Speaking of people making a living out of being Aboriginal...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-gripes-of-wrath-20111001-1l2z5.html

I won't quote it here. Suffice to say that I suspect Mr Bolt might have a fair chance at a defamation case against Professor Langton and The Age and probably a pretty good go at a Racial Discrimination Act effort as well, based on Bromberg's decision.

Apart from that, I'll just express my personal disgust at the views expressed, which are racist in the extreme, as is usual from Professor Langton.

Jeez Louise,
Here tis:
http://www.jwire.com.au/gossip/federal-judge-lunches-at-chabad/18998
There's nothing remarkable or ""suspicious" about Mordy Bromberg associating with Chabad as a private citizen, he's both Jewish and of Israeli background.
His involvement in the Bolt trial might raise some eyebrows for the reason I've stated earlier but everything appears to be above board.

This however is unseemly:

http://shturem.org/pTb/phpThumb.php?src=%2Fimages%2Fnews%2F13177_news_25022007_36459.jpg&w=453&hash=3d3112b0e10b0cc6d6150af3eb252216

Chabad isn't a "social club" it's a Jewish fundamentalist ethno/political lobby group with alleged links to Haredi extremists, organised crime, political corruption and all sorts of skullduggery.
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2009/08/the-story-chabad-doesnt-want-you-to-hearan-exclusive-interview-with-historian-and-author-bryan-mark-.html#tp

As I said, we as non Jews had best refrain from critique of the internal workings of the Israel lobby but need we be so cautious about criticising pro Zionist lickspittles from our own ethnic group such as Bolt and Christian Zionists like John Howard?

I am from the left, proudly.
Dislike Bolt intensely.
Deny strongly, the left handed down this ruling.
Understand however the judge may well be of the left.
What pains me, embarrasses me hurts, is the usual suspects, yes left, are again walking around the issue.
Our country, both rewards some who are not Aboriginal for saying they are.
And we profit from an industry, some of us, that lives off these people.
Failure, long term failure, is rewarded with more wasted money, wasted promises.
Not just to some of these people who are being paid sit down do nothing money, many leach on them.
Constructive debate needs us all, to leave our biases out side.
Do we want another 200 years of failure.

its a funny co-incidence
but a friend of mine..[keven buzzacot...lawyers name is steve blot]

here are some links..to the important coat of arms case
we lost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Buzzacott

steve is a modest guy
working for free
http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.boltfindlay.com.au/about.htm&sa=U&ei=-sCITp20LKiViAeat7CXDw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=cqFCmRoNF15rspYRZcwBAw&usg=AFQjCNFXW-hbiaWENB5jamcu8Df535B4DQ

and still we lost

keven told me that the emu and his totum the kangeroo
are the two law animals..[known for never taking a backwards step]

i did reserch on the meaning of words
and jew means the same as aborigonal

further that the elders of mosus
never left the desert

abnd here we are
in the never never
or the land of ozzz

and all i want to do
is go gently back into my sleep

ahhh mercifll escape
from live time vivid dreaming

yet here i am
blogging into the wind
fighting the next loosing battle

life is full of co incidence

The judgement says: "Finally, in dealing with the formulation of the orders to be made by the Court, I have observed that it is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people."

There has been discussion here in this thread about racial identification inclcuding challenging the genuineness of the racial identification of some people. However on a practical level it's hard to see who would sue.

Identity is a huge issue, I don't see that discussion of it is suppressed; it's more about finding boundaries for that discussion. Bolt's articles were the equivalent of flaming here.

Also Bromberg took into account "the possible degree of harm". As well as the hurt and insult involved one of his concerns is that he "found that the conduct was reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on some fair-skinned Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity."

In other words Bolt's words could have serious consequences. That's much less likely to happen on OLO.

It's difficult for Graham when the goal posts move but is this much different to defamation law? Graham, I am wondering if you would have published Bolt's articles and why or why not. Apart from anything else his articles seemed defamatory to me.

Young says

"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."

Readers who actually want the truth on this could look at the judgement, of which the judge's summary says:

I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D [that is, the fair comment exemption]. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

Now I guess it is possible that the full judgement doesn't justify this summary, that it shows no more that that Bolt "expressed himself strongly". But, if so, why doesn't Young make that case? Does he expect every reader to read the whole judgement to see if he is telling the truth?