In my youth I valued freedom of speech above all other values. Although a Jewish Holocaust survivor, I opposed the criminalisation of statements by Holocaust deniers.

Now in my old age, I am disturbed by the efforts of those who wish to criminalise rather than just ridiculing and shaming so-call hate speech. A robust freedom of speech distinguishes criminal acts from abhorrent opinions. Australians who ignore the difference between harmful acts and mere opinions, eroding freedom of speech will unwittingly create a velvet totalitarianism in our society.

THERE are many areas of our society where unfavourable comment can give offence and on occasion that offence can be very hurtful. The problem with section 18C is that offence can range to the trivial to the extreme. Some of the best comedians are Jewish and they make jokes about Jewish society — which could give offence to some — but would never consider a joke relating to the Holocaust.

Section 18C paints a picture that is either black or white where, in fact, there are many shades of grey. Where offence is directed to hurt an individual, such offence is wrong. An offence directed at an entire community is equally wrong.

There is surely a middle ground where individuals receive some protection from offence and there are some subjects which are beyond the pale and may need to be defined.

IF the Abbott government’s new broad provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act will prohibit the incitement of racial hatred and threats of physical harm, will it also prohibit the incitement to hatred of non-believers, infidels and crusaders, and threats of death to those who do not follow the Islamic teachings?

MELBOURNE University law professor Mark McMillan, one of the nine Aborigines who successfully had two of my columns banned by the Federal Court, says of the reaction: “I was accused of being a pedophile, and these were not just responses of Andrew Bolt (“Act failing to stop black-on-black racism” (29-30/3.)

This is grossly offensive and utterly false. I have never made any such accusation and would condemn anyone who did. I have in the past publicly attacked prominent journalists, authors and politicians who tried to smear gays as closet pedophiles, and I find it outrageous that a professor of law would defame me by falsely suggesting I did something so vile myself.

THIS argument is not about Andrew Bolt (“A free and vigorous debate would be the best avenue for Bolt’s detractors”, 29-30/3), it was always about a government entitlement system being allegedly rorted, for that is what Bolt was indicating.

The fact that debate has been effectively stopped by legislation should be a worry for everyone. Those involved in this “solution” will first look to legislation to silence every other criticism of government policy. Legislation to prohibit debate is obviously not democracy.

IN urging the repeal of all hate speech laws, Brendan O’Neill has made easily the best contribution yet in the freedom of speech debate. The idea that bigotry can be legislated away is absurd. Look at how much taxpayers’ money is wasted on this nonsense — just to appease a minority of politically correct devotees.

Like many others, I have been reviled from time to time but it causes me no loss of sleep. My attackers have every right to express an opinion on my views, just as I have the right to express one on theirs.