The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mr. Abbott's misreading of the evidence > Comments

Mr. Abbott's misreading of the evidence : Comments

By Stephen Keim and Benedict Coyne, published 4/9/2012

The fact that Justice Bromberg found against Mr. Bolt on the factual basis of his articles does not paint a favourable impression of Mr Bolt's journalistic skills.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
At last!

An analysis of the findings in Eatock v Bolt from writers who have actually read Justice Bromberg’s judgment.

And not only that, they have understood what the judge really said.

This is so refreshing – after a year of Murdoch journalists and lawyers endeavouring to distort, misrepresent and lie about the case.

Congratulations OLO for a superb start to what will no doubt be spate of articles on this subject as the one year anniversary looms.
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 6:48:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...Bolt should go back to journalism school."

Wikipedia makes no mention of Bolt ever attending journalism school.

After noting that he was a first-year failure and dropout from an Arts course, he became a cub reporter.

That appears to be the full extent of his training, either as a journalist or otherwise.

My guess is that his failure at university was indicative of his subsequent and well documented tendency to fail to do his homework. Sending him (back) to journalism school would be a waste of time and effort.

The conclusion of this article should be that Bolt was not, is not and never will be a journalist.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 6:53:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite Alan Austin's panegyric about the article it remains, along with the Bromberg Judgement, a divisive and hypocritical blot on racial equality in Australia.

To illustrate that point anyone of these articles by an indigenous writer could be construed as having the same defects as Bolt's articles were found to have by the Bromberg Judgement:

http://theblacksteamtrain.blogspot.com.au/

How can it be that a black writer, who identifies as indigenous, can make the same points as Bolt, that is, some people who identify as being aboriginal but who are white may do so for benefit, can make such comments without restraint.

What hypocrisy!
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 9:50:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The articles made serious allegations against a number of high profile, pale-skinned Aboriginal Australians suggesting that each of the people named had played unreasonably on their Aboriginality to gain benefits and honours which they had not earned in the normal way.'

Mr Bolt rightly points out that many have made money and had step up in careers by claiming to be aboriginal. We have many ex union officials who have gained advantage in the Labour party on the basis of their past affiliations. Its a fact of life and only those pretending that most Government positions are based on merit are fooling themselves. Even High court judges these days are not exempt from political favourtism.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 9:58:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't often agree with Runner and Cohenite, but on this occasion, I must concur. Also, perhaps Mr.Bolt's failure to defend the truth of his articles was because he felt that the truth was self evident and needed no defence at all.

While we have the current open ended definition of aboriginality, cases such as these will continue to arise from time to time.
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 11:19:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When it comes to the legal profession, from the lowest solicitor, to the highest judge there is one thing you can be absolutely sure of.

At no stage will any of them let justice ever get in the way of "the Law", as practiced by them, the beneficiaries of the system.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 11:45:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Truth is a defence in defamation, but this wasn't a defamation case.

Also free speech (absent defamation) does not require the truth. Free means free, truth or not.
Posted by DavidL, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:09:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Abbotts' target audience are those of the “tabloid” culture of course. Labor have yet to realise the significance of this; and while Labor continue to side with the anti-tabloid set, by pandering to the “deep and meaningful” of lifes’ political questions and answers, Abbott is under the “bar” and racking-up the points, by siding with Bolts’ version of life, the collection of “downward-envy glee-club” of non-thinking tabloiders! (And the Australian newspaper? Well isn’t that where the “tabloiders” go on weekend excursion)?
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:31:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Dan - Does Labor really address life's deep and meaningful political questions while Abbott panders to the 'tabloid' set? I think not. Your answer reflects the intellectual and moral superiority the Left deems itself to have. A real "deep and meaningful" analysis of this issue reveals numerous points of contention. Would they pursue and celebrate prosecution of similar harrassment towards Christians? I think not. The Leftist view that they are continually frustrated in exercising their righteousness by base minded conservatives is one of their continuing delusions. It is caused by their inability to countenance any view other their own.

The celebration of the outcome of the Bolt case is as much about the Left feeling justified in pursuing its version of a 'social justice' agenda as much as anything else. Of course, there can be no social justice when laws are not equally applied across all groups. The 'tabloid set' as you disparagingly call them are equally able to ascertain the rights and wrongs of the case as any Labor Party ideologue.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 1:54:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that Mr Abbott misread the evidence? However that should come as no surprise, given the way Mr Abbott continues to seem to misrepresent the evidence?
Take offshore processing and the boats he claims he would turn back?
When the Gillard govt got in and stepped up to the plate, the very first thing they tried to do was set up a regional processing centre in East Timor.
Bagged relentlessly by Mr Abbott and co?
A request that was refused.
Now they want to send us 2,000 seasonal workers? Perhaps we could now get them to agree to reciprocation, and a regional processing centre, given the sheer number of relatively well paid, stable stay at home jobs and economic activity it would surely produce?
Gillard then negotiated a regional processing centre in Malaysia. Abbott and co continued to block/refuse to pass the very legislation that would allow that plan to progress, citing a lack of UNCHR as their reason?
Even though their preferred Asylum seeker centre, Nauru, processed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of refugees; for the Howard govt, even though it was never ever a signatory, at any time during the Howard reign!
Even as Mr Abbott continued to block a progressive regional solution to the Asylum seeker problem, even as the number drowning rose and rose and rose.
He continued to, I believe, misrepresent the facts and blame Labour for the lack of any solution and the loss of human life; and or, the fact that a criminal cartel were effectively deciding our resettlement program?
We shouldn't judge Mr Abbott on his words alone or self evident blame shifting; but rather by his actions?
Actions which include, climate change denial, being party to the introduction of work-choices, the wind back of both education and health spending?
Billions rerouted basically to be able to afford to roll out the pork barrel; middle class welfare or, give tax breaks to billionaires and advantage already very wealthy privatised education?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 1:58:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bolt was not convicted because of bad journalism, the judgement's reference to inaccuracies was entirely peripheral; they were mentioned only to prop up the judges subjective decision that Bolt wasn't to be excused on the grounds of 'good faith'.

If the (few entirely insignificant) inaccuracies were the issue Bolt would have been charged with slander, but he wasn't because the plaintifs knew that Bolt could easily defend himself against such a charge. But how can anyone defend themselves against a charge that someone was offended by your comments, reasonably or otherwise?

There is obviously no need of a right to say things that don't upset anybody, the right of free speech is precisely the right to say things that are going to offend someone. And the act that was used to shut Bolt up is a disgraceful and dangerous violation of that fundamental right.
Posted by J Dawson, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 2:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is clear even to a lay man in these matters that Keim and Coyne together with the writers of the act mean well. Unfortunately, as is well known the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The act is both arbitrary in selection of instances and capricious in its interpretation.

Individuals A, B or C may make similar observations to Mr Bolt, yet only Mr Bolt is subject of complaint by the Eatock group. Incidentally a highly articulate and well educated group of individuals –not a bunch of shrinking violets- who according to remarks reported outside the court were motivated by the desire to silence Mr Bolt. In this they have been successful.

Now suppose a hundred or a thousand individuals chose to make the similar critical or adverse remarks towards a specific group. Which one, if any will be the subject of complaint? Does the Act allow a sort of class action?

Then we consider the subjectivity and latitude given to the judge in determining the meaning of “insult, humiliate or intimidate because of race.” I doubt if the Eatock group were really intimidated. I also wonder if a Jury would be of the same opinion as the Hon. Justice.

I do not believe anybody would claim that this was Mr Bolt’s finest journalistic exercise; but is this really a sufficient foundation for a sweeping condemnation of “shoddy journalism.” Surely, the authors are not making the claim that all or most of Mr Bolt’s articles are shoddy?
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 3:05:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Section 18Cis only triggered if ...[it] is "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate …because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin" '

Why only because of race or origin? Why not ban giving offence because of: religion, class, sexual orientation, political allegiance, occupation, body shape, age, dress, smell, accent, education, marriage status, football club? What's the difference?

"People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying."

Should they likewise be free to identify with their political party or football club without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying?

"Disparagement directed at the legitimacy of the racial identification of a group of people is likely to be destructive of racial tolerance."

Isn't disparagement directed at the legitimacy of political or football identification just as likely to be destructive of political or club tolerance? Isn't disparagement by definition destructive of tolerance? If I disparage Liberals, Collingwood supporters, Nazis, and jaywalkers, isn't that destructive of tolerance of them?

So let's be clear about this act. It bans disparaging speech that gives offence. The fact that it is applies only to disparagement by certain people of certain people for certain reasons just adds discrimination to its despotic injustice.
Posted by J Dawson, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 3:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do I get the feeling most posters here haven’t read the judgment?

Okay. Hands up if you haven't.

Hmmm. A lot of hands.

@Cohenite: Re, “How can it be that a black writer, who identifies as indigenous, can make the same points as Bolt, that is, some people who identify as being aboriginal but who are white may do so for benefit ... without restraint.”

You would know the answer, Cohenite, had you read the judgment.

Bolt was found guilty because his articles were filled with “assertions [that] were erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous,” statements that are “untrue”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous” and inferences which “leave an erroneous impression”.

Statements like this pervade the judgment: “The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.”

In lay language, Bolt wrote a pack of lies. Bromberg identified at least 20. In two articles. That’s why he lost.

The blogsite you linked contained no such wholesale fabrication of allegations, did it?

The judge made it clear that opinions may be freely expressed in Australia. Any opinion whatsoever. But we are not allowed to concoct damaging, insulting or defamatory “factual assertions” about other people which are plainly false.

The “defects of Bolt's articles”, Cohenite, are that they were all Murdoch Made Up Sh!t. Please read the judgment.

@DavidL: “Also free speech (absent defamation) does not require the truth. Free means free, truth or not.”

But the Bolt article were not "absent defamation", were they, DavidL? They were absent truth. Have you read the findings?

@J Dawson: Re, "Bolt was not convicted because of bad journalism, the judgement's reference to inaccuracies was entirely peripheral; they were mentioned only to prop up the judges subjective decision that Bolt wasn't to be excused on the grounds of 'good faith'."

Completely false. The judge specifically said "“Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance".

The wholesale fabrications were absolutely central to the judge's findings. Please read the judgment, J Dawson. Especially the discussion of 'good faith'. It is not too late.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 4:01:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Coyne’s cloying appraisal of Justice Bromberg’s decision borders embarrassment, particularly when noting, “He had an incredibly interesting year as Associate to the Hon. Justice Bromberg…” Apparently, an apple for the teacher still works, metaphorically at least.
18c serves only those who wish to punish what the majority consider, reasonable opinion.
Section 13, similar to our 18c, has been removed from the Canadian Bill C-304 just recently. While the noose of control continues to strangle in Australia, Canada is shaking free from the stultifying shackles of political correctness. However,I hardly expect Maitres Keim and Coyne to countenance that thinking in the slightest.
I submit that were the authors to review their handiwork the true meaning of hate might be revealed—to an ordinary person, off course.
Posted by Born Free, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 4:41:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This Stalinesque “Truth” commission is evil and so too are those who support it, iff comment is not free then it is corrupt, strictly Newspeak stuff.
That there are pale grifters is beyond doubt, if it can be, it will be. Ivy League Profs have been found to be liars in the US, high cheek bones was the comment but it got her the goodies. About the last NT election to have legal threats against Bess Price, a true Aboriginal by some pale lawyer only proves the Bolt case
Posted by McCackie, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 5:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA. I read the judges summary soon after it was made, and have just skimmed it again, and I disagree with your assertion that wholesale untruths were the basis of his judgment. If that had been the plaintifs case why did they not charge Bolt with defamation?

This was the judges "FINDINGS OF CONTRAVENTION AND RELIEF
For the reasons I have given I am satisfied that:
Some Aboriginal persons of mixed descent who have a fairer, rather than darker skin, and who by combination of descent, self-identification and communal recognition are, and are recognised as Aboriginal persons were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the Newspaper Articles that:
.1 There are fair-skinned people in Australia with essentially European ancestry but with some Aboriginal descent, of which the identified individuals are examples, who are not genuinely Aboriginal persons but who, motivated by career opportunities available to Aboriginal people or by political activism, have chosen to falsely identify as Aboriginal; and
.2 Fair skin colour indicates a person who is not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely identifying as an Aboriginal person"

Followed by the judgement that Bolt was not exempted due to good faith or public interest within the terms of the act.

So the heart of the judgement was the alleged offensiveness of Bolt's comments, not any alleged inaccuracies.

Most of the alleged inaccuracies were opinions deemed to infer inaccurate perceptions. But the judgement just drives the issues involved underground so that inaccuracies, alleged or real, can't be vetted and implications can't be examined. Bolt haters are able to defame him to their hearts content on this issue, knowing he is constrained by law from responding. Even if any of their criticisms are valid, Bolt lovers will be suspicious that he is being unfairly slandered due to the restraints on his ability to answer. Such is one of the insidious effects of censorship.
Posted by J Dawson, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 5:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marcia Langton wrote a very interesting article pertinent to this discussion in the Oz on 31 August.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/get-rid-of-race-to-stop-racism/story-e6frgd0x-1226461968870

And there was a very depressing Insight program on SBS a few weeks ago about aboriginality - the local committees which assess and determine whether or not an applicant is acknowledged to be aboriginal (apparently for the purpose of getting access to various resources and programs) came across as something out of apartheid South Africa. Everyone taking part in the program would have known their own identity, but we have set up a bizarre system where this has to be endorsed by petty officialdom.
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 6:06:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin, you continue to show that you are not an honest participant in this debate when you preface your comment with the claim I have not read Bromberg's Judgement; not only have I read it, I have understood it; you haven't understood it or if you have you will not concede it's discriminatory nature and its oppressive effect especially when combined with the ramifications of the Finkelstein report.

In short you strike me as the sort of person who regards freedom of expression as a right for only those who agree with you.

In addition, you continue to peddle this spurious nonsense that Bromberg's Judgeement was based on the factual errors of Bolt's articles. This issue and your erroneous interpretation of it was dealt with at this post in the comments:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13157&page=6

On pages 5 and 6 of the above post the issue of whether the Bolt Judgement was sustained by errors of fact was discussed. Those errors were listed by Bromberg at paragraphs 394-399 in the context of what he considered to be the 2 defining issues of aboriginality: biological descent and cultural factors, that is upbringing.

All the so-called errors of fact by Bolt were about these 2 issues. As I said when Bolt refered to the non-aboriginal upbringing of many of the litigants, this was an error of fact by ommission because Bolt concentrated on the non-aboriginal aspect of the upbringing and did not refer any of the aboriginal upbringing.

This error of ommission by Bolt is where the bulk of the "false assertions" relied on by Bromberg lay and may be regarded as just ONE example of an error of fact.

The irony of this error by Bolt is that in bringing their action against Bolt the litigants did the same thing; that is, focused entirely on their aboriginal cultural experience and ignored completely the non-aboriginal. The irony was complete when they sought redress in non-aboriginal fashion.

Bromberg's Judgement was inherently contradictory; S18C is bad law; it should be repeale
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 6:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@J Dawson: Re: “I disagree with your assertion that wholesale untruths were the basis of his judgment.”

Did you read the ‘good faith’ section, JD? The defence failed precisely because of wholesale untruths.

Specifically, “The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides. For those reasons I am positively satisfied that Mr Bolt’s conduct lacked objective good faith.”

Had there been no Murdoch Made Up Sh!t, there would have been no adverse judgment. Simple as that.

Did you read the link Cohenite provided above? A good example of the same basic opinion being expressed. But without all the lies. That guy is home free. As he should be.

Re: “If that had been the plaintifs case why did they not charge Bolt with defamation?”

I don’t know. I don’t know anyone who knows for sure. Possibly to get it on the record formally that Bolt is a racist and his employers have paid for racist material to be published.

That won’t cut any ice with most Herald Sun readers, but may have an impact in some quarters.

Re: “Most of the alleged inaccuracies were opinions deemed to infer inaccurate perceptions.”

Totally false, JD.

Re: “… inaccuracies, alleged or real, can't be vetted and implications can't be examined.”

Of course they can. The judge highlighted 20 specific lies or omissions in clear detail.

Have you read the judgment with a view to hearing what the judge actually found, JD? Or just skimmed it to find what you wish was there?

@Cohenite: Re, “… you continue to peddle this spurious nonsense that Bromberg's Judgeement was based on the factual errors of Bolt's articles.”

No, it is not spurious, and not nonsense. See above. Read paragraphs 351 through to the end, Cohenite. But please try to read what the judge actually said – not what Murdoch’s liars and manipulators want you to think he said.
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 9:30:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA: As I said: “Bolt was not convicted because of bad journalism, the judgement's reference to inaccuracies was entirely peripheral; they were mentioned only to prop up the judges subjective decision that Bolt wasn't to be excused on the grounds of 'good faith'.

The judgement was that Bolt made statements that were "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate". He could have been let off that judgement, on grounds of “good faith”, but the judge decided that no such excuse applied to Bolt, and it was there that the alleged inaccuracies were used to prop up that secondary judgement.

But that was not the essence of the conviction, just a peripheral issue of whether Bolt had an excuse. If there had not been the judgement that the statements offended the plaintiffs, the alleged inaccuracies wouldn’t have come into it. Not unless he was charged with defamation, which he wasn’t, because the plaintiffs knew they couldn’t make that charge stick.

As for your opportunistic slur that “Bolt is a racist”, that is a lousy lie that you can make with impunity, while Bolt is restrained from responding. Bolt has consistently argued for equal treatment for all Australians before the law, which is the antithesis of racism. What is racist is that cowardly accusations like yours can be made against members of some races while discerning criticisms of other races are taboo - much to the detriment of the latter.

Yes I have read the link Cohenite provided. It’s not an example of “the same basic opinion being expressed. But without all the lies.” It’s an example of the fact that this act is couched in such vague and subjective terms that it can be applied to some Australians and not to others – Many Aborigines say what Bolt said in much less discerning terms, but they will never be convicted under the act (nor will you for your disgusting lie). Which is just one of the reasons the RDA must be repealed.
Posted by J Dawson, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 11:17:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin: "In lay language, Bolt wrote a pack of lies. Bromberg identified at least 20. In two articles. That’s why he lost."

Would you mind being specific and list "at least" the 20 lies you claim.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 11:52:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to what J Dawson has posted and in an effort to put AA's misrepresentation of the ratio decidendi of the Bromberg Judgement in plain terms.

The errors of fact, as I noted, were just one; Bolt's focus on the litigants' 'white' background and ignoring their aboriginal background.

This would not have grounded an action in Defamation because it was factually true; each of the litigants had, in varying degree, a 'white' background and upbringing. Bolt's point was that 'white' background along with the 'white' appearance of the litigants meant that what he said had a defence of truth.

Bolt's other point that persons of 'white' upbringing and 'white' appearance were claiming benefits to which they were not entitled to and which had been designed to be available for a class of persons not 'white' and of aboriginal upbringing; that point then becomes defendable to a claim of Defamation because it is honest opinion.

Bromberg's reliance on errors of fact makes his Judgement a legal fiction because there were none that are sustainable outside the umbrella of S18C.

You may argue that that is the purpose of that section of the RDA but do not pretend that it is a legal right to do with being the victim of factual errors. It is a section which is completely different from fact based rights and objective standards of proof; it is based on a subjective, feeling based right which cannot establish any precedent or continuity because what the standard of right to litigation becomes is the subjective feelings of any person or group; that is the only fact which is required.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 12:06:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again JD and Cohenite,

Looks like we are at an impasse. I read statements like these and hear Bromberg saying the multiple lies mattered:

"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 …"

"Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance."

"Expressions made on the basis of untrue or distorted facts or without due care to avoid distortions of the truth are not likely to involve a conscientious approach to the task of honouring the values asserted by the RDA.”

“The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified …”

And so on.

JD, you read the same passages and say the lies were peripheral. Hmmm …

You claim “Bolt was not convicted because of bad journalism.” Hmmm …

You say the RDA must be repealed. Hmmm …

How do we resolve this? We could ask Bromberg himself.

No wait. I’ve another idea. Maybe we could ask the Associate who heard all the evidence and watched the judge at work. Hey, why not?

“Mr. Bolt's shoddy journalism, however, is an unlikely candidate, on its merits, to give rise to a reconsideration of part IIA of the RDA.

“We would encourage Mr. Abbott and anyone else ... to carefully read Justice Bromberg's lengthy reasons.

“The lesson that is ripe to be drawn from the facts of this litigation is, we suggest, not that section 18C should be repealed but, rather, that Mr. Bolt should go back to journalism school.”

Yes! I’m sure I read that somewhere. Did you?

Finally for now, Cohenite, no there was not just the one factual error. Much as Murdoch’s mendacious minions might want you to think that.

Bromberg highlighted more than 20 - in just two articles.

The racism finding? Not me. That was in the judgment too. Please read it carefully, Cohenite. And then read the Herald Sun’s corrective statement.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 1:08:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, Raycom. References as requested:

Re Ms Heiss: “Each of those assertions was erroneous.” Three of them. (381)

Re Ms Eatock: “The comment is unsupported by any factual basis and is erroneous.” (382)

Re Ms Eatock’s motives: “That statement is untrue.” (382)

Re Ms Cole: “The facts upon which the comment is based are not stated, referred to or notorious.” (383)

Re biology: “was shown to be factually erroneous.” (392)

No reference to cultural upbringing “leaves an erroneous impression”. (392)

“In part, the cultural references, where given, were erroneous.” (398)

“Dr Atkinson was raised in an Aboriginal fringe camp on the ancestral lands of his Aboriginal ancestors.” (400)

“Mr Clark was raised as Aboriginal in a well-known Aboriginal community in Victoria." (400)

“There is other evidence which also suggests to me that Mr Bolt was not particularly interested in including reference to the Aboriginal cultural upbringing of the individuals he wrote about.” (401)

Re Ms Cole’s mother: “That statement is factually inaccurate.” (402)

Re Ms Cole’s father: “That statement is factually incorrect.” (402)

Re Ms Cole’s grandmother: “Mr Bolt disingenuously explained the omission as due to a lack of space.” (403)

Re Prof Behrendt: “The factual assertions … also erroneous.” (404)

Re Wayne and Graham Atkinson in article one: “The facts given by Mr Bolt … are grossly incorrect.” (406)

Re Graham Atkinson in article two: Also “grossly incorrect.” (406)

Re Ms Eatock: “That source made an incorrect assertion …” (407)

Re Ms Eatock: “Mr Bolt repeated the error as to age …” (407)

And, hilariously, “Mr Bolt and HWT contended that the Articles contained no material errors of fact.” (364)

That’s without searching too hard, Raycom. Could be more. You can see they are not confined to paragraphs 394-399 as Murdoch’s lackeys claim.

Rupert’s apologists may characterise the fabrications as “peripheral” or “entirely insignificant” or “only to prop up the judges subjective decision”.

But to Bromberg they were central: “The deficiencies I have relied upon in arriving at the conclusion … are about deficiencies in truth.”

And: “Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance.”

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 7:14:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Readers would be advised to look up Elizabeth Warren, current candidate for the US Senate and Keynote speaker at President Obama's upcoming convention.
She represented herself as having native American roots and plenty has been written of her using this to gain an advantage in employment.
The difference is that in the US you are allowed to have an opinion on this.
In Australia you are not.
It is that simple.
Posted by Belfast, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 7:40:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bolt may have, at the very least, been careless with the facts, but the plaintiffs had a remedy in the laws against defamation. There seems to be no reason why the laws against defamation could not be extended to malicious lies about groups as well as individuals. The politicians chose not to do so. The real purpose of these provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act, as in Victoria's Religious Vilification Act, is to silence politically incorrect speech that is true or at least arguable.

Note that there is a defence of reasonableness and good faith in both the Racial Discrimation Act and the Victorian act, which is subjective and may not be applied so moderately in the future, but not a defence of truth. As Nettle JA, one of the appeal judges in the Catch the Fire Ministries case in Victoria, wrote

"Whether [Pastor Scot’s] statements about the religious beliefs of Muslims were accurate or inaccurate or balanced or unbalanced was incapable of yielding an answer to the question of whether the statements incited hatred or other relevant emotion. Statements about thereligious beliefs of a group of persons could be completely false and utterly unbalanced and yet do nothing to incite hatred of those who adhere to those beliefs. At the same time, statements about the religious beliefs of a group of persons could be wholly true and completely balanced and yet be almost certain to incite hatred of the group because of those beliefs."

See Joshua Klose's article in the Queensland Student Law Review on this case, where he concludes that the Victorian Act effectively subjugates freedom of expression "to an almost 'untrammelled' right to freedom from religious vilification. ... These observations give further weight to other compelling criticisms of religious anti-vilification provisions."

http://www.law.uq.edu.au/documents/qlsr/recent-issues/vol3/issue1/Klose_2010_vol3_i1.pdf
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 10:24:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Belfast,

Where did you get that false impression? Are you another avid reader of the Murdoch media?

Australians are most certainly free to express openly any opinion they want on virtually any topic.

They are not free, however, to concoct malicious lies about other people and spread them around claiming they are true.

That was the finding in the Eatock v Bolt.

It is as simple as that.

Yes, the liars Murdoch pays to defend the indefensible want to you to think otherwise.

Don’t let them suck you in, Belfast.

Hello Divergence,

Re: “Andrew Bolt may have, at the very least, been careless with the facts.”

No, Divergence. Bolt fabricated at least 20 blatant lies about the people in the racial minority he wanted to vilify. This was the central, clear, unambigious findings of the judgment.

Nothing ‘may have been’ about it.

Re: “The real purpose of these provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act, as in Victoria's Religious Vilification Act, is to silence politically incorrect speech that is true or at least arguable.”

And you know this how, Divergence? Have you had even a basic read of the background to the RDA and the international treaties on which it is based?

Victoria’s laws are off-topic. But if you are so clearly misguided about the RDA and Bolt matter, then you will understand why we are disinclined to believe you on that.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 9:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a lawyer by profession.
I read the decision.
I followed the Warren matter in detail.
I stand by what I wrote.
Posted by Belfast, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 9:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin's apparent intense hate of the Murdoch press prompts the question: is he a disciple of ex-Greens leader, Bob Brown?
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 9:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA, give the Murdoch press a rest; and the explicit insult that anyone who disagrees with you about Bromberg's Judgement must be a victim of Murdoch propoganda and unable to think for themselves; a typical left/green technique in debate.

Anyway, you have not addressed the fact that this guy, a 'black' aboriginal, says the same as Bolt, and isn't being harangued to court by the hurt feelings of some, as he calls them, "Fauxborigines":

http://theblacksteamtrain.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/conflict-of-interest-only-for-whites.html

And Bolt made one error of fact, not presenting the aboriginal upbringing of the litigants, not the number you claim, all of which are variations of that.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 10:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again Belfast.

Thank you for responding.

Not sure why your proclaim your profession. How is that relevant?

I have just been researching the Watergate investigation – 40 years ago this year – comparing integrity of journalists then and now. Many of those jailed in the Watergate scandals were lawyers by profession. Did you know that?

Re Elizabeth Warren, I have no idea. But, again, how is that relevent here?

If you had researched the Eatock v Bolt matter you would know that Bolt was skewered for being a racist, as evidenced by the multiple lies he concocted about the racial minority he chose to vilify.

About 20 of the fabrications the judge identified are listed above. In just two articles. There may be more. Impressive, huh?

Hello again Raycom.

Re: “Alan Austin's apparent intense hate of the Murdoch press prompts the question: is he a disciple of ex-Greens leader, Bob Brown?”

Excellent question, Raycom.

I live in Europe now where memories continue of terrible, terrible evils which started with journalists or academics or politicians just writing one or two lies about racial minorities, then more and more, then others joining the chorus - until whole nations were seething with hatred against minorities.

But, really, for no sound reason. All the ‘beliefs’ were lies.

Bob Brown seems to be one of a small number of prominent Australians who has stood against powerful organisations printing blatant lies about minorities - like the criminal Murdoch empire – which has been shown recently in Britain to lie, cheat, deceive, manipulate, pay corrupt police, pay corrupt politicians, interfere with murder investigations and commit perjury in court and in parliamentary inquiries.

Are you accusing me of supporting Bob Brown in opposing the evils of the Murdoch criminal organisation? Hmmm. Gosh. Maybe I should be ashamed of myself.

But the question is, Raycom, and Belfast: Whose side are you on?

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 6 September 2012 7:14:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again Cohenite,

Pretty sure I did “address the fact that this guy, a 'black' aboriginal, says the same as Bolt, and isn't being harangued to court by the hurt feelings of some, as he calls them, ‘Fauxborigines’”

I addressed it twice, in fact. Maybe your eyes glazed over, as when you read the sections of the Bromberg judgment which contradict your preconceptions.

This is what I wrote – Tuesday, 4 September 2012 4:01:54 PM:

(start quote)
You would know the answer, Cohenite, had you read the judgment.

Bolt was found guilty because his articles were filled with “assertions [that] were erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous,” statements that are “untrue”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous” and inferences which “leave an erroneous impression”.

Statements like this pervade the judgment: “The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.”

In lay language, Bolt wrote a pack of lies. Bromberg identified at least 20. In two articles. That’s why he lost.

The blogsite you linked contained no such wholesale fabrication of allegations, did it?

The judge made it clear that opinions may be freely expressed in Australia. Any opinion whatsoever. But we are not allowed to concoct damaging, insulting or defamatory “factual assertions” about other people which are plainly false.

The “defects of Bolt's articles”, Cohenite, are that they were all Murdoch Made Up Sh!t. Please read the judgment.
(end quote)

Later, when talking to J Dawson (Tuesday, 4 September 2012 9:30:47 PM) I wrote:

“Did you read the link Cohenite provided above? A good example of the same basic opinion being expressed. But without all the lies. That guy is home free. As he should be.”

Re: “And Bolt made one error of fact, not presenting the aboriginal upbringing of the litigants, not the number you claim, all of which are variations of that.”

Totally, utterly and embarrassingly false, Cohenite. Have you no shame? Please go through the itemised list, above. Or, better still, read the judgment properly.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 6 September 2012 7:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA, you may have replied to my assertion that the link to the aboriginal blog shows a commentator doing exactly what Bolt did but you have not "addressed" the contradiction shown by 'Blacksteamtrain'.

That contradiction is: Bolt gets prosecuted, not sued, under the RDA for saying aboriginals of white appearance do not need government assistance designed for black aboriginals, while nothing happens to 'Blacksteamtrain' when he calls white aboriginals frauds for doing the same thing Bolt complains they do.

Please explain the difference between what Bolt asserted and what 'Blacksteamtrain' is asserting; and if there is no difference why 'Blacksteamtrain' is not being similarly prosecuted.

A note on the difference between being sued and prosecuted; being sued is a private matter such as if the litigants in the Bolt case tried to sue him in Defamation, in which such action they would have failed; being prosecuted is when a government body brings action against a citizen for an alleged contravention of a regulation such as S18C of the RDA.

In respect of AA's increasingly strident comments about the almost infinite number of factual errors made by Bolt, as opposed to my contention that there was only one basic error [and I disagree that it was an error but a legitimate comment about a legitimate issue], I would ask AA to name one of Bolt's many errors which is not to do with the upbringing of the litigants.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:09:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin hasn't explained why the laws on defamation aren't enough to protect individuals or groups who are the victims of malicious lies. We wouldn't even be discussing this if those "pale-skinned Aboriginals" had simply sued Bolt for defamation. Why do people also need to be prosecuted by the State unless there is incitement to violence or the like?

As quoted in my previous post from a law journal article, to which I linked, one of the appeal judges in the Catch the Fire case in Victoria, not me, said that being truthful and balanced was no defence under the Victorian Religious Vilification Act. Why has the question of truth been left out if there is no intention to silence people? This case is not irrelevant because the Racial Discrimination Act appears to use very similar language to the Victorian Act. As I understand it, there hasn't been a similar case under the Racial Discrimination Act - yet.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 6 September 2012 3:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA. I declare you the undisputed winner of this debate. There is nothing like fashioning matter to suit your cause. You may now sit on the right hand of your mentor, the good Justice Bromberg who did it so well.
Posted by Born Free, Thursday, 6 September 2012 3:36:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Cohenite,

Re: “That contradiction is: Bolt gets prosecuted, not sued, under the RDA for saying aboriginals of white appearance do not need government assistance … while nothing happens to 'Blacksteamtrain' …”

There is no contradiction. You reveal several continuing misunderstandings.

Bolt wasn't prosecuted by the state. Pat Eatock “brought this proceeding on her own behalf and on behalf of people like her”

Please read the judgment.

Bolt was pinged for disseminating lies about a racial minority – NOT for expressing an opinion about them.

Anyone can hold and express any opinion freely in Australia.

But we can't say Graham Atkinson’s “right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” when we know that both parents, all four grandparents and all great grandparents were Aboriginal, bar one who was Indian.

That is a plain fabrication – “grossly incorrect” as the judge observed.

That is the difference: Bolt wrote 20-plus malicious lies. Blacksteamtrain wrote none.

I know Murdoch’s paid apologists want you to think Bolt went down for expressing opinions. It just ain’t so.

Re: “Defamation, in which such action they would have failed …”

No. The same judgment would have been reached. For the same reasons.

Re: “In respect of AA's increasingly strident comments about the almost infinite number of factual errors …”

No. I’ve said “at least 20” or “20-plus” fabrications. No higher than that. But for just two articles, has to be a world record.

Re: “I would ask AA to name one of Bolt's many errors which is not to do with the upbringing of the litigants.”

Bolt wrote that 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.”

The Koori Radio job was a voluntary unpaid position. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board job was not reserved for Indigenous applicants. Neither was the Macquarie University job reserved for Indigenous applicants.

Three lies there. Just in one sentence. None refers to skin colour or upbringing.
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 6 September 2012 4:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Alan Austin
You asked about relevance of being a lawyer. It means I can read the judgment with at least the skill of a journalist. And on this point, Bolt was not condemned as a racist.
Elizabeth Warren's relevance is that Bolt's article suggested that the minority card is a good one to claim preferential treatment. Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American ancestry and Harvard hired her, then boasted that they were promoting minorities and indigenous ones at that. Then the balloon burst, her claim was nothing more than a family legend unsupported by anything. Before it burst however she was scrutinised by the media with no Blomberg to impede. She is now popularly known as Fauxcahontas.
Posted by Belfast, Thursday, 6 September 2012 4:52:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just let AA spew his bile, he's a good caricature; he'll throw up McCarthy, Gobbles and genocide next.

Cohenite says: "And Bolt made one error of fact, not presenting the aboriginal upbringing of the litigants, not the number you claim, all of which are variations of that." I agree. In fact I can't understand why that omission was classified as an error, since Bolt wasn't talking about their upbringing, he was talking about their mixed ancestry and white colour which gave them a choice as to how they classified themselves racially. Now some of them might argue that it was because of their upbringing that they identified themselves as Aboriginal, but I can't see how that makes Bolt's points erroneous. I read them as an opinion that, at worst, might lead to erroneous conclusion. An opinion that should be argued against, not silenced. In any case, Bolt was not convicted of making errors, he was convicted of giving offence, that's what 18C of the act is about.
Posted by J Dawson, Thursday, 6 September 2012 7:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again Divergence,

Re: “why the laws on defamation aren't enough to protect individuals or groups who are the victims of malicious lies”?

They probably are. This is not just about the RDA. It’s about large corporations using their power to hurt other people.

“We wouldn't even be discussing this if those "pale-skinned Aboriginals" had simply sued Bolt for defamation.”

Perhaps. Would that be a good or bad thing?

It’s now on the record internationally that Bolt is a racist and the H&WT disseminates racial vilification. That’s according to technical legal definitions of racist as well as common usage.

Having lost comprehensively, and shown no interest in an appeal, they have to cop that label until such time as they retract and apologise.

If this causes others to desist from publishing similar fabrications, then that would seem a good thing.

“Why do people also need to be prosecuted by the State unless there is incitement to violence or the like?”

This action was brought by the applicants, not the State. Did you really read the judgment, Divergence?

When you say “violence or the like”, this seems the Aussie RDA’s whole point. “The like” can be significant damage even if not physical violence.

“I have taken into account the possible degree of harm that I regard the conduct involved may have caused. Beyond the hurt and insult involved, I have also found that the conduct was reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on some fair-skinned Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity.” (Bromberg)

Hello Belfast,

Yes, lawyers can read judgments with skill. But do they? And in this instance, have you?

For example, you claim Warren “was scrutinised by the media with no Blomberg to impede.” That suggests you think Bromberg impedes media scrutiny.

He just doesn’t, Belfast. He impedes wholesale media distortion and fabrication. That’s all.

Please read paragraphs 351 through to the end. But please try to read what the judge actually said – not what Murdoch’s lying lawyers want you to think he said.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA: "But the question is, Raycom, and Belfast: Whose side are you on?"

I am not on the side of the anti-development, anti-population, amoral, and science-and-economics-illiterate Greens, formerly led by Bob Brown.

Bob had a very charmed life in parliament as he got far more media coverage than he ever deserved. He seemed to mesmerise the media into asking him non-probing questions. It was not until The Australian started asking probing questions that ruffled his feathers, that Bob reacted by calling it the "hate media" -- sorry AA if this again has triggered your hate of the Murdoch press
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA; so you would agree with Blacksteamtrain's opinion of the Fauxaboriginal named in his article; that opinion is he falsely claims to be an aboriginal by using tricks to gain financial advantage?

That was Bolt's point; so, is the difference between Bolt and Blacksteamtrain is that the latter picked the right 'white' aboriginals to criticise and Bolt didn't; but that there are Fauxaboriginals out there scamming the system?

You have given the example of a non-upbringing error of fact made by Bolt that Heiss did not get employment in jobs reserved for aboriginals; she in fact got jobs under the following circumstances:

"Paragraph 381:The other two positions were not reserved for Aboriginal people but were positions for which Aboriginal people were encouraged to apply."

I concede there is a difference between a job reserved for a particular category of candidate and a job where preference will be given, as the implication is plain, to that particular type of candidate; but the difference is a scintilla, a legal fiction which is not discernible in reality.

Given Bromberg's judgement it is hard to imagine where the manifest faults and inequalities of aboriginal entitlement can start to be dealt with. Like real life the more savy members of the aboriginal culture will benefit at the expense of the less asserive and organised.

This still remains a inequitable Judgement which will hinder rather than assist rectification of those inequalities
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 6 September 2012 11:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello again JD,

Re: “In any case, Bolt was not convicted of making errors, he was convicted of giving offence, that's what 18C of the act is about.”

False, JD. Just plain wrong.

Journos give offence every day. I give offence about once a month. I’ve written disparagingly about you Aussies. Sometimes about us Froggies. I upset the Poms recently regarding the monarchy. It’s perfectly acceptable under the RDA to offend racial groups.

But it is NOT permitted to give offence by making up sh!t, like Bolt and other Murdoch hacks do. Our offensive opinions must be based on accurate facts.

Please read the judgment, JD. Especially on Freedom of Expression, from para 336.

Hi again Cohenite,

You’re also still labouring under the misapprehension that Bolt was pinged for offensive opinions. He wasn’t. It was the distortions and fabrications.

If Blacksteamtrain had lied, he would be at risk also. He didn’t. So he’s home free.

Cohenite, please, for goodness sake, read what Bromberg actually wrote:

Bolt’s racism was proven by “assertions [that] were erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous,” statements that are “untrue”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous” and inferences which “leave an erroneous impression”.

"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 …"

“The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.”

"Expressions made on the basis of untrue or distorted facts or without due care to avoid distortions of the truth are not likely to involve a conscientious approach to the task of honouring the values asserted by the RDA.”

“The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified …”

Finally, compellingly, "Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance."

Bolt lost because he lied. Twenty times. Not because of his opinions. It is that simple.

Don’t let Murdoch’s lying lawyers fool you, Cohenite.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 7 September 2012 7:23:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey AA. I promise if you read this, God won't strike you blind.
That promulgator of evil and lies, The Australian, trounces Fairfax. Go on, AA, take a chance!

'The paper [The Australian] won the top award for daily newspapers with circulations of more than 90,000, with the judges declaring The Australian had "scored highly for its ability to break news, and its political and business coverage, as well as the depth of its opinion and quality of its senior writers".'
That wicked Andrew Bolt is one of those "senior writers."

Do you now "see" what's happening while your head is in the sand? I'll bet not.
Posted by Born Free, Friday, 7 September 2012 8:34:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Readers would be advised to look up Elizabeth Warren, current candidate for the US Senate and Keynote speaker at President Obama's upcoming convention.
'She represented herself as having native American roots and plenty has been written of her using this to gain an advantage in employment.
The difference is that in the US you are allowed to have an opinion on this.
'In Australia you are not.
"It is that simple."
Posted by Belfast, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 7:40:08 AM

allowed to have an opinion on what? Elizabeth Warren's ancestry? That 30 yrs ago she glibly reflected on family folklore?
Posted by McReal, Friday, 7 September 2012 8:42:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bolt was convicted for giving offence, that's what 18c is about:

18c

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private,
if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people;
and

(b) 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. Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 22
allows people to make complaints to the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act
is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act
does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of
this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in
private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the
public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

"(3) In this section:
'public place' includes any place to which the public have access as of right
or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is
made for admission to the place.

Like I said, the alleged inacuracies only came into it
Posted by J Dawson, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:39:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My last line should have read:

Like I said, the alleged inaccuracies only came into it in relation to the secondary issue of whether Bolt was to be excused for giving offence. The judge used the alleged inaccuracies to suport his opinion that the good faith excuse did not apply to Bolt. The essence of the conviction was that Bolt offended the litigants - which is a violation of the vital and fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Posted by J Dawson, Friday, 7 September 2012 10:55:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Born Free.

I promise that if you stop reading Murdoch papers and become informed, God won't strike you blind.

That award was from PANPA. Who runs The Australian? Who runs PANPA?

The Australian also recently won the OLO Award for the Shonkiest Page One 'Scoop' This Century.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13338

“That wicked Andrew Bolt is one of those ‘senior writers’.” Afraid not. Bolt doesn’t write for The Australian. Never has.

Whose head is in the sand, Born Free?

Hello again J Dawson,

Re: “The essence of the conviction was that Bolt offended the litigants – which is a violation of the vital and fundamental right to freedom of speech.”

No, you are still misunderstanding this completely.

Section 18C is only a part of the matter. The section dealing with freedom of speech is 18D. This was the subject of much more of the court’s deliberations than 18C.

Specifically, please try to understand this, JD:

(start quote) Section 18D

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. (end quote)

There is clear, explicit exemption for journalists to express whatever opinion the wish – PROVIDED it is a fair and genuine.

This is where Bolt and the Herald Sun failed. Their articles were riddled with so many distortions and lies there was no way anyone could find them as anything other than vicious racist attacks.

The specific finding that Bolt and the newspaper perpetrated racial hatred and vilification and warrant the 'racist' label is in the suck-it-up-princess paragraph – 458.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 7 September 2012 8:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I said ... We'll, what's the point?

If anyone other than AA has something to debate about the nature of the act and the judgement, I for one am interested.
Posted by J Dawson, Friday, 7 September 2012 8:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy