This extremely long article could have stopped at the point where it's author pointed out that "hate speech" is the description of people used by others (usually the Left) when they want to gag opinions they disagree with. The Labor/Green gang, along with activist judges and lawyers engineered 18c to remove freedom of speech from the scene in Australia: mainly to protect the sensitivities of Muslims who, however, were still free to preach anti-Semitism, and to threaten all infidels. Tony Abbott promised to drop 18c before he was elected, but reneged after being elected due to his ignorance and fear of Islam. We are now stuck with a ban on free speech. Turnbull, who refuses to see any connection to terrorism and Islam, will continue to deny Australians free speech, and he is undoubtedly slavering at the thought of all the votes coming from his 12,000 Syrians and future "refugees" he will welcome.

ttbn, I'd go further and put forward the idea that "hate speech" is term used by the mercantile and managerial castes and their defenders and that the overall purpose of 18c is primarily to protect commercial interests.
Anti discrimination law in general is used to protect migrants and other potential beneficiaries of state funding and/or potential trainees for businesses, the fact that they may vote is a comfort to the managerial castes but in my opinion probably low down on the list of priorities.
The federal government facilitates immigration ie artificailly controls the labour market.
State governments fund education and training for migrants.
So called "Community groups", QUANGOS in other words deliver the training.
Businesses also support the QUANGOS and benefit from access to "job ready" migrants and the public relations benefits of what's perceived to be and promoted as philanthropy.
The anti discrimination laws are held as a "big stick" and "anti racist" activism is encouraged to protect and support these arrangements, see for example the attempts to suppress the anti Mosque/anti corruption protest movement in Bendigo.

What seems to be missed in these esoteric commentary is that what is
claimed to be "Hate Speech" may be the truth.

So by making Hate Speech illegal you may well be protecting evil.

Jay,

Yes. I agree with what you say. Politicians or big business, it's all about them and not about the rest of us.

What would be the terrorism % be in all of Muslims in Australia.
I say some are pushed into acts of terrorism because of misunderstanding and racial abuse.

Why should there be hate speech in Australia. If there is any hate speech is coming from the Islamists they can be dealt with like anybody else, and the same with persons using hate speech aimed at Muslim members.

Terrorism can come from anybody at anytime, like persons shooting from moving cars lately.

Abbott was responsible for keeping terrorism alive, for his own benefit, in his belief, but it wore out it’s use by date. Just like him.

Since when did new arrivals in Australia get free passage to settle in with out a fight. It’s part of Australian culture to toughen up new arrivals. The Vietnamese copped it last time, until their mafia was weeded out.

Doog, nobody is pushed into violence, you can be provoked into retaliation but Islamist violence is purely instrumental, it's calculated to cause fear and division.
There's no actual evidence that criticism and vulgar statements directed by individuals at larger groups is indicative of a criminal mentality on the part of the speaker, because that's all it boils down to, individuals vs groups.
I've participated in the UPF rallies in Melbourne and Bendigo and I discuss these issues all the time with other supporters on Facebook and what's evident is that the stereotypical "racist" loudmouth is just that, all talk and no action when it comes to politics. As soon as it became apparent that this movement was actually going somewhere and that there was work to be done the "Neo Nazis" and religious fanatics have melted away or been have exposed for what they really are, stooges of the Liberal party, cranks, losers and freaks who don't fit in with normal Australians.

Doog,

But threatening, hateful Muslims are not "dealt with like anyone else". A Christian pastor had to front up to court in Victoria simply for repeating what was in the Koran. I don't recall any of the Muslims shouting anti-Semitic slogans and calling our troops murderers being dragged before the beak.

Ttbn "A Christian pastor had to front up to court in Victoria simply for repeating what was in the Koran."
Really?
Is that right?
Can you show us a reputable website that reports the specifics on that story?

An exceptionally good article on political censorship by Lawrence Maher.

I had always thought that free speech was the foundation stone of democracy and it stopped at incitement to violence. But in Australia, it is the other way around. Andrew Bolt got hauled before the courts for penning an article on who should be eligible to claim entitlements meant exclusively for disadvantaged aborigines, while Muslims who hold up signs saying "Behead those who insult the prophet!" are not prosecuted, or they get "counseled."

The most important point which Lawrence submitted is that under 18C, people can be prosecuted for writing or saying something which just happens to be true. With the only exception being official secrets, prosecuting people for telling the truth is not indicative of an enlightened society.

Here you are, susieoncrack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah

More info here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Historic-win-in-religious-hatred-case/2004/12/17/1102787271940.html

"Judge Michael Higgins ruled that Catch the Fire Ministries, Pastor Danny Nalliah and speaker Daniel Scot vilified Muslims at a seminar in 2002, in a newsletter and an article on a website.

He said that in the seminar, Mr Scot made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct in a way that was "hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their god, Allah, the prophet Muhammad and in general Muslim religious beliefs and practices".

In the first big test of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, he ruled that Mr Scot's conduct was not reasonable and in good faith for any genuinely religious purpose or in the public interest (which the act makes exempt). He found Mr Scot's evidence evasive and twice lacking credibility. Judge Higgins said the newsletter, by Mr Nalliah, sought to create fear of Muslims and was likely to incite hatred, while the website article by an American was an example of the type of conduct the act intended to prohibit."

LEGLESS, that link doesn't work old boy.
Thanks for your link Toni Lavis.

Having read about the guy from the "Fire Ministry" (really?), I have to say I agree with the judge's findings.
What a nasty hate-filled so-called Christian this 'hell-fire and damnation bloke is!

Judges are not infallible, Toni. The case was clearly a mis-carriage of justice and a cowardly fear of Islam, which will eventually see the end of the West.

The "Catch the Fire" incident was some years ago, Susieoncrack, but I will recount what I remember.

It was during another Labor/Greens turn at office when some bright spark came up with a new idea for fleecing the public, while promoting the Socialist agenda. They created a Human Rights Commission to defend Labor's new, imported ethnic voting electorate from the Australians. Naturally, they also enacted new anti racism legislation to stop those racist Aussies from criticising multiculturalism as well.

In one way it worked just fine. It became another new burden on the taxpayer while giving unproductive non jobs to the sort of bureaucrats who vote Labor. The problem was, that nobody ever bothered to complain to the Victorian Human Rights Commission about how bad the Aussies were treating them. We can't have that, can we? After all, here is this brand new department with a bloated budget, untold numbers of unproductive workers, comcars, and generous superannuation. They have to justify their useless existence.

Luckily for the Victorian Human Rights Commission, they heard about a public meeting where Christians were going to give the Muzzies a well deserved serve. So, the HRC desperately looked around for a couple of Muzzies who would go the meeting for the purpose of getting offended.

Now, if you were an intelligent person, you would ask yourself whether it is appropriate for a workless government department who's existence is self evidently unnecessary, to go and look for business, by asking Muzzies to go a meeting so that the HR Commission can find some work? And if I remember correctly, the Christian leader who was prosecuted by the HRC refused to pay up anyway, and the whole matter was dropped when it was discovered that the HRC had put the Muzzies up to it.

But you won't ask yourself if the HRC is necessary, or is an impediment to the western liberal tradition of free speech. Like Elmer Gantry, the HR Commission know how to use the high ideals of naive people like yourself, to sucker them into supporting them for their own self aggrandisement.