I would think this article very ironic coming from a university academic, when universities have become one of the main centers for discrimination, bigotry and prejudice in the country, perhaps highlighted a few years ago when an academic described a large number of people as being “surplus to requirements”, and then that academic was given an honorary doctorate by a university in this country.

There was also the academic from a so-called Australian university who described all men as being potential rapists, and that academic has been given more awards from universities than even she could count.

In fact, anything at all can be said by any academic in this country and it will be completely accepted by their university, as long as it is negative of the male gender.

And there has been been a small competition arranged on OLO a number of times for anyone to find an academic from a so-called Australian university who has said something positive about the male gender (who constitute 50% of the population and most of the taxpayer base).

I don't think anyone has succeeded, and everything found was negative or discriminatory of the male gender.

What does that rant have to do with anything in the article, vanna?

Dilan, thank you. Speech is an act with consequences like any other act, something all too often denied by the "I defend unto the death" monkeys; it's nice to see it considered as one.

There's a more useful (I think) definition of racism that doesn't buy into the simple equation of racism and prejudice (with ethnic background as a motivator) but defines it, rather, as prejudice PLUS power. If those in charge of matters relating to Aborigines are all white, then white people possess power to which the addition of prejudice is going to be dangerous in a way that, say, an Aboriginal kid dissing average white Joe on the street is never going to compare.

If Aboriginal representation in powerful institutions (government, schools, media) is low, surely it's important that those who work in them be vigilant about keeping prejudice out.

People fearing being labelled racist have failed to speak the truth on many matters. Some States put public at risk when criminals are not identified by Police and media simply for pc reasons. It appears when it comes to aboriginal affairs only the leftist black arm band of history has any credence. Those holding to the warmist faith are also trying to stop free speach. I am surprised that these fools have not tried to legislate. Andrew Bolt speaks more truth in one day that the National Broadcasters do in a decade. Good to see the people of NSW have put Hanson above the extremist family hating Greens.

Rebe, I see your not averse to a little vilification yourself with you remark about the "I Defend unto the death" Monkeys.
The difficulty is the misuse of vilification laws to silence people you don't agree with.
I do not think that these laws are necessary at all. When I grew in the 70's it was perfectly socially acceptable to be racist, homophobic etc. This changed due to social attitudes changing, not due to law enforcement. People expressing racist views will be shouted down by the majority of Australians regardless of any racial vilification laws.
Other than that there is no need to protect people from being offended. Why should my neighbour be able to legally abuse me over the fence by calling me a 'fat bastard' but if I refer to him as a 'black bastard' I should be prosecuted? Both are equally offensive if your on the receiving end. But neither should be illegal.

Runner, sad news for you mate;your hero Hanson did not make it!

Dilan Thampapillai has made a good case for racial villification laws--if they are applied equally to all ethnic groups. Decisions such as in Mcleod v Power certainly don't help to legitimise these laws within the 'Western European' community. Don't the PC ideologues understand the double standard at work?