What is wrong with 18c? Let me tell you. It is the capital S in stupid.
It demonstrates what we all know. There is no justice unless payed for. Free justice is worthless. Justice revolves around money, and lots of it.
18c is ALL about money, lots of it for free.
The answer? Remove compensation bennifits, and 18c is dead!

As my Grandfather would say, you all need to take Bex and have a lie down. I'm concerned that as a barrister you seem to be a bit confused, as far as I'm aware only one person has had rulings against them in regards to 18C. All others have failed.

Are you suggesting that laws can be written so that they are so clear that breach of them is so obvious that mediation or trail isn't required. Or are you suggestion that civil actions would be eliminated by further clarity.

The reality is the laws have been tested in court and anybody considering action under 18c will be informed by the latest rulings. That how the laws work, surely you should understand this!

Hear, hear and well said Cobber!
Alan B.

My grandma always included a 'cuppa tea" with the "Bex and a good lie down".

The author is dead right, it's only the chance of judges having common-sense that fills in the sloppy wording. 18c says "reasonably likely to offend" which is ambiguous about whether it's the speaker or hearer being reasonable. Pollies are paid New year champagne to get laws right but they pay judges and barristers zillions to sort out the hangover.

Nothing went right with 18c; it was, and is, the worst piece of totalitarian rubbish ever forced on Australians.

In their summary of "No Offence Intended:Why 18c is Wrong", Forrester, Finlay and Zimmermann advise that:

"... s 18c unduly (inhibits) freedom of expression... the freedom (being) both a universally recognised human right in international law and a fundamental common law freedom".

It cannot be "sustained under the external affairs power".

"Insult" and "humiliation" greatly "overreach" the purpose of the 'Convention', which obliges "State Parties to reconcile the prohibition of racial hatred with guarantees of freedom of expression".

Section 18c's legislative overreach, if not 'overkill' does not conform to Australia's obligation under the Convention,as it is not 'reasonably capable' of being considered appropriate or adapted to the Conventions purpose.

Even if the external affairs power supported 18c, then its operation impermissibly infringes on the implied freedom of political communication.

18c burdens discussions about matters that are that are the subject of Commonwealth and State legislative action.

18c's aim - which is to prohibit racial hatred or promote racial tolerance by prohibiting offensive speech, is not compatible with Australia's system of representative government.

18c is not reasonably appropriate to its purpose. Many of the terms that 18c and 18d employ are too broad and too vague. In any event, these terms directly affect DISCUSSIONS AND POLITICAL MATTERS - discussions that are "often robust and heated and result in offence, insult and humiliation"