Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

makes it unlawful  "to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity."

This is followed by section 18D " contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith".

I have taken the words in quotes from the Human Rights Commission site. Those sections of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) are generally considered to be controversial.  They were the cause of a great deal of controversy when they were written and may cause even more controversy now.

Do they matter? Are they a brake on our "freedom of speech"? There is no "right" to "freedom of speech" under the law in this country. Rights come with responsibilities. (I wonder how many times I have had write that?) When people breach responsibilities they risk taking away rights from all of us. I am not saying anything new here.

So does the proposed "hate speech" legislation being put before parliament actually do anything new? Is it simply a way of increasing control over what we can or cannot say? Is there any point in it or should we be doing more to ensure that sections 18C and 18D get applied as intended? 

Will the proposed legislation prevent citizens of this country from being subjected to a fatwa such as that imposed on Salman Rushdie following the publication of "The Satanic Verses"? Will it stop the sort of cartoon like depictions of a prophet which appeared in a Scandinavian newspaper and provoked protest marches around the world? Will it stop anything like the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015.

At one point the government tried to replace the words "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity" with "harass or intimidate". They did not succeed at the time because it was considered to be "too broad". The current proposal goes further than that. It is a response to a tragedy but is it the right response?  How do you get a balance between "freedom of expression", religion and artistic expression and care of the individual? The last week or so has made it very clear that the "hurt" of one person who has made controversial statements is apparently worthy of more consideration than that of a group. Has this been the right decision? It is still a matter of hot debate.

The debate will continue but cartoonist Johannes Leak did an excellent job of showing up the government's intentions in this morning's cartoon,