Only when the leftist's rants come under similar scrutiny will they see the danger in this piece of proposed legislation. When "The Drum", "Green Left Weekly", "Crikey", "The Socialist Alliance", and other groups like the feminists, anti-racists, and the gay lobby have their writings and speeches thoroughly scrutinised for "offence" and misleading remarks, they might think twice about whether this legislation is in their interest.

Obviously France is just too far away from Oz for a writer living there to be well enough informed to have a worth while opinion.

Totally disagree with both previous comments. The author has, correctly, examined the judgment made in the court rather than from the second-hand (and arguably mendacious) commentary from the Murdoch Press.

Alan's post is more about repeating his take on Bolt than a critique of Roxon's abomination.

The litigants in Bolt would have had to proceed individually in defamation; the group action could only have been conducted under the RDA and it should have failed because the litigants were of equivalent aboriginality but were distinguished by their ability to achieve with and without compensation.

That is, some got to where they wanted to be on their own while others got compensation. That is the only relevant fact. And it should have defeated the litigants because racism and the fact of racism as understood by Section 18C must cover not all the members of the race but all the members of the group litigating. If some are not affected then those who claim to be affected by racism must instead be disadvantaged by some personal attribute which is not a factor of racial imputation against the group.

As for Roxon, her Bill exempts religion from prosecution when religion is the main source of discrimination [Sections 32 and 33]. This would mean women still cannot become Catholic priests and Islamic women would arguably have no right to not wear the burqa because not doing so would 'offend' other members of the Islamic religion.

In addition why does the Bill exempt members of parliament and arguably bureaucrats from prosecution when the legislature is the other main source of discrimination [Section 15(2)]? This would mean any elected official, even outside the protection of parliamentary privilege, could still offend under the description of the Act.

The Act also propose a reversal of the onus of proof [Section 124]; it is a maxim that it is legally impossible to prove a negative which is what anyone who has been accused of an offence under the Act would be required to do. As well the defendant will have to pay his own costs even if he wins!

Roxon's proposed Bill would oppress free speech even more than the Bolt decision has done.

'...we should not defame others with malicious lies.'

since Bolt wasn't found guilty of defaming anyone and wasn't penalised in anyway, does your comment therefore fit the definition of medacious?

The Bolt case was completely idiotic. It seems to me under the Racial Discrimination Act anyone can alledgely discriminate and cause offence, be found guilty and suffer no penalty so long as you are prepared to apologise. .. later.

Some great deterrent at law or obvious arrant nonsense in some leftie tragedy. ..or comedy?

That Alan is my, a common Aussies reading of the foolishness of That Bolt case.

Oh and Alan, your last article please refer to my comments.
I had a huge laugh this morning. Yesterday your champion Julia called an election and this morning NSW police arrested Thompson and laid 4 charges of fraud with another 145 charges pending. The warrants were issurd by the Victorian Police and the NSW police enquiries are continuing. Today Tony Abott gave a speech at the Press Club and Julia denied she'd announced an election.
Guess what will dominate the headlines until Slipper is charged?

@cohenite: Hi Anthony. Yes and no.

You are commenting on the rights of pale-skinned people with some Aboriginal descent to special treatment. Important discussion. But that’s not the subject of either the OLO piece or the piece in The Australian which it critiques.

Bantick continues the Murdoch media’s assertion that Bolt was found in breach of the RDA for his opinions. This is completely false, isn’t it? The judge specifically said that any opinion, however obnoxious or offensive, can be held and expressed when done so in good faith.

Andrew Bolt showed bad faith overwhelmingly, however, by his concoction of so many malicious lies.

It was the torrent of blatant falsehoods that fell foul of the law. Not his tawdry opinions. This really is perfectly clear in the judgment - which so few seem inclined to read and understand.

“Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance. When not misused, truth will not generally cause the kind of offence s 18C is concerned with. Untruths generally will and regularly do.” – Bromberg, paragraph 390.

It is still somewhat bemusing that you and so many others – including Bantick – seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge this reality about the judgment.

Re: “If some are not affected then those who claim to be affected by racism must instead be disadvantaged by some personal attribute which is not a factor of racial imputation against the group.”

Bromberg dealt with this in paragraphs 303 to 335. Note particularly paragraphs 322 and 327.

Agree with your comments about religions, Anthony. Interestingly, Bantick is a religious affairs commentator. He writes for the Melbourne Anglican. So he could have said something helpful and instructive about the exposure draft in this area.

Instead he chose – or was instructed or paid a lot of money – I don’t know – to kick along the campaign of lying about the Bromberg judgment.

It is a curious thing to observe.

@imajulianutter: Hi Keith. Yes and no.

Re “since Bolt wasn't found guilty of defaming anyone and wasn't penalised in any way, does your comment therefore fit the definition of medacious?”

Actually, both Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times were found in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. They will be recorded henceforward in legal history as having in effect been convicted of racism, even though no financial penalty was sought or imposed. The case will be referred to as a significant judgment in all Westminster jurisdictions forever.

That is a huge penalty which they all sought strenuously to avoid. Refer paragraph 458.

The H&WT did have to pay costs, which would have been considerable. And they are required to publish a humiliating ‘we are racists’ declaration wherever the original racist articles appear – in print or on line.

Re: “It seems to me under the Racial Discrimination Act anyone can alledgely discriminate and cause offence, be found guilty and suffer no penalty so long as you are prepared to apologise. .. later.”

No, Keith, this is quite incorrect. You are parroting what the Murdoch media want you to believe. It is simply not true. The judge specifically said it is quite okay to cause offence. Even really serious, nasty, horrible offence. There is no restriction on that in the Act whatsoever. The legislation only serves to limit the concoction of damaging lies. As it should.

And no, Andrew Bolt and the HWT were not required to apologise. They have chosen not to do so, as is their right. Refer paragraphs 467 and 468.

Re your other observations, Keith, yes, interesting. But a bit off topic.

Cheers, AA

Paragraphs 303-335 of the Judgement do not provide any clarity because Bromberg, like Bolt, confuses 2 distinct issues.

The first is the right of anyone to claim aboriginal status, and secondly whether any benefits, entitlements or privileges accrue to that claim of aboriginality.

Identification as aboriginal is a fraught process and this guide is no help at all:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/7M036/upload_binary/7m0366.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22definition+of+aboriginality%22

People can identify as aboriginal and refer to ancestory as long as they want but given the antics of people like Mundine who declares who is and who isn't an aboriginal and people like Bess Price who do the same their status will remain fluid on that basis:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/at_least_one_of_us_can_still_speak/

With the 3rd criteria of aboriginality, community acceptance, such a conflicted one the other 2 criteria, biological descent and self-identification, become problematic especially since there is no blood test to establish the biologic connection.

In effect aboriginality becomes a product of subjective self-appraisal as Don Aitkins has found out:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/aitkin-sued-over-alleged-slur-20121110-295ip.html

Bolt has been found to have got facts to do with the claim of aboriginality by the plaintiffs wrong; indeed Bromberg determines the plaintiffs did not claim to be aboriginal but were aboriginal by virtue of their upbringing [378-379].

How is this consistent with the 3 strand criteria for being aboriginal which relies on self-identification? Is aboriginality an intrinsic product of upbringing and not biology or subjective self-appraisal?

Has Bromberg added a 4th strand to the criteria of aboriginality, rearing, which is distinct from community acceptance since it is possible for an aboriginal not reared as an aboriginal [whatever that means] to have community acceptance as an aboriginal?

The issue is subjective from beginning to end as this plainly shows:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/connor/2011/05/bindi-cole-photo

This debate would not be happening if there were no consequence to being an aboriginal; but there are profound consequences, not the least of which is to supply to the claimant of aboriginality a status of permanent grievance on the basis of disenfranchisement.

In short aboriginality is now a touchstone for discord and disharmony against the system itself rather than resolving issues of racial discrimination within the system.

Thanks, Anthony.

Just not sure why this is perceived by some as such a problem. It seems a 20th order issue for most Indigenous people I know. And a 1000th order issue for most non-Indigenous.

If the matter was of genuine concern to Andrew Bolt he is capable of dealing with it rationally. The fact that he chose to concoct so many blatantly false accusations is pretty strong evidence that he was simply wanting to entertain his readers by hurting and humiliating his chosen victims again.

As the judge said, “There is no doubt that the Newspaper Articles were designed to sting the people in the ‘trend’ and in particular those identified therein.”

Don Aitkin has nothing to worry about from Shane Mortimer’s challenge. Unlike the Bolt matter Aitkin has just expressed an opinion, which both the current Act and the exposure draft guarantee him the right to do. There is no suggestion of fabrication of untruthful ‘facts’, malicious or otherwise.

Not sure what your question is regarding upbringing, Anthony. That would seem to provide abundant evidence of strands 2 and 3. So seems perfectly consistent.

“Has Bromberg added a 4th strand to the criteria of aboriginality, rearing, which is distinct from community acceptance since it is possible for an aboriginal not reared as an aboriginal [whatever that means] to have community acceptance as an aboriginal?”

Not at all. Those reared in Aboriginal communities will clearly satisfy strands 2 and 3 whether or not 1 is met. Those not reared as such may or may not satisfy 1, 2 or 3.

Pretty sure Aboriginal people will sort this easily enough once control of their affairs is returned to them.

Cheers, AA

Alan.
Few of us would defend Andrew Bolt, that's not why we want the proposed amendments and indeed the whole anti vilification bill dismissed, the problem is that anti discrimination laws are used as a stick by the elites and bourgeoisie as a political tool to threaten White Australians and to prevent them standing up for their own ethnic interests. I'm not worried about the uses Aboriginals, Muslims or anyone else might find for these laws, it's the egalitarian extremists and the PC fanatics who are the biggest danger to my ethnic group.
The Canadian and British experiences have shown that such egalitarian extremists and fanatical xenophiles will seek to use these laws to silence any opposition to their political/economic agenda. White people WILL be specifically targeted and entrapped by professional "Hatefinders",White people WILL go to jail for speech crimes, they WILL be fired from their jobs, they WILL have their children removed and taken into care, this is the real face of Anti Discrimiantion laws.
Alan, the conservative government Canada is in the process of dismantling the monstrosity that is the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, why are Australian politicians and commentators advocating the implementation of a harsh regime for White Australians?
In an interview on Radio National on 19 May 2009 associate professor Kath Gelber from UNSW stated that anti discrimination laws were never intended to protect White Australians,this was the first time I'd heard explicit acknowledgement of what we Whites have long suspected to be the truth about "Anti Racism", that these laws are only designed to regulate the speech and behaviour of the majority ethnic group, that they are a purely political tool to enable the elites and bourgeoisie to control dissent among Whites. The media fuel the fires of "Racism" and the professional "hatefinders" cast out their nets, they find some defenceless and emotionally vulnerable or mentally unstable White person like Brendon O'connell, Jaqueline Woodhouse,Terry Tremaine or Emma West,make an example of them and the other Whites are cowed into submission, too scared to speak for fear of going to jail or losing their kids .

"Pretty sure Aboriginal people will sort this easily enough once control of their affairs is returned to them."

And therein lies the problem; either aboriginals are equal citizens or not; positive discrimination will simply exacerbate the seperateness of aboriginality. Prior to the current guilt regime that seperateness was a disadvantage; today with a plethora of postive discriminatory benefits it is still a problem for most aborigines who do not or cannot take advantage of those benefits.

The irony is it is only those sophistocated, Westernised aborigines who have the nous to benefit while the others, on the 'estates' continue to pay a price for this dioctrine of seperation and distinction.

Until the peddlars of the distinction, on the main the white and aboriginal elites, recognise THEY are the problem, the plight of the average aboriginal will continue.

In his ham-fisted way Bolt was trying to say that and was punished.

Roxon's Bill will only enshrine this distinction through emasculating further proper discussion of it.

And you miss the point about Aitkin; he will have to go to court and under the new regime with its reversal of the onus of proof he has buckleys of proving the negative that the plaintiff was not offended

Hi Jay,

Thanks for this perspective. Just unsure what you mean by this:

“the problem is that anti-discrimination laws are used as a stick by the elites and bourgeoisie as a political tool to threaten White Australians and to prevent them standing up for their own ethnic interests.”

Can you suggest where this has happened in Australia since the RDA was enacted?

Thanks, Jay.

Good grief Anthony, you are doing it again!

“In his ham-fisted way Bolt was trying to say that and was punished.”

No, that is wrong. Bolt lost because he concocted false allegations which he asserted were true. His deliberate malicious lies were highly damaging and were challenged. As they deserved.

He was NOT punished for his ideas, his opinions or for advancing any argument in a ham-fisted way. Please read the judgment, Anthony.

Regarding Mortimer and Aitkin, the RDA's free speech section (18D) remains completely intact. Aitkin only has to point to parts (b) and (c).

It is absolutely clear that it’s not at all unlawful to offend someone with comments made “reasonably and in good faith (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 … (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.”

Aitkin’s comments were perfectly genuine, true, accurate, reasonable, fair and spoken in good faith. Bolt’s weren’t. Bolt is a liar, a fabricator and now a proven racist.

Aitkin is home free. Mortimer knows this. Christopher Bantick would know this if he had read Judge Bromberg's judgment.

Re the doctrine of separation and distinction, Anthony, some believe the greatest triumph of the Hawke-Keating years was establishing ATSIC, the greatest evil of the Howard years was dismantling it, and the most profound disappointment of the Rudd-Gillard period has been the failure to reinstate it.

Perhaps that’s a discussion for another day …

Cheers, AA

Hi Alan,

<< Can you suggest where this has happened in Australia since the RDA was enacted?>>

Perhaps I can help Jay out--here's something I witnessed.

Not too long ago I was in the assembly hall of a very large govt organisation when it was giving its staff a briefing on the anti-harassment legislation.The organisation had its anti-harassment /anti-discrimination spokesperson—who just happened to be an “indigenous Australian”--tell all the assembled how committed the organisation was to the new policies. And to illustrate how serious it took such matters, he told the assembly how they just the previous week sacked two employees who violated the code.The two employees concerned had been having their lunch in the organisations canteen and were talking about how they would, quote: “fix the Middle East problem”. Another employee, quote: “sitting nearby overheard them and took offense reporting them” And they were, quote: “ both sacked”.

Alan.
Anti discrimination legislation is the muscle behind the current plague of public apology and self abasement for ill considered acts or statements, people apologise for trivial transgressions against good taste because they don't want to end up like Andrew Bolt.
As SPQR pointed out, there are professional "Hatefinders" and your everyday workplace toadies and snitches looking to advance their own prospects at the expense of others, Anti discrimination laws are the "or else" component of "do as I say or else".
You've been around the block, you know that anti discrimination laws don't protect White Australians because they were never designed to protect us, this is why we see them as a threat.
As I said, I'm not worried about other ethnic groups misusing the laws, thus far they've mostly acted in good faith, the people who I'm worried about are the HR types, the professional griefers and fanatical anti racists,as we say on the radical right "The people who look like us but have no loyalty to us". People like Marcia Langton or Robbie Thorpe are outspoken, sometimes abrasive but they're reasonable and seem to have both feet on the ground, "Anti Racists" who look like me vary in temperament from malicious to unhinged, they are completely unreasonable, any transgression results in an "outing" anonymous calls to the person's employer threatening "consequences" for employing "racists":
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about:
http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/
And no this isn't just some obscure blog, it's proprietor has appeared on SBS TV and commercial radio as an "Anti Racism activist", an expert in the field in other words.

Alan,
To continue, when it comes to "Anti discrimination" and both institutional and vigilante Anti Racism the rules are completely stacked against White Australians, in the mind of the "anti Racist" it's permissible to stalk ,bully, threaten and harass a young White girl if she's made an ill informed Facebook post concerning Muslims.
What if some nutter took things too far? These Anti Racists post addresses, phone numbers, workplace details, there haven't been any really serious assaults here yet, but it's only a matter of time.
As we saw last year in the U.S this sort of "Anti Racist" activity has serious consequences when unstable people are indoctrinated, do you recall the case of Nkosi Thandiwe, the South African immigrant who, inspired by his college courses on White privilege and black oppression decided to shoot three young White women, one girl died,another was paralysed the other recovered.
http://www.vdare.com/posts/congratulations-splc-tim-wise-atlanta-black-gunman-nkosi-thadiwe-says-he-shot-three-white-girl

I'm guessing Alan that you knew nothing about these shootings, you would of course know the name Wade Michael Page, another mentally unstable man who after being exposed to a different type of racial propaganda decided to gun down a group of Sikhs.
As I keep saying Anti Racists are just as dangerous as Racists, they're both a really nasty type of person.

G’day SPQR,

Thanks for that example. Intriguing. It depends, however, on the actual “fix” proposed, who overheard it and the speaker’s intention.

The unchanged exemption clauses in the Act protect private comments – which wouldn’t apply in a cafeteria. They certainly protect reasonable comments made in good faith in any discussion held for any genuine purpose in the public interest, or expression of genuine belief.

If it was a racist attack intended to humiliate, intimidate or bully someone from the Middle East, however, then that protection may not be there.

But would we want that protected?

So the outcome may have been just. Not sure. Need a bit more info perhaps, SP.

Jay, thanks for your further input. Would you agree the findings in the Bolt matter actually bolster the view that the Act does not impede “ill-considered acts or statements” or “trivial transgressions against good taste”?

Bromberg found serious damage done to the reputations of Bolt’s selected victims which Bolt had consciously intended to inflict. Bolt had effectively accused them of intentional financial fraud – a fairly serious criminal accusation.

The judge found in Bolt’s articles “gratuitous references” based on “a selective misrepresentation” and omissions which “meant that the facts were not truly stated”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous”, asserted facts “untrue” and several contentions “incorrect” or “grossly incorrect”.

There is nothing trivial or accidental about the offence Bolt caused in those two tawdry articles, is there, Jay?

Re: “you know that anti discrimination laws don't protect White Australians because they were never designed to protect us, this is why we see them as a threat.”

Hmmm. Yes and no, Jay. That the laws serve to protect minorities seems fair. But I can’t see how they are a threat to White Australians who intend to make fair comment on matters of public interest with expressions of genuine belief.

I’m yet to see an instance of the Act being used to thwart mere expression of opinion anywhere. Or accidental or trivial offence given. But open to being shown one.

Alan,
As I noted in my posts, it's not purely the act itself which is the problem it's that it gives a licence, or a moral foundation for "Anti Racism", which is just a code word for Anti White.
"Hate Laws" make White people uneasy because they can see the numerous examples from here and overseas where other White people have been given ridiculous punishments for trivial offences.
Brendan O'Connell from Perth received almost four years in prison for verbally harassing two young Jewish men, videotaping the encounter and posting it on youtube with supplementary comments edited in.
Yes, it's distasteful,ignorant and nasty but four years is ridiculous,on the day he was sentenced another man was given three months for GBH while a man convicted of possessing child pornography was let off with a fine.
Anti discrimination laws require that a complaint be made, as we saw in Canada there arose a type of professional complainant, those I term "Hatefinders". I repeat, I'm not concerned about Indigenous or immigrant people misusing the law, I'm worried that the new proposals put too much power into the hands of these vigilantes, and human rights griefers.The culture of "Anti Racism" isn't nice, it's as bad as the people it supposedly targets, the "Racists", in many respects it's worse.
("Griefer" is a video gamer's term for someone who habitually enters online games to upset, harass or intimidate other players, this behaviour also includes repeatedly reporting false accusations of "Racism" or "Sexism" against other players in an effort to have them banned by the gaming service provider).

Thanks, Jay.

There still seems no evidence that the Act in its present form or in the proposed revised draft is deficient. Or that it poses any threat to genuine expression of opinion.

Yes, Andrew Bolt and Brendan O’Connell were found to have breached the Act. So was Dr Toben in 2002. But all these men clearly set out to hurt and humiliate racial minorities who they had histories of trying to attack and persecute. None was engaged in fair comment in the public interest.

These would all appear to be instances of the Act working pretty well in the interests of social harmony and a fairer, safer community. No?

Are you aware of any instances of the Act interfering in any way with legitimate expression of opinion and ideas, Jay?

Thanks. Cheers, AA

Well now we can all see how well this bit of control freak garbage has gone down.

The minister has been told to take a hike. This is a very good thing for the real people of OZ.

Never thought I would be able to find anything to praise Gillard for, but at long last she has got something right. Pity they had to invent yet another stuff up to be able to find something to fix.

Alan,
I can't make it any clearer than I have, I oppose anti discrimination laws because despite being written in neutral language in practice they permit discrimination against my own ethnic group and enable Anti White vigilantes and trouble makers by providing a last resort or a backstop if their extra judicial means fail. There is no corresponding legal framework to protect the promotion of ethnocentrism among people of my ethnic group in the way that Anti discrimination laws protect the ethnocentric practices and political activism of other ethnic groups.
Bolt is a poor example, it's not typical of Anti Discrimination laws in practice, the way Stephanie Rice or Jason Akermanis were vilified and harassed for their "Speech crimes" is more typical of the type of vendettas and oppression that occur in the name of "Human Rights".
These laws provide carte blanche for unaccountable Anti Racist vigilantes, who act as irregular enforcement agents of state policy in these matters.
I think you understand as well as I do that Anti Racist vigilantes have the tacit, often explicit support of the state, academia and media, so you could refrain from patronising me if you please.

Hasbeen,
Mark Dreyfus is as passionate a supporter of these proposed amendments as was predecessor.

'Hasbeen,
Mark Dreyfus is as passionate a supporter of these proposed amendments as was predecessor. '

hopefully not as pigheaded. Otherwise Tim might find himself in prison.

Goodness me, it is absolutely clear that white people are not protected.
The Prime Minister performed a blatant act of racism and she is still
in the job.
She even said it was done for racial reasons !

From memory one of Bolt's "mistakes" was to indicate the wrong ancestor
of one of the litigants to be aboriginal.
I thought the whole argument was about someone who was 25% aboriginal
being able to claim 100% aboriginal benefits.
It was about I think people who did not need to claim the benefits
claiming them even though their aboriginality was undetectable.
The whole case seemed petulant to me.
Reminds me of schoolgirls sniping at each other.

No, Bazz. It was not about that at all.

Please read the actual judgment:

http://abalinx.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Eatock-v-Bolt-Judgement.pdf

Cheers, AA

Two points Alan. The proposed Roxon Bill goes much too far in limiting freedom of speech - it was and remains a trojan horse. Secondly, many of the so called lies for which Bolt was convicted seem to me to be either truths or matters of opinion. For example an aboriginal activist (Tasmania) made exactly the same main comment as did Bolt, but was not charged. I understand he apologised when his error was explained to him - however that proves my point.

I wonder if the bill has exemptions for members of parliament as so
many other acts that have been through parliament over the years.
Of course there is parliamentary privilege but that is not to what I refer.

With an election coming up they could continue to insult Tony Abbott and he would have no recourse to law.
But no one could say anything that offended a politician.

G’day Pliny. How’s Perth?

Interesting points. Not sure how valid.

Which section in the draft “goes much too far in limiting freedom of speech”?

Have you read it, Pliny? The freedom of speech provision – Section 18D of Part IIA of the current Act – remains completely untouched. No?

So I’m curious to know which paragraphs in the proposed revision are problematic.

No, I’m pretty sure the Eatock v Bolt judgment does not allow you to say “many of the so called lies for which Bolt was convicted seem to me to be either truths or matters of opinion.”

The judge was explicit here. He clearly distinguished between Bolt’s opinions and asserted facts.

“The fair comment defence only applies to a comment AS DISTINCT FROM a statement of fact. The basis for DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN a comment and a statement of fact was discussed by Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ in Channel Seven Adelaide …” (355) [Emphasis added]

So Bromberg makes a definite distinction, doesn’t he?

“Those opinions will at times be ill-considered. They may be obstinate, exaggerated or simply wrong. But that, of itself, provides NO VALID BASIS FOR THE LAW TO CURTAIL THE EXPRESSION OF OPINION. The fair comment defence at common law EXTENDS TO PROTECT OPINIONS, even those that reasonable people would consider to be abhorrent.” (353)

So there was no issue with Bolt’s offensive and obnoxious racist opinions.

Bolt lost purely because so many statements of 'fact' were lies.

Bromberg found serious damage done to the reputations of Bolt’s victims when he accused them of intentional financial fraud by asserting factual matters that were simply false. They were just typical Murdoch ‘made up sh#t’.

The judge found asserted facts “untrue”, “gratuitous references” based on “a selective misrepresentation”, omissions which “meant that the facts were not truly stated”, assertions “shown to be factually erroneous”, comment “unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous”, and several contentions “incorrect” or “grossly incorrect”.

It was the lies and only the lies. Bromberg found at least 19. In two articles. He could hardly be clearer.

Have you read the judgment, Pliny?

Cheers, AA

Hi again Bazz,

Yes, politicians seem to operate under different rules from the rest of us.

On the one hand they do have parliamentary privilege. On the other, they have to be able to cop fairly serious abuse without recourse.

Witness all the 'ditch the witch' and 'Bob Brown's bitch' and 'Juliar' slogans which have wallpapered Australia's recent political discourse.

Not sure Tony Abbott is the vulnerable one here ...

Cheers, AA