauses (f), (h), (i) are drawn from the ‘‘Hallmarks of Hate”, which were endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467. These Hallmarks of Hate were developed after reviewing a series of successful judgments involving incitement of hatred to a range of protected groups. These clauses were tested using Haslam’s definitional frame for the denial of intrinsic human qualities.

Clauses (f) (‘criminal’) and (g) are drawn from harmful characterisations cited in the Uluru Statement of the Heart.

Clauses (j) and (k) are drawn from AMAN’s observations of online information operations generating disgust toward First Nations Peoples. Disgust is a common effect of dehumanising discourse. These clauses were tested using Haslam’s definitional frame for the denial of intrinsic human qualities.

Clause (l) was drawn from Nicole Asquith’s Verbal and Textual Hostility Framework. (Asquith, N. L. (2013). The role of verbal-textual hostility in hate crime regulation (2003, 2007). Violent Crime Directorate, London Metropolitan Police Service.) The data and process used to formulate this Framework are exceptional. Reassuringly, this research had surfaced examples already captured by this Working Definition of Dehumanising Material.
This working definition is a work in progress. AMAN welcomes feedback as it continues to be developed.

Timeline of development and engagement

2020

• Early 2020: AMAN begins engaging Facebook & Twitter, collecting data and researching anti-Muslim dehumanising discourse for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
• Oct 2020: Consultations with QUT researchers (Suzor, Fernandez, Bartolo).
• Dec 2020: Letter to e-Safety Commissioner recommending improved guidelines beyond vilification complaints.

2021

• Feb 2021: Early draft of the definition shared with Nicolas Suzor for feedback.
• Mar 2021: Engagement with GIFCT and international researchers (Manuvie, Ihler).
• Apr 2021:
• April 2021: AHRC accepts complaint by Rita Jabri Markwell, lawyer for AMAN against Meta
• Joint project with the University of Queensland, including dehumanisation as an identifier, begins.
• Presentation to Conscious Ads Network (UK).
• Mid-2021: Definition tested and used to identify hate artefacts from Fraser Anning; 141 artefacts ordered removed by QLD tribunal.
• Late 2021:
• Prof Abdalla, Dr Ally and AMAN lawyer Rita Jabri Markwell published Dehumanisation of ‘Outgroups’ on Facebook and Twitter: towards a framework for assessing online hate organisations and actors. But by the time this is published, AMAN is starting to doubt whether social media companies need help identifying hate actors, as it appears they already have the technological capacity, just not the will. This is confirmed by language analysis firms engaged by social media companies. AMAN notes that what is missing is a definition that regulators in Australia can refer to in judging social media and media companies without infringing on lawful speech.
• The humanism project starts using a definition in advocacy.
• Sky News complaint filed using definition; ACMA says framework doesn’t apply as impugned material was online.
• Outreach to researchers/community for community testing of the definition.
• Begin educating parliamentarians on the definition; appears in inquiries (ongoing into 2024).

2022

• Feb 2022: Shares definition through the Christchurch Call Advisory Network (CCAN). CCAN requests all member companies and governments to provide information on their response to dehumanising speech and discourse. Produces a summary paper: Christchurch Call Advisory Network (international civil society group part of Christchurch Call) paper on treating dehumanisation as an effective, precise and human rights-compliant intervention point rather than states expanding criminal laws. ISIL, racist nationalists and others rely on dehumanisation.
• Mar 2022: Definition shared with Sydney Policy Lab.
• Jun 2022: Invited to AVERT community roundtable.
• June 2022: AMAN lodges a vilification complaint against Twitter under Queensland vilification law, using the AMAN definition to identify material. The complaint progresses through the Queensland Human Rights Commission (as of April 2025, it is still before QCAT).
• Aug–Oct 2022: Engagement with Reset, Stop Funding Hate (UK), Home Affairs, the AG’s office, and the AHRC.
• Nov 2022: Presents definition at AVERT conference.

2023

• Jan–Mar 2023: Further engagement with Australian and international academics (Dunn, Hassan), a Canadian hate speech attorney; shared with e-Safety Commissioner.
• Apr 2023: Update to definition based on Voice to Parliament discourse and international case law.
• 17 Apr 2023: Call for public and expert input on definition sent out to AMAN stakeholders.
• May 2023:
  • Roundtable with Swansea University (UK) researchers to critique the definition.
  • Consultation with Professor Nicole Asquith, University of Tasmania, to compare the definition to her typology and Themes of Verbal-Textual Hostility from her empirical study of hate speech during UK hate crimes.
• Jul 2023: Definition refined with feedback; presented at ADMS Symposium at Sydney University.
  • Purpose’s Report on Online Hatred, referencing AMAN’s definition of dehumanizing material

2024

• AMAN introduces the definition to the Australian Islamic Medical Association leadership conference.
• June 2024: AMAN Foundation makes submission on Online Safety Act proposing definition with support from Professor Nicole L Asquith, University of Tasmania and Convenor of the Australian Hate Crime Network, The Human Rights Law Centre, the Jewish Council of Australia and the Alliance Against Islamophobia Ltd.
• December 2024: Presentation to the Democracy conference (FWD+Organise 2024) about the benefits and perils of regulation. AMAN presents on Dehumanising material in a panel with the Human Rights Law Centre.

2025

• Twelve organisations make a joint statement calling for universities to adopt a singular standard for hate to use in complaint schemes, referring to AMAN’s definition.
• AMAN introduces the definition at the national Australian Islamic Medical Association Conference in more detail, including examples of dehumanisation directed at Palestinians, Muslims, Jews and Israeli people (as opposed to speech directed at governments, militaries or political ideologies).