already having sufficient difficulty holding my sides in
The Acolyte Rizla,
loosening the grip on yourself might help.

Dilan,

Your accusations against the media miss the mark. You may think of indigeneous affairs as the 'stomping ground' of left and right but for those of us who live in remote indigeneous communites it is very much real. Bolt had no problem with positive discrimination for aboriginal people but felt it should be awarded to genuinely disadvantaged aboriginals like in remote areas.

You correctly say that speech does not have to be hateful to qualify under the act but merely has to damage someone's standing in the community. That is exactly what Bolt wanted to do. Why should people who have encountered no discrimination and are not disavdantaged take money and awards from the most desperately impoverished people in the country?

But hiding behind hateful speech or diminished community standing is to miss the point. These people were defending their piece of the pie. A piece that takes from those who need it most.

You say the law is only aware of the big picture but not guided by it. Can I say that for those of us who live in the real world we are very much aware of the big picture. Can I say that the children I teach every day and who come to school with no shoes and scabies have a much better grasp of the big picture than judges and academics in expensive suits, gowns and wigs. Andrew Bolt and other 'conservative commentators' are defending these people.

Seriously, 40 years of abject failure in indigenous policy and we still have academics defending the status quo. What is wrong with you people?

Thank you Dilan for an excellent article. Freedom of speech is grossly exploited by the likes of Bolt who earn megabucks with their "dog whistle" tirades.

Thank you for putting it in a nutshell, Dane.

Best wishes,

Joe

Dane,

Great post. Thanks.

The Acolyte Rizla,

Before reading the outpourings of certain posters here I find it helpful to don a corset. :-)

Well said Dane.

What do people in the aboriginal communities think of this whole thing?

Of course they are not a homogeneous group of thinkers, but were they offended by Bolt's articles?

The people offended, as you say, had something to lose (or gain) by the rest of the community realizing this is going on, so wanted the veil reinstated.

The intention I believe, was to silence any criticism, and any discussion of the issue - as aka put it immediately her opening line on another thread "Bolt is racist", and actually, he is no such thing, but observe it is the first response for many who worry they might have a gain or loss if they don't react with such vigor

Calling someone a racist because you don't agree with them was Keating's tool to deal with anyone who criticized, or even asked what's going on, with his foreign policy. he institutionalized it with the left of the ALP's followers, empowerment .. outrage as a tool.

It's a lazy accusation to be used, when you want to shut someone down .. finding really racist people is rare, they exist or we would be a poorer society for it.

Trying to regulate for every instance of human behavior though is just a recipe for failure and it pushes lumps around the bell curve, so the liberals would have nothing at all to the right of center.

We need all extremes and everything in between, but we don't need to regulate just for one or another precious self obsessed group.