I'm not so sure that the definition under law is quite as you think. the law actually says It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.
what counts is the victim's perspective of whether it offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates. (and not in the case of indigenous people whether a non indigenous person is offended), and the response has to be that of a "reasonable victim"
it is not designed to prevent proper debate about public policy issues or other matters of public interest and nor is commentary made in good faith.
I suspect that some of the posts here and on other threads are pretty close to the bone but others would be unlikely to meet the test above and as the thread has developed I think it has morphed far more clearly into a debate about what is a matter of public interest - albeit with some pretty heartless views some of which appear to be based on racist assumptions
however the human rights commission cant deal with a complaint when the respondent is not named so in any event the cover of anonymity provides a shield. Notwithstanding i think the guidelines ought to be useful in deciding whether it is Ok to make a post in particular light.
there is also something vaguely odd about a person defending indigenous rights and current manifestations of an approach to life that some have adopted and at the same time labelling those who disagree with him as the peanut brigade. Clearly his life is divided into goodies - those who don't disagree with him and baddies or dummies - those who don't agree with him. Maybe indigenous people have never disagreed with him.
