Individual,

Spot-on in your comments :)

Hi Antiseptic,

Sorry, I've been working out of town for a few days, so I'm just catching up. As you wrote:

"If there was no money in being an Aboriginal advocate, nobody would have cared and I suspect he'd not have even mentioned it."

This is probably Bolt's main point, that his quarrel is with people who benefit in some way - and in his view, unfairly - from claiming Aboriginality.

I was talking to an Aboriginal friend last night and he was pretty vehement about Johnny-come-latelies who corner some of the best jobs, and for life. Which will probably mean that their kids will also corner good jobs over the next generation. For life.

I remember a conversation with a good mate, back in the late seventies: we had both married Aboriginal women, and his kids were a lot paler than mine, so he was agonising over at what point - if they too married white partners and had even paler kids - did Aboriginality cease to have much salience.

We were both aware of the old 'one drop of blood' rule in the US, the racist tactic of excluding people from opportunities, jobs and resources on the grounds of the slightest trace of African origins in their 'racial' background, but at the same time were strong supporters of affirmative action, to redress the decades of discriminatory policies used against Indigenous people here.

We sort of agreed that entitlement should be related to need, rather than origin, since we were determined, each of us, to ensure that our kids had a secure and comfortable upbringing and a good education, which they all did.

[TBC]

[contd.]

So the question does come down to whether or not people who may have had a similarly comfortable and secure upbringing, with no more privation than the average Australian, are entitled to take up opportunities which were originally designed for people in far greater need, articulated or expressed in terms of skin colour and a background of exclusion and discrimination - and manifestly fewer opportunities.

But on top of that, it is true as Tony Abbott says (and this might come back to bite him when he is PM) that the right of free speech includes the right to offend. One question is whether or not it includes the right to humiliate or intimidate (how do you measure those ?). Clearly, it does not extend to the right to incite violence which actually leads to violence.

So where is the fine line between permissible and impermissible free speech ?

Joe

Loudmouth:"One question is whether or not it includes the right to humiliate or intimidate (how do you measure those ?)."

That was my own thought too. How do I make an objective judgement about your subjective response? What if you have an exceptionally thin or thick skin, or you're response is motivated by something other than simple personal offence? The judge dismissed that as only of minor interest, preferring a circular argument that used the assumed standards of the plaintiffs themselves to judge whether they'd een offended. IOW, "they said they're offended, so you're offensive".

Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Inciting violence should be unacceptable, defamation should be unacceptable. If this lot had gone that way I'd be quite sympathetic. The fact that they went down a RDA track shows this was a political stunt.

It sounds as though we're in agreement about the way funds are misdirected.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The fact remains that if Andrew Bolt wants to
accuse people of all sort of motives, as David
Marr pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald -
Mr Bolt should start by getting his facts right.

As well as that - Bolt went at it with, "mockery,
derision, and sarcasm." Judge Bromberg found the
language utilised in Bolt's newspaper articles was
"inflammatory and defamatory." In other words
Judge Bromberg is not telling the media what they
can say or where they can poke their noses (as Marr
points out). Bolt got his facts wrong." Spectacularly
wrong." And Bolt can now come up with all the denials
he likes, and try to explain his mistakes, language and
motives, (purest of course). He can put a smile on his face
and his hand on his heart and hope it works like a charm.
And it probably will with his cheer squad - like
Brandis et al.

But not with Judge Bromberg.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/does-it-all-boil-down-to-a-question-of-colour/story-e6frgd0x-1226157549784
Barry for those who do not know it is a Labor stalwart.
A minister in the big fellas Government.
He is of Jewish ancestry and I once lived in his electorate.
I forever idolize the bloke.
His writings [books]are witty and great reading.
I do not take back my opinion of Bolt.
Or that the courts ruling was a lefty plot, it was wrong.
Bolt however grub that I think he is, crafted his words in a way that left room to provoke.
Underlining the issue remains we are stalled in a mud hole of our own making and PC will not get us out.

Joe, Loudmouth I address this to you.
Because I think you best understand.
I think we are a total failure in this area.
Because more are not like you and your mate and your wives.
Because some, too BL**DY many! who know nothing are getting in the way.
I have many, good and bad,relatives, Aboriginal and not.
I spoke of my two siblings,raising the third generation of their offspring, as Aboriginals, not but being paid,
I have a relative, who has been asked,to claim to be, of Aboriginal ancestry.
So he can lease, long term lease, a $800.000 home,for $100 a week!
He said no, and our mate, full blooded Aboriginal can not rent it,because? he may knock it about!