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.

Runner,
Yes but what free speech advocates can't seem to grasp is that the Brandis model would make racial vilification illegal without changing the process or standards of proof of such an offence. That is to say that in the future you are MORE likely to go to straight to jail for voicing unpopular opinions which today might be ignored because they are too difficult or politically sensitive to prosecute.
The attorney general and his allies have been at great pains to point out that the central issue of "Holocaust Denial" would be illegal under their proposed model, currently it is not illegal.
I feel I have to again stress that repeal of 18c means MORE repression of unpopular viewpoints, not less. It means people will be MORE likely to be jailed for simply saying words in public or typing words into cyberspace.

The Right to misjudge and be misjudged, the Right to insult and be insulted, the Right to abuse and be abused, the Right to sneer and be sneered at these Rights are the foundation stone of a true Democracy remove it and theocratic or secular tyranny of a single thought will be its replacement.

‘It was one of Lincoln’s ways of working out his chief value to the country, and that value was his clear sense from the start it was our democratic scheme that was at stake, and that if it was to be saved, every citizen who could aid must help to give all that was in them.

Lincoln seems to have put it something like this to himself:

“Everybody in the country has had a part in bringing this thing about; everybody feels they have a right to say how things shall be handled; everybody that is worth their salt is going to exercise that right, and they are going to do it according to the kind of person they are – according to their temperament, their training, their self-control, their meanness, and their goodness. If we are going to put this thing through and prove that citizens can govern themselves, we must get from them what they can give, and we must let them give it in their own way.”
Source: The Life of Lincoln, Tachell

As the restriction of free speech rises as represented by the inclusion of blasphemy laws which are presented as a means to stop ‘hurt’ and violence what in reality occurs? Hurt and violence the reason being such laws justify violence against Other rather than diminish it.

Claims of reducing restrictions on Free speech leads to violence is to avoid facing the fact cultural foundation codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) constructs of Other and women are the real cause. Allowing such genocide constructs to go unchallenged via restrictions of Free Speech leads to increasing violence and insanely as we see increasing calls for even more restriction on challenges to these cultural constructs the actual cause.

'It means people will be MORE likely to be jailed for simply saying words in public or typing words into cyberspace.'

I agree Jay. I once thought it would be impossible to be jailed in Australia for speaking the truth. The simple fact is that truth has always offended but now the 'progressives ' will smirk all the way when people are jailed for expressing it no matter what their motives. Speak about the health risks of sodomy and one is immediately a homophobe. Christophobes are championed but all other percieved 'phobes ' are 'bigots '

Excellent article by a federal MP. BRAVO

Therese Gambaro's article essentially means that she supports the concept of free speech, provided that it does not criticise what she believes should be a state endorsed ideology. There are plenty of totalitarians who think exactly like she does.

As a white person who's racial group usually gets the blame for the dysfunctions of every minority group, could I warn Therese that racial vilification cuts both ways? Even though you can bet that the sundry, publically funded, "Human Rights" and "Anti Discrimination Boards" are stacked with minorities and white race traitors who can be relied upon to always see white racism in every innocuous event, while being totally myopic to any racism directed at whites, the principle of racial vilification is a two edged sword.

The reason why the so called "liberals" in the pro multiculturalism lobby is backing the political censorship of any criticism of any ethnic, religious, or national group (except whites) is because multiculturalism as a social ideal is in real trouble in those countries which are already cursed with it. Sweden is the shining example here, where extremely serious rioting and the creation of Muslim only "no go zones" is studiously unreported in the Swedish press because of their own stupid racial vilification laws. If a Swede wants to find out how bad things are getting in his own country, he has to read a Danish or Norwegian newspaper to find out.

Even in Therese's own former homeland of Italy, the Italians are getting utterly fed up of their country being invaded by foreigners who are becoming a serious crime problem or who are accessing the ever shrinking social security funds of the Italians. Race, religion and demographics are extremely important to the stability of any country. What links every community together as a community are the shared values that constitute general agreement as to what constitutes acceptable behaviour and therefore national identity.

May I present to you, hot off the Twitter presses the entire "front" of the "Racist Right" in Australia,all twelve of them:
http://t.co/JwXvbRmPUC
Also pictured the crowd which has assembled to oppose them on the other side of the road.

So do the Anti Racists now understand that there is no such thing as a "hate group" in this country and that even if such a group did manage to gather a few members they have absolutely no hope of actually making any impact?
This pathetic bunch of individuals are what all the news articles, the outraged editorials and the Anti Racist activism are reacting to, this is the reason we have over 70 Anti Racist groups nationwide.
It's all a bit sad really.

I'm well tired of this BS! The only basis for any redress under Law should be based on falsehood.

So called racism often has legitimate origins based on behaviours of ethnic groups. It may cause others to be suspicious of all members of the group based on the actions of a minority - albeit a minority which is statistically over-represented. Tough! Mostly any individual gains respect and acceptance through their own behaviour and projection - regardless of background.

But let's also look at the expression of racism in Australian society and how this is reported.

If there is incidence of one minority group clashing with another - chiefly over matters of race or culture - the 'R' word never gets a mention. This particular situation is not at all uncommon but political correctness usually results in either little or no reporting of incidents. Often - in cases where 2 ethnic groups have clashed - where one group is primarily migrant and the other group primarily Australian born, the second group will be described simply as "Australian". A glaring example is the Indian Student assaults several years ago. The attackers belonged to middle-eastern racial/cultural gangs. However due to their status as born in Australia - that was how the crime was reported.

Racism only really becomes NEWS when some Caucasian type acts in a way perceived offensive by a Minority group or individual or commits real crime against them. It then becomes a BIG STORY and target of much commentary of what a mob of racists White Australians are. Should there be evidence of racial hate in crime committed by a minority group or individual against Caucasians, you can be sure this will be downplayed and even suppressed. Some half-wit will undoubtedly start bleating about 'reverse racism' - a ridiculous concept but one that the PC brigade loves to play with.

So roll on reform if it frees us from some of the stupidity we see today - where many fear speaking openly about serious issues for fear of being accused for stating the truth.

Everytime the racists feel they're losing ground in the media they start the nonsense again & again. How can we ever have peace when the racists themselves complain about racis

Indi,
Not "Racists", call them White Supremacists because that's what they are, White Supremacy is a political system which uses tribal politics to fragment a society and maintain the hegemony of what we might call an aristocracy and it's attendant bourgeoisie.
The White Supremacists elevate and favour one or two minority ethnic or tribal groups and usually a mixed race caste and denigrate and disenfranchise the majority population.
Arjay might like to chime in with a word or two on tax farming but that's all the White Australian ethnic group means to the colonial elites, we're merely a resource to be exploited for short term gain. When in 50 years the Asians are the majority the cycle will begin again, maybe the grandchildren of Abbott, Milne, Shorten, Palmer and the oligarchs and dynastic companies will flood Australia with people from South America or Central Asia and run the Chinese majority into the ground, who knows?
If you want a glimpse of the far distant future look back at the Boer War, that's what's in store for our ethnic group.

Jay of Melbourne,
Yep, the lefties definitely are that but pretending constantly not to be so. I find it a little difficult to see a pseudo indigenous to be a white supremacist though or a middle eastern.

Well the mixed race Indigenous/Whites are the equivalent of the "mulatto" caste in Haiti in the 18th-19th century, one step above their Aboriginal ancestors but one step below their White masters, they're part of the Colonial administration but not it's ruling caste.
The Arabs come under the generic "Asian" denomination in my estimation but every minority ethic group has it's part to play as we saw in the submissions to the response to Brandis' proposed changes to 18c.
White Supremacy has modernised itself, it's now taxing the people on the plantation as well as relying on their free labour to make the system work. Ethnic Whites are still expected to do all the heavy lifting, to pay tax as well as to volunteer their time for social projects to benefit the state, the elites and their favoured castes.
The point is that a subject people won't put up with their conditions forever, at some point the situation has to be changed to avoid a revolt, heck it's possible that once we're reduced to a minority ethnic Whites may become one of the favoured groups or castes but we're never going to be the ruling elite. To be among the elite or it's bourgeoisie you have to give up any notion of a historical,biologically based identity and define yourself by ideas and money only.