Does this offend you, yeah? Probably.

B watch says:

06:46am | 15/04/11

I want to buy you a beer erick, actually a case of beer.
When did you say you were running for federal parliament???

acotrel says:

07:00am | 15/04/11

The Murdoch press was running coverage of the case against Andrew Bolt, every day we were getting updates obviously in an attempt to gain a bit of sympathy for him, from the other rednecks.  It’s suddenly gone silent!
DID ANDREW LOSE?

Hector says:

07:36am | 15/04/11

Hmm Erick ... is this more of your “agent provocateur” posturing? You know - where you enlighten us all by taking a “contrary” stance.

Feel free to express your racism and/or bigotry. It’s sure to to be accepted and applauded by 80% of the regular posters to this site.

Others will be free to identify your racist and bigoted comments. It’s all good, this lack of PC thing. You can call a racist a racist without fear of moderation.

Erick says:

08:49am | 15/04/11

Hector, we all know that anyone who questions certain political stances is automatically labelled a “racist” and “bigot”. A call for exclusion of “racist and bigoted” views is actually a call for censorship of particular political ideas.

However, as long as the law stays out of it, this is merely name-calling. Most people will ignore such smears because they have been misused for so long - it’s ‘the boy who cried wolf’ syndrome.

Unfortunately, the law doesn’t stay out of it, and so we have the current attempt to silence Andrew Bolt. One which may well backfire, since this legal action has drawn much public attention to the double standards and thuglike mentality of the PC mob.

Peter says:

08:58am | 15/04/11

in reply to Acrotel: Doh! The case has finished, so there is nothing to report until the judge decides.

AdamC says:

09:14am | 15/04/11

In this case, I think you are wrong, Erick. There actually is a difference between spouting bigotry and inciting hatred and frankly discussing issues. The problem is, the latter is exactly what Bolt did in his articles, and now he is being sued.

Paul says:

09:26am | 15/04/11

Bigots should not be allowed into the discussion simply because thier point of view is offensive, not helpful and based on blind hate rather than fact.

However, if you want you want to come to the table with unbiased facts and are prepared to allow other people to do the same than you shouldbe allowed to join in.

Which one are you, Erick?

dovif says:

09:39am | 15/04/11

I do not see how questions about whether a person is eligible for a price for “aborigines” could be racist.

If you look at the reason for the prize, which is to the exclusion of non-aborigines. I think that is where the issue lies. Imagine if there is a prize for all Australian, but Aborigines cannot apply, imagine the racist uproar over such a prize

However I do understand that the prize is to encourage people, who might be at a disadvenatage, to practice their art for example. In that case, I agree that people whose background might not be really disadvantage, whould not apply for those prices

PJ says:

09:45am | 15/04/11

Oaul,

They (bigots) are just as entitled to a view as you.  Interesting the people who want open dialogue, but don’t allow everyone an opinion. Hypocritical?

Erick says:

09:55am | 15/04/11

@Paul - When I disagree with politically correct ideas, I am the former. When I agree with politically correct ideas, I am the latter.

The definition of being a “racist” or “bigot” depends on one’s political alignment - and race. Only white people can be racists..

Adam says:

09:59am | 15/04/11

I agree with Erick. To censor someone from talking simply because their views are perceived as racist or bigoted by another listener is political censorship at best. And who knows, maybe such views represent the what the majority want? How will we know unless we are listening. It would be unwise to ignore such views simply on the basis that they offend others. Remember One Nation atttracting a quarter of the vote in Queensland and winning 11 seats? Remember the White Australia Policy? Sure the White Australia Policy was racist, but it was what the majority in a democractic society wanted at the time, so they got it.

Tbone says:

11:05am | 15/04/11

Freedom of speech does not mean we must “accept all viewpoints”.  It does guarantee this at all.  It means you can express whatever tripe you want (with some exceptions) without having to worry about the government of the day preventing you from expressing it (provided you are not inciting hatred etc).  But by no means do the rest of us have to listen to said tripe, let alone “accept” it in any way whatsoever.

Erick says:

12:43pm | 15/04/11

@Tory - I apologise for implying that you were against freedom of speech. My first comment was badly worded and overly harsh. Sometimes I hit the “Submit” button when I really shouldn’t.

I also think it would be good for discussions to take place without hate or threats of violence. Unfortunately, there will always be some who hate, and some who get angry at perceived injustices, leading to nasty talk.

There doesn’t seem to be any way of combining true freedom of speech with inoffensiveness. No matter what you say, someone, somewhere will see it as offensive. In this case, I jumped at what really was a quite innocuous paragraph, and I’m sorry for that.

However, I still stand by my points about claims of “racism and bigotry” being improperly used to shut down discussion. I’m blaming other people for that, not you.

marley says:

01:15pm | 15/04/11

@Erick - I didn’t agree with your first statement, but I do agree with you last one.  I think it’s possible for people of different views to have a (more or less) civilized discussion.  Possible, but all too rare, because it’s so easy to resort to code words - racist, bigot, feminazi, bleeding heart,  bogan, commie, latte-sipper, redneck, etc etc rather than do the hard yards of explaining one’s own position and the reason for it.

I’m not a Bolt fan - I think I’ve only ever read a couple of his columns - but I notice that a lot of his critics rely to code words to describe him, rather than articulate their objections to a specific stance he might take.  It’s the weakest of arguments to say that a stance must be wrong because Bolt advocated it.

And I’m deeply concerned about the implications for free speech that this particular court case brings with it.

Neil Campbell says:

02:05pm | 15/04/11

What many of you fail to realise is that Bolt is from the NT & the bush in South Australia. He has Aboriginal friends and he understands the issues relating to Indigenous more than most. I also work with the Indigenous in the NT and under the inetrvention things have got better - e.g. kids now get to eat and are not treated as playthings by drunks. Their is overt racism within Indigenous culture - ‘white black fella’ is tame.  Another intervention is needed, as Darwin and the Alice are overrun with alcoholics who have left the remote communities to get their grog. The numbers have increased and are in the 1000’s - a genocide that is being done by alcoholic poison. Me and my wife work with the kids and they are safe when with us - the stories are dreadfull that the kids tell us. Howard had a crack; Gillard will have to as well. A word to the ‘bleading heart liberals’; your cry for Aboriginals to determine freely their destiny is killing them - damned if you do; damned if you dont.

JB says:

04:17pm | 15/04/11

Paul, what defines a “Bigot?” In your mind anyway. If you choose to exclude people who’s opinion does not match your own, I suggest that you would probably find China a better place to live as that is their philosophy too!  It has been over 200 years since settlement. Most of the Aboriginal health issues are related to lifestyle. Too much grog, drugs and not eating enough healthy foods. Resolve these 3 problems and many other problems will fade away. Behrendt is a tool and her comments are her’s not that of the wider community!!!

Adam says:

04:38pm | 15/04/11

@ Tory - Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. I was concerned you were advocating an attack on the apparatus that allows people to express their views freely (regardless of how offensive other may find them), and allows the government to listen to their citizens without interference. The same apparatus that both implemented a White Australia Policy when the majority wanted it (even if racist), and removed it when the majority changed their mind. However, such an attack on this apparatus is clearly not what you were advocating and you have made that clear. Hope you have a good weekend

Rosie says:

04:47pm | 15/04/11

Neil Campbell

Sensible comments!

Just finished watching writer Anita Heiss on TV, one of the 9 suing Andrew Bolt! I kinda gathered because she had been taunted all her childhood life for being part Aboriginal with brown complexion this was a good opportunity to fight back.

I was very surprised they weren’t suing for defamation of their characters but for the whole Aboriginal racist thing which is under the provision of Federal Racial Discrimination Act etc

We are talking about Professional academic Australians who are using their bit of indigenous blood when it suits and for social prestige! A pity these people who have been fortunate to acquire a good education that is there for the taking in a western society is not staying true to the demands of those they claim to be their people. It sure puts them in a good position as educated part or bit Aboriginal in that they have the best of both worlds.

These Professional so called Aboriginals if they really cared about the people they say they hail from should be in the forefront fighting the good fight in making our Aboriginals realize that to become one of them, a good education is required. It can only be done with a clear conscience after the past has been forgotten and we working together as Australians. Suing Andrew Bolt will only make things worst! They may get their satisfaction but it is a backward step for our indigenous people.

Stevo says:

05:13pm | 15/04/11

Errr ... who was the last bigot who actually acknowledged they were a bigot??  Does this ring a bell?  “I’m not racist or anything, but ....” 

Erick’s comment is illogical and nonsensical.

bitteboo says:

05:23pm | 15/04/11

PS.  I am just really sick of all the same old comments and extreme hate, which seems to be attached to blog articles these days.

John says:

11:00pm | 15/04/11

Erick funny enough this article reminds of two things. The first of this is the wierd and funny way ppl of Caucasian decent (white people) are required to live by certain rules that others of non whte decent are. Let me point out the N word. In any country a white person uttering this word will be condemed beyond belief, if you dont believe me look at what happened ot Kramer from Sinfield (dont know the guys real name) when he uttered after been abused by two africa americans during a stand up comedy routine. He was villified and I believe nearly had his career destroyed but then just watch and listern ot any rap music or movies with african americans. The word is used alot but yet no one says a word about it. When talking to each other most of these ppl refer to each other as N as well. Just think this word is found to be seen as truely disgraceful by African Americans yet it is used in daily speach by themselves. The reason stated for thier offence is that the word reminds them of the suffering as slaves by the white man and it is a word given to them by these white men but they can use it as it has a different meaning. This arguement is not sound as it would be like Black South Africans using the K word (I will not write this word as it is highly offensice to them) to each other. This word was used by White South Africans against the Black SA during Aparthied and slavery trade.

Another issue is the fact that I can be racially abused by and aboriginal and I must accept it even though my skin colour is brown. This has happened to me many times. I have also seen young aboriginal boys yell and old white women on trains saying this is my country and if you dont like it F OFF.

It shows the double standards that exsist in the world today society.

PJ says:

06:16am | 15/04/11

Fantastic, we shouldn’t have the right to free speech.  Can you outline why you should have the right to free speech, but someone else shouldn’t?  Why is your viewpoint more important than anyone elses?

Your position also does damage.  Does that mean you should be silenced?

ZSRenn says:

06:31am | 15/04/11

This parody was funny (sort of) the first time. Good comedy however needs to develop and grow. Now I am thinking why I wasted my time writing a heartfelt reply to be buried deep in the discussion line by this nonsense.

philip says:

06:47am | 15/04/11

define normal because most of australia actually is not normal everyone has an opinion and has a right to express that opinion even if they are wrong.

and tory bolt is and was right in calling attention to the “white” blackfellas running all the so called interest groups that keep dividing the nation along racial lines no we are not separate races imho we are all human first and foremost and stone aged cultures need to be abandoned and celebrated in the fact that we evolved socially and culturally with some hiccups along the way.

Thomas says:

07:02am | 15/04/11

Are you a real person?

Pete says:

07:42am | 15/04/11

@ PJ you dont have the right to free speech, it’s not in the constitution. What you do have is a convention in this country that allows people to speak freely, not nitpicking,, A really BIG difference

Phil says:

07:44am | 15/04/11

Sarah

I am sure Erick, Andrew Bolt, and plenty of others would love to attend your branch meetings, so long as copious quantities of narcotics are not inflicted on us during our presence.

Could you please give the date time and place of say your next 3 meetinsg, I am sure a few of us can make it.

Cheers

grumpy old man says:

07:46am | 15/04/11

Freedom of Speech is not a luxury, it is the most basic of human rights, even a dog has the right to howl at the moon!
No one has a right to prevent me from speaking, and I would be interested to know how you would prevent me from doing so, imprisonment? assassination? you sound more and more like Pol Pot or Stalin.

Ironside says:

08:06am | 15/04/11

Hey Sarah, even tho you are obviously a troll, i’ll bite.

How about the left wing, neo communist, treehugging pinko hippy greeny types who’s views would lead to wide scale misery and poverty if they were every implemented, should they (read you) be denied free speach also?

michael j says:

08:07am | 15/04/11

I saw on tv Bolt going into court bit quieter then usual,but he might be the only one of this particular mess that has to pay for a Lawyer,,

marley says:

08:10am | 15/04/11

I hope this is meant to be satire, because if it isn’t, well, it’s, how shall I put it, offensive.

NicoleG says:

08:17am | 15/04/11

Jesus, will you people stop feeding this freaking troll. I ignore it, but today, it’s pissed me rightly off (the troll,) !!!!!

Ando says:

09:37am | 15/04/11

I’m finally convinced Sarah is a fake or a child.

Dave says:

10:22am | 15/04/11

@NicoleG - settle, petal. Why don’t you down one of your cancer sticks?

nihonin says:

10:41am | 15/04/11

So Sarah Bath, I take it you too are bigot, seeing as you don’t agree with the views of ‘Bolt and other neocons and climate deniers and anti-gay homophobes and misogynists’.  You my dear are a hypocrite.

Tbone says:

11:31am | 15/04/11

@Grumpy - “Freedom of Speech is not a luxury, it is the most basic of human rights, even a dog has the right to howl at the moon!”

True, but the moon is not required by law to listen.  ie. just because you have a right to say something does not mean that I or anyone has the obligation to listen to you.  Do you understand?  You can stand on a street corner on your box and say whatever you want about the government, religion etc. and no one should be able to stop you from doing just that.  That is Freedom of Speech.  But, all of us can walk right past you and not even give you the time of day, let alone invite you to be part of our discussions or private society.  That is a democracy.  The marketplace of ideas where sometimes certain ideas are worthless and no one’s buying.

Brian B says:

11:49am | 15/04/11

Oh I see Sarah - Free speech is a luxury, but it’s OK for you to demonise Bolt by saying exactly what you think about him!! - and what is a “normal thinking Australian”?

True democracy is freedom of speech afforded to all - not just the Fitzroy Greens Branch.

What do you smoke at the “branch meetings”? Its clouding your brain.

BJS says:

12:21pm | 15/04/11

I assume you are joking - free speech is a luxury!!! It’s an essential, like oxygen. And neocons and climate deniers should be silenced. Which organisation are you a branch member of, the Australian Fascist League?

Doh says:

12:24pm | 15/04/11

Alene, is that you?

Middleboy says:

12:38pm | 15/04/11

@Ironside.  “Sarah Bath” is attempting a form of parody.  But your reply holds something on which I wanted to touch. 
Has anyone else noticed that it’s the exact same mindset excluding the right these days as excluded the left in the fifties and sixties?
It’s not about right and left, it’s about idiots who completely fail to understand that there might be another way.  If Tory was born in the thirties, instead of the seventies, we’d be hearing all about hippies who “almost always offend”.
Was Chardonnay popular in the picket-fence set too?

DB says:

12:48pm | 15/04/11

HAHAHAHAHA!! That is the most ridiculous comment I have read yet!!  The thought that there are two types of Free speach mine which is wrong and yours which is right?  What a joke!!  Free speach is exactly that FREE if you dont like what someone is on about dont listen or add to the debate!!!!  Absolutely no idea Sarah, you are what is wrong with Australia!! People have the right to free speach but only if you dont find it offensive, is that really your opinion? hopeless!!!

Leah says:

01:15pm | 15/04/11

Sarah, I am fairly sure nobody in the world is a “Climate denier”.

Btw, your comment is pretty much the most bigoted comment on this entire post. Basically what you’ve just said is that anybody with a slightly right-wing view of politics, or a different opinion to you, should be silenced. That’s what’s known as “intolerance”, and in case you missed it, our society is very big on tolerating anything and everything (except things it disagrees with, but that’s another story). It’s also the dictionary definition of bigotry (Oxford Dictionary: “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself”).

grumpy old man says:

01:31pm | 15/04/11

@tbone, agree completely, my right to speak does not imply an obligation on you to listen. These are rights that stand outside of the law. Whilst I think Sarah Bath is two slices short of a loaf, I support her right to express her views, pity that she seems to want to deny this same right to others.
Or maybe she ( I’m assuming Sarah is female) is being deliberately provocative.

TheRealDave says:

02:21pm | 15/04/11

Free Speech is not a ‘Luxury’ Sarah. It was bought and paid for in full on behalf of ALL Australian people on the backs of a million or so men and women that pulled on the uniform and fought for it over the past 100 odd years and the hundred off thousand who never came home.

Lawyers never ‘gave’ it to us, Politicians never ‘gave’ it to us. Activists never ‘protested’ for it for us. Teachers never ‘taught’ it to us. And how the hell do you think you are, or whatever mob you are spruiking for, telling us its a ‘luxury’?

Piss off back to your Young Wankers society where you think you are ‘making a difference’ or wherever the hell you think you are doing.

And you can thank those Men and Women for your Free Speech, implied or otherwise, on the 25th.

Culvallion says:

02:45pm | 15/04/11

Free Speech is a Luxury!
Homophobes and misogynists, they should be silenced

Yep! Classic Nazi attitude, if people hadn’t stood up to the establishment when wife beating was tolerated and being gay was illegal then Wives would still be barefoot and pregnant at the sink and gay’s still fearful for their very lives.

It is essential to allow all people to speak, and then to ensure that those who have a true point get the hearing they deserve and those morons who use isolation to suppress people are noted for who and what they are!!

Of course, if you’re a second rate bunch of fascists trying to control what people think then the whole PC agenda is bread and butter, much like communism or fanatical Islam or any other attempt to suppress the thoughts of others in preference to the doctrine of the state

Troy says:

03:17pm | 15/04/11

Sarah is just a Troll, that likes all the attention!

Matthew says:

03:47pm | 15/04/11

Leah, I deny there’s a climate.  Every day is exactly the same as every other day which isn’t affected by anything, not even whether we’re closer to the sun or not.

And that’s why it can’t change.

JB says:

04:27pm | 15/04/11

Sarah my dear girl, do you get the impression that your opinions are incorrect due to the number of comments that do everything but support your opinion! “National Council” of what, marijuana growers, please try and be a little more precise.  If you believe that people must agree with you to be able to speak then you would fit in just right in CHINA! Your version of justice is clearly that someone is charged with a crime, there is no legal counsel and no trial, you go straight to jail. Please seek counseling because your rant clearly indicates you need it.

NicoleG says:

04:52pm | 15/04/11

Bluddy petal?

Maria O'Brien says:

04:53pm | 15/04/11

‘Vile’ is an adjective, not a noun. I’m not sure what you mean by your use of this non-existent word - perhaps ‘bile’? That word would fit.

Stevo says:

05:20pm | 15/04/11

Free Speech doesn’t mean saying what yuo wnat, when you want.  Picture your mother.  Now picture Alan Jones ranting on about your mother because she sent him a letter disagreeing with him on some issue.  Repeatedly using your mother’s name on air, Jones demeans your mother publicly all becasue she disagreed with something. 

Jones is exercisionhg his his right to free speech.  He has the power of radio against your poor mother who is a humble woman living in the ‘burbs who dared disgaree with him. 

Free speech?  That isn’t free speech.  It’s bullying, and it happenes every day, and guys like Jones and Bolt and Hinch, and Hadley, are bullies and they run unchecked.

Stevo says:

05:20pm | 15/04/11

Free Speech doesn’t mean saying what yuo wnat, when you want.  Picture your mother.  Now picture Alan Jones ranting on about your mother because she sent him a letter disagreeing with him on some issue.  Repeatedly using your mother’s name on air, Jones demeans your mother publicly all becasue she disagreed with something. 

Jones is exercisionhg his his right to free speech.  He has the power of radio against your poor mother who is a humble woman living in the ‘burbs who dared disgaree with him. 

Free speech?  That isn’t free speech.  It’s bullying, and it happenes every day, and guys like Jones and Bolt and Hinch, and Hadley, are bullies and they run unchecked.

acotrel says:

10:11pm | 15/04/11

@MichaelJ
‘I saw on tv Bolt going into court bit quieter then usual,but he might be the only one of this particular mess that has to pay for a Lawyer,,’

And he might NOT be too!  What he’s involved in is all part of the game of selling newspapers.  I’ll bet Rupe is picking up the tab!

John says:

11:09pm | 15/04/11

Sarah Bath, on the 25 April a March will occur and bugles will play and as the sun rises and we thank those who have died for us FOR THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. To try to silence this is going against the true principles of Austalia.

Thats is why even though i am opposed to things like the wearing of the Burqa I accept it is out right as Australians of freedom of expression for women to choose to wear this.

I guess you would be nice and asleep in your bed during this period.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them

PJ says:

07:16am | 15/04/11

CDEP is alive and well.

Retired Soldier says:

07:27am | 15/04/11

Well ZSRenn, you have had the opportunity to meet the Blue eyed Michael Mansell . You should see the rest of his family and ilk in Tasmania. Don’t worry about Blue eyes until you see the pale skin and Red Hair of the people he portrays as Aboriginal. He was also responsible for initiating a new test for Aboriginality which meant that instead of a blood test or other evidence all one had to do was to “be accepted” by the local black community. You don’t have to be a genius to work out what type of person was accepted and in turn was entitled to all the lurks and perks of being one of the chosen few. These lurks and perks are not common knowledge to the majority of tax payers and if they were then the problem would be fixed in a very short time indeed. In the end the blue eyed white man can do the work while the blue eyed black man can sit and watch. It is also interesting to note the huge increase in population for a group who were deemed to be heading for extinction until the Aboriginal industry and public welfare money became a reality.

centurion48 says:

07:40am | 15/04/11

I understand what ZSRenn is saying but at what point does work for the dole become exploitation? Is the government or a private contractor getting cheap labour or does the increased self-esteem of being productive have a socio-economic value?
To digress, there was a report in the papers this week of two workers with an intellectual disability being paid only a few dollars an hour for working in a factory. They were happy with the situation but their wages did not meet industry standards. Result: no one wins.
Just as all disabled cannot be lumped together for a single solution to their social and economic needs so it is with Aborigines. It is not possible to apply a single template that fits all situations. It will continue this way for as long as governments (and the Aboriginal diaspora) insist on being treated as different as a separate class from the rest of Australians.
We must treat all Australians fairly and equitably - not equally - because there are plenty of non-aboriginal Australians who need help too.

Bev says:

10:46am | 15/04/11

In New Zealand there are strict rules.  You cannot claim to be Maori if you are more than 4 th generation (must be proved) with no infusion of fresh blood. You can claim descent obviously but cannot say you are Maori.

Slick says:

12:29pm | 15/04/11

Centurion,
The work for the dole is not supposed to be permenant. You would start in CDEP, learn some skills, then be able to get a real job.
Think about it, apprentices get an abosolutely crappy pay, but they are learning. Are you saying that they are being ripped off?
The idea is to get people off CDEP, get them to learn they are worth more than the welfare merry-go-round, which if they were paid as much as any other skilled worker, but were unskilled then why would they bother??

Seano says:

09:51am | 15/04/11

Sarah is a troll, a fairly obvious one, pretending to be on the political left but misrepresenting their views to get her jollies winding people up on both sides of the spectrum and/or to derail any sensible debate.

Personally I think the first poster on any comment by sarah should post the following as a warning to others and be done with it:

Don’t Feed The Troll!

Tom says:

11:09am | 15/04/11

Sarah is only doing to the left what the ABC type hero, the Chaser, has been doing to the conservatives. At least her satire is original and she is not being subsidised by the nanny-state propaganda wing.

James1 says:

12:37pm | 15/04/11

Tom, did you close your eyes during the bits where the Chaser doles it out to Labor and the Greens?

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH_MBwQhGgA

James1 says:

12:38pm | 15/04/11

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXxgXHRrjL0&feature=related

CD says:

01:43pm | 15/04/11

@Tom….mate how do you the troll is not being subsidized?

Seano says:

01:50pm | 15/04/11

@Tom - As James has pointed out the chaser had plenty of digs at Labor and the government. Conservative paranoia is definitely amusing but it is also tad scary you can’t see the wood for the trees. The lack of a sense of humour, the ability to take criticism or to accept that there are two sides to the story is something often associated with totalitarian regimes.

But then Tom, maybe I should take my own advise and:

Don’t Feed The Troll!

Tom says:

11:28am | 17/04/11

@Seano, “The lack of a sense of humour, the ability to take criticism or to accept that there are two sides to the story is something often associated with totalitarian regimes.” I’m glad you said “often”.

Giving your proposition some scrutiny, the only rider I might add is that the Yanks used to make jokes about the negroes, the Germans made jokes about the Jews and the Poms make jokes about the Irish. Australians used to make jokes about Aborigines. Most of the people on the receiving end had difficulty with their sense of humour, although I wouldn’t describe them as totalitarian regimes.

Back to the Chaser, @James1, well they are the darlings of the ABC. Perhaps a token jibe at the left to show the unwashed taxpayers that all “we are not biased here at your ABC”? I would love to see the full track record, not just James1’ anecdotes.

Seano says:

07:54pm | 17/04/11

@Tom - Yes but there’s a difference between making jokes about someone’s race and making a joke about politics or politicians. Jokes about race in their original form are most often about oppressing people who are different. Yes they change over time and become less offensive as people gain more equity often tiwth the people who were the butts of the jokes becoming the ones to use those jokes. Jokes about politics and politicians are most often about highlighting important issues through satire. At least they are in free western democracies.

The chaser gave Rudd heaps, they made a point of making about about not leaving anyone out hence their sketches about Muslims etc.

At the end of the day I think conservatives are prone to being paranoid and precious about political humour.

Holden Caulfield says:

07:50pm | 16/04/11

Pretty certain a statement can be implied or inferred but it can’t be both at the same time.

brian says:

08:35am | 15/04/11

And I applaud you for this post, couldnt agree more

LeonT says:

09:24am | 15/04/11

“the government should forget about race and focus on disadvantage”

Spoken like a person who has never had their race be a disadvantage. In ways, I wish the world was as you think it is. But it isn’t.

b watch says:

09:45am | 15/04/11

LeonT
Please inform me of what aboriginals are getting less of, because im struggling to come up with an answer, the only thing I can think of would be respect, but thats earnt, not given!!
Anywho I would love to have my
house/car/bank balance/schooling/medical expenses and more subsidized more than the average person based on my
skin colour/heritage/culture (whichever way you want to look at it)

Tom says:

12:14pm | 15/04/11

LeonT, If you want to focus on race, that makes you a racist bigot.

Michael says:

12:47pm | 15/04/11

So…it was once OK to persecute based on colour; it was once OK to deny someone the right to vote or run for office based on colour, but it is not OK to seek recompense based on colour? Really?

Ando says:

01:54pm | 15/04/11

Michael,
Who here suggested those things were once ok.
“but it is not OK to seek recompense based on colour? Really? “
No it definitly is not . If an individual has not been disadvantaged why should they.

CD says:

02:18pm | 15/04/11

@MIchael…..huh?

I see absolutely nothing in RC Henry’s post that states people are not able to go to court and be recompensed.  He has put forward a valid argument without any prejudice or bias that I see.

In fact he is playing a very fair card but you I can see only want to troll when there is nothing to troll about.  This is the problem with one line comments posted to denigrate people you do not agree with.

Try making sense and addressing what RC actually posted instead.

@LeonT
I most certainly have had my race, although I was born in Australia, used against me and I agree with RC so your assumption that someone who has not felt racism would not agree, in this instance is wrong.  I mean no disrespect to you however as I believe you felt you were making a fair point.

JB says:

04:36pm | 15/04/11

Instead of “Race” being the issue, how about giving everyone a hand up, not a hand out. If people aren’t prepared to help them selves then they can stay where they are. I agree fully that “White” city dwelling Aborigines not to be kicked off the gravy train. What’s this crap about if a tribe accepts you your in! Maybe if we were a little smarter we would adopt the NZ system which make a LOT more sense, but then again we would have the likes of Michael Mansell who will be jumping up and down crying Racist to every news outlet around the globe.

RC Henry says:

05:35pm | 15/04/11

My whole point is that the government is racist because it promotes race-based policies and this creates division. As Sir Paul Hasluck, one time GG of Australia said, “We have homogenised the milk, but not the people.”

If governments focused on need and disadvantage rather than race, much of the resentment that exists between blacks (seen to be at the pig trough and getting too much, by many) and others, who see ourselves as paying tax, much of which is squandered), would dissipate.

What race someone is who needs help is irrelevant to this argument. The opinion I have is that we should help everyone who genuinely needs help without any thought to their race. This would get advantaged people off handouts and direct the money to those who most need it. If the needier were Aborigines, which they are, then they would get more.

I know people on $150,000 per year who get free medical and dental and child care for $10 per day because they are funded based on race. Is that reasonable? Is it fair? How many of you reading this get $150,000? Not many I’ll bet. But you are paying for parasites to use the system legitimately because the government funds on race and not need. It’s not rocket science.

shizzle says:

09:00am | 15/04/11

I dont get offended because I am proud to be called a white c**t, I see it as more of a compliment

LeonT says:

09:26am | 15/04/11

“(not that Aboriginal people should be getting anything different than non Aboriginal people)”

Aboriginal people are getting things different to non Aboriginal people. They’re getting less.

PJ says:

09:47am | 15/04/11

LeonT

Less what?

Ando says:

09:50am | 15/04/11

Leon T ,
I agree Aboriginal people are disadvantaged but they are not given less. People who suggest we throw mopre money at the problem because real answers are difficult are adding nothing to the discussion.

Old Man Emu says:

09:53am | 15/04/11

No Leon, they are getting more - more handouts, more free housing, more opportunities. The only difference is they are (in most cases) not taking advantage of a playing field skewed in their favour.

Jade is right, Bolt had a great point. What was lost in the noise of the chattering classes who, having seen Bolt mention Aboriginality, automatically assumed it was a racist diatribe. The primary point of the articles was that these grants and handouts that the “white blackfellas” are feeding on are specifically designed to assist those who are discriminated against. That is, they are to assist Aboriginals who, because of their skin and appearance, are actively discrimated against. If, for all intents and purposes, you look white and no-one knows you are Aboriginal, you would never be subject to this discrimination. This is Bolt’s point - those who aren’t discriminated against are getting the handouts that is designed for those who are discriminated against.

P.S. I still think all race-based handouts need to be quashed.

jade says:

10:03am | 15/04/11

@ LeonT. You show me proof that they don’t. (Keep in mind that I have grown up in a town with a large Aboriginal population and watched this happen, yet being a from a poor white family received no help, no special benefits myself)

Old Man Emu hit the nail on the head!

LeonT says:

11:13am | 15/04/11

@Ando I agree that simply throwing money at the problem isn’t a guaranteed solution, but from some of the responses on this article, it would appear that many people don’t think race is at play in their disadvantage.

@Old Man Emu the ‘handouts’ are not because of overt discrimination in employment opportunities along the lines of ‘I want to hire a white person’. They are there because of the disadvantage that comes from fewer educational opportunites etc. This applies to many indigenous people and not just the ones dark enough for you to tell they are indigenous. You don’t get to dedcide who counts, the communities themselves do.

@Jade they get fewer educational opportunities, health services and have a life expectancy significantly less than white folk. Is that ‘less’ enough for you? Or are you going to attribute that to remoteness. Because if it were white children dying of conditions otherwise unseen in the developed world, you bet more would have been done about it.

Old Man Emu says:

12:33pm | 15/04/11

Leon, your responses actually demonstrate what I said. In Australia, there is no such thing as fewer educational opportunities (at least not to those who desire them). Public schooling is essentially free and, in the case of Aboriginals, they actually get a financial incentive to attend. They are no more disadvantaged in this respect than poor white folk. In fact, given the Abstudy bonus, they actually have more opportunities. Ditto, university quotas and scholarships based on indigenality. Also, they have the same access to health services as anyone else in their position. The only detriment in this regard is, obviously, remoteness, but that is the same for all non-indigenous folk living in the same areas. Additionally, the lower life span is primarily a result of self-inflicted causes, so sympathy there should be minimal.

Essentially, the flimsiness of your arguements, clarifies what I said, in some cases ragibigibles are not taking advantage of the overt opportunities presented them.

Bloggs says:

12:36pm | 15/04/11

Old Man Emu - I think you are spot on.  I also rmember Pauling Hanson saying this exact same thing when she was labelled as a racist She said she was more worried that the money for Aborigine child health was spent and some aborigines were getting rich and the kids remaind sick.  For this she was called a racist… I always agreed with the sentiment.

PJ says:

12:36pm | 15/04/11

LeonT

Health services aren’t race based.  They are based on population.  I have seen plenty of white communities with limited health care, because they are isolated and because there is a limited population.

Bloggs says:

12:36pm | 15/04/11

Old Man Emu - I think you are spot on.  I also rmember Pauline Hanson saying this exact same thing when she was labelled as a racist She said she was more worried that the money for Aborigine child health was spent and some aborigines were getting rich and the kids remaind sick.  For this she was called a racist… I always agreed with the sentiment.

Kevin says:

12:58pm | 15/04/11

A lot of aboriginal children only receive their education in, what to them, is a foreign language.

Ando says:

01:28pm | 15/04/11

LeonT,
Agrred but equally some think that racism is the only problem.

Jade says:

01:53pm | 15/04/11

Again Old Man Emu, totally agree.  LeonT see Old Man Emu’s post!

Matt says:

02:00pm | 15/04/11

Kevin, you cannot be serious. Have you ever lived in a community that is predominately Aboriginal? I have, and I (a “white fella”) topped Aboriginal Studies (a course I was forced to take). I would be surprised if any of the Aboriginal kids knew any Aboriginal words other swear words. They just didn’t care. If I were to blame anyone, I blame the parents. Its a vicious cycle, to be sure, but censoring the debate and quashing any viewpoints other than keeping the status quo as Aboriginals being victims is not going to help.

Wynston Cruso says:

02:09pm | 15/04/11

Kevin - the language wouldn’t be foreign if they actually turned up to attend their free education.

Slick says:

02:16pm | 15/04/11

Kevin,
The ones who live in remote communities and are acctually disadvantaged (and speak a different language) Don’t. They learn for half the day in english and half in their native tounge.
The problem is that there are hundreds of different aboriginal dialects. Not even neighbouring indigenious people speak the same tounge. They will speak to each other in pigeon english.
The language barrier would be there no matter what.

Jade (the other one) says:

02:29pm | 15/04/11

@Old Man Emu and Jade: There are significant differences in the access that white children in remote communities receive to education and the access that children in remote communities that are indigenous receive. In many communities, while the schools are P-10 or P-12 schools, the teachers are primary trained. This results in students who are high school aged not receiving education from teachers specialising in both the age bracket or the content area. This is less likely to occur in non-indigenous remote areas, where there are more high school trained teachers.

Indigenous education is delivered in the main in English. There is very little access to ESL services for students where English is not the first language. Which is a significant number of indigenous students, particularly when you consider that Aboriginal English is a completely separate dialect that is not mutually intelligible with Australian English.

There are less subjects available for high school aged students in indigenous remote communities, and less opportunities for school-based apprenticeships and the like than in white remote communities. There are less services such as PCAP (Priority Country Area Program) and many parents are unaware of how to access these services where they do exist.

To access distance education (formerly known as School of the Air), there are very in depth forms you are required to fill out, and various proofs that parents are required to provide to demonstrate their remoteness to be eligible. Furthermore, to gain access to the resources that students require, you have to fill out more forms. Many parents of indigenous children are functionally illiterate, making this an impossible task. And which makes the burden on parents that distance education poses similarly impossible. Most white parents in distance education completed year 12 at the minimum. Furthermore, many of them accessed subsidies offered to farmers and property dwellers to attend private boarding schools during high school, meaning that the quality of their education far outstrips that of most indigenous parents. So when they are educating their children, and working through their lessons, they are far better equipped to assist their children than indigenous parents.

Furthermore, the illiteracy of parents plays a huge role in continuing the educational disadvantage of indigenous children. Parents are unaware of what is required of their children. They cannot read to them at night, nor read the various forms and letters that come home from the school. The parents of white children are far, far less likely to be illiterate. Study after study after study into illiteracy demonstrates quite clearly that the level of parental literacy and a child’s pre-education literacy experiences is a strong indicator of future success in school. This automatic advantage occurs whether the children are learning in ESL environments, so long as their parents are literate and numerate in their first language, even if they are not in English. Therefore, non-indigenous children are automatically advantaged due to the greater likelihood that their parents were literate.

Much of the additional funding directed at indigenous children in schools goes to attempt to address some of the fundamental disadvantage that they experience, that white children simply do not. I am not suggesting that the money is directed in the right place, nor that there are not some people who receive various funds who maybe shouldn’t, but to suggest that there is anything like equivalency in the educational experiences of indigenous and non-indigenous children is to ignore reality.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason for providing extra assistance to indigenous children over non-indigenous children. It’s to attempt to put them on something like a level playing field with the rest of us.

Kevin says:

03:37pm | 15/04/11

@Matt - you have obviously never lived outside of NSW/Victoria.

Slick says:

04:08pm | 15/04/11

Jade(the other one)
Indigenious students from remote communities get more of a chance to attend boarding schools. The boarding schools love them as they all get special bonus’ for having the attend.
The problem is that most true remote indigenious do not want to be seperated from their family. But they are the functional ones who are happily living mostly off the land and who have parents who love and care about them and teach them the old ways. Most of those parents are literate because they were raised on the missions and taught by the nuns. The ones that end up coming into town to attend school are mostly the ones whose parents come in to drink. There are a lot of problems with racism in the boarding school near me where the indigenious kids are assulting the other students.
I don’t know where you live, but I have grown up around the aborignals, I count quite a few as friends and I could “identify” as aborigianl if I wished to.
But personal, I do not see the difference. I don’t care what the colour of your skin is. If you act like trash, your no better than trash. If you act like a decent person, with normal human emotions and faults and don’t constantly go on about what race you are or are not then you are just another person that I can become friends with.

JB says:

04:48pm | 15/04/11

@LeonT seriously are you on drugs? Seriously @Jade (the other one) Mate, Stop making excuses! So the illiteracy of parents is another excuse. Yes let’s have the white folks set in to help the kids and then we can have another “Stolen Generation” claim against the “White folk!”
Racist decisions, well mate I know a girl who’s parent had adopted 2 aboriginal kids. So 2 adults, 1 “While” kid and 2 Aboriginal kids all living under the same roof as a family. The “White” girl did not quality for AusStudy. The 2 Aboriginal kids got full AbStudy and bonus payments, flown to interviews if required and all text books paid for. The “White” girl got nothing. You don’t think this type of treatment will cause resentment? Seriously!

Steven J says:

05:54pm | 15/04/11

I think the point is that being called a “white c***t” when you actually are a part of the predominant culture is not really insulting.  Safe in your knowledge that you have the numbers and the money means that the insult falls flat.  Read the person above who says they take it as a compliment!

But if you are an aborigine, and you know that your culture is a goner, and that your people have shitty life expectancy compared with Anglo Australia, with little prospects of improvement, then being called a “black c**t” is a very very different thing altogether.  You are down, and this pushes you down even further.

Frankly if you cannot see this difference (and I agree it isn’t so obvious) then you identified the cause of your problem.

pheelion says:

11:32am | 17/04/11

@Kevin - “A lot of aboriginal children only receive their education in, what to them, is a foreign language. ” I am trying to figure out what advantages would be available for a person who received a top class education and university degree in a language only a small group of people use. The only purpose of language is communication. The more people you can communicate with the more opportunities will become available

marley says:

08:34am | 15/04/11

Andrew Bolt’s comments no doubt were offensive.  But does that mean he has no right to utter them?  That’s the issue here, and I’m personally very uncomfortable with the kind of limitation on free speech which this law suit is attempting to impose.

Joan says:

09:26am | 15/04/11

I thought Bolt was overdoing it a bit, but it does look to me that some people of aboriginal heritage who can function on the same level playing field as rest of Australians are taking advantage of tax payer funds meant for disadvantaged aborigines who need an extra hand and there are plenty.  The talented educated person of aboriginal heritage should not dip into funds, and grants funded by the taxpayer and set aside for Aborignal people still struggling up the road to success.

Tbone says:

12:27pm | 15/04/11

@Marley, Bolt DOES have a right to utter the comments he did.  Nobody is disputing that.  This is not a ‘free speech’ issue at all.  The action being brought against him is a CIVIL action.  That means a private right of action has been alleged in respect of private citizens who feel Bolt has wronged them.

Think of it like this: if you cut down a tree in your front yard without the proper approvals you have offended the local government’s development laws.  YOu had no RIGHT to do that.  If, on the other hand, you do get the proper approvals but the tree falls on your neighbours property and damages their car, they may have a civil right to sue you, but you certainly had a right to cut down the tree.

That’s not a perfect anology, but you can see my point.

What Bolt is doing is confusing this important distinction by saying his “Freedom of Speech” is being infringed.  That’s not true.  He may write what he wrote - that was his right - but if he, in process, has wronged another person at law he may be liable to them for damages.  A classic example is liable or slander.

marley says:

01:25pm | 15/04/11

@TBone-  sorry, but I don’t agree with you at all. There used to be an old joke in the USSR -  “of course we have freedom of speech here, we just don’t have freedom after you speak.”  Bolt is being sued in the courts for something he said.  He’s not being sued under defamation laws for lying about someone; he’s being sued under racial vilification laws for offending them.  And to my mind, the right to free speech trumps the right not to be offended.

So, you analogy is incorrect.  What’s happening is more along the line of - I get my permit to cut down the tree and do so, then my neighbour sues me for cutting down the tree and reducing his shade cover.  Even though I had the legal right to cut down the tree, I’m in court.  And it’s wrong.

Tbone says:

02:30pm | 15/04/11

@Marley, you seem to be confusing the issues.  The USSR joke is referring to the State’s relationship to it’s citizens. But that’s not what is happening here.  I believe what you don’t like is the idea that private citizen A may have a right of action against private citizen B on the basis of racial vilification.  You say to this that one person’s right not to be offended should not trump “free speech”. 

But it has nothing to do with “free speech”! 

Going back to the example of slander or libel, if you said something that was slanderous of another he would have a right to sue you for damages.  But would you call that right trumping your “free speech”?  Of course you wouldn’t. 

Where Bolt and the rest have got it wrong - and I think this is a critical point - is that they seem to think they have a right not only to say anything they want, but also to be free of any responsibility for it otherwise their right to “Free Speech” is somehow abrogated.  I absolutely do not agree with this view.

And, by the way, just because someone is in Court does not mean the State has anything to do with it, at all.  The Court is simply one of many dispute resolution options open to us all.

marley says:

06:46pm | 15/04/11

@TBone - I’m not confusing anything at all.  The litigants are using the law and the courts to pursue Andrew Bolt.  Whether the litigation is civil or criminal is immaterial.  What is material is that he’s being pursued for what he said.  And he’s being pursued in the courts - and the courts may be separate from the executive and the legislative arms, but they are still part of the triumvirate which governs us all.  They are an instrument of the State. 

Now, as I’ve mentioned earlier, I don’t have a problem with limiting free speech when it comes to defamation or inciting violence.  But that’s not what we’re talking about here.  We’re talking about Racial Vilification Laws which, in my view, place an unwarranted limitation on the right to free speech. 

You don’t agree, and that’s fair enough.  But don’t assume I don’t understand or am confusing issues.  I’m not.  In my opinion, the pursuit of Bolt is an affront to the concept of free speech.  He is being sued, not for defamation, or libel or incitement to violence, but for making offensive statements.  And I hold firmly to the belief that we all ought to have the right to offend people with whom we disagree.  And accept being offended in return.  And the state, via its courts, should not have a role in the matter unless actual defamation occurs.

grumpy old man says:

09:02am | 15/04/11

every human being has the freedom of speech, you just open your mouth and make sounds!
It doesn’t require a bit of paper to give you this right, you have it inherently from the moment of birth until they put you in the cold hard ground.
Whether people choose to exercise it or not is a personal decision,

marley says:

09:09am | 15/04/11

Well, no, it’s not America, but freedom of speech insofar as political opinion is concerned is a well-established right in our jurisprudence.  Further, we did sign on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes freedom of speech in its provisions.  So yes, we do have some level of free speech, though perhaps not to the extent that the US and Canada have. 

My concern is that the right to free speech was never intended to be subjugated by the right not to be offended, and that the racial vilification laws do precisely that.  I think they need to change.  Defamation should be a limit on free speech;  hurt feelings should not.

Jay Santos says:

11:57am | 15/04/11

“...My concern is that the right to free speech was never intended to be subjugated by the right not to be offended…”

I am deeply offended when black people call each other “nigger”.

Why is that acceptable?

What has my skin colour got to do with my right not to be offended?

Who do I sue?

TheRealDave says:

03:24pm | 15/04/11

I am 100% against ‘Freedom of Speech’ if there is no corresponding ’ You have to be Responsible for what you do say’ clause attached to it.

Bring on a Bill of Rights AND Responsibilities.

marley says:

03:40pm | 15/04/11

@RealDave - I’m not entirely sure how one would frame “taking responsibility for what you say.” What does that mean, exactly?  That you can be sued if you defame someone, or charged with a criminal offence if you incite violence?  Fair enough, and manageable with our current laws.  But being sued because you offend someone?  There, I’m not so sure.  Maybe you can elaborate on what you’re getting at….

Peter says:

08:52am | 15/04/11

All welfare payments should be means tested and should be available to all Australians regardless of the colour of a persons skin. Anything else is racist.

b watch says:

08:57am | 15/04/11

I find it funny that you have ‘cloud’ in your name, because thats obviously where you head is!!
Andrew Bolt is just another jounalist putting a different perspective on things other than the common left wing media babble

AdamC says:

09:17am | 15/04/11

Cloud Strife, would you care to explain why Andrew Bolt is racist and homophobic? I don’t believe he is either. And I think I would have a better idea, given that I actually read his stuff from time-to-time.

Tom says:

09:24am | 15/04/11

Yeah, Yeah, the “Andrew Bolt”, “racist”, “homophobic” thought ending cliches, the comfort food of left wing bloggers.

Written by Cloud Strife, someone devoid of anything but fatuous sloganeering. Don’t worry Cloud Strife, the brain-dead cheer squad are lining up to cheer your stupid sloganeering,

Cloud Strife says:

09:50am | 15/04/11

Oh, I’ve read his articles. That’s how I know he’s racist and homophobic.

AFR says:

10:25am | 15/04/11

Not sure about racist or homophobic. From what i’ve seen he is more playing to his faithful redneck audience and loves it. The term I do find incorrect when it comes to Bolt though is “journalist”. Surely you jest, b watch?

Bev says:

10:32am | 15/04/11

So Cloud Strife explain to me why one of his childrens godfathers is gay and why he has written articles support the right of gays,lesbians to march in the streets of Europe without being harassed something that shocked him when he visited Europe.

Margaret Gray says:

12:59pm | 15/04/11

‘Cloud Strife’ is a stray from Jezza and Graaawk’s Pure Piss blog on Cronky.

Don’t feed the troll.

Cloud Strife says:

01:53pm | 15/04/11

@Margaret Gray

Uh… No. I’m not. This is the only site I use this psued.

Ando says:

02:06pm | 15/04/11

Cloud strife,
I’m not afraid of having a go at Andrew Bolt but his views on homosexuality are consistantly liberal. So seriously, provide some evidence.

marley says:

02:17pm | 15/04/11

Just musing here - why is it wrong for Bolt to make offensive remarks, but fine and dandy to categorize him as ” racist” and “homophobic” or his audience as “rednecks”  without producing any evidence of either statement?  Seems to me there’s more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

Cloud Strife says:

02:55pm | 15/04/11

@Bev and @Ando

I don’t have any proof, because this was an article about 6 or 7 years ago, but Bolt wrote a long opionion piece on how a gay magazine had done a fashion shoot using Melbourne High’s footy oval as the background (for which they had paid the school).

Perhaps his views have now changed, but I will never forget how this article said using the school footy oval - which was never mentioned, by the way, it could have been an oval anywhere - was pretty much endorsing pedophillia, and the implication that was standard for ‘the gays’.

HappyCynic says:

03:32pm | 15/04/11

@Cloud

I doubt very much that Bolt has the ignorance necessary to believe any of his own opinions.  You can tell by how carefully he writes (most of the time!) that he doesn’t believe any of the junk he writes, it’s too well researched (albeit selectively) and most of time he’s copying other people’s opinion pieces or using other source material without voicing his own.  It’s all very calculating and designed to fool people in to thinking it’s his writing and/or he believes it and he plays to that because it makes him popular. 

Afterall popular = paid, paid = food on the table.

Mind you I’m a cynic, my opinion of all opinions is that they are, at their core, disingenuous and false.

Jay Santos says:

04:39pm | 15/04/11

“...this article said using the school footy oval…was pretty much endorsing pedophillia, and the implication that was standard for ‘the gays’.

Does your mama know you just make this sh1t up, Porch Monkey?

“...I don’t have any proof…”

Ya don’t say.

Back to Cronkey with you before I call the lawyers.

Cloud Strife says:

10:22pm | 15/04/11

@Jay Santos

Maybe if I posted on Cronky (do you mean Crikey?), you’d have a case!

I don’t have proof because that article isn’t on the internet, but it caused quite a stir among the gay community, which is probably why they loathe him as much as I do.

Robbo says:

10:31am | 15/04/11

I think what he was trying to say is that someone could have no ties to the Aboriginal community whatsoever and have no cultural links but if they have a distant relative who was Aboriginal then they are instantly entitled to any help meant for those who are really in need, regardless of whether they grew up in an affluent family.
My cousin has 4 children to a part aboriginal women and is entitled to housing, schooling and does not need to work due to the child care allowances.  The closest thing any member of his family would know about the dreamtime is passing out after one too many.  Do they deserve this govt help over abused families in the bush??

Jay Santos says:

01:16pm | 15/04/11

“...But Bolt’s just a bigot loking to sell papers, get himself a bit of publicity for his new TV program and generally start a sh!t fight…”

Of course…now I get it.

He sued HIMSELF for the publicity.

Good to see stupidity doesn’t discriminate across racial lines.

“...I’m not entitled to understand culture, community and country from a Murri perspective…”

Is that something only an “Aboriginal” can do?

Ando says:

02:21pm | 15/04/11

Bolt does often scoff at Aboriginal culture and I find that offensive . However Lexi, the general point that if you had ticked that ATSI box (and you have to admit it would at the very least tempt some) you would be part of the problem.

Djiluk says:

08:57am | 15/04/11

Have you ever been to an Aboriginal community?

Full blood Aborigines still talking about “that yella fella”

Aborigines openly laughing at Mansell and crew with their “Aboriginal” passports?

Aborigines abusing balanda in very abusive Anglo Saxon lingo.?

ATSIC being openly ridiculed as a white fella mob who fly all over the world?

marley says:

08:40am | 15/04/11

Well, sure, you can sue someone for defamation if they lie about you.  And if you can produce enough evidence that it was an intentional lie, you will win.  Fair enough. I see that as a reasonable limitation on absolute free speech, just as I see laws about inciting violence to be a reasonable limitation as well.

But bear in mind that,  if someone says something about you which you don’t like, but which happens to be true, you’re going to lose your shirt in the court case, because truth is always a defence. 

Now the Bolt case is interesting, because as I understand it no one is suing him for defamation.  He’s being sued under the Racial Vilification Act, which requires a much lower standard of evidence than a defamation suit would require.  Personally, I have no big issue with the defamation laws, but I do have a problem with the racial vilification law, which I do believe infringes way too far on the fundamental right to free expression.

Hell, if we applied it to the Punch commenters, half of us would be in court right now.

DJ says:

01:15pm | 15/04/11

I have to say, you’re not a bad sort though ! Keep up the good work.

The Badger says:

10:29am | 15/04/11

This is what I said jim

“jim it’s not offensive at all.
at least according to your cheerleader bolt.
I asked you a question.

Here, I’ll repeat it:
Did you find his writing as deeply offensive as the other “political aborigines” did? They found it offensive enough to launch a lawsuit against bolt and his publisher.

Well did you? It’s a fair question.
You were the one who volunteered you were part aboriginal.
bolt implied in articles and blogs that they were “professional Aborigines’’ who self-identified with the thinnest strand of their racial make-up to gain financial and other benefits to the detriment of other, more deserving Aborigines.
Just search for his articles if you haven’t read them “It’s so hip to be black’’ and “White fellas in the black’‘
Are you not capable of taking a position on bolts articles on :white aborigines”?
It’s OK if you don’t have an opinion on this side of bolt, but you are out of step with your brothers and sisters. “

I would have thought that a “white aboriginal” as outspoken on political issues as yourself would have had an opinion on exactly this issue. It turns out you didn’t when I first asked the question, and you still don’t. All you have is some sort if mock indignation that I asked you the question.
I find it very strange that you don’t have an opinion on this issue, as it goes to the core of who you are.

Jim says:

12:04pm | 15/04/11

Actually Badger, this is what you wrote first;

“The Badger says:12:35pm | 07/04/11

hey jim
since you brought it up.
Are you one of those fair-skinned Aborigines ‘‘faking’’ their Aboriginality to ‘‘rort the system’‘?
You know, the ones that conservative cheerleader Bolt is having so much fun castigating as “political aborigines? And is now facing justice over?

Did you find his writing as deeply offensive as the other “political aborigines” did?

Jim says:02:24pm | 07/04/11

That’s very offensive, even for you Badger….considering you have in the past abused people for saying similar things.

FYI - neither I, nor my family, have EVER claimed anything…not even a free flu shot. “

If you’re going to quote, at least do it right.

FYI - I don’t care for Bolt one way or another. I don’t read him. But according to you anyone who doesn’t love the rainbow coalition and chai soy latte with bongs before 8am MUST be a fringe dwelling, far right lunatic with Bolt posters hanging above the toilet to provide inspiration for happy private time!

As I said above, most good things done in central and northern Australia are inevitably fucked up by inner city idiots who think they are doing people up there a favour.

MarK says:

12:35pm | 15/04/11

Badger…..pwned again.

In other news bears do shit in the woods and the Pope is catholic.

NicoleG says:

01:31pm | 15/04/11

Hmmm, the silence is deafening.

John A Neve says:

02:11pm | 15/04/11

CJ Morgan,

So a person of mixed blood, part of which is Aboriginal, can choose which side of the fence thay want to sit on, have I got it right now?
Please don’t talk to me about legistlation, that can be changed at any time.
People born in this country are Australians, nothing more and nothing less.

The Badger says:

10:52am | 16/04/11

So you still don’t have an opinion jim?

funny you have an opinion on everything else. Must be too conflicting for you.

Hamish says:

09:36am | 15/04/11

CJ, Bolt (or ‘Dolt’ which is super-funny, which year of primary school are you in?), in his articles, was asking some very pertinent questions. We have in Australia a range of grants and assistance programs in place for indigenous people. I don’t really agree with giving any race of people special assistance because it’s racist and paternalistic, but the intention of such assistance is to help people who we perceive will suffer discrimination and/or grow up in horrible remote communities. It is perfectly reasonable to have a discussion around who should qualify for such assistance.

Someone like Behrendt, for instance, doesn’t look aboriginal. She doesn’t come from a remote community, so why should she qualify for any assistance. If she didn’t tell people she was aboriginal, no one would know. In New Zealand there are well accepted and quite strict rules around claiming Maori descent. Are New Zealanders racist or are they just far more sensible?

The ‘stoush’ doesn’t appear that confected to me. I imagine aborigines in remote communities whose lineage is significantly aboriginal, such as Bess Price, don’t really like the idea of people like Behrendt swanning around claiming to speak for indigenous people. I’m not sure indigenous peple need Bolt to point out the obvious schism between urban middle-class aborigines who have basically decided to self-identify as aboriginal and indigenous people who live in remote communities and who have no choice but to identify as aboriginal. It’s interesting you have a problem with creating divisions within indigenous society but clearly have no problem with divisions between indigenous people and ‘non-aboriginal society’.

AdamCMelb says:

09:58am | 15/04/11

Hamish, I suspect Bolt was ‘dog whistling’.

Ando says:

10:41am | 15/04/11

Well said Hamish. Of course some of what Cj said is true but the fact is Behrendt is a perfect example of a white Aboriginal not because of the color of her skin but because she ignores and attacks the concerns of Price who is on the frontline . Racism is of course an obstacle but it is not the only reason for the why a young aboriginal may find it hard to get into university, the issue is far more complex. Cjs only solution would be stop racism but if racism stopped today and nothing else changed the situation in 20 years would be no different.

CJ Morgan says:

10:50am | 15/04/11

@ Hamish:

In Australia we also have strict rules about who can claim Aboriginality, particularly when it comes to qualifying for government assistance on that basis.  They correlate strongly with criteria used by racists to discriminate against them, regardless of the darkness of their skin.  I outlined them in my first comment.  Also, the great majority of Indigenous Australians live in urban areas and regional towns and are of mixed ancestry.

Interestingly, the particular form that Dolt’s racist campaign took in this instance is to target those Aboriginal people who have benefited from educational and other programs directed towards alleviation of their disadvantage.  In Dolt’s racist logic such successful outcomes must cast doubts on the authenticity of their Aboriginality, as evidenced by the colour of their skin.

Oh, and I call him ‘Dolt’ because it fits so well, and it’s more polite than ‘Turd’.

@ AdamCMelb:

No, Dolt’s not dog-whistling in this case.  The offending articles’ references to the complainants’ skin colour were blatantly racist in nature.  Absolutely no subtlety at all, which is why he’ll lose the case.

Hamish says:

11:17am | 15/04/11

Ando, very true. Price is on the frontline and deserves to express her opinion without being attacked by someone who has essentially no idea what she is talking about. I don’t care if Behrendt disagrees but her response was offensive and uncalled for. Behrendt has no more right to comment on the NT Intervention than any other member of the urban leftist elite.

CJ, I accept we do have a system for recognising aboriginality, but Australia’s ‘system’ is far less stringent than those used in other countries and actual descent isn’t necessarily considered as important as all that. In this context it is perfectly understandable that there is some degree of conflict between middle-class urban aborigines such as Behrendt and much more recognisably aboriginal rural and regional indigenous people such as Price.

Australian society has a right to determine who we believe should be entitled to assistance. There is no reason this discussion can’t be conducted in a mature way without accusations of phantom racism purely designed to stifle legitimate debate. My personal view is that if someone’s lineage is predominantly non-aboriginal and they do not look particularly aboriginal, then they shouldn’t be entitled to any more assistance than anybody else. What is their actual claim to it anyway?

AdamC says:

11:25am | 15/04/11

“Interestingly, the particular form that [Bolt’s] racist campaign took in this instance is to target those Aboriginal people who have benefited from educational and other programs directed towards alleviation of their disadvantage”

To an extent, CJ Morgan. However, Bolt specifically identified and discussed people with substantial non-indigenous heritage but who identify as indigenous. That is, people who effectively privilege one aspect of their background over the other(s). He was not talking about indigenous beneficiaries of targeted assistance generally.

It is true that Bolt mentioned the financial and career benefits that this group may be entitled to having identified as indigenous. It is also true that these observations have received disproportionate attention during the court case. (Probably because the plaintiffs found these the most personally galling.) However, Bolt’s interest in the issue is actually much deeper than that.

We live in a society in which people, for whatever reason, like to label themselves and assume scripted identities (gay, indigenous, muslim, etc) that separate them from others. (Or, more specifically, allow them to differentiate themselves from the broader mainstream.) In doing this, people are assisted by the multiculturalist state that appears to bend over backwards to highlight difference, bolster victim narratives and promote separate development.

This is not a good thing, and Bolt is one of the few writers out there in MSM land willing to highlight it. If he were to be silenced, that would be a great pity.

CJ Morgan says:

11:47am | 15/04/11

@ Hamish:

I’m guessing that you really don’t know very much about the diversity among Indigenous people in Australia, and that you haven’t had much firsthand experience of them.  You’re correct that Behrendt has no more right than anybody else to comment on the failed ‘Intervention’, but you’re wrong to associate that with degrees of Aboriginal authenticity or some imagined outback “front line”.

The “front line” of racism against Aboriginal people occurs all over Australia, wherever Aboriginal people live.  It’s as extant in some benighted metropolitan suburbs as it is in an outback town.

There is much disagreement within Indigenous politics, but ignorant attribution of it to imagined racist discourse only furthers the agendas of those who want to maintain Aboriginal disadvantage.  I’m not saying that’s what you want, but your evident ignorance of Aboriginal matters doesn’t clarify matters at all.

Behrendt and Price are both Aborigines, but they disagree vehemently as Aborigines about the “Intervention”.  That’s not the same thing as “urban lefties” disagreeing, and it has very little to do with actual skin colour.

John A Neve says:

12:01pm | 15/04/11

CJ Morgan,

If I read you correctly, one can choose to be Aboriginal?
If this is the case problem solved, we’ll all become Aboriginal, conflict stops instantly.

Bev says:

12:14pm | 15/04/11

@CJ Morgan Having read the offending article/s my interpretation is that he is referring to Professional Aboriginals who earn a good living as consultants speaking for aboriginal people (much better than they probably could otherwise). The same people who say that we must consult aboriginals (that’s them) and seem to get indignant when people on the ground are talked to or speak up (Might interfere with the gravy train).  Witness the latest spate.

CJ Morgan says:

01:03pm | 15/04/11

@ John A Neve:

No, you read me incorrectly.  People don’t choose to be Aboriginal, it’s something you’re born with - you have to have Aboriginal ancestry.

@ Bev:

That charitable interpretation may be true, but Bolt chose to frame his attacks in the language of skin colour, which is why they are undeniably racist.  On the basis of his other writings I’m inclined to think that he was being deliberately inflammatory on the basis of perceived ‘race’. 

I hope the judge agrees.

Hamish says:

01:26pm | 15/04/11

CJ, I certainly wouldn’t consider myself an expert when it comes to aboriginal Australians. However, I did study under Graham Atkinson at Melb Uni who is one of the plaintiffs in the case in question. I got an H1 thanks for asking. So while I don’t necessarily claim to be an expert, I’m not particularly ‘ignorant’ either. In fact I’d suggest I’m about as qualified to speak on issues such as the NT Intervention as Behrendt is.

I also disagree that there is no difference between aborigines on the ‘front-line’ and those who are members of the urban middle-class twitterati. I realise there are a lot of indigenous Australians who fall in between these two extremes. I think you’ll find many aborigines would also disagree with you. For instance, when talking about the NT Intervention, Price fairly enough uses the term ‘we’. I wonder what the average NT aboriginal in a far flung community would think of Behrendt using the term ‘we’ in that context?

It’s hard to be ‘racist’ towards someone for being aboriginal when they don’t look at all aboriginal. Which was actually Bolt’s point in the first place.

CJ Morgan says:

03:29pm | 15/04/11

@ Hamish:

In answer to your question, here’s a link to “an open letter to Andrew Bolt from a ‘half-caste’, ‘yella fella’, ‘half-breed’ Kungarakan-Gurindji woman”:

http://bit.ly/dR8168

And Hamish, an Aboriginal Studies unit at uni, no matter how well you passed, can in no way give you anything like the lived experience of an Aboriginal person in this country, no matter how light their skin is.

Bolt attempts to negate Aboriginality on the basis of skin colour and educational attainment, which is why he will go down in this case.  It’s racism, pure and simple.

AdamC says:

03:59pm | 15/04/11

CJ Morgan, that letter was amazingly defensive, and full of smears and ludicrous comments about western autocracy (WTF?) and the like. It is a terrible rebuttal to Bolt, and even includes bizarre internal contradictions.

CJ Morgan says:

04:38pm | 15/04/11

@ AdamC:

Yes, Aboriginality is just a tad more complex than the formulaic categorisation to which many non-Indigenous would subject Indigenous people.  Nonetheless, the letter’s writer is indisputably Aboriginal, wouldn’t you agree?

However, given her relatively fair complexion and doctorate I think she’s exactly the kind of person whose Aboriginality Bolt and his acolytes would question. 

You should read more stuff at Bob Gosford’s blog - you obviously have much to learn about Aboriginality and conditions on the ground in the NT.

John A Neve: says:

09:34am | 15/04/11

Acotrel,
Just why are these people a “disadvantaged group”, aren’t they entitled to the same government facilities as the rest of us?

CJ Morgan says:

10:07am | 15/04/11

Very succinctly put, acotrel.

James1 says:

10:33am | 15/04/11

Academics, professors, and associate professors are hardly a disadvantaged group.  These were the subjects of his comment pieces in question.

CJ Morgan says:

11:24am | 15/04/11

@ James1:

At the risk of stating the obvious, they weren’t born “academics, professors and associate professors”.  They achieved these qualifications through education, probably with the asistance at some point of some targeted program.

Why do you people want to punish Indigenous people for overcoming their disadvantage?  I thought that’s what such programs were supposed to do.

CJ Morgan says:

11:25am | 15/04/11

@ James1:

At the risk of stating the obvious, they weren’t born “academics, professors and associate professors”.  They achieved these qualifications through education, probably with the asistance at some point of some targeted program.

Why do you people want to punish Indigenous people for overcoming their disadvantage?  I thought that’s what such programs were supposed to do.

James1 says:

12:15pm | 15/04/11

I don’t CJ.  I overcame similar disadvantage (a poor, working class background) by doing a PhD myself.  However, I no longer claim to be disadvantaged, as I am clearly not.

Once you overcome disadvantage, you can no longer claim to be disadvantaged, was my point.

CD says:

02:03pm | 15/04/11

@CJ ,,,,no they were not born professors, lawyers etc etc but please go further with your comments and inform us what was their exact background?

Do they come from the same disadvantaged group ot which Bess Price speaks, represents and knows only too well?  With limited funds available no matter the amount are you stating that it is acceptable that those who most need it should miss out simply because others confering upon themselves the aboriginal side of their heritage as opposed to the any other of their mixed heritages do the fair thing by taking the grants that rightly should go to those most needy?

Again I ask you do know he background of the litigants in the Bolt case?  Frankly I see in your post another person who just wishes to rein in free speech because you just don’t like what Bolt said,

You are using an overall view of aboriginality to try and show how liberal and progressive you are and how evil Bolt and Price are for even questioning that some people are taking not out of need but because it is there with no regard to those who truly need the help.

CJ Morgan says:

03:38pm | 15/04/11

@ James1:

Bully for you for bettering yourself.  Just imagine how hard it would’ve been had you been born into an Aboriginal family.  Yes, there are many non-Aboriginal people who are disadvantaged, and very often it is they who are most resentful of assistance to Aborigines.

@ CD:

The only relevant aspect of their backgrounds is their Aboriginality.  Bolt doesn’t tell us anything much about their backgrounds either, since his focus is the colour of their skin.  I recall that he did manage to claim erroneously that Behrendt’s father was German.

Chris L says:

12:43pm | 15/04/11

I disagree Seamus. Theoretically, Bolt tells it like he sees it. (I say “theoretically” because I suspect sometimes he goes overboard to appeal to the more radical among his fanbase.

Chris L says:

03:43pm | 15/04/11

I actually agree with you Joan. I haven’t read Bolt’s article but from the sounds of it he was presenting a valid point without resorting to insults. This jibe from Behrendts associating her reaction to Bess Price with bestiality is over the top and deserving of condemnation. Mind you, I don’t think legal action is necessary.

Bev says:

12:55pm | 15/04/11

I was wondering when somebody was going to raise this.  Possessing or downloading and watching a beastiality movie is actually quite a serious criminal offence for which people can get jail time. Maybe she has scored an own goal?  Though I doubt she will be pursued like a male would in a similar position who admitted what she has.

Djiluk says:

11:49am | 15/04/11

She was furtheing her knowledge so she could better perform her duties heading up Gillard’s Aboriginal Tertiary Studies Committee

marley says:

11:50am | 15/04/11

No, there’s nothing in the Constitution, but there is jurisprudence to say that we have freedom of speech on political issues.

Southerner says:

01:51pm | 15/04/11

David,
According to the High Court Australians have a implied right to Free Speech. That is very important because the High Court has ruled the Government must not make laws that disturb this particular right of “political communication” which is legal code for free speech.
As far as the article goes. I think Bolt and everyone else should be able to say whatever they like. Under a democratic society which subscribes to free speech everyone should just grow a bit of a thick skin.

Sad Sad Reality says:

10:24am | 15/04/11

Way too accurate and sensible for this time in the morning, AC. In fact your comment was so sensible it frees me to do what I do best, completely unnecessary and grating hyperbole.

James1 says:

11:05am | 15/04/11

“What is likely to do so is being presented with a well-articulated, confronting idea that undermines your sense of self-image. (In this case, self image as a member of a victimised minority.) Irrespective of the motivation of the conveyor of the idea, or whether he or she is actually racist, hate speech or discrimination laws provide a convenient basis for action.”

Indeed.  The thing that disturbs me the most is the subjectivity of this process as well.  If a “reasonable” person is likely to be offended (which is the claim being made in Bolt’s case), then racial discrimination can apparently be established.  I might not be a legal expert, and a mere political scientist, but it seems to me that the subjectivity inherent in such a case leaves what constitutes racial discrimination open to considerable interpretation. 

I can see how the academics in question might have been offended by Bolt’s articles, but were they offended because he was dealing with issues of Aboriginality and ethnicity, and what constitutes those identifications, or because he singled them out personally, and questioned why they made the choice to identify the way they do.  I have a distant French relative, and might be a little offended if someone told me I should identify as French ethnically rather than Irish and questioned my current identification.  But it wouldn’t be racial discrimination.

Furthermore, I think you are right in your conclusions, AdamC.  Regardless of whether the Aborigines in question win this case, it is a big step backwards for robust and free public debate about issues of ethnicity in this country.  However, something tells me that it will not stop BoltA…

AdamC says:

01:39pm | 15/04/11

James1, I agree about the subjectivity. In these cases, the application of law and the enforcement of acceptable political views become essentially indistinguishable.

Joan says:

10:14am | 15/04/11

Seano…. Bolt as I read him highlighted the fact that some of aboriginal heritage doing well in Australian community were always first in the line for government funds, grants, provided by the taxpayer for the disadvantage aged Aboriginal still struggling to get there. perhaps he put his message too crudely

Seano says:

10:36am | 15/04/11

“perhaps he put his message too crudely “

That’s kind of what I said.

Gek says:

11:07am | 15/04/11

Bolt and his ilk do serve an important function in focussing attention on issues through “crude” means. What should then follow is some sensible debate on the issues.

The mistake that the media makes is to include people like Bolt in the sensible debate. Once he’s made his point it should be up to more reasonable people on both sides to discuss the issues he has raised.

Bolt is a clown, but the best clowns make people think. It’s why I like listening to talkback radio despite disagreeing with almost everything that is said.

MarK says:

12:38pm | 15/04/11

“From what I’ve read on this argument it seems to me that Bolt wasn’t trying to start an open discussion….”

Why don’t you actually read the articles and male your own mind up.

I do and found them quite interesting and thought provoking but in no way offensive to anyone.

Seano says:

01:34pm | 15/04/11

I’ve read some, occassionally I do go slumming.

IMO the bloke was more interested in promoting argument and offense than he was in starting a serious debate. How is telling people who grew up in aboriginal families and who have always identified with and been indentified as aboriginal people that they are merely making a self serving choice not offensive?

Who is Bolt to tell anyone who they are who they should identify with?

MarK says:

02:42pm | 15/04/11

Gotcha seno.

So you haven’t read these articles yet you have formed an opinion based on…....something from people that are not you and yet you espouse it as your own.

You then with first hand knowledge go on to question the author.

To recap;

You haven’t read the pieces, you have formed an “opinion” based on others thoughts and see fit to ask questions.

Ok. Sounds about as intellectually barren as a Gillard policy announcement.

Love the slumming remark. So witty. I guess we all do it from time time. See….I read your “post”.

Seano says:

04:19pm | 15/04/11

I can’t decide whether you are arrogant and stupid enough to actually believe that not agreeing with you constitutes a “Gotcha” or whether you’re just trying to dodge the argument. It’s a coin flip.

To recap;

Bolt has every right to raise the issue of people misusing their heritage for personal gain. but when he singles people out who have grown up in aboriginal families identifying as aboriginal because of the lightness of their skin he is being offensive. When he does it in his usual snide way he does it IMO for the purpose of creating an argument not starting a debate.

MarK says:

07:48pm | 15/04/11

So you got that by NOT reading the article.

Imagine what you would know if you actually had read them.

You will catch up soon . Take your time. Reading is hard.

Seano says:

08:25pm | 15/04/11

I couldn’t decide whether you were being stupid and arrogant in pretending that not agreeing means anything or whether you were just too gutless to address the actual issue.

I see it’s a little of both.

MarK says:

09:14am | 16/04/11

Yes I am arrogant and stupid.

I also have the luxury of speaking from a position of having the articles. You on the other hand seem to be happy to have your opinions given to you.

If you actually read what I wrote I answered your “issue” with BoltA which really was just a I don’t like his politics therefore he is offensive. It is actually much like Tory’s position.

The one thing I find constant on this blog is the “left”, and I will leave Tory out this, of the readership love self censorship. ian never reads me (LAWL), Badger doesn’t read BoltA, you slum it “occasionally”. There are others. And yet you are all to ready to spout an opinion based on no first hand knowledge.

I find that quite ironic. Well sort of. The left seems to love a bit of censorship and witch hunting when all else fails.

You are just perpetuating the meme. Oh and tossing the odd ad homien in.

You see what you were saying before you started the personal abuse (what was this article about again seano? HAHAHAHAHA) was that BoltA was merely trying simply to offend and not discuss. I replied that I had read the articles and found them to be different than that analysis which you had somehow gleaned form others.

When faced with the fact that you are merely regurgitating others opinions you reacted most predictably to be honest. A true ideological warrior manifest.

Read the articles son. They are quite good and not offensive in the slightest - particularly to people that would watch soft core bestiality regardless of racial mix or origin.

Feel free to read the articles seano and make your own mind up.

Seano says:

09:53am | 16/04/11

“Yes I am arrogant and stupid.”

I think that’s a given.

“I also have the luxury of speaking from a position of having the articles. You on the other hand seem to be happy to have your opinions given to you.”

You have the absolute luxury of making stuff up and thinking that’s significant. It’s not.

You claim erroneously claim I haven’t read the articles because I don’t agree with your opinion. You then burst into tears about “personal abuse” when it was you first made it personal with your snide comments.

You much like Bolt need to learn that just because you say it doesn’t make it so.

At the end of the day you can’t get around the actual facts of the case. Whilst Bolt should have the right to free speech it is definitely offensive to tell a person who has grown in an aboriginal family, wh identifies and been identified as aboriginal their whole life that they are misusing their heritage for personal gain. Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

yet again you’ve failed to challenge that argument and whilst you’ve hid behind childishly silly games.

The Badger says:

10:54am | 16/04/11

mark
pwned again by seano

James1 says:

10:35am | 15/04/11

They should really get on to doing something about that.  Might I suggest that getting a job would be a good first step?  Works for me.

AdamC says:

11:07am | 15/04/11

You certainly delivered the hyper-bowl, SSR. Very funny stuff.

BTW, are your comments about inner-city lesbians based on experience? That element sings with authenticity.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:28am | 15/04/11

I have encountered my fair share of the unsatisfiable.

Hamish says:

11:33am | 15/04/11

Great post SSR, but to be fair I think even the average middle-class urban aborigine realised Bran Nue Dae was a stinking turd. Even if they did have a few brekkie cones before stumbling to the cinema.

Kevin says:

04:49pm | 15/04/11

What a sad attempt at humour.

watty says:

11:41am | 15/04/11

They would bring back hanging if Bolt had said this.

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:31am | 15/04/11

How are you going to shame people into funding your luxurious lifestyle if we do that?

Bloggs says:

12:43pm | 15/04/11

People want division.  That’s what being in a group means.  Could you imagine Muslims not wanting to be known as Muslims?  Or Christians being happily aligned with Satanists?  Being different is human.  Being stupidly different is also human.  Tory has offered her opinion.  Bolt offers his.  Both are entitled to do this.  At the end of the day, we vote in a bunch of people and they stuff up Governmental process.  That also appears human!

TheRealDave says:

03:29pm | 15/04/11

I would hope these ‘revolutionaries’ will plan, ahead of time and in-conjunction with their local Fire Safety Officers, their ‘fires of revolutionary justice’ in the ‘coming days ahead’ as we still have more than a few areas still in drought and ongoing Fire Bans.

Thank You for your Consideration

James1 says:

01:09pm | 15/04/11

“Why is that?”  Here’s why.

Health outcomes - lifestyle related.  Wrong food, high rates of alcohol abuse, and high rates of tobacco smoking.

Education - not staying in school, and some not attending as often as they should.  There is nothing wrong with the education system in relation to Aborigines in particular, as Ms Behrendt and others Aborigines with educations demonstrate.

The loss of indigenous languages - that happens because Aborigines are not speaking their indigenous languages any more.  My grandmother speaks Gaelic, because it means something to her.  Non-Aboriginal Australians can not be blamed if Aborigines decide to stop speaking their languages, because it doesn’t mean anything to them.  No one can legislate for cultural pride.  You either have it, or you don’t.

We are all responsible for our own health, our own education, and which languages we speak.  If individuals’ own actions are the source of their problems, it begs the question, what can anyone except individual Aborigines do about fixing the problems in the Indigenous community?  Very little, it would seem.

TheRealDave says:

03:34pm | 15/04/11

Instead of your assertions about various levels of Aboriginal status could we not look at it as:

Indigenous Health: 39 980 years ahead in just 223 years! Life expectancy tripled in that time.
Indigenous Education: 39 995 years ahead in just 223 years! Stone Age to the Internet Age in just 223 years.
Indigenous Languages: Amalgamated into one common national language instead of thousands of unrelated dialects in just 223 years!

See, that sounds much better.

dogtrumpet says:

05:21pm | 15/04/11

a good comment Whisperer, and well said - but sadly where is the equal hue and cry over the biased and complicit leftist media?  Why are people’s opinions so jaded against Bolt for doing exactly what the majority of sycophantic Labor journalists do every day?  Where are the offended sensibilities of the public to articles by Labor-propaganda-truth-killers and hate mongers such as Syvret, Adams, and EVERY journalist who works for the Age?  It’s just too easy for the Latte sipping left to level accusation of “redneck” at anyone who ventures an opinion (or even a fact) that doesn’t fit in with Labor Dogma or “progressive thought”.

Peter says:

08:10am | 18/04/11

Fair call and I think you will find that the majority of fair minded Australians will agree, why should the colour of your skin or your heritage dictate what assistant you receive. If you are in need of help, it should be forth coming for ALL Australians. Sadly the socialist do gooders of the last forty odd years have fostered a class of social dependants be they white, black or in between. By their policies they have created a class of people without hope. How sad. I agree with you Kika, people need to be taught how to be independent. Sadly, the socialist polices have taught people how to be dependent and not independent which has taken away their hope, dignity and self esteem.  We also now have a class of do gooders who are dependent on the continuance of the Aborigine ‘problem’ and it is these ‘political correct’ class who are offended because they could end up without a ‘cause’ if all people were treated fairly. The beneficiary has become the slave of the benefactor and this cycle will not be broken till the current socialist policies are done away with.

michael j says:

07:12pm | 15/04/11

I just found out on the 6 pm news that if you are not descended from the same two great apes ( Adam &Eve;) Scientist call them’‘’’ as the tribe that claims ownership of lake Eyre by Cultural heritage ? 4 white fellas have told every one to get stuffed and dragged their little cat 2,000 klm for a sail on the lake that only happens once every 20 yrs,,does this mean my mates from childhood,who’s mother is white,n, father black, carn’t go for a sail
because they might be ,borri,murri,or kurri,,what next a return to tribal warfare that plagued this place because of CULTtural differences,,
believe what you like CULTture and GREED have caused every skirmish
that has eventually lead to genocide of nations,,,i just hope the day doesn’t come when i can’t SHARE a mudcrab claw with my black brother because that will be pretty fu&ked;,
And if Mr Bolt ever wants to start a Political Party based on far Right Fascist Socialism i’ll glady be a bodygard for him,,,

michael j says:

07:12pm | 15/04/11

I just found out on the 6 pm news that if you are not descended from the same two great apes ( Adam &Eve;) Scientist call them’‘’’ as the tribe that claims ownership of lake Eyre by Cultural heritage ? 4 white fellas have told every one to get stuffed and dragged their little cat 2,000 klm for a sail on the lake that only happens once every 20 yrs,,does this mean my mates from childhood,who’s mother is white,n, father black, carn’t go for a sail
because they might be ,borri,murri,or kurri,,what next a return to tribal warfare that plagued this place because of CULTtural differences,,
believe what you like CULTture and GREED have caused every skirmish
that has eventually lead to genocide of nations,,,i just hope the day doesn’t come when i can’t SHARE a mudcrab claw with my black brother because that will be pretty fu&ked;,
And if Mr Bolt ever wants to start a Political Party based on far Right Fascist Socialism i’ll glady be a bodygard for him,,,

Col Sanders says:

12:22am | 16/04/11

Problem with Bolt is ; firstly he is a wordsmith, as are all propagandists, secondly he has a forum where he can peddle his mostly controversial opinion, based on scant fact or his interpretation of events. He is thereby able to influence and find empathy with a demographic (from reading posts on his site) that seems to comprises the uneducated, the racists or bigots and a morass of urban myth believers.  Any challenge to veracity or interpretation is met with( People are free to make up their own mind).  Propagandists can exert significant influence and power but thankfully they also have a history of being executed when saner minds prevail.

Col Sanders says:

12:00am | 17/04/11

Andrew Bolt is Australias version of Glen Beck in print. He uses histrionics, urban myth and ommission to inflame readers prejudices and biases on controversial issues. Take Asylum seekers; Bolt carefully never mentions, (1) It is not illegal to seek asylum even by boat (2) There are only 1.1 refugees for every 1000 Australians
(3) In 2010 just 8250 people sought asylum(Not many by world standard)  (4) No one who has come by boat seeking asylum has ever been found to be a terrorist (5) Asylum Seekers coming by boat make us less than 2% of our immigration intake p.a.

DJ says:

11:59am | 03/05/11

Heh… Yeah thanks on behalf of my Communities for defining our people… Was trawling the net for research and came across your posts… As an Indigenous man I’m offended by what Bolt says, writes and portrays - so I choose - my family chooses not to watch / read / hear his gonnah (Aboriginal word used in my community - look it up ...

That’s the freedoms we share yeah to engage or disengage…

It’s disengaging for me as a very proud Aboriginal man to have others speak and try and define who we are - our identity is determined by our Communities - there’s a legally binding process - ‘Confirmation of Aboriginality’ we have as a standard so check it out - non - Indigenous people helped create it…

There are many shades of Indigeneity and it’s up to our people to define this and the people who live it have a responsibility to their Indigenous communities they’re kinnected too….

The National Congress of Indigenous people’s is a good thing heh - give us a voice to counter all these other voices and perceptions of an on Aboriginality… Can’t wait till it comes into full swing

Fundamentally a basic human right of a people is to define who we are. Not too long ago it was our ‘blackness’ that was used to take away our freedoms - interesting re-play of the ‘blackness’ agenda Mr Bolt ... Where is your opinion grown from? Where were you born?...

DJ