SHOW A RACE componant

i think
we need to go back to..*the act

and read what 'race'..means..!
unr 'the act'

before we get a race..to the door
or a race..to the bottum

the high court will need to clarify
the limitaions of race..!

what inclusions
what exclusions

religeons cant be race..[and if they were
they too would be seen clearly..as racist]

this issue needs clarification
urgently

i feel i need..racial protection
as my smokers race..is going extinct

laws are a scam
BUT..if no one raises complaint
bad laws get validated..because no proper appeal defence was presented

many of the grounds with drug law
wernt propperly defended...and now are refused on the grounds
that high courts have ruled..on this or that

but the basic truth is that any plant in the ground
is legally and lawfully a fixture..[not a fungable]..and any fixture[affixt to or on the land..is a part of the land

thus cant be 'possesed'
yet 35,000 kids pleaded guilty in 1999 alone
to possesing..

[bad law...comes from ignorance]
so to the lable race

Graham,

Can you take heart in knowing that it was Bolt that was found to have breached he Act, not the Herald-Sun? The precedent has not yet been set for publishers/editors/moderators, has it?

I know the Act specifically includes e-forums, however I would think the editor of a newspaper has greater responsibility over the content of the newspaper than the moderator of a forum does.

Trashcan you might just pardon me for being a tad irritated. Do you bother reading anything? Where did your last comment come from? Do you realise how much risk there is for the publisher of these forums because of the ignorance of the commenters?

Paragraph 29 of the summary of the case reads:

"As to the relief which should be granted by the Court, I intend to direct the parties to confer with a view to agreeing on orders to give affect to the Court’s reasons for judgment. I have indicated that the Court will make a declaration that Mr Bolt and the Herald &Weekly Times have contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I have also indicated that I will make orders prohibiting the republication of the newspaper articles. In the absence of the publication of an apology, I will consider making an order for the publication in the Herald Sun of a corrective notice."

That is both Bolt and his publisher who have been found to be in contravention of the act. The title of the case says the parties to the case are PAT EATOCK v ANDREW BOLT and THE HERALD AND WEEKLY TIMES PTY LTD (ACN 004 113 937). How much clearer can it be? Where is the comfort?

I had only read sections of the judgment referring to Bolt.

From everything I've read, I'd never seen a reference to the HWT.

I understood it was Eatock V Bolt only.

Fair enough. You have reason to be cautious

A couple of interesting comments in the Australian.

Firstly, a piece from Wesley Aird, who happens to be Aboriginal and a member of the Gold Cosat Land Council. I'm not sure if this means that he is exempted from the Bromberg ruling; can an Aboriginal person be racially discriminated against by another Aborigine, or is it sufficient in the Brombergian view that the plaintiff exists and says they have been insulted? The good judge seems to have ignored that issue in his judgement.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/more-transparency-less-hypocrisy/story-e6frgd0x-1226156373200

"IT is ridiculous, in my opinion, that Judge Mordecai Bromberg in handing down his decision on the Andrew Bolt case felt the need to explain the meanings of such words as offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate.

Followers of the Bolt case will also be familiar with the term hypocrisy. Here's a clue - it's about double standards.

In my experience politically active Aboriginal people are experts when it comes to dishing out abuse. Fighting hard and dirty has been turned into quite an art form by indigenous people across the country trying to protect their slice of the $3.5 billion that the government spends each year on indigenous affairs."

Anyone feeling offended yet?

and

"Yet try to threaten a person's funding and you will experience firsthand what it feels like to be offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated; and unlike the Bolt case, this will be the desired intent. The real professionals in race-based intimidation are Aboriginal people whose vocation is to divest the commonwealth of funds.

I know of communities where the government directly finances invented tribes, fabricated history, waste, petty corruption and the occasional threat of violence or death. There are no lawyers to contrive affront; there is no judge; just more government money going to the usual suspects for no benefit."

and

"I can't help but form the view that the court case was intended to use the Racial Discrimination Act to intimidate non-indigenous Australians."

Sounds a lot like the sort of thing I said a couple of posts back, doesn't it? And a lot like Bolt's point as well.

The other article was by Chris Kenny, who has the temerity to comment whilst not being Aboriginal, the scoundrel. I'm sure he's awaiting the inquisition as I type this.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/silencing-dissent-wont-resolve-indigenous-issues/story-e6frgd0x-1226156370004

"THE judicial finding against Andrew Bolt has drastic implications for free speech but it also demonstrates that in almost two decades since the landmark Mabo decision, Australia's left-liberal political class has learned little about the important priorities in indigenous issues."

and

"On the matter of free speech it is worth noting that, at least, Judge Mordecai Bromberg conceded the issues raised by Bolt were matters of public interest. But Bromberg said some of Bolt's words meant more than their literal meaning and that while he accepted the literal meaning of some of Bolt's mitigating phrases, he found Bolt did not believe them.

So now when airing opinions on matters of public interest, Australians are subject to sanction by a court according to a judge ascribing extra meaning to the words we use, or denying our sincerity in the use of other words."

I personally find the hypocrisy of the Left quite staggering. As someone who has always identified as left-leaning, even socialist in my younger days, the Establishment Left has grossly disappointed me. No longer is it about justice for the poor and the weak, rather it is about giving prominence to those who seek to benefit from the plight of others. It is about promoting the spruikers and the manipulators; the debate framers who care little for those whose existence is the sole reason they have a good job with little oversight and few demands, leaving them lots of time for their political games.

Ask yourselves just what has been achieved with this decision. Who benefits? Who is left with no voice? Think on your response if it had been an Aboriginal journalist sued by a group of European-ancestry Australians and the Judge had made the same decision (which I very much doubt he would have).

If it's not exactly the same, you're a hypocrite.