And the controversy should never go away.

The government has again shown its true colours on freedom of speech - banning entry to an anti-abortionist - and our freedom to speak will slip back even further with Left leaning Malcolm Turnbull, who is already criticizing Tony Abbott, -the man who didn't have the courage to knock 18c in the head as he promised - of "upsetting" Muslims.

Rescinding 18c would also work in the favour of supposedly "moderate" Muslims and ex-Muslims. The system as it is is unusable, as I said in another post this speaks to a deep crisis in Anglo Saxon Liberalism in that it cannot function properly in a multi ethnic society.
Hizb Ut Tahrir just ignore 18c anyway because they don't accept secular laws full stop and Anti-Liberal groups such as the UPF are laughing in the face of the current anti discrimination regime while daring authorities to crack down on them.
18c cannot be enforced without abandoning Liberal freedoms, it is actually a choice between the two now and the crisis in Liberalism will be it's downfall, not external "hate speech".

Jay & ttbn, spot on, the concern about Malcontent Turnbull is not just anger, he has already gone way to the left. He will be the best PM the left has ever had, all there wildest dreams come true.

My deep concern is what he will do to the economy, unleashing the banksters onto Australian owned businesses so that it will be easier for foreign owned multinationals to take over.

Jay,

It's good to see you parenthesising the word moderate. There is only one Islam; and the word of Allah, as passed on to Muhammed (well that's what old Mo said happened) cannot be changed. So, it's hard to see how true, 'good' Muslims can be moderate, unless they are not 'good' Muslims, in which case, surely they would give it up? There is no point in saying: "That is not the way of Islam (terror and murder)"; or "Islam is the religion of peace", because it IS the way of Islam, and it is NOT the religion of peace. It's all in the Koran, which, I believe, is not widely read by your average Muslim: they leave it to the imams to tell them about it, and who knows what they are told or, more importantly, not told. It seems to be like the old days when Catholic congregations didn't know Latin, and the priest could tell them what he wanted to tell them, until the Church came out of the dark ages, unlike Islam.

CFI [Center for Inquiry] Marks International Blasphemy Rights Day 2015
This Wednesday was International Blasphemy Rights Day, established by CFI to defend the right to free expression, which is now brutally under threat around the world. In countries such as Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others, criticism of religion and dissent from tradition or majority beliefs can lead to marginalization, persecution, and even incarceration, violence, or death. Leading the struggle for free expression—especially when the right to criticize or satirize religion is challenged—has become a core part of CFI’s worldwide mission.

We’re marking this year’s International Blasphemy Rights Day (IRBD) on several fronts. First is the relaunch of the newly redesigned website of the Campaign for Free Expression. There, you can keep up to date on the many cases of persecution we’re tracking and working to solve, learn more about the brave individuals fighting for their freedom, and find ways that you can be a part of the solution.
One way you can help right now is to heed the call of our latest action alert, urging the U.S. Congress to adopt H.Res. 290, which calls for the repeal of blasphemy laws worldwide and calls upon the White House and the State Department to emphasize free expression rights in its relations with other countries. Take action now.
At CFI–Transnational headquarters in Amherst, New York, the day was commemorated with a special presentation by Muhammad Syed, founder and president of Ex-Muslims of America, on the pervasiveness of blasphemy laws and their grim social effects. CFI–Los Angeles celebrated the day with performer Baba Brinkman and his “Rap Guide to Religion,” described as “part rap concert, part comedy, part TED Talk.”

Just before IRBD, CFI representatives delivered statements to the UN Human Rights Council on the spree of violence against secularist writers and activists in Bangladesh, as well as violence and judicial discrimination against women.

continued

continued

Videos of both of these statements are available here, as is the complete video of a special presentation by Michael De Dora, CFI’s chief UN representative, on the topic of IRBD and blasphemy rights, presented at the latest CFI Leadership Conference. (Also see Michael quoted in a piece at Religion News Service on IRBD.)

And as we highlighted in the last edition of Cause & Effect, blasphemy rights are the focus of a special new issue of our magazine Free Inquiry, which features a collection of provocative articles and essays, including the first U.S. print publication of the winning “draw Muhammad” cartoon from the controversial conference in Garland, Texas, earlier this year. CFI’s Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry, was the guest for a substantive interview about the special issue on WBFO radio and was featured on WIVB Channel 4 news

1. What a pity that this article fails to mention who was behind Section 18C's introduction during the 1990s - the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. If you go back to various relevant archives you will see articles that celebrate the success of having limited our free expression - especially on the historical topic HOLOCAUST!
2. What a pity that the author of the article dared not mention the legal shoddiness accompanying Section 18C, i.e. that it is a watered down version of a defamation law with the exception that truth is no defence - only hurt feeling are needed, but they don't need to be quantified or verified in order to win the case.
3.What a pity that the author cannot see what fundmental danger is inherent in such a law whereby historical matters are legally protected from open scrutiny.
4. What a pity the author didn't raise the pertinent question: Why didn't the Murdoch empire challenge Section 18C in the High Court where it would have been shredded?
5. Can you see the pattern of thought surrounding this matter emerging from the issues raised by having Section 18C on the books?
6. Then if you globalise the emerging perspective, we see the relevance of what is happening in the Middle East directly loinked to Section 18C - the desperate attempt to establish Eretz Yisrael!

The author seems to assume as proven, what he uses to vilify Andrew Bolt.
He says, "Had Andrew Bolt gone about that subject in a studious and sensitive manner he would surely have produced a notable piece of journalism ..." and "the approach Andrew Bolt chose was offensive, insulting and humiliating".
I know that's what the judge said, but is it fact?
So if Bolt had toned it down a bit, sanitised his comments, removed all the emotive content and not shown photos of real people in privileged positions, then it would all be OK? What rot! The bedwetting lefties would still have howled at the resultant anodyne but nevertheless "notable piece of journalism" and Bolt would still have been hauled before the kangaroo courts because they hate him and were always looking for something to hang him on.
This is one of those sacred subjects nobody can talk about, especially whiteys, and more especially now.
We should stop kowtowing to the UN's sermons on the mount and stick to our very own Anglosphere heritage based on our own interpretations of what should be law.

John. A very good and thought provoking article. The 'non-action' by the Abbott government on this issue tarnished his conservative credentials irreparably I am afraid and his replacement provides zero prospect of this fundamental issue being addressed.

ttbn, I think you are frightening accurate with your analysis of the 'good' and 'bad' muslim. There is no such thing as a 'moderate', only a 'lapsed' muslim.

Jay. I will explore, with interest, your recommendation/suggestion regarding CFI.

I (we) DO in fact have the "right to be bigoted", but I (we) do NOT have the right to threaten, intimidate and incite violence.

John, whilst not personally having legal or constitutional expertice, your suggested wording of an additional sub-clause to sub-clause (a) makes a lot of sense and should have little controversy in implementing (other than by the professional 'offence takers').

After reading previous comments I am delighted that no one felt threatened by the sign "Behead those that insult the prophet" That was paraded up and down Hyde Park. The NSW wallopers did nothing and I do not remember any bleating from the left, in fact any politicians. Then again the media would either not publish or just denigrate anyone who said anything critical.
I think that politicians just do not get how furious ordinary members of the electorate are. It will not end well if some far right party rises up and splits the conservative vote.

Cook wrote in his journal: "I now once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took possession of the whole Eastern Coast...by the name New South Wales, together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast".
Henry VIII became a Defender of Faith for the pope, then a Defender of Faith for the Anglican Lords. (human, not divine that is). The Oz Head of State just this year agreed that a Catholic royal is OK but not the actual face seen on the wall in courts of Law. The High Court has the coat-of-arms of Lion and Unicorn which are pagan but not RC so all is good.
Tony Blair went confessional but Elizabeth W will be blasphemous or not amusing if she does. Calling her a Catholic is forbidden and extremely excommunicated.

Whilst I appreciate the authors legal background and efforts in writing this article and trying to find the right legal path I feel as an average citizen thats its all just getting to complicated.
I think maybe the whole exercise is pointless, trying to find a rational path or point of view in an irrational world.
Take one of the stories I read today as an example.

Pouring Drain Cleaner in Your Eyes: The Next Trendy Social Justice Movement?
Not supporting people who want to blind themselves is bigoted and intolerant.
http://www.infowars.com/pouring-drain-cleaner-in-your-eyes-the-next-trendy-social-justice-movement/

-Through political correctness, have we not already embraced complete and utter madness?

David f and Fredrick Toben,
What I found interesting about the CFI website David was in the corporate governance tab all the people listed were Jewish. I find it somewhat ironic that one Jewish run non-profit think tank / lobby group advocates "Mohammad cartoon contests" and free speech, whilst other Jewish lobby groups oppose free speech (by supporting Section 18C's introduction for example as Fredrick Toben stated).

"Why didn't the Murdoch empire challenge Section 18C in the High Court where it would have been shredded?"
- Maybe they helped write it?

Take both above lobbying efforts together and what is it?
Whats the big picture.
An attempt to shut down any criticism of Israel on the Palestinian issue whilst promoting civil unrest (and inciting terrorism) between muslim's and the citizens of western countries?

Dear Armchair Critic,

Jews like other people are a diverse bunch. Some people favour free sppeech. Some people are afraid of it. Some Jews favour free speech. Some Jews are afraid of it. All people don't have the same opinion. All Jews don't have the same opinion.

Stereotyping is to think that all people belonging to a group are the same. Why should it be ironic that all Jews don't have the same opinion?

//It seems to be like the old days when Catholic congregations didn't know Latin, and the priest could tell them what he wanted to tell them, until the Church came out of the dark ages//

The old days? The Tridentine Rite was used up until 1969. The exact definition of the 'dark ages' varies, but they generally finish no later than the 13th century. The Church certainly weren't using the vernacular mass in, say, the Renaissance, the Reformation or the Romantic period. However, partial translations of the Bible into Old English can be traced back to as early as the 7th century. The mass may have been said in Latin, but once the printing press had been invented and people cottoned on to the value of universal literacy, anyone could read the Bible in English.

The Koran is available in a multitude of languages in print and electronically. I just had a skim through a bit of two online English translations: it read just like all the other religious books I've read. A load of vague, abstract waffle that can be interpreted to mean absolutely anything you want. Which is exactly what Christians do, and the reason that you find Westboro Baptists and the Uniting Church both claiming to believe the same inerrant word of God even though their views completely contradict each other.

Muslims seem to do it as well, because they have a number of distinct sects which implies different interpretations of the same inerrant word of Allah. The Nation of Islam, for example, teach that the Moon was once a part of the Earth, and that the Earth is over 76 trillion years old. Which frankly sounds more like Scientology than Islam, and probably isn't a viewed shared by the predominant Sunni sect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben is an article about Frederick Toben.

Possibly it is the same Frederick Toben who has posted on this thread.

The current event at Parramatta and official responses indicate the bushfires that are predicted.