Paul,

People should have a right not to be threatened or have malicious lies told about them or their group. Immunity from well-founded criticism should not be a human right. Anti-vilification laws like this definitely put community harmony above freedom of expression. Truth is not a defence, and the tests for the defences that do exist are vague and thus very much up to the individual judge.

You might consider the Catch the Fires Ministries case under Victoria's similar religious vilification law, where some Christian pastors were convicted for statements made at some seminars they ran on Islam, although the conviction was overturned on appeal.

http://www.law.uq.edu.au/documents/qlsr/recent-issues/vol3/issue1/Klose_2010_vol3_i1.pdf

" The criticism by Nettle JA [an appeal judge] of this approach is compelling:

" 'Whether [Pastor Scot’s] statements about the religious beliefs of Muslims were accurate or inaccurate or balanced or unbalanced was incapable of yielding an answer to the question of whether the statements incited hatred or other relevant emotion. Statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be completely false and utterly unbalanced and yet do nothing to incite hatred of those who adhere to those beliefs. At the same time, statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain to incite hatred of the group because of those beliefs.109'

"Neave JA, while agreeing that it was ‘unwise... to assess the theological accuracy of what was said at the seminar’, nevertheless thought that ‘balance or accuracy’ could be legitimately considered in evaluating whether conduct was likely to incite hatred under s 8.110 Her Honour cited the historical example of Jews being vilified for using ‘human blood for ritual purposes’ as a case of misleading statements being used to incite hatred.111 But this example only confirms the analysis of Nettle JA: such a statement incites hatred because the ritual use of human blood is thought to be abhorrent, not because it is untrue. The statement would equally incite hatred (and thus satisfy the test for vilification under s 8) if it were an accurate claim."

Dear Paul,

I watched George Brandis on that particular episode
of "Q and A."

I guess that as a society we have to ask ourselves
"What is acceptable speech and what isn't in the
public sphere?"

Our laws should be a reflection of our values.

I have no problem with someone telling me they saw a group of drunken Aboriginals causing havoc at the local bottle shop.
What I don't like is someone telling me that ALL Aboriginals are drunken lay-a bouts who cause trouble wherever they go.

I would be sad, but would not be angry with someone telling me they had seen a group of Lebanese youth attack and bash an African youth.
What I don't like to hear is that ALL Lebanese (or Muslims or Arabs or Africans) are violent and should be banned altogether from Australia.

Does anyone see the difference here?

Dear Suse,

Point well made!

Suse totally agree. My view is, people should have the right to free speech. People should be free to make statements which include references to race or ethnicity. What I object to is racial vilification, where statements are made which are simply designed to vilify a whole race of people with stereotyping or generalisations.
On Q&A Brandis appeared to be condoning racial vilification by masking it as the right to free speech. Brandis is using this line to repeal racial vilification laws.

Suseonline, "Does anyone see the difference here?"

Yes, I do when you imply as you so often do that all men are violent b@stards who spend their lives controlling women.

Perhaps discrimination is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps too, 'discrimination' should be returned to its previous common usage before it was hijacked as a term of abuse by political correctness.

Political correctness is the difference and it is abhorrent.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm