Bear in mind that solicitors for the complainant in the Queensland University case against the students. High level Barristers, actually submitted that the current section 18C provisions should be understood as completely prohibiting any criticism of any special measures that favour aboriginal people. That's right. They say any critique at all is unlawful under Section 18C as it stands.
What about Tim, the human rights commissioner who says he did not tout for complaints against Bill Leak? Now he denies ever having made such invitation. Do you think he is going to screen out frivolous complaints early on in the process?
So who else would you like to trust to apply the tests as they currently stand without change but with a new process only as proposed by Senator Xenophon?
Perhaps someone like the new Union leader, Sally, a person who openly says she will only adhere to laws that she agrees with are just , according to her.
They could have thrown out either of those cases in the first instance under the law as it now stands.
If the labor party and the cross bench Senate get their way and amend only process and do not get rid of the hurt feelings test then nothing will change.
I would like the whole of s18C go. I will settle for the Prime Minister's current compromise.
No more back peddling though.
I would rather leave it the way it is and see the next frivolous complaint go to the High Court because underlying all is the Constitutional Protection of Political free speech which includes the right to give offence and hurt feelings in political discourse.
Section 18C is unconstitutional to the extent that it conflicts. Lets get rid of it.
Who do you trust to be in charge of what you can say?
I say none of the above. Nor anyone that they influence.