And what, exactly, Mr Belcher, is 18C preventing you from saying?

What a lot of absolute nonsense Mr Kidron. Heard of 18D, that protects free speech. But what it doesn’t protect is free hate speech meant to incite hatred of others on grounds of race. The only debate 18C kills is what one would hear at a neo-Nazi rally, and even then, it can be argued if want’s been said was in the genuine public interest.
Of course you would defend to your death the right on someone to say something with which you disagree. What if what that someone was saying was that Jews are a pestilence which must be exterminated. Of course you would defend, with your live, their free speech to say just that.

When it comes to race and ethnicity, to intimidate must, by definition, be accompanied by a threat, making it a violent act, while to humiliate, especially in public, is to belittle the humanity of the victim and the group the victim represents. Both are, objectively, unambiguously intentional acts aimed to cause hurt and promote incitement against the whole group and should thus be unlawful. The key word is OBJECTIVE

To offend or insult is wholly subjective. A Jewish joke told by a gentile will offend some Jews who would not be offended by the same joke told by a Jew.

The Zionist narrative of the Israeli – Arab conflict will offend the Arabs while the “Palestinian” narrative will offend most Jews. This previous sentence, with its use of “Israeli – Arab”, not “Israeli – Palestinian” and “Palastinian” in parenthesis, will offend most Arabs and possibly some Jews but not all.

The subject of the “offence” decides that it is offensive. The key word is SUBJECTIVE.

This leads to the far greater issue of freedom of speech.

The Bill Leak cartoon, addressing a well known problem which needs exposure and debate is a case in point.

And the QUT student absurdity where 18C was abused with shocking consequences, is another case in point.

Any comment about Islam, including quotes directly from the Quran and Hadiths – actual, direct, verbatim quotes which may expose Islam unfavorably – is met with “Islamophobe” and litigation by Muslim organisations taking advantage of 18C, claiming offence and insult, while themselves promoting hate and violence against Jews, Israel and Western civilization in general, with impunity. 18C promotes anti blasphemy laws, self censorship and stifling of freedom of speech.

The danger of limiting freedom of speech, subject to limits such as inciting to violence, is that it does not just limit debate but kills it. A far greater danger is that if it is unlawful to offend and insult individuals and groups, why not unlawful to offend and insult the Government?