Of course there should be strong laws against racial vilification. But any healthy democracy also must have strong laws protecting freedom of speech. The difficulties would concern precisely where the boundaries of each should be.

The right of free speech is worth nothing if it doesn't include the right to make offensive statements, statements offensive to SOMEBODY.

On the other hand, racial vilification would certainly include any incitement to violence or physical action against a particular group, or to action that leads to violence. That moron who burnt the Koran, for example: why isn't he being charged with accessory to murder ?

And actually, one could easily find repetitions of Andrew Bolt's assertions within the Aboriginal community itself: they might characterise such people as 'coming out of the woodwork', 'Johnny-come-latelies', claiming benefits which are, tacitly, available for Aboriginal people who have really copped it, not just for those who discover as adults that they had an Aboriginal great-grandfather.

On that subject: the first generation of Australian-born whites formed organisations across the nineteenth century - the Sydney Natives' Association, the Australian Natives' Association - as soon as they were mature enough, to position themselves against the British-born toffs and hot-shots who were being given the plum jobs. Similarly, in Latin America, the local-born whites called themselves 'criollos', 'creoles', a term which was taken up by the NEXT class of underdogs, once the original Spanish-born hot-shots were displaced from power.

So many Australian-born whites called themselves 'natives', even on their death certificates, well into the twentieth century. How many people, with a 'native' grandparent or great-grandparent, now think they are Aboriginal ?

It's a complex world .....

Loudmouth,

Racial villification laws shouldn't apply in the case of religious belief,if they did, free speech would be extinguished.

The 'moron' who burnt the Koran is not resonsible for the resulting atrocity, religious fanatics are. Whether Jones is barking mad or not is irrelevant, he has a right to burn the Koran, Bible or any book he chooses.

Rebe,
"What does that rant have to do with anything in the article"

Get some of the statements made about men from a university academic and slighly change the wording.

For example: "Blacks are surplus to requirements".

Obviously such a statement would cause immediate outrage from within the ranks of academia, but take out "blacks" and insert the word "men" and the person making the statement then receives an honorary doctorate.

While certain university academics like to lecture Australians and accuse them of racism, universities are one of the main areas for discrimination and bigotry in the country.

'What's wrong with being offended? Since when did "sticks and stones may break my bones" stop being relevant?' - Steve Hughes.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the debilitating consequences of multiculturalism, or on any other subject involving racial differences, without risking prosecution by government organisations claiming "race hate" speech. The prosecution of Andrew Bolt, who is simply pointing out that many people are of dubious ancestory are claiming to be aboriginal in order to claim aboriginal only benefits, is a case in point.

A motley collection of official "Human Rights" and "Equal Opportunity" organisations will prosecute anybody who dares to make any accusation about the members of any non white minority group. These organisations are hardly bastions of liberal thought. They only agree with the concept of "Freedom of Speech" when it comes to ideas which they agree with.

The laws as they stand in the various states simply say that a person making a statement has only to "offend" a member of a minority group to constitute "race hate speech." Even the most ardent anti racist on OLO can see that such generalised laws can mean damn near anything, and constitute an unacceptable threat to one of our most cherished democratic values.

I am a racist, I disagree with the concept of human equality, and I find it incredible that a democratic society like Australia will persecute me for expressing rational ideas without being hauling me before the Inquisotors and showning me the instruments of torture, in order to make me conform to a false ideology whos irrational premises can never be challenged.

LEGO,

Stating you are racist and then claiming you 'express rational ideas' is as about as contradictory as one can get.