The Bolt Report

[Gringotts Bank]

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been convicted. And I agree Bolt often seems to go off half cocked. Just wondering where the line gets drawn.

Julia Gillard gets her huge nose, huge butt, horrible dress sense and red hair lampooned in every newspaper cartoon. Is that ok? Is that not vilification?

Is it ok to make fun of an aborigine in the same way?

Or is it not ok to make fun of anyone?

Food for thought.

I don't have the answer.

 

[IFocus]

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been convicted. And I agree Bolt often seems to go off half cocked. Just wondering where the line gets drawn.

Julia Gillard gets her huge nose, huge butt, horrible dress sense and red hair lampooned in every newspaper cartoon. Is that ok? Is that not vilification?

Is it ok to make fun of an aborigine in the same way?

Or is it not ok to make fun of anyone?

Food for thought.

I don't have the answer.

I guess politicians are fair game although I notice that even conservative commentators are becoming uneasy with some of the Gillard stuff.

If its really good satire I think any thing goes but draw the line at vitriol and hate.

I am a white protestant male so any thing I say about another culture or race would be classed unlawful.

 

[Calliope]

As Calliope and Julia have pointed out it was really shockingly badly researched journalism.

I followed the trial and was surprised like everyone else that Bolt didn't even know that some of the people he accused had full blood parents etc.

He hadn't even met or interviewed people he made attacks on.

He looked like a complete dick.

My point about Bolt's clumsy research was the it gave the judge a free kick, and gave him the opening to hand down a decision based not on racial discrimination, but on a perceived misrepresentation.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Lay off the abuse Ozzie. It's offensive and down right nasty.

It also poisons this forum for any constructive discussions.

The only thing offensive is the drivel from your posts that in your mind you believe to be fact...

It beggars belief that they would now like to defend to the death Andrews capacity for fair and accurate research on climate change issues. And this is in the face of almost all the scientific community that studies this issue .

Andrew does not undertake climate research as such - he simply asks the right questions that neither you or so called climate scientists are willing to answer. No employed scientist will debate Bolt in public or establish the impact on temperature the Carbon tax will have without being laughed out of the room.

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

That's right, no big picture agenda here. lol, yet you think it's ok the Gov to run an ad campaign and to lie to the public...

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.

As I previously said - your posts are clearly hypocritical and thus you lack credibility and conviction on climate change issues since you simply choose to avoid answering the pertinent questions and have done so for months. Yet you're happy to unload on Bolt on a range of topics, but then cry foul and claim it's offensive for anyone to pull you up. Get over it.

 

[tothemax6]

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has lost his racial vilification case in the Federal Court of Australia.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/true-colours-20110928-1kxb0.html#ixzz1ZHRC2cg0

Courts dispense law, but not justice .

I think ultimately there is no doubt we will end up in a 1984 style world. Freedom is merely a concept people talk about, and pretend they have, despite the clear evidence that they are not free. No person in authority, be they judge or politician, honestly believe freedom is a virtue whatsoever. Controlling other peoples actions via threat of force is their version of 'what's right'.
It is a severe case of cultural cognitive dissonance, that people can simultaneously believe in freedom of association, and freedom of speech, whilst believing that discrimination is unlawful and libel and 'vilification' are legitimately crimes.

Just remember, 2+2=5.

On the whole race thing, it is true that it is hilarious when people who look more or less white refer to themselves as 'aboriginal'. Were the 'ab original' people of this land descended from whites in any way? Of course not, but following the rule 2+2=5, an aboriginal can be anything as long as you declare it with enough fervor.

Indeed, short of perhaps Ernie Dingo, I can't remember seeing a single representative of 'the aboriginal people' on TV who actually looked like an actual aboriginal person.
What a farce.

 

[Macquack]

Indeed, short of perhaps Ernie Dingo, I can't remember seeing a single representative of 'the aboriginal people' on TV who actually looked like an actual aboriginal person.
What a farce.

So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?

Freedom of speech implies a freedom for honest and factual statements not a "protection" for loud mouthed lying bullsh*t artists like Andrew Bolt to mouth off with no consequence.


Andrew Bolt Statement

''This is a terrible day for free speech in this country,''

''It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves,'' he continued. ''I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings. Thank you.''

What a laugh, Bolt must have forgotten what he was in court for.

 

[Julia]

As Calliope and Julia have pointed out it was really shockingly badly researched journalism.

Kindly don't misinterpret what I said earlier. I absolutely did not make any claim about the quality of Andrew Bolt's journalism. I simply, paraphrasing from a radio report, reported what the judge apparently said. That does not equate to my saying that it was "shockingly badly researched journalism".

I'm somewhat taken aback to hear this evening in a follow up radio discussion that the judge made distinct mention of what amounted to vulnerability on the part of followers of Andrew Bolt. The interpretation of the Ethics commentator here was that Andrew Bolt's followers were not capable of appropriately evaluating e.g. racism for themselves, and as a result Mr Bolt had a greater duty to be careful in the way he expressed himself than someone writing for a publication with a lesser circulation.

Now, there's something very wrong here. If this Ethics commentator has correctly reported the judge's remarks, why should there be one standard for Andrew Bolt and a different standard for someone writing for a minor regional newspaper?

Further, I don't believe the ASF Left should get too carried away about regarding this slap in the face for Andrew Bolt as carte blanche to rubbish anything he says about anything, something that has already happened on this thread.

i.e. we have the judgment about the aboriginal comments, and voila, we may automatically conclude that everything Andrew Bolt has ever said about climate change or anything else is totally invalidated.

Rubbish. Just get a bit of perspective before you draw such silly conclusions.

Objectivity is a much undervalued commodity imo.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have been convicted. And I agree Bolt often seems to go off half cocked. Just wondering where the line gets drawn.

Julia Gillard gets her huge nose, huge butt, horrible dress sense and red hair lampooned in every newspaper cartoon. Is that ok? Is that not vilification?

Excellent point.
We seem to have evolved the issue of racism to a quite disproportionate degree so that hurt or offence is inferred quite unreasonably.
The cartoonists lampoon politicians in a way that they would never apply to any race issues.
Why?

 

[Sean K]

Personal identity, family, extended family, associations, cat lovers, dog lovers, religion, collingwood supporters, essendon supporters, community, society, state, country, alliance, axis, add in anything in-between and plus!

The more we define each other as different, the more we will be at conflict.

Overpopulation is the key. The Earth will cull us at some point.

 

[sails]

Interesting questions from Neil Mitchell of 3aw to Geoff Clark on this issue:

http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpP...ytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/290911_Geoff_Clark.mp3

 

[Sean K]

Interesting questions from Neil Mitchell of 3aw to Geoff Clark on this issue:

http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpP...ytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/290911_Geoff_Clark.mp3

Missing 'plug-in'

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I think ultimately there is no doubt we will end up in a 1984 style world. Freedom is merely a concept people talk about, and pretend they have, despite the clear evidence that they are not free.

I'd like to clarify this and add my input since there is a lot of fear around on free speech atm:

We are all free and there's no such thing as a 1984 style world. Why? It will only exist if you choose to make it exist. The Government (aka public servants) need to contract with you in order to establish jurisdiction. It is impossible for a legal fiction to contract with a man or woman. They can only contract with a "person" - another legal fiction. Therefore, to do this, one must redefine the english language.

Government Statutes and Acts will usually only apply to the legal fiction named as a person - eg your name in UPPERCASE. How do we know this? The Act Interpretation Act 1901 says so in section 22:

(1) In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

(a) expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;

(aa) individual means a natural person;​

Both a "person" and a "natural person" are both legal fictions, the difference being a natural person is a legal fiction with a living man/women as the sole shareholder, but considered as a trustee by the Government to establish legal jurisdiction and a liable party.

Many plain english language terms are redefined throughtout the acts.

It is simply contract law being used to enforce government rules, and government rules only apply to government employees and agents - aka "persons"

Andrew Bolt was not found guilty of anything, his legal fiction MR ANDREW BOLT was, and as such, he is the liable trustee of the legal fiction.

Next time you ring up a bank or utility company and they ask you to identify yourself, you reply " my name is OzWaveGuy", then they reply "can I have your full name/legal name please". You scratch your head and think "I just gave my name". They are in fact after your legal fiction name MR OZWAVEGUY to establish legal joinder otherwise they should not deal with you, but they usually will since most are confused by this questioning of names.


A couple of well established Maxims of Law:

"The Contract makes the law"​

"He who questions well, learns well."​

 

[bellenuit]

So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?

Macquack. I can't see the relevance in that comparison. Being Swedish is a matter of citizenship not DNA.

Being aboriginal Australian is a matter of DNA, not citizenship. If both parents are aborigines, then you are 100% aboriginal Australian, if one is an aborigine and the other is 100% a non-aborigine, then you are 50% aboriginal Australian, if three of your grandparents are 100% non-aboriginal and the fourth is 100% aboriginal Australian, then you are 25% etc.

If you are 1% aboriginal Australian and want to identify yourself as being culturally aboriginal Australian, then that normally is a personal choice and not an issue to anyone else. The problem is when the government positively discriminates in favour of aboriginal Australians. If aboriginal Australians become entitled to some benefit or other purely because they are aboriginal Australians and that benefit is paid by the tax payer, then surely the tax payer is entitled to know whether that person is genuinely an aborigine. So where does one draw the line. 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%?

I don't know the full details of the Bolt case, but I cannot see how questioning a person's ethnicity should be regarded as racial vilification, when that person appears to be not really a member of that ethic group. Government largesse isn't infinite, so someone must draw the line somewhere.

 

[GumbyLearner]

What would he say...if he was taken away from his parents?

I'm an individual?
I'm a citizen of the world?
They abused me?
The state knows more?

The grass is always greener....on the other side?



Let's acknowledge all the people of this great country.

 

[wayneL]

So using your logic, if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes you can't be Swedish?

Macquack. I can't see the relevance in that comparison. Being Swedish is a matter of citizenship not DNA.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks MacQuack, another pearl for my PhD thesis.

Not all ethnic Scandinavians have blond hair and blue eyes either, there is variability. However all ethnic Scandinavians have fair skin.

I agree with what kennas said above, these definitions only serve to separate, rather than unite.

I also agree with Julia, the left are getting a bit carried away.

 

[Tink]

Its about time journalists became more accountable for what they write as fact, and Bully Bolts day has come.

As for his freedom of speech cry - oh please.

 

[breaker]

Macquack. I can't see the relevance in that comparison. Being Swedish is a matter of citizenship not DNA.

Being aboriginal Australian is a matter of DNA, not citizenship. If both parents are aborigines, then you are 100% aboriginal Australian, if one is an aborigine and the other is 100% a non-aborigine, then you are 50% aboriginal Australian, if three of your grandparents are 100% non-aboriginal and the fourth is 100% aboriginal Australian, then you are 25% etc.

If you are 1% aboriginal Australian and want to identify yourself as being culturally aboriginal Australian, then that normally is a personal choice and not an issue to anyone else. The problem is when the government positively discriminates in favour of aboriginal Australians. If aboriginal Australians become entitled to some benefit or other purely because they are aboriginal Australians and that benefit is paid by the tax payer, then surely the tax payer is entitled to know whether that person is genuinely an aborigine. So where does one draw the line. 100%, 50%, 25%, 10%?

I don't know the full details of the Bolt case, but I cannot see how questioning a person's ethnicity should be regarded as racial vilification, when that person appears to be not really a member of that ethic group. Government largesse isn't infinite, so someone must draw the line somewhere.

You are right we see it here in mining where near white aboriginal dictate sacred sights they wouldnt have a clue.
I grew up with aboriginals in Willcannia in the early 70s ,so I could claim I am one

 

[macca]

One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.

A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !

 

[wayneL]

Its about time journalists became more accountable for what they write as fact, and Bully Bolts day has come.

Does that only apply to right wing journos?

As for his freedom of speech cry - oh please.

Voltaire had the right idea.

I somehow think if the same happened to a left wing journo, freedom of speech might be more considered.

Objectivity please.

 

[Sean K]

One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.

A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !

Depends somewhat on the intent of these satires and pokes. I tell an Irish joke, but I still genuinely love Irish people. I tell an Aboriginal joke and I'm not so sure.

 

[McLovin]

One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.

A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !

I think you'd probably offend the Irish more by referring to them as Anglo-Saxon than by telling a few Irish jokes.