I could prove that my banned articles argued against racism and racial division by republishing them - but the Federal Court has ruled that I may not. Mein Kampf can be published, but my articles fighting racism cannot.The articles remain (and as far as I know, have always been) available on his own blog, although they are headed by a notice required by the Court that it had made findings that they were inaccurate.
As for Langton, she may (for all I know) have been exaggerating as to the effect Bolt's comments on Misty Jenkins, but Bolt is also being disingenuous if he is claiming he was not having a go at her for identifying as aboriginal. The quote in Q&A:
Page four has a feature on Dr Misty Jenkins, a blonde and pale science PhD who calls herself Aboriginal and enthuses: “I was able to watch the coverage of Kevin Rudd’s (sorry) speech with tears rolling down my cheeks ...Given that we know the question of self identification of aboriginality has been a strongly contested matter even with aboriginal circles, and has been commented on by other right wing figures even in the Australian without there being any legal consequences, the matter has always been not that Bolt deals with the issue, but how he goes about doing it.
Andrew is not big or sensible enough to recognise this, and right wing activists (with who knows what corporate backing) are happy to see him play the role. All a bit sad for Bolt, really. As with his gullible acceptance of climate change denialism, he just really continues to prove he's not so smart.
(Oh sure, getting rich on his Fox Lite media performances, no doubt. But showing himself to be dumber by the day.)
In related news: it's amusing to read today that the IPA is stamping its feet over the prospect that the Abbott government is not going to repeal s18C in its entirety. Fairfax writes:
The dispute is likely to get worse, especially if Senator Brandis introduces, as some expect, a new criminal offence of racial vilification. IPA executive director John Roskam said he would rather there were no changes to the law than a new criminal ban on hate speech. He also said it had ''got back to me'' that Senator Brandis had been criticising the IPA in private conversations.
5 comments:
almost every legal man and woman said Bolt could have been sued for a lot of money.
He wasn't because the people didn't want the money just the claim that Bolt was inaccurate.
Actually being indolent and inaccurate is Catallaxy to the tee.
That is why they support Bolt.
What a ridiculous article. Marcia Langton lies and you rush to defend her. Interesting how you don't actually quote what Marcia said hey?
Oh and nottrampis, "almost every legal man and woman" was not saying that, but thanks for the fantasy. Bolt wasn't sued for defamation and the evidence wouldn't have supported it.
Censors gonna censor.
CS
Censorship? Yeah, its the sort of censorship you have when you can Google up "Andrew Bolt white aboriginals" and find the columns in the first three hits. At News Ltd sites - actually Bolt's blog, according to the web address.
There have always been problems with 18C, these only became highlighted with the Bolt case. The argument Brandis put forward on Q&A was silly. It is like saying in a civil society most people will not run red lights so let's repeal that law too because those who run red lights will be dealt with by society. The very reason the ADA came into existence is because there are too many people who will discriminate against other people. By Brandis' argument civil society only began recently, as if there has been a huge change in human behavior over the last few decades. Not bloody likely mate. So Brandis will reword 18C, which contradicts his claim that civil society is a sufficient moderator of human behavior. At least he is not as naive as those who condemn for wanting to keep it in place.
every legal blog I read and every legal opinion I heard said the plaintiffs had a rock solid case against Bolt.
given his indolence this is not surprising.
Post a Comment