Andrew Bolt has been found in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. You can read the judgement here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html.

You can also read some commentary on it from journalist Andrew Dodd here http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3026182.html.

In essence the judgement says that if you make judgements on someone based on their race and they are reasonably likely to be offended by it then you have committed racial discrimination, and that the exemption provided on the grounds of fair comment doesn't apply if you have expressed yourself strongly.

We have had conversations here over the years on matters covered by the act and I have always assumed we would be covered by the fair comment provision (Section 18D).

Afterall, what is the use of free speech if you can't offend someone? And OLO operates as a forum where people can discuss ideas, no matter what their background is, or how well or otherwise they express themselves.

It now appears that I will have to make a judgement call on the tone of any comments on racial matters, in which case it is easier not to discuss them.

Most chillingly the judge says in the summary "I have taken into account that the articles may have been read by some people susceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views and that, as a result, racially prejudiced views have been reinforced, encouraged or emboldened."

Yes, and they may have formed the basis of a discussion in which some people so inclined may have changed their minds. Now they will be careful to have these discussions where their views cannot be challenged.

It most certainly is a worry, Graham.

At a personal level, I dislike Andrew Bolt's style immensely. I see him as a grumpy, unreconstructed 1950s white-bread conservative, with the value set that goes with it.

But I believe that he has an absolute right to bring to the public's attention issues where he feels that the subject of an individual's race is being used in an inappropriate manner. While his approach is to sneer and belittle - and I think it is this that got him into trouble equally as much as the racial content - we are all entitled to know how our taxes are being spent.

So as well as fearing in a general sense for the future of free speech in this country - and is has definitely been dealt a significant blow - I think the judgment itself is flawed in its conclusions as to the incidents themselves.

What I also find unpleasant is the thought of all those wads of cash that are going to flow into the gleeful pockets of those hyenas, "human rights lawyers". To paraphrase Alessio Rastani, that iconic financial trader in his BBC interview the other day...

"Personally I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I have a confession, which is I go to bed every night, I dream of another Andrew Bolt."

Graham,

This is, with respect to the learned judges, a ridiculous decision and I'm sure that Bolt will appeal it. Many times, amongst Indigenous students and other community members, I have heard reference to various people as 'Johnny-come-latelys', 'coming out of the woodwork' and so on, in reference to someone claiming to be Indigenous and going for a benefit or job of some sort. A fair proportion of the Indigenous population would have to be charged, and found guilty, along with Bolt if this decision stands.

When I was working in Indigenous university student support, a major focus was on recruitment and preparation, and on a few occasions, not all that many, I would get enquiries from people claiming to be Indigenous:

* 'my grandmother was part-Aboriginal' [what, do you mean your mother or your father ?]

* 'my great-grandfather was Aboriginal' [not 'native'? as many white Australians called themselves assertively in the late nineteenth century: viz. the 'Australian Natives' Association'] [and how many Aboriginal men married non-Aboriginal women in the nineteenth century ? Certainly it occurred, but my advice to a would-be 'Aboriginal' applicant would be to stick with 'great-grandmother'].

I well remember a guy who turned out to be Austrian-Italian. What tended to give the game away was applicants' inability to quickly spell out their family links - genuine Aboriginal applicants would be happy to tell you, and within seconds you would know who they were related to. Phonies tended to shuffle their feet, hum and ha, and go on about 'stolen generation', that their mother/father didn't know because of the SG etc. [So, if they didn't know their ancestry, why do/did they think they were Aboriginal ?] I used to give them family tree forms, and never saw them again.

So yes, there are phonies out there, and Aboriginal people know it, especially when, being good talkers, they often get some of the plum jobs.

[TBC]

[contd.]

I have no problem at all with benefits and concessions, such as easier access to university enrolment, to anybody, Black or White, on the basis of need, but I'm not so sure that an Aboriginal person whose parents are solidly middle-class and who discovers in adolescence that they 'are Aboriginal' needs any special deals - but I guess to him or her that hath, shall it be given.

And with more than twenty six thousand Indigenous graduates, nobody needs to coddle or pamper or sponsor (cf. Ralph Turner's 1961 paper on 'sponsored and contest mobility', a wonderfully uncanny description of skewed opportunities in inegalitarian systems for the mobility of some, at the expense of others) any tiny handful of Precious Aboriginal Exceptions. Non-Aboriginal academics who have acted as minders and coddlers, with the best of intentions, I'm sure, have done great disservice to the Aboriginal people as a whole by such preferencing.

And who is still going to be getting coddled and promoted and put on committees in 2020, when there are fifty thousand Indigenous university graduates ? Will it still be the same old circulating elites in Indigenous academe and Indigenous affairs ?

Joe

The sad part is that many aboriginals would agree with Andrew Bolts assessment.

Fair comment was ruled out because the articles were shown to be not in good faith and to contain factual errors, according to the judge.

No surprises there.