So said Resources Minister Guy Barnett when Franklin Labor MHA Lara Giddings condemned the government’s proposed changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act in Parliament on Wednesday.

“Are you serious?” Opposition Leader Rebecca White said, before Speaker of the House Elise Archer booted Mr Barnett from the chamber for interjecting (there was an amusing irony in his being silenced after advocating for free speech).

A brief exchange, but one that exemplified the bitter division over the government’s Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill.

Back in 1998, then Labor Premier Jim Bacon enacted the Anti-Discrimination Act, offering protections for minority groups in Tasmania.

The act has a provision which prohibits people from offending, humiliating, intimidating, insulting or ridiculing another person on the basis of attributes including race, age, sexuality, gender and religion.

But these provisions don’t apply if it’s a public act done “in good faith” for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes, or any purpose in the public interest.

Now here we are 19 years later with the state government wanting to provide for another exemption.

If the Liberals’ amendments had been approved by the upper house, statements that might otherwise be deemed offensive to a particular minority group would have been permissible if made for religious purposes.

On Thursday, though, the Legislative Council roundly rejected the bill.

It’s been said that the government devised the legislation in anticipation of the national same-sex marriage plebiscite, so as to allow for a greater number of perspectives on the issue to be voiced.

That was before any mention of postal surveys.

Indeed, it was difficult to escape the impression that, the more remote the idea of the plebiscite became, the more Premier Will Hodgman wanted the legislation to quietly disappear. 

And yet with the postal plebiscite now suddenly a reality, there was almost a degree of urgency around the bill this week.

The Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill was linked inextricably to the idea of a plebiscite.

And now that that plebiscite is a reality, the legislation was, in the eyes of certain lawmakers, a necessity.

Without it, the government argued, freedom of speech was restricted.

We shouldn’t forget, though, the terrible mental toll prejudice takes on LGBTI Australians.

The high suicide rates that dog the LGBTI community surely don’t come from nowhere.

Frankly, it would have been irresponsible if the government had made it easier for the church to denigrate gay and transgender Tasmanians.

“What about the Christians?”

Well, the Christians have enjoyed mainstream acceptance for a bloody long time now – the same can’t be said for LGBTI people.

In a post-Charlottesville world, shouldn’t we be asking, “What about everyone else?”

The Christians have had it pretty good for the past few centuries.

Why can’t others enjoy the same acceptance?

Let’s not make it easier for people to insult each other in Tasmania.

Rather, let’s make it easier for everyone to feel as though they’re a protagonist in the Tasmanian story.