Some people are concerned that this ruling will harm healthy debate in this country:
Bolt was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. In two famous columns in 2009 he took a swipe at "political" or "professional" or "official" Aborigines who could pass for white but chose to identify as black for personal or political gain, to win prizes and places reserved for real, black Aborigines and to borrow "other people's glories".
But Bolt's lawyers had to concede even before this case began in the Federal Court that nine of these named "white Aborigines" had identified as black from childhood. All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this down the track but were raised as Aborigines. Their evidence was not contested by Bolt or his paper.
The dispute over the gas hub has created ugly tensions in a community that prides itself on being laid-back. Ms Martin was named last week in an anonymous 10-page newsletter as "brown on the outside and full of the milk of white man's money" on the inside for not opposing the proposed gas hub.
Her name appeared on a list of nine Kimberley Aborigines, including former Australian of the year Patrick Dodson, under the heading "toxic coconuts".
Ms Martin said it was the worst slur against her in public life, and she would sue the authors if they could be identified.
I don't have much time for extreme right Andrew Bolt or extreme left David Marr, but in this instance I think Marr is right. Bolt shot his mouth off without checking the facts...[/url]
Anyway, this is from Bolt's blog today: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/.../comments/column_why_cant_i_be_free_to_speak/
This point was made on "7.30" last night which also reported that the judge said his verdict should not be interpreted as a veto against discussion of the topic, but rather a reflection of Andrew Bolt's article containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.I don't think he would have lost the case except for his scrappy journalism. His research was flawed, and easily discredited.
This point was made on "7.30" last night which also reported that the judge said his verdict should not be interpreted as a veto against discussion of the topic, but rather a reflection of Andrew Bolt's article containing misinformation and 'inflammatory' language.
Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming majority of Andrew Bolts writings.
It is also why people who continue to quote Andrew Bolts columns should consider whether they are just supporting 'misinformation and inflammatory language' versus evidence based research and a considered approach to the story.
Your post is incredibly hypocritical.
The simple responses to those questions don't tell the whole story, but they do offer more insight than stuff such as this,you of course would consider this as misinformation since you cannot answer them as it would show how the AGW alarmist have been using misinformation for years.
I have a niece who has a Filipino mother and an Australian father. If and when she marries perhaps an Australian white man, is she still regarded as a Filipino or a quarter cast Filipino?
Bolt's arguments are simplistic and as a consequence can be in part misleading. He takes advantage of that, but at the same time, I hope you didn't close your eyes when you saw the image above.But he is an absolute master at his work which is reflected in it's impact on many people including a lot of forum members.
Bolt's arguments are simplistic and as a consequence can be in part misleading. He takes advantage of that, but at the same time, I hope you didn't close your eyes when you saw the image above.
I see.The government runs an advertisement to get across some simpler big pictures issues of how man produced CO2 is creating climate change that needs to be addressed. One of the suggested solutions is the development of non carbon based renewable energy supplies. This is done in a short ad. where you have to simplify a message without destroying the main idea.
There is an abundance of evidence, analysis and detail in climate change research. That is the place to look for making sure CO2 is not shown as grey when it's colourless or other such distractions.
Which is the key criticism of the overwhelming majority of Andrew Bolts writings.
Bolt was convicted yesterday of racial discrimination, as you're all aware.
I know of people with red hair who regularly get ribbed for an aspect of their appearance that is outside of their control. They get called 'Bluey' or 'red nuts' or 'fanta pants'. This is the same process. Why is it ok? They are regulary discrimintaed against in the dating scene. Is this ok also?
disclosure: I do not have red hair. Only my avatar.
I can feel another Basilio book post about to be published.
It's interesting that Basilio pontificates on the asserted wrongs of others but laps up and regurgitates the propaganda of "dirty carbon" scare campaigns and claims it's perfectly all right.
I'm just amazed at how you contiune to post here with a straight face - your own posts have zeroed your credibility and with a hypocritical position you wave the finger at others. This is why the left has sunk into such a unrecoverable position.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?