White Aborigines and Andrew Bolt

[Hobbes]

The whole thing makes no sense to me.

First, a number of awards/scholarships were set up for Aboriginals only. Rightly or wrongly, surely this is some affirmative action thing, purportedly so that Aboriginals can achieve something they would not otherwise be able to do.

Then, a bunch of middle-class white people come along, 'self-identify' (sorry, self-identify??) as Aboriginals, despite having very little Aboriginal ancestry, and having no resemblence to full-blooded Aborigines, and claim the awards/scholarships.

So I don't understand why the affirmative action people (Leftys!) are not up in arms about this, persons who are not disadvantaged in any way jumping in to receive scholarships etc, meaning that any genuine Aborigines miss out.

Then, when Andrew Bolt points out how ridiculous the whole thing is, a (former ALP candidate) judge says, no, you can't ridicule these people because that is racist. (?)

All too hard for me.

[Ian Murray]

The whole thing makes no sense to me...

Then read what Anita Heiss has to say

[Hobbes]

Then read what Anita Heiss has to say

Didn't help, sorry.

Incidentally, did you note the comments section? (Comments closed already, it says)
Often comments at The Drum are all from Ian Murray clones, unable to see anything outside their narrow ABC world view. This time there seemed to be comments from a wide range of viewpoints. Some of them might even give you cause to think (though I won't hold my breath!)

[Goughfather]

All too hard for me.

Judging by your comments, this assessment seems to be right.

Have you read the judgment yet? Until such time as you've read the judgment and worked through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, including the Explanatory Memorandum and the Second Reading Speech for the Bill before it was passed, all you're doing is venting about something you know nothing about.

If you wish to be taken seriously, please quote the sections of the judgment that you disagree with and provide analysis on where you believe the errors of law are.

Perhaps the likes of Jono will see my request to actually provide some substantive legal basis for your opinion "assumed intellectual superiority of the Annointed", but I guess I'll just have to live with his crushing rebuke.

[Hobbes]

Have you read the judgment yet? Until such time as you've read the judgment and worked through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, including the Explanatory Memorandum and the Second Reading Speech for the Bill before it was passed, all you're doing is venting about something you know nothing about.

If you wish to be taken seriously, please quote the sections of the judgment that you disagree with and provide analysis on where you believe the errors of law are.

Well ignoring your sarcastic attitude you are correct, I am not a lawyer and naturally will not be poring through the judgment looking for errors of law because I would not know how to find them. From a legal point of view I am indeed just venting about something I know nothing about.

Fortunately however, as yet it is still permitted for someone without a law degree to hold opinions on how our society should function. You may indeed berate me for not having legal qualifications, in all your posts if you like, but it won't help your point (sorry, what was your point again?)

Perhaps you didn't read all the way though my first post though GF, I wonder what your attitude is about racially-based scholarships such as the one taken up by Larissa 'sex with a horse' Behrendt. And, if you do approve of them, do you think they were designed for the privileged Larissas of this world, or for the unprivileged Bess Prices of this world?

[Ian Murray]

The nine plaintiffs were all born and raised as aboriginal in aboriginal communities and correctly regard themselves as aboriginal - using skin colour as the benchmark is racial stereotyping. They were slandered by Bolt.

Equally distasteful is the attempt to discredit Justice Bromberg's judgement based on his political background. Are Sir Garfield Barwick's judgements tainted because he was a cabinet minister before becoming Chief Justice of the High Court?

[Kevin Bonham]

The nine plaintiffs were all born and raised as aboriginal in aboriginal communities and correctly regard themselves as aboriginal - using skin colour as the benchmark is racial stereotyping. They were slandered by Bolt.

Which raises the questions: have any of them sued him for defamation and if not why not? Just watching reporting of the situation on Lateline and a lot of the language is very similar to that used in defo cases and suggests that Bolt defamed individuals in his comments.

[Garvinator]

Which raises the questions: have any of them sued him for defamation and if not why not? Just watching reporting of the situation on Lateline and a lot of the language is very similar to that used in defo cases and suggests that Bolt defamed individuals in his comments.

It does seem strange that this went through racial discrimination action, rather than in defamation action.

I do have a feeling that this might be overturned on appeal.

[Goughfather]

It does seem strange that this went through racial discrimination action, rather than in defamation action.

I do have a feeling that this might be overturned on appeal.

Perhaps defamation might be open, but perhaps the complainants wanted to prove a point and this was their preferred vehicle for doing so?

Why do you have a feeling the decision will be overturned on appeal?

[William AS]

Which raises the questions: have any of them sued him for defamation and if not why not? Just watching reporting of the situation on Lateline and a lot of the language is very similar to that used in defo cases and suggests that Bolt defamed individuals in his comments.

The racial discrimination claim may have been may have been used because funding was more readily available, after all, defamation cases are extremely expensive. I have always been surprised that Andrew Bolt and that other contender for the world championship of cluelessness Alan Jones, have not been sued for defamation more often. Defamation action may still follow in this case now a judgement has been made against Bolt.

[Ian Murray]

I do have a feeling that this might be overturned on appeal.

It's hard to see how the crux of the judgement could be overturned:

The imputations which I have found were conveyed by the newspaper articles were plainly calculated to convey a message about the race, ethnicity or colour of fair-skinned Aboriginal people, including whether those people are sufficiently of Aboriginal race, colour or ethnicity to be identifying as Aboriginal.
...
I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D ['fair comment' and 'public interest' provisions]. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

[Capablanca-Fan]

The whole thing makes no sense to me.

First, a number of awards/scholarships were set up for Aboriginals only. Rightly or wrongly, surely this is some affirmative action thing, purportedly so that Aboriginals can achieve something they would not otherwise be able to do.

Then, a bunch of middle-class white people come along, 'self-identify' (sorry, self-identify??) as Aboriginals, despite having very little Aboriginal ancestry, and having no resemblence to full-blooded Aborigines, and claim the awards/scholarships.

So I don't understand why the affirmative action people (Leftys!) are not up in arms about this, persons who are not disadvantaged in any way jumping in to receive scholarships etc, meaning that any genuine Aborigines miss out.

As Thomas Sowell (himself black) pointed out in Affirmative Action Around the World, AA programs always benefit those already best off in the preferred group, and hurt the already worst off in the dis-preferred group. So in America, children of wealthy black doctors benefit over children of poor white factory workers for example. Sowell also pointed out just what you did: there is an incentive to classify oneself as in the preferred class.

Then, when Andrew Bolt points out how ridiculous the whole thing is, a (former ALP candidate) judge says, no, you can't ridicule these people because that is racist. (?)

All too hard for me.

Of course. But this is par for the course: leftards wanting to criminalize opinions they disagree with. The whole rationale for their political correctness and "hate crimes" (as opposed to "love crimes" no doubt) is to create a special class of victims and preserve their opinions as beyond any criticism.

Tony Abbott rightly said of the ruling, “We should never do anything in this country which restricts the sacred principle of free speech. And free speech means the right of people to say what you don’t like, not just the right of people to say what you do like.” Even a former Labor Minister Gary Johns said:

“The provisions of the act used to silence Bolt are bad law. The provisions inserted by the Racial Hatred Act 1995 were strongly opposed by the Coalition on the grounds that it might impinge free speech. They have now done so. … The judgment acknowledges that "a group of people may include the sensitive as well as the insensitive, the passionate and the dispassionate, the emotional and the impassive". The decision, however, has privileged the sensitive over the insensitive, the passionate over the dispassionate and the emotional over the impassive. The law has ensured that racial politics is a winner.”

But to leftards, this is a valid argument: I am offended, therefore you are wrong and should be punished by law.

[Capablanca-Fan]

Didn't help, sorry.

Incidentally, did you note the comments section? (Comments closed already, it says)

This one was reasonable:

Jeasy
Sep 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM
This is a bad decision, no matter what you think of Bolt. The optics are made even worse by the fact that the judge was a former Labor candidate and a Labor appointee to the bench. I suspect the decision won't withstand appeal, but even so the cost of free speech is now becoming unaffordable.

It also appears that our federal government is keen to silence the 'hate media' so only the 'love media' is left. They also seem to want to control what is in comment areas such as this. Dangerous times.

Give me the right to free speech and I will use it to defend my other rights.
Often comments at The Drum are all from Ian Murray clones, unable to see anything outside their narrow ABC world view. This time there seemed to be comments from a wide range of viewpoints. Some of them might even give you cause to think (though I won't hold my breath!)

That would be right. Leftards like Ian Murray and his clones have spent their lives exposed only to the loony left in the media and educracy. But leftism is all about emoting (e.g. about having the morally right views) rather than thinking (e.g. about the inevitable consequences given the incentives of their policies).

[Ian Murray]

As Thomas Sowell (himself black) pointed out in Affirmative Action Around the World, AA programs always benefit those already best off in the preferred group, and hurt the already worst off in the dis-preferred group. So in America, children of wealthy black doctors benefit over children of poor white factory workers for example. Sowell also pointed out just what you did: there is an incentive to classify oneself as in the preferred class.

Anyone born and raised in an aboriginal community in Australia, as were those named by Bolt, is in no way advantaged.

Then, when Andrew Bolt points out how ridiculous the whole thing is, a (former ALP candidate) judge says, no, you can't ridicule these people because that is racist. (?)

The right to free speech does not confer the right to publish lies and distortions with intent to inflame racial intolerance

[Ian Murray]

In black and white, Andrew Bolt trifled with the facts
David Marr
Sydney Morning Herald
29.9.2011

Freedom of speech is not at stake here. Judge Mordecai Bromberg is not telling the media what we can say or where we can poke our noses. He's attacking lousy journalism. He's saying that if Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun wants to accuse people of appalling motives, he should start by getting his facts right.

Bolt was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. In two famous columns in 2009 he took a swipe at "political" or "professional" or "official" Aborigines who could pass for white but chose to identify as black for personal or political gain, to win prizes and places reserved for real, black Aborigines and to borrow "other people's glories".

But Bolt's lawyers had to concede even before this case began in the Federal Court that nine of these named "white Aborigines" had identified as black from childhood. All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this down the track but were raised as Aborigines. Their evidence was not contested by Bolt or his paper.

So as we say in the trade: no story. Yet Bolt went at it with mockery, derision and sarcasm. They are Judge Bromberg's words. He added: "I accept that the language utilised in the newspaper articles was inflammatory and provocative."

Here's Bolt on Larissa Behrendt: "She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine, including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers, and is often interviewed demanding special rights for 'my people'. But which people are 'yours', exactly, mein liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white dad?"

Among the problems here are that Behrendt's father was a black Australian, not a white German. And like all the others, Behrendt was raised black. Judge Bromberg wrote: "She denies Mr Bolt's suggestion that she chose to be Aboriginal and says that she never had a choice, she has always been Aboriginal and has 'identified as Aboriginal since before I can remember'." Bolt didn't contest her evidence.

The nine chose not to sue. They did not want damages but a public correction and a promise not to print such stuff again. So they brought an action under the Racial Discrimination Act which has embedded in it a strong freedom-of-speech defence: insulting or humiliating people because of their race or colour is not unlawful when it is done "reasonably and in good faith" in pursuit of a matter of public interest.
...