No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
This paper considers the recent controversy surrounding section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and assesses the need for reform. I argue that the controversy surrounding section 18C is traceable to two causes. Firstly, section 18C locates the harm of hate speech within the experience of a victim, and secondly, describes this experience in terms of ‘feelings’ such as offence and insult. This ‘victim focus’ departs from the traditional characterisation of vilification as speech that harms social cohesion – an approach I refer to as the ‘incitement focus’. I defend section 18C's ‘victim focus’ by analysing the reasoning of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the German Constitutional Court where the ‘incitement focus’ is dominant. Through this comparison, I demonstrate that the ‘incitement focus’ is ill adapted to deal with the harm of hate speech in societies with a high degree of social cohesion. In these circumstances, the connection between speech and incitement is less amenable to legal reasoning, although courts legitimately perceive harm in the social and historical significance of hate speech. In contrast, Australia's ‘victim focus’ is better adapted to an inquiry into the relationship between speech and social and historical patterns of persecution. While I defend section 18C's description of this relationship in terms of ‘offence’ and ‘insult’, I recommend that the provision be amended to require that ‘insult’ be considered within an historical and social context. This may strengthen the public's perception that section 18C is a legitimate restriction on speech.
I thank Prof. Greg Taylor for his encouragement, feedback and robust debate while preparing this paper. All views expressed are my own. All translations are also my own except where indicated.
1 (2011) 197 FCR 261 (‘Eatock’).
2 (Cth).
3 The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2008. Accordingly, I refer to decisions made by the AHRC prior to 2008 as decisions made by the HREOC.
4 RDA s 18C(1).
5 Freedom of Speech (Repeal of S. 18C) Bill 2014 (Exposure Draft) <http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Attachment%20A.pdf>.
6 Quoted in Emma Griffiths, ‘Racial Discrimination Act Amendment: Federal Government Leaves Open Possibility of Altering Proposed Changes’, ABC (online), 26 March 2014 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-25/racial-discrimination-act-changes-george-brandis/5343464>.
7 See, eg, Feinberg, Joel, Offense to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
8 Tim Wilson, ‘Charlie Hebdo v 18C: No Contest’, The Australian (online), 19 January 2015 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/charlie-hebdo-v-18c-no-contest/news-story/ccf2a26b84386ce41ce5c32706e2ab89>.
9 Post, Robert, ‘Hate Speech’ in Weinstein, James and Hare, Ivan (eds), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2009) 123, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Freedom of Speech (Repeal of s.18C) Bill 2014 (Cth).
11 Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 736/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/70/D/736/1997 (18 October 2000) [11.5] (‘Ross v Canada’).
12 Opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976).
13 Ibid art 20.
14 Ibid art 4(a).
15 See, eg, Hare, Ivan, ‘Extreme Speech Under International and Regional Human Rights Standards’ in Weinstein, James and Hare, Ivan (eds), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2009) 62, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Notably, however, laws introduced in post-conflict Rwanda prohibiting the propagation of ‘genocide ideology’ have been heavily criticised for unjustifiably restricting free speech due to their broad frame of reference. See, eg, Allen, Jennifer M. and Norris, George H., ‘Is Genocide Different? Dealing with Hate Speech in a Post-Genocide Society’ (2011) 7 Journal of International Law and International Relations 146, 156–8Google Scholar.
17 ICERD, opened for signature 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969) art 2(1)(d).
18 ICCPR, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 19(3).
19 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, 102nd sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34 (12 September 2011) 12 [48].
20 Ross v Canada, UN Doc CCPR/C/70/D/736/1997 (18 October 2000) [11.5]. This is dealt with in greater detail below.
21 See, eg, Australian Human Rights Commission, Background Paper: Human Rights in Cyberspace 4. Permissible Limitations of the ICCPR Right to Freedom of Expression <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/background-paper-human-rights-cyberspace/4-permissible-limitations-iccpr-right-freedom>.
22 Ibid.
23 Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany] art 1: ‘Human dignity is inviolable. All state authority has the obligation of observing and protecting it’.
24 Kommers, Donald P, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (Duke University Press, 2nd ed, 1997) 298.Google Scholar
25 See, eg, Collin v Smith 578 F 2d 1197, 1203 (7th Cir) (1978); RAV v City of St Paul 505 US 377 (1992) 387–8 (‘RAV’).
26 Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany] art 5:
(1) Every person has the right to express and disseminate their opinion freely in word, text or image, and to inform themself from generally available sources without restriction. Freedom of the press and reportage through radio and film are guaranteed. There is no censorship.
(2) These rights are limited by the prescription of the general laws, statutory measures that protect youth, and the right to personal honour.
27 See, eg, Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Constitutional Court], 13 April 1994 reported in (1994) 90 BVerfGE 241, 248–9 (Auschwitzlüge) [Holocaust Lie Case].
28 Kübler, Friedrich, ‘Rassenhetze und Meinungsfreiheit: Grenzenüberschreitende Aspekte eines Grundrechtskonfliktes’ (2000) 125 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 109, 112Google Scholar; Markus Wehinger, Kollektivbeleidung – Volksverhetzung: Der strafrechtliche Schutz von Bevölkerungsgruppen durch die §§ 185 ff. und §130 StGB (1994) 38–9.
29 Ronald J Krotoszynski Jr., ‘Free Speech and the Culturally Contingent Nature of Human Rights: Some Concluding Observations’ in The First Amendment in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Freedom of Speech (2006) 214, 219. Notably, the United Nations has been critical of jurisdictions such as Germany that apply criminal penalties for defamation. See, eg, Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, UN Doc A/HRC/17/27 (2011) 11 [36].
30 Soldaten sind Mörder [Soldiers are Murderers], Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Constitutional Court], 10 October 1995 reported in (1995) 93 BVerfGE 266, 300 [Brugger, Winfried trans], ‘The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law (Part I & II)’ (2003) 4 German Law Journal 1, 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 Ibid 27–31.
32 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 (‘Lange’).
33 See, eg, McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34 [31] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ); Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 (‘Coleman’).
34 Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times (1994) 182 CLR 104, 124 (Mason CJ, Toohey and Gaudron JJ) (‘Theophanous’); ibid. While Lange has partially overruled Theophanous, commentary regarding Indigenous leaders is still capable of falling within the more narrowly defined class of communication described in Lange, as it may influence the decisions of voters. In light of this, the point made by Mason CJ, Toohey and Gaudron JJ in Theophanous remains salient.
35 Coleman (2004) 220 CLR 1, 31 [30] (Gleeson CJ).
36 See, eg, ibid 91 [239] (Kirby J); Monis v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 92, 131 [67] (French CJ), 174 [220] (Hayne J).
37 (2013) 249 CLR 92 (‘Monis’).
38 Monis v The Queen (2011) 256 FLR 28, 30 (Bathurst CJ), quoted in Monis (2013) 249 CLR 92, 106 [6] (French CJ).
39 Monis (2013) 249 CLR 92, 106 [7].
40 Ibid 112 [19].
41 See, eg, Monis (2013) 249 CLR 92, 112 [19] (French CJ).
42 Ibid 114 [25] (French CJ).
43 (2002) 120 FCR 243 (‘Scully’).
44 Scully (2002) 120 FCR 243, 305 [238]; Hobart Hebrew Congregation v Scully [2000] HREOCA 38 (Commissioner Cavanough). See also Anthony Gray, ‘Racial Vilification and Freedom of Speech in Australia and Elsewhere’ (2012) 41 Common Law World Review 167.
45 Hobart Hebrew Congregation v Scully [2000] HREOCA 38 (21 September 2000) 11 (Commissioner Cavanough).
46 Scully (2002) 120 FCR 243, 305–6 [239].
47 Ibid 306 [240].
48 (2003) 129 FCR 515 (Carr, Kiefel and Allsop JJ).
49 Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369; Michael Chesterman, Freedom of Speech in Australian Law: A Delicate Plant (Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2000) 211.
50 Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369, 371–2. See also Bennette v Cohen (2005) 64 NSWLR 81, 97.
51 Ibid.
52 See, eg, Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s 17; Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) s 4A. See also the Queensland offence of ‘public nuisance’: Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) s 6.
53 New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Penalty Notices, Report No 132 (2012) 297 [10.38]. See, eg, Worcester v Smith [1951] VLR 316; Inglis v Fish [1961] VR 607; Re Marland [1963] 1 DCR NSW 224.
54 New South Wales Law Reform Commission, above n 54, 297–8 [10.40]–[10.41].
55 Ibid 310 [10.82].
56 Ibid 289 [10.11].
57 New South Wales Ombudsman, Review of the Impact of Criminal Infringement Notices on Aboriginal Communities (August 2009) 59 <http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/3407/FR_CINs_ATSI_review_Aug09.pdf>.
58 Ibid 57.
59 Ibid 101–2.
60 Amanda Hoh and Alexandra Black, ‘Public Swearing Fines Increase to $500’, Sydney Morning Herald (online), 6 February 2014 <http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/increased-fines-for-offensive-language-leave-bad-taste-in-mouths-of-critics-20140206-324hv.html>.
61 For a criticism of certain features of the campaign to amend section 18C, see Adrienne Stone, ‘The Ironic Aftermath of Eatock v Bolt’ (2015) 38(3) Melbourne University Law Review 926.
62 Victoria first introduced its fines in 2011 and New South Wales increased its fines to five hundred dollars in early 2014: Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) s 17; Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (Vic) cl 10; Gray, Anthony, ‘Bloody Censorship: Swearing and Freedom of Speech’ (2012) 37 Alternative Law Journal 1, 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoh and Black, above n 60.
63 Human Rights Committee, Merits, Communication No 550/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (8 November 1996) (‘Faurisson v France’).
64 Ibid [9.6].
65 Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 736/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/70/D/736/1997 (18 October 2000) (‘Ross v Canada’).
66 Ibid [11.5].
67 Ibid [11.6].
68 Partsch, Karl Josef, ‘Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedoms’ in Henkin, Louis (ed), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Columbia University Press, 1981) 209, 227.Google Scholar
69 Human Rights Committee, Decision: Communication No 550/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (8 November 1996) (‘Faurisson v France’) (Individual Opinion of Elizabeth Evatt and David Kretzmer, cosigned by Eckhart Klein) [4]. Emphasis in original.
70 See, eg, comments of Lorenz Langer, ‘Religious Offence and Human Rights: The Implications of Defamation of Religions’ (2014) Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law 115.
71 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Opinion: Communication No 30/2003, 67th sess, UN Doc CERD/C/67/D/30/2003 (19 August 2005) (‘Oslo v Norway’).
72 Ibid [2.1].
73 Ibid [2.5].
74 Ibid [2.7].
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid [3.2].
77 Ibid [3.9].
78 Ibid [8.3].
79 Ibid [4.5].
80 Ibid [10.4].
81 Mamiya, Ralph, ‘Taking Judicial Notice of Genocide? The Problematic Law and Policy of the Karemera Decision’ (2007) 25(1) Wisconsin International Law Journal 1, 3.Google Scholar
82 See, eg, ibid; Drummond, Susan G., ‘Judicial Notice: The Very Texture of Legal Reasoning’ (2000) 15(1) Canadian Journal of Law and Society 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Opinion: Communication No 30/2003, 67th sess, UN Doc CERD/C/67/D/30/2003 (19 August 2005) (‘Oslo v Norway’) [3.5].
84 Franz Streng, ‘Das Unrecht der Volksverhetzung’ in Wilfried Küper (ed) Festschrift für Karl Lackner (1987) 501, 502.
85 See, eg, Lömker, Joachim, Die gefährliche Abwertung von Bevölkerungsteilen (§130 StGB) (PhD Thesis, The University of Hamburg, 1970) 32–51.Google Scholar
86 Dietz, Simone, ‘Die Lüge von der <Auschwitzlüge< – Wie weit reicht das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung?’ (1995) 28(2) Kritische Justiz 210, 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
87 Strafgesetzbuch [Criminal Code] (Germany) §130(1).
88 Ibid §194(1).
89 Initially, §130(1) operated to counteract a more concrete threat of anti-Semitic violence. Instances of attacks against the Jews — predominantly verbal abuse, property damage and desecration of Jewish cemeteries — fell consistently during the early sixties, arguably as a result of prosecutions: Lömker, above n 85, 53.
90 Streng, above n 84, 503.
91 See, eg, Foerstner, Georg, Kollektivbeleidigung, Volksverhetzung und ‘lex Tucholsky’: Eine Untersuchung zu Äußerungsdelikten und Meinungsfreiheit (Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2002) 150–2.Google Scholar
92 Wunsiedelentscheidung [Wunsiedel Decision], Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Constitutional Court], 4 November 2009 reported in (2009) 124 BVerfGE 300.
93 See, eg, Verwaltungsgericht Bayreuth [Administrative Court Bayreuth], B 1 K 05.768, 9 May 2006.
94 Versammlungsgesetz [Public Meetings Act] (Germany) §15(1).
95 Payandeh, Mehrdad, ‘The Limits of Freedom of Expression in the Wunsiedel Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court’ (2010) 11(8) German Law Journal 929, 935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96 Dirk Wüstenberg, ‘Stört die Äußerung den öffentlichen Frieden? Konsequenzen der Wunsiedel-Entscheidung des BVerfG für Strafverteidigung’ (2010) 11 Onlinezeitschrift für Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zum Strafrecht 471, 475 <http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/archiv/10-10/index.php?sz=7>.
97 Ibid.
98 Ibid 474.
99 Wunsiedelentscheidung [Wunsiedel Decision], Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Constitutional Court], 4 November 2009 reported in (2009) 124 BVerfGE 300 [37].
100 Ibid [22].
101 See, eg, Dirk Wüstenberg, above n 96.
102 Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt [Higher Regional Court Frankfurt], 15 August 2000 reported in (2000) NStZ-RR 368.
103 Vasiliki E. Christou, Die Hassrede in der verfassungsrechtlichen Diskussion: Ein Beitrag im Lichte des deutschen, des U.S.-amerikanischen und des griechischen Rechts (Nomos, 2007) 220.
104 Lömker, above n 85, 141.
105 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg [Higher Regional Court Hamburg], 18 February 1975 reported in (1975) NJW 1088f.
106 See, eg, ‘Herr Asylbetrüger’ [The Fraudulent Asylum Seeker], Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht [Bavarian Higher Regional Court], 17 August 1994 reported in (1995) NJW 145.
107 Streng, above n 84, 508.
108 See, eg, Streng, above n 84, 506.
109 See, eg, Eatock 197 FCR 261, 328 [282] (Bromberg J).
110 See, eg, Monis (2013) 249 CLR 92 [67] (French CJ).
111 See, eg, Mundey v Askin [1982] 2 NSWLR 369, 371–2.
112 See, eg, Weinstein, James, ‘Extreme Speech, Public Order, and Democracy: Lessons from The Masses’ in Hare, Ivan and Weinstein, James (eds), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford, 2009) 23, 33–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
113 See, eg, Amnesty International, Submission to the Attorney General's Department, Proposed Amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, 24 April 2014.
114 Eatock 197 FCR 261, 307–11 [196]–[211].
115 Opened for signature 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969) art 4(a); Chesterman, Michael, Freedom of Speech in Australia: A Delicate Plant (Ashgate, 2000) 195–7Google Scholar.
116 Chesterman, above n 115, 196.
117 Eatock 197 FCR 261 [198] (Bromberg J); Toben v Jones 129 FCR 515 [123] (Allsop J).
118 Chesterman, above n 115, 196; Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, Racist Violence: Report of the National Inquiry into Racist Violence in Australia (1991); Commonwealth, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Final Report (1991) [28.3.31]–[28.3.50]; Australian Law Reform Commission, Multiculturalism and the Law, Report No 57 (1992) [7.29]–[7.47].
119 See, eg, Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, above n 118.
120 Chesterman, above n 115, 196–8; Dilan Thampapillai, ‘Inconsistent at Best?: An Analysis of Australia's Federal Racial Vilification Laws’ (2010) Canberra Law Review 1, 4–5; McNamara, Luke and Solomon, Tamsin, ‘The Commonwealth Racial Hatred Act 1995: Achievement or Disappointment?’ (1996) 18 Adelaide Law Review 259.Google Scholar
121 See, eg, Explanatory Memorandum, Racial Hatred Bill 1994 (Cth).
122 RDA s 18C.
123 Eatock (2011) 197 FCR 261, 321 [253].
124 Ibid 310 [205].
125 Australian Human Rights Commission, above n 119.
126 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46P.
127 Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 (Cth) cl 120–3.
128 Chesterman, above n 115, 203.
129 Australian Human Rights Commission, above n 119.
130 See, eg, Shaikh v Campbell & Nivona Pty Ltd [1998] HREOCA 13; McMahon v Bowman [2000] FMCA 3; Campbell v Kirstenfeldt [2008] FMCA 1356; Stephanie Anderson, ‘Interactive: Race Discrimination Cases From Brits to Bolt’, SBS (online) 6 August 2014 <http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/27/interactive-race-discrimination-cases-brits-bolt>.
131 See, eg, Rugema v Gadsten Pty Ltd & Derkes [1997] HREOCA 34; Francis Nnamdi Elekwachi v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1997] FCA 1183; San v Dirluck Pty Ltd & Anor [2005] FMCA 750; Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (No. 2) [2006] FMCA 1767; Anderson, above n 130.
132 See, eg, Barnes v Northern Territory Police & Anor [2013] FCCA 30; Ejueyitsi v Commissioner Of Police (Western Australia) [2013] FMCA 120; Anderson, above n 130.
133 RDA s 18D.
134 Chesterman, above n 115, 208.
135 Ibid.
136 Ibid.
137 Kelly-Country v Beers & Anor [2004] FMCA 336; Australian Human Rights Commission, At A Glance: Racial Vilification Under Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (1 September 2014) Australian Human Rights Commission <https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/18C%20%26%20D%20FactsheetFINAL.pdf>.
138 Ibid.
139 Ibid.
140 [1998] HREOCA 24; Anderson, above n 130.
141 Anderson, above n 130.
142 (2011) 197 FCR 261, 322 [257].
143 Ibid.
144 Scully (2002) 120 FCR 243, 269 [102] (Hely J); Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 352, 356–7 [16] (Kiefel J) (‘Creek’); Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner (2004) 135 FCR 105, 124 [70] (French J) (‘Bropho’); Eatock (2011) 197 FCR 261, 325 [267]–[268] (Bromberg J).
145 See, eg, Thampapillai, above n 120.
146 See, eg, Eatock (2011) 197 FCR 261, 306–7 [192]; discussing the principle in Coleman (2004) 220 CLR 1, 25 [12] (Gleeson CJ), 38 [59] (McHugh J), 73 [177] (Gummow and Hayne JJ), 115 [306] (Hayne J).
147 See, eg, McMahon v Bowman [2000] FMCA 3; Anderson, above n 130.
148 Hagan v Trustees of the Toowoomba Sports Ground Trust [2000] FCA 1615 [13] (‘Hagan’).
149 Ibid [28] (Drummond J); see also Scully (2002) 120 FCR 243 [100].
150 Hagan [2000] FCA 1615 [8].
151 Hagan v Australia, UN GAOR, Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Committee 62nd sess, UN Doc CERD/C/62/D/26/2002 (2003).
152 Thampapillai, above n 120, 10.
153 McLeod v Power (2003) 173 FLR 31; Anderson, above n 130.
154 Bryant v Queensland Newspaper Pty Ltd [1997] HREOCA 23; Anderson, above n 130.
155 Criminal Code 1913 (WA) ss 80A–B.
156 Police v A Child (Unreported, Kalgoorlie Children's Court, Magistrate Auty, 14 September 2006); David Weber, ‘Transcript: WA Court Dismisses Charges over Racial Insult’ (15 Sept 2006), AM <http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1741596.htm>; Weston-Scheuber, Kylie, ‘Gender and the Prohibition of Hate Speech’ (2012) 12 QUT Law & Justice Journal 2, 145–6.Google Scholar
157 (2011) 197 FCR 261, 327–8.
158 Eatock (2011) 197 FCR 261, 321 [253]; Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 23 August 1995, 222; Explanatory Memorandum, Racial Hatred Bill 1994 (Cth).
159 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 15 November 1994, 3341; Scully (2002) 120 FCR 243, 269 [102].
160 See, eg, Thampapillai, above n 120, 3.
161 See, eg, analysis of Thampapillai: ibid.
162 See, eg, Sarah Joseph, Rights to Bigotry and Green Lights to Hate (27 March 2014) The Conversation <https://theconversation.com/rights-to-bigotry-and-green-lights-to-hate-24946>.
163 Tony Abbott, ‘The Politics of the Abbott Government’ (2016) 60(5) Quadrant 20, 22.
164 Gavin Phillipson, ‘Hate Speech Laws: What They Should and Shouldn't Do’ (Speech delivered at the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University Law Chambers, 24 April 2014).
165 (2011) 197 FCR 261, 323 (Bromberg J).
166 See, eg, Bianca Hall, ‘Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson Says Race Hate Laws Are Bizarre, Unequal’, Sydney Morning Herald (online), 30 March 2014 <http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-rights-commissioner-tim-wilson-says-race-hate-laws-are-bizarre-unequal-20140329-35qeb.html>.
167 Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Constitutional Court], 1 BvL 55/83, 13 May 1986 reported in (1986) 72 BVerfGE 141; Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Constitutional Court], 1 BvR 1341/90, 24 April 1991 reported in (1991) 84 BVerfGE 133.