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.