QUESTION Antoine Buffon is passionate about causes since having experienced what he considers to be marginalisation of Indigenous peoples in Australia. At age 17, Antoine would read materials including those in the media and social media about contemporary issues such as climate change, immigration, inflation, and conflicts and wars. As a passionate individual, he would attend rallies and protests as well as being vocal about his views in Uncomfortable Truth, a social media platform preferred by what others would term as 'wokes'. He is also a founder of Secular Australia Party (SAP), a new party that seeks to field candidates in the coming 2025 elections. One day, he attended a protest in Sydney Village Hall about 'crimes against humanity' in the Philippines whose former leader had been arrested and brought to The Hague to face accountability for his bloody war on drugs during his term in office. On his way home, he continued to chant about victims of violence in Australia, Philippines, and Gaza while also pointing his two fingers on his right hand towards what looks like to be a place of worship. A member of this church who was coming out of the metro confronted Antoine which resulted in heated verbal arguments between the two. Upon reaching home, Antoine posted about this encounter and ranted about how religion and religious groups can enable violence. A Heaven News crew recorded the confrontation that transpired between Antoine and the church member, and the incident became primetime news. The following morning, two NSW police officers knocked on his parents' home and charged Antoine with a criminal offence based on Crimes Amendment (Inciting Racial Hatred) Bill (Act) 2025 Schedule 1 Amendment of Crimes Act 1900 No 40.

Based on the scenario outlined above, you are to write a brief as a defense counsel (challenging the arrest and charges) or as a prosecutor (arguing the case against Antoine). You are to choose one position only in writing the brief. In both positions, using your understanding of the facts and knowledge of liberal ideas, your main task is to either challenge (defense) or defend the law (prosecution), the Inciting Racial Hatred (Act - assume that it was assented on the day of the incident). In this assignment, you are to analyse, following research in primary and secondary sources, the arguments for or against the validity of the law, including its implementation, by critically discussing these arguments through the prism of the liberal, human rights and rule of law concepts (such as utilitarian versus deontological rights, the 'no harm' principle, public/ private spheres of harm, equality, substantive or procedural justice, thin or thick conceptions of the rule of law, etc.) that you have encountered in your readings. In arguing your position, you can also weigh on potential counter arguments to strengthen your arguments