I see that Tim "Selfie" Wilson continues his jihad against s18C of the RDA in a lengthy column in The Australian.
I also see that Mike Carlton has taken offence at his mention in the column, too. I would have thought he has grounds for a defamation action, but I could be wrong. I hope some lawyer volunteers to act for him, though, even if he is annoying much of the time.
I don't really understand Wilson's ability to run around continually trying to drum up support for policy changes which are not entirely consistent with the policy position of his workplace, the HRC. (Well, I think that's what's going on, anyway.)
The media attack on his boss, Triggs, has also been a disgrace. Sure, her finding of compensation being warranted to a detainee kept confined for years after he served his criminal sentence sounded high, but the finding that his detention was in breach of international convention was hardly surprising to most lawyers who have commented on it.
The Right seems to think that you're an immigrant, you can be kept detained indefinitely if you have committed a serious crime, even after serving the sentence. (They are displaying exactly the same nonchalance about the situation on Manus Island, which is likely to turn very ugly soon, by the looks.)
But back to 18C: one of the odd things about it is that I see no compelling evidence that Tim's buddy Sinclair Davidson is worried about its use against him for hosting a blog that becomes chock full of the most inflammatory comments about Islam and Muslims after every terrorist attack.
And as for Wilson's argument that he's worried that aboriginal attitudes against gays can't be discussed freely because of 18C - what a completely bogus point. As someone at Catallaxy (how odd - something useful from that blog!) has pointed out - the topic of aboriginal tradition being used as a self justification for completely unacceptable sexual behaviour was thoroughly canvassed in The Australian in a column in 2007. Did 18C prevent that being published?
Wilson and his buddies selfservingly exaggerate the operation and effect of 18C - and they have little in the way of actual cases to point to where it has interfered with a topic getting discussed in the media.
But, that's right, Andrew Bolt got taken to court over a column and his paper had to print a statement to run with the offending columns. (And we don't know who paid for Andrew's legal costs. But it was stressful for him. Very, very stressful. And so s.18C must go.)