This is a totally irrelevant discussion.

We've all switched off from the spin.

We are sick of it.

Let's just have an election and let the people decide who they think are the liars.

We all know what the result of an election will be... regardless of who leads who. The polls still show the Liberals in landslide winning position ... regardless of all the left leaning media spin.

@ Alan Austin

<<But the law does not protect malicious fabrication. Andrew Bolt concocted at least 19 blatant damaging lies about specific individual Aboriginal people. That was why he lost the recent court case. Not for expressing his views on non-Aboriginal people rorting Indigenous funding>>

I don’t know whether it’s a measure of your insensitivity or a measure of how out of touch you are. But considering recent events --outlined in the below link-- one would have thought you might have had the grace to refrain from parading your hobby horse on a thread by this author, at this time.

“Aitkin sued over alleged slur
Former University of Canberra vice-chancellor and former chairman of the National Capital Authority Don Aitkin is being sued for $6 million for alleged racial discrimination.”
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/aitkin-sued-over-alleged-slur-20121110-295ip.html

Hello again,

@imajulianutter:

Hi Keith. Just regarding this: “We all know what the result of an election will be …”

How do we all know? Opinion polls? Have you seen the latest from Essential and Newspoll, Keith? They show an election now would go to the Coalition. They also show the trend moving towards Labor.

I guess you are aware that almost all governments re-elected in recent history were well behind in the polls one year before the election. No?

The US illustrates this pretty well. Obama was clearly very unpopular one year before the latest elections. And he had a serious downwards trajectory then, as shown here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10254097

The Australian Government is also behind, though only marginally. But it has a definite upwards trajectory.

The question is why? And Don’s article we are discussing here has, I suspect, one of the answers.

Electors can differentiate between (a) aspirational commitments unfulfilled, (b) specific promises which turn out impossible to deliver because of external factors, (c) promises abandoned carelessly and (d) blatant lies.

And voters are rejecting the blatant liars. Both in the US and in Australia.

@SPQR: Pretty sure Don Aitkin has nothing at all to worry about from that lawsuit, if it proceeds.

Are you familiar with the legislation, SP?

Have you read the judgment in the Bolt matter?

This may be helpful, perhaps:
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgment/402/

Happy to discuss this further, SP.

Cheers, AA

Hi Alan,

<<This may be helpful, perhaps: [then Alan Austin links to an article by himself] >>

Woody Allen is famously said to have quipped:

“I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member”

Well, in a similar vein, I would not want to take too seriously any newspaper that featured Alan Austin as its “guest Author”.

A more informative comment on the case and its consequences might be found in today’s SundayTelegraph by David Penberthy.

Quote:
“Bolt's prosecution under the Racial Discrimination Act was a green light for any aggrieved group to try its luck in the courts to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/knee-jerk-reaction-proves-youre-a-jerk/story-e6frezz0-1226518725036

We’ll have that again:

“Bolt's prosecution under the Racial Discrimination Act was a green light for any aggrieved group to try its luck in the courts to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds.”

Yes, indeed, we are beginning to see the consequences of that “green light”.

Hi again SPQR,

Thanks for responding. Thought you might.

Yes, I cop the authorship right jab on the chin. Fair enough.

Relevant questions, however, are these:

1. What does the RDA actually allow and disallow regarding racist commentary?

2. What did Andrew Bolt actually say that upset those Aborigines?

3. Which part of the RDA did Justice Bromberg find Andrew had violated, and why?

4. How could Andrew have made his point without incurring the label ‘racist’ in international jurisprudence forever?

5. Why did the Herald Sun not appeal – as they warned the judge throughout the proceedings that they would – when the judgment went against them?

6. How is it that so many other commentators like at http://theblacksteamtrain.blogspot.com.au/ have castigated pale-skinned fauxborigines so scathingly without penalty?

7. And why is Don Aitkin home free?

To answer these questions I would have preferred to have linked to all the other sources, SP. No, really I would.

There are indeed, several. But as it happens, that Global Mail piece is the only one I know of where all sources are linked in the one place. So you can follow the URLs with an open mind, even if you can’t bring yourself to read the actual article.

It comes down to this, SP:

If any aggrieved group tries its luck in the courts with a prosecution under the RDA to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds – who is not a malicious liar like Andrew Bolt – and succeeds without being slugged for costs, I will donate a thousand dollars to the charity of your choice, SPQR.

The legislation is clear, SP, as the article – er, I mean, as the URLs in the article – demonstrate.

We’ll have that again:

If any aggrieved group tries its luck in the courts with a prosecution under the RDA to prevent other citizens from speaking their minds – who is not a malicious liar like Andrew Bolt – and succeeds without being slugged for costs, I will donate a thousand dollars to the charity of your choice, SPQR.

Cheers, AA

Hi Alan,

Why is Don Aitken home free, you ask ? Well, most likely because he didn't say anything which was actionable, merely that a person purporting to be Aboriginal looked about as Aboriginal as he was. I've certainly thought something similar, and probably said it occasionally, about many Aboriginal people, including many relations, and friends, and children of friends, some of whom are doing very well out of it all.

Some people might take offence at such an observation ? Yes, and so ? It's not illegal merely to offend, thank Christ.

It's not easy for Aboriginal people being pale, I know. But some are - let's face it - more genuine than others. Some, no matter how pale they might be, have copped the slings and arrows of local, small-town racism, and/or poverty, and of discrimination all their lives, because of their name, etc., while others have - mirabile dictu ! - discovered in their mature years that they may have an part-Aborigine ancestor, maybe even a Princess - or maybe, after all, their great-grandad had "Australian Native" on some of his documents.

As did many, many 'pure'-whites from the late nineteenth century and into the twentieth - often they were members of the Australians Natives' Association, est. 1871, including many future Prime Ministers, i.e. they were not 'Pommy b@stards' lording it over the locals, but homegrown, native-born, white Australians.

But if some of their descendants want to dress up in rabbit-skin cloaks, that's their right. Whether they should be able to get paid their $1000 for some 'welcome to country', tax-free, is another matter. If that ever happens, that is.

Good luck, Don.

Joe