BF2S Forums Columnist broke Australian race laws with Aborigines remark

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

@kmar + lowing

My guess is that it will just be a little bit of publicity, maybe a small fine to make people feel all nice about it. It's like our PM apologising to the "stolen generation" (aboriginal kids taken from their parents and put in Christian missions), it didn't actually do anything or change anyone's feelings but it made people feel like they'd at least done something.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Probably just buying himself some publicity. Ignore him and he'll go away.

Nope the opposite. This should piss people off that this guy and this article is being persecuted. Unless of course you think the govt. knows best what is good for you hear and what isn't, what is offensive and what isn't.

'govt knows best' derp.
You speak of 'the govt' as if they're alien overlords from the planet zog - they're elected citizens.

The laws are written down, its not as if people don't know they're there. Why would people be pissed off that someone is prosecuted for breaking the law?

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-28 03:11:15)

Dilbert_X wrote:

The problem was he singled out one group, when trash from many races including - gasp - white trash are raping the system.

The laws have probably been around for a while, its not necessarily the govt getting excited either since there is a separation between the govt, the police and the courts.

But of course its the fault of 'dah gavinmint'

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-28 04:06:32)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Plenty of white people commit benefit fraud, considering whites outnumber blacks about 100:1 here I somehow doubt fraud by slightly blacks is a huge problem for the economy.

lowing wrote:

what the hell is wrong with your free speech laws? Especially since it would appear what was said is actually the truth. You guys actually have hurt feelings laws!!? Unreal.

Last edited by Spark (2011-09-28 05:08:45)

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

But not going so far as to treat Aborigines like children, incapable of standing up for themselves.

It was aboriginals that he wrote about who did stand up for themselves, they were the ones who took the matter to court.

He is a well known racist, bigot, mouth piece and it's about time he was taken to task for his offensive remarks.

Spark wrote:

There's no two ways about it - there were some things in that article that were just plain straight-out wrong. That's why you don't write articles off Google-search.

The 7.30 transcript hasn't gone up yet but there were a few examples in the report of plain-as-day factual inaccuracies, and big ones too.

Whether he should have been found guilty of breaching the RDA is an interesting question, but basically anyone with a brain is in firm agreement that he probably would have been far likely to face this problem had he done some basic research first. Ah well, it's Andrew Bolt.

Cybargs wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Plenty of white people commit benefit fraud, considering whites outnumber blacks about 100:1 here I somehow doubt fraud by slightly blacks is a huge problem for the economy.

So right an article about the individuals who are doing it. I wonder if there would be accusations of white persecution to follow.

Isn't that what he's writing about in the article? that mostly white people with a little bit of aborigine write themselves off as aboriginals claim benefits?

Heiss wrote:

I believe the result means that Australia will have a higher quality and more responsible media and that to some degree the persecution of Aboriginal people in the press will be lessened," author Anita Heiss, who was one of the Aboriginal witnesses in the case, said.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

THis is what the judge said:
"Federal court justice Mordy Bromberg ruled that fair-skinned Aborigines were likely to have been "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations" " he didn't say it was a lie.


Bromberg ruled out Bolt and his publisher's defence under a clause of the Racial Discrimination Act that exempts "fair comment" because the articles "contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language".


This is what he used to uphold it: blanket coverage. If the article had errors, distortions, inflammatory, or provocative language. What was it? There certainly was no language in it that was inflammatory or provocative. Unless you are counting the fact that he called them out as such. What were errors or the distortions? You would think that would something Bolt was called out on, yet we do not read what they were.

I've tried to make this simplier and just highlight it for you...

If you'd like, you can read the judgement here

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ … /1103.html


Andrew Bolt imputed that some people are too fair-skinned to be genuine Aboriginal people, that those people choose to falsely identify as Aboriginal for personal gain. Those were the untruths that Bolt was unable to provide ANY evidence for. He even stated in court his research was simply based on google searches. No interviews with anyone involved at all.

Again and again, his Honour found that Bolt’s articles contained falsehoods or significant omissions:

“The facts in question have not been proven to be true. To the contrary, in relation to most of the individuals concerned, the facts asserted in the Newspaper articles that the people dealt with chose to identify as Aboriginal have been substantially proven to be untrue. … Some of the facts relied upon as the basis of the comments made about motivation have been proven to be untrue. … Each of these assertions was erroneous. Mr Bolt accepted that they were wrong because they were exaggerated. … The comment is unsupported by any factual basis and is erroneous. … That statement is untrue. … The omission occurred in circumstances were the facts were likely to be either publicly available or readily obtainable, including by Mr Bolt contacting the individuals concerned. Mr Bolt presented evidence of having undertaken some online research about the individuals, but it was not evidence upon which I could be satisfied that a diligent attempt had been made to make reasonable enquiries. … Mr Bolt disingenuously explained the omission as due to a lack of space. … The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect.“

As his Honour explained at [386], “[t]he lack of truth in conduct which contravenes 18C, seems to me to have an obvious bearing on whether the conduct should be exempted from unlawfulness by s 18D.”

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok you win. Now let me ask. IF what Bolt had said was the iron clad truth, would your govt. have allowed the law suit based on your Racial Discrimination Act?

Bromberg ruled out Bolt and his publisher's defence under a clause of the Racial Discrimination Act that exempts "fair comment" because the articles "contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language".


So, had Bolt actually presented factual statements and had evidence, the articles would have been given "fair comment" treatment, be a matter for public interest and more.

What you can't do is offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone by simple imputations based on lies and falsehoods.


The right to free speech in Australia is more of an implied rule then golden one. Journalistic standards have to meet an expectation when it comes to the truths presented.

Cybargs wrote:

He does have a point. You get a shit ton of benefits ticking yourself off as aborginal. Guess it's the same in the US when someones 1/32 part native american they claim "native american" and get benefits.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

He does have a point. You get a shit ton of benefits ticking yourself off as aborginal. Guess it's the same in the US when someones 1/32 part native american they claim "native american" and get benefits.

you can't claim 1/32 native and get benefits.  You have to prove at least 1/16 bloodline, which I believe is done through DNA/bloodwork?  Is that not the same in AUS?  There's got to be some sort of independent verification.