Why on earth didn't the Coalition repeal this vile law when they were in office?
DIS

When I became a citizen of Australia Michael Lavarch presided. In the ceremonies he stated that 'Australia was the best country on earth.'

What did he mean by that? Did he mean that Australia had the best record in such measures of well-being as the rate of infant mortality? I know of no statistic in which Australia leads the world in well-being. I believe Australia leads the world in the rate of extinction of indigenous species. Surely he didn't mean that. Has he examined all the other countries in the world to determine that Australia was in some way the best?

Michael Lavarch has clearly engaged in defamatory and inciting language concerning all the other countries on earth. He has exhibited an arrogant, chauvinistic attitude. In a world of conflict where many want peace he has struck a discordant note. Can he be prosecuted as Andrew Bolt has been?

In saying

"This is a truly grotesque process that has no relationship to our democratic tradition and, dare I say it, one contrary to the inalienable natural rights of people to freedom of speech, on the observance of which, ultimately, the legitimacy of the democratic state depends" ...

Mr Kemp has invoked hyperbole (a truly grotesque process ..on which .. the legitimacy of the democratic state depends") and tautology ("inalienable natural" rights).

Yet Kemp agreed with Michael Lavarch when Lavarch said

"overblown rhetoric on race fosters damaging racial stereotyping and this in turn can contribute to societal harm well beyond any deeply felt personal offence".

Kemp emphasised that "The former attorney-general reminds us that freedom of speech is not absolute, and in that he is correct. The law as it stands, apart from his act, does not permit perfect freedom to say anything."

I would expect a Howard government minister, and particularly a right-wing ideologue like Mr Kemp, to support the right to abuse, defame and vilify people who are not in his camp and clearly Aboriginal people are not his preferred sidekicks.

I should not surprised either that Kemp condones, and thereby encourages, average journalists and poor researchers like Bolt, to get his basic facts wrong.

During his time as a minister, should anyone have challenged Kemp without getting his/her facts right, Kemp poured scorn and vitriole on them.

Kemp reckons the claimants should have used defamation law to bring their case. Why? Who is Kemp to give legal advice to those who believe they have been racially vilified and accused of fraud?

If Kemp truly believed in freedom of speech, he would support all Australians' right to criticise and be criticised based on facts and he should be supporting those who are defamed and vilified if this is not the case.

David Kemp’s argument is as flawed as the Bolt article, a simple check of the evidence shows he is basing his argument on “made up” facts.

The decision was not about the opinions Bolt expressed, but that the evidence he cited to support his opinions was wrong, and any simple check would have shown that the “evidence” was wrong.

Of course sloppy journalism and biased opinionated writing does not let the facts get in the way of the story.

David Kemp the plaintiffs in Eatock v. Bolt used a law which resembles the law of defamation. The essential difference is that a group of persons banded together and took ONE action rather than nine individual actions. Each plaintiff would have won an action in defamation. What Bolt said was defamatory. He could not claim truth as a defence because what he said wasn't the truth.

Presumably you don't believe that persons with limited resources to bring actions in defamation should be allowed to band together to bring one action. Presumably you believe "everyone is equal before the law" and do not approve of class actions.