Draft discrimination bill draws unfair fire

This is pure nonsense. Section 18D of Part IIA of the current Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) is crystal clear. It protects any opinion, however offensive the content or tone – provided it has legitimate academic purpose.

Here is the exact wording:

18D - Exemptions

Section 18C [which requires it proven that someone was offended, humiliated or intimidated] does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. [end of extract]

These provisions remain intact in the proposed revised anti-discrimination bill.

Judge Brombergreinforced freedom of speech overwhelmingly. The RDA, he said, is "concerned to protect the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy." [14]

The clear message of the Bolt case – perfectly clear to those who actually read the judgment rather than the mendacious commentary thereon – is that we should not defame others with malicious lies. That's all.