Only when the leftist's rants come under similar scrutiny will they see the danger in this piece of proposed legislation. When "The Drum", "Green Left Weekly", "Crikey", "The Socialist Alliance", and other groups like the feminists, anti-racists, and the gay lobby have their writings and speeches thoroughly scrutinised for "offence" and misleading remarks, they might think twice about whether this legislation is in their interest.

Obviously France is just too far away from Oz for a writer living there to be well enough informed to have a worth while opinion.

Totally disagree with both previous comments. The author has, correctly, examined the judgment made in the court rather than from the second-hand (and arguably mendacious) commentary from the Murdoch Press.

Alan's post is more about repeating his take on Bolt than a critique of Roxon's abomination.

The litigants in Bolt would have had to proceed individually in defamation; the group action could only have been conducted under the RDA and it should have failed because the litigants were of equivalent aboriginality but were distinguished by their ability to achieve with and without compensation.

That is, some got to where they wanted to be on their own while others got compensation. That is the only relevant fact. And it should have defeated the litigants because racism and the fact of racism as understood by Section 18C must cover not all the members of the race but all the members of the group litigating. If some are not affected then those who claim to be affected by racism must instead be disadvantaged by some personal attribute which is not a factor of racial imputation against the group.

As for Roxon, her Bill exempts religion from prosecution when religion is the main source of discrimination [Sections 32 and 33]. This would mean women still cannot become Catholic priests and Islamic women would arguably have no right to not wear the burqa because not doing so would 'offend' other members of the Islamic religion.

In addition why does the Bill exempt members of parliament and arguably bureaucrats from prosecution when the legislature is the other main source of discrimination [Section 15(2)]? This would mean any elected official, even outside the protection of parliamentary privilege, could still offend under the description of the Act.

The Act also propose a reversal of the onus of proof [Section 124]; it is a maxim that it is legally impossible to prove a negative which is what anyone who has been accused of an offence under the Act would be required to do. As well the defendant will have to pay his own costs even if he wins!

Roxon's proposed Bill would oppress free speech even more than the Bolt decision has done.

'...we should not defame others with malicious lies.'

since Bolt wasn't found guilty of defaming anyone and wasn't penalised in anyway, does your comment therefore fit the definition of medacious?

The Bolt case was completely idiotic. It seems to me under the Racial Discrimination Act anyone can alledgely discriminate and cause offence, be found guilty and suffer no penalty so long as you are prepared to apologise. .. later.

Some great deterrent at law or obvious arrant nonsense in some leftie tragedy. ..or comedy?

That Alan is my, a common Aussies reading of the foolishness of That Bolt case.

Oh and Alan, your last article please refer to my comments.
I had a huge laugh this morning. Yesterday your champion Julia called an election and this morning NSW police arrested Thompson and laid 4 charges of fraud with another 145 charges pending. The warrants were issurd by the Victorian Police and the NSW police enquiries are continuing. Today Tony Abott gave a speech at the Press Club and Julia denied she'd announced an election.
Guess what will dominate the headlines until Slipper is charged?