Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 8:30pm:

They would need to prove the "racist" comment contravenes the act. Complaining about a comment like "I think Australia is accepting too many Asian immigrants" would get nowhere because it is not in itself a contravention.

Aussie Skinhead wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 10:29pm:

Not just racist... The prosecution would have to prove that the sole reason for the offending comment was to incite racial / religious hatred (or was solely intended to cause and did cause serious offence) in the "most vile and serious of manners".

What kind of comment did you intend to make that makes you wonder whether you would be contravening the act?

Quote:


The laws are designed to intimidate white racialists by making out that their views are some how illegal.
Quote:


I will give you a few examples of how the law has been used to stifle white racialists and ordinary people on the street. Up in north Queensland, a mob of blacks were annoying a middle aged white man. The white man got sick of the annoyance and simply told the blacks a few home truths. The blacks were horrified at the retaliation, which they provoked, and made a complaint to the police. The white man was fined $1,500. In South Australia, a holocaust revisionist, Frederick Toben, was sentenced to three months jail for holocaust revisionism. In West Australia, a anti Zionist campaigner was arrested for his anti Zionist activities.

I am anti Zionist. I have always criticized the illegal Jewish group known as the "state of Israel". As for the blacks, I give them filthy looks down down. Other then that, I don't have much to do or say about the blacks.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 12:02am:


The laws might not apply in my case but what about all the other guys who have been prosecuted because of their racial and/or religious views? There is a fine line set by the laws between criticizing and vilifying races and religions. The laws are dangerous and should be abolished.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 2:51pm:

But who should define what is defamation and slander? Isn't it dangerous to try and limit free speech based on some idle speculation on what is "racial vilification"?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2009 at 2:00am:

But why should we limit free speech? We haven't needed such laws for most of mankind's history. It was the multiculturalists who turned this into an issue. They should be ignored and the non whites should be kicked out. That way, we won't need the laws and the debate regarding them.

Whenever you attempt to stereotype any racial groups as all having a single propensity, then you are always going to lose the argument, before you even start, but if you point out common patterns of anti-social behaviour, and do it in a non-threatening, and not deliberately offensive manner, then I cannot see that you would ever have any problem with any laws in australia Aussie Skinhead.

You seem to be able to express your views in a reasonably polite way here, and still get your point of view heard.

If you wish for more than that, if you wish to provoke confrontation, then perhaps the laws may seek to make that option less appealing, and I do not have any problem with that.

When groups seek to manipulate the laws of the land to stifle fair and reasonable discussion of behaviours displayed by representative members of didtinct racial groups, then we must rely on the common sense of the judiciary, and the weight of public opinion to make sure that the right to make reasonable criticism is not denied us, and I think most would agree that we want to keep that option.