A watershed moment in the push to wind back racial discrimination laws is set to unfold on Friday, with a Brisbane judge to finally decide on a controversial case involving students at the Queensland University of Technology.
Fairfax Media understands Federal Circuit Court judge Michael Jarrett will hand down his ruling on whether the civil lawsuit, brought under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, should proceed to the next stage.
More News Videos
18c to stay: Turnbull
Hear why Malcolm Turnbull has no plans to amend section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act but is open to talking about it. Courtesy 3AW.
Opponents of section 18C, which makes it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person" on the grounds of race, believe the case exemplifies why the law should be amended or repealed.
Momentum appears to be building for change, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull considering a parliamentary inquiry into the law, after a strident push by Coalition backbenchers including its entire Senate backbench cohort.
![The Queensland University of Technology.](/web/20161103221407im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/1/m/u/q/4/c/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gshjtc.png/1478173635988.jpg)
The judgment, expected since July and to be delivered late on Friday afternoon, revolved around QUT student Alex Wood, who was in 2013 asked to leave a computer lab reserved for use by Indigenous students. He then complained on a Facebook page called QUT Stalker Space: "Just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT is stopping segregation with segregation."
Another student, Jackson Powell, added the comment: "I wonder where the white supremacist lab is." And a third man, Calum Thwaites, is accused of writing "ITT N------s", a claim he vehemently denies.
Indigenous staff member Cindy Prior accused the trio of racial vilification and sued for $250,000 for damages, lost wages and future economic losses. The case advanced from the Australian Human Rights Commission to the Federal Court in 2015.
Opponents of 18C will make hay of the decision either way. If Judge Jarrett decides to proceed, it will be viewed as further legal and monetary imposition on three young men who have only exercised their right to free speech. If the case is thrown out, it will mean the students have been dragged through a three year legal battle and public shaming for nothing.
![The decision will put the spotlight on the Australian Human Rights Commission and its president Gillian Triggs, who is ...](/web/20161103221407im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/m/p/3/t/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gshjtc.png/1478173635988.jpg)
"No longer should Australians have to suffer in the way these young people have for the past three-and-a-half years," said John Roskam, executive director of free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. "The process has been the punishment. The government must indemnify these young people and immediately move to repeal section 18C."
Alternatively, proponents of 18C will argue a decision to proceed shows the men have a case to answer.