I find that the authors comments are spot on.
18c is supposed to relate to race, but even so I think it is bad
legislation that makes it an offense to say something that just offends
someone.
For example IF I said;
"Aborigines are bludging on the system by claming grants to do something
they could do anyway."
Someone could take offense at that and prosecute me.

It might be wrong and/or in bad taste but that is no justification for going to law.
We have freedom speech so that someone can tell me I don't know what I am talking about and I am stupid.
Interestingly I could not counter sue because they called me stupid
because that is not necessarily racist.

As an aside I could say moslems are stupid because of what they
believe in, but in response I can prove they are stupid.
There are even government reports that say so.

18C is not the problem, but its application certain circumstances may well be?

And easily overcome by a long overdue bill of irrevocable rights!
As claimed to be delivered by the Magna Carta, the later confirming emancipation act; and or, common law?

The problem with that; something like the Magna Carta is not acceded to, or simply denied, and common law rights may need to be interpreted/redefined by very expensive courts and or litigation/legislation?

What we need is a bill of irrevocable rights and no better time to ask when we should have them; is when we have the intended referendum pertaining to including Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders, in the constitution?

Which if linked to a bill of irrevocable rights, inclusive of property rights, may have a vastly better chance of being carried?

But particularly if one of those rights happened to be a right to protect/defend yourself, your person, family members and personal property, with as decided by you appropriate force, including for the aged and or frail, lethal force, given there really is no other effective option?

Given it's impossible to gauge your level of enabled response, it's what you say or swear it is!

Better the attacker/intruder/assailant, is the one laying on a hospital bed or the slab, than the completely innocent householder.

For mine, a pump action shotgun loaded coupled to a mag light; and with a full mag of bean bag ammo, might suffice, and prevent an avoidable fatality, where that is the preferred outcome.

Back up being a 9 mm, auto pistol coupled to a laser point, with a fifteen round mag; particularly in the case of multiple assailants, and as such, intending doing lethal harm!?

As for 18C, with our rights re-installed, let's keep it?
Rhrosty.

Methinks the bald gonad should curb his denunciation of esteemed Prime Minister Abbott - as Abbott has made himself an endangered species - who won't be PM much longer.

Section 18C enabled the case against Bolt. All Bolt did was tell the truth, in a straightforward and unbiased manner, and he lost the case.

Legislation which facilitates such a result must not be allowed to stand. The assertion that we have freedom of speech is a misrepresentation.

Section 18C enabled the case against Bolt. All Bolt did was tell the truth, in a straightforward and unbiased manner, and he lost the case.

Legislation which facilitates such a result must not be allowed to stand.

This Charlie Hebdo farce looks like another false flag event. The Inspector Helric Fredou who was in charge of the investigation commits suicide almost immediately and now his relatives are denied access to the autopsy report. Why would smart terrorists leave their ID behind in the getaway car ?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/26/fredou/

C'mon Arjay, you're floggin' a dead horse.

They left the ID behind because they wanted the world to know them as they were about to become martyrs and didn't want anyone else to steal the limelight.

You may counter with the question "Why were their faces covered?"

To save you the effort, it was because the balaclava is de rigueur for Islamic terrorists; it's almost a fashion statement

Is Mise the false flag horse is far from dead. You have shot down your own argument. Why wear a mask and leave behind your ID? Why won't they reveal the details of the Inspector's autopsy?

Suffering comprehension problems, Arjay?

I asked the question for you and gave an answer.

The autopsy report? We shall wait and see.

Is Mise,"To save you the effort, it was because the balaclava is de rigueur for Islamic terrorists; it's almost a fashion statement"

Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 7:35:17 AM So it was a fashion statement for supposed Islamic terrorists who were totally incinerated in 911 to leave their passports intact for the FBI to find?

Why try to escape the law when you want to be a martyr? They were killed yet again,like many patsies et al Lee Harvey Oswald, before any defence was mounted to report their innocence.

Have another look at the other farce of the cop reported killed on MSM and who is obviously still alive. http://stormcloudsgathering.com/charlie-hebdo-shootings-censored-video

The other reason why France has suffered this attack was that President Hollande of France wanted the sanctions against Russia to cease. The other reasons were France's recognition of the Palestinian oppression, France wanting side with Germany on leaving the EURO currency and France wanting to deliver 2 war ships to Russia.

So, the reason why Tony Abbot squibbed on 18C, was so he could suck up to the Muslims living among us.

Message to Tony. Islam is not a religion of tolerance or inclusiveness. The Australian Islamic Council has approached the federal government seeking exemptions from voting for Muslims. This is a religion which opposes democracy and everything democracy stands for, like freedom of speech. And you want to appease them?

We are even paying danegeld to Muslim religious leaders to supposedly deprogram their "radical" youth from following the literal teachings of Islam, and going on jihad against us. Ain't multiculturalism grand?

What might be a lot more effective is to order Muslim religious leaders to clean up their violence and misogynistic religion, or we will instigate a complete ban on Muslim immigration. That should get their attention and it won't cost the Aussie taxpayer a cent.

I would like to note that Andrew Bolt got prosecuted for simply pointing out that some people can be perceived as rorting our generous welfare subsidies to aborigines. He did not "incite violence" but he was prosecuted and convicted anyway. But the woman who held up the banner "Behead those who insult the Prophet" at a very violent Muslim demonstration in Sydney, was, according to newspaper reports, simply "spoken to" by welfare officers who explained to this poor, violence advocating Muslim, the error of her ways.

It is this clear double standard treatment of Australians and Muslims which galls Aussies the most. We must watch what we say, but they can say any damn thing they like. The woman's sign was a clear incitement to violence, and it turned out that she was a recently arrived immigrant. Putting her on the first plane back to whatever Muslim craphole she originated from would have been far more effective than paying danegeld to the Muslim religious leaders, who to my mind are the real problem anyway.

Arjay,

You're getting a bit mixed up!
No one wears Passports.

".... So it was a fashion statement for supposed Islamic terrorists who were totally incinerated in 911 to leave their passports intact for the FBI to find?"

In the link that you gave they make much of no one hearing the shot when the police Inspector killed himself, yet the explanation that the room was well insulated could account for the lack of sound.
There could be other explanations as well.