THE EDITOR: The correct recourse to law when sedition law has been misused or, for that matter, when any law is misused, is to sue for declaration of misuse and for damages. This is a commonplace, for example, when police exceed their mandates.
To sue for a declaration of unconstitutionality of the empowering law would be an abuse in law called abuse of process. Abuse of process categories include lawyers who misapply law as to its true functions, methods and ends.
Why would someone offended by an abuse of sedition law wish for its removal when it is a good positive law properly reflecting natural law, the right of the State to control sedition and the original jurisdiction of the court?
Whatever such a person intends, were he to succeed he would clear the way for the legalising of LGBTQ, etc, and for "amending" the equal opportunity legislation to include "orientations." This would mean that for a time there would be no positive (legislated) sedition law and anything could happen.
It would also mean that moves could be made later to enshrine a new positive sedition law, where anything could become a sedition according to any new "consensus" that arose in the play-out of the events associated with such "developments." A government should never arrange to emplace what is unnatural nor should it ever facilitate such emplacements.