WA Liberals brand Abbott an appeaser

But the Prime Minister seemed to think that if he walked away from this electoral commitment to restore our undoubted right of free speech he would somehow win over the Muslim community and others.

Well, you know, when Mr Chamberlain went to met Mr Hitler in Europe in 1938 Mr Hitler said to him ‘just give me Czechoslovakia and that’s the end of my ambitions’.

Mr Chamberlain fed him and came home and said ‘there will be peace in our time’.

You don’t turn crocodiles into pets by feeding them.

Harsh but fair.

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

124 Responses to WA Liberals brand Abbott an appeaser

  1. Badjack

    An appeaser he is, and also a ‘cheek turner’. They slap him on the cheek and he turns it saying slap this side as well. For 1400 years the muslims have been doing what the radicals are still doing to this day. Abbott wants them to hop into bed with him so he throws his moral values out the window and bends over in front of them. Only a foolish cheek turning appeaser does that. They will never assimilate in Australia. They don’t understand western culture and will never be part of it. They only seem to be at peace when the leader has a gun pointing at their head.

  2. Greigoz

    Between the Greens, the ABC, Muslim spokesmen, Gillian Triggs at the HRC, the Press Council (etc etc etc), Tony Abbott has been slapped (and then turned) so many times, he must be numb in both cheeks by now.
    But I’m sure that soon they’ll see what a nice guy he is, and come the run up to the next election, they’ll actually start rooting for him! *oh boy*

  3. Alfonso

    Another appalling property of 18C is that Truth is no defence at law to the charge of causing offence….. an accurate statement can be banned speech…..unbelievable.

    I’ll never vote for a Party that declares Truth is no defence in a Court

    Merely accurately quoting the Koran in public, recounting it’s advice on the violent treatment of infidels, Jews, apostates, homosexuals and non compliant women has been seen as offensive by Muslims…..go figure.

  4. The Old and Unimproved Dave

    The old folks used to say that “The only way to get a mess of peas or a crown of glory is to work for it”

  5. Sinclair Davidson

    They will never assimilate in Australia.

    That all turn on who are “they”. I’m sure that some criminals and terrorists will always justify their actions in some way or another. The fact that some people might claim that Allah, or Jesus, or any other person/deity justifies their criminal behaviour is an irrelevance and we need people to say so more often.

  6. I am the Walrus, Koo Koo K'choo

    That’s exactly what he is with regard to the umma.

    He actually thinks they’re going to join Team Australia and cooperate if he caves in ok freedom of speech.

    The front page of Friday’s Oz makes it clear that the umma thinks their cooperation with the police is negotiable and conditional on the government agreeing to their demands.

    Good in them for calling him out.

    Not good Tony. Come on mate set the red lines and defend unconditionally the non-negotiable interests of all Australians.

    Watch Bob Day to see how it’s done.

  7. I am the Walrus, Koo Koo K'choo

    Sorry: good on the WA Libs for calling Tony out.

  8. stackja

    WA Liberals brand Abbott an appeaser

    Meanwhile ALP is left to its own devices.

  9. hzhousewife

    Beware what may fall into the vacuum. Shorten will do better defending our free speech?

  10. Baldrick

    stackja – I think you’re confusing this site for a Liberal Party love blog. Don’t expect others to view the world with the same rosey conservative coloured hue. I for one didn’t vote for Labor-Lite.

  11. egg_

    Beware what may fall into the vacuum.

    Yup, from previous, just as KRudd “right-flanked”* the LNP during the election campaign, a savvy ALP might beat Credlin at her fight-for-the-middle game.

    *c/- Bolta

  12. incoherent rambler

    Thank you WA Liberals.

    Sinclair: The fact that some people might claim that Allah, or Jesus, or any other person/deity justifies their criminal behaviour is an irrelevance and we need people to say so more often.

    “Calling out” murderers of women and children is what 18C was obviously designed to prevent.

  13. Dr. Sir Fred Lenin

    The muslims and many of the africans are making a huge leap in culture,from a primitive ,savage society ,not that far removed from the middle ages to a modern semi communist ,welfare society , created by weak selfopinionated academics and professional politicians all looking out for themselves. These mendicants ,muslims ,somalis,sudanesae ,politicians and academics ,do not contribute ,they just take.
    It is hard to get rid of the pollies and academic as they were born here,hiwever its easy to get rid of the foreign rubbish and their Aussie born Arab kids .The parents can be deported and the kids can gi fight for isis in Iraq.Think of the centrelink payments we would save, after the cleanout ,start on the Aussie bludgers!

  14. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Abbott needs to listen. To us.

  15. MemoryVault

    Meanwhile ALP is left to its own devices.

    There is an old, and correct truism that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them.

    At the rate Abbott and the other softcocks are trashing the LNP brand, Shorten and the rest of federal Labor could spend the next two years holidaying in Bali, and STILL win the next election.

  16. Beertruk

    Google taqiyya and kitman. Thats why I would not trust Keysar Trad, Waleed Aly and their associated cohorts as far as I could dropkick them.
    As for anyone that can tell the difference between a moderate and ‘radical’ muslim, you are a better man then I am, Gunga Din, because I can’t.

  17. jupes

    That all turn on who are “they”. I’m sure that some criminals and terrorists will always justify their actions in some way or another. The fact that some people might claim that Allah, or Jesus, or any other person/deity justifies their criminal behaviour is an irrelevance and we need people to say so more often.

    Rubbish. What is it with ideologues that they can’t see the bleeding obvious?

    The fact people claim that Allah justifies their criminal behaviour is indeed relevant. Extremely relevant in fact. Every terrorist convicted in Australia this century was carrying out Allah’s will. IS is carrying out its genocidal rampage because it is carrying out Allah’s will. Hamas is attempting to murder Jews because it is Allah’s will. Boko Haram are carrying out their murderous acts because it is Allah’s will.

    The Koran and Hadith justify their behaviour. So called ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t criticise the terrorists – in the rare occasions they do actually criticise them – on theological grounds. They can’t because they would lose that argument. Allah is on the side of the terrorist.
    Your moral equivalence here is disappointing to say the least Sinc. What we actually do need people to say more often is that the totalitarian culture masquerading as a religion known as Islam does not have an ability to assimilate into civilised culture.

  18. Megan

    You can bet your last dollar he won’t be getting a message like that from the Victorian branch. Gutless wimps, the lot of them.

  19. Ant

    I suppose, Beertruck, the diff is that a “radical” drills a bullet through the back of someone’s head in one part of the world while a “moderate” justifies it away on the other by blaming the joos.

  20. stackja

    MemoryVault
    #1410903, posted on August 10, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Gullible voters keep falling for ALP.

  21. jupes

    You’ve hit the nail on the head with that post, Dr Sir Fred.

    I wish I could write as succinctly as that.

  22. MemoryVault

    Gullible voters keep falling for ALP.

    Yeah.
    And pissed off, double-crossed, forsaken voters will keep abandoning the LNP.

  23. gabrianga

    Weakazpizz! LNP spokesman states that Coalition “paid attention to 5000 submissions before deciding to drop amending 18c.

    What about the majority of Australians who supported change at the election?

    Don’t we count? (rhetorical)

  24. Resign

    How come this thread is all Muslim bashing? Surely you do not think Abbott folded to that lobby alone????

  25. Zaphod

    An appeaser he is, and also a ‘cheek turner’. They slap him on the cheek and he turns it saying slap this side as well.

    Are you paraphrasing Matthew 5:39 intentionally ?

  26. struth

    Tony Abbott. ….what IS team Australia without free speech?

  27. MemoryVault

    Tony Abbott. ….what IS team Australia without free speech?

    I’d explain it to you Struth, except that I might offend someone.

  28. MemoryVault

    Christopher Pyne, who some you actually count as part of the Fiberals “A” Team, has been on Sky News explaining what good guys the LNP are for scrapping amendments to 18C.

    In other news, the ABC “Fact Checker” already has the flip-flop listed as a “broken promise”.

    RTWT

  29. struth

    We can’t wait for an election that could be lost.
    Julie bishop for pm and just about anybody else bar Joe as treasurer.

  30. egg_

    Julie bishop for pm and just about anybody else bar Joe as treasurer.

    +1

    Need an anyone but Joe campaign.

  31. Infidel Tiger

    Yeah, those WA liberals love free speech.

    Remember how proud Barnett was when he banned Geert Wilders from speaking on any state owned property?

    The Liberal Party should shut their fucking mouths. They are treacherous and traitorous swines.

  32. struth

    Just for the record , I thnk Abbott is the big problem here.
    He just isn’t and never was a good leader.
    Anyone who says he was good in opposition is usually a lefty and can’t let themselves believe just how bad labor was. Labor killed itself. Abbott was just lucky.
    No matter who was leading the libs they would have won.
    The media thought he was the better choice of leader as he would be easier to destroy than some others.
    Being rabidly left and out of touch with the electorate they didn’t get how hated labor was.
    Being slightly better than the total traitorous filth in before is not good enough.

  33. harrys on the boat

    Now IT’s comment deserves the tag, harsh but fair.

  34. MemoryVault

    The Liberal Party should shut their fucking mouths. They are treacherous and traitorous swines.

    They’re politicians.
    What did you expect?

  35. David

    Gutless wimps, the lot of them.

    Napthalines lot have actually toughened up to wimps. Megan I think you are too generous.

    We don’t have much choice here in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Victoriastan. Dodgy [Napthaline and company] or downright crook [Jug ears Andrews and the CFMEU]

    West Australia is starting to look good.

  36. Greigoz

    If… when, Tony Abbott is not Lib leader anymore, the odds are that Malcolm Turnbull will be given the nod. If you think that Abbott isn’t holding up conservative values, do you really think Turnbull will be their champion (in any way)?

  37. struth

    Turnbull needs sacking. Not promoting

  38. Eyrie

    Beertruk, the moderates use AK 47s and RPGs only. No crew served weapons.

  39. James Hargrave

    Why be unkind to Neville Chamberlain?

  40. tomix

    Mighty white of the Muslims to cop the blame for Abbott’s backdown.

    Try to remember that if it wasn’t for joke “conservative” Andrew Bolt’s unexplained and silly attack on a bunch of sad sacks, no one would have ever heard of S. 18c.

  41. Big_Nambas

    “An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile hoping that it will eat him last.” Winston Churchill

  42. Crossie

    Weakazpizz! LNP spokesman states that Coalition “paid attention to 5000 submissions before deciding to drop amending 18c.

    What about the majority of Australians who supported change at the election?

    Don’t we count? (rhetorical)

    5000? So the tenured academics and grievance industry leeches outrank the general population. Take it to a referendum and let’s see what the people think. If it was good enough for the republic issue it should be good enough for freedom of speech.

  43. struth

    Tomix, you have offended me with that “white” comment.
    Expect to hear from my lawyers.
    Bahahahaha.
    The law only applies to whites not for whites.

  44. Tel

    Just for the record , I thnk Abbott is the big problem here.
    He just isn’t and never was a good leader.

    I seem to remember the other choice was Turnbull.

  45. Crossie

    He just isn’t and never was a good leader.
    Anyone who says he was good in opposition is usually a lefty and can’t let themselves believe just how bad labor was.

    Abbott was really good when he rolled Turnbull over the carbon tax and subsequently won the election on the strength of it. My guess is that much of the problem is Credlin. Does anyone know how long she has been advising him?

  46. tomix

    J. Benedict Hockey was also in the mix [for a little while].

  47. Crossie

    The law only applies to whites not for whites.

    And don’t you ever forget it.

  48. Alfonso

    The dream massacre …..Costello dealing with Shorten/ Plib at Question Time.
    Come back Pete, the middle class welfare thing is all forgiven

  49. tomix

    Abbott saw a very good opportunity in 2009 and took it by the throat, He’s all they’ve got.

    Although The Australian seems to be promoting the Education Minister lately.

  50. Crossie

    J. Benedict Hockey was also in the mix [for a little while].

    I realised Joe was a lightweight way back in 2007 when he canoodled with Rudd on Kochie’s breakfast program. The whole exercise was an effort to make Rudd palatable to the voters by implying that he was OK if a high profile Lib would appear with him.

  51. David

    Remember how proud Barnett was when he banned Geert Wilders from speaking on any state owned property?

    Forgot about that IT. It was a disgusting “wimp out’.

    Perhaps an invasion of Tasmania instead. Mop up a few Greens and their ALPers and it would be a good place to live and develop.

  52. rafiki

    Perhaps the back-flip is as much due to pressure from Jewish leaders as it is from the Muslims. I can understand why this might be so.

  53. tomix

    Why might it be so, rafiki?

  54. Grey ghost who walks

    ’1411033 at 2.31′
    Try to remember that if it wasn’t for joke “conservative” Andrew Bolt’s unexplained and silly attack on a bunch of sad sacks, no one would have ever heard of S. 18c.

    OK Hoppalong! That’s what the whole thing is about. Why can’t someone say what one thinks?
    What happened to Bolt just shows what a pathetic law it is and one that is against the freedom of speech.
    Keating once told an idiot to ‘get a job’, nobody worried about that.
    Anyway, giving in to the Mullahs is not the answer and never will be.

  55. Cheryl

    If anyone is wondering why members of the Muslim community do not speak out against the horrors of Jihad or speak up in support of tougher laws, apostacy is most probably the reason. To not agree with Jihad is as good as saying that Allah and his messenger were wrong, which translates as apostacy and probably blasphemy. This from the religion of peace and tolerance.

  56. stackja

    rafiki
    #1411126, posted on August 10, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    ALP I can understand why this might be so.

  57. cohenite

    Try to remember that if it wasn’t for joke “conservative” Andrew Bolt’s unexplained and silly attack on a bunch of sad sacks, no one would have ever heard of S. 18c.

    I just watched Bolt’s editorial and it was quite good; a pity the libs don’t have as much backbone.

  58. stackja

    cohenite
    #1411184, posted on August 10, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    Bolt does not have to try and reconcile a diverse community fed lies by ALP/MSM.

  59. 2dogs

    What will Abbott do when Bob Day introduces his private member’s bill? Surely Abbott would need to allow a conscience vote.

    It would pass the house (I would count Turnbull and Roy as opposed, but can’t get to 15), but would it get through the senate in the first place?

  60. stackja

    2dogs
    #1411193, posted on August 10, 2014 at 5:15 pm
    What will Abbott do when Bob Day introduces his private member’s bill? Surely Abbott would need to allow a conscience vote.

    It would pass the house (I would count Turnbull and Roy as opposed, but can’t get to 15), but would it get through the senate in the first place?

    ALP needs 18C.

  61. tomix

    Grey ghost who walks
    at 4:29 pm

    OK Hoppalong! That’s what the whole thing is about. Why can’t someone say what one thinks?

    The greedy using some Aboriginal ancestry as an excuse to claim benefits intended for the needy is 1990s news. Everyone has heard about it, why bring it up again?

    Why didn’t Newscorp appeal the decision? It’d have plenty of lawyers ready to go.
    Or if the Court’s decision was thought correct, why didn’t Newscorp sack Bolt?

  62. Diogenes

    TA needs to understand that nothing he does is acceptable to many people. As I read somewhere – if TA were to personally discover a cure for cancer tomorrow, the luvvies would slam him for closing oncology wards and sacking nurses.

    My advice, damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead !

  63. MemoryVault

    ALP needs 18C.

    Too true.
    So why is Abbott doing his damnedest to ensure they have it?

    My advice, damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead !

    Excellent advice.
    Let’s start with repealing 18C.

  64. incoherent rambler

    Julie bishop for pm and just about anybody else bar Joe as treasurer.

    Julie Supressionorder Bishop is a totalitarian statist.

  65. Alfonso

    “Why didn’t Newscorp appeal the decision?”

    Indeed, an easy win…..the High Court would never run with Mordy’s ‘Labor lawyer’ crap ideological decision.

    What I fear is we plebs don’t understand the nuanced machinations of the LibLab Establishment…. that which runs our lives.

  66. There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action
    than the one which has just desolated great areas of the globe. It could
    have been prevented without the firing of a single shot, but no one would
    listen.
    —Winston Churchill, 19461

  67. Julie bishop for pm?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  68. Paridell

    For those interested in closing public broadcasters, SBS has a documentary tonight on how to go about it.

    In June last year, the Greek government closed the state broadcaster ERT overnight, using emergency powers. “Greece: The Lost Signal of Democracy” is a Greek/Belgian account of how and why.

    Aptly enough for a program on an overnight closure, it’s on late – 11.20 pm.

  69. Infidel Tiger

    Julie bishop for pm?

    Julie cried her eyes when the foreign aid budget was slashed. She’s also busy arming funding Palestinian extremists with our cash.

  70. It would pass the house (I would count Turnbull and Roy as opposed, but can’t get to 15), but would it get through the senate in the first place?

    Senate may pass it just to put the heat on the House…

  71. struth

    Suppression order……please explain.
    Unaware of that.
    Yes ….Julie Bishop, …..what’s wrong with her you raving misogynist.
    ……been dying to say that.

  72. Dagney J. Taggart

    Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth. Had Bolt been factual in his statements, he could have relied on 18D. But he wasn’t. He tried to be clever, and it bit him on the arse. And is now known in some circles as CRAB – Convicted Racist Andrew Bolt.

    18C has been around for nigh on 20 years without issue until Eatock v Bolt, and then suddenly it was the worstest thing in the world. What seems to be forgotten/overlooked/ignored by some is that Bolt muddied the waters with falsehoods.

  73. struth

    And if Julie is no good, I vote for me. God I’d get the joint jumping.
    If only I didn’t have this drinking problem.

  74. egg_

    Paridell
    #1411334, posted on August 10, 2014 at 7:23 pm

    Ta muchly.

  75. struth

    Dagney, what falsehoods and according to who?

  76. egg_

    Julie bishop for pm?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Saved Abbott’s arse from Gillard’s misogyny meme for which I’m sure he’s eternally grateful.
    Short memories, indeed.

  77. struth

    Dagney left wing group think is not fact.

  78. Dagney J. Taggart

    Struth,

    J. Bromberg for one (and a fairly important one at that). Below is a link to the findings:

    http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2011/2011fca1103

    It’s worth a read.

  79. MemoryVault

    If only I didn’t have this drinking problem.

    Drinking shouldn’t be a problem, Struth.
    Just hold the glass, stubbie or bottle more or less upright until it’s level with your mouth.
    Then part and pout your lips, tip the glass, stubbie or bottle on a angle, and swallow.

    Works for me.

  80. Infidel Tiger

    STFU Taggart.

    Bromberg is a failed ALP candidate and a far left whack job. Anything he has to say on free speech can be put in the round file.

    He’s a disgrace and should have disqualified himself from hearing that case.

  81. incoherent rambler

    If only I didn’t have this drinking problem.

    Intravenous drips of caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are known to work. If feeling down, add in the sugar drip.

  82. Fisky

    Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg.

    Sounds like a typical Mike Carlton column.

  83. Dagney J. Taggart

    Oh, brilliant put down. How can I respond to such biting wit? You are truly a master debater.

    Bromberg said Bolt made erroneous statements and Bolt agreed he had.

    The fact that there was no appeal, only pathetic mewling, speaks volumes.

  84. Beertruk

    Ant
    #1410915, posted on August 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm
    I suppose, Beertruck, the diff is that a “radical” drills a bullet through the back of someone’s head in one part of the world while a “moderate” justifies it away on the other by blaming the joos.

    But can you tell them apart, Ant? They all follow the Koran. Some more follow the Koran more ‘literally’ than others. How many muslims in France were classed as ‘moderate’ but participated in the riots? We are seeing a few riots here and God forbid we have them on the same scale as France. As I posted before, google taqiyya and kitman and with that, you almost have to approach anything Team Islam says in the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ file.

  85. Infidel Tiger

    Oh, brilliant put down. How can I respond to such biting wit?

    The traditional response is to purchase a necktie, head to the ladies lavatory and find a beam that can support your weight.

  86. wreckage

    Bromberg said Bolt made erroneous statements and Bolt agreed he had.

    Really no need for the word “offend” in 18c then, is there?

  87. wreckage

    It’s worth noting that the WA mob are more than a little loopy…

  88. dan

    Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth. Had Bolt been factual in his statements, he could have relied on 18D. But he wasn’t. He tried to be clever, and it bit him on the arse. And is now known in some circles as CRAB – Convicted Racist Andrew Bolt.

    Where do I start. There isn’t a crime of racism in this country so you can’t be convicted of it. He was sued in a civil court by the applicants. As Tim Soutphommasane says:

    Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is a civil provision. You can’t be “prosecuted” or be “convicted” for a breach, as some suggest

    It’s also not a crime in this country to be inaccurate, nor is it a crime, generally, to lie.

    So it’s not an offence to be racist, and it is not an offence to make mistakes or lie.

    However, if someone is offended by your words and thinks you are racist, and in saying those words you have made mistakes or told lies, 18C has created a statutory tort for that purpose.

    The fact that there was no appeal, only pathetic mewling, speaks volumes.

    No it doesn’t – obviously. Because the way 18C is constructed did allow Bromberg J to find as he did. You are confusing law and justice. It may well be that Bromberg was correct in the first instance and NL’s lawyers didn’t think a full bench/SC appeal would get across the line. You are mocking Bolt because he was “convicted” of being a “CRAB”, but we are well aware that under the provisions he lost.

    Many of us here believe it is fundamentally bad law and mocking Bolt because he lost is not material to the question we are discussing, namely, should it go.

  89. JC

    The fact that there was no appeal, only pathetic mewling, speaks volumes.

    There was no need for an appeal, you blithering fool. Bolt never apologized and the cost of litigating an apology at the High court would be very expensive, so Bolt and News walked.

  90. dan

    JC it wouldn’t have to go to the High Court, News Ltd had plenty of resources to take it to (I think) the full bench of the Federal Court (I’m not sure of the exact appeal process for the RDA). Remember Nalliah went VCAT -> Supreme Court -> back to VCAT I think.

  91. Sinclair Davidson

    Perhaps we’d better understand Bromberg Js judgement if he had refered us to the section of the Act that invalidated 18d if the journalist made factual errors in their op-ed.

  92. dan

    But I think Bolt wouldn’t have won except in the High Court, and the “implied freedom” of speech established a long time ago has been gradually chipped away. I personally don’t think the HC would have invalidated 18C and progressing all the way through the court system would have been pointless, plus they would never recover those costs from the plaintiffs. You have to win the last case and be fighting a party with deep pockets to come out on top. Would he have been better off winning a HC case or losing in the FC and being a free speech martyr?

  93. Sinclair Davidson

    JC – my understanding is that the case was not appealed because a promise was made to repeal the section. I am open to correction on that though.

  94. JC

    Dan

    The point is that there was no material loss sustained by News limited nor by Bolt. In fact I don’t believe Bolt/News even published an apology. What Mordy did was to craft his judgement in such a way where the loss for Bolt/News would be minimal thereby reducing the chances of an appeal while calling Bolt out as racist.

    Mordy never wanted this thing to go to appeal because it would have been facing the issue of implied free speech.

  95. dan

    Sinc, the judgement at 368ff where he discussed Channel Seven

    Given the mechanisms of common law, it is inevitable that wretchedly stupid laws will, eventually, cause some perverse result, whatever the quality of the judge.

  96. .

    Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth.

    This itself is false. Bromberg is a liar.

  97. Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg.

    None of which should be a crime.

  98. JC

    JC – my understanding is that the case was not appealed because a promise was made to repeal the section. I am open to correction on that though.

    I really dunno, Sinc. I presume that when you say a “promise was made”, it was made by the libs.

    My distant recollection at the time was that the Bolt/News team said they were unlikely to appeal very soon after Mordy’s verdict.

  99. Fisky

    Bromberg said Bolt made erroneous statements and Bolt agreed he had.

    So what? The Left make erroneous statements all the time. Mike Carlton’s final column was a shocker. The question is, should we waste public money going after people in the courts for “getting their facts wrong in a newspaper”?

    The answer is clear: no.

  100. Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth.

    Have you read the articles? I suspect you haven’t. I have. They certainly did use provocative language, and if I was the subject of one of them I would be mightily upset. He was sarcastic and personal.

    On the other hand, they were about government policy and its implementation. The result of the ruling is that some areas of government policy is considered out of bounds for discussion.

    There were some minor errors which Bolt has acknowledged.

    He tried to be clever, and it bit him on the arse. And is now known in some circles as CRAB – Convicted Racist Andrew Bolt.

    That alone – that a journalist can be denounced as a “convicted racist” – is reason enough for the law’s repeal.

  101. dan

    The point is that there was no material loss sustained by News limited nor by Bolt. In fact I don’t believe Bolt/News even published an apology. What Mordy did was to craft his judgement in such a way where the loss for Bolt/News would be minimal thereby reducing the chances of an appeal while calling Bolt out as racist.

    As Mark Steyn has pointed out again and again, the process IS the punishment. Most 18C cases don’t even cost the complainant anything to file. At least here the applicants committed to paying legal fees.
    The issue of an apology was to occur in conference between the parties. if they didn’t pursue that I don’t understand why. The judge presumably expected they would? He wasn’t in a position to impose some massive punishment on Bolt. The applicants had only sought (I think) an apology and prohibition of republication if I remember rightly.

    I’m not aware of any of the very large number of 18C cases resulting some spectacular “material loss”. Although there are very large numbers of people inconvenienced, exploited and in many cases experiencing fines in the sub-$10,000 range which are very distressing for them. The issue for some of us is the chilling effect it has and, yes, even the principle of having a law like this. Bolt is a poster boy but check out how many proceedings have occurred which were dealt with outside the courtroom. Those respondents are powerless compared to Bolt and I think the process is unjust.

  102. JC

    Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg. Let me repeat that: erroneous facts and distortions of the truth.

    Mordy was just a dishonest douchebag. The core argument by Bolt was that the loot some of these arseholes were getting was really meant for …. you know , aboriginal… who kinda look a little aboriginal and not blonde, red headed troughers who have lived all their lives in the burbs of the big cities and have only seen a boomerang in airport gift shops like everyone else. The white nine’s argument is that you can be as blonde as Charlize Theron, lived in the burbs and gone to private schools but still be a full aboriginal like you see here

    All the stuff about untruths and distortions were basically a sideline to the central issue. It was only Mordy using those small sidelines crap to create a story as to why he found against Bolt.

  103. There was a material loss: the articles in question cannot be published in Australia.
    They had to be un-published.
    If I were to post one of them here, I would be breaking the law. You are literally not allowed to read them.
    Furthermore, other articles on similar topics may not be published in Australia.

  104. rafiki

    This is a belated reply to Tomix at 4.18. Dr Colin Rubenstein has been arguing for nigh on 2 years that 18C must be retained; see
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/we-still-need-race-hate-laws/story-e6frgd0x-1226463451982
    Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

  105. Bolt is a poster boy but check out how many proceedings have occurred which were dealt with outside the courtroom.

    Is this information available somewhere?

  106. JC

    There was a material loss: the articles in question cannot be published in Australia.
    They had to be un-published.
    If I were to post one of them here, I would be breaking the law. You are literally not allowed to read them.
    Furthermore, other articles on similar topics may not be published in Australia.

    Presumably the could be posted on an American server, no? Mordy of course is a moron and anyone who really believes in 18c is a moronic mendacious turd because those columns can be posted on an American server and we could still read them. Is Mordy going to go after American firms? Of course he isn’t.

  107. JC

    Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

    Yea, I can see it and also sympathize with them because in the end it almost always ends up as antisemitism and if there’s one group that has absorbed the brunt of racial hatred it’s Jewish people. I can see that.

    However what happened on the bus is not an 18c issue. That is straight out assault and should be seriously treated that way.

  108. struth

    Bloody beautiful people. You cats are awesome. I have been out drinking with a mate and you guys shut the daggy dag thing up. Bloooooody faaaantastic. I didn’t waste my time with leftism. Got drunk instead. Much healthier.

  109. MemoryVault

    Sheesh.
    Over a dozen comments on the Bolt court case. More “maybes”, “coulda’s”, “might’aves” and “should’aves” than a peer reviewed, published climate science paper.
    Personally I couldn’t give a shit if the Bolt case never happened.

    The only real issue is that Abbott promised to repeal 18C then reneged on his promise – strike one.
    Then he admitted he had done it for the very worst of all possible reasons – to appease the Muslim community and garner their cooperation – placing them above the law – strike two.
    Then he and the other LNP softcocks spent the last few days telling us why we were idiots for ever believing they would repeal 18C in the first place – strike 3.

    Vote Labor – get a pack of lying, conniving opportunistic bastards.
    Vote Liberal – get a different pack of lying, conniving opportunistic bastards.

  110. Leigh Lowe

    Bolt lost because his articles “contained erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” according to J. Bromberg.

    A fair chunk of William Shakespeare’s works could be said to “contain erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language”

  111. Sinclair Davidson

    MV – well said.

  112. Old School Conservative

    Mark Steyn on Abbott: (Abbott said….) pandering to the professional identity-group grievance-mongers will ensure their cooperation in fingering would-be head-hackers with Aussie passports. In fact, the opposite is true.
    Abbott is going down in Steyn’s estimation too.

  113. dan

    Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

    You have got to be joking. Check out “criminal law” which was invented 3000 years ago. I think it deals with threats to kill and assault although I may be wrong. If it doesn’t then a law against offending people might do the same thing I guess.

    Is this information available somewhere?

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlHRights/2005/6.html#Heading58?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=vcat%20racial%20discrimination

    That has some statistics. Bolt has presented some stories but I don’t know where he got the info from.

  114. dan

    Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

    If my co-religionists believe that they are hopelessly deluded. Who is prosecuting Hizb-e-Tarir for their statements on the street in Sydney? Imagine sitting in a room at the HRC with these guys over tea and biscuits trying to obtain restorative justice!!! LOL

  115. Infidel Tiger

    Recent events (such as the attack on the Jewish kids school bus) give greater point to his arguments. I support the repeal of 18C, but I can see why Jews would not. That persons such as Rubenstein have lobbied recently is pure surmise on my part, but I thin kthis quite plausible. It is just not about the Muslims.

    Bloody hell. The Jews enemies want to kill them, not offend them.

    I’m starting to think the belief that Jews are smart is a terrible racist myth.

  116. Fisky

    I’m starting to think the belief that Jews are smart is a terrible racist myth.

    They generally are, but they instantly forfeit 20 IQ points when politics comes up. They are chronically stupid about political issues. If you did a poll of Jews in 2008 asking if “Barack Obama is the second coming of Jesus”, roughly 75% would have answered “Yes”, without realizing what that implies.

  117. tomix

    Doesn’t it say something about Newscorp that a freedom of speech issue wasn’t appealed, no matter the chances of success?

  118. Alfonso

    Thought Bolt’s “grievous errors of fact” were trivial ….. stuff like whether it was an auntie or a grandparent.
    None of those errors detracted from his point about the activities of ‘white’ Aboriginals milking schemes meant for disadvantaged Aboriginals…… as a starting point.

  119. rafiki

    Dan at 11.31. Yes, of course the criminal law should be brought to bear on the louts who attacked the bus. My point is that I can understand why Jews would feel that 18C is needed to deal with vilification that falls short of criminal conduct. The school bus attack just magnifies the current increase in vilification, albeit that it more serious.

    Perhaps you should talk to Colin Rubenstein. he is the most prominent advocate for retention of 18C.

  120. gabrianga

    if not for Bolt’s unexplained and silly attack on a bunch of sad sacks, no one would have ever heard of S. 18c.

    These so called “sad sacks” see themselves as the “voice of the Aboriginal people”?

    These very same people have been called “yella fellas” by tribal Aborigines for decades now but no action taken. Why? Because tribal Aborigines don’t regard them as one of theirs and don’t pass on certain cultural ceremonies to them.

  121. dan

    Dan at 11.31. Yes, of course the criminal law should be brought to bear on the louts who attacked the bus. My point is that I can understand why Jews would feel that 18C is needed to deal with vilification that falls short of criminal conduct. The school bus attack just magnifies the current increase in vilification, albeit that it more serious.

    Given that threats to kill are criminal offenses and given public order laws, the list of criminal prosecutions that could be initiated is almost endless. Then are we supposed to prosecute thousands of people posting hate speech on social media?

    Perhaps you should talk to Colin Rubenstein

    Why would I do that?

Comments are closed.