I take the point of the article. I've never been overly concerned about 18C. I don't think decent people want to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate other people because of their race. I do agree the test needs rethinking.
Why don't the authors challenge this in the high court if they think it unconstitutional? I'd be interested in the high court's view.

Enough pressure for freedom was built up in Britain to drive the passage of clause 29J which serves as an addendum to laws similar to our 18C.

29J reads "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

Laws like 18C are appeasement promulgated by dhimmis that further the march of Islam (which is bigotry on steroids) by protecting its flank. Addenda like Britain's 29J reassert the values of the Enlightenment.

that sounds fine Emporer. The Public Order comments are about religion and belief systems while the Australian Act is about race. these seem to be very different things.

If a person does something really stupid & gets called a DH or AH what makes a difference. If they are White it gets shrugged off. If they are a minority then it becomes Racist, even though the comment had nothing to do with the persons minority. It was directed at the person themselves. How does that work?

Malingerer is right, race and religion are very different things. A pity nobody told the ABC that when it persistently described demonstrators against a mosque in Bendigo as "racist".

And it is true, 18C and the British Public Order Act are about race, not religion. There remain state laws proscribing attacks on religions (specifically Islam), e.g. in Tasmania and Victoria,in the latter case taken advantage of by the Moslem cheer-leaders.

We need national laws, overriding state laws, based on the language of Britain's 29J, entrenching freedom from religion.

Perhaps we need laws proscribing vilification (hate speech) against non-racists, using terms like "racists" or "antisemites".

Hi Jules,

Yes, it shouldn't be necessary to point out that a criticism of Islam, or of Islamist terrorism, is not an attack on Muslims, but manifestly a criticism of the principles of Islam and of the terrorist ideologies which it has allegedly spawned.

We should be clear too that 'Islamophobia' strictly means the 'fear of Islam', and more particularly of the terrorist ideologies which purport to spring from it. Given the almost daily attacks somewhere in the world by Islamist terrorists, I would have thought that such a fear was very well-grounded.

After all, do ISIS terrorists claim that they take their guidance from the Koran ? Yes, they do. Can they be faulted in that claim ? I don't think so: ISIS terrorist ideology springs directly, and faithfully,from the Koran: every vile act can be justified by surahs or clauses in the Koran.

Should we be afraid ? No, but we must be vigilant to ensure that such principles are never any foothold in Australia, in any guise. To fear Islam is to let the terrorists win, after all: that's precisely the purpose of terror, isn't it ?

Cheers,

Joe