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.

It seems that Kemp seems to have purposley set out to mis-understand this case. The case clearly was won on the basis that Bolt was sloppy, did not research his key points and 'defamed' people, most of whom are not in positions of potential power as he is (as an ex-minister etc).

For Bolt and now Kemp to claim that this case is about freedom of expression is disengenious.

This law arose from the politics of victimhood

Flawed legislation like this, where “offence” is the test, should not be allowed to stand. It comes from the era where great damage was done to our society, much of which cannot be undone.

We can prevent more of it, like the Bolt case, from happening by repealing laws of this kind.

The time honoured legal test of “the reasonable man” has been excluded, by allowing a subjective test of “offence”.

Instead of considering how a reasonable person would feel about the words of the article, the subject of Bolt’s case, the court is obliged to accept, as definitive, evidence of how a party to the litigation says they feel. Such evidence cannot be objective, or free from the taint of conflict of interest.

The law, which allows this, is a disgrace.

There is no law to protect a person, of European descent, who feels offence at assertions like “the stolen generation” myth, nor should there be. Such a law could only be justified on the spurious basis which justifies this unfortunate piece of legislation.

Such matters are for public debate, where people may freely express their opinions.

Yeah but Leo the idea of a White person being a victim is laughable, we're never victims.
That's not to say I don't feel slighted by accusations that my ancestors
"stole", they didn't, they worked, they took out loans and paid their way.
White people are not "Racist" by nature or as a group in society because we're not ethnocentric, anti Racists hate us and promote discrimination against us but really,we're never victims.
BTW everyone I'd Almost forgotten about this, we're always looking at formal vs substantive equality in these cases:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2009/2573443.htm

"Kath Gelber: Yes, there was a minor altercation between a young Aboriginal woman and a young white woman and during that altercation the young Aboriginal woman called the white woman 'a white slut'. And so there was an attempt to invoke these laws against the Aboriginal woman, which is certainly questionable given the intent of the law, which is to allow communities which suffer the kind of marginalisation and discrimination which occurs due to vilification, to be able to have some redress. And generally speaking, although the laws are written in racially neutral terms, it probably wasn't intended that they should be able to be used to prosecute Aboriginal people. That's not to say that it's impossible for something like that to occur, but in this instance it was decided along the way that this offence wasn't egregious enough, it wasn't severe enough, and it didn't cross the threshold, and so the prosecution was not pursued."

A fine article, and undeserving of a number of quite negative comments posted on this thread, in my humble opinion. The question, in my view, is what constitutes racial discrimination, as against what may reasonably be construed as erroneous or potentially defamatory comment. My understanding is that discrimination requires an action, not just a statement or an intent - unless such statement is purposely intended to generate discrimination.

It is clear that Mr Bolt has given offence by his comments, and has unfairly maligned a number of individuals, but it is my reading that no racial slurr or act of discrimination was proposed or intended. How then can he be found guilty of racial discrimination?

Is any racial slurr, no matter how innocently or misguidedly offered, now to be considered a breach of the discrimination act? Racist remarks are certainly reprehensible, but are they now also to be an indictable offence? Surely sometimes the law can be an ass. Or, is it only some practitioners? Am I now guilty of discrimination for making such an observation?

Many of our welfare services and provisions discriminate in favour of various segments of our populace, are we then to conclude that pointing out any deficiencies or excesses in those services is an act of class discrimination?

Some have suggested that this ruling rightly comes under the discrimination act because the individuals involved were all representatives of an identifiable class. Are we then to conclude that several bricklayers contracted to a particular builder, and who have a common grievance, may now bring an action under the discrimination act? Bows may be long, but some intellect is in short supply.

The Act needs revision, and the judgement in the Bolt case needs to be overturned, or free speech as we know it stands in perilous jeopardy.

Free speech is in no danger. But, if Kemp's shoddy work is accepted then common sense is in mortal danger.

David,
People with a genuine point to make don't need unlimited, "free speech", great orators and writers are circumspect, temperate and possess the wit to engage any opponent without being disrespectful or demeaning anyone else.

I was circumspect!

if Kemp's shoddy work is accepted then common sense is in mortal danger.
David Jennings,
where have you been hiding ? Gough & Co's genocide of common sense happened 40 years ago & no descendants have survived in Australia.

Saltpetre - Bolt was not found guilty of racial discrimination. Read the judgment. Kemp's article is as fine as Bolt's original article, which was based on untruths and shoddy research (aka lies to most people).

I couldn't be sure that Bolt was quite so sloppy with his journalism until it had been fully investigated by an impartial body. Now that I know that I would hope the community of readers can now see his for what he is, a second rate journalist. Never mind the conviction, what really matters is that now we know that about him we can safely assume he doesn't have much to say and ignore him.