I came across this article and my first thought was to Sonia Kruger's rights.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/sonia-kruger-vilified-muslims-in-today-show-segment/ar-BBTC72m?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=ansmsnnews11

So just to be sure, I checked an Australian government website to check the facts.
(I can't find the actual laws and that annoyed me, are they trying to hide it?)
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/projects/glance-racial-vilification-under-sections-18c-and-18d-racial

"Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' someone because of their race or ethnicity."

"Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith."

Lets check the Oxford dictionary to check what 'exempt' means:
Exempt - free from an obligation or liability imposed on others.

If Sonia Kruger is 'free from an obligation or liability' imposed by 18C; providing her statements are an extension of her true beliefs and said reasonably and in good faith then she has not committed ANY CRIME and has NOTHING to answer for, right?

From the article:

QUOTE>>..."Apart from that issue, we would have found that both [Kruger and the Nine Network] engaged in racial vilification of the Australian Muslim community, being Muslims living in Australia," the tribunal said.

It accepted that Kruger and Nine were "acting in good faith without malice and not for an improper purpose" but said it "cannot accept that the remarks of Ms Kruger were 'reasonable'".<<

Here's my questions.

Firstly, do others believe Sonia's opinions were reasonable or should she and Nine be prosecuted for them and if so why?

Secondly, is Sonia Kruger herself being unfairly vilified by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, who don't seem to respect her right to speak freely under section 18D?

Sam Ekermawi, a practising Muslim filed a complaint
against the Nine network claiming racial vilification
in Sonia Kruger's remarks on her TV program and
demanding an apology. This happened more than 2 years
ago.

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Friday
found that Sonia Kruger could have given her views
in a "more measured manner" to avoid vilifying the
group but instead did present a stereotypical attack
on all Muslims in Australia.

"Sonia Kruger provided her own views and commentary
on the issues and these additions were not just opinion,
they were vilifying remarks in their own right,"
the judgement says.

The Tribunal concluded that Sonia Kruger and channel 9 acted
in good faith and without malice.

And, the Tribunal members declined Mr Ekermawi's request for
an apology from Kruger and Nine - because he was not
personally named or defamed and the event took place more
than 2 years ago.

Case closed.

BTW: This incident does not qualify as "Racial
Vilification." Islam is not a race.

AC,

I read the article prior to this one which advised that nothing was found against Kruger because the tribunal correctly 'found' that Islam is not a race. A lot of time and money wasted because the loopy Left urgers don't listen to common sense. The instigator of this hysterical charge should be made to pay all costs.

The sooner we get a Government with enough sense and courage to get rid of these useless AT bodies the better. Overpaid leaches who need to vilify and demonise anyone that disagrees with their sick narrative. And to think they rewarded Triggs for her deceit and misrepresentations!

Seems to me there's a lot of Sharia back-firing in 18C !