Antiseptic,

I'm sure that there are plenty of lawyers latching onto the finer points in this case, but I wonder about whether or not Bolt's words humiliated or intimidated:

* 'humiliation' seems to require a third party (or parties), not just the person subjected to the criticism, but other parties for whom the injured party's reputation has been degraded, who think less of that person than before, because - according to Bolt - of some activity performed by, or character flaw of, the injured party;

* 'intimidation' may require an actual threat, physical or otherwise, i.e. the suggestion of damage to one's person or reputation.

Did Bolt humiliate - and intend to humiliate - any of the plaintiffs ? Does anybody think worse of them - unjustifiably - because of what Bolt wrote ?

Did Bolt intimidate anybody ? Did he threaten to gratuitously damage anybody's reputation by his words ?

There seems to me to be a very fine line here, and I'm not sure that Bolt crossed it.

Indigenous people are aware of shonks, of people claiming Aboriginality and gaining benefits from that claim. We all know of white people who write under other names, claiming Aboriginality and gaining book contracts and prizes. Demidenko was not the only fraud in Australian literature.

As well, Aboriginal people are only too aware of people who gain positions and benefits by virtue of their relationship to other powerful Aboriginal people, who use their relations to get a leg-up, and exploit advantages that the vast majority of Aboriginal people do not have, to get yet more of their relations into good positions. Just check out the membership of many Indigenous organisations: sometimes it's amazing how many people can be employed from the one family in a small organisation.

They are aware too of the closed nature of the circle of elites, who nominate each other for promotion, committee membership, overseas conferences and plaudits, and are nominated themselves when their 'turn' comes around.

As Wesley Aird wrote yesterday, it can be a pretty dirty business.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You can judge for yourself.

Here's Bolt on Larissa Behrendt:

" She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine,
including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers,
and is often interviewed demanding special rights for,
'my people.' But which people are 'yours' exactly
mein liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give
you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white
dad?"

Nice!

As David Marr points out :

"Among the problems here are that Behrendt's father was a
BLACK Australian, not a white German and like all the
others, Behrendt was raised black."

Judge Bromberg wrote: "She denies Mr Bolt's statement
that she CHOSE to be Aboriginal and says that she never
had a choice. She has always been Aboriginal and has
identified as Aboriginal "before I can remember."

Bolt didn't contest her evidence.

I repeat, if Mr Bolt wants to accuse people of "appaling
motives," he should as Judge Bromberg said, "start by
getting his facts right."

David Marr continues; "
Bolt was wrong! Spectacularly wrong! And taking a swipe
at "political" or "professional" or "official" Aborigines
who could pass for white to identify as black for
"personal or political gain," to "win prizes and places
reserved for "real" black Aborigines and to "borrow other
people's glories," does amount to defamation.

Even Bolt's lawyers had to concede (even before this case
began in Federal Court) that the nine of these named
"White Aborigines" had identified as black from childhood.
All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this
down the track but were raised as Aborigines. Their
evidence was NOT contested by Mr Bolt or his paper.

All the nine wanted was a formal apology from Mr Bolt,
and to see that it never happens again.

Hi Lexi,

Yes, whether and for how long and in what ways people identify, and how people gain awards and positions and accolades - these are all fraught issues. I don't know how you clearly differentiate between:

* Person A who has been raised in a comfortable environment, whose Aboriginality may be easily borne and to an extent 'chosen' and who has had powerful non-Aboriginal minders and promoters helping their career along, for whatever reason;

* and Person B who has battled against fair-dinkum racism all her life, has never known any other relations but her Aboriginal ones, who has made contributions but received little recognition, and who doesn't have or suck up to any powerful non-Aboriginal people, perhaps quite the reverse, because she doesn't toe some political line that they wish her to take.

Sometimes I wish that white fellas would keep the hell out of Aboriginal people's lives and let their fortunes be dictated by their efforts, not by who they know and who can get them perks and jobs and other benefits. It's been incredibly destructive for those Aboriginal people who try to think for themselves, congtribute in their own way and run their own lives.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Bolt has made this entire issue around "Freedom
of Speech," and his so called "rights," to this
freedom. To me this isn't about freedom of speech at
all. This is an impulse control issue not an issue of
"freedom."

Having to get your facts straight is part of a
genuine expression of freedom, because real freedom
is always connected to actual knowledge. Real freedom
is never about the superficial. Without knowledge,
even freedom to speak becomes just a stab in the dark.

Anyway, the knowledge was there for Mr Bolt to find
regarding these nine people that he named - and their
facts speak for themselves

Lexi,

Yes, I'd agree that some of Bolt's targets were very unfairly treated, particularly those raised on missions and government settlements: no matter how dark or pale they may be, their entire early environment, their only relations, their neighbours and schoolmates, would have been Aboriginal. And it's very likely that some of them would have had to battle, perhaps for decades, to get themselves a good education and to build relatively comfortable lives. Some of them most certainly wouldn't have had success handed to them on a plate.

But yes, there are others who have never had it anywhere near as hard - who have effectively had a non-Aboriginal upbringing, gone straight through school to uni, straight into employment - or who have influential relations, who know what whites to suck up to in order to boost their careers. Characteristically, so I've noticed, people like these have very few or no Aboriginal friends or acquaintances except other people like themselves: so many of the elite operate as a tight circle, helping each other here, getting each other perks there. It happens :)

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I don't question the fact that it happens.
People are people. However Mr Bolt selected
the wrong ones - without getting his facts
right and then went at it hammer and thongs.
Plus his innuendo et cetera - copped him the
judgement. I doubt very much though whether he's
learned anything from it. I watched his show on
Sunday whether there would be any sign of
remorse of any kind. There wasn't (of course).
What was I thinking.