Unclear what this academic wants.

Whether he is arguing a double negative?

Whether he knows what double or triple negative the Government really wanted?

Would he, an academic, vote Coalition anyway in a month of Sundays?

And Oh Canada how do you fit in?

Yes Pete, and there's nothing quite like the courage of political conviction is there! And just holding fast to your beliefs, is not always politically popular is it?
Rather than rubber man back-flipping so good, that would win a gold medal in gymnastics, at the Olympics!
Rhrosty.

Why am I not shocked?

The Tweedles' words and actions almost never match.

Howard borrowed Hanson's anti-immigration rhetoric while allowing the highest numbers ever.

As if these people can be believed?

The problem with 18C isn't that it stops people from telling malicious lies about individuals or groups, or that it stops people from being harassed or threatened because of their race, nationality, etc. Tim Wilson, the Human Rights Commissioner said on ABC Radio National recently that there are already other laws that prohibit harassing people or threatening them.

The problem is that 18D, which gives the defences to 18C, does not include truth as a defence and is so vaguely worded that activist judges can interpret it as they like. This has to have a chilling effect on perfectly reasonable free speech. Even if the law has never been abused to date, there is no guarantee that it could not be abused in the future to shut up people that the powers that be don't like.

The Bolt case is a good example of the sorts of problems that can arise. Andrew Bolt laid himself wide open to a defamation action by not bothering to get his facts straight about named individuals. At the same time, it isn't credible that he was motivated by a hatred of light-skinned Aboriginal people in general. He was responding to abuses that have been the subject of widespread complaint in the Aboriginal community. People who have some Aboriginal ancestry, but not enough to make them visibly different from the majority population, have been claiming benefits intended to help very disadvantaged people. Australia isn't Nazi Germany or the American Old South. No one cares if you have an Aboriginal grandmother, so such people are not at threat of discrimination even if their Aboriginal heritage becomes known. Defamation, yes, but racism, no.

Divergence, not totally devoid of racism, but primarily defamation.

This is what multiculturalism has brought us. The principle that a free people have the right to speak freely on any social issue is now denied. The degree of free speech in Australia is now the thickness of the skin of some spokesperson for some aggrieved minority group.

The people of Australia expected immigrant groups to assimilate into our country and accept our most cherished core values. That has now been reversed. Immigrant groups who claim that they want to come to Australia for its freedoms are now demanding that Australia become what they fled from. Australians must assimilate to comply with dysfunctional foreign cultures, not the other way around.

On the other hand, this could be fun.

Since most of the "hate speech" in Australia is done by the members of the very migrant groups demanding that free speech be curtailed, they may get hoist on their own petards yet. An example would be Sheik Al Hilaly's rant that Jews were "pigs"and Americans were "dogs." Even the so called "stolen generations" accusation could be construed as "hate speech" created to cause ""hurt, offense, insult, and intimidate" white Australians.

Another benefit, is that there are many border line trendy lefties who are beginning to question the lies and distortions that they have always accepted from the left, and who still passionately believe in the fundamental principles of western civilisation. The destruction of the absolute right to comment upon any social issue will be what pushes them over the edge where they will begin to start thinking straight. I doubt if Plantagenet is that advanced yet.

We have not heard the last of this. This is western civilisation versus multiculturalism. it may take Australia to go through the painful experiences of Canada where the loonies became more powerful than the people's parliament, to get Australians angry enough to hurl every 18C supporting politician right out of office.

So many pre-election commitments have been discarded, what is wrong with another one.

18 C has been law for a couple of decades and the world did not collapse.

Those without power need protection, to a certain extent, from those with power. Bolt is very powerful, considering his column is “the most read column in Australia”. The people he had a go at warranted the protection of 18C.

The US certainly has hate laws. It is called “you can have a gun”. No value in comparing us with the US.

Very cynical calculations in-deed. The population at large did not want 18C to go. So the government, eventually, acceded to the population. How cynical was that, and how unusual for the Abbott government.

Tony153 "Those without power need protection, to a certain extent, from those with power. Bolt is very powerful, considering his column is “the most read column in Australia”. The people he had a go at warranted the protection of 18C."

Oh, they were poor unfortunates?
They are prominent, successful, award-winning people.
Hardly powerless victims.

If they truly felt wronged, they could sue for defamation.
Why didn't they?
They knew they'd lose.
They knew his questions/criticisms were perfectly legitimate issues to raise.

"The population at large did not want 18C to go"

I don't recall them asking for it in the first place.

In fact, I don't recall the electorate voting on any matter relating to immigration, minorities' "rights", multiculturalism, hate speech or any other related topic EVER!

Bring on the plebiscites!
Then we'll see what the population at large really want.
Not what the activists with the loudest megaphones want.