Andrew Bolt loses racial vilification court case

From The Australian:

HERALD Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has lost an action brought in the Federal Court in which the columnist was accused of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act.

Bolt was found to have contravened Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act….

There were cheers and applause in the court when Justice Mordecai Bromberg read out his verdict.

He ordered no settlement on the parties, who will negotiate between them what measures Bolt and the Herald Sun will take.

In the judgment, the Justice said he was satisfied that the fair skin Aborigines were ‘offended, assaulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles’.

The Justice ruled that Bolt could not use fair comment or public interest to defence those particular articles.

And what is truly disturbing is that I do not know what comment I can make here on this blog about what I think of this decision that does not end me up in the dock in just the same way.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

811 Responses to Andrew Bolt loses racial vilification court case

  1. .

    You are such a fucking phoney Steve.

  2. I just noticed in CL’s comment:

    Well done, lefties. Like moths to a flame, your fatal love of eleventy is set to be your undoing yet again.

    How amusing, coming from the self-parodying man who has become incapable of commenting on Labor politics and policies without using a tired list of synonyms for “destroy.”

  3. Token

    Wow, Steve you are a sad obsessive when it comes to Bolt.

  4. Infidel Tiger

    DIDDUMS, Andrew Bolt, diddums.

    Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens senator for South Australia, Adelaide

    I honestly thought you’d made that up. Unbelievable.

  5. Oh yes, like that makes sense at a blog that sees about half of his post topics linked to in threads.

  6. No Worries

    So sob, when can we expect you hitch up your skirts and flounce out of here (for the umpteenth time) ?

  7. m0nty

    Who do you follow m0nty? I’ll guess the Blues.

    Hawks.

  8. Sean

    Hawks

    Ah, unlucky last week.

  9. Sean

    Hopefully the Cats can do us all a favour.

  10. Viva

    left leaning newspaper websites are a lot better value, in terms of extensive free content and looks

    Fine – but who want free crap, even if it looks pretty.

  11. Peter Patton

    Gab

    “Identity” is the biggest con since “the Other”. ‘Identity’ has ruined the humanities, coz that’s all they go on about. All these white upper middle class chicks in the English department, bang on out “othering” ‘imperialism’, ‘racism’ blah, blah, 24/7. Everyone wants to be the biggest victim.

    ‘White Aborigines’? I mean fuck me. What utter crap. The upshot of this will not be welcome by the instigators, as the whole country will start looking at them, ‘but you’re not an Aborigine; you’re a white dude from Pymble’.

  12. John H.

    “Identity” is the biggest con since “the Other”. ‘Identity’ has ruined the humanities, coz that’s all they go on about.

    Fuck Yeah! Humans are sufficiently narcissistic so there is hardly any need to amplify that tendency.

  13. Peter Patton

    QG

    I thought SHY’s letter was very droll. She’s an airhead, but she’s a spunky little minx.

  14. Peter Patton

    I like this from the Oz, on the typical ALP voter at the next election:

    If one were a xenophobic lesbian wishing to get married, living on a threatened coastal property with poor internet reception, along with a gambling and smoking addiction and a burning desire to join the Australian Defence Force as a frontline soldier, this government is made to order.

    Joseph Vagunda, Maroochydore, Qld

  15. Peter Patton

    John

    Through all your psycho-learnin’ and stuff, are you familiar with “the Other” and its roots in the “mirror stage” of child development? A stage of development, which has not one iota of empirical validation, but what does that matter when it is made up by a higher power – a mid 20th century French Communist – Jacques Lacan.

  16. Infidel Tiger

    That’s brilliant!

  17. Tillman

    The Bolt case will lead to the gutting of this horrendous statute.

    Right. So your position is that it is an illegal statute. I agree entirely.

    Bolt will have the last laugh and a delicious moment that will be.

    Even if, as you argue, the statute is an illegal statute, Bolt has still been shown to be very sloppy with his facts. His credibility has taken a major hit over this.

  18. Gab

    Steve Price talks to Liberty Victoria’s Spencer Zifcak and the IPA’s John Roskam about the Andrew Bolt judgment.

  19. Gab

    Bolt has still been shown to be very sloppy with his facts

    And Larissa Behrendt has been shown to be massaging the truth in her comments to the RDA Bolt case.

  20. Peter Patton

    Tillman

    Bolt has still been shown to be very sloppy with his facts. His credibility has taken a major hit over this.

    Though we wonder what the articles would have had to look like to satisfy the good judge. Probably would have read more like the instructions on an Ikea box, than a tabloid op-ed.

  21. C.L.

    Right. So your position is that it is an illegal statute. I agree entirely.

    No, it’s the law.

    BAIPA was the statute you described as “illegal.”

    Hilariously.

    His credibility has taken a major hit over this.

    Yeah – being responsible for poleaxing a stupid law (down the track) is really harmful to his credibility.

  22. Tillman

    Patton, I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for sloppy journalism. Sued for defo, perhaps, but not prosecuted as Bolt was.

    I think there was a nugget of a fair point in his columns, but it was still very sloppy writing.

    People with decent arguments to make generally don’t need to play around with the facts.

  23. Tillman

    BAIPA was the statute you described as “illegal.”

    Gosh, that was a long time ago. I don’t remember it like that.

    I think you are lying and quote-doctoring. Again.

    To refresh my memory, could you please summarise the essential facts of that dispute in no more than two thousand words, CL?

    Feel free to cut and paste as much as you think appropriate – but please, no quote doctoring.

  24. John H.

    Through all your psycho-learnin’ and stuff, are you familiar with “the Other” and its roots in the “mirror stage” of child development? A stage of development, which has not one iota of empirical validation, but what does that matter when it is made up by a higher power – a mid 20th century French Communist – Jacques Lacan.

    I’m inclined to think that most species very quickly identify “the other” because it is kinda important for survival so I don’t know what the big deal is. As for Lacan, wasn’t he that idiot who, in the 50’s, creating a new school of psychoanalysis based on Freudian ideas?

    Perhaps like yourself Peter I am one of those people who think that psychology should confine itself to the investigation of the particular, these over arching theories invariably fail and lead people astray. Perhaps like yourself again, I was fortunate enough to encounter some very clever psychologists who knew their discipline was loaded with far too much codswallop and were kind enough to instruct me in the perils of psychology. Don’t get me wrong, I think there are areas of psychology that have made great contributions, but those areas deal with specific issues, not models of being human.

  25. C.L.

    Tillman maintains that BAIPA is “illegal.”

    LOL.

    Up there with his claim that William F. Buckley refused an omelette cooked by Franco because he wasn’t insured, whereupon Glenn Beck threatened to shoot him in the head.

  26. C.L.

    Tillman maintains that BAIPA is “illegal.”

    LOL.

    Up there with his claim that Buckley refused an omelette cooked by Franco because he wasn’t insured, whereupon Beck threatened to shoot him in the head.

  27. Tillman

    Tillman maintains that BAIPA is “illegal.”

    No you are lying. Again.

  28. THR

    Through all your psycho-learnin’ and stuff, are you familiar with “the Other” and its roots in the “mirror stage” of child development? A stage of development, which has not one iota of empirical validation, but what does that matter when it is made up by a higher power – a mid 20th century French Communist – Jacques Lacan.

    You’re not too good at this book-learnin’s stuff are you, Patsy? lacan was never a communist. The mirror stage theory was perfectly empirical, and referred to the child’s identification with its own image. The ‘Other’ in this context refers not to pomo tropes, but to a system of language, laws and symbols. This notion of alterity, whilst traceable to the Greeks, was developed at length by 19th century philosopher Hegel.

    Perhaps you could try to cure at least a little of your ignorance before embarrassing yourself in public like this.

  29. THR

    Perhaps like yourself Peter I am one of those people who think that psychology should confine itself to the investigation of the particular, these over arching theories invariably fail and lead people astray.

    Ironically, the psychoanalytic theories you’re slagging off constitute a science of the particular. It’s ham-fisted empiricists who attempt to shoehorn psychological symptoms into universalisable ‘disorders’.

  30. Adrien

    The Bolt case will lead to the gutting of this horrendous statute.

    Indeed, I wonder to what extent this is about free speech at all. More about removing the Racial Discrimination Act and not just 18C either. 🙂

  31. Hilton

    Michael Gawenda tells it like it is:

    “Here’s the thing about the Bolt saga.

    Bolt’s columns should never have been published and I do not think Bolt or the Herald Sun can justify their publication, essentially because they were riddled with inaccuracies.

    Commentary doesn’t have to be “balanced” or even “fair” but it has to be factually accurate.

    Commentary, even for a polemicist like Bolt, can’t be a piece of fiction. What’s more, I believe the editors of the Herald Sun should have pulled the columns because they were nasty and badly argued. To have done so was their right. And they should have done so even if Bolt, as a consequence, would have painted himself a martyr to free speech — strange how these free speech martyrs more often than not have the loudest megaphones and huge audiences.

    Bolt’s offence was an offence against journalism and really, should not have been judged by a judge under the Racial Discrimination Act.”

    Touche.

  32. Hilton

    Interesting that Michael Gawenda is an Austrian born Jew. Born born in a Displaced Persons’ camp in Austria after WW2. Accounts for his sensitivity to injustice and racism.

  33. Token

    Accounts for his sensitivity to injustice and racism.

    Yet the tool allowed Leunig to print that cartoon of hate against Israel. Biography does not trump lack of character.

  34. Peter Patton

    The Bolt case will lead to the gutting of this horrendous statute.

    More enticingly, it will lead 14 year olds in classrooms all across Australia to start asking VERY uncomfortable questions whenever the issue of race or ‘Indigeneity’ is proferred so unproblematically by white middle class English teachers.

  35. Hilton

    Token, Leunig is Australia’s William Shakespeare. If you think either of these artists were anti-semitic or misogynist or whatever political correctness jerks your chain, why then that just shows you miss the point and are uneducated, and worse – self-deluding.

  36. Token

    Token, Leunig is Australia’s William Shakespeare.

    Manbag, I’ve heard Leunig talk in person. Shakespeare he is not.

    An self-hating lefty yes riddled with guilt, yes, but no Shakespeare.

  37. Token

    The Bolt case will lead to the gutting of this horrendous statute.

    I believe Gerard Henderson provides a good summary on the inadequacies of this decision, the limitations of the justice in question.

    Bromberg J not only found that Bolt’s columns contained errors. He also found that there was an “omission of a series of relevant facts” (Para 393). In other words, Bolt went down not only for what he wrote (which was found to be unreasonable and erroneous) but also what he did not write (but, in the judge’s view, should have been written).

  38. Token

    At Para 388, Bromberg J. identified with a decision of the Privy Council in Austin v Mirror Newspapers Limited in which the court held that “the public deserve to be protected against irresponsible journalism”. Bromberg J. did not state what might constitute irresponsible journalism.

  39. Hilton

    “Manbag, I’ve heard Leunig talk in person. Shakespeare he is not.”

    Token (apt name btw) your second sentence does not logically follow from its predecessor.

    That is, it’s nonsensical.

  40. kae

    is this thread closed?
    I just tried to comment but it page not founded me…

  41. kae

    Damn and blast. That’s the second time that’s happened to me today.

  42. JC

    Token

    If the Henderson is right, then this thing should be spiked on appeal.

    Every leftie under the sun keeps talking about all the errors Bolt but it still doesn’t do a thing to the big story here. And frankly I still cannot see how this Act even relates to the case.

    I still yet to find out what Bolt actually said that was racist or promoting racist hate. In fact the reverse is implied in that Bolt was against people who seemed to be pretty part of the dominant culture were glomming loot away from those this money was intended.

    It seems to me Mordy is an incompetent douchebag.

  43. sdfc

    Don’t they as aboriginal leaders have more pressing issues this self indulgent crap?

  44. Jeremiah

    Bolt’s offence was an offence against journalism and really, should not have been judged by a judge under the Racial Discrimination Act.

    Agreed, if it was a problem it should have been handled under defamation law, not under the RDA.

  45. Token

    If the Henderson is right, then this thing should be spiked on appeal.

    As a qualified lawyer who carefully researches what he writes, I found Henderson’s judgements very interesting.

    His summary indicates J.C. Bolt / HW Times could win an appeal if they don’t get another un-reformed Slater & Gordon partner…

    Justice Bromberg is, no doubt, a well meaning person…However, even after reading Bromberg J’s judgement, it is not at all clear how Bolt committed an act of racial discrimination by querying the aboriginality of what the Federal Court found to be fair-skinned individuals.

  46. JC

    Token

    Monash/ Slater Gordon… This is a really good bio judge mordy has here.

    Henderson is being too kind. The judge is a leftwing douchbag who went out of his way to fuck over Bolt.

    In a just world the fucker would be kneepadding the CMFEU for a fee to screw over some poor employer for the rest of his life instead of acting like he’s …. a fair minded adjudicator.

    This is illustrative of what I always say. Never give the left an even break. Don’t play nice and fair and never ever bother to see their side as they don’t have an argument about anything.

    They hate us on the right. Double it back and then hit them again. Fuck’em.

  47. Leunig is Australia’s William Shakespeare

    Utter fucking rubbish. Get out – you contribute nothing of any real worth to this blog, and if I were Sinc I’d have banned you days ago.

  48. Token

    The judge is a leftwing douchbag who went out of his way to fuck over Bolt.

    Not only that, his judgement seems to be so amateur, you’d think he was going out of his way to get it overturned on appeal it is so flimsy.

    He seems to be the Julia Gillard of the judicial world. It must be something they teach their staff at S&G.

  49. Token

    Utter fucking rubbish.

    We seem to be getting an extraordinary number of low IQ trolls of late.

  50. daddy dave

    Leunig is Australia’s William Shakespeare

    Leunig is over-rated.
    There are plenty of Australian artists in all fields of the creative arts who are more significant than Leunig. Music, acting, writing, painting, satire,… he would struggle to make the top 100.

    Even in his particular niche of whimsical cartoons, Fairfax used to have another cartoonist, Matthew Martin, who was heaps better than Leunig – conceptually as well as artistically – but maybe he wasn’t leftwing enough or something because never got lionised by the establishment the way Leunig has and turned into a national treasure.

  51. sam

    Bolt Lied full stop, to say its about free speech is a lie in its self, He could write the same story with the truth today if he wanted but the truth wouldnt sell papers, support PALM ISLAND if your for free speech, a police officer murdered a person in his care, it was as bad as a car crash victim and now a gag order, Do you support FREE SPEECH or only RACIST free speech. Show the world what Australia is really like

  52. JC

    Sam

    You’re getting a little carried away here, boyo.

  53. JamesK

    And intersestingly perhaps Sam should read what Andreww Bolt had to say about the death in custody on Palm Island.

    On that reckonibng Sammy-boy will be charging Bolt with anti-cop bigotry.

  54. JC

    Lefties like Sam are making Bolt an obsession, James.

    It seems he’s really hurt them mentally.

  55. sam

    Typical, all talk and no substance, Aboriginals feel sorry for people like JC and JamesK, so bitter when your got not a care in the world, at leased we have a reason. Australians just got voted the biggest whinger’s in the world, easy to see why when you read comments posted on this blog. By your standards defamation laws are a breach of free speech but the bias/silence is deafening and the glass sheild cant hide the uglyness. Andy boy is an opinion writer not a journolist, only a fool would use his articles for an informed insight on an issue, he’s a convicted liar. Anyway you go to professionals who dedicate huge amounts of time and energy learning to become leaders in their chosen area to learn something, you do know its the 21 century. JC and JamesK should stay in their cosy privilaged world because reality would be to tough for them, maybe try help someone other then themselfs

  56. Michael Sutcliffe

    By your standards defamation laws are a breach of free speech but the bias/silence is deafening and the glass sheild cant hide the ugliness

    Bolt wasn’t convicted of defamation. He was convicted of offending a group that could identify on the basis of their race.

    No one is claiming free speech means you can defame others.

    So wrong and wrong. Get back in your hole.

Comments are closed.