Andrew Bolt: his rights, our freedom

Photo: Justin McManus. Digital illustration: Stuart Ivers

In an address titled “Freedom Wars”, Tony Abbott has declared that it is his intention to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, claiming that this section of the Act impacts upon Freedom of Speech. This ideal of freedom of speech is that which we should all aspire to, however is it as our friend Aquanut once stated: You mean the freedom to be an asshole.

The text of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) can be found via Austlii.

Section C18 of the Act, that being which Tony Abbott so vehemently opposes concerns offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. That’s correct it’s offensive behaviour, with the specifics being:

For an act to be unlawful it must fulfill the following criteria:

  • that the action causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or that it is done in a public place.
  • that the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people.
  • that the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

So let us consider that which is not considered unlawful under s18C of the Act.

It is not a group of friends in a public bar talking amongst themselves, even if the subject matter would offend and humilitate a person standing directly next to them. For example, racist jokes.

It is not public discussions for the purpose of information, education or analysis.

There is also the matter of intention plus “the reasonable person test” that is, would a reasonable person given an identical set of circumstances feel humiliated or intimidated. With regard to intent; for example a remark said in public about a person’s religion might offend that person, however if there was lack of intent on the first person’s part to cause offence, then it is not racial vilification.

Therefore, what we are dealing with is people who want the right to make statements in the public forum, and with the intention of causing offence and humiliation. Enter Andrew Bolt..

Is it nothing more than a sheer coincidence that Abbott announced his intention of changing the racial vilification section of the Racial Discrimination Act just prior to Bolt writing this one, How dare they try to censor this flyer.

Andrew Bolt:

Sadly, the ACT Government seems only too keen on the idea:

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said laws prohibiting religious vilification should be considered by a review of the act that is being conducted by the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council.

How dare these people presume to strip others of the right to speak? How dare they?

And..again, where Bolt once again attempts to defend freedom:

I make no comment on their opinion but on the principle

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott rightly calls the laws under which two of my articles on this matter were declared unlawful an offence against free speech, and says he will strip them back. But the Left is furious, and introduces absurd excuses for their excesses:

As reported in news.com, Mr Abbott’s speech came after he wrote in The Australian that section 18C of the act was a “threat” to freedom of speech.

“Expression or advocacy should never be unlawful merely because it is offensive,” he wrote.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon’s response is that section 18C provides protection for many vulnerable people, and that, “This legislation also helps to protect the community against those who advocate violence on the basis of race.”

Ms. Roxon might nod in agreement at the statement made by Aquanut: You mean the freedom to be an asshole.

208 comments on “Andrew Bolt: his rights, our freedom

  1. Apparently a friend of mine posted a comment on the IPA Facebook page-expressing a different opinion to Abbott’s-& they deleted it within a minute. Good to see, yet again, that those who scream loudest about “Freedom of Speech” are those most determined to deny it to others!

  2. Exactly CU. Bolt & Abbott both want to ignore the fact that the outcome of that trial was largely on the basis of Bolt telling LIES! Lies which vilified others on racial grounds.

  3. If Mr-Rabbit wants to run this, its sound fine to me.
    No more bloggers, tweeters, tram drivers or public servants
    to be `outed` or threatened with `defo`.
    Great, most of us are still very restrained in what we post
    about Mr-Rabbit, the embedded media and the corporations
    that they slavishly kow-tow to. Their disaster waiting to happen.

  4. Catching up @ 1:04 pm

    Bolt would not have been in trouble if he kept to facts and truth.


    Min 1:08 pm

    Cu, if Bolt stuck with facts and the truth he may as well quit his job..

    Marcus @ 1:08 pm

    Exactly CU. Bolt & Abbott both want to ignore the fact that the outcome of that trial was largely on the basis of Bolt telling LIES! Lies which vilified others on racial grounds.

    To make errors of fact are one thing but it does not make those errors into lies. That said the core aspect of Bolt’s thesis that its divisive to claim a particular ethnicity when it is only a small part of your ancestry is not wrong in the least. Nor is it racist to suggest that any programs or schemes that have a ethnicity prerequisite are racist to their core.

    It may upset individuals to question someone’s right to call themselves “aboriginal” but why should such questioning open anyone up to litigation?

  5. Iain has showed his true colours “What a load of Lefty conspiracy theory you present as considered opinion!”

  6. Paul, I noticed that Iain had commented on Ricky’s blog. It’s funny how those of the ‘right’ keep labeling the truth as just another conspiracy theory.

    Yes, Iain has shown his true colours: DARK.

  7. I’m not at all surprised given it was the Liberals that introduced the Northern Territory Emergency Response which saw the Racial Discrimination Act amended so it would be legal to roll out the intervention. The Liberals don’t support freedom of speech; they support speech controlled by their big business mates.

  8. Iain, then I had better not send you photos of my little granddaughters..they are 1/4 blood Torres Strait Islander, are as white as I am in spite of the other granny being full blood and very dark. They are being brought up in the culture and are learning to speak the language, that being Meriam Mir. However, according to the Blot they are too white to be able to call themselves indigenous Australians.

  9. Oh & what a surprise, Iain comes along to defend the High Priests of his Right Wing Cult. Seriously, Iain, the article in question was nothing but lies from beginning to end-not merely errors in fact, as a few minutes research would have highlighted the error. The point is that, like all Right Wing Commentators, the Truth is the first Casualty in their desperation to sell their hate-filled agenda! Zeich Hiel, eh Iain? ‘Cause that’s where things like that begin

  10. For goodness sake, all this fuss over a Playground Contrarian, because that is all this person is. His pseudo-intellectual rantings would never grace the printed page in most of the modern world.

  11. Migs @2.25pm that brilliant piece of yours should be compulsory reading…especially for some who do not have a clue about Aboriginal Australia, nor those who have empathy problems.

  12. Deene, Gina Rinehardt hasn’t back Bolt for no reason whatsoever. In fact it’s becoming quite an incestuous relationship Tony, Gina and the Blot.

  13. I protest at your language on behalf of donkeys, mules, even asses, everywhere. Our bodily cavities should be as inviolable as any others, including ear holes. Please note the offense you cause, now it has been brought to your attention.

  14. Wmmbb, profuse apologies. 😉

    I normally avoid the Blot like the plague which he is, far too infuriating…his mind is closed to all opinions except his own.

    The flyer which Bolt mentions states that the mosque may impact on the way that Australians treat each other. For starters, why the assumption that Muslims attending the mosque are not Australians? The flyer also states that it is doubtful that they will be a good neighbor in the community. Why would anyone assume that..just because they’re Muslims?

    One of my law lecturers used to state that if you are uncertain whether or not something is discriminatory, try substituting the target of the statement. That is, instead of mosque try Aboriginal or gay…building this for gay people “will impact on the way Australians treat each other”, “it is doubtful whether these Aboriginals will be a good neighbor”.

  15. Iain @1.44pm, it’s not so much that he printed lies, but that he knew that he was disseminating lies.

    He knew very well that Larissa Behrendt’s father was Aboriginal, but chose to publish what he knew to be a lie. And it was the same story with the rest of the women.

    That’s why they sued and won. Not one word was truth and he bloody well knew it!!!

    For him to claim that knowingly publishing a pack of lies about others is ‘freedom of speech” is a travesty to all those who have lost their lives in defence of real freedom of speech.

    Dolt is an opportunistic lying maggot who wouldn’t know the truth, honesty or integrity if they reared up and bit his fat disgusting arse!!!

    And perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the facts before making a fool of yourself.

    wmmbb, I apologise unreservedly for any offense to any cavities belonging to any donkey, ass or mule which has been assaulted by me or anyone I know, even anyone I don’t know. 😆

  16. “I reserve the right to say whatever I want to say about anyone at any time, even if it’s just shit I make up. I also reserve the right to carry on like a right pillock if I don’t get my own way whenever I want to. So, there. Nyah.”

    What a dickhead.

  17. Ross Sharp, 😆 😆 😆

    Min, I agree. How tf, can people going to their place of worship affect the way we treat each other? FFS, why only people going to mosques? Surely anyone attending ANY religious service would have the same impact.

    But perhaps we misjudge the Dolt. perhaps he means that by attending a religious service, it might encourage more tolerance toward our fellow citizens?? Bwwwwwhahahahahaha!!!!

  18. The flyer which Bolt mentions was allowed to remain as it was?

    What was his problem? Is he trying to prevent people from complaining that they find something offensive?

    That sounds like an attack on free speech to me 😉

  19. The entire Racial Discrimination Act should be repealed. As in Britain, it discriminates against and is designed to intimidate the general population and its provisions could be more than adequately dealt with under civil laws of libel and slander if someone feels offended by a statement of another person regarding them or invokes antipathy towards that person. It serves no useful purpose as is evident by its lack of application since its enactment.

  20. Jane, in addition the Blot stated that these people were using a droplet of Aboriginal blood in order to gain advantage. Bolt did not know nor give a stuff about whether these individuals did or did not identify as Aboriginal, all that he saw was their color “white” or white-ish and said, they cannot be Aboriginal just look at them.

    BOLT: ”[Associate Professor Anita] Heiss … won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie University’s Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/andrew-bolt-australias-least-accurate-columnist-20111001-1l2zl.html#ixzz22psQg4jy

  21. Ross Sharp, he also reserves the right to sue anyone he wants, with his deep pockets behind him to help him out. Even those who reckon they might just be expressing their ‘free speech’

  22. How can the Act possibly “intimidate the general population”..that’s only possible if one’s intention was to vilify, harrass or intimidate.

  23. Jane, perhaps the good residents of that community would have prefered a brothel or a music school for bongo players.

  24. @ Satyr. You got any evidence to back up that claim or-like your hero Boltie-do you believe that merely saying a thing automatically makes it true?

  25. Left and right wing analysis of the current political policy debate is about as useful as teats on a bull in a china shop but the notion of “Racist and Race” is even less helpful. Freedom of Speech is worth fighting for and the right to say utterly stupid things and even be a xenophobic twit is extremely important. The fact that it is being used at a time when the Media are under increased scrutiny is being touted by some as a clever Political move by Tony Abbott. However, I would ask what value is there really in arguing for a change to the Discrimination Act on the basis that allowing some idiots to say anything even when it is a clearly vitriolic and driven by xenophobic hatred and violently offensive? Is this suppose to endear Tony Abbott more to those of us who value Civil Liberty and Freedom of Speech? REALLY ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Logic is obviously not some peoples strong point. I’d go a step further and say there is only one thing more frivolous than simplistic analysis and antiquated biological concepts like “Race” and that is, arguing with those that need to take advantage of this freedom and still resort to this baseless, idiotic rhetoric.

    People who fail to understand that a lie, is a lie, even when there was no intention to make errors and/or a lie is a lie by omission of the facts, then argue for a society in which we have the right to be deceitful are truly sad and sick individuals devoid of a sense of reality, responsibility or integrity. The more people like Lain and politicians like Tony Abbott come out with such gibberish nonsense the better, because it exposes them for who they really are. Intellectually challenged! Perhaps there is therefore another reason they should support the NDIS. I apologise to those genuinely disabled intellectually as any association with this bunch of pathetic Political Narcissists is unintentional and unfair.

    Why do we let these idiots get away with not addressing the really important issues? Many Australians are disturbed by the choice we will have to make at the next election between an unpopular government and a disturbingly ideologically bankrupt, socially and economically conservative opposition who seem hell bent on doing anything to de-stabilising the government and even the country to gain power.

    The Best Chance a Labor Government has of being re-elected is if Abbott stays Leader of the Opposition and people like Andrew Bolt keep trotting out their ridiculous views.

  26. Not surprised Abbott wants freedom for the press to print lies. If not for lying by conservative parties and their media they would never get into power.

  27. Also this so-called freedom of speech which Abbott and Bolt like to bandy around doesn’t exist in legalislation because, “Australia does not have explicit freedom of speech in any constitutional or statutory declaration of rights”.

    Therefore we can expect Abbott in the future to promote a Bill of Rights for Australia..

  28. Now..I make no assertion here BUT!…You all may have noticed the “Woman in White” aka. Fairfax wannabe…always wears pearls…about the best looking thing in the photo. Now, the best way to clean pearls is with soft cloth and clean water…or..OR..if you are the only wearer..a lick and a spittle and a soft cloth…Which brings me to the next part…Back in the days Of the Vietnam war, stories got around about certain “ladies of the night” in Saigon who “injected a llittle more thrust” in the act of lovemaking with the steady insertion, one by one, of a string of pearls which, at the climatic moment were sharply withdrawn, I leave the readers’ imagination to picture the reactive result! Such a service was nicknamed; “Chain lightning”.
    The only drawback with such a service was that the string of pearls had to be clearned after every use….A tiresome chore unless one had money to pay others to do the job.
    Now..as I said in my first sentence ; I make no assertions, but keeping in mind the method described to clean said pearls and the fact that A B. is said to be G Rs. “mouthpiece”…

  29. Min, same goes for three of my grandsons. The other grandmother is very very black, or I should say was, as she is now dead. In fact she was the daughter of a Aboriginal war hero.

  30. On behalf of donkeys, mules and asses, thank you for your kind words, which help all of us to be more confident about our being in the world. Kindness usually does more good than harm – I can’t think of an occasion when verbal kindness could be harmful.

    I do not think of speech as an absolute right, but as a universal democratic right, which fundamentally seeks to address the truth and what is best.

  31. I thought to explain why I wrote in the title Bolt, his rights our freedom. Bolt’s implies that he should be able to say whatever he likes, to whom so ever he wants and in which ever tone he chooses.

    With both Abbott and Bolt espousing this so-called freedom of speech, it is in fact denying others freedom..to be free from the fear of harrassment, intimidation and vifilication.

  32. I’ve suggested elsewhere today that what Gillard should do now is come up with a couple of examples of reporting not based on facts that was printed in NewsCorp, Fairfax and broadcast on electronic media. She then suggests that laws similar to Canada’s truth in media laws are going to be introduced by Christmas. Wouldn’t do Bolt much good (or Gillard for a while until the ultimate scare campaign was run), but jeez it would be good to watch.

    She’d have to do a deal with Windsor and Oakeschott – probably not all that hard considering what they’ve copped in the last 18 months, and it could be the “perfect” response to Thomson and slipper muckraking.

  33. Bolt did not only lie, but he accused the indigenous people he was attacking of lying.
    He was accusing them of claiming to b,, what he was alleging they were not. He questioned what they presented as their background to the public.

    He was proven incorrect in court.

    Freedom of speech should be about truth. It has nothing in common in spreading lies and deceit.

    With the right to freedom of speech, comes responsibilities, as with all freddoms and rights we have,

  34. Bolt did not only lie, but he accused the indigenous people he was attacking of lying.

    There they go again: Right-Wing Projection – The political tactic of right-wingers projecting their own behaviour/motivations onto their opponents.

  35. Leigh slams Abbott’s comment on ‘hurt feelings’ test

    What an utter hypocrite Abbott is. So whilst he is now saying a hurt feeling is impossible to comply with whilst maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth he received $66,000 compensation in 1999 because of his hurt feelings.

    So his hurt feelings can be complied with in the pursuit of truth and to the tune of $66,000 but minorities who are vilified and racially abused feelings can’t be.

    Defend that wingnuts.

  36. Cuppa, you are absolutely right. The problem is that people doing the wrong thing, tend to justify their actions by judging others according to their own standards (or lack thereof) ie; I do it, therefor they must do it also.
    Pretty much sums up the mentality of the morally bankrupt right.
    Sad really. 😥

  37. No one has replied to Mr. Abbott’s claim, that this PM is setting out to bully and threaten the Murdoch Press.

    His claim that she is nothing but a bully, is a hard claim to prove. This is great, coming from the most bullying MP this country has seen.

  38. Min @3.38pm, Dolt knew alright, but he chose to lie deliberately. He is a maggot. oh, hang on, maggots are useful.

    satyr, when you know what you’re gibbering on about, feel free to open your gob.

    ME @9.07pm, I know what I’d rather hurt.

  39. 2353 @7.59pm, now is the perfect time for Gillard to do so without being labelled as a whinger or having a glass jaw.

    No one has replied to Mr. Abbott’s claim, that this PM is setting out to bully and threaten the Murdoch Press.

    That’s because they haven’t been able to stop laughing, CU.

  40. More projection Cu. Abbott knows he is being labelled a bully so he uses that term to describe Gillard.

    He and the opposition have done this on several negatives against them. Take note next time there’s a unfavourable story about Abbott or them in the media, very soon after they project that negativity about them onto the government. Never fails.

    Thus Abbott is rightly labelled a bully because he is one, thus he calls Gillard a bully.

  41. That’s right, Mobius (pardon the pun). Next time Abbott or other right-winger makes a wild claim about the Prime Minister or government’s character or actions, and you think, hang on a sec, that can’t be correct… then they’re most likely projecting. Turn the claim around 180 degrees so that it describes the accuser (Right-Wing Projectionist), and then you will get to the truth of the matter.

  42. To make facts an error are one thing, but it does not make those errors into truth. That said, the core aspect of Bolt`s RDA-case, that he`s divisive to claim about particular ethnicity, when it is not even part of his research, is not factual in the least.
    Nor is it honest to suggest that any programs or shows that have an ethnicity prerequisite are racist to their core. It may upset individuals to question Bolt`s right to call his stuff “News-Worthy”, but why should such Lobbying be on TV?

  43. Mobius and More projection Cu. Abbott knows he is being labelled a bully so he uses that term to describe Gillard. Once again Abbott’s reality is what ever Abbott wants it to be. So we have 2 actions when he’s confronted with reality. The head nodding and running away and also projecting.

  44. 730, the one which astounded me is Bolt’s claim that Larissa Behrendt’s father was German and I think that most would have assumed that it was Larissa’s mother was the one who was Aboriginal. However, after the court case it was revealed that it was her father who is Aboriginal. Either it was extremely sloppy journalism from Bolt that is, he was going by Larissa’s surname or that Bolt ignored this fact and deliberately misled his readers.

    The first pic is the one which Bolt used in his article as “proof” of Larissa being German. The 2nd pic is another one of Larissa.. I wonder why Bolt chose to use the first pic…

  45. Miglo@ 1:54 pm

    Iain, Bolt has been caught out lying in the past. Fact.

    When and what?

    paulwello @ 1:59 pm

    Iain has showed his true colours “What a load of Lefty conspiracy theory you present as considered opinion!”

    Please Paul if you are going to quote me please make it clear where you are getting the quote from, that is after all the proper way to do things.


    Miglo@ 2:06 pm

    Paul, I noticed that Iain had commented on Ricky’s blog. It’s funny how those of the ‘right’ keep labeling the truth as just another conspiracy theory.

    I call it as I see it migs

    Yes, Iain has shown his true colours: DARK.

    What does that mean?

    Alex Schlotzer @ 2:10 pm

    I’m not at all surprised given it was the Liberals that introduced the Northern Territory Emergency Response which saw the Racial Discrimination Act amended so it would be legal to roll out the intervention. The Liberals don’t support freedom of speech; they support speech controlled by their big business mates.

    That does not follow Alex.

    paulwello @ 2:17 pm

    Would like to know why Iain thinks this is a just another conspiracy theory.

    Because it so obviously is preciely that Paul

    Min @ 2:20 pm

    Iain, then I had better not send you photos of my little granddaughters..they are 1/4 blood Torres Strait Islander, are as white as I am in spite of the other granny being full blood and very dark. They are being brought up in the culture and are learning to speak the language, that being Meriam Mir. However, according to the Blot they are too white to be able to call themselves indigenous Australians.

    That is just not the case at all Min. Andrew is not arguing against anyone’s right to identify with any ethnicity of their own choosing at all. What he is arguing is that there should be no financial reward for doing so. In other words no government benefit or largess that has any sort of racial or ethnic prerequisite.

    Marcus @ 2:23 pm

    Oh & what a surprise, Iain comes along to defend the High Priests of his Right Wing Cult. Seriously, Iain, the article in question was nothing but lies from beginning to end-not merely errors in fact, as a few minutes research would have highlighted the error. The point is that, like all Right Wing Commentators, the Truth is the first Casualty in their desperation to sell their hate-filled agenda! Zeich Hiel, eh Iain? ‘Cause that’s where things like that begin

    Thanks for enabling me to bring down Godwin’s law upon you but I’ll ask you one simple question: do you believe that all people are equal in their humanity? Well I do and it offends my sense of fairness that any racial prerequisites exist for any government program, grant or scheme.


    Miglo @ 2:25 pm

    Iain, you might want to read this brilliant piece, written by a person who has a far, far far greater understanding than Andrew Bolt.
    I’d say that whoever wrote it must be a genius.

    You by any Chance Migs?
    That said Bolt’s point was not about what people choose to call themselves but those who do so for financial advantage.

    Indii @ 2:56 pm

    No friends here for you Iain, funny that. You must lead a very lonely life

    I’m not here to make friends

    jane @ 3:28 pm

    Iain @1.44pm, it’s not so much that he printed lies, but that he knew that he was disseminating lies.

    He knew very well that Larissa Behrendt’s father was Aboriginal, but chose to publish what he knew to be a lie. And it was the same story with the rest of the women.

    That’s why they sued and won. Not one word was truth and he bloody well knew it!!!

    No the reason that they sued under the racial discrimination act rather than the defamation law was that it had a substantially lower standard of proof and its taht much lower standard of proof that is the problem with the whole box and dice

    For him to claim that knowingly publishing a pack of lies about others is ‘freedom of speech” is a travesty to all those who have lost their lives in defence of real freedom of speech.

    Now you oversell the result of that case.

    Dolt is an opportunistic lying maggot who wouldn’t know the truth, honesty or integrity if they reared up and bit his fat disgusting arse!!!

    And perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the facts before making a fool of yourself.

    Right back at you Jane because you are clearly unable to comprehend the problem with there being and racial prerequisites for things like grants and art prizes.

    satyr @ 3:38 pm

    The entire Racial Discrimination Act should be repealed. As in Britain, it discriminates against and is designed to intimidate the general population and its provisions could be more than adequately dealt with under civil laws of libel and slander if someone feels offended by a statement of another person regarding them or invokes antipathy towards that person. It serves no useful purpose as is evident by its lack of application since its enactment.

    SPOT ON!!!
    Min@ 3:38 pm

    Jane, in addition the Blot stated that these people were using a droplet of Aboriginal blood in order to gain advantage. Bolt did not know nor give a stuff about whether these individuals did or did not identify as Aboriginal, all that he saw was their color “white” or white-ish and said, they cannot be Aboriginal just look at them.

    BOLT: ”[Associate Professor Anita] Heiss … won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie University’s Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies.”

    So do you think that there should be racial qualifications for anything Min?

    Liam Clancy @ 4:34 pm

    Why do we let these idiots get away with not addressing the really important issues? Many Australians are disturbed by the choice we will have to make at the next election between an unpopular government and a disturbingly ideologically bankrupt, socially and economically conservative opposition who seem hell bent on doing anything to de-stabilising the government and even the country to gain power.

    I find it incredibly amusing that lefties like you make such claims when our current PM did a total back flip on the carbon tax purely to win over the Greens and independents and government.

    The Best Chance a Labor Government has of being re-elected is if Abbott stays Leader of the Opposition and people like Andrew Bolt keep trotting out their ridiculous views.

    😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
    2353@ 7:59 pm

    I’ve suggested elsewhere today that what Gillard should do now is come up with a couple of examples of reporting not based on facts that was printed in NewsCorp, Fairfax and broadcast on electronic media. She then suggests that laws similar to Canada’s truth in media laws are going to be introduced by Christmas. Wouldn’t do Bolt much good (or Gillard for a while until the ultimate scare campaign was run), but jeez it would be good to watch.

    Don’t you think that this could have very negative consequences for our democracy?
    further who gets to decide what is true and what is false?
    then who watches the watchers?

  46. Iain and,

    That is just not the case at all Min. Andrew is not arguing against anyone’s right to identify with any ethnicity of their own choosing at all.

    From my previous topic which is at: https://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/im-an-aborigine-just-ask-andrew-bolt/

    The action brought by Ms Eatock and others (Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103) claimed that “the articles conveyed offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people, by saying that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending to be Aboriginal so they could access benefits that were available to Aboriginal people.” In doing so Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) including sections 18C and 18D were invoked.

    Bolt’s lawyers’ argument was that this came under the heading of “fair commentary” which I have mentioned in this current topic as not being vilification. The judge thought otherwise and Bolt was duly convicted.

  47. So yet again we see Iain channeling his Lord & Master-Andrew Bolt-in making shit up as he goes along, thinking that saying something is true is the equivalent to making something true. Gee, no wonder Iain identifies so strongly with the Far Right-as they’re about as far removed from the truth as anyone could possibly imagine.

  48. “further who gets to decide what is true and what is false?”

    LOL, spoken like a true Right Winger. What is true is anything that can be backed up with all the available evidence, what is false is anything that can be reputed by the available evidence. Bolt’s claims were proven *false* by the available evidence, & were racially discriminatory to boot, yet people like Abbott & Bolt think that the commentariat should be freed from such restrictions! This in spite of the fact that Abbott was himself a beneficiary of such restrictions! Typical Right Wing Hypocrite (whoops, now there’s a tautology).

  49. BTW Iain, you can’t incite Godwin’s law-as I didn’t actually call you a Nazi. Just pointing out the dangers of removing those laws which prevent our media & political leaders a carte blanche in telling lies about certain ethnic groups. That’s merely a statement of historical fact-not that I expect those on the Right to understand the importance of history!

  50. Iain – the Courts decide based on evidence. I realise that a need to produce evidence would stuff a considerable number of your postings here and elsewhere firmly into the bin before they see the light of day – that’s the point (but in the spirit of Newman you’re only a part of the necessary righting of so many wrongs so don’t worry about it).

  51. So some believe our Indigenous people do not need compensation for the land being taken off them, and the harm that occurred since 1788.

    So some believe they do not need assistance to catch up.

    Where did Bolt prove that the people he wrote about, benefited by being proud of their heritage.

    So it is about Indigenous people getting something that they do not get.

    Do not get, and I will add need.

    There was no attempt at a treaty with these people.

    In fact it was worse, the country was declared as having no people living here before white man settled it.

    They were considered to be that inhuman, that they were numbered among the animals. horses and dogs, within the Constitution.

    They were not considered human enough, to be counted within censuses.

    In fact, many believed that they were not a problem, as they soon would die or breed out.

  52. Tom R

    When and what?

    Try here

    or here

    Both are very dodgy and totally partisan far left sites

    Min

    Bolt’s lawyers’ argument was that this came under the heading of “fair commentary” which I have mentioned in this current topic as not being vilification. The judge thought otherwise and Bolt was duly convicted.

    Bolt never made the argument that the plaintiffs were “pretending” to be aborigines his argument was always that they chose to identify as aborigines even though that was only a part of their heritage and in many cases a rather small part at that.
    Marcus

    So yet again we see Iain channeling his Lord & Master-Andrew Bolt-in making shit up as he goes along, thinking that saying something is true is the equivalent to making something true. Gee, no wonder Iain identifies so strongly with the Far Right-as they’re about as far removed from the truth as anyone could possibly imagine.

    So You must think that only the left have any call upon the truth then Marcus?

    Marcus
    “further who gets to decide what is true and what is false?”

    LOL, spoken like a true Right Winger. What is true is anything that can be backed up with all the available evidence, what is false is anything that can be reputed (refuted) by the available evidence.

    Sure but who gets to make the call on planet Marcus especially when its a very contentious and hotly debated issue?

    Bolt’s claims were proven *false* by the available evidence, & were racially discriminatory to boot, yet people like Abbott & Bolt think that the commentariat should be freed from such restrictions!

    Bolt certainly lost his case but his argument was not proven false, only that it “upset” the plaintiffs (which was all that was required under the racial discrimination act)

    .
    Marcus

    BTW Iain, you can’t incite Godwin’s law-as I didn’t actually call you a Nazi. Just pointing out the dangers of removing those laws which prevent our media & political leaders a carte blanche in telling lies about certain ethnic groups. That’s merely a statement of historical fact-not that I expect those on the Right to understand the importance of history!

    Marcus Godwin can be invoked for merely mentioning by word or implication any suggestion of the third Reich

    2353

    Iain – the Courts decide based on evidence. I realise that a need to produce evidence would stuff a considerable number of your postings here and elsewhere firmly into the bin before they see the light of day – that’s the point (but in the spirit of Newman you’re only a part of the necessary righting of so many wrongs so don’t worry about it).

    What evidence do I need to point out the logistical and ethical problems with the creation of any entity to determine the nature of truth or lies? We have thousands of years of law, philosophy and logic to draw on and it tells us all that there is no easy or simple way to answer such a question

  53. paulwello @ 2:17 pm

    Would like to know why Iain thinks this is a just another conspiracy theory.

    Because it so obviously is preciely that Paul.

    Seeing that Iain gave no evidence to back up his conspiracy theory, The answer “Because it so” just sounds like Abbott

  54. Cu, I believe that this is why Bolt’s claims were so abhorrent to so many of our indigenous people. Bolt said that Aboriginal people who are whiter were obtaining unfair advantage. How much “unfair advantage” have paler skinned Aborigines obtained..see the Stolen Generations where only the pale skinned children were taken.

    I am thinking of scenarios:

    I remember my mother and friends smirking about a child. The child looks white they said, but have a look at his nose, I’ll bet that he’s got Abo blood in him. Yes, smirks the other woman, the nose is always the giveaway.

    A white fella walks into a bar, the bartender says, You can’t come in here. I know your grandmother and she was a half-caste.

  55. Ok Iain, my cousin is a Shaw..he should immediately take down all that Shaw tartan and not go to any Scottish do-s because after all he is only 1/8th Scottish.

  56. Fuck Godwin’s Law.

    Offered in the spirit of freedom of speech & expression so recently espoused by Mr Abbott.

  57. Both are very dodgy and totally partisan far left sites

    That may well be. But they present valid arguments and facts. You, on the other hand, being a rather dodgy and totally partisan right blogger, appear to want us to take your word for things.

  58. Iain “Because it so” just had to laugh at that answer, so typical when confronted with the facts “Because it so” next Iain will have the head wobble going.

  59. No Iain, it’s not about Left or Right, it’s about who actually has the facts on his/her side, & again Bolt did *not* have the facts on his side, nor did he manage to prove his “theory”, as you keep claiming. As has been said, you’re now channeling Abbott with your “it is so, just because” approach to your arguments.
    Also, as I said, how is it “Godwin’s Law” to point out the dangers of removing laws which protect ethnic groups from the wholesale spread of racist propaganda?

  60. Iain,

    Bolt never made the argument that the plaintiffs were “pretending” to be aborigines his argument was always that they chose to identify as aborigines even though that was only a part of their heritage and in many cases a rather small part at that.

    I’ll have another try..

    The action brought by Ms Eatock and others (Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103) claimed that “the articles conveyed offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people, by saying that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending to be Aboriginal so they could access benefits that were available to Aboriginal people.” In doing so Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) including sections 18C and 18D were invoked.

    Did you perchance notice this: Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103

    That’s the reference to the court case, the quote was from the court case.

    It was the plaintiffs who made that claim, that Bolt was saying that they were “pretending to be Aboriginal”. Bolt never disputed that he did not make that claim, so it’s good that you’re now here as Bolt’s “lawyer”.

  61. Min @Aug08 @8.38am

    Spot on Min. Larissa Behrendt was a prime example
    of Bolts Slanted, Sloppy, Bullshit he tried to
    pass off as `News` or `Journalism`.
    Bolt lost the arguments. Lost the RDA-case.
    Limited News has since stopped Bolt (and Mrs Bolt)
    from moderating his blog comments.
    Seems like Bolt has lost trust within Limited News too.

  62. Min @ 1:22 pm

    Cu, I believe that this is why Bolt’s claims were so abhorrent to so many of our indigenous people. Bolt said that Aboriginal people who are whiter were obtaining unfair advantage. How much “unfair advantage” have paler skinned Aborigines obtained..see the Stolen Generations where only the pale skinned children were taken.

    Let me ask you a simple question, do you believe that all people are equal in their humanity?

    Min @ 1:25 pm

    Ok Iain, my cousin is a Shaw..he should immediately take down all that Shaw tartan and not go to any Scottish do-s because after all he is only 1/8th Scottish.

    No min your cousin is as free as anybody else to celebrate any part of his heritage that he finds attractive, but how would you feel about you cousin receiving any largess purely because of that “Scottish heritage”?

    Tom R @ 1:32 pm

    That may well be. But they present valid arguments and facts. You, on the other hand, being a rather dodgy and totally partisan right blogger, appear to want us to take your word for things.

    Well thanks for admitting that your citations are far form balanced or in any way objective. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

    paulwello @ 1:40 pm

    Iain “Because it so” just had to laugh at that answer, so typical when confronted with the facts “Because it so” next Iain will have the head wobble going.

    Laugh all you like Paul but when something is self evident then what should I not state that as fact.

    Marcus @ 1:41 pm

    No Iain, it’s not about Left or Right, it’s about who actually has the facts on his/her side, & again Bolt did *not* have the facts on his side, nor did he manage to prove his “theory”, as you keep claiming.

    Bolt certainly made some minor errors of fact but that still does not invalidate his thesis that there is something dodgy about the urban activists who are quick to claim aboriginal status when it means that they can qualify for a grant or enter an art prize.

    Just ask yo a simple question Marcus how long do you think that such affirmative action is a social benefit?


    Min @ 1:46 pm

    That’s the reference to the court case, the quote was from the court case.

    It was the plaintiffs who made that claim, that Bolt was saying that they were “pretending to be Aboriginal”. Bolt never disputed that he did not make that claim, so it’s good that you’re now here as Bolt’s “lawyer”.

    Min I read all of the articles in question and not once to Andrew bolt say that they plaintiffs were “pretending” to be Aboriginal who actaully made that statement? I bet it was the Plaintiffs’ lawyer.

    In al;l of those pieces Bolt accepted that the individuals had aboriginal ancestry and his whole argument was about why they were claiming that this small part of their linage should define them ahead of the other parts even when those other parts were greater in number.

  63. Climate scientist who knows it all and now lawyer and judge who knows better than those who had the entire case files before them.

    Are there no bounds to Iain’s talentless?

    He reads something, usually a short posted on the web somewhere, and wham, he knows it all in an instant and is never wrong, everyone else who disagrees with him is.

  64. “Typical Right Wing Hypocrite (whoops, now there’s a tautology).”

    lol never thought of it that way but you’re correct. Hypocrite and Right Wing are synonymous.

  65. Ah so this is where Iain hanging out, it’s no wonder with no one but fruitloops infecting his blog these days. You think Iain is a wingnut you should meet his friends………

    Iain you get government handouts as an Aussie even though you are from the UK, right? Stuff not available to all of us…right?

    Why deny this to others?

  66. I’ve gone back through several blogs that Iain has haunted, NM for example, to early this year and absolutely nothing is different to now.

    The arguments are identical, the calling out of the Left and conspiracies, latte sippers etc., the long scrolling posts so as to dominate a thread, and make no mistake that’s what Iain’s about, dominating a topic and everything else you see of him here, he has done exactly the same across other blogs, including attacking those he considers Left for just being Left as though that’s shouldn’t be allowed or it’s a sin.

    No use debating him as going on history he won’t present facts, he will attempt to dominate the thread and link back to his blog whenever he can (was called out on that tactic early here) uses the wink emoticon to abrogate responsibility, remember the other Right Wing poster in blogocracy who always did that and will just use the same unfounded responses sometimes hardly changing a word.

    So for me it’s goodbye to Iain, thanks scroll wheel.

  67. Iain, and

    No min your cousin is as free as anybody else to celebrate any part of his heritage that he finds attractive, but how would you feel about you cousin receiving any largess purely because of that “Scottish heritage”?

    You claim to be able to wear the clan tartan, and if of Irish heritage you get to join The Celtic Club. Thereby receiving advantage.

    For everyone else.. 😆 😆 and double 😆

  68. Iain and

    Min I read all of the articles in question and not once to Andrew bolt say that they plaintiffs were “pretending” to be Aboriginal who actaully made that statement? I bet it was the Plaintiffs’ lawyer.

    Yep, and Bolt didn’t dispute it – he lost.

  69. Well thanks for admitting that your citations are far form balanced or in any way objective.

    Where did I say that? Please provide the extracted text, or I’ll have to assume you are trying to put words in my mouth. In other words, like bolt, lying.

    I agreed that the sites might be dodgy and partisan, but I clarified that the arguments they used are supported by fact and examples, which is not the same thing as the site in general. The ‘citations’ stand for themselves, regardless of the site they came from. Coming from a particular site doesn’t change an argument based of facts, it only changes your perception of it.

  70. Nothing more hilarious than watching the right attempt to defend lies and racial denigration as being freedom of speech.

  71. Will Abbott give back the $66,000 he got for hurt feelings now that he’s saying hurt feelings cannot be proven so should not be used as a defence against racial denigration?

    Didn’t think so, he’s Right Wing.

  72. Actually it’s not hilarious watching them lamely defending vilification as free speech, it’s very sad they feel the need to stoop to that base level of inhumanity for political ideology.

  73. The White Australia policy and some git discriminating against Chinese imported workers of late is the product of the left wingnuts that stoop to the lowest base level of flawed ideology.

    What is it with the left and racial vilification???

  74. Iain – do you get paid to type that much crap? Evidence is required to make a truthful statement – you can’t just pull it out of your arse like Bolt did and expect to get away with it. Over thousands of years there has been discrimination in all corners of the world due to race, religion, place of residence, persona habits, country of origin and so on – so while some can obviously treat equals (even asylum seekers and descendants of Aboriginal people) as equals others can’t. The courts decided the case was legitimate, decided Bolt was in the wrong based on the evidence presented.

    It’s unfortunate that society in general needs a system to determine if discrimination has occurred – but apparently it does as proven by Bolt. That the LOTO, a previous beneficiary of the same law, now wants to change them because something didn’t go his way is disgusting – but typical of the current LOTO.

    You’ll be getting new instructions from LNPHQ next week – don’t stress!

  75. Scaper wrote

    Nothing more hilarious than watching the left blow a gasket over a loose Bolt. Don’t discriminate…I detest all races so sue me!

    Did you hear the one about how a ‘scaper walked into a bar full of Abos.

  76. Iain Hall, you need to get a better grasp on humanity,

    “Thanks for enabling me to bring down Godwin’s law upon you but I’ll ask you one simple question: do you believe that all people are equal in their humanity? Well I do and it offends my sense of fairness that any racial prerequisites exist for any government program, grant or scheme.”

    We have certain races within our society who are disadvantaged, no thanks to the past.

    If we, as society, were to implement what you are suggesting, where do we draw the line?

    Should single mothers not get benefits?
    Should the elderly not get benefits?
    Should children not get benefits?

    So tell me, with your ideology, who is going to benefit?

    Bolt does not need to question the nationality of people. We have laws, policies and procedures in place for when people apply for grants/benefits/awards.

  77. Tony Abbott is warning the creation of a “media watchdog” as being a “political correctness police”. This is indeed interesting rhetoric from a man who calls himself a former journalist. Abbott’s misinformation, character assassination, obstructionist political divide and concur strategy defines his leadership. The opposition is the beneficiary of a tide of lies and propaganda never seen before in Australian politics in what can only be described as unchecked commentary masquerading as journalism. Everything from the economy to social reform, infrastructure to the NDIS is blatantly misrepresented in an orchestrated assault on anything that differs from neo-conservatism. Its a non stop political opportunistic football match that forgets the rules and fair play. Its win at any cost playing the man not the game. This mis-information war, fuelling every conceivable prejudice furthers his political agenda by the consistent use of one word “NO”. All the hallmarks of Edward Bernays 1928 book “Propaganda” are at play here. Spruik the lie enough times so as to create doubt and even the smallest amount of traction sets the wheels spinning and mud flying. . Insecurity, doubt fear, hatred and mis-information all followed to the letter, but how much sticks? In a progressive multicultural society, social dialogue has plummeted to the lowest ebb in Australian political history. Fuelled by Abbott’s election promise to repeal legal recourse under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits statements that offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people on grounds of race or ethnicity you have effectively eroded the last line of defence. Abbott is far from sorry and so obviously out of touch with the people such legislation is designed to protect. This is a dangerously regressive act that is more at home in a totalitarian power rather than in Australia’s multicultural egalitarian society.
    http://politicaljelly.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-cost-of-free-speech.html

  78. This is the article I think Iain will have trouble defending as to why it is a Lefty conspiracy theory, going by his arguments here, but Iain is Iain.

  79. You said it ME: as Iain said “Add this this his clear lack of proof reading or editing skills and what you get is a rather sloppy argument that fails utterly to make its case.”

  80. JohnB @ 8:55 pm

    Excellent work by Iain Hall, one of the few voices of commonsense and logic here.

    there you go CU I’ve found someone who appreciates me! 🙂
    lasereye12 @ 12:26 am

    Iain Hall, you need to get a better grasp on humanity,

    We have certain races within our society who are disadvantaged, no thanks to the past.

    No we have certain individuals who are disadvantaged and I have absolutely NO objection to helping any one who is in need

    If we, as society, were to implement what you are suggesting, where do we draw the line?

    I think that you profoundly misunderstand the point I am making, which is not, as you imply, that largess for teh needy should be withdrawn but rather that it should cease to be distributed ion the basis of race

    Should single mothers not get benefits?
    Should the elderly not get benefits?
    Should children not get benefits?

    Thrice times NO as long as there is no racial qualification for any of these benefits there is no reason for them not to continue.

    So tell me, with your ideology, who is going to benefit?

    All of those who are in need

    Bolt does not need to question the nationality of people. We have laws, policies and procedures in place for when people apply for grants/benefits/awards.

    The whole point of Bolts articles is to question the need and validity of dispersing such things on the basis of a racial qualification.

  81. Plus the cowardly response to a challenge in a blog he attacked by doing it in his blog instead of the where the challenge was issued. It’s something Iain has been doing for a long time, attempting to shift the debate into his forum, probably to increase hits and also it’s where he has control and the wingnuts on hand to denigrate and attack.

  82. Möbius Ecko @ 7:24 am

    Plus the cowardly response to a challenge in a blog he attacked by doing it in his blog instead of the where the challenge was issued. It’s something Iain has been doing for a long time, attempting to shift the debate into his forum, probably to increase hits and also it’s where he has control and the wingnuts on hand to denigrate and attack.

    Obviously your scroll wheel is broken Möbius which would explain your failure to live up to your declaration that you would henceforth ignore me. That said why should it matter where I choose to publish my critique? I have followed all of the protocols about properly attributing my sources and I have been steadfast in sticking to the argument put and the way that it has been made rather than attacking the author in any personal way at all. You should try it sometime.

  83. “he whole point of Bolts articles is to question the need and validity of dispersing such things on the basis of a racial qualification.”

    The difference is not disperse on racial grounds. It is a recognition that they were here first.

    I see it as compensation, which they richly deserve.

    When I was young, those who had Aboriginal blood but of light colour would live in fear of this fact becoming public knowledge, Yes, they were force to be ashamed of their blood line.

    It was us that introduced racial debate, not them.

    We can leave the racial side out of the money it is alleged they receive over others. One would be hard pressed to find in also did not meet the 1qualifications of need.

    Downward envy makes me sick.

  84. @Catching up, who was “here first”, the 10% of the person who is of some diluted Aboriginal ancestry, or the 90% of them who is of European extraction ?

    Now I am all for closing the gap and ensuring our Indigenous brothers and sisters have the same opportunities available to everyone else, but I find it curious that some of the loudest voices demanding compensation for “invasion” are often those whose mere existence is due to said invasion.

  85. JohnB, perhaps you might like to consider that it’s not just how one perceives oneself but the way that others perceive us. It is not that long ago that a person of Aboriginal heritage would call themselves anything but Aboriginal, Greek..Spanish..

    Then with the introduction of Racial Discrimination Act we saw an immediate jump in the numbers of people who were prepared to come forward and identify themselves as having this racial background. The huge jump in the stats could not be explained away by natural increase in the population, but rather that people found themselves feeling safer to identify thus. It is the same thing as people who now feel far freer to identify as gay than even a decade or so ago, protection under the law does assist people in their daily lives.

  86. Obviously your scroll wheel is broken Möbius which would explain your failure to live up to your declaration that you would henceforth ignore me.

    A bit like ignoring pubic lice – possible, but very difficult.

    That said why should it matter where I choose to publish my critique?

    Because it’s good manners to comment on a person’s blog posts on their blog. But when you’re obsessed about trolling for hits and comments (i.e. attention), those manners tend to go out the window.

  87. No Iain Hall, I think you’ve misunderstood.

    Based on facts, there are some races that are disadvantaged. Just like there are some groups in society, that are also disadvantaged.

    You’re trying to claw at the word “race” and deflect your underlying opinion, which no doubt under the current Act, would be worded with a racist undertone.

    Have a read of some facts and figures to further educate yourself on the people that you are trying to silence:
    http://www.hollows.org/Australia/Facts/
    http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/statistics/index.html

  88. Bolt really is just a gish-galloper who `gallops` his few preferred themes, eg science denial. Along with most of the Limited News usual suspects who gallop too, Devine, Albrechtsen, Akerman.
    I am waiting for the web circulation numbers, to see how many of Bolts readers (ignorant-red-neck-chooks) have followed him behind the paywall, and are coughing up their hard-earned to read his clap-trap.

  89. From Jonathon Green..on Bolt..

    This, then, is not an argument around the freedom to express a view, rather it’s an argument round the possibility that the law might curtail that freedom if the view expressed is founded in cynical dishonesty, disqualifications under the act from the protection of fair comment. The same protection that exists, for example, under defamation law.

    The solution is simple enough: as the Prime Minister would advise in another context, “Don’t write crap”.

    Strange, in this week of heightened free speech awareness, that a brouhaha should arise over a Facebook page filled with a collection of misjudged, inflammatory, oafish and no doubt offensive images grouped under the heading “Aboriginal Memes”.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-09/green-the-price-of-freedom/4186114?WT.svl=theDrum

  90. And from the Global Mail..

    But for the subjects of Bolt’s columns, the very act of being vilified in newspapers around the country is proof of a particularly Australian form of racism — this questioning of their identity or authenticity.

    It is unlikely that Bolt is the first person to have confronted these high-profile Aborigines with the sneering challenge, “Just how black are you?”

    http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/no-andrew-bolt-did-not-have-a-point/332/

  91. Thank you Cu, and so it should have..it’s poor form that these sites are allowed to remain for as long as they often do, and that it takes a concerted effort from groups such as Anti-Bogan WordPress before action is taken.

  92. while i was growing up in “porter gutter”, i had a few aboriginal mates, and came into contact with many others. one memory (among many) of that time is that, irrespective of your appearance, if you had one of a few surnames, then you were an “abo”, and by definition, some sort of “lesser” human being according to the then prevailing racism and laws.

    i have also over my life, seen the same types doing, as bolt has, and slandering those perceived as “not black enough” to be aboriginal, and as jb @8:25 am apparently (and mistakenly) believes, and who attempt to argue against affirmative action on the basis of “it’s discrimination”.

    is it just coincidence, that when the “dirty end of the stick” was the only “payoff” in being an aboriginal, the “net” in making that determination was cast as widely as possible by those of a racist disposition, that, given “affirmative action” the scope of this “net” should now be constrained,not to those whom aboriginals recognise as “family”, but only to those who meet some sort of “colour test” made by scribblers such as bolt ?

  93. Catching up @ 7:39 am

    The difference is not disperse on racial grounds. It is a recognition that they were here first.

    I see it as compensation, which they richly deserve.

    No that is entirely inequitable if you think that all Australians are equal in their humanity

    We can leave the racial side out of the money it is alleged they receive over others. One would be hard pressed to find in also did not meet the qualifications of need.

    Ok well lets do that then and the only ones who would not qualify are those from urban families that are entirely capable of competing with the general population.

    Pete W.@ 9:34 am


    That said why should it matter where I choose to publish my critique?

    Because it’s good manners to comment on a person’s blog posts on their blog. But when you’re obsessed about trolling for hits and comments (i.e. attention), those manners tend to go out the window.

    Coming from you that has great irony, After all don’t you run a blog devoted entirely criticising me personally?

    lasereye12 @ 10:18 am

    No Iain Hall, I think you’ve misunderstood.

    Based on facts, there are some races that are disadvantaged. Just like there are some groups in society, that are also disadvantaged.

    That is cods wallop, while some individuals may be “disadvantaged” you can’t sustain the argument that its due to their DNA or their race. Lets treat people as individuals rather than as elements of the collective.

    You’re trying to claw at the word “race” and deflect your underlying opinion, which no doubt under the current Act, would be worded with a racist undertone.

    Not in the least I start form the fundamental position that we are all equal in our humanity and that its is as profoundly racist to discriminate in a positive way as it is to do so for negative reasons.

    Have a read of some facts and figures to further educate yourself on the people that you are trying to silence:

    I’m all for helping those in need

  94. 2553

    Sorry not going there – went there once and determined I won’t give you another click. Besides I suspect that if you posted the tripe you post there anywhere else it would be correctly deleted.

    Really what so offends you about my page?
    more importantly what are you scared of?

  95. LOL, Iain. Quite the ego you have there, thinking that any of us here are scared of your low-IQ, fact-free ramblings. I just don’t want to make your stupid blog site look more popular than it actually is. Also, I’m a little concerned that spending any real time around the troglodytes who infest your site might cause me to lose valuable IQ points .

  96. Iain posts here because no one visits his blog site ( i confess, i posted there a couple of times, think i was slumming it)

  97. If the “sandpit” is so good, why do you waste your time here, contributing nothing more than than to the length of the page?
    BTW most sandpits are full of feral cat shit and piss…. Just saying!

    😕

  98. Marcus@ 1:59 pm

    LOL, Iain. Quite the ego you have there, thinking that any of us here are scared of your low-IQ, fact-free ramblings. I just don’t want to make your stupid blog site look more popular than it actually is. Also, I’m a little concerned that spending any real time around the troglodytes who infest your site might cause me to lose valuable IQ points .

    Marcus If I wanted to be popular I could post about funny cats or cooking (“foodie porn”) that said My blog gets reasonable traffic and I enjoy writing it. That anyone at reads it is a bonus.
    paulwello @ 2:03 pm

    Iain posts here because no one visits his blog site ( i confess, i posted there a couple of times, think i was slumming it)

    Paul I notice that you are a vociferous critic yet you never produce anything much longer than a one liner. I’d love to see you write something more substantial sometimes. I always welcome guest posts even form lefties like you, so are you up for it? 😉

    Skeptical @ 2:15 pm

    If the “sandpit” is so good, why do you waste your time here, contributing nothing more than than to the length of the page?
    BTW most sandpits are full of feral cat shit and piss…. Just saying!

    I hang here because I enjoy the challenge, I write my blog because its what I do every morning while I wait for the sun to come up.

    Tom R @ 2:18 pm

    Yawn

  99. Iain, obviously my one line post actually work, thanks for the compliment. 🙂 and I would never write a post on your site, no one would read it as no one goes there.

  100. This from Andrew bolt,

    HOW many dead pensioners does Julia Gillard need to save her useless carbon tax?
    So I ask again: How many pensioners must fry?
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_power_problem_whats_a_pensions_life_worth/

    Bolt forgets to mention that the states own and run the power supply in VIC, these deaths are horrible, but he needs to get his facts right. The carbon tax did kill these innocent people.

  101. Thanks for the link Paul I have not read any Bolt today and that piece is a good piece of writing. I say that not because I am a fan of air-conditioning (hate it) but because it very neatly points out just how shallow and futile Gillard’s attempts to blame shift responsibility for rising energy prices back onto the states.

    Oh and I asked about Fat Albert because I am curious as to why you choose the avatar that you use

  102. So Iain you actually agree with Bolt that the Carbon Price is to blame for these horrible deaths.

  103. From the bolt link

    Forget that investing in “poles and wires” at least gives you poles and wires

    Incorrect. Over-investing is the issue. bolt misses the point, again.

    while paying a tax to stop global warming

    Incorrect, nobody is paying a tax

    leaves you with nothing – not a flicker of change in the temperature.

    Incorrect. Even by his own dubious calculations, there will be a change,

    I stopped after that. I thought that was enough to highlight another inane comment by iain

    that piece is a good piece of writing.

    Just to recap

    http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/blogs-prod-photos/4/3/1/3/3/43133dbf630121f2aee169a3f470dbe8.jpg?stmp=1340213564

    Remember, enjoy the blogging while you can. Under a tabot government, blogging will become a heavily policed activity. Meanwhile, people like bolt will be free to to lie indiscriminately in order to denigrate people with whom he disagrees with, in place of producing a good piece of writing. to argue his case.

  104. Remember, enjoy the blogging while you can. Under a tabot government, blogging will become a heavily policed activity.

    As long as they stamp out Port Adelaide jokes I’m fine with that. :mrgreen:

  105. Iain Hall
    “That is cods wallop, while some individuals may be “disadvantaged” you can’t sustain the argument that its due to their DNA or their race. Lets treat people as individuals rather than as elements of the collective.”

    You’re being ignorant to the fact that different races have different cultures. Unfortunately, but no surprise, you fall under the same mentality like many westerns that our “white people” way of being should apply across all races. 
    I would also question what exposure you’ve had to the way people are in different cultures. 

    “I’m all for helping those in need”
    You don’t fool me and I don’t care to respond to your closed mind anymore.

  106. paulwello @ 6:16 pm

    So Iain you actually agree with Bolt that the Carbon Price is to blame for these horrible deaths.

    I’m not that big on attributing blame for things Paul but a scary electricity bill can have a nasty effect on the behaviour of the vulnerable

    Tom R @ 7:34 pm

    From the bolt link

    Forget that investing in “poles and wires” at least gives you poles and wires

    Incorrect. Over-investing is the issue. bolt misses the point, again.

    So you don’t agree that we at least get something out of spending on infrastructure? I seem to remember you saying the opposite to that when it comes to the ALP government spending…

    while paying a tax to stop global warming

    Incorrect, nobody is paying a tax

    leaves you with nothing – not a flicker of change in the temperature.

    Incorrect. Even by his own dubious calculations, there will be a change,

    I stopped after that. I thought that was enough to highlight another inane comment by Iain

    Tom, even Julia admits that we are all going to be paying 9% more for our power as a direct result of the carbon tax now you can hide behind pedantry about who actaully gets a tax bill labelled “carbon tax” but if we get an increase in the price of a commodity or service that our P M tells us is due to the Carbon Tax then we are paying the damn tax

    that piece is a good piece of writing.

    Just to recap

    Tom can you cut out the ad homs? please?

    Remember, enjoy the blogging while you can. Under a tabot government, blogging will become a heavily policed activity. Meanwhile, people like bolt will be free to to lie indiscriminately in order to denigrate people with whom he disagrees with, in place of producing a good piece of writing. to argue his case.

    Actually you should be more worried about the media regulation mooted by the ALP and the Greens because under their proposals blogs as popular as this one would come under the remit of their watch dog….

    lasereye12 @ 9:30 pm

    Iain Hall

    “That is cods wallop, while some individuals may be “disadvantaged” you can’t sustain the argument that its due to their DNA or their race. Lets treat people as individuals rather than as elements of the collective.”

    You’re being ignorant to the fact that different races have different cultures. Unfortunately, but no surprise, you fall under the same mentality like many westerns that our “white people” way of being should apply across all races.

    No I’m saying that the criteria for all assistance or government largess should be NEED rather than race. I bet you are a fan of “whiteness studies” aren’t you?

    I would also question what exposure you’ve had to the way people are in different cultures.

    More than you think obviously

    “I’m all for helping those in need”
    You don’t fool me and I don’t care to respond to your closed mind anymore.

    The mind that is closed is obviously your own

  107. Tom can you cut out the ad homs? please?

    Just as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth, instead of pretending I am saying something that I am not

    So you don’t agree that we at least get something out of spending on infrastructure?

    irrelevant to the discussion. Nice try at ‘look over there’ though. The discussion is ‘over-spending’. If you cannot discuss the issue, then there is no point in a discussion.

    you can hide behind pedantry
    If a price rises, and we are compensated, so that there is no net effect, then we, as a result, are not paying anything. Particularly if we modify our behaviour to avoid it. Call it ‘predantry’ all you want, it is obviously bolt using the wrong definition, which you appear to equate to as ‘good writing’. If he addressed the issue without attempting to misrepresent the issue from the start, he might not find himself in such bother. And people might actually want to engage with him then. Otherwise, what is the point?

  108. Tom

    Just as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth, instead of pretending I am saying something that I am not

    I read what you write and respond accordingly you will notice that I try to avoid making personal attacks myself because I think that the issues are far more important than playing the tit for tat Ad hom game which gets us no where.

    Gillard’s claim that the Carbon tax increase is “fully compensated” is just not the case besides the fact that the so called compensation is a flat rate amount and the increase is a percentage there is the limited scope of just who gets “compensation”. you also ignore the knock on effect and subsequent price rises that will affect just about every thing that we buy.This all adds up to your contention that we won’t be paying the tax being a bird that won’t fly.

  109. always trying to put words in my mouth

    https://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/andrew-bolt-his-rights-our-freedom/#comment-98184

    or

    Incorrect. Over-investing is the issue. bolt misses the point, again.

    So you don’t agree that we at least get something out of spending on infrastructure?

    talk about verballing, your entire posts are varballing people. I’ll not play ‘ad hom’ (even though tabot tells us no level of ad hom is too low) when you stop Making Shit Up. Sound like a fair trade?

    is just not the case

    citation please

    you also ignore the knock on effect and subsequent price rises that will affect just about every thing that we buy.

    You also ignore that it is in now, and nothing that the fear mongers have said have come to pass.

    that we won’t be paying the tax

    One last time, for the slower ones, it is not a tax, it is a price, that polluters can avoid by changing their habits.

    Perhaps you can ask yourself why the increase amount on bills because of this Market mechanism is lower in SA than in NSW?

  110. Free speech debate is coloured by hypocrisy

    Hypocrite thy name is the Liberal Party and Iain Hall.

    ———————
    As to the carbon price. Good piece on Radio National this morning. The carbon price is fixed for three years after which it goes to the market. The market price is predicted to be lower than the current set price going on world trends and prices.

    On the other hand Abbott’s plan is fixed, and as I’ve stated some parts of it are calculated to be at $25 per tonne, plus his scheme can only go up in price with no areas for cost reductions anywhere, yet there’s no compensation in his scheme, unless you count giving big polluters billions compensation.

    If the wingnuts and blind Abbott supporters are in anyway sincere instead of being hypocrites then they would be demanding Abbott scrap his great big tax without compensation before the next election or they won’t vote for him.

    That they call for an election now on Gillard’s carbon price yet don’t demand Abbott do anything about his very expensive and costly to the public scheme illustrates the extent of their hypocrisy.

    Many probably rightly believe Abbott has no intention of bringing in his very flawed and ultra expensive carbon reduction policy, just as they rightly believe he won’t bring in many of his other promised brain farts either. That they allow Abbott… no more than allow, encourage Abbott in continuing these deceptions and lies also shows the depth of their hypocrisy. Where they call Gillard a liar on what wasn’t one yet not only allow Abbott to lie just about everyday as he did in spades in Queensland the other day, but they are supporting him to office knowing he will lie on promises to a far greater level than probably any leader before him, except for Howard, whose calculated lies on Iraq will never be surpassed.

    Hypocrites.

  111. Tom R @ 7:58 am

    always trying to put words in my mouth

    Given my tendency is to answer your comments point by point maybe the fault lays in your skills at communicating your meaning without ambiguity

    Incorrect. Over-investing is the issue. bolt misses the point, again.

    So you don’t agree that we at least get something out of spending on infrastructure?

    what is wrong about my response to your assertion?

    talk about verballing, your entire posts are varballing people. I’ll not play ‘ad hom’ (even though tabot tells us no level of ad hom is too low) when you stop Making Shit Up. Sound like a fair trade?

    Tom I admit to a small measure of sarcasm in the comments that I make however to characterise that as “verballing” is just plain wrong Maybe you need to realise that people like me just don’t see the world the same way that you do and I don’t filter my opinions through the same ideological prism taht you emply either

    is just not the case

    citation please

    THE carbon tax has begun hitting Queensland small businesses, including a Brisbane private school which faces a $70,000-a-year hike in its electricity bill.

    Six weeks into the carbon tax regime, price hikes are starting to hit hip pockets as power bills drop into letterboxes.

    Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry president David Goodwin said the “weird distortions” were becoming apparent.

    “We are finding that ordinary supermarkets like the local IGA may be up for up to $15,000 on the carbon tax alone if they have to re-gas their giant refrigeration system,” Mr Goodwin said. “Somehow these guys are going to have find ways to cover these extra costs.”

    The Anglican Church Grammar School (Churchie) faces a 30 per cent increase in electricity for the month of July, well above the 9 per cent increase predicted by the Federal Government.
    source

    You also ignore that it is in now, and nothing that the fear mongers have said have come to pass.

    that we won’t be paying the tax

    See my citation for proof that we will be paying the tax.

    One last time, for the slower ones, it is not a tax, it is a price, that polluters can avoid by changing their habits.

    Perhaps you can ask yourself why the increase amount on bills because of this Market mechanism is lower in SA than in NSW?

    I live in Queensland so I have no knowledge of NSW and SA energy prices, that said there has never been uniform prices in all of the jurisdictions as far as I know. As for trying to hide behind the false dichotomy between it being a “price” rather than a tax, please spare us such sophistry

  112. Tom, also read that and heard a piece on it this morning.

    Shouting the carbon tax is killing pensioners won’t do it for Abbott, and that’s become a joke around the Twitterverse, nor will his specious claims of it destroying our economy as it continues to move along apace instead of collapsing into a great big heap as he promised it would.

    Oh there it is again, another Abbott lie. So the outrage from the Right should be deafening… crickets.

  113. Given my tendency is to answer your comments point by point maybe the fault lays in your skills at communicating your meaning without ambiguity

    followed by

    what is wrong about my response to your assertion?

    ROFL

    I’ll go slow, as it appears that I need to.

    The argument that is being made is not that spending on infrastructure is bad, it is that EXCESSIVE spending on infrastructure is bad.

    Considering the (lame) arguments made by the opposition and their mouthpieces against the NBN, which appear to pretty much rest on this entire assumption, to now turn around and pretend the complete opposite, that ALL spending is good because it is infrastructure, beggars belief.

    This is what I mean about pretending the debate is about infrastructure spending. It is not that simple. To pretend it is, is simply misleading.

    bolt did it, which you thought represented ‘good writing’. You are trying to do it.

    It is not ‘good writing’, it is purely diversionary, and lends one to believe that you (or he) have no real argument on the real issue.

  114. Möbius Ecko

    Hypocrite thy name is the Liberal Party and Iain Hall.

    A big call there Möbius and based on the flawed assumption that I endorse the coalition’s “direct action”As I said when it was first mooted on my own blog and as I have reiterated here (in the climate change thread) I hope that after the election that they drop the whole thing. Th3e best that I have ever said about it was that it does have some limited benefits for the environment irrespective of its efficacy as a response to the AGW proposition.

    If the wingnuts and blind Abbott supporters are in anyway sincere instead of being hypocrites then they would be demanding Abbott scrap his great big tax without compensation before the next election or they won’t vote for him.

    There are lots of reasons to choose an Abbott government at the next election most important of those being that he does not lead the Labor Party and he is not Julia Gillard. So I would not make the sort of demand that you suggest simply because the coalition AGW policy is not the only matter in play.

    That they call for an election now on Gillard’s carbon price yet don’t demand Abbott do anything about his very expensive and costly to the public scheme illustrates the extent of their hypocrisy.

    Well I have done precisely that in my blog and here

    Many probably rightly believe Abbott has no intention of bringing in his very flawed and ultra expensive carbon reduction policy, just as they rightly believe he won’t bring in many of his other promised brain farts either.

    Well I hope that he drops it.

    That they allow Abbott… no more than allow, encourage Abbott in continuing these deceptions and lies also shows the depth of their hypocrisy. Where they call Gillard a liar on what wasn’t one yet not only allow Abbott to lie just about everyday as he did in spades in Queensland the other day, but they are supporting him to office knowing he will lie on promises to a far greater level than probably any leader before him, except for Howard, whose calculated lies on Iraq will never be surpassed.

    Before Iraq war Mk 2 EVERYONE thought that Saddam had the WMD and Saddam did nothing to dispel that belief. to act on that belief may have been foolish with the benefit of hindsight but to accuse Howard of lying about it is totally inappropriate.

  115. Even if 2 cents is added on the price of a sausage, isn’t a wonderful opportunity for Australia to reclaim the position it once had..that is, at the forefront of research and application of renewable energies. Even IF prices do go up one could consider that not much was ever gained except from challenges even unto adversity. Perhaps if the price of hay had never gone up, then the automobile would never have been invented. 😉

  116. Tom R @ 9:09 am

    I’ll go slow, as it appears that I need to.

    its your clarity that needs work not your speed at the keyboard Tom. 😉

    The argument that is being made is not that spending on infrastructure is bad, it is that EXCESSIVE spending on infrastructure is bad.

    Well what do you define as excessive is the question then isn’t it? where do you draw the line and how do make that decision?

    Considering the (lame) arguments made by the opposition and their mouthpieces against the NBN, which appear to pretty much rest on this entire assumption, to now turn around and pretend the complete opposite, that ALL spending is good because it is infrastructure, beggars belief.

    The network to distribute electricity to its consumers actaully constitutes an “essential service” far more that the NBN does. After all we can all live without the high speed porn downloads that the NBN will (reputedly) make possible but being able to boil a jug or to heat and cool our homes is somewhat more important.

    bolt did it, which you thought represented ‘good writing’. You are trying to do it.

    It is not ‘good writing’, it is purely diversionary, and lends one to believe that you (or he) have no real argument on the real issue.

    Don’t you realise that a piece can be “good writing” irrespective of its content and message?

  117. Iain and

    ..most important of those being that he does not lead the Labor Party and he is not Julia Gillard.

    Which makes about as much sense as choosing your team for cricket based on which color socks they wear..

  118. Well what do you define as excessive is the question then isn’t it?

    See, finally, addressing the issue. That didn’t take long, did it.

    That is what the debate should be about, and might get there, once the screeching pigeons stop their screeching, and get down to it.

    To me, excessive is infrastructure that will not be used within it’s life-cycle, or even, used minimally. And, I think the last one is the most important. We need to look at other ways of coping on the really hot days, instead of building massively expensive infrastructure to try and buffer cheap and poorly performing air-conditioning.

    But, it took a bloody long time just to get to the issue, didn’t it, while you went off and played at stupid diversionary tactics, while at the same time pleading with me not to be ‘pedantic’ over the term carbon tax.

    😯

  119. Don’t you realise that a piece can be “good writing” irrespective of its content and message?

    Of course. But, if you are trying to write something as an argument in a debate, any old lame shit just don’t do. Perhaps bolt should re badge himself as pure fiction. Then it might be ‘good writing’. As a piece apparently challenging a point of view, it is bereft of any actual content arguing the case, and full of diversions and outright inaccuracies.

    Of course, ‘good writing’ is in the eye of the beholder. I just like to raise the bar a little higher than some I guess.

  120. “The network to distribute electricity to its consumers actaully constitutes an “essential service” far more that the NBN does. After all we can all live without the high speed porn downloads that the NBN will (reputedly) make possible but being able to boil a jug or to heat and cool our homes is somewhat more important.”


    No. The network being provided in electricity does nor appear to have anything to do with future needs. The demand has been dropping, not growing.

    There is new technology coming into play, that the needs for highly expensive networks will not be needed. The electricity needs and production are changing.

    As for the NBNco, the opposite is true. The fibre, is replacing a worn out and redundant copper wire system.

    The fibre to the home, where it will be eventually needed, is the essential technology for the now and into the future.

  121. Same thought came to my mind, when Abbott made the comment.

    …For Abbott to paint himself as a protector of free speech is risible. He said in his oration: ”Imagine the reaction, for instance, had the Howard government sought to gag naval personnel after ‘children overboard’. ”
    It was very unwise to go down that track because the first thing that popped into my head was Howard dispatching one of his flunkies to pull Mick Keelty into line after the AFP commissioner told Channel Nine there was a possible link between Spain’s involvement in the war in Iraq and the Madrid train bombings……..

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/free-speech-debate-is-coloured-by-hypocrisy-20120809-23×53.html#ixzz2369BB4SF

  122. From Richard Ackland who is absolutely correct. In repealing s18C this would put federal legislation at odds with states’ legislation. Currently all states’ anti-discrimination legislation including racial discrimination mirrors that of federal legislation. Also IF Abbott could repeal s18C then there is the strong possibility of a flow-on effect to other anti-discrimination legislation, such as discrimination based on disability and sexual orientation. So presumably would be ok to once again vilify a person due to their disability.

    These vulnerable people need as much coddling as can be mustered. To make sure Bolt would never again be offended, Abbott promised to repeal s18C of the RDA. Presumably, he’ll also have to prevail on the states, many of which have similar provisions in their legislation.

    At this point in the process of being serially gobsmacked, it might be worth a moment to inject some context. Neither Bolt nor his paper contested the factual claims put to the court by the claimants in the s18C case. Their claims to have always identified as Aborigines and been brought up as such were not challenged in the court. The newspaper and its journalist did not appeal the decision or seek the High Court’s view about the right to freedom of speech and whether the articles were protected by the implied constitutional right to free speech on political or governmental affairs, as discovered in the case of David Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/free-speech-debate-is-coloured-by-hypocrisy-20120809-23×53.html#ixzz236WccHpl

  123. Min @ 9:25 am

    Which makes about as much sense as choosing your team for cricket based on which colour socks they wear..

    No Min its about the who the feet in the socks belong too and how much rank foot odour we are willing to put up with 👿

    Tom R @ 9:42 am

    To me, excessive is infrastructure that will not be used within it’s life-cycle, or even, used minimally. And, I think the last one is the most important. We need to look at other ways of coping on the really hot days, instead of building massively expensive infrastructure to try and buffer cheap and poorly performing air-conditioning.

    I agree that air-conditioning is no answer to cooling on very hot days Tom and in the 13 years that I have lived in this house I have never once wished it air-conditioned even on the hottest days of our subtropical summer.The house is orientated correctly has adequate eves and a north facing veranda. That said addressing the domestic micro climate with design changes to the home is not going to happen at all quickly in the burbs so for them its still down to fans or cooling machines isn’t it. And they take energy to run and an adequate network to distribute that energy. Personally though I have always thought that the business model used by energy companies is just entirely unjust. To be fair why should long standing customers like myself be obliged to keep paying to upgrade the network so that the company can sell energy to new customers?

    But, it took a bloody long time just to get to the issue, didn’t it, while you went off and played at stupid diversionary tactics, while at the same time pleading with me not to be ‘pedantic’ over the term carbon tax.

    Tom I respond to what you argue and I was not “pleading” with you in any sense at all

    Tom R @ 9:59 am

    Of course. But, if you are trying to write something as an argument in a debate, any old lame shit just don’t do. Perhaps bolt should re badge himself as pure fiction. Then it might be ‘good writing’. As a piece apparently challenging a point of view, it is bereft of any actual content arguing the case, and full of diversions and outright inaccuracies.

    Tom give the man his due, he can write a persuasive argument that you disagree with his argument does not lessen that fact.

    Of course, ‘good writing’ is in the eye of the beholder. I just like to raise the bar a little higher than some I guess.

    If only that were so… sigh (sarc)
    Catching up @ 10:13 am

    No. The network being provided in electricity does nor appear to have anything to do with future needs. The demand has been dropping, not growing.

    As much as I respect you CU I am pretty certain that you don’t know what you are talking about on this.

    There is new technology coming into play, that the needs for highly expensive networks will not be needed. The electricity needs and production are changing.

    You seem to have succumbed to the Green propaganda about renewable energy and think that lots of houses with solar panels on their roofs means that we will need a lesser network. But the fact is that, unlike rain water, energy collected with photo voltaics can not be stored until it can be used which means that at night or on cloudy days the need for power from the grid will be no less than if there was no photo voltaics at all.

    As for the NBNco, the opposite is true. The fibre, is replacing a worn out and redundant copper wire system.

    That is the propaganda line produced by the government but the reality is that the copper network is far from worn out or redundant

    The fibre to the home, where it will be eventually needed, is the essential technology for the now and into the future.

    Why is essential CU???

    Catching up @ 10:18 am

    Same thought came to my mind, when Abbott made the comment.

    Have you actaully read the speech in question, or have you only read left wing criticism of that speech?
    I suspect the latter

  124. Tom I respond to what you argue

    Bullshit, you responded with a complete furpfy, the same as bolt wrote, unsurprisingly. It was not the issue, and to try and conflate it into the issue is disingenuous to say the least. It is why bolt is largely ridiculed, and why you probably are as well.

    I clearly, and distinctly said, excessive infrastructure, which you then determined to mean ‘infrastructure’ full stop, and implied that is what I said.

    Stop being so obstinately ignorant, and stop trying to change what people say. If you have an issue with comprehension, I can assure you, it is not a problem with the delivery, the issue lies in your warped interpretation.

    SLOWLY

    Excessive infrastructure does not immediately equate to ALL infrastructure.

  125. Iain, it’s still nonsensical. Many times Abbott supporters have been challenged to provide answers as to why Abbott will make such a sterling PM and the only answer has been that he’ll repeal the carbon tax.

    However, two things – Tony Windsor has stated that the legislation it etched in concrete, and I tend to believe Windsor being the straight shooter that he is. The other thing is getting any repeal through the Senate and if Abbott looks to be a shoo-in at the next election, my bet is that we’ll see a further swing to the Greens in the Senate. One thing that Australians dislike and this is to hand all the power over to one political party..plus WorkChoices still lives in memory.

  126. It’s simple in it’s argument, but I believe that writer has the issue in it’s essence..that we need this sort of legislation because values such as being civil are not as evident in our society as they once were. I think of Tony Abbott, the shock jocks, the way that the office of PM has been treated with discourtesy.

    Yeah, I disagree. It’s not an issue of freedom of speech but an issue of tact. It is an issue of hurt. It is an issue of being civil in a civilised society. And it is a sad state of affairs that the legislation needs to exist but it does because being civil is no longer a valued trait.

    http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/teaching-tact/

  127. The more I c of Iain’s arguments, the more I believe that everything he says is from the coalitions hand book, put out as much negative comments and lies about the government and people will believe you, when someone comes up with a great argument against the coalition they run and hide or change the argument back onto there ground.

  128. I believe it has been costing Telstra one billion dollars a year to keep the not worn out not redundant copper wire going. Of course if fact do not support the propaganda of some, they label the fact lies.

    Fibre will be to this century as copper wire was to the last. At this time, it will be more than down loading porn.

    As for the production of electricity, one cannot deny that there are great changes under way.

  129. Tom R @ 1:17 pm

    Bullshit, you responded with a complete furpfy, the same as bolt wrote, unsurprisingly. It was not the issue, and to try and conflate it into the issue is disingenuous to say the least. It is why bolt is largely ridiculed, and why you probably are as well.

    Not so Tom, the issue is the attempt by Gillard to convince the electorate that Labor cares about the rising energy costs for ordinary punters and that was the essence of the Mail out that I cited earlier. As someone else pointed out elsewhere this was something that Labor was rather keen to ignore when, under state Labor governments electricity infrastructure was privatised, and its been since that sorry state of affairs that prices have gone through the roof. Gillard’s Carbon tax just ads insult to injury.

    I clearly, and distinctly said, excessive infrastructure, which you then determined to mean ‘infrastructure’ full stop, and implied that is what I said.

    Yeah, so what? you have just been quoting from the Labor talking points with out explaining what constitutes “excessive”

    Stop being so obstinately ignorant, and stop trying to change what people say. If you have an issue with comprehension, I can assure you, it is not a problem with the delivery, the issue lies in your warped interpretation.

    You are not as bas as some Tom but you are far from perfect in your delivery,and as I lack psychic powers that enable me to read your mind maybe you need to stay calm and try harder.

    Min @ 1:46 pm

    Iain, it’s still nonsensical. Many times Abbott supporters have been challenged to provide answers as to why Abbott will make such a sterling PM and the only answer has been that he’ll repeal the carbon tax.

    Well it comes down to a few things for me Min, things like the value of good governance and being able to balance the books, having a government that does not try to micromanage the lives of this country’s citizens is right up there.

    However, two things – Tony Windsor has stated that the legislation it etched in concrete, and I tend to believe Windsor being the straight shooter that he is. The other thing is getting any repeal through the Senate and if Abbott looks to be a shoo-in at the next election, my bet is that we’ll see a further swing to the Greens in the Senate. One thing that Australians dislike and this is to hand all the power over to one political party..plus WorkChoices still lives in memory.

    That is the classic wisdom about the way that people seek to limit the power of a government but on this occasion I think that The Carbon tax is so despised and this minority government so hated that I think that Abbott’s chances of getting the senate too are better than average. Further I don’t think that the fading Ghost of workchoices scares anyone anymore.

    paulwello @ 2:34 pm

    The more I c of Iain’s arguments, the more I believe that everything he says is from the coalitions hand book, put out as much negative comments and lies about the government and people will believe you, when someone comes up with a great argument against the coalition they run and hide or change the argument back onto there ground.

    Do you have a copy of said Handbook Paul?

    No?
    well I don’t either so how pray tell could I be working from a book that I don’t own and as you don’t have one either how can you know one way or the other????

    😆

  130. Catching up @ 3:41 pm

    I believe it has been costing Telstra one billion dollars a year to keep the not worn out not redundant copper wire going. Of course if fact do not support the propaganda of some, they label the fact lies.

    Maintenance of the network probably has more to do with physical damage to the infrastructure than it being worn out

    Fibre will be to this century as copper wire was to the last. At this time, it will be more than down loading porn.

    I would not count on that nor can you be sure that its going to be any more reliable, or that it won’t quickly become outdated either. The question you need to ask yourself is just what people want the internet for and more importantly how much are they willing to pay for more bells and whistles

    As for the production of electricity, one cannot deny that there are great changes under way.

    Never disputed that C U but that does not mean, as you suggested earlier, that those changes would allow us to have “less” distribution infrastructure

  131. Well Iain, do you read from the Liberal web site., I have looked at it and all I can see are how bad this govt is doing, there policies are all over the place, that is what policies they do have. not one piece of information on what they would do when they get into government or how they are going to cost there so called policies.

  132. Iain “Maintenance of the network probably has more to do with physical damage to the infrastructure than it being worn out”

    Copper deteriorates over a period of time, Fibre does not.

    iain “I would not count on that nor can you be sure that its going to be any more reliable, or that it won’t quickly become outdated either. The question you need to ask yourself is just what people want the internet for and more importantly how much are they willing to pay for more bells and whistles”

    Fibre has proved to be more reliable and will not be quickly outdated, what people want from the NBN is a more reliable service, I will provide a link for you Iain, I think you should have a good read.

    http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/

  133. Iain and

    Well it comes down to a few things for me Min, things like the value of good governance and being able to balance the books, having a government that does not try to micromanage the lives of this country’s citizens is right up there.

    If the books are not being balanced, then why does Australia have one of the best performing of all economies. Why was Wayne Swan given an international award for Treasurer of the Year.

    As far as micromanaging, that infers that you believe that some of your freedoms have been taken away by this government. Which ones might they be?

  134. Yeah, so what?

    I rest my case. You appear not to care that you deliberately misrepresented the argument, then have the balls to complain that people make fun of you. Basically, you get what you deserve.

    In you, the stoopid, it truly is ablaze.

  135. I’d suggest that Iain is a very ethnocentric person. Such people judge others against their own ideals and expect them to carry those ideals as well.

  136. This is TA to a tea.
    ethnocentric person.
    1. Belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group.
    2. Overriding concern with race.

  137. paulwello

    Well Iain, do you read from the Liberal web site., I have looked at it and all I can see are how bad this govt is doing, there policies are all over the place, that is what policies they do have. not one piece of information on what they would do when they get into government or how they are going to cost there so called policies.

    It may surprise you Paul but I have not ever checked out the Liberal website. But in the same vein Have you done the tour of what the ALP and the Greens have to say? They are not that big on detail either. So does that give you the hint that np [olitical party is going to commit themselves to detail on their websites.

    paulwello

    Iain “Maintenance of the network probably has more to do with physical damage to the infrastructure than it being worn out”

    Copper deteriorates over a period of time, Fibre does not.

    If the insulation is intact a coper telephone line can be entirely functional for a century. Further optical fibre may in theory be more reliable but the technology to encode and decode the signal is more complicated and probably more likely to fail.

    Fibre has proved to be more reliable and will not be quickly outdated, what people want from the NBN is a more reliable service, I will provide a link for you Iain, I think you should have a good read.

    I hold a watching brief on this to be honest. However for me what it boils down to is does the cost give us a benefit that is worth the huge expense? Especially when most customers will never want or need the sort for speeds that are being mooted and it seems that they are not willing to pay more for it either.

    Min

    If the books are not being balanced, then why does Australia have one of the best performing of all economies. Why was Wayne Swan given an international award for Treasurer of the Year.

    Firstly I don’t rate such awards highly at all. Min That said a government that creates a huge money churn/ponzi scheme like the Carbon tax actaully is hardly worthy of praise. Further our economy is performing well in spite of this government rather than it being at all helpful.

    As far as micromanaging, that infers that you believe that some of your freedoms have been taken away by this government. Which ones might they be?

    Freedom of speech comes to mind

    Tom R

    Yeah, so what?

    I rest my case. You appear not to care that you deliberately misrepresented the argument, then have the balls to complain that people make fun of you. Basically, you get what you deserve.

    Mate I don’t take my self seriously enough to complain about the people here having a poor opinion of me.

    In you, the stoopid, it truly is ablaze.

    Sigh

    Miglo

    I’d suggest that Iain is a very ethnocentric person. Such people judge others against their own ideals and expect them to carry those ideals as well.

    Doesn’t everyone do that Migs?

    However in my case I am a humancentric rather the ethnocentric 🙂

  138. I get the impression Iain does not know what ethnocentric means, him saying he is humancentric means, I looked up humancentric and there is no meaning.

  139. Iain please provide where this is said. “If the insulation is intact a coper (copper, (Iain cannot spell)) telephone line can be entirely functional for a century.”

  140. Iain and,

    Freedom of speech comes to mind

    And in what way has this particular government curtailed your freedom of speech?

  141. “I hold a watching brief on this to be honest. However for me what it boils down to is does the cost give us a benefit that is worth the huge expense? Especially when most customers will never want or need the sort for speeds that are being mooted and it seems that they are not willing to pay more for it either.”

    Here is another link Iain: http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/pricing-myths/

  142. Iain, I disagree. Ethnocentricity might have been all the rage in our colonial past, but I think most of us have opened our eyes now.

    When are you going to open yours?

  143. Iain “It may surprise you Paul but I have not ever checked out the Liberal website. But in the same vein Have you done the tour of what the ALP and the Greens have to say? ”

    Yes Iain, I have been to there websites and from what I have seen they have set out there agenda and what there policies are.

    So Iain, you are trying to defend Liberal policy but do not read up on there policies from there website. very confusing.

  144. Pingback: Tony Abbott and un-Social Media | Café Whispers

  145. paulwello @ 7:00 pm

    I get the impression Iain does not know what ethnocentric means, him saying he is humancentric means, I looked up humancentric and there is no meaning.

    Paul Human-centric certainly does have a meaning (apologies for the lack of a hyphen)

    paulwello @ 7:04 pm

    Iain please provide where this is said. “If the insulation is intact a coper (copper, (Iain cannot spell)) telephone line can be entirely functional for a century.”

    Paul I make things with may hands and I also restore old cars so I know a fair bit about the properties of materials and their engineering applications so experience has taught me that copper wires that are well insulted do not fail in service unless that insulation deteriorates or there is mechanical damage to the wire.

    Min @ 7:08 pm

    And in what way has this particular government curtailed your freedom of speech?

    well things like the mooted Net filter and the attempts to curtail the print media come to mind.

    paulwello @ 7:08 pm

    Here is another link Iain:

    Yep I read the page and that person is certainly a big fan but he does not give me any reason to drop my reservations

    Miglo @ 7:35 pm

    Iain, I disagree. Ethnocentricity might have been all the rage in our colonial past, but I think most of us have opened our eyes now.

    I don’t think that that it is really as amenable to conscious thought as that. That said I do try very hard to treat all people the same regardless of their ethnicity the problem comes when you are accused of racism for giving that drunk who accosts you in the park the brush off.

    When are you going to open yours?

    How often do I have to assert that I think all people are equal in their humanity?
    paulwello @ 7:49 pm

    Yes Iain, I have been to there websites and from what I have seen they have set out there agenda and what there policies are.

    So Iain, you are trying to defend Liberal policy but do not read up on there policies from there website. very confusing.

    When a policy is the subject of debate I do some research but mostly I look at what is announced and do some thinking about it and if I think its a good idea then I will defend it and if I don’t I won’t

  146. Iain and,

    Min @ 7:08 pm

    And in what way has this particular government curtailed your freedom of speech?

    well things like the mooted Net filter and the attempts to curtail the print media come to mind.

    So, it hasn’t actually happened yet. 🙄

  147. Pingback: The One Most Prestigious Freedom of All « businessabnormal

  148. Pingback: Tony Abbott and George Brandis – champions of “freedom of speech” hate speech | you said it...

  149. Pingback: Andrew Bolt spits the dummy, takes his toys and goes home | you said it...

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s