Thanks, Jay.

There still seems no evidence that the Act in its present form or in the proposed revised draft is deficient. Or that it poses any threat to genuine expression of opinion.

Yes, Andrew Bolt and Brendan O’Connell were found to have breached the Act. So was Dr Toben in 2002. But all these men clearly set out to hurt and humiliate racial minorities who they had histories of trying to attack and persecute. None was engaged in fair comment in the public interest.

These would all appear to be instances of the Act working pretty well in the interests of social harmony and a fairer, safer community. No?

Are you aware of any instances of the Act interfering in any way with legitimate expression of opinion and ideas, Jay?

Thanks. Cheers, AA

Well now we can all see how well this bit of control freak garbage has gone down.

The minister has been told to take a hike. This is a very good thing for the real people of OZ.

Never thought I would be able to find anything to praise Gillard for, but at long last she has got something right. Pity they had to invent yet another stuff up to be able to find something to fix.

Alan,
I can't make it any clearer than I have, I oppose anti discrimination laws because despite being written in neutral language in practice they permit discrimination against my own ethnic group and enable Anti White vigilantes and trouble makers by providing a last resort or a backstop if their extra judicial means fail. There is no corresponding legal framework to protect the promotion of ethnocentrism among people of my ethnic group in the way that Anti discrimination laws protect the ethnocentric practices and political activism of other ethnic groups.
Bolt is a poor example, it's not typical of Anti Discrimination laws in practice, the way Stephanie Rice or Jason Akermanis were vilified and harassed for their "Speech crimes" is more typical of the type of vendettas and oppression that occur in the name of "Human Rights".
These laws provide carte blanche for unaccountable Anti Racist vigilantes, who act as irregular enforcement agents of state policy in these matters.
I think you understand as well as I do that Anti Racist vigilantes have the tacit, often explicit support of the state, academia and media, so you could refrain from patronising me if you please.

Hasbeen,
Mark Dreyfus is as passionate a supporter of these proposed amendments as was predecessor.

'Hasbeen,
Mark Dreyfus is as passionate a supporter of these proposed amendments as was predecessor. '

hopefully not as pigheaded. Otherwise Tim might find himself in prison.

Goodness me, it is absolutely clear that white people are not protected.
The Prime Minister performed a blatant act of racism and she is still
in the job.
She even said it was done for racial reasons !

From memory one of Bolt's "mistakes" was to indicate the wrong ancestor
of one of the litigants to be aboriginal.
I thought the whole argument was about someone who was 25% aboriginal
being able to claim 100% aboriginal benefits.
It was about I think people who did not need to claim the benefits
claiming them even though their aboriginality was undetectable.
The whole case seemed petulant to me.
Reminds me of schoolgirls sniping at each other.

No, Bazz. It was not about that at all.

Please read the actual judgment:

http://abalinx.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Eatock-v-Bolt-Judgement.pdf

Cheers, AA