According to 18C, as I understand it, it is contrary to the law to say something that someone else says they have been offended by. But how do we know they have been offended? Because they have said so. But how do we know they are telling the truth that they have been offended? Again, because they said so. As circular as this may seem, the nature of the law as it is now constructed is that it merely takes the word of someone to say they have been offended by something someone else has said and off to kangaroo court we go.

If being offended was all it took to start this process going, you would think these courts would be filled to the brim and their calendars would stretch into the future for years ahead. There are plenty of offensive statements being made all the time everywhere. There is, however, a catch. Only some groups are officially designated as potential offendees. Only they can get these kangaroo courts to act. So hidden away under lock and key is the list of people and groups who will set this process in motion by saying they have been offended, while with others they can offend to their heart’s content and no one will say boo to a goose.

Andrew Bolt discusses one such case, under the heading, Even Christ would be banned under our laws against speech that offends. Of course, the superfluous word there is the word “even”. The real point is that it is especially Christians who are banned from stating their beliefs, you know, the beliefs that have been the basis of our civilisation for the past 1500-2000 years. And if someone should find themselves offended by some anti-Christian rant, of which there are many from which to choose, is there a tribunal available to which they could take their complaint? You have only to ask to know the answer.

Then there is this story on Watchdog kept 18C respondent in the dark about QUT complaint which contains this scandalous detail:

The AHRC has a legal duty to inquire into all complaints which it accepts and to attempt to conciliate them. If the commission determines that the complaints cannot be resolved, they are given a green light to advance in the courts.

“I am not aware of anything done by the commission either to investigate Ms Prior’s complaint so far as it concerns myself or to ­attempt to conciliate Ms Prior’s complaint against me,’’ Mr Powell said in his February 3 affidavit. . . .

Ms Triggs said last night she could not comment on the individual case but “generally, the commission notifies all respondents about complaints made against them to gain their version of the facts and to invite participation in conciliation wherever appropriate”. “There will be times however when this is not possible,” she said.

Generally, is it, but not always. 18C has to go. It cannot be equitable to have a law that allows someone merely to say they were offended by what someone else had said and then be potentially in line to collect thousands of dollars in compensation while the person who has supposedly done the offending must endure the stigma from having been so accused while having to spend both time and money to see their case resolved.