Dear Pino, I drove that bus and never made it Pino Migliorino, former chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, seems to have missed the entire argument about the oppressive laws against free speech that the Abbott Government has promised to relax: I have made standing up for people a key part of my life and I must admit that I have been critical of racial vilification provisions of the act (18C), not because they limited freedom of speech, but because the exemptions contained in the same part of the act (18D) are so broad that you could drive the proverbial truck through them. These exemptions cover artistic, academic and scientific work and public interest publications which are all allowable if they are done in ""good faith"." So why are so many people not aware of the exemptions? Why has the bulk of the debate been framed around one person, Andrew Bolt, to the point that the provisions are erroneously referred to as the ""Bolt laws""? We need to understand both the protections and exemptions relevant to this part of the act. It is only in having the full picture that we understand the ramifications of any watering down of the vilification provisions? I agree with Migliorino about one thing: these laws are not "Bolt laws." They have also been used against a former vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra. More to the point, the real victims of the law aren't just the individuals forced to shut up on certain issues, but the tens of thousands of Australians who are therefore denied a debate and the freedom to judge such things for themselves. But Migliorino is absolutely wrong - astonishingly in denial - on the second point. The reason that my name is, however unfortunately, attached to the law is that my case proves the very opposite of what Migliorino claims. You cannot "drive the proverbial truck" through the racial discrimination act. My case suggested to me the very opposite: that a judge had unacceptably wide freedom to determine someone lacked "good faith" in expressing a view against the new racism, on the grounds of "tone" and "errors" which in my opinion could be irrelevant, trivial and in many cases disputed. Another dangerous attempt to restrict free speech - this time of speech I vigorously oppose: A LANDMARK lawsuit against Sydney academic Jake Lynch over his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel faces an early challenge, with the defence to argue a key aspect of it is unfair... The case, which begins with a directions hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney on Wednesday, is regarded as a critical test of Australia's anti-discrimination laws on one hand and freedom of expression on the other. I actually do believe the BDS campaign is at heart racist, in part because it is so desperately and dangerously one-sided. The one difference in this cause, of course, that Lynch is free to express his opinion (while I am not), and the argument goes more to his actions in using his state-funded position to deny Israeli academics the cooperation of his university. But this time the Left is suitably outraged...