I usually like to be respectful and circumspect in my comments but in this case I can only say the premise behind this article is nothing but crap. The argument for free speech made by the writer equates to that made by the US gun lobby's argument for the right to bear arms. The freedom of individuals must have boundaries if people are to live together in peace, harmony and safety.

The freedom of individuals must have boundaries
Ian D,
My point also, the problem is though when you have a society built on sport rather than culture then personal freedom is perceived as a license to be stupid, greedy, selfish etc.
That's why I am such a big advocate for National Service because I see a NS as the ONLY way to instil a sense of responsibility, respect & belonging. Sport doesn't offer that, it divides by way of competition. Competition has no place in harmony.

Ian D
Who is going to impose those "boundaries"?
How can you have "freedom of individuals" without freedom of speech?
You would equate guns with ideas?

You should all go and read the piece by Kerryn Pholi. There is a lady who has gotten to the nub of the problem. Incidentally, if the number of people claiming aboriginality keeps increasing at the present rate as shown by the census figures, by the turn of the century, all Australians will be eligible to claim.

It seems to me that in the current climate, it is all right for a minority person to insult a white Anglo Saxon, but not the other way around. When I was young we said "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." That doesn't seem to apply to minorities, only to majorities. It should still apply to all.

David

Ian D
Your response, "crap", is, sadly, conclusive evidence for the article's contention that there is no rational debate about 18C.

VK3AUU,
Once indigenous status does no longer equate to so many entitlements then the status claims will automatically reduce dramatically. Same goes for the boat people.