Deeply irritating columnist versus seriously flawed law

persephone says:

10:14am | 02/10/11

thatmosis

and (by my reading of the judgment) if Bolt had kept it to generalities, he would have been OK.

Instead, he used 9 specific examples, claiming that individuals had claimed to be aboriginal for personal gain.

In each case, he was wrong.

gobsmack says:

11:15am | 02/10/11

@thatmosis
The ruling was not “ridiculous”.  It was entirely consistent with the law as it currently applies.  The judge has done his job which is to apply the law.
You sound like Julia Gillard when the immigration case went against her.

Faz says:

11:48am | 02/10/11

‘... gets under peoples skins by telling the truth ...’

Maybe if he actually did tell the truth, there might not have been a problem, but he built his inflamatory remarks on errors of fact. When you are going to racially insult people it might help to employ some truth. Bolt is crying ‘freedom of speech’ now to hide his red face at being such a shoddy journalist.

Dave says:

12:21pm | 02/10/11

Correct here….he just just never uses the facts

Chris L says:

01:45pm | 02/10/11

If the truth were important to Bolt perhaps he wouldn’t censor comments made on his blog. He’ll allow the less coherent criticisms through so his fanbase can marvel at how hateful the left is, but he won’t let anyone with a valid point speak against him.

TomZ says:

01:50pm | 02/10/11

I cannot believe it but I agree with Persephone. Bolt should have ensured all his facts were 100% on the button. He has not done any favours to the conservatives by being so sloppy.

All he did was give a free kick to the new age fascists on the smug left.

lordy says:

01:52pm | 02/10/11

“..telling the truth..” You’re kidding, right. Bolt can’t handle the truth, in fact he believes that Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. There are lots of nutters coming out of the woodwork to defend Bolt, one of them, the propaganda central of right wingers, the Institute of Public Affairs, wants to scrap the law altogether. And no, they are not being funny, they actually meant it!? As for freedom of speech, freedom of speech is part of freedom of expression, and is a part of human rights, but it does not exceed all others. Everyone has the right to self-expression, but it must not hurt others. Bolt and his pathetic little followers are w-r-o-n-g!

john says:

01:54pm | 02/10/11

@persephone that’s not entirely true. he wasn’t questioning aboriginality or anything like that, he was questioning why those less disadvantaged Aboriginals{i.e rural aboriginals etc} were gaining commercially less than those less in appearance Aboriginals.

Bolt WASN’T questioning whether they were aboriginal or not.

It was those judges and plaintiffs that turned it into a race issue.
I do agree the language Bolt used could have been more refined.

As an example it is akin to Bolt saying:
Why those looking less Aussies don’t get the dole or financial assistance and are more disadvantaged than those that looked more Aussie who get everything and are more likely to get employment?

As you can see he WOULD NOT be questioning if your aussie or not.

The same thing is what he is saying about “aboriginality”.

Not sure how that is racist.

So we can no longer question the unfairness of distribution of wealth for more disadvantaged people?

Super D says:

03:09pm | 02/10/11

In fairness to Bolt, none of the individuals actually look very Aboriginal at all.  Now this is not to say that they aren’t Aboriginal or identify as such or even that they aren’t entitled to recognise and celebrate their culture and have others do the same.  The point is, in another Australia, where Aboriginals are actively persecuted to the point they are sent to death camps, the Bolt 9 would likely be able to argue the toss the other way, in a way that Noel Pearson and Cathy Freeman never could.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:22pm | 02/10/11

Oh for heaven’s sake almost nothing Bolt writes about has any passing friendship with the truth.

The columns were utter bulldust and paid no heed to the fact that aborigines have fair skin only due to the white man’s policy of whiting out the black.

He was in effect blaming the victims of eugenics policies run by white people and that is repulsive.

Kurisu Sonsaku says:

03:29pm | 02/10/11

@ MS

Peddle your lies elsewhere marilyn

DocBud says:

05:09pm | 02/10/11

You claim that there are only fair skinned aborigines as a result of the alleged policy of “whiting out the black”, Marilyn. It follows, therfore, that all of the plaintiffs are products of this policy. That observation is not only patently inaccurate but it is surely racist to suggest that people of different colour cannot have a loving relationship and I’d have thought it every bit as offensive as anything Andrew Bolt wrote.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

05:34pm | 02/10/11

Oh I am as racist as Bolt because I don’t agree with his racist ramblings that ignore official Australian white policy of whiting out the black.
That has zero to do with loving relationships, most of the people Bolt attacked are the direct result of the rape out the black policy inflicted by whites.

So grown up

persephone says:

06:13pm | 02/10/11

john

he accused them of identifying as aboriginal for personal gain.

‘
‘‘For many of these fair Aborigines (referring to the individuals named in the article) , the choice to be Aboriginal can be considered almost arbitrary and intensely political, given how many of their ancestors are in fact Caucasian.’‘

and
’ ‘‘How can Graham Atkinson be co-chair of the Victorian Traditional Owners Land Justice Group when his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman?’‘

certainly seems to be questioning the man’s aboriginality.

(To put the record straight in that case, Bromberg states:
The Atkinsons’ parents are both Aboriginal as are all four of their grandparents and all of their great grandparents other than one who is the Indian great-grandfather that Mr Bolt referred to in the article.’‘)

DocBud says:

07:26pm | 02/10/11

Of the nine plaintiffs, Marilyn, kindly point out those who are “the direct result of the rape out the black policy inflicted by whites.”

B says:

08:03pm | 02/10/11

Im 25% Irish,

I cannot go back to Ireland and claim benefits because of this.

If one parent is not 100% aboriginal then no special treatment should be awarded.  Case closed.

Also maryln.  Your comments are offensive and derogatory.  Both to whites and aboriginals, if you insist on labeling people.  People like you are the reason we have racism and bigotry in this world.

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

02:10am | 03/10/11

Marilyn Shephard since when have you been a truth speaker? ? Not in this century

Christian Real says:

09:33am | 03/10/11

thatmosis
Bolt telling the truth,next you will be claiming Tony Abbott tells the truth, even though he has said “Don’t believe everything I say”

john says:

11:56am | 03/10/11

@persephone, this is what Bolt actually says:

“To be clear: not once did I say that these people had no right to call themselves Aborigines. I’ve always accepted that they do.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/silencing-me-impedes-unity/story-e6frfifx-1226150249249

And Pandora’s box has truly been opened and loaded with many questions..

Yes he states they do it for personal gain. When clearly there are Aboriginals i.e rural Aboriginals that are in far greater need than their urban cousins. Isn’t that a valid point ? How is that racist?
Can’t we talk about commercial inequities coupled with race without being charged with racism?

I do concede the language bolt used could have been toned down but isn’t that changing Australian culture of speaking or writing with candor? Should we ban the chasers, or at home with Julia? Or even hey hey it saturday? satire because of racism, racially stereotyping actors?

What is it called when you suppress freedom of speech in their cultural way? 

If you ban Italians from using their hands to communicate because it was offensive what’s that called? Oppression ? What good is the media for now?.

Are the instruments of Justice being used to oppress society and the media further?

You see pandora’s box has been opened and society has been muted.

IMHO learn to enjoy the silence.

acotrel says:

01:36pm | 03/10/11

Andrew Bolt has paid the price for his poisonous rhetoric !  It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about avoiding vilification of minorities, and maintaing a modicum of good manners and respectability in society !  Andrew is in a position of power - Rupert Murdoch power, and he has abused it !  Basic freedoms and rights - abuse them and lose them !  He has created a problem for all of us ! ! !
While we are on this subject, the rest of the Murdoch press isn’t too flash.  A lot of it is manipulative and biassed !  But they really should lose the poisonous crap.  We Australians are beginning to sound like Palestinians !

not a dog says:

01:41pm | 03/10/11

Wolves look like dogs, smell like a dog, bark like a dog and so do foxes, hyenas, jackals, dingo’s etc… Would you walk up to pat a hyena thinking it’s a dog?  Most people would find out first so they’re not bitten..

Dale says:

02:04pm | 03/10/11

David, you as a journalist should know better. You should also know that truth is a justifiable defence against defamation. You should also know that this country has no Bill of Rights and no specific law granting freedom of speech; we only have the implication of common law and the rulings of the UN (long bow, but you get my point). Defending Bolt is foolish, and questioning the rulings of the court is worse; the man was stupid enough to raise nine SPECIFIC examples, and as has been mentioned, each was incorrect and defaming.
To say that the due process used by the justice system is flawed is weak and naive. Yes, Bolt is a twit, but as a journalist, he’s bound by law - twit or not.

Craig of North Brisbane says:

02:54pm | 03/10/11

Nope, Andy doesn’t write Labor party fluff pieces, he writes Coalition fluff pieces.  Of course, the difference between the two is usually just a “search and replace” away in your word processor of choice, anyway.

Classic says:

05:46pm | 03/10/11

It doesn’t matter that Bolt got the facts wrong - he should have been sued for defamation in that case.  The wrong law - one that breaches our fundamental right to freedom of speech - was used to prosecute him.

James says:

10:40pm | 03/10/11

David just sounds jealous TBH. If you want all those column inches you need to figure out what Bolta did: that there are MANY left wing journos to service the leftish amongst us, but very few Conservative journos to compete with on the right.

So few in fact that being an outspoken conservative can be enough to get you your own TV show.

Margie says:

09:14am | 04/10/11

HEAR HEAR!!!  I am of Italian extraction but don’t look at all Italian or call call myself Italian - I am AUSTRALIAN and proud of it.  But then there are no perks I can claim because of this heritage. If there were, then I may shout my heritage as so many do!.

Damocles says:

06:36pm | 05/10/11

Hey acotrel, just changing the subject a little as you are prone to do, but couldn’t resist…....you said, “Andrew is in a position of power - Rupert Murdoch power, and he has abused it !” Heavens above, this comment of yours could be swung thus….“Julia is in a position of power - union backed power, and she has abused it !” What’s good for the gander is good for the goose!

Mayday says:

12:31pm | 02/10/11

Excellent points here and in my experience it is often what is left unsaid that actually says it all.

persephone says:

01:11pm | 02/10/11

‘Actually it was her grandfather who was German’ (and your following comments based on this)...

Incorrect.

From Bromberg’s ruling:

‘
‘‘To her knowledge, there is no German descent on either her father or mother’s side of the family although she assumes that because of her father’s Germanic surname, there may have been some German descent.

Her paternal grandfather came to Australia from England. Mr Bolt also referred to her father as being white. Her father had dark skin.’’

BrettH says:

01:21pm | 02/10/11

It’s not hard. Bolt could have discussed the finer points of Larissa Behrendt’s lineage or choice to identify as aborigine vs German but he didn’t, he jumped straight to the incorrect conclusion.

In fact Bolt could have written the article as it is now posted and it would have been fine, but he didn’t. Bolts editors should have legalled it the same way everyone else legals for defamation.

stephen says:

01:29pm | 02/10/11

The Laws of Defamation were not here utilized ; Racial Vilification Laws were, but had they been, I don’t think Bolt would lost his case, truth or untruth.
And as far as I know, what you don’t say cannot be used in evidence against you.
Mr. Bolt remains, to my mind, a little too earnest in reporting imbalances of opportunity.
One suspects, now, a nasty motive.

Tedd says:

01:52pm | 02/10/11

Some of Bolts errors, are outlined here

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/andrew-bolt-australias-least-accurate-columnist-20111001-1l2zl.html

AdamC says:

02:41pm | 02/10/11

Corellio, I agree with much of this. If you read the judgement, it is clear Bolt’s much mooted ‘errors’ (many, like, the Behrendt stuff, could be better described as a half-truth than an error) were marginally important. In fact, the judge seems just as concerned with Bolt’s overall tone and cheeky asides.

Also, Bolt actually isn’t that inflammatory. He just writes about things which many would rather no one talked about, or has views which challenge convention wisdom. People like Bolt are important in a democracy.

Paul Horn says:

01:59pm | 03/10/11

Looks like the errors are with the Age here Ted.

According to this article from the Sydney Morning Herald “Lunch with Larissa Behrendt” on Sep 18th 2010 by a Malcolm Knox the story begins  
” .... with her parents. Paul Behrendt was the eighth of nine children born to a German editor and an Aboriginal woman in western NSW, Lavinia Boney, who had been taken from her family and was working in Parkes Hospital when they met.”

Her mother was white and always defended and encouraged Larissas Aboriginality.

It goes on to say
“It was, ironically, Raema who instilled a sense of Aboriginal identity in Larissa and her brother. ‘‘When Jason got picked on because of his colour, Dad had said … ‘My son is as white as you are.’ It was Mum who allowed us never to feel embarrassed about our Aboriginality. She has a great heart and social conscience. But it came at a cost to her, because she couldn’t feel part of it herself. So she dropped us off at rallies and stayed outside.’‘

Need more be said. So who is right or wrong here. The Age article you linked stated
“BROMBERG: ‘‘To her knowledge, there is no German descent on either her father or mother’s side of the family although she assumes that because of her father’s Germanic surname, there may have been some German descent.” whereas she states unequivocally that her grandfather was of German descent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/lunch-with-larissa-behrendt-20100917-15gbs.html#ixzz1ZgQ3l1T8

So who’s right and who’s wrong. Sounds like just as much lying and obsfucation from the left than from Bolt. But then again when it comes to lying the Left are the worlds greatest proponents.

acotrel says:

03:05pm | 03/10/11

@Stephen
‘Mr. Bolt remains, to my mind, a little too earnest in reporting imbalances of opportunity.
One suspects, now, a nasty motive. ‘

“Nasty’ is the correct word !  What troubles me is the number of people who get into it these days.  I just wish they’d admit that the LNP lost the last election, and that Tony Abbott’s total lack of negotiating skills was to blame !  May the LNP never reclaim their birth right - they don’t deserve it ! ! -  Bolt is just an intermediary !

persephone says:

10:31am | 02/10/11

Fiddler

unfortunately, he made the point by using nine cases of people who had never identified themselves as anything other than Aboriginal, so could scarcely be accused of adopting aboriginality because they saw it either as fashionable or financially rewarding.

If the ‘scam’ is as prevalent as you seem to believe, he should have had no trouble finding examples of individuals who HAD clearly decided to ‘become’ Aboriginal for these purposes.

If he couldn’t, and had thus to resort to making things up, this suggests that his argument - like yours - is based on an urban myth rather than fact.

It’s fair comment when you single out individuals who have behaved in a certain way to criticise. It’s racism when you take individual examples and use this to denigrate the whole.

There are, for example, white drug addicts. That’s a simple fact. It would be racist, however, to use that fact to state that ‘all white people are drug addicts’ .

To use this as a paralell for Bolt’s behaviour, it’s as if he chose nine white people who weren’t drug addicts, claimed they were, and then proceeded to infer that all whites were drug addicts on that basis.

gobsmack says:

11:11am | 02/10/11

@Fiddler
Mr Bolt could have made those points (which IMO are legitimate issues for public discussion) without singling out particular individuals, making inaccurate claims about them and doing so in a particular offensive, insulting and mean spirited manner.
Had he done so, he would not have broken any law.
In effect, the actions of Mr Bolt have stifled further discussion about these issues.

Joan says:

11:44am | 02/10/11

Larissa Behrendts nasty mouthed tweet at Aboriginals working for Aboriginals as we expect -  ie at Bess Price on QA -  was more offensive than anything Bolt has presented.  Larissa Behrendt with her tweet saying that watchinga bestiality on television was “less offensive than Bess Price”,  a totally disgusting comment from a Professor . Behrendt outed herself in the same way ,  Julian Burnside outed himself with his `Paedo in Speedo` tweet.- both as common as any street yobo - both demand higher standards from the rest of the community, standards which they themselves don’t meet. They should be removed from any further serious commentary on societal matters as they don’t practise what the preach.

Jane says:

12:49pm | 02/10/11

Fiddler. I live in an area with about 15% Indigenous population and none are pure blood, all varying shades with some families seeming to be a mixture of races. The house values are much lower due to their presence despite them being sober, functional and just leading normal lives and there is constant letters to the editor of the local paper about the crime in my suburb (despite being quite low).. When I rented my house out for a while I was asked straight out by the real estate agent if I minded if Aboriginal applied as southern investors usually wanted white tenants. They are all treated the same, shades of skin does not protect them from the vile actions of whites. The racism towards all shades is very evident, in fact what is the incentive for those in remote communities to better themselves when in fact they still get spat on by the likes of Bolt even when they have success?.

Correllio says:

01:01pm | 02/10/11

“unfortunately, he made the point by using nine cases of people who had never identified themselves as anything other than Aboriginal”

Incorrect Persphone. The articles are still on line. Why not go read them and maybe get your facts right before you point fingers at Bolt’s errors. These nine weren’t the only ones mentioned and you may want to look up the stories of all who were mentioned including the 9. Actually do do that. Do also compare the 9’s stories with what they told the judge. And also ask why the others didn’t sue. Hey it wasn’t costing them anything. The litigants lawyers all worked pro bono from what I have heard.

Most journalists obviously aren’t going to do what they’re paid for. But research pays dividends.

persephone says:

01:44pm | 02/10/11

Correllio

what, because Bolt was only - according to you—50% wrong, he should be forgiven?

What the complainants said in court was accepted by both Bolt and the Herald Sun as entirely accurate.

If it wasn’t, then both Bolt and the Herald Sun had every opportunity to dispute this in court, or to appeal the decision.

They weren’t able to prove that the complainants statements to the judge were false, whilst the complainants were able to prove that they were true.

It doesn’t matter if Bolt was wrong once, nine times, or eighteen times.

The plaintiffs have nothing to be ashamed about.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:25pm | 02/10/11

They are white because white men raped black women you moron.  People do not get to choose their genetics and they certainly should not be damned because of policies inflicted on them by others.

I despair of the ignorant cowards in this country like Bolt who think he can demonise whomever he feels like and get away with it.

If a muslim did the same the cowards who support Bolt would be paying for him to be jailed or booted out of the country.  What hypocrites you are.

jb says:

03:52pm | 02/10/11

@ Marilyn S
‘I despair of the ignorant cowards in this country like Bolt who think he can demonise whomever he feels like and get away with it’.
Isn’t that EXACTLY what you just did?
Hypocrite…

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

03:16pm | 03/10/11

Well said Fiddler, well said!

acotrel says:

05:35pm | 03/10/11

@jb
John Howard should have repudiated Pauline Hanson’s politics, instead of exteniding them to suit his own purposes.  This racist stuff is disgraceful - it brings the whole nation into disrepute !

marley says:

10:46am | 02/10/11

First, if you read the RDA, you will find it could indeed cover Jews - because it applies not just to race but to colour, descent, national and ethnic origin.

Second, I think you miss the point of the argument.  Racism is wrong, no question.  But, to use the exemplar of the Serbs, do you really believe that Penbo should be hauled before a court to explain that he only meant the specific Serbs and not all Serbs?  What happened to his right to state his opinion?  He is arguing that to have everything you say or write subject to legal scrutiny, with the assumption of guilt built into the law, is a travesty of what we understand by the terms freedom of speech and expression.  I agree with him.

There is nothing in the concept of free speech which precludes people form uttering unpopular, even racist views - and the limitations in most country revolve are hate speech, incitement to violence and defamation, not around “causing offence.”

Third, I don’t quite follow your statement that “if the group is characterised by their race than you are being racist.”  The whole legal case was about a group self-defining itself by race, and the judge repeatedly refers to them as a racial group.  Does that make the Nine and the judge racist?

Brian says:

11:09am | 02/10/11

Jews could be considered a race (at least, Israeli’s could, which makes the point just as well) under some definitions. Similarly, saying that there’s a problem with criminality within a community does NOT brand all members of that community as criminals (similarly, I believe that Australian society has a drinking problem. That does not mean that I believe all Australians are alcoholics) - and if there are any statistics to back it up it’s a reasonable comment.

Many sub-cultures have their own problems, and often their own strengths to go with them. Maybe a group has a higher tendency to group together and bash other groups, but through the same closeness that tends to lead to this also groups together to rebuild the house that burned down. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the gang activity, nor that we should not praise the coming together in a time of crisis.

gobsmack says:

11:33am | 02/10/11

@mikk
“Jews are a religious group not a race. Therefore not applicable under a racial discrimination act.”
Not so.
Another case in which section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act was successfully invoked is Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150.
That case concerned comments by Toben casting doubt on the holocaust.  The case was successful because it was found that Australian Jews constitute an ethnic group within Australia.

William Bowe says:

03:17pm | 02/10/11

“Jews are a religious group not a race. Therefore not applicable under a racial discrimination act. “

Wrong. Here is a case where a man was convicted (and, indeed, imprisoned) for making anti-Jewish comments on racial hatred charges.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/man-jailed-for-posting-antisemitic-video-online-20110201-1abm3.html

marley says:

10:49am | 02/10/11

With respect, I have to disagree.  While I concur that this was a massive editorial failure, the bottom line for me is that it’s one thing for the editors to screw up, and quite another for the legislators to do so.  Bad law is far more serious than bad editorial standards.

Warren says:

01:16pm | 02/10/11

@Marley. Why is it “bad law” to penalise journalists for printing lies?

marley says:

01:44pm | 02/10/11

@Warren - it’s not necessarily bad law to penalize journalists for telling lies.  That’s why we have defamation laws. 

I think it’s very bad law, however, to put people, not just journalists,  at risk of having to justify themselves before a court for expressing opinions which merely “offend” a particular group.  If we have to look over our shoulder every time we want to express an opinion that might be unpopular or offensive to some group or other, I think we are constraining a basic right of free speech to an unacceptable level. 

The point is if, unlike Bolt, you have facts to back up your opinion, you will probably win your case in court - but it won’t stop you being hauled into court in the first place, and to me, that’s just wrong.

wow says:

02:21pm | 02/10/11

marley, you are being silly now. Bolt hasn’t followed the law or the professional code of conduct at all. Clause 1.2 of the News Ltd Code reads: ‘Clear distinction must be made between fact, conjecture and comment’.
Clause 1.3: ‘Try always to tell all sides of the story in any kind of dispute’ etc.etc.
— News Ltd Professional Conduct Policy”
Great majority of Australians oppose xenophobia and the fanning of fear. I appeals to this majority to firmly say no to extremist movements in Australia and one of the ways is to ask people/commentators to stop writing crap and demand a media inquiry immediately.

AdamC says:

02:51pm | 02/10/11

Warren, you may be interested to know that there is a very digestible summary of the judgement available at the link below.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Eatock v Bolt )

As that summary (and, indeed, the judgement itself) makes clear, Bolt was not penalised for printing ‘lies’.

persephone says:

06:24pm | 02/10/11

AdamC

in the summary, there are repeated references to why Bolt was not protected under a number of sections. There is then a clear statement (point 30) that what he said wasn’t necessarily wrong, it was the way he said it.

The longer judgement makes it clear that he wasn’t protected under the other sections of the Act (the clauses which outline possible defences) because he didn’t check his information, used information wrongly and used information in such a way as to create a perception which was wrong.

If you strip away the legalise, the problem isn’t what he said; it’s that he said it without a factual basis.

In defamation (and the RDA), truth is a defence. He wasn’t truthful, so the court found that defence doesn’ t hold.

marley says:

06:59pm | 02/10/11

@persephone - in both defamation and the RDA, truth is a defence, but so is “good faith.”  Now you have said on a couple of occasions that Bolt probably believed what he was saying. If so, he spoke in good faith, and shouldn’t have been penalized. 

But the judge basically didn’t believe that he spoke in good faith, not so much from the errors he made as from the way in which the articles were worded.  Doesn’t it make you uncomfortable at all to have courts trying to establish not so much what the writer actually wrote as what he intended to imply with what he wrote?  If things are becoming that tenuous, then, sorry, but I’m not comfortable with the court making a ruling.

iansand says:

10:17pm | 02/10/11

Don’t be stupider than you appear, marley.  Bolt had simple opportunities too check the truth of what he wrote.  He was a lazy scumbag who chose to spread his poison regardless of truth.  The problem with laws like the anti discrimination laws is that arseholes like Bolt make them necessary.

marley says:

09:05am | 03/10/11

@iansand - read the ruling again.  You’re allowed to make errors, providing you do so in good faith.  Bolt failed on the “good faith” issue: the judge put quite a lot of effort into outlining why that was so, including not just the mistakes/lies, but also Bolt’s tone and the inferences the judge drew from Bolt’s actual words.  It’s just not as simple as saying Bolt lied and got caught.  It’s all there in black and white:  read sections 412 and on of the judgement.

AdamC says:

09:30am | 03/10/11

Persephone, read it again. As much as you may like to think Bolt’s much-mooted ‘sloppy journalism’ was the basis of the plantiff’s action, it wasn’t. And the judge objected to Bolt’s style and tone as much as any overplayed ‘factual errors’ in denying him the benefit of the free expression defences.

People like youself seem prepared to descend the depths of logical ridiculousness to avoid accepting that s18C is a deliberate curb on free speech. The Labor government, as George Brandis noted, was under no such misapprehension when they brought it in. That was, indeed, the whole point.

marley says:

09:44am | 03/10/11

@Wow - where have I said that Bolt followed the standard of professional conduct? Nowhere.  But that’s not relevant to the court case.  And where, in fact, have I said that Bolt didn’t break the law?  Nowhere.  I’m uncomfortable with some of the judge’s reasoning, but that’s not to say he was wrong and Bolt is innocent as the driven snow.  What I am saying, and all I’m saying, is that I believe the RDA in its current wording infringes too far on the right to freedom of speech and expression.  I believe it is a bad law.

scubasteve says:

11:52am | 02/10/11

i feel a parliamentary review coming on. Maybe a few committees and a community forum. ah.. the year delivery.

persephone says:

10:35am | 02/10/11

BJ

if what you say is true - rather than a commonly held belief, which is a totally different thing - then why did Bolt have so much trouble coming up with real examples?

If what you say is true, he shouldn’t have had to make stuff up to prove his point.

His problem was that he did believe it was true, but wasn’t able to prove it.

Any reasonable person would, at that point, have wondered if they weren’t able to prove it because it wasn’t true.

Instead, he resorted to making stuff up .

Correllio says:

11:13am | 02/10/11

Correct. As Gary Johnd pointed out in his oped the other day, if there was no link between identity and benefit there wouldn’t be any carry on about identity…

poa says:

11:24am | 02/10/11

Couldn’t agree more. The King of Denmark defied the Nazis by sewing a yellow star on his jacket. Brave Danes did the same.
All Danes were Jews.
Thousands were saved when the Nazis backed down.
Perhaps we should all tick the “Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander decent?”
After all..it is truly obscene to treat people differently (either better or worse) dependant on race. If all Australians said so that would be fantastic!
If Justice Bromberg takes exception to this fraud and says thats not in the tone of the legislation…well…I’m sure the Nazis said the same thing!

Que says:

12:53pm | 02/10/11

I’m an aborigine - at least I am now. I guess.

I can see a whole chorus of ‘No I’m Brian!!’ coming the way of this debate and rightly so. This is a ridiculous law.

Warren says:

01:13pm | 02/10/11

@BJ

“the recipients of certain benefits have a tenuous connection to aboriginal Australia”

Can you provide examples or specific cases of these tenuous connections, or is it just hearsy? Bolt couldn’t. He resorted to making examples up.

john says:

02:35pm | 02/10/11

@poa

“Perhaps we should all tick the “Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander decent?”

Perhaps we should take anyone to court who asks race related questions like are you greek,italian,etc or speak another language because they might be thinking we are not real Aussies. and are less australian than other aussies.

Pandora’s box is open.

michael j says:

02:29pm | 02/10/11

@poa-you are not allowed to tick the box,i tried that many years ago when filling out a form at social security ,
i asked a Indian staffer what was the meaning of the question,“Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander decent?
and he replied IT means A native of the land ,,so i replied,but if all the water dried up,wouldn’t we all be standing on the same rock ?
after 15 min of this he said ,,please Sir just put no,,
so i did to make him happy,,,

Marilyn Shepherd says:

03:28pm | 02/10/11

You ignorant coward, eugenics is out of fashion you know.  They are white because white men decreed that all black should be whited out by raping aboriginal women and you want to blame the descendents of this vile practice.

It’s not just about what Bolt wrote, he entirely forgot any context, as he always does.

LJ Dots says:

04:28pm | 02/10/11

Steady on there Maz. It starts with a journo now, the same law might soon be equally relevant to bloggers and posters.

DocBud says:

04:56pm | 02/10/11

So, Marilyn, all the plaintiffs were the descendants of aboriginal women who were raped by white men. That observation is not only patently inaccurate but I’d have thought it is every bit as offensive as anything Andrew Bolt wrote.

Brian says:

08:05pm | 02/10/11

Sorry, Que, but I actually AM Brian!

And as much as I love the movie, I wish it had been named something like ‘The life of Fred’

BJ says:

08:31am | 03/10/11

Even now that the factual errors in Bolt’s columns have been pointed out, it still seems that the individuals named there have little connection to aboriginal Australia.
The rationale for special benefits for aborigines is that they are disadvantaged, because of past policies and because they have cultural beliefs that differ from those of other Australians. In the case of the plaintiffs, a minority of their ansestors were affected by these old policies and most of the people that they grew-up around were affluent white Australians.They might well have always thought of themselves as aboriginal, but it changed their identity no more than my starsign changed me.

Andrew says:

02:49pm | 02/10/11

Well atm he is staging the biggest of all hissy fits over the court’s ruling. With any luck he will appeal to the High Court and receive a further slap down.

His claims that we should look at the things that unite and not divide is laughable. He obviously has an identity crisis, and because he can not see what is good about Austrlalia he looks for all the things that are wrong, never at what is right.

Fiona says:

02:01pm | 02/10/11

It cuts out after 1/16th if I remember right. To claim indigenous heritage officially is a bit of a rigmarole. You need to know where your family originated from and have the elders of that local “council” agree with your claim (for want of a better phrase). You could just tick the govt. forms , but that isn’t “official”. New Zealanders don’t need to be Maori at all, but to identify with the Maori culture (ie: if your spouse is Maori). I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

Eric #2 says:

03:26pm | 02/10/11

Suggest you read the article written by Pearson in the Australian (yesterday’s).  Very enlightening about the history behind the ‘definition’ of being aboriginal.

George K says:

04:47pm | 02/10/11

it actually 1/64

Fiddler says:

05:40pm | 02/10/11

Nope, wrong. There is no cutout and it can in fact be zero. There are three options to claim aboriginality, simply “identifying” as one counts. You can even be white and claim that you have been accepted into an Aboriginal community. Having said that it is I believe unlawful to make any person prove their aboriginality.

James1 says:

09:16am | 03/10/11

There are three criteria.  Firstly, one must identify as Aboriginal. Secondly, one must be identified as Aboriginal by their Aboriginal community.  Thirdly, one must have some (unspecified) Aboriginal ancestry.  The last one is considered the least important.

And Fiddler, you indeed can not be asked to prove it.  Once you claim this status, I think that the authorities need to prove otherwise.

Austin 3:16 says:

02:33pm | 02/10/11

“When we put aside this racism and just accept that we are all Australians”

Gee I dunno maybe when we can read the comments section of “The Punch” and not read racist twaddle from bitter small minded people.

Joan says:

02:38pm | 02/10/11

Whenever you’re ready, Jenny. Does the name Eddie Mabo mean anything to you, speaking of pure fantasy? What was Bolt spot on about, by the way?

Marilyn Shepherd says:

04:21pm | 02/10/11

Oh dear, another twisted sister.  Guess what dear?  Aborigines have been here for over 70,000 years and we have been here for just over 200 years, and I repeat “white aborigines” are white because white men made a policy to breed out the black - but it is not possible to breed out the 70,000 years of ancestry.

The problem with bigots dear is that none of your arguments will ever stack up with facts presented.

Sodapoppy says:

04:42pm | 02/10/11

Oh, Jenny! Aren’t you going to cop a latte-cup full of spiteful excreta from those Metro Greenies! I just hope Ernie Dingo got his royalties from the Welcome Ceremony, after all he wrote it, and surely the composer deserves his reward. All the poor city slickers have been sucked in and they’ll never know. Such is life!

Tator says:

01:04am | 03/10/11

Marilyn,
even then, the Aborigines were not the original inhabitants of the Australian Continent and only arrived around 40000 years ago.  The mungo man whose remains were located has been dated to originate around 42000 years ago so predated the Aborigines and DNA tests show that he is not related to the Aboriginal gene pool.  So with this evidence in hand, it can be argued that the Aborigines had come to be the dominant population the same way that the Anglo Saxon did from 1788 - ie conquest.
refer to the following publications
Bowler JM, Johnston H, Olley JM, Prescott JR, Roberts RG, Shawcross W, Spooner NA. (2003). “New ages for human occupation and climatic change at Lake Mungo, Australia”. Nature 421
and Olleya JM, Roberts RG, Yoshida H and Bowler JM (2006). “Single-grain optical dating of grave-infill associated with human burials at Lake Mungo, Australia”. Quaternary Science Reviews 25

persephone says:

08:11am | 03/10/11

Tator

the links you refer to:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6925/abs/nature01383.html

- no mention that the evidence shows these people were not Aboriginal.

- dates human occupation to 50, 000 years

http://www.search4oil.com/DigitalEarth/getDocumentDetail.jsp?type=doc&id=doc_1d015c4e427a444f97912bf6bc932c76

- an abstract, but much the same.

So both your links simply show that humans have been occupying Australia for 50 000 years. They do not provide any evidence of their ethnicity.

As for your claim about Mungo Man, only one individual has been sampled. He shows no relation to modern Aborigines, but that might simply because he failed to establish a lasting line. Other Mungo aborigines may well have established lines which led to modern Aborigines - we simply don’t know.

However, new DNA evidence strongly suggests that Aborigines have been in Australia for closer to 75,000 years -

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177

from the abstract:

‘We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago’

- supporting the idea of continuous inhabitation of Australia by Aborigines for at least 50 000 years;

‘Our findings support the hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the oldest continuous populations outside Africa. ‘

So the current scientific evidence is of continuous occupation of the continent by Aboriginal people for 50 000 years.

Nothing in the Mungo findings contradict this.

Anubis says:

11:37am | 03/10/11

@ Marilyn Shepherd - please provide a link tot he legislation you keep parroting on about “white men made a policy to breed out the black “

If you can not find a link to the legislation or policy document then please STFU about it because, quite frankly Marilyn, your contributions to this thread today have been much more racist and bigoted than anything Andrew Bolt or any of his kind have ever written.

gobsmack says:

01:41pm | 02/10/11

Another uniformed attempt to blame the judiciary.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the relevant law (which has been on the statute books for at least 15 years) before accusing the judge of political bias.

PsychoHyena says:

11:30am | 03/10/11

poa, it’s interesting that you accuse Penbo of being the ALP’s lapdog when I have seen him go the ALP something furious.

Antipolemic says:

07:35am | 03/10/11

Influential columnists are created by their readership following, not by media organizations, and Bolt’s readership says it all. And I’m confident he would be as widely read if he worked at The Age or SMH; not that he would likely get a gig in either of those sheltered workshops for ALP sycophants.

PsychoHyena says:

11:39am | 03/10/11

Antipolemic, you might want to check out Bolt’s work history then…. He has worked at The Age and even worked on two of Bob Hawke’s election campaigns.

So yep, he must have been a strong supporter of the ALP at some point there.

Brian says:

02:32pm | 02/10/11

There has always been a law to stop it - defamation law. The big problem here is NOT that Bolt has been found guilty, but that he’s been found guilty of racial discrimination. What he should have been found guilty of is defamation - he effectively accused people of a not-quite-criminal version of fraud. This law has very little to do with stopping journalists writing the truth, but as it’s been applied this way it’s dangerous.

And as for those saying that the idea of some people claiming aboriginality for gain is urban myth, I have personally known one lazy scumbag who did just that (a workmate, who rarely worked), but only the one. Even if it WERE, however, nothing but an urban myth it should still be able to be discussed by the public!

DocBud says:

02:33pm | 02/10/11

“As i wrote on my blog, the filth of racism, the denial of science, the homophobia, can breed like hardy weeds in a ground untouched by the water of class struggle.”

And it means no more there than it does here. Racism and homophobia are the fault of capitalism? If there are racists and homophobes among the working class it is because of their oppression by the evil capitalists and their failure to embrace the class struggle. Your comment reminds me of Monty Python’s Life of Brian: “Symbolic of his struggle against reality.”

KLH says:

01:25pm | 02/10/11

Wrong.

The quote was correctly attributed to Voltaire.

michael j says:

05:05pm | 02/10/11

please leave me the link ,id like to see that ,,thank’s

Brian says:

08:10pm | 02/10/11

Wikiquotes at least says that it is misattributed:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire’s beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.

Another possible source for the quote was proposed by Norbert Guterman, editor of “A Book of French Quotations,” who noted a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770) in which Voltaire is quoted as saying: “Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write” (“Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire”). This remark, however, does not appear in the letter.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire

gobsmack says:

01:49pm | 02/10/11

@mick
“Bolt ... does tell it like it is”
Except when he makes things up, as was the case here.
“the courts have no right to take away this right to free speech”
The “right to free speech” is limited by legislation enacted by our elected representatives.  The courts merely enforce that legislation.

Horns Up says:

02:36pm | 02/10/11

This case is nothing to do with silencing Bolt and everything to do with protecting people from being slurred on the basis of lies, errors and/or misrepresentations.

Bolt should have done his research. A real journalist would have but obviously a bigot doesn’t care about truth.

\m/

Kay says:

02:43pm | 02/10/11

Pomp ass ! Brilliant !

LDLS says:

02:09pm | 02/10/11

Sherlock Geoff Clarke was asked that very question by Neil Mitchell regarding the right of reply in The Herald.  He stated he wanted to make an example of Bolt not over just these two articles but his whole ideology.

Regardless of liking or not liking Bolt the sneering words of hatred and denigration shown by Clarke’s supporters and others shows there’s a very nasty vindictive side to these poor supposed hard done by innocents as well.

I find the whole thing distasteful in how it all played out on both sides.

Chris L says:

03:06pm | 02/10/11

A very reasonable and considerate post Sherlock. I am in rare agreeance with you.

Chris L says:

03:10pm | 02/10/11

With great power comes great responsibility! (after reading Bolt compare George W to Batman I think he’d be happy with a Spiderman reference.)

John says:

03:13pm | 02/10/11

“freedom of speech cries, forgetting that such rights rely on the proper exercise of other responsibilities”. Josef Stalin….. 10 seconds later one hears guns shots.

Jane says:

07:55pm | 02/10/11

What reverse racism? How for crying out loud have you been hurt by this reverse racism? Everytime I hear someone say this nonsense they have never ever suffered from racism but have nearly always blame anyone and everyone for their own failings. I have yet to see any evidence that whites are hurt due to racism by indigenous and about time people started proving such disgusting claims or else just another set of malicous lies and or/ idle nasty gossip. Also majority Australians ? So are you saying they all are hurting from this racism? Oh dear oh dear, what a pathetic lot of crybabies Australians are if someone winning an Indigenous art prize causes the majority so much pain and suffering. Perhaps we need to man up a bit if such trivial crybaby nonsese gets all the Bolt Brigade frothing at the mouth.

Matt says:

03:22pm | 03/10/11

He’s not a martyr at all, in fact the more he whines about the courts decision the more pathetic he seems, if possible..

He simply got his facts wrong, now to save face - and his column - and his TV show (after all, who would read or watch a ‘journalist’ that’s a proven liar?) he’s spouting on incorrectly about free speach.. Since when is free speach license to lie?

JT says:

07:03pm | 02/10/11

‘‘These were neither factual nor fiction - simply a voicing of his (continued) bias.’‘

So you’re admitting here that he was found guilty and thus silenced based on nothing but having the wrong opinion. Glad to see you admit that you are a fascist.

A Dose of Reality says:

12:01pm | 03/10/11

JT:

Do you understand the meaning of the word “Bias”?  Particularly in the context of a racial discrimination case?

Are you admitting that your stance is based on a lack of education?
If so, sad to see someone embrace ignorance (as if it a virtue).

Mike says:

06:07pm | 02/10/11

Exactly. And it wasn’t long ago at all that common sense still ruled the day. Unfortunately too many people have been ‘educated’ out of their common sense, and the Marxist ‘long march through the institutions’ has created a situation where nobody can really say or do anything about it. It will fall apart eventually, but the longer it takes to happen the worse it will be for everybody.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

05:36pm | 02/10/11

News of the world thought they could write whatever they wanted and break the law to do it, that’s not working out too well now is it.

No-one in the media has the right to peddle idiocy and call it free speech.

It’s amazing how many of the people who defend Bolt would not defend Fredrick Toben because he insults jews.

Utopia Boy says:

08:20pm | 02/10/11

Ah, yes Marilyn,
But NOTW actually sanctioned illegal activity, which was actually carried out. Bolt gives opinions. There’s a difference.

EVERYONE in the media has a right to peddle idiocy. Most newspaper articles ARE idiotic, if you look at what they are selling - pictures of Britney Spears shaving her head, Lady Ga-Ga whoring herself for her 15 minutes, Labor government job creation speeches, Liberal immigration solutions etc etc.

The point is, Bolt (and others) offer their opinion. Sometimes they’ll offer solutions based on their opinion, which may or may not be based on fact, thus meaning the solution may be very much out of kilter with what is needed. Opinions and solutions devised in this way are seen as dangerous by some, offensive by others. In the end it doesn’t matter because what will Bolt or Toben ever actually DO to resolve the issues they feel are important enough to write down?
Nothing. They just move onto the next topic.

Austin 3:16 says:

08:54pm | 02/10/11

“It really shits me that in a country like Australia, a person can be persecuted for their viewpoint.”

Hmmm defamation law goes back centuries and exists in just about every jurisdiction that once had a UK common law basis.

Why are you just having a problem with this now ?

b says:

11:59pm | 02/10/11

@Marilyn Shepherd

I would.  I defend anyones right to call it like it is.  Also News of the World did not break any law.

“No-one in the media has the right to peddle idiocy and call it free speech.”  -  Under who’s authority is this “right” instilled?  Yours??  That’s laughable.

marley says:

09:07am | 03/10/11

@Austin:  but this isn’t defamation law we’re discussing.

David says:

09:55am | 03/10/11

I will defend the right to free speech to the death and I support the introduction of a bill of rights to enshrine that right in Australian law. But certain forms of speech is not protected free speech. It is not free speech to make libelous or defamous comments as an example. I also believe that vilification and the perpetration of serious hatred on the basis of race should not be a protected form of free speech.

Austin 3:16 says:

10:06am | 03/10/11

Hey Marley,

And?

marley says:

11:16am | 03/10/11

@Austin 3:16 - defamation law has a lengthy history, true.  But defamation law is not about “persecuting people for their viewpoint.”  So if someone has an issue with a law that he believes to be persecuting unpopular opinions, reference to defamation laws is an irrelevance.

The racial discrimination act and its counterparts in other countries with similar legal systems do not. have the lengthy history of defamation law, do not have several centuries of legal precedents to refine and hone them, and are in some cases crude instruments which unnecessarily impinge on freedom of speech.  One can accept the general principle of both defamation laws and anti-hate speech while having serious issues with the specific wording of the RDA.

Austin 3:16 says:

02:04pm | 03/10/11

Hey Marley,

If a person has a viewpoint that’s defamatory of another and they publish they viewpoint then they can be subject to a wide range of sanctions in either tort or criminal law. How exactly does that differ from any “persecution ”  except in the most technical and trivial of details ?

Re the RDA et al not having—- the lengthy history of defamation law, do not have several centuries of legal precedents to refine and hone them,——
Surely the only thing that will cure that is time, further as defamation law in this country was by legislation unified and changed (in some cases dramatically) in 2005 / 2006 claiming several centuries of precedent may somewhat excessive.

marley says:

04:08pm | 03/10/11

Austin 3:16 - Bolt was found guilty not of defaming the Nine, but of stating opinions about them as a group which they found offensive.  I see a distinct difference between the two sets of laws.

And my whole point throughout this thread is precisely that we need to take another look at the RDA, because right now it’s way too broad.  I’m not saying abolish it, but I am saying the standard for suing has to be higher than merely offending someone.

PTom says:

06:38pm | 03/10/11

@marley,
No he was not found to be only offensive. This is were all these Absoulte Free Speecher get it wrong. It was not a grey of offensive it was worse if 1 is the bottom and 5 is the top. Bolt just got 6 form the court.

No one has the right to write what Bolt did, using his power in the media to lie and slanders peoples race and identiy.

marley says:

07:10pm | 03/10/11

@PTom - Bolt was found to have contravened Sec 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which says:

“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;”

That was what he was found to have done - offend a group.  Read the judgement. 

He wasn’t found to have slandered people because that would fall under defamation law, not racial discrimination. And he has not been sued for defamation on this issue.  So, you’ve done a Bolt and put in writing something you thought or hoped was true, without checking to see if it was actually true.  Should you be sued?  I hope not.  That’s the whole point of free speech.  You get to state your opinions, even if they’re misinformed, biased or factually incorrect.

iansand says:

07:10pm | 03/10/11

marley - what he wrote was almost certainly defamatory.  Once you work that out you will understand that your “distinction without a difference” contributions are a little bit silly.

They could have sued for defamation.  They chose the RDA.  That is about the limit of the relevance of the difference.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:12pm | 03/10/11

Hey Marley,

Well actually the Judge found that
17. I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles.

So that’s offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated.

Gee that must be a world away from defamatory material, you know the kind of material that would:
Lower the defamed in the estimation of others OR expose the defamed to hatred contempt or ridicule OR cause the defamed to be shunned or avoided.

Real big difference between being insulted, humiliated and intimidated and exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule is there ?

How’s about you get a thesaurus and get back to us.

marley says:

08:41pm | 03/10/11

@iansand -  no, what Bolt did isn’t a world away from defamation - but that’s not what the court case was about.  The court case was about racial discrimination. 

He could have been sued for defamation but he wasn’t.  So all I have to go on is what he was actually sued for, and I can’t read into that what he might have been fund guilty of had a different case been put to the court.

Surely you can understand that point. If someone gets convicted of theft, we don’t assume it’s the same thing as armed robbery, even if some of the elements of the crime were there - if the court didn’t find him to be an armed robber, then neither should we.

All I’m doing is looking at the offence the judge found Bolt liable for, not the offence he might have committed.  And he wasn’t found guilty of defamation, but of discrimination.  And the wording of the law is what worries me.

iansand says:

08:16am | 04/10/11

But is someone is convicted of armed robbery it is a pretty safe bet that they could have gone down for theft.

That was fun.  It proved nothing but I thought I would join in on the idiocy.

Utopia Boy says:

07:59pm | 02/10/11

I’m widdit Mon!

Brian says:

08:14pm | 02/10/11

The only bit that sounds silly is the ‘I think from now on’ bit. If you had always considered yourself Jamaican, then 1/64 would be enough…

Kika says:

01:48pm | 03/10/11

And if your parent, grandparent and great grandparent and great great grandparent had been subject to laws governing Jamaicans regardless of any white admixture, were treated as Jamaicans and considered as Jamaicans rather than white by the government and others, were sent to missions for Jamaicans (particularly the biracial and multi racial Jamaicans… those were the most shameful and in need for removal and re-education against Bob Marley, Speaking Patois and eating peas and rice)  and were defined as being Jamaican despite their white genetics then it could be reasonably argued that because your direct relatives were considered Jamaican and subject to attitudes and laws governing Jamaicans despite having white genes then culturally more than biologically you could have something to say about Jamaicans and their political status.

If you decide now that you are Jamaican that may be a fifferent story.

frankr says:

04:49pm | 03/10/11

got any ting mon, i luv it

Utopia Boy says:

05:43pm | 04/10/11

Ganga. It’s my religion Mon…

PsychoHyena says:

12:00pm | 03/10/11

@WhatThe, I have read a few of Bolt’s articles and his blog, and they are deliberately worded to incense people.

Your own comment comes across as vitriolic and sounds very similar to something my 10-yo would say after he’s been told off. You are claiming to hate the “me, me, me” attitude of the social groups that you have mentioned, however in doing so you have established a “me, me, me” attitude of your own.

Watching the “many” of Australians like you get together, WhatThe, is like watching the seagulls in Finding Nemo, hilarious!!!! If you are telling Penbo to get out and meet his readership, are you also telling Bolt to do so? No? Oh well. I guess Bolt’s too important, what with his TV programmes, and radio programmes, and newspaper writing and blogging.

Let’s continue this shall we? I haven’t quite finished replying to your entire comment. You realise that any comments on Andrew Bolt’s posts, which disagree with him tend not to get published. So who isn’t listening to those who disagree?

Hmmmm I had more to write, but after typing it realised that I couldn’t prove all of it and could potentially be sued for defamation of Bolt or hey he might even use the racial vilification act, considering he could try and claim that he was offended by the comments because he is full-blooded Dutch, and only Australian by birth.

Chris L says:

12:47pm | 03/10/11

@WhatThe - have you or any of the people criticising the “handouts given to asylum seekers” or to unemployed people or to aborigines ever visited them?

Penbo wasn’t even talking about you or the mob you run with so why would he need to visit you? He certainly would have enough info about Bolt to form an opinion of him considering Bolt gives his own opinion publicly and daily.

Danielle says:

10:32am | 09/10/11

@WhatThe

I’m tired of hearing about the ‘silent majority’.

You’re NOT the majority - many, many people are pleased that Bolt may now need to uphold some professional standards. And you’re certainly not silent.

Austin 3:16 says:

10:08am | 03/10/11

Yep, maybe the headline to this article should read:
Deeply irritating law versus seriously flawed columnist ??

Chris L says:

12:52pm | 03/10/11

The audience is weird because they disagreed with Holmes and consider Bolt racist? What do you think of Bolt’s audience?

Average Joe says:

01:01pm | 03/10/11

Joel, I think you’ll find most left-wingers are quite passionate about freedom of speech. The bone of contention here is that many do not feel that the ruling against Bolt was actually an impingement of that freedom. In Australia, by legal definition, freedom of speech does not extend to nor protect defamation or hate speech. Of course, we all have our opinion on just how apt the existing laws are, but to claim lefties are “not getting it” is a bit disingenuous.

AdamC says:

02:12pm | 03/10/11

Average Joe, (sigh), the judge did not rule that Bolt ‘defamed’ the plaintiffs, nor that he engaged in ‘hate speech’.

Can people please at least be intellectually honest here? To argue that the judgement does not impinge on free speech, you have to accept the reasonable boundary on free expression is at the point of causing ‘reasonable offence’. That is what the Act (and the judgement) says.

A right not to be offended cannot credibly coexist with any robust conception of freedom of speech.

Peter says:

04:38pm | 03/10/11

@AdamC - “A right not to be offended cannot credibly coexist with any robust conception of freedom of speech.”

And, yet, it does.  Despite the few pieces of legislation in place that attempt to address hate-speak and racial vilification, we somehow mange to have an incredibly free society where we can pretty much say what we want, as many times as we like, in any number of ways.  It’s pretty much anything goes out there, haven’t you noticed?  Our forefathers would probably have been quite shocked not by any degradation of our freedom of expression, but on the contrary, how we have managed to turn it into this great anti-social beast which the likes of Bolt et al can hide behind to promote their ugly views (and themselves along the way).

I have no sympathy for Bolt.  He crossed a line and should rightly be hauled up for it.

Peter says:

02:41pm | 03/10/11

Kika, you have sort of summed up what I’ve been thinking myself (but in your own colourful way).  I really don’t see why everyone is jumping on this “Freedom of Speech” bangwagon so much these days.  We have an extremely open society where everyone can say almost anything they want with very little fear of reprisal by anyone, let alone the State.  Personally, I think Bolt screwed up and he knows it, as do his minders, so they’ve turned it into a free speech issue just to distract us.

marley says:

02:58pm | 03/10/11

@Kika -  “Why should Andrew Bolt be exempt from being subject to anti discrimination laws just as we all are on the basis that he’s a journalist and has a right to free speech?”

He shouldn’t, and no one is suggesting that he should be exempt, nor that as a journalist, he has a special right to free speech.  We all have that right.  What some are saying is that the law itself is wrong.  Bolt wasn’t sued for defaming people, he wasn’t accused of racial vilification, he was sued for offending a group of people.  Should there be a law so broad, so limiting on free speech, that simply saying something offensive gets you hauled before the courts?  Defamation, certainly; incitement to violence, absolutely;  but offending people? 

Bolt is certainly guilty of very poor journalism, sloppy research, lazy thinking.  These are not offences in law.  Defamation is, but he hasn’t been accused of that, at least not in a court of law.  We can only address the offence of which he has been found guilty, and a lot of us are uncomfortable with the wording of the legislation for that specific offence.  That doesn’t mean that we’re in any way comfortable with Bolt’s actions.

Austin 3:16 says:

04:17pm | 03/10/11

Hey Marley,

And if Bolt’s articles had been factually correct? Especially in light of 18D?
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith :

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Seems that the Act does defend free speech already. 

—Should there be a law so broad, so limiting on free speech, that simply saying something offensive gets you hauled before the courts—

Tell you what when such an act is proposed or legislated then we should worry. In the meantime it’s really not necessary to worry about fictional hypotheticals.

AdamC says:

04:48pm | 03/10/11

“And if Bolt’s articles had been factually correct? Especially in light of 18D?”

Austin 3:16, actually, it probably wouldn’t have saved him. The judge was also highly critical of Bolt’s tone and writing style. He even singled out particular asides and wordings that he didn’t like. It seems you don’t just have to be fully fact-checked to have the benefit of s18D, you have to be boring as well.

Also, this ‘factual error’ stuff is way overplayed. Certainly, in the case of Bolt’s comments about Larissa Behrendt, a better characterisation would be a ‘half-truth’ or ‘contested point’. There may have been some more explicit errors (some of which Bolt asserts were voluntarily corrected) but they didn’t detract from the underlying contention.

marley says:

04:54pm | 03/10/11

@Austin 3:16 - Given the wording of the RDA, Bolt could certainly have been sued for offending the group.  If his article had been factually correct, or at least general enough not to be incorrect, he probably would have won his case because the judge wouldn’t have had enough on the “good faith’ issue.  Or maybe not.  That’s not my point, really.  Do you think that causing offence is sufficient reason to have to explain yourself before a court of law? I don’t.

And before you argue that it’s all hypothetical, there was a rather prominent case in Canada a few years ago in which a journalist was hauled before the Human Rights Tribunals there because he had written an article which included quite a few inaccuracies and factual errors, and which the Muslim community complained was offensive.  And the Human Rights legislation there also provides penalties for “offending”  a group.  Fortunately for the journalist, Canada does have a statutory guarantee of free expression, and the Tribunal ruled that that statutory guarantee outweighed the right of the Muslim group not to be offended. 

Here, as we’ve just seen, the protections for free speech are less robust.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:02pm | 03/10/11

Hey Marley,

Bolt “could” have been sued for defamation too even were he factually correct. And we don’t live in Canada. Hypotheticals are a fun game aren’t they. Let me know when you want to talk about something real though,

PTom says:

07:03pm | 03/10/11

Bolt was found to be more then offensive.
So we have not seen the protections of free speech reduced, what we have seen is upholding the right of people not to abused because of the color of their skin.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:05pm | 03/10/11

AdamC,

Highly critical ?

— The article’s use of language and structure is highly suggestive and designed to excite. Its style is not careful, precise or exact. The style and structure invite supposition, rather than analytical conclusions. The language is not moderate or temperate but often strong and emphatic. There is a liberal use of sarcasm and mockery. Language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilised. It is language which invites the reader to not only read the lines, but to also read between the lines.—-

Highly accurate more likely, or don’t you think that’s a fair description of Bolt’s work ?

marley says:

08:45pm | 03/10/11

At Austin 3:16 - I love it.  You accuse me of using hypothetical situations, and then say that Bolt could have been sued for defamation.  But of course, he wasn’t.  So, you’re way more into hypothetical territory than I am.

And no, we don’t live in Canada.  But,  if you’d actually read the judge’s decision, you would know that he quoted a number of Canadian legal decisions in coming to his conclusion. I’m simply pointing out another.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:35am | 04/10/11

Hey Marley,

Um like I said hypothecials are a fun game - are you objecting because somebody else was playing too? Out of dozens of cases Canada gets a mention - but so do cases from the UK and New Zealand.  And ? The majority of the law he cited was Australian.  But hey let’s ignore the majority, cherry pick from the minority and keep playing these fun hypothetical games of yours.

marley says:

09:03am | 04/10/11

OK guys, I’m done. 

I’ve read about a dozen think-pieces on this decision from journalists, lawyers and civil libertarians. I’ve read hundreds of comments on blogs.  They all boil down to this:  there are those who condemn this court decision because they support Bolt;  there are those who support this court decision because it condemns Bolt;  and there are those who don’t give a stuff one way or the other about Bolt, but who do care about the relationship between racial discrimination laws and free speech. 

The thoughts and comments of the first two groups aren’t worth a great deal.  The thoughts and comments of the third are, because they’re considering the broader issues.  And there are those on both left and right who have reservations about the RDA as currently worded, as well as those who think it’s just fine as it stands.  It is a legitimate topic of discussion.

I happen to believe the RDA is an unacceptable infringement on freedom of speech in its present wording.  I do not believe that merely “offending” someone or some group should be sufficient to haul them into court, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the argument might be.  Defaming someone, yes;  offending them, no.  And neither of you has given me a single reason to think that offending someone should be sufficient reason to limit a fundamental right. 

I say this law is a bad one:  that’s my bottom line.  As Luther said, there I stand.  I can do no other.

Austin 3:16 says:

12:54pm | 04/10/11

Hey Marley,

Yep you think it’s a bad law.  Pity you can’t show us why it’s a bad law. Setting up this little “offend” straw-man probably ain’t going to cut it either.

marley says:

02:10pm | 04/10/11

From the judgement: 

“Section 18C(1)(b) specifies the causal nexus between the act reasonably likely to offend and the racial or other characteristic or attribute of one or more of the persons reasonably likely to have been offended: ”  Some straw man.  But then you don’t actually understand the meaning of the term, do you?

Nor, it would appear, do you understand the meaning of the word “or” as in “Offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”.  “Or” is not the same as “and.”

Austin 3:16 says:

04:28pm | 04/10/11

Hey Marley,

Here’s your quote ”  I do not believe that merely “offending” someone or some group should be sufficient to haul them into court”

Do you honestly think that’s an accurate representation of the law ? Cause I think it’s a ridiculously simplistic straw-man.  I may have well offended you by now. Do you think you’d be able to take action under the law in question ?

Average Joe says:

03:10pm | 03/10/11

Flawed because he consistently uses faulty (or at the very least, highly suspect) research and information to back up his own agenda.
He’s the sort of writer who will ignore the 99 sources that refute his opinion, and quote the 1 that does, without so much as a nod to the rest.
I don’t care wheteher someone is a pundit for the right or for the left, shoddy journalism is shoddy journalism.

Kika says:

03:59pm | 03/10/11

Average Joe - much like Erick - instead of forming an opinion based on the facts he bases the facts on his opinion.

The Guardian says:

05:15pm | 03/10/11

Bolts are useless without nuts being attached to them!