Interesting history, but how relevant is this to current discussion? There is clearly a case for laws against racial vilification and /or hatred especially, if it can be shown that there is associated incitement to violence. I am not a lawyer, but does not English common law provide a remedy in this respect.

I understand from previous postings on this site that the Weimer Republic had such laws. Where is the evidence that laws and the courts are able to suppress a malevolent mind such as Adolph Hitler, who was backed up by an army of thugs (brown shirts). The German legal system could not prevent an atrocious event such as Kristallnacht.

I recall a press report that one of the complainants in the Bolt case said words to the effect that the court action was designed to shut Andrew up. In that respect the case was a great success. Of course the findings can only apply to Mr Bolt. Incidentally the complaints were themselves no shrinking violets and capable of insulting opponents; remember the “sex with a horse” story.

Ok let there be protection in law against vilification, but the judicial decision threshold must be more stringent then is now the case. It is not good enough to rely on the prejudices of left wing lawyers and activist judges. The criteria must be those of the general community, the “reasonable man’ and always decided by a jury.

Thank you. Paul Wertheim, for confirming my suspicion that the Jews were behind multiculturalism and making racial vilification illegal. As the Bolt incident clearly demonstrated, Making racial vilification illegal can mean almost anything, and it is a wonderful way to deny freedom of speech and to stifle any criticism of multiculturalism. This of course initially benefitted the Jews ( you shot yourself in the foot when it also created Muslim immigration into Australia) and did not benefit the Australian people at all.

When Jews use their influence to enact laws in the countries which host them to benefit themselves and to deliberately dilute the host populations of the countries they inhabit, they can hardly complain when the host people begin to dislike them.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. There are always solid motivations for bad laws if one simply ignores the negative consequences.

Racial vilification is certainly undesirable, but limitations on free speech is more so.

Shadow Minister let's not be hasty in assuming there's evidence of good intentions behind the Australian HR laws.
Freedom of speech is important for people who want to use a set of supernatural beliefs in approaching race relations, that is to say if you want to use fiction or allegory as the main teaching aids of your credo you need to be able to make up stories and exaggerate without restraint.
Peter Wertheim uses several of these devices in his article, the holocaust, White xenophobia, the pre 1950's "monoculture" etc, if he was required by law or social convention to only use demonstrable examples to make his point he'd be at a loss without the backing of the anti vilification laws.
The people who style themselves "Race Realists" don't have freedom of speech guaranteed by law so they have to be scrupulous in footnoting everything they say and write as well as provide tedious, hair splittingly detailed data. That's why nobody reads their articles or internet posts, they're too "hard" and contain too many links and big words, we see it on OLO all the time, "Give me examples of racial differences in brain morphology?" "OK here's 20 links supporting my point", "Wall of text! I'm not reading all that!".
Truthfulness, historical accuracy and logic are therefore foiled by racial vilification laws because a selected repertoire of myth, allegory and outright falsehoods are protected as free speech.
You'll notice that when Andrew Bolt made unverifiable claims about some Aboriginals he was set upon by the Jewish human rights establishment? So his claims were untrue yet Mr Wertheim is making broadly similar assertions about White skin privilege and it's alleged misuses but will suffer no consequences beyond a few snarky posts in the comments section. Even if you or someone else did try to press the matter and make a complaint do you think that the proprietors of the HR regime would allow one of their senior Jewish advisors to be tried and be forced to back his allegations of historical White "Racism" in court? It is to laugh.

Might I make a further remark about the tone of Mr Wertheim's article?
The Immigration Restriction act was a completely non violent means of regulating the ethnic mix of Australian society. Restricting entry to certain people on the basis of race does no harm to anyone, contrast that with the formation of the state of Israel, which was achieved via a war, massacres, mass detention of civilians and defiance of most every international standard of conduct including the Geneva conventions on armed conflict.
Who was right and who was wrong in this episode? Is it just possible that these awful "racist" commentators of the late 1940's were intelligent, well informed people who could see a little bit into the future and predict what would happen in Palestine in the succeeding years?

I've just run across something that fleshes out what Jay of Melbourne was describing in his post at 11:49:51 AM today. We've all seen it (the name David Singer comes to mind). Google "Gish gallop" or just click http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop