I can’t understand why he doesn’t sue them

The attacks on Andrew Bolt are vile and disgusting but are also endless since there is no apparent penalty in saying what you like. He has a post up with the title, If they want laws against abuse, could they at least stop this vilification? which outlines some of the more recent of the more outrageous material. This is from his posting:

This really is becoming obscene.

First, Ron Merkel QC, acting for fair-skinned Aborigines who successfully had two of my articles banned, told the Jewish judge my thinking was of the kind that the Nazis had in drawing up the Nuremberg race laws – a truly disgusting and false smear which Jewish leaders have, belatedly, condemned. My articles were in fact a protest against racism and its new forms.

Next, The Age published a prominent article by academic Marica Langton accusing me of believing in the “master race” and “racial hygiene”, concepts promoted by the Nazis and used to justify the Holocaust. Langton has, after more than two years, finally apologised for that outrageous lie, but The Age has not.

This month the ABC falsely smeared me as a racist and broadcast utterly false claims that I’d subjected an academic to “foul abuse … racist abuse”, accused her of not really being Aboriginal and driven her from “public life”. Every single claim was untrue, and the ABC grudgingly apologised.

Yesterday another disgusting character assassination, this time from SBS, which broadcast yet more distressing falsehoods to paint me as exactly the opposite of what I am.

I’ve mentioned this in a post below, but I am alarmed by the damage this campaign of vilification could do and want to highlight the falseness of this latest smear, which even The Australian republished this morning.

If you are looking for good sense and fair play from the left, you will look a long time. Leaving these issues unchallenged through the courts is not an example of accepting free speech. Defamation is not protected free speech. These people should be made to defend themselves before a judge.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

546 Responses to I can’t understand why he doesn’t sue them

  1. Solid Gold from Gab:

    Ever looked up Dumb Fuck in the dictionary

    I did last night when you attributed a quote to Morrison and called him an arrogant prick when the quote was actually by Tony Burke. Ditto for when you blamed Abbott about women miscarrying in detention centres under this government but the links you posted dated back to the Rudd government.

  2. Snoopy

    I did last night when you attributed a quote to Morrison and called him an arrogant prick when the quote was actually by Tony Burke. Ditto for when you blamed Abbott about women miscarrying in detention centres under this government but the links you posted dated back to the Rudd government.

    Game, set and match. Piss off ‘lawyer’.

  3. A Lurker

    Ever looked up Dumb Fuck in the dictionary 1246580? Save yourself the trouble and get a mirror. Better yet, slit and artery and bleed out.
    Much of what resides between your ears is dead meat as it is …
    And now Moderator, ban me!!

    And that, dear readers, is the progression of events that causes a Lefty-lawyer’s head to explode.

  4. Actually that takes some beating. Even Numbers has never been done so comprehensively.
    Gab wins the Cat today.

  5. Gab

    Satp, I was only joking about the being unappreciated bit :)

    Also, I did beat the numbered one with facts upthread as well.

  6. Tom

    Top work, Gab. I promise to be more appreciative.

  7. Pickles

    A salient example of why, most times, you really are better off only blog commenting with your thumbs.

  8. Joe Goodacre

    BCL,

    On the subject of sec. 18C, I prefer that it stay in its current guise such that a judge (irrespective of his/her racial, religious and/or cultural background) is permitted to afford weight to the specific experiences of the racial group of which the complainant is a victim. Under the proposed repeal, we have a race-neutral ‘ordinary reasonable person’ making the assessment, whose sensibilities and perceptions as concerns the effects of racism would mirror that of the Australian majority.

    That this is your preference is understood – this is not an answer though to the following question – how can we avoid an abuse of process if a person judging whether racist offence has been given, is required to view it through the eyes of a person of that particular race. Said another way – the victim is dictating what constitutes the crime, with the crime being the victim’s mental state.

    Take the KFC advertisement. The ad portrays people of a one skin colour liking KFC. Did the ad imply that only blacks like KFC, or that blacks were inferior because they liked KFC? No. Since racism is the belief that one race is inferior or superior to another, an objective person would not find the ad racist. If the state of mind of a black person defines though whether that’s a crime and a black person finds that offensive then on what basis do we find the offence taken, unreasonable.

    This applies to the Goodes episode where he was called an ape. Goodes is a hairy dark fellow. It’s an objective statement that he looks more like an ape than a skinny, hairless white person. Does this mean that the girl was saying that his race was genetically inferior to whites? That seems a stretch to me. Sure the comment was offensive, but how is it any different than someone being ridiculed for any other aspect of their appearance? The reason that it gets treated with kid gloves here is that racism is defined by whether people from the same group see it as racist – i..e the victim defines the crime.

    Maybe this will alienate some people. This is no different though to the alienation millions of other people go through daily around the world when they are insulted for any genetic characteristic. I fail to see why being insulted on the grounds of skin colour is any worse than being insulted on the grounds of your hair colour. People like Aly argue that unless you’re a minority you don’t get it. Well one could just as easily argue that because they’re not fat/skinny/tall/short (pick your characteristic), they don’t get it either. It’s a pointless argument because everyone’s empathy is limited to their own experiences. The fairest way is to tell people to suck it up – sticks and stones will break their bones but words will never hurt them.

    Personally I think section 18C should be gone for two reasons:
    a) we can’t fight what we can’t see – we can’t make thinking illegal, and if people have racist thoughts, I’d prefer that these people are known so that they can be ostracised. I’m not sure why people are fans of helping racists hide by cloaking them in the protection afforded by section 18C where it is presumed that people are only not racist because they may get taken to court; and
    b) it’s inconsistent to make it illegal to insult people on the basis of race but not other genetic characteristics. This legislation is actually racist because it assumes that black people have terrible mental fragility, while the rest of us are tough enough to deal with being called fat/skinny/redhead/blonde or dumb.

  9. .

    And just about every other legal predicament imaginable, including apprehended violence orders, victims impact statements, housing & tenancy, persons subjected to the unlawful use of police powers etc. Check the website.

    No, fuck off.

    You go to the police/DPP to get an AVO and to give a victim statement. For housing and tenancy you go to the tenancy union. Police abuse – any criminal or litigation lawyer. They do that on a no win no pay arrangement.

    That sex abuse funding is very specific – for the royal commission, you dropkick. You didn’t say that.

    A tipsheet from the legal Aid office doesn’t amount to “going there for advice”, victims of spousal will go to the police or a registrar/chamber magistrate. What is legal aid gonna do? Defend them from the police for laying charges against their husband? Oh wow there is a subsidy available. You think they care about that with two black eyes or know about it before they see the cops or the chamber magistrate?

    If people need to know how to apply for welfare, there are centrelink staff for this, dickless.

    Thanks for beclowning youself, google law student. What a pathetic attempt to discredit free speech from your accumulated idiocy and running interference.

  10. Take the KFC advertisement.

    The main bitch about it was that it depicted “African-Americans” as being suckers for friend chicken.

    Stoopid yank daytime TV hosts couldn’t even pick that it was “West-Indians”

    These self-centred doofii believed that an advertisement about Cricket in Australia had a grandstand full of “African-Americans”

    And KFC gave in to it.

    You couldn’t make shit up like this.

  11. .

    Christ, that’s more stupid than I thought.

    Dickless was using it as an example why we need to end free speech.

  12. This applies to the Goodes episode where he was called an ape.

    Having heard all my life football players called “apes” I’m not readily inclined to believe there is anything remotely racial about it.

    Mr. Goodes, millionaire public figure and famous person, ought to be crying into his pink hankie over picking on a 13yo girl.

    The security staff who threw her out, without a supervising adult being allowed to go with her, should be charged.

  13. Megan

    I’m also of the unabashed view that free speech ought not to be a blanket proposal and should come with caveats attached.

    Then it is no longer free speech. It is speech to which the state or idiot lawyers or some other totalitarian has attached caveats. And you had the nerve to imply we did not understand complex argument. You have amply demonstrate that you are incapable of understanding the simplest of simple concepts. But then, why would you since it provides you with your bread and butter? Moron.

  14. johanna

    SatP, “ape” is one of the kinder expressions I have heard used about football players of various codes over the years. And I’ve never even been in a scrum.

    When did these hulking brutes suddenly become such sensitive little petals?

  15. Cato the Elder

    When did these hulking brutes suddenly become such sensitive little petals?

    When they started getting more kudos for whining than they get for being an adult.

  16. Cato the Elder

    Oh – on the original topic, it’s easy to understand why Bolt doesn’t sue – he’s not made of money and he’s not an idiot. Nor is it his job to take on litigation risk to make others (including some on this blog) feel a sense of satisfaction.

    Memo to those insisting that Bolt should sue: why not start your own litigation? It should be easy enough to say something sufficiently challenging that you can get one of these idiots to defame you – then sue! Problem solved.

  17. When did these hulking brutes suddenly become such sensitive little petals?

    When they started getting more kudos for whining than they get for being an adult.

    Sadly, since that Greek dude got turned loose on Aussie Rules and feminised it into a sport full of moisturising sooks who run to teacher when little girls call them nasty names, it means now that the two codes of Rugby are the only macho fooball remaining.

  18. johanna

    Agree, Cato. Certain internet warriors with nothing to lose (I’m looking at YOU, Grigory M) seem to think that Bolt should risk everything he owns to satisfy their desires, something that they are not prepared to do themselves.

    If they really believed what they were saying, they would either do as you suggest or set up a fighting fund for Bolt, and hand it over when there is $1m in the kitty.

    Otherwise, they should mind their beeswax about telling others what risks they should take in the crapshoot that is the courts.

  19. oldsalt

    BCL, during the last period of asylum seeking by boat Ruddock began his brief as a genuine and moderate liberal, sadly he had a brain snap when presented with demands for expensive dental work by asylum seekers’s lawyers, a spectacular own goal. The Howard administration faced a situation immeasurably complicated by the Timor crisis and to their credit refused to give Jakarta the quid pro quo it sought. The asylum seekers though became proxies in that tug-of-war. We were fortunate to have had such a Gov which didn’t kowtow to Jakarta, Keating on the other hand is on record as saying he would never have countenanced anything more than autonomy for East Timor and Papua. The children were the real innocent victims, still are, and there were alternatives involving NZ that could have been tried. Howard handled the legacy issues humanely, ensuring that practically all those in detention eventually got a visa to live here or go to NZ, then come here if they still wanted to. The Abbott administration is turning out to be a very different beast to Howard’s and we have no guarantee that Morrison will handle the legacy issues with the same grace and humanity. For what its worth, and I share many of your concerns, none of us should be trying to back this current administration into a corner whereby they may feel tempted to give concessions to Jakarta to get votes at home. Because politicians do have brain snaps and history takes a new turn thereafter. Focusing on ensuring an eventual humane resolution of the legacy issues is probably the best thing for the national interest and the asylum seekers. Kind regards.

  20. Blue Collar Lawyer, indeed.

    ‘Blue Collar’ is a joke to start with, unless it’s a euphemism for ‘Extremely Unsuccessful Lawyer’. But I can think of something else ending in -er which might be a better descriptor.

    Has anyone else asked him why he needs to use dictation software when he’s blogging?

    Or will it turn out that he’s like Numbers and had both his arms shot off in the war?

    Or is that a disableist sentiment that needs to be struck from the record?

    Life is so hard without the Doomlord in charge.

  21. Howard handled the legacy issues humanely, ensuring that practically all those in detention eventually got a visa to live here or go to NZ

    And you call that humanely? They deep-fry sausages and sell them as ‘hot dogs’.

    It’s all wrong, I tell you. All wrong.

  22. Cato the Elder

    They deep-fry sausages and sell them as ‘hot dogs’.

    Seriously?

  23. Infidel Tiger

    They call them Kiwi Dogs and they are served on a stick.

  24. Cato the Elder

    That’s what I would call a bastardized Dagwood Dog, not a hot dog. Still, if that’s all they can get it’s a pretty good improvisation.

  25. Ah, but they only call them Kiwi Dogs here.

    I saw ‘Kiwi Dog’ on the local fish and chip shop menu, and asked my parish priest what it was. Not for spiritual reasons, although it was a Friday in Lent.

    He said he didn’t have a clue, but explained that “un New Zullund, uf you usk for a ‘hot dog’, you wull be guven a sausage un batter, whuch hus bun fried.”

    So I put two and two together and worked out that this was what a Kiwi Dog was. I haven’t been game to order one, though.

  26. Rabz

    This has been one seriously bizarre thread.

  27. johanna

    We’ve seen off a troll and had some fun. No complaints here. :)

  28. Senile Old Guy

    People like Aly argue that unless you’re a minority you don’t get it.

    And that the primary thing that determines minority status is skin colour, so white males can’t be in a minority (unless homosexual or similar). But everyone, being unique is in a minority of one and I don’t see why Aly, and those like him, get to determine that the defining characteristics of my existing are that I am white and male (and oldish). Nor, before some lefty jumps in, are the main reasons why I get to do what I do, given that a large number of my colleagues are none of those things.

  29. Senile Old Guy

    [sigh] “existence” but “existing” works for me too.

  30. Rabz

    Joh – I’ve been trying to read some of the comments – it’s akin to wading through sewerage.

    :x

  31. Senile Old Guy

    Philippa:

    Has anyone else asked him why he needs to use dictation software when he’s blogging?

    Now, now. I use Dragon when I’ve got a lot of stuff to type, or my wrists are having a bad day. And I even use it to answer email: I can say “click send” to send the message. Yes, I could just use the mouse but we have software at work that requires 27 clicks to attach an image (perhaps I exaggerate slightly). After a few days of that, anything that reduces mouse usage is worth it.

    Having said that, I’m not going to pretend that using a particular piece of software is evidence of anything…except that I use it.

  32. Has anyone else asked him why he needs to use dictation software when he’s blogging?

    I suspect it is to impress us rubes with what an important guy he is, using bigshot type software that allows him to multi-task, blah blah blah….

  33. .

    Rabz
    #1246843, posted on March 31, 2014 at 7:11 pm
    This has been one seriously bizarre thread.

    Aren’t they all, champ?

  34. johanna

    Rabz

    Just scroll past the “blue collar lawyer”, who first revealed that (a) he actually was a semi retired corporate lawyer (maybe he was referring to those awful blue collars with white shirts) and then (b) led us to conclude that he was probably an unemployed Arts dropout posting from his mother’s basement. Certain similarities to deadbeats at the now defunct Lavatory Rodeo were also noted.

    Gab took him to bits last night, and a few of us feasted on the scraps today.

  35. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Has anyone else asked him why he needs to use dictation software when he’s blogging?

    To convince those of us who can only type with two fingers, of our total insignificance?

  36. oldsalt

    Rabz it was a bizarre time. We were accepting thousands of Muslims on boats while deporting a few Ambonese Christians on boats fleeing the Jihadist ethnic cleansing in Maluku.

  37. Hmmm. Well, I’ll accept that as an answer for now, RE the dictation software. I am a really fast typist, and forget that others are Different.

    Note to self: must raise this issue at next employer-sponsored Diversity Workshop.

  38. Grigory M

    Dragon Dictate. Voice recognition software – has been around for a very long time. Used by Hansard reporters/stenographers, but is far from perfect in capturing what is actually said – needs stenographer’s shorthand notes and tape recorder backup for editing and transcription. Definitely not the input of choice for rapid-fire commenting on a blog like the Cat. People who say they use it for that purpose and only get occasional discrepancies, such as “principle” v “principal” are bull-shitting.

  39. Senile Old Guy

    Well, I’ll accept that as an answer for now, RE the dictation software. I am a really fast typist, and forget that others are Different.

    How gracious! But I am also a very fast typist but not when two of my fingers have been frozen into immobility by clicking on web buttons forty thousand times. Also, from practice, I am now ambi-mouse-dextrous.

    Note to self: must raise this issue at next employer-sponsored Diversity Workshop.

    Good move; will look good on the CV. ;-)

    But I suspect SatP has got it right for BCL.

  40. Senile Old Guy

    People who say they use it for that purpose and only get occasional discrepancies, such as “principle” v “principal” are bull-shitting.

    Varies; it has good days and bad days for me. It is sophisticated in that (like the not nearly so good Micro$oft version) it tries to guess phrases by context and when it works (for me) can do paragraphs with no error. On a bad day, it will take a phrase and turn it into complete nonsense.

  41. Cato the Elder

    Varies; it has good days and bad days for me. It is sophisticated in that (like the not nearly so good Micro$oft version) it tries to guess phrases by context and when it works (for me) can do paragraphs with no error. On a bad day, it will take a phrase and turn it into complete nonsense.

    +1

  42. johanna

    One thing is for sure, in this instance it has detracted from the quality of comments here.

    The thought of Numbers getting hold of one of those things is very depressing indeed.

  43. .

    I reckon it would be gold to send him one for Christmas. For shits and gigs.

  44. nerblnob

    The mind boggles at the thought of someone dictating that polysyllabic guff out loud.

  45. Senile Old Guy

    The thought of Numbers getting hold of one of those things is very depressing indeed.

    +1

    The mind boggles at the thought of someone dictating that polysyllabic guff out loud.

    One reason that it is a last resort for me. And I would never use it for blog posts; not if anyone could hear.

  46. .

    Fake blackfellas, it would seem.

Comments are closed.