Aly’s self-wedge on figures of speech

The play would clearly offend and insult and possibly humiliate members of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints.

The producers would struggle to defend that they have acted "reasonably and in good faith" when it is an intentional two hours and 20 minutes of deliberate ridiculing and mocking of the tenets of their faith.

Examples such as these demonstrate the abject folly of using "offend", "insult", and "humiliate" as tests in law. They are subjective and focus on the expression of an opinion rather than harassment, which focuses on conduct.

The theory behind such laws is that they are necessary to protect vulnerable minorities but they also protect the same communities from harsh and sometimes necessary criticism; and particularly when a community turns from being oppressed to the oppressor.

Minority groups, ethnic or ­religious, often have negative views towards other vulnerable communities.

Many ethnic communities culturally denigrate or treat women differently from men, and women aren't a minority.

Similarly, many ethnic and religious communities have a negative view towards homosexuals.

And often religious and ethnic communities don't like each other and can have actively hostile views towards each other.

These topics should be open to debate without having to prove criticism is reasonable and in good faith.

After the absurdity of her proposal was exposed, Aly has ­rejected any suggestion she wanted "to extend section 18C of the ­Racial Discrimination Act to cover religion".

With such a simple statement, Aly confirmed how vacuous and opportunist Labor's consideration of 18C reform has been.

It either has to explain why ­offending someone on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic ­origin is worse than doing the same towards religion or ­acknowledge being offended is the wrong test in law.