cont'd ...

Trioli continues:

"Let me just say that again, because the ideological
warriors in this fight have conveniently ignored this
crucial section. This section protects freedom of
speech. Under our laws we all have a defence for our
insulting: if you are engaged in artistic works,
scientific debate and fair comment on matter of public
interest, you can vent to your heart's content
providing what you do is said or done reasonably and in
good faith. That's why Bolt couldn't rely on this
protection for his columns. The judge found that through
his errors and inflammatory language Bolt had not acted
in good faith."

"It bears noting - for this truly is the straw man at the
centre of this high-falutin' row - that Bolt probably
could have got away with almost everything he wrote in
those strangely skin-colour-obsessed columns if he had
just done one thing a good journalist is required to do -
get his facts straight."

"But let's return to the problem that this repeal was
supposed to solve: what con't you say right now because
of 18C?"

"This argument, such as it is, seemed to be made even weaker
when Bolt had another go the next day at arguing his corner.
His lament was that once upon a time he could have denounced
someone and "in perfect safety drawn links between his
faith and his bigotry. I could have wandered whether we
were safe, importing so many people from such a culture."

"Once he could have done this? Seems to me this columnist
just managed to say now what he said he couldn't."

"Situation normal: everyone go back to your homes."

BTW ; If the first words out of your mouth are to always
cry "Political Correctness," chances are very, very, high that
you are in fact part of the problem!

Here is another link that may be of interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/08/14/explainer-who-isis-where-are-they-and-why-are-they-fighting

For some time now education has been taking over from religion in Australia but in the middle east religion is the preferred brainwashing medium.

Foxy, wasn't Bolt's error of fact that the complainant's grandfather
was German rather than her Great Grandfather was German ? or vice versa ?

I am saying that from memory.

Foxy, that photo of the boy holding the head is a close up with not
much else in the photo.
I came across other photos in the same area. The background is the
same and the fence is the same. Placed on the fence just above and to
the right and left of the boys position there is a row of about 20
heads stuck up on the fence.

On the same site was a cleric conducting a class in how to behead captives.

It is hard to imagine what effect it will have on that boy.
I see his mother's father wants the boys returned to Australia.
This the best case for the removal of children from the parents that I have seen.
Not much chance of that I am afraid. If the IS is over run it might
be possible to extract them.

Dear Bazz,

Andrew Bolt has admitted that he got some facts wrong.

He claimed academic Larissa Behrendt that she -

"has also worked as a professional Aborigine ever
since leaving Harvard Law School, despite looking
almost as German as her father."

And in typically snide Boltism he wrote that
Behrendt -

"is often interviewed demanding special rights for
"my people." But which people are "yours," exactly
mein liebchen?"

Behrendt's father was born in Australia to an
Aboriginal mother.

If Behrendt had been suing Bolt for defamation - that
mistake would have cost News Ltd a lot of money.

And this wasn't the only inaccuracy that Bolt had
made by a long chalk.

As for the young child involving in that dreadful extremism
of his father. I, like you hope that the child
can be saved. Dreadful, dreadful situation.