How about the Muslim protestors in that Muslim riot in Sydney who were holding up signs saying "Behead those Who Insult Islam"?

That self evidently crossed the border of free speech as it was a clear "incitement to violence". But why were these people who were holding up these signs, and thereby clearly breaking the law, not arrested, charged and convicted? And where were the so called "Human rights" lobby who prosecute people like Henry Bolt for writing newspaper columns "offending" minorities, when a clearly violent minority was making a self evident violent threat at the majority?

There is a clear double standard here. Minorities can do what they like, even threaten violence towards ordinary Australians, but even respected journalists who questions the merits of racial privileges for minorities get jumped on from a great height.

Lego and Bazz are kicking open doors in what is starting to shape up as a joint Gish Gallop.
Offensive words - should be within the law.
Threatening words - should be illegal if and only if the manner of their delivery is shown to constitute a threat.
Libellous words - generally not criminal but can be actionable in civil law if shown to be damaging and untrue or irrelevant.

Emporor Julianne, (why can't lefties think up simple, non pretentious names) you have made the comment that racism is wrong. I have been sticking it to you in order to challenge you on that premise. So far, all you have done is accuse me of debating dishonestly.

Whenever you get the courage to form a reasoned argument supporting your claim, please let me know and it will be keyboards at twenty paces.

As for debating dishonestly, 15 years on internet debate sites have taught me several dishonest debating tricks used by people with your mindset. The primary one is "Always imply, but when challenged, deny." The best example of that is to always imply that the endemic and self evident dysfunctions of certain ethnicities is always the fault of white people, then deny that you are racist towards white people.

Next is the clear double standard. White people must always maintain the highest levels of probity while dysfunctional ethnicities always get a free pass. White imperialism is bad, but don't mention Muslim imperialism, black African imperialism, Indonesian imperialism, Aztec and Mayan imperialism, Persian imperialism, native American imperialism, or Chinese imperialism.

Finally comes the ploys of refusing to recognise self evident reality or claiming that black is somehow white.

But regardless of what tactic you use, anytime you want to cross swords with me on racism, the gauntlet is thrown.

That was an interesting and informative article. How unfortunate the last line was completely misleading. The Abbott government is not seeking to repeal the Racial Discrimination Act but to remove section 18c (aka the Bolt clause) as it is poorly worded and open to very broad interpretations. What rarely gets mentioned is that the Racial Hatred Act 1995 will be untouched and covers all it needs to.

To Lego (and to anyone who takes on board his defence of racism): I find I need to repeat: "I don't sit on any fence between bad guys and good guys but firmly against bad guys. That is a stand racism cops out of, instead demanding that people close ranks with bad guys who are of the "right" race. As Mr Wertheim does, along with the voices for a "white" Australia. I'm more picky about who I close ranks with."

And this is my political reason (along with a great majority of Australians) for rejecting racism - that racism is an implied demand that one close ranks with bad guys on the ground that they share one's supposed racial (genetic) origins. It's the closing of ranks on ethnic grounds that got Germany and Japan being justly reduced to rubble in the 1940s and the criminal Sieg heiling and Banzai-ing inhabitants taking a couple of generations to live down the disgrace to which their racist choice of sides led them.

I say political because of the connection between political thought and moral choice in the meaning of "ought".

Politics should nevertheless not get in the way of factual truth. As minotour points out, the Abbott government is exploring rewriting of one section (plus a consequent section) of the Crimespeak Act, not repealing the Act.

The truth of the matter is that some races are vile. It matters not if this is genetic, cultural, or circumstantial, the truth remains, some are vile.

How can any be guilty of vilifying that which is vile?