The problem for the Anti Racists is that we still have a functioning court system, if they put someone on trial they have to allow them to present a defence, that's where things can become "uncomfortable".
Andrew Bolt lost because he made claims about certain people which were not true, his case wasn't a victory for "Anti Racism" it resulted from a blunder on the part of HWT and Mr Bolt. What happens when an alleged offender who has said something which is demonstrably true but which has merely offended or insulted another person is put on the stand?
As it stands "racists" already have a free pass because the system is unworkable, the conduct described by 18c is unlawful, but it's not illegal, what Anti Racists negelect to mention is that the Brandis recommendations will create a criminal offence of "Racial vilification" with enforcable penalties.
Much has been made of "Holocaust Denial" in this debate,it's obviously the most important issue at stake but at present it's not illegal, in Europe they have special laws against questioning or minimising the crimes of the Nazis and defendants are not allowed to make any exposition in court or mount a defence, they can merely apologise and throw themselves upon the mercy of the court or stand mute and take the punishment. Anyone who has read my posts here understands that I don't accept the postwar Allied propaganda as true but what if for example I was to publish a summary of the evidence pointing away from a "final solution" hypothesis but in that essay I refrained from identifying any group or person by their ethnicity or religion?

The Toben case is often cited here but Toben is an Anti Semite through and through, I don't know why he's the way he is but at least on the surface he seems to do what he does merely to get attention, the act under 18c can deal with a fool, but it can't deal with a scholar or even someone with the wits to be circumspect in their public utterances about race and religion.

Cont.
The other counter argument to a charge of Holocaust Denial is that historical revision can be made in good faith, surely if it's not true that six million persons were systematically liquidated then that's a good thing right? Such a position should logically be an asset for peace activists because it demonstrates the way propaganda functions in shaping pro war opinion, ie there's always another "Hitler" around the corner who needs to be dealt with by military means. Surely taking that tactical option away from the war hawks would be a win for peace activism?

We can't legislate away either ignorance, nor blatant stupidity.
I recall Martin Luther king and his inspirational, I have a dream oratory!
Simply put, none of us a born racists!
Just put very young children together, in a child care centre and see how they react to the other.
Or witness how children of different race who grow up together as friends, react to playground bully boys etc.
I was one of a half dozen white kids attending a colored school.
I noted on my fist day, that two white matrons went around and inspected all the hands for cleanliness, except for we white kids.
Immediately I twigged what the real problem was, and so on my second day, as the usual routine examination proceeded; I reacted, when one particular dusky gentleman had his hands examined.
When he replied that his hands were clean, I jumped to my indignant feet and responded, no there'y not, look, he's got all that yukky brown stuff all over them!
I knew this, given I'd fallen in some cow poo and needed weeks to wash the stain out of my skin.
The young man in question just turned and looked at me, with a stare that could have frozen the Antarctic.
Eventually, when we had our first recess, he approached me with a wet rag, and ordered me to wash it off!
I responded with a diligent effort to comply! Well he was a very large and powerful lad.
We I discovered that no amount of effort reduced the stain!
I remarked, it doesn't come off!
Yes he replied, and promptly broke my nose!
My dose my bleeding dose, I screamed in horror, running to the teachers, who rang mum, who came and collected me, with a, serves you right "you little bleeder"! And here I paraphrase.
The answer is education, and the public humiliation of those who think its okay to racially abuse other ethnicities, but particularly, while they are still young enough to have the message inculcate into their personal psyches?
Rhrosty.

“While we cannot legislate to stop people's thoughts, we can legislate to stop people's conduct.”

Even when that conduct does nothing to impinge on the rights of anyone else.

We hear it said that people have a right to live in peace and not be subject to behaviours which disrupt that peace but is it the government’s responsibility to ‘protect’ people when they have everything necessary within their own makeup as human beings to nullify any effect of verbal abuse? The adage about ‘sticks and stones’ did not drop out of the sky – it is a product of human beings who know that whatever is said can change nothing to the internal peace in a person who is secure in themselves. If it does affect that peace they ask themselves why and deal with the underlying issues of their own insecurity. To such people verbal abuse becomes irrelevant. It is only those who are insecure that need protection and to suggest by law that all Aboriginal people need such protection is bordering on a racist attitude.

This debate is not about protecting people of other races. It would be nice to think that white Australians care so much about the welfare of Aboriginal people but the evidence in most other spheres of care suggests otherwise. This debate is about the desires of white people hoping against all hope that the government will ride onto the scene White Charger style and protect them from the verbal abuse that they are subject to at school, at work, and in family relationships. They hope that such protective legislation will eventually filter down and save them from the need to grow up. Every article is laced with the personal anecdotes of the ‘pain and suffering’ that the authors have experienced as if they were cries for help and they are. Everyone has the capacity to nullify the effects of verbal abuse and it is this capacity we should be seeking to develop as a society. We need to stop looking to government to do what we can do for ourselves.

Well that's a weird story Rhrosty but I can't disagree with the first observation, that a punch in the nose is the best way to deal with someone who is behaving badly.
We see yet another "train rant" story in our inboxes this week, a self described Aboriginal woman has been accused of obnoxious behaviour toward Asian passengers on a Bondi train and been given the legal equivalent of a punch on the nose, a charge of using offensive language in public.
We already have laws in place to deal with this type of nonsense before it ever gets to the pulpit or the dispatch box so as Teresa Gambaro points out the "hate laws" are all about protecting...well, something else besides the dignity of the person.
Th Police can easily disrupt "racist" groups by using restraining orders and zero tolerance policing, that is piling on charges for every trivial misedemeanour that's detected until the group becomes ineffective and fragmented, much how they deal with other gang related activity.
No, the "Hate Laws" aren't about "Racism", as Mrs Gambaro has said they're clearly about sustaining the post 1945 narrative which underpins the whole Western Liberal or cosmopolitan ethos.
Basically that world view holds that the Whole of Western civilisation is held together by unanimious agreement to inhibit technical discussion of the design and functionality of two large cellars at a WW2 internment camp in Poland.
You may laugh but in reality that's what it boils down to, the ventilation system in those two cellars is the lynchpin of the entire "multicultural" world view, not "Racism", "tolerance" and "diversity" but airflow.

Rhrosty writes or quotes
'Simply put, none of us a born racists'
So true but we are born with adamic natures which is fueled very well by the school yard. Racism is just one of the many manifestations of this nature. The other is to always claim the victim status and be very selective about the racism one picks and chooses from. It is a label quickly given to shut down debate. One of the reasons that the large numbers of indigeneous people are enslaved with the welfare/grog mentality exists so commonly is because anyone wanting to discuss the main causes are labelled 'racist'. Debate has been well and truely shut down. One of the reason we have Islamic no go zones for police in many western nations is because the racist card shuts down any truthful conversation. Yes racism stinks but a few cutting words has done far less damage to society than the silencing by the progressives of truth. In the end their failure to tolerate any story outside of their little minds (all white males are racist) produce resentment and more damage.