What's happiness got to do with it? 18c was crafted to protect basic human rights of mostly marginalized minorities! Even so and within the parameters, it still allows robust civil debate and free speech! Those that have a problem with that, clearly have a problem with their manners? I grew up in very humble circumstances, went without many a mel. walked three mile to school barefoot on rough gravel roads in the dead of winter. Yet no matter how tough or humble those circumstances became, I was always brought up to believe common courtesy and civility cost nothing! Simply put, if the whole world accepted that as part of a code to live by, we'd likely abolish war, poverty and the abuse of civil/human rights?

I'd rather keep 18c and put our manners back in, than see us follow the American lead, with race riots, school shootings and other symptoms of entrenched xenophobia, racial intolerance and acceptable endemic entrenched enduring generational post code poverty; coupled to narcissistic nationalism?

Over here 18c would see Mr trump forced to curtail/moderate his horrific hate speech, diabolical disingenuous diatribe, and manifest mendacious malevolent mischief making and keep it down to a gentle roar!?

As for the usual suspects and those mostly in trouble with 18c, they'd likely stay out of hot water reporting the news rather than making it with scurrilous uninvited opinion, delusions of granduer and popinjay pomposity that regularly goes beyond the pale?

And the predictable pun was intended.
Alan B.

Loss of freedom of speech is a greater harm, with the consequent serious risks of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Section 18C is a gag. It is the worst kind of censorship, where political correctness causes good citizens to self-censor.

What about the political correctness that turned a blind eye to the child abuses by Kashmiri offenders in Rotherham and other centres in the UK? Where the "institutionalised political correctness" had contributed' and "the Labour Party did let down in Rotherham, absolutely" and '"The Hindu Council UK and the Sikh Federation criticised media and government for referring to the criminal gangs involved as "Asian", claiming that political correctness is preventing them being described as "Pakistani Muslims"'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
and,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391314/Rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-council-not-fit-for-purpose.html

What about the political correctness that prevented police in Europe from even acknowledging the sexual molesting of women by Muslim men who are economic migrants?

"It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/

Not so long ago, police were being criticised by the politically correct sections of the media for describing as 'aboriginal', the fleeing offenders who raped two young tourists and stole the car of who were overnighting in a city street. The publicly funded national broadcaster was loath to even mention the description lest indigenous be offended. However, all of the public including indigenous women were at serious risk of assault and murder while the offenders were at large. From a later report that describes the victims' cultural backgrounds but not that of their rapists,

"Terrifying ordeal at gunpoint: multiple rapes of European tourists, one suspect still unidentified"
http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2013/09/25/terrifying-ordeal-at-gunpoint-multiple-rapes-of-european-tourists-one-suspect-still-unidentified/

Who wants to return to the censorship of the Fifties and post-WW2 anyhow? What about the Australian political correctness of federal and State governments that emphatically denied for decades (and still does!), the very real, serious risks of introduction of criminal gangs through mass immigration?

Alan B,
QED and advantage to the "right wingers", your post demonstrates the problems with 18c, people like you see it as a way to control political debate and prevent people from challenging the status quo.
From a Nationalist point of view the only genuine problem with the law, the one David Leyonhjelm is trying to illustrate with his HRC complaint is that 18c and the human rights framework as a whole is not applied fairly and equally to all Australians.
Any law or a set of guidelines should apply to everyone equally, it should afford all Australians equal protections, 18c clearly doesn't do that so it's a bad law and unworkable in practice.
Why do you think there's such opposition to an Australian bill of rights among the political elites?

isn't it ironic that the Christ haters have mocked, blasphemed and continually ridiculed Christian belief now for 50 years. Our national broadcasters have been among the worst. Now they take up the cause of Islam. Yep secularism/Islam so much in common. Both death cults and based on hypocrisy, pseudo science and a hate for truth.

If you view any conduct that may reduce the happiness of another as unethical you should not seek advancement at work or engage in any business activity because that may harm competitors. The same reasoning would prevent you from seeking to marry a person who might be desired by some other person, or seeking election to public office.

The moral test should be about whether the conduct infringes the rights of others.

In terms of social norms it seems to me to be desirable to encourage people to draw a line in terms of their personal conduct to avoid giving offence gratuitously. That is a simple application of the golden rule. There is more social harmony when people generally seek to avoid giving offence to others.

In terms of what conduct should be legal, the requirement that conduct should not offend others is far too restrictive in my view. The law should not give people an incentive to pretend to be offended in order to seek legal redress for impolite behaviour.

Winton Bates,
True enough but we already have defamation and libel laws, when people were offended in days past they put a public notice in the newspaper demanding an apology from the alleged perpetrator and threatening legal action if none was forthcoming.
People used to do it all the time in the town where I grew up, it was amusing to get the local paper each week and read the notices, they usually ran to: "I Joe Bloggs accuse John Smith of spreading malicious rumours about my wife Jane Bloggs, Smith must desist from this conduct and make a written apology or the matter will be dealt with by my solicitors."