Bolt: His Rights Our Rights

The Andrew Bolt Racial Discrimination case has been receiving constant publicity in the media and quite rightly so.

At present shock jocks’ statements and pontifications are rarely if ever scrutinised by the mainstream media, but instead shock jocks are the recipients of glowing praises (plus free publicity) and acknowledgment for their “derring-do”.

Recent news indicates that Andrew Bolt’s legal team are prepared to launch a constitutional challenge in the High Court to challenge the validity of judicial interpretation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) Part IIA—Prohibition of offensive behaviour based on racial hatred.

This legal team is to base their case on what they believe is wrongful interpretation of this section of the Act; that Part IIA should refer only to “acts of extreme racist behaviour”.

An oft repeated claim is that the Bolt case is all about Freedom of Speech, and while this is a worthy value and many valid debates exist on both sides of the argument – censorship versus the freedom to express an opinion, with the contra being that freedom to say what you like should not include the right to intimidate and humiliate others – however from a purely legal point of view this is not guaranteed as the Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech.

Article 19 of the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression …

And while Australia is a signatory, in order to incorporate treaties and conventions into Australian law, a government must pass a specific Act of Parliament. Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law no government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore these are not enforceable by Australian courts.

It can therefore be concluded that as the law stands at present Andrew Bolt cannot base his case on any perceived right of “freedom of speech”, hence the reason that his legal team are preparing to argue at High Court level by tackling Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act.

That is, Bolt’s legal team will demand that the High Court provide an interpretation of the word “act”; can it be any act or must it be an extreme act. However and following, their argument must be that Andrew Bolt’s statements cannot lead to an incitement of “acts of extreme racist behaviour” and this is only should the High Court rule in the first place that the act must be “extreme”.

I personally believe that any High Court challenge will fail as it is not feasible to be able to predict how any person or groups of people will react given X amount of justification and indeed advocacy, or provocation. And what is the criteria by which any act can be perceived as “extreme”, as this too relies on a value judgement.

Update as suggested by Patricia:

Andrew Bolt’s criteria as to Aboriginality is based on a person’s appearance.

One of the plaintiffs in the Bolt Case is NSW Australian of the Year Professor Larissa Behrendt.

Yes they’re BOTH of Larissa Behrendt, the woman that Andrew Bolt accused of being a blonde German and too white to be a ‘real’ Aboriginal. Guess what Andrew, she colored her hair…

And here is a little about Larissa..

Professor Larissa Behrendt is a Eualeyai and Kamillaroi woman who decided to become a lawyer at age 11 when her Indigenous father found his mother’s removal certificate.

But this of course wasn’t enough proof for Andrew Bolt, she looks white therefore she cheated the system. But of course if Andrew had bothered to look for other photos of Larissa he would have discovered that she does look somewhat indigenous..but who bothers to research. Andrew had his proof she was blonde, she was German, she was a cheat.

Update 18th April: Criticism of Behrendt hides political agenda

110 comments on “Bolt: His Rights Our Rights

  1. I will respect Mr. Bolt’s right to free speech when he respects mine and others that disagree with him, to in his eyes have the same right.

    Yesterday I heard the man say that after the Greens won a lower house seat the voters got it wrong. He went onto state that the voters also got it wrong when they voted Hitler in. According to him, this was the same as voting for the Greens. I am a Labor voter.

  2. Under the guise of freedom of speech a large number of people are jumping to Bolt’s defence.

    I won’t be doing any jumping.

    Consider the following:

    1. If a footballer had made a similar remark about a Idigenous footballer he would be fined, forced to make a public apology and probably banned for a match or two.

    2. Does freedom of speech give a person the right to offend or humiliate other people?

    3. Have the media not learnt – given a history of libel against them – that there are boundaries as to how far they can go.

    4. Mr Bolt, apparently, has a long history of threatening to take to court anyone who attacks him through the written word.

    If all the media reports are correct then it appears Bolt is treating this as a circus, and he is the ring master. It’s time he was shown that not everything in this country revolves around him.

  3. Another interesting thing is that as Bolt’s legal team are mooting what is effectively a High Court challenge that this seems to suggest that they are anticipating losing their Racial Discrimination case. Why spend potentially one hell of a lot of money if they think that they’re going to win the first case…

  4. ‘Why spend potentially one hell of a lot of money if they think that they’re going to win the first case…’

    Cos it keeps him in hte headlines, and pushes the idea that he cares about ‘freedom of speech’, (as long as he agrees with the speech)

  5. It’s a pity that everyone’s trying to turn this into the issue of freedom of speech. I thought it was about racial vilification. There’s a bit of a difference imo.

  6. I can understand people distaining the comments of Bolt, I can imagine people boycotting the Herald Sun and other papers that publish his comments.

    By all means Boycott the products that advertise in the HS too, and contact the advertisers and let them know the reason for this.

    But to suggest that his comments cannot be legally published is quite a dangerous step.

  7. Many comments cannot be legally published yomm, it’s called racial vilification, and you wind up in court if you publish them.

    Free speech is not a free-for-all

  8. Tom of Melbourne

    If you have ever stopped and re-thought your comments, before commiting them to paper or the net, then you are aware that publishing comments, which could be racial vilification cannot be published without ramifications.

    I also happen to believe that freedom of speech should not extend to the freedom of telling lies in the media, based on articles being defined as opinions, however the US High Court disagreed

  9. I offer a quote I heard the other day that impressed me: ‘Be careful with your thoughts. They may turn into words at any moment.’

  10. Are suggesting that anything anyone says should be legally published ToM?

    Bolt is pushing the line. He occasionally just steps over to see how far he can go knowing full well he has the power and finances of the Murdoch empire behind him if like now he’s taken to account.

    He gets away with this legally then he will go another step further next time.

    It is Bolt that is engaging in dangerous steps.

  11. ToM, exactly as Shane states. Certain information cannot be released as it could be prejudicial to a case currently before the courts. After the ruling we could then indeed see the precise details released for public scrutiny.

  12. ToM, IMHO Andrew Bolt has a belief he can do and say anything he wants, even publicly naming and racially vilifying people. I cannot do such a thing in the workplace, in the street, or anywhere for that matter. I cannot do it on a blog site and I’m sure that if I were to do it in a letter to the editors of any newspaper, then my comments would be rejected.

    What if I were to racially vilify someone at work via an email to the whole department. Could I expect to be forgiven by claiming freedom of speech? Could I say that the reaction to my email was an overreaction? Could I say that my email was sent without considering the consequences? Could I perhaps suggest that I was misunderstood? Could I get away with saying that the email was only intended for a certain few?

    I use this argument to dispute the suggestion that his comments should be published, and that it’s dangerous not to.

    This could be an argument that attracts some healthy debate. I’ll have a bottle or red on hand. We can indulge in both. My shout.

    Do you like any of the Clarendon wines?

  13. It also concerns me regarding the overwhelming amount of half truths being labelled as news these days.

    A major headline, telling half a story and then when you buy the paper and read the whole story, it is completely different.

    If a manufacturer or retailer only told you certain things to get you to buy their product, they would be taken to court and fined for being misleading.

    A newspaper that prints only half truths and headlines should also be fined as they have inticed a person to purchase their product by printing half truth headlines.

  14. “If a manufacturer or retailer only told you certain things to get you to buy their product…”

    That’s called advertising.

  15. I’m of the opinion, Mobius, that Bolt’s legal representatives are using this case as free advertising for their client and their client’s media interests.

    Next we’ll be seeing Bolt standing on the roof of a car after a day in court singing and dancing to Billy Jean.

  16. ‘IMHO Andrew Bolt has a belief he can do and say anything he wants’

    It’s interesting reading comments at PP, and how often they have certain words removed, for fear of litigation. It is almost as if they have been forewarned that they are on a watch list, and anything that strays will open them up to the might of the ltdnews legal department.s.

    It’s a far cry from the ‘free speech’ bolt tries to proclaim he is all for.

    Similar to the way he cried about how they represented them, then went on to do exactly the same to them.

    I think hypocrit is the word I’m looking for.

  17. That has been raised by others Migs as Bolt’s team have already gone to the expense of getting together for a Supreme Court challenge. That’s very expensive and also means he expects to lose this current case.

  18. “That’s called advertising.”

    All advertising is not misleading or deceptive.

    It is misleading and deceptive conduct when only limited details are revealed before purchase of an item.

  19. True Shane, and there are guidelines and penalties in place for misleading advertising but that doesn’t top them pushing the line and occasionally overstepping the mark as some school kids revealed with Ribena I think it was.

    Thing is advertising does sometimes mislead and gets away with it but it does have a regulatory body that’s willing to bare some teeth, bluntish teeth I grant you but teeth none the less.

    On the other hand with the MSM it appears the regulators purse their lips at most and more often than not the media openly flaunts the fact it can outright lie and get away with it as is the case with Penberthy and his lie on the Greens preference claim.

  20. Shane @1.49pm plus that the details provided about the product are misleading and deceptive.

    Another one is IF Bolt’s lawyers do proceed with a case in the High Court then it is likely the court will apply “the reasonable person test” – which leaves out Bolt’s barrackers. The High Court isn’t going to be the slightest bit interested in anything which news.com might publish by way of arguing on behalf of the Blot.

  21. Apparently Bolt has “stepped down” from his gig on Insiders…

    Which won’t really matter to me anyway as I gave up watching it months ago.

    Similarly I’ve never spent much time over at Bolt’s blog.

    He must be enjoying the limelight though.

    At the end of the day, I think that’s the only thing he cares about…

    He’s just an attention seeking bully as far as I’m concerned.

  22. I think Bolt’s views (on this subject particularly) are (deliberately) misinformed. They are certainly intended to incite response and controversy.

    But making his type of commentary illegal is a major, and dangerous, step.

    I’d simply prefer to err on the side of less legal restriction on expression of opinion.

  23. Reb, just a point on the Crikey article “the doubts he aired about what constitutes Aboriginality, are not unique or confined to him.”

    But Bolt did not put forward “doubts” he made claims that some people of mixed race who had the appearance of being white were claiming benefit by deception. He then went on to name the people who he believed were guilty of this deception.

  24. And again from the Crikey article “This amounts to an argument that mainstream media should be less free in what they say than ordinary folk.”

    No it doesn’t, it is exactly as Migs stated at 1.15pm it means that the same laws which apply to for example the workplace should also apply to Bolt.

  25. ToM, please point out the danger. I’m interested in learning your reasoning.

    The penny just hasn’t dropped for me yet.

  26. She makes some good points reb actually shooting down argument. I still believe though that if the precedent is set at this Bolt and Limited News will push that boundary and will keep doing that. Even if legally pulled up at some stage they will again try it down the track using another tact and if Abbott ever gets in then expect the whole thing to come crashing down.

  27. Miglo, the law applies equally to all. The fact that Bolt’s opinions are given a wider airing than most, doesn’t alter the legality or otherwise of them.

    A verdict against Bolt would cause many pub conversations to become technically illegal, however distasteful those conversations may be. While I’m not at all fond of rednecks, I wouldn’t support making it illegal for them to express their views.

    I’m also not in favour of making Bolt a martyr, a cause celebre. That’s a significant risk in these proceedings.

  28. Isn’t published material distinguished from what is said in limited public discourse?

    If Bolt said this to a group at a table in a pub then I don’t see how he could be held legally accountable for it.

    But what if he stood up on a table and loudly proclaimed the vilification to all those there? Surely if word got back to those he vilified or if they were in the pub they could then take him to court.

    Or if he put up posters in the pub and anywhere else proclaiming the same vilification then he could equally be made to face court.

    It happens that in this case the table and walls for the posters is the internet and a widely read blog.

    The test here is the vilification, not freedom of speech to vilify.

  29. ToM re causing many pub conversations to become illegal. Not so because that is debate but in order for an act to be unlawful it must be aimed specifically at a person.

    From HREOC “The Act also makes racial vilification against the law. This gives additional protection to people who are being publicly and openly offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.”

    Therefore it is not the words that are unlawful but the fact that they are aimed at a person or a particular group of people.

    An equivalent would be if an Aboriginal walked into a pub and was subject to racial taunts, this would be vilification.

  30. Hopefully our legal system will make the correct judgement.

    Reb

    I have never watched insiders so no loss for me either.

    I think you have hit the nail on the head he is a bully.

    The other bully is that screeching woman on Weekend Sunrise by the name of Prue MacSween. Honestly that woman needs to take a chill pill. She really is an over the top control freak, you would think it was her show. I have now taken to changing the channel while she is on due to her hysterical ranting and yelling. Social comentator indeed.

    I looked her up on the internet and was amazed at the website I found on facebook. While I do not condone this type of thing it showed that I am not alone in my thoughts on this woman.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Prue-MacSween-no-one-cares-about-your-opinion-you-intolerable-cow/183011461735055

  31. The photo of Andrew Bolt in today’s Age Newspaper gives the impression that he has been reprimanded and he is about to burst into tears.

  32. ToM, a fine gentleman such as myself does not frequent pubs so I’m not sure what language goes on in those types of establishments. 😎

  33. “…gives the impression that he has been reprimanded and he is about to burst into tears.”

    Reprimands from anyone other than the highest Murdoch hierarchy would be nothing to Bolt. He would probably wear them with pride as a sign he’s gotten to someone enough to “win” a reprimand.

  34. Over on twitter they’re coming up with names for #BoltsNewShow…

    How amusement!

    The best one (I reckon anyway) so far is “AandA!

  35. I still think the issue here is that he publicly insulted prominant Aboriginal elders and suggested that some used their Aboriginality to fraudulently obtain government grants/funding.

    Those are very serious claims and being dragged into the courts over them is appropriate.

  36. Here’s some more than would be fitting, reb:

    The Sound of Andrew
    It’s Been a Hard Day’s Blog
    Bolt out of Hell
    Some Papers do Have ’em
    The Bolt goes on

  37. Migs @ 3.18pm plus Bolt’s so-called proof that this fraud was evident because of the fact that they couldn’t be ‘real’ Aboriginals as they are far too white. This is equivalent to saying that a person can’t be disabled because they don’t look disabled.

  38. After not watching Insiders for a long time now I’m going to watch it next weekend. If lots more do the same it will spike their ratings and prove the faux balance the ABC is trying to pass off to appeal to a wider audience is a load of crap.

  39. …and Bolt got key facts like parentage wrong, proving he didn’t bother to check any facts before making the accusations against them. His purpose from the outset was to vilify so as to stir up his blog for hits.

  40. Here is what Bolt said about Larrisa Behrendt NSW Australian of the Year.

    ”[She] also worked as a professional Aborigine ever since leaving Harvard Law School, despite looking almost as German as her father . . . But which people are ‘yours’, exactly mein liebchen? And isn’t it bizarre to demands [sic] laws to give you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white Dad?”

  41. Migs… in other news you facebook group is heading towards meltdown. You might want to go and smooth the ruffled feathers before things get worse.

  42. The fact is the plaintiffs are basically frauds as is the notion that you are an (Australian) aboriginal if you have one sixteenth or maybe a thirty-secondth of your genetic make up is aboriginal. This is racial arrogance of major proportions – it demands you supress or deny 15/16ths or is it 31/32ths of what you are.

    It is also discriminating against the full blood or 50% aboriginal when it comes to winning awards or grants for whom the awards or grants were originally intended.

    The plaintifs are effectively whites masquerading as aborignals to win awards from ‘real’ indigenous people. Poor Andrew Bolt, poor Australia should they win the case.

  43. Simonared, one of the plaintiff’s mother is Aboriginal. Bolt’s inference is that it’s not who your family is but it’s the color of your skin which is the defining criteria.

  44. Thanks KC. My niece phoned me on the way home livid that a message had been sent to all members that they oppose gay marriage. It was the work of a troll. He has been removed and I have sent out a message of apology. Apparently the offender has a history of this. Right wing trolls will stop at nothing to cause untested. BTW, I appreciated your support in helping to smooth this over.

    It has taken me ages to build this group up yet the trolls are quite happy to destroy everything they can.

  45. You’re welcome 🙂
    I follow a lot, even though I don’t post much. And I hate to see good work go down the proverbial because of one obviously bored idiot.
    I tried to keep things calmer than they otherwise might have been but there wasn’t a lot I could do but try to respond to everyone as they complained. Hopefully you didn’t lose too many members over it.

  46. This case has worried me from the start. Why give Bolt the publicity? He’s probably delighted with it all, win or lose. ToM is right, he’s already a cause celebre. He has all the might of the Murdoch empire behind him to make of the judge’s ruling what he will. The man probably sees himself as another Julian Assange.

    Litigation is always a very fraught path for seeking justice. I sympathize with the complainants but they might have saved their money and themselves the anguish of this highly publicised and drawn out case. Even if they win, half the country will still believe Bolt was right; more people will know about their ‘conniving’ and ‘exploiting’ their Aboriginality; there’ll be more talk about too much money going to the blacks etc. It will stir up the very racism they are complaining of.

  47. Patricia, I very much doubt that Bolt will be thrilled about this case going against him as part of the plaintiff’s demands amount to a gag order to restrain him from making such comments publicly again.

    Federal Court judge Mordy Bromberg didn’t achieve this elevated position by being easily swayed by something as trivial as opinion pieces in a newspaper, he will make his adjudication based on case law (precedent) from courts equivalent to or higher than his own.

    Justice Bromberg will also have to provide his reasons for his adjudication citing all cases and reference these so as to provide precise details as to the method by which he came to his decision. These will be heavily scrutinised by everyone in the legal profession.

  48. Simonared, if I were to apply your logic to the British royal family then we could expect Charles to be classified as a Greek. He is, after all, half Greek yet only quarter English. The remaing quarter is German. Why then does he get away with being called English?

  49. TomR, I was very pleased about the outcome of Motlop’s Court case. If everyone who used offensive language at some stage were to be hauled before “the beak” the Courts would be overflowing.

    PS As I am rudely referred to as a ‘tingle”, as in striped footy jumper resembling a packet of Fruit Tingles, please don’t tell Miglo, Jane or Jedda about the above comments!!
    they might assume that I barrack for the swampies :]

  50. Never fear Pip, your secret is safe with me 😉

    I also cringe at what we used to be talking about coming up for stumps at the local, and the tone that we used at that time of the night.

  51. In Mr. Bolt’s eyes, he cannot lose. If the decision is in the negative, he will use his usual defence that everyone else is wrong.

    Only he knows the correct answers.

    Please someone create a show for Piers and Andrew with Mr. Milne as the moderato, were they can spuik to their hearts content. The rest of us can continue to watch our shows without any of them popping up.

  52. There’s word going around that Bolt has quit Insiders. More to follow when further news comes to hand.

  53. Migs. Bolt is to start his own show and Twitter has been going apeshit all yesterday making up names for the show.

    @BoltsNewShow

    Sorry in this case you are way behind the ball. 😉

  54. Ya mean we can start watching Insiders again..but how to replace the irreplaceable Blot [choke, choke!!]

  55. As always, I’m the last person to find out. 😦

    It’s hard to imagine Bolt having his own show. He just doesn’t come across as a people person. I wonder who his first guests will be: John Howard, Tony Abbott, Anal Jones perhaps?

    Maybe the show will be a variety version of Insiders; spin a wheel, sing a song.

  56. An interesting and straight forward analysis of the issue of “identity” comes from http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/between-black-and-white-20110404-1cyl1.html

    I tell my tale of fluid identity not because it’s special but because it is common. Thanks to Australia’s rich history of immigration and intermingling, many of us have available to us multiple strands of identity (to cite Bolt’s formulation). And for those of us in a position of relative privilege, there is indeed a fair degree of choice in deciding which, if any, of those strands to embrace. But suggesting a kid labelled a ”Pommy bastard” is entirely ”free to choose” is wrong. Positive experiences play a major role in shaping identity, Aboriginal and otherwise, but so too do negative ones.

    Imagine, then, the degree of ”freedom” enjoyed by the little girl who gets called ”boong” or ”coon” in the playground, even though she’s relatively light skinned. Is she ”choosing” to identify as Aboriginal, or is she having that ”choice” made for her?

    Exactly. What Bolt is saying is that light skinned Aboriginals choose to label themselves as Aboriginals for their own advantage but if anyone has ever been a child who has been in anyway different or indeed an adult not quite the same as everyone else, then you will know that being different in even Australia’s generally tolerant society can result in bullying, condescending remarks. And what else is racial vilification but a form of bullying.

  57. From your link ME

    ‘CONSERVATIVE columnist Andrew Bolt has made a pilot for a Sunday morning talk show on the Ten Network that is set to rival the ABC’s Insiders. ‘

    Great, two shit shows to avoid on a Sunday morning lol

    and

    ‘alleged left-wing bias of Ten’s popular 7PM Project’

    ROFL

    kind of pathetic in its own way.

    Meanwhile, it appears that bolt couldn’t cope with the criticism of him on Media Watch last night. Poor Petal. I noted in his outrage, he didn’t exactly face down the criticism, simply re-iterated the pathetic question he first asked Flannery, missing the entire point again/still. He even has monckton using his dodgy maths to help him out.

  58. Thanks for the link, Mobius.

    I’m wondering if Bolt intended to ‘destroy’ Insiders during his last couple of stints there knowing that he might soon be appearing in a rival show.

  59. ‘I’m wondering if Bolt intended to ‘destroy’ Insiders during his last couple of stints there knowing that he might soon be appearing in a rival show.’

    If so, he’s succeeded brilliantly.

    Mind you, he couldn’t have done it without the pathetic pandering by cassidy. That ones a lost cause I reckon.

  60. There are plenty of oops! on this blog LOL 😉 Might you be the same LOL from a brother blog some time ago.

  61. More on Bolt and his Channel 10 talk show comes courtesy of Crikey.

    Seems to be a very apt description of Gina Rinehart..

    Rinehart has no life experience at all that she can bring to TV, except that she’s middle-aged and very rich, which puts her at odds with Ten’s core audience…

    That Video Hits completely out-rates Meet The Press should say something to Bolt and Rinehart about the difficulty of their crusade for a right-wing voice on TV….

    Viewers expect Ten to be light and bright, as The 7PM Project is. (Bolt apparently believes 7PM is a soft-left program. Well if it is, it’s got its aim right and found its audience. The 7PM project succeeds because its audience wants to watch it, not be lectured to by the likes of Bolt)…

    Seven and Nine are quietly cheering Rinehart’s advocacy of Bolt (and her joining with Lachlan Murdoch to vet new programming purchases and ideas). It will make their life easier if there’s a shareholder and director with no understanding of TV (but with a definite political bent) having a big say at Ten. James Warburton will have his work cut out if he ever gets to run Ten.

  62. Here are a few articlea about the lovely Geor’gina’:-
    Squabbling rich kids. Really rich kids.

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/the-battles-not-over-for-gina-rinehart/story-e6frg2r3-1225840798787

    In February this year
    Rinehart was named Australia’s richest person, worth $9 billion,
    Andrew Forrest is in second place, worth $6.9
    James Packer, is third with $4.4 billion.
    Rinehart has bought shares in Fairfax.
    Rinehart, Packer and Lachlan Murdoch all bought shares in Channel 10 last year, in Rinehart’s case reportedly “in a bid to influence public policy”.
    Would this be the “public policy” she wants to influence?
    She describes her proposal to bring in cheap labour as a “humanitarian” move aimed at helping poverty stricken people in Asia.

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/news/gina-rinehart-calls-for-asian-guest-workers/story-e6frg2qu-1226018954358

    and what is happening with Generation One? and Andrew Forrest. He appears to be at least trying to help improve the lives of our indigenous countrymen and women.

    http://generationone.org.au/blog/category/news
    and Mrs. Nicola Forrest does charity work.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nicola_Forrest

    but then there is this
    Twiggy’s company in Court over Land Title

    http://www.nit.com.au/News/story.aspx?id=17258

    and this
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6223354/high-court-quashes-indigenous-appeal-against-fmg/

    In my humble? opinion it’s mostly about this
    The Mineral Resource Rent Tax
    http://www.superguide.com.au/the-soapbox/mineral-resource-rent-tax-superannuation

    rather than the needs of the indigenous members of our community and indeed all members of our society.

  63. Excellent research Pip! Precisely squash anything and everything that stands in the way of the almighty dollar. Pennypinch by trying to undermine workers pay and conditions.

    And from your link to the WA news the truth about Twiggy Forrest the Aboriginal people’s “friend”.

    In July 2008, the National Native Title Tribunal found FMG Pilbara had failed to negotiate in good faith with traditional owners about a mining tenement proposal over 4320 hectares of land in the west Pilbara.

  64. What about debating the ISSUE? Is it fair that a miniscule drop of aboriginal blood allows someone to compete and win awards ( or positions) that were really intended as taxpayer funded means to encourage disadvantaged aboriginals to achieve greater things? The public appears to believe that this debate HAD to occur at some stage and Bolt has let the genie out of the bottle.

  65. Tellitasitis, I only half agree with you.

    The part that is in agreement is that the disadvantaged Aborigines in our country need access to the same fundamental ‘privileges’ that are open to the wider community. I’m talking about health, housing, education and employment. Those living in remote communities have other needs that we take for granted, such as water and municipal services.

    I would also like to see programs that promote the exploration and rekindling of Aboriginal customs and beliefs, such as art centres etc.

    But I don’t begrudge people whose dominant blood isn’t Aboriginal to have pride in that part of their heritage. I’m only quarter Aussie but I call myself an Australian. Nobody has ever questioned my right to do that.

    If some people want to call themselves an Aborigine for the sole purpose of obtaining grants then they should be exposed.

    While I worked at ATSIC we had many people claiming to be Aboriginal just to get some grant money for whatever purpose. Unless these people could confirm/prove their Aboriginality they’d been shown the door.

  66. “Is it fair that a miniscule drop of aboriginal blood allows someone to compete and win awards…”

    Is it fair that a minuscule drop of aboriginal blood makes someone the brunt of bullying, taunts and racial discrimination? Yet that is exactly what happens all the time.

    So they are aboriginal when racists and others with vested interests want to put them down to denigrate them but white whenever they seek awards or recognition as an aboriginal.

  67. Tellitasitis, and another issue is why full blood Aboriginals are not receiving the education to enable them to apply for these Awards in the first place.

    On the issue of “a miniscule drop of Aboriginal blood” then it gets to be an issue of quantity..how many drops of blood are necessary in order for a person to call themselves anything.

    Here are 2 examples:

    Yes they’re BOTH of Larissa Behrendt, the woman that Andrew Bolt accused of being a blonde German and too white to be a ‘real’ Aboriginal. Guess what Andrew, she colored her hair…

    And here is a little about Larissa..

    Professor Larissa Behrendt is a Eualeyai and Kamillaroi woman who decided to become a lawyer at age 11 when her Indigenous father found his mother’s removal certificate.

    But this of course wasn’t enough proof for Andrew Bolt, she looks white therefore she cheated the system. But of course if Andrew had bothered to look for other photos of Larissa he would have discovered that she does look somewhat indigenous..but who bothers to research. Andrew had his proof she was blonde, she was German, she was a cheat.

  68. Adrian, I hope that you don’t mind if I BOLD that one..that is it, and precisely.

    So they are aboriginal when racists and others with vested interests want to put them down to denigrate them but white whenever they seek awards or recognition as an aboriginal.

  69. Yes, Miglo working for DOC’s in NSW for years backs up what you are saying. It is not easy to get recognised as an Aboriginal.

    You only have to back a few decades when these people were confined to a few reserves, where they knew everyone. The oral history is very strong and reliable.

  70. As suspected Bolt’s lawyers are asking Justice Bromberg to apply the reasonable person test to the case.

    It’s a bit legal-ese but just by way of information for those interested in this case the reasonable person test is applied in all aspects of law including criminal law. The question when this test is applied is: “would a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, have anticipated that the person harassed would feel offended, humiliated or intimidated?”

    But what Bolt’s lawyers are stating is that while a group of people ie white skinned Aboriginals might be offended or humiliated by Bolt’s articles that the general population would not be.

  71. Hi Min, I’m really sorry that my pre-occupation with other issues delayed my picking up your comment at 7.57 am yesterday, April 6th. That really is a powerful point you make and one that is worth expanding more fully and with some of the other examples you mentioned.

    I think a wider discussion on that in a post with the facts, and those images incorporated into the text rather than linked. It could help to really debunk Bolt and his opinions which too often go unchallenged.

  72. Excellent suggestion Patricia, thank you so much for helping with this idea. I’ll put it on as an Update.

  73. Methinks Bolt’s show will follow soon after it airs.

    Glenn Beck to leave Fox show

    Note that it took Jews complaining to get him off air yet tens of thousands of other just as legitimate complaints were ignored as they mostly came from the liberal side of the divide.

  74. It must be pure co-incidence ME that this only comes about after complaints from the Jewish community, I guess everyone else is just ‘Precious’

  75. My, I do like this description of Bolt’s loyal readers:

    So what if he is read – and avidly so – by a veritable legion of mouth-breathing pinheads and shambling inbred fools, by barely closeted homophobes, and racists and the bottom-feeding scum at the foulest end of the rank, sour, stinking swamp that passes for public discourse on the far right?

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/bolt-trial-only-serves-to-feed-the-beast-20110406-1d42p.html

  76. Thanks for that link, Miglo, Exactly my thoughts, John Birmingham! Now why couldn’t I have put it like this when I said here three days ago I thought the litigants against Bolt were wasting their money?

    the trial of Andrew Bolt looks like a terrible mistake.

    He will be rubbing his hands with glee, giddy with excitement at the chance to play the hero. And something has gone utterly, horribly wrong when Bolt gets to feel like a hero.

  77. Patricia, I see your point but can you imagine a worse punishment for Bolt than a gag order 😀

  78. It’s lucky that I rarely watch television, but here is an even better reason to stay away from the square box (or is that the skinny rectangle?)

    “CHANNEL Ten has confirmed that Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt will host a new show on the network.
    Called The Bolt Report, it will air at 10am on Sundays from May 8.”

    Church anyone?

  79. Just indulge me here for a moment people but I’m busting to tackle this one, and so from self this morning..

    But what Bolt’s lawyers are stating is that while a group of people ie white skinned Aboriginals might be offended or humiliated by Bolt’s articles that the general population would not be.

    But surely isn’t this discriminatory in itself? That Aboriginals somehow think or feel differently from the general population.

  80. The Guardian in UK reported that Glenn Beck’s show folded because advertisers abandoned the show when ratings plummeted. The Guardian also reported the relay program in the UK had no sponsors so ran other news stories during the ad breaks.

  81. Migs, and it won’t just be just the result that will be interesting it will be in the detail that Justice Bromberg provides of how he reached his conclusion.

  82. Aaahh! Abominable Dolt, Professor of Eugenics has spoken and of course, he’s right. What would Larissa Behrendt know about her family heritage, after all?

    I guess Dolt’s definition of freedom of speech means that we could publish an article congratulating him on winning the Wanker of the Century trophy.

    Mind you, it would be a hard fought win; there’s a wealth of very strong contenders out there and I’m only thinking of the shadow front bench.

    Little Prissy Whynne would have to have come close to an upset win, although imo Smuggles would be the real and present danger.

  83. Jane, probably the thing that provides me with the greatest amusement about the Bolt case is his faux indignation about the naughty bad comments made about him…awww his widdle fweelings were hurt.

    Pyne’s that, just a whynne it’s Abbott who is the danger especially with the press massaging his already impressive ego.

  84. You’re so right Min. With Dolt, it’s certainly I can be as offensive and moronic as possible, but no fair if I get called on it. Mustn’t tread on poor widdle Abominable’s delicate sensibilities.

    Smuggles is certainly a danger because, as you say, the MSM, with a very few exceptions, refuses utterly to address his glaring eccentricities, lack of interest in well thought out, coherent and costed policies, reliance on pathetic slogans and utter indifference to the truth.

  85. Jane, the way that the press ogle Abbott the expression on their combined faces reminds me of: Knock knock, nobody’s home. There is not a thought going through their combined heads while they sprout forth with their trivia time questions.

  86. Migs, from your link..love it!

    A Mathematical Equation: Bolt + Abbott =

    — and you have a media product so toxic it deserves to be trucked off for incineration by people in respirator suits.

  87. Miglo, Bolt probably did understand what he was doing, but Rabbott is different. He just latches onto any old comments and scatters them to the wind with malicious intent.

  88. Pip, Dolt is a deviate who I suspect has zip in the way of morals or scruples.

    Smuggles is an ignorant loony whose bacon is being saved by a complicit and unscrupulous meeja. If any one of them grew a backbone and some decency, the Smuggles Set would be exposed for the talentless liars and clowns that they are.

    We can only hope that eventually these so-called journalists will eventually get sick of being manipulated by Emperor Rupert and DO THEIR F’CKIN JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s