The last federal Parliamentary sitting week in March was dominated by fierce debate about free speech and racial vilification.



Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it illegal to offend, insult or humiliate someone because of their race.



The Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt ran foul of these laws and was fined, prompting the then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to promise to repeal them.



No thinking person, and especially Christians, wants racism.



The question is, how do you strike the right balance between free speech and creating a culture of respect for all people?



The human rights lobby believes strong legal protections are needed against racist elements in the Australian community and wants the laws unchanged.



I tend to think the Australian community is far more tolerant than some give them credit for.



The Attorney General George Brandis has argued that free speech is a higher value and is proposing to repeal Section 18C.



However, he proposes to make it against the law to vilify or intimidate people on the basis of race where vilify means to incite hatred against a person or group and intimidate means to cause fear of physical harm.



While still subjective, that seems to be a more appropriate place to strike the balance.



But what of non-race-based claims of vilification?



Some people claim the statements: "Marriage should be between a man and a woman" and "that wherever possible, children deserve their mother and father" to be deeply offensive, humiliating and even 'hateful'.



Some politicians have even said there is "no place in Australia" for these views.



It seems the debate about free speech and freedom of religion in Australia is only just beginning.

Lyle Shelton is the Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. In this interview with the ACL's Katherine Spackman he talks about why free speech is important for a well-functioning society. Debate about free speech and the limits of it has been a matter of public discussion in the context of an inquiry into whether section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should be amended. Columnist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching the Act in 2011 because of his comments he made about light-skinned aboriginal people. Mr Shelton believes some parts of the Racial Discrimination Act could be amended to ensure free speech.

Garrick Professor of Law James Allan is from the University of Queensland. In this interview with the ACL's Katherine Spackman he talks about the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Attorney-General George Brandis plans on introducing laws into parliament that repeal the offending and insulating parts of Section 18C of the Act. Columnist Andrew Bolt was found to have contravened the act in September 2011 for two opinion pieces he wrote which implied light-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal did so for personal gain. Professor Allan believes the changes should go further and repeal all four provisions: offending, insulting, humiliation and intimidation.