@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