How has this ambiguous, confusing and ineffective legislation been successful? Quite frankly I think Michael is kidding himself. Take this recent court ruling where a senior citizen, who told a Jewish man “Hitler was right” after their dogs clashed, was found to not have incited hatred – refer http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/senior-citizen-who-told-a-jewish-man-hitler-was-right-after-dog-clash-did-not-incite-hatred-court-rules/story-fni0fee2-1226771303373

I would suggest that there are good reasons to be visiting section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; however it is fear mongering to suggest that the Liberal Party is planning for a full repeal of this section of the Act – it is far more likely that they will revise the legislation, hopefully for the better.

From my personal experience dealing with a racial abuser on the internet I have had little grace from the supposed protection that is meant to be afforded by section 18C. I raised a matter with the AHRC over an anti-Semite, who ripped into me and still has a website where I continue to be defamed and insulted; two years later I have made little progress. The police don’t feel as though they have enough ammunition to nail the culprit and our Jewish community leaders have vacillated.

Michael has touted the fact that Jeremy Jones, the former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, used section 18C to win a landmark case against Fredrick Toben, Australia’s most notorious and persistent against-the-courts’-will Holocaust denier. All this celebratory talk that the current laws are effectively dealing with anti-semites is delusional. Frederick Toben’s website still exists; Frederick Toben is still politically active.

This is not an issue with which to win cheap political points. This is an issue which requires proper attention to the concerns and obstacles in the way of producing effective working legislation. I have written to Michael Danby as my member of parliament on this topic and he has not bothered to respond to me. Sadly I feel that Michael is cheapening the debate by turning it into a black and white contest between Labour and Liberal, failing to properly face up to the complex issues involved.

He has raised the question: why is the current government so intent on repealing the racial discrimination legislation, which was so successful during all the years of the Howard government?

How has this ambiguous, confusing and ineffective legislation been successful? Quite frankly I think Michael is deluding himself. Take this recent court ruling where a senior citizen who told a Jewish man “Hitler was right” after dog clash was found to have not incited hatred – refer
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/senior-citizen-who-told-a-jewish-man-hitler-was-right-after-dog-clash-did-not-incite-hatred-court-rules/story-fni0fee2-1226771303373

I would suggest that there are good reasons to be visiting section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; it is fear mongering to suggest that the Liberal Party are planning for a full repeal of this section of the Act – it is far more likely that they will revise the legislation, hopefully for the better.

From my personal experience dealing with a racial abuser on the internet I have had little grace from the supposed protection that is meant to be provided by section 18C. Two years after I raised a matter with the AHRC over an anti-Semite who ripped into me and still has a website where I continue to be defamed and insulted I have made little progress. The police don’t feel as though they have enough ammunition to nail the culprit and our Jewish community leaders have vacillated.

Michael has touted the fact that Jeremy Jones, the former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, used section 18C to win a landmark case against Fredrick Toben, Australia’s most notorious and persistent against-the-courts’-will Holocaust denier. All this celebratory talk that the current laws are effectively dealing with anti-semites is delusional. Frederick Toben’s website still exists; Frederick Toben is still politically active.

This is not an issue with which to win cheap political points. This is an issue which requires proper attention to the concerns and obstacles in the way of producing effective working legislation. Sadly I feel that Michael has cheapened the debate by turning it into a black and white contest between Labour and Liberal, failing to properly and honestly face up to the complex issues involved.