The Toben v Jones case-Holocaust denial and insulting Jewish people.

Dr Frederick Toben had material on his website "The Adelaide Institute" which certain Jewish people found offensive on the grounds of their race.
Complaints were lodged, the case heard and Toben was convicted.

Frederick Toben

THE CASE.

Jeremy Jones

Justice Branson’s orders restrained Dr Toben from further publishing information which conveyed the following imputations:
A. there is serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred;
B. it is unlikely that there were homicidal gas chambers Auschwitz;
C. Jewish people who are offended by and challenge Holocaust denial are of limited intelligence;
D. some Jewish people, for improper purposes, including financial gain, have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed.

DISCUSSION.  I want to look closely at the law, and the point "c" above.  It might seem pedantic, but I've recently found that Courts and Judges and Lawyers are VERY pedantic about legal issues.

RDA section 18c (relevant part)
(1)  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 a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Was Branson Correct ? 
Now.. in the judgement, Justice Branson (who I think happens to be Jewish) agreed that what Toben said about Jews who are offended or challenge Toben's denialism being of limited intelligence was contrary to the Act.
But wait... let's look at some grammar here.
In the sentence "Jews who challenge/are offended by" is qualified by  "are of limited intelligence"  but clearly (to me at least) the limited intelligence had nothing to do with their race, but everything to do with their inability to see Toben's point of view. So.. his 'offensive statement' could equally have been said about 'any' group of people or animals. "Pink colored Koala's which challenge the idea that there was no large scale killing of Koala's are of limited intelligence" ie.. it's not because they are koala's but because they  have limited "intelligence".  The racial or species tag is purely coincidental.
"White Australians who deny that Aboriginal massacres did not occur.. are of limited intelligence"
Has nothing to do with their whiteness, but it might connect with their lack of education about history. So, their intelligence may or may not be in focus. Not their 'whiteness' though.
Had he said "Jews who challenge holocaust denial are 'bigoted'"  it might be a different story.

Well..that's my take on it anyway.. I'm happy to hear contrary arguments on this. Specially from Lawyers.