For the sake of consistency, I'd like to see a few lawyers go through the halls of academia, particularly the Humanities department, and make those who negatively stereotype Western culture (re-whites) accountable under the Racial Discrimination Act. Until those who denigrate Western culture (re-whites) are made accountable, then the Racial Discrimination Act will be little more than a code word for anti-white.

Aristocrat,

Have you got an example for us?

I think runner got close to the problem.

Graham, I think you will have to ban any discussion of race.
Some of the comments in this thread go close to the limit.
There is I think another boobytrap lying here.
Could a similar ruling be made regarding religion ?
After all some religions are closely related to race and when there is
a comment made about a particular religion, an accusation will be made
that it is racial.

So I think you should ban all race and religious discussion.
Waiting for a possible appeal would not protect you I suspect.

Oh yes I forgot, you should also ban discussion on immigration.
Commentators on immigration are often accused of racism.

Graham, I read the interview with Larissa Behrendt and the judge's summary - links to both were posted by you on the forum - but I don't see why you find it hard to square those accounts. To me they matched.
Probably every publisher and producer in the country thinks the sky has fallen in right now, but I think the decision and the Racial Discrimination Act will prove no more onerous than defamation law and no more of an impediment to free speech. (Although it could be argued that defamation law is an impediment to free speech)

Even thorough research will-not always uncover all evidence. Journalists will play it safe by avoiding making the specific claims that Bolt made. Personally, I hate the move away from reporting facts toward editorialising. Few columns on this court case have detailed exactly what Bolt claimed, what evidence the court heard and what they accepted as fact. Many incidents polarise public opinion, because we don't know all of the facts and are left to imagine them.

People who advance any opinion should be expected to clearly detail all of the evidence that supports their argument. Those who disagree should do the same. Furthermore, finding a few errors in this supporting evidence does-not (necessarily) disprove any argument. For example, none of Bolt's errors of fact disprove his central argument that these plaintiffs have little in common with the disadvantaged aborigines that certain handouts were designed to help.