This article is valuable in demonstrating the methods of those opposing the repeal of the outrageous Section 18C. The fact that it enabled the Bolt case to succeed is more than enough reason for its immediate removal.
If there was any doubt about the mentality of the opposition to its repeal, the puerile comment of IanD dispelled that.

Ian D, we once had a government policy with bipartisan support, with "boundaries" designed with "peace, harmony and safety" in mind.

It was commonly called "White Australia".

And people like you threw it away to engage in a reckless experiment.

Well, if you upset the apple cart, don't be surprised if you see a few bad apples rolling down the street.

Individual, are you referring to the NT intervention?
It was actually started by Howard.

It's official name should give you an idea why: The Northern Territory National *Emergency Response*.

There were serious law and order/public health issues involved.

Are you suggesting governments should make no effort to address problems, where the community has an "ethnic/cultural" element?

That community had been left to its own devices for years and the result was disastrous.

are you referring to the NT intervention?
Shocakdelic,
No, I'm on about the hundreds & by now probably thousands of Labor voting bureau rats who replaced the thousands of long-term working residents of remote communities in Qld by the Goss Labor Government & now the forced amalgamation by Beattie & Bligh. They brought in the get-as-much-as-you-can useless administrators & contractors. They literally advertised that the indigenous communities were huge money troughs & public service snouts were needed.
Look at the communities now in comparison before the Morons got into Government. No-one does anything except vote Labor at every election.

Individual,
If anyone should be boycotting elections it's Aboriginals and anyone who's sympathetic toward the poor as a whole should be non compliant as well.
Oh yeah,this is where "Anti Racist" hate speech leads:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/restaurant-owners-furious-over-claims-of-discrimination-against-a-customer/story-fni0fit3-1226975497578
"Owners of a Melbourne restaurant are fuming at being branded racist over the treatment of a customer and are considering legal action for defamation.

Their legal plans come as the African-Australian woman at the centre of the claims, which were published in The Age, has openly admitted that she hates white people.

The comments made by Tabotu Teklemariam, 21, on social media emerged after she claims she was turned away from Melbourne’s Il Pom restaurant for racial reasons.

“I’m going to bring you whites so down you wouldn’t know what’s coming,” Ms Teklemariam told social media followers on June 22.

“I don’t care if you think I’m being a racist cause (sic) I’ll openly admit it, I hate whites with a passion.”

The “Ban the Burqa before it Kills” sign
displayed prominently on the side of a building in Melbourne
is a case to ponder.

This statement is based on factual observation of the many conflicts
involving Muslim Based religions around the world.

So if this was banned as racial vilification, then the factual, observable
truth part contained in the sign is banned also.

An example of where the racial vilification laws can also stiflle truthful
observation. Is a law banning truth and stifling discussion on that truth
a ban on freedom of opinion? I believe so.

Jay of Melbourne,
That african sheilah's outburst should be made a show case.
How about a white sheila pulls the same stunt in an african restaurant ? Could that be arranged in Melbourne ?
The indignation brigade could make it a public holiday.