Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Resurrection of all-time best threads

Moderator: Moderator

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 7068
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:02 am

Iolar wrote:
Are you sure it was me?


Yes, I'm sure.

I've thought about this further overnight. It definitely wasn't. You're either confused or you're deliberately libelling me.

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10244
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:35 am

Argonheart_Po wrote:And so we see an Ingsoc party member persuade herself - in public - that 2+2 does indeed equal 3.

It is not an improving spectacle.


Boring.

You've put zero effort into your own argument for a different understanding of Aboriginality and how the law might be changed... away you go, then, as your trite one liners and references to Orwell which were cute on page 1 are tedious on page 10.

State your case. In more detail than "I read it in Bolt's column..."
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:39 am

Andrew Bolt might sue Argon at this rate.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: I'm 6'9"

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby AntiFelix » Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:30 am

I'm a Pregnant Aboriginal Mong, and Recognized as such by all white australian stew posters on this beloved thread.
Lifeless muppets leave my beloved thread immediately.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 14282
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 9:48 pm
Location: Baile Átha Cliath

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Iolar » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:31 am

[quote]You're either confused or you're deliberately libelling me.[/quote]

Truth is a defence against defamation. I don't know how it works in the land where white is black and men can choose whether or not to be pregnant, however.

I am not confused. You most certainly attributed it to something lacking in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I remember it specifically because I was astonished that someone could be so asinine, then I remembered that bigotry, xenophobia and racism were the Aussie way and that you are coarse and dimwitted people. Chi Rup reminded you about the situation in Lutheran Iceland.

You've also claimed (on a couple of occasions) that people throw bombs at each other in my country over religious difference, which is patently untrue, but then geography isn't your Mastermind subject, is it?

You're a bigot, Matt. Perhaps you confused your bigotry for humour. I have noticed that Australians tend to do that. And before you wag your finger and tell me I'm thin-skinned; I'm not Catholic. I'm just not an ignorant Australian. I'm aware that "ignorant Australian" is tautological.
We all secretly love Fr. Tony Abbot because he makes us all look a little bit cleverer. Discuss.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:07 am

Lace curtain..

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 18974
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:33 am

Iolar wrote:
You've also claimed (on a couple of occasions) that people throw bombs at each other in my country over religious difference, which is patently untrue, but then geography isn't your Mastermind subject, is it?


Ha, I remember having a taxi load of Irish passengers from limerick once, they were explaining how it was commonly called 'stab city' .. I asked why they had gangs that kept wanting to stab each other, whether it was ethnic or religious and just got the reply, in that beautifull sing song accent, 'no they're just people from one side of limerick wanting to kill people from the other'..

It was several years later when I worked with a local from around there that I found out it was all about a 13 year old schoolgirls lunchbox getting stolen...
.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 7068
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:28 pm

Iolar wrote:Truth is a defence against defamation, blah blab blah

You're just wrong, Iolar.

I certainly made comments about the Irish throwing bombs for religious reasons, and I'm not interested in getting into debates about whether the British Isles regard themselves as one, two, four or five countries, so I may well have used 'countries' in a way that doesn't accord with your usage.

But I couldn't have attributed the GFC to European religious issues, as I've always consistently argued that it originated from the US and, specifically, their US banking practices. If I ever made a religious comment about the GFC, it would have been to speculate that it would have been unlikely to arise if Islamic financing principles had been followed.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 14282
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 9:48 pm
Location: Baile Átha Cliath

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Iolar » Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:08 am

You're just wrong, Iolar.


Unfortunately not.

I'm not interested in getting into debates about whether the British Isles regard themselves as one, two, four or five countries


There are two sovereign states. Work it out for yourself. It isn't especially taxing.

But I couldn't have attributed the GFC to European religious issues


But you did.

What's with this lace curtain nonsense, Stringer? I suppose it's an improvement on threatening violence over the interwebs. Congratulations, you're evolving.
We all secretly love Fr. Tony Abbot because he makes us all look a little bit cleverer. Discuss.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 7068
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:28 am

So tell me more about this alleged connection between the GFC and European religions, Iolar? I can't see how a logical link can be made. Can you spell out the chain of 'reasoning' that you purport to recall?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:35 am

Matt, ever heard about the notion of good faith being essential to discourse?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:18 pm

State your case


2 + 2 = 4

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: I'm 6'9"

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby AntiFelix » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:28 pm

Argonheart_Po wrote:
State your case


2 + 2 = 4


This is pure racism against fivers, and those who can't or won't understand, and also people with exotic headgear and cool ethnic costumes. In short, it's racism.
Lifeless muppets leave my beloved thread immediately.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:40 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby indian_fellow » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:58 am

I am moved by the dedication shown by a lot of the white guys here to the real/imagined racism towards black people in Australia while saying nothing of actual racism towards black people on this board.
Last edited by indian_fellow on Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:40 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby indian_fellow » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:00 am

section8 wrote: with...EMG in cameo roles


Heh. Your novel method of counting is actually slightly more interesting than the Aussie definition of black.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6467
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:38 am
Location: LES, NYC, USA

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby flojin » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:04 am

indian_fellow wrote:I am moved by the dedication shown by a lot of the white guys here to the real/imagined racism towards black people in Australia while saying nothing of actual racism towards black people on this board.


Haha! Excellent. I think racism is only bad when you can use it to score points against internet foes. In real life it's fine.
Maxwell wrote:Tell me why I should care about ethics when the democrats don't.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 9141
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:11 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Moethebartender » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:23 am

indian_fellow wrote:I am moved by the dedication shown by a lot of the white guys here to the real/imagined racism towards black people in Australia while saying nothing of actual racism towards black people on this board.

I'm equally moved by the dedication shown by the white posters in Australia for defining what constitutes racism towards various minorities in Stralia. I'm glad we could share this touching Stew moment. Really. Of course no one ever comments on the racism shown by posters on this forum. Posters like Amerikkkan Joe, Harry whateverthfuckhisnameis, Mieke etc., etc., are universally revered here.
American Joe wrote:Did I ever tell you about the time I ate human flesh?


Flobster! wrote:I don't have any particular ethical objection to eating people per se.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:40 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby indian_fellow » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:29 am

flojin wrote:I think racism is only bad when you can use it to score points against internet foes


If any black people ever actually made it to this board, they'd be reduced to tears by all this affection.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:40 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby indian_fellow » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:36 am

I'm equally moved by the dedication shown by the white posters in Australia for defining what constitutes racism towards various minorities in Stralia.


Keep fighting the good fight, brother. The virulent Aussie response to ArPo's reasoned treatise on identity politics in modern Australia would make George Wallace look like a pussy.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:45 pm

janieblack wrote:As was discussed at the time, I think many people feel that Bolt overstepped on this piece and that he did a genuine disservice to the named people, lying about them as he did (and slandering their names...). I do believe that the people vilified in his nationally-circullated column should have had some recourse. But many, myself included, also think that it was goofy to charge him with racial discrimination. It was opportunistic, I think. In large part because the racial discrimination law in Australia sets the bar too low (you only need to 'offend' someone) while the bar for slander is set too high.

Why are you picky about which course of action the plaintiffs chose? They sought a successful outcome, and a legal benchmark for constraining antisocial behaviour. They achieved both.

Bolt had/has a contract with his employer at News Ltd that aims to increase circulation and to make money for both parties. It is quite reasonable for society to review and impose limits on the demonstrated adverse social effects of that activity.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:15 pm

demonstrated adverse social effects


Which were?

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:20 pm

Read the judgment.

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10244
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:32 pm

emmeff wrote:
janieblack wrote:As was discussed at the time, I think many people feel that Bolt overstepped on this piece and that he did a genuine disservice to the named people, lying about them as he did (and slandering their names...). I do believe that the people vilified in his nationally-circullated column should have had some recourse. But many, myself included, also think that it was goofy to charge him with racial discrimination. It was opportunistic, I think. In large part because the racial discrimination law in Australia sets the bar too low (you only need to 'offend' someone) while the bar for slander is set too high.

Why are you picky about which course of action the plaintiffs chose? They sought a successful outcome, and a legal benchmark for constraining antisocial behaviour. They achieved both.

Bolt had/has a contract with his employer at News Ltd that aims to increase circulation and to make money for both parties. It is quite reasonable for society to review and impose limits on the demonstrated adverse social effects of that activity.


And why do you care if I am "picky"? We both welcome the outcome as a Good Thing. I simply think the path there might have been different and that a different charge might have got at the complaint with Bolt's articles in a more precise way.

constraining antisocial behaviour

Blech. I hate this notion, frankly. Mainly because anywhere the term "antisocial behaviour" is used, it is undefined. Not good enough in my [leftie libertarian] books. And I don't want society to start defining "antisocial behaviour" as offending people, as it does under racial discrimination law at present. I think that sets the bar too low, as I said, and is too much of an impingement on freedom of speech. That said, I think Bolt's real crime wasn't "antisocial behaviour". I think it was slander and that is most definitely something that people should have recourse over in the courts. Shame that the criteria for proving slander is a bar too high.
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:54 am

emmeff wrote:demonstrated adverse social effects


Argonheart_Po wrote:
demonstrated adverse social effects


Which were?


emmeff wrote:Read the judgment.


Demonstrated adverse social effects...

There were no demonstrated adverse social effects were there?

It's probably a silly-college-girl statement born out of some passing adolescent vacuity that I'll bet you now regret.

Or it's an unconscious and almost certainly unknowing echo of the exactly the sort of language used to describe Soviet dissidents by government agencies - not that you would have any idea about that.

We both welcome the outcome as a Good Thing


Of course both of you do - it's the totalitarian impulse of the Modern-Left. Preach tolerance until you meet an idea that you disagree with and then - of course - you are unable to tolerate it.

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10244
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:15 am

Yeah, sorry. I do disagree with the idea of using an opinion blog to repeatedly slander some people by name without any evidence to support the slander. Apparently the court agrees.

I don't think you are so thick as to really believe that this judgement is Totalitarian. If you do... shame on you.
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Modern Leftits
User avatar
Posts: 17749
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: I'm on a horse.

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby equus » Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:19 am

Argonheart_Po wrote:
emmeff wrote:demonstrated adverse social effects


Argonheart_Po wrote:
demonstrated adverse social effects


Which were?


emmeff wrote:Read the judgment.


Demonstrated adverse social effects...

There were no demonstrated adverse social effects were there?

It's probably a silly-college-girl statement born out of some passing adolescent vacuity that I'll bet you now regret.

Or it's an unconscious and almost certainly unknowing echo of the exactly the sort of language used to describe Soviet dissidents by government agencies - not that you would have any idea about that.

We both welcome the outcome as a Good Thing


Of course both of you do - it's the totalitarian impulse of the Modern-Left. Preach tolerance until you meet an idea that you disagree with and then - of course - you are unable to tolerate it.

It wasn't his idea that got him into trouble, it was his defamatory lies. And the punishment? Ooh - a retraction!

Like you, Bolt realized his idea wasn't very compelling unless supported with lies.
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:47 am

The same shit for ten years - why do you bother?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:19 am

It wasn't his idea that got him into trouble, it was his defamatory lies.


Really?

Not his comments about identity? About the phenomenon of white people pretending to be black people in Australia but for defamation?

Really?

Bolt was found in violation of the Racial Discrimination Act because his ''offensive'' 2009 article accused ''fair-skinned'' Aborigines of choosing their racial identity to get certain benefits. It isn't hard to understand why the subjects of Bolt's column were offended but many commentators have avoided considering the underlying law because they don't like Bolt or his views. Even those who move past their own politics to raise legitimate concerns over the precedent set by Bolt's case have missed the most important point.


Yes, it is problematic that the judge's decision revolves around whether someone claims to be offended as opposed to whether Bolt knew he would offend the ''ordinary'' Australian in the representative group or the ''ordinary'' Australian based on ''community standards''. But the real question is whether we want judges in charge of the parameters of public debate - what we can and cannot say - at all.

Bolt was not the subject of defamation proceedings,..... He was instead found guilty of offending people. It is not that the judge got it wrong - Parliament got it wrong.

Hate speech laws in Australia are a form of censorship, backed by sanction...



http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z2QR2SXnpp

Guess who wrote that?

Janie - Censorship back by sanction? Guilty of offending people? Demonstrated adverse social effects?

That's not totalitarian?

Maybe not in your INGSOC manual janie - but here in the real world ....

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:29 pm
Location: I'm 6'9"

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby AntiFelix » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:30 am

matt_melb wrote:Can one of the Americans tell me (because I can't be bothered googling) - which was the first American State to have someone with Native American heritage as Governor, and when?


Minnesota.
Lifeless muppets leave my beloved thread immediately.

Modern Leftits
User avatar
Posts: 17749
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: I'm on a horse.

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby equus » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:44 am

Argonheart_Po wrote:
It wasn't his idea that got him into trouble, it was his defamatory lies.


Really?

Not his comments about identity? About the phenomenon of white people pretending to be black people in Australia but for defamation?

Really?

so did you ever read the judgement? I mean, you know, link posted a few hundred posts ago and all
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:02 pm

What act was Bolt taken to court under?

Do you know?

If you do not - they why are you here?

If you do - then why won't you say it?

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:20 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby temporaryhandle » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:29 pm

Do you know what it was Argonheart_Po?

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10244
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:14 pm

The only totalitarian behaviour I see here is an inexplicably angry White columnist (supported by angry Whirte readers) playing Race Cop. That is quite totalitarian, dictating that this person is Black and this one is White based on his rules (versus the rules established by the whole community over years).
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:11 am

temporaryhandle wrote:Do you know what it was Argonheart_Po?


Yes, the Racial Discrimination Act.

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

Because of the use of the this act - remember he was not sued for libel but taken to court under the Racial Act Discrimination - he was unable to use fair comment or public interest to defend his opinions.

janieblack wrote:The only totalitarian behaviour I see here is an inexplicably angry White columnist (supported by angry Whirte readers) playing Race Cop. That is quite totalitarian, dictating that this person is Black and this one is White based on his rules (versus the rules established by the whole community over years).


There was no race card, no race cop because the people who took him to court were white. They were white people pretending to be black people (really - only in Australia and only among Green/Left metropolitan elites - no normal person would countenance such idiocy).

The way you decide whether a person is black or white is to look at them janie - you look at them and then you form your own opinion. The problem in Australia is that you then need to keep that opinion to yourself - in case you are taken to court under the Racial Discrimination Act.

And again we watch the ridiculous sight of an intelligent woman like you proving to herself - in public - that 2+2=5.

Modern Leftits
User avatar
Posts: 17749
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: I'm on a horse.

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby equus » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:36 am

Argonheart_Po wrote:
temporaryhandle wrote:Do you know what it was Argonheart_Po?


Yes, the Racial Discrimination Act.

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

Because of the use of the this act - remember he was not sued for libel but taken to court under the Racial Act Discrimination - he was unable to use fair comment or public interest to defend his opinions.


And do you know why his fair comment defence failed? You do, don't you, but you've been wriggling for over a year to avoid admitting it.
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

stewpid colonial
User avatar
Posts: 11263
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:10 am
Location: Darwin, Australia

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby jono_in_adelaide » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:47 am

Yawn

If it realy is enough to land you in court under the racial discrimination act to merely cause offence, then IMHO, that is wrong - some people seem to make it their lifes work to be offended by virtualy everything

Laws to ban hate speach - yes

Laws to protect peoples sensetivities - no
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 7068
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:51 am

Totally agree, Jono.

So many people are driven by their hatred of Bolt that they overlook that point. It's just not right to have laws to ban speech that is merely offensive.

Modern Leftits
User avatar
Posts: 17749
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: I'm on a horse.

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby equus » Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:10 am

Do you guys have some reason why you refuse to read the decision?
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:19 am

If this thread was a physical thing I would bomb it with napalm.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:52 am

Modern-left activists, lawyers, academics and bad legislation have combined to create the extraordinary situation where eligibility for awards and prizes with an ethnic component now cannot - by law - be questioned.

The law of defamation deals with public statements which harm reputation and one would normally sue under that legislation. But the white black men and white black women who sued Bolt did so under the Race Discrimination Act and not in a libel action because the (RD) Act extends the constraints on public comment existing in defamation.

The Act restrains free speech.

The ruling shows that saying certain things can be punishable by law.

It was a disaster for free speech and a totalitarian step in the wrong direction.

But here's the rub - until you are a deliberate idiot - and there are plenty if urban-elite would-be INGSOC party members who have convinced themselves that white is in fact black, then the ruling was a disaster for those from the modern-left who sought to punish Bolt for holding ideas that they cannot tolerate.

Firstly the case now places limits on free speech in Australia. The next time modern-leftists in Melbourne mob up to attack Jews selling chocolate or in lock-step again with Islamic fascists they leave themselves open to being sued.

But it also publicised Bolt's views on racial identity to a much wider audience.

It has further made Bolt into a martyr in the public eye.

Then because of the absurdity of the case - the idea - held by janie and equus here - that white people are black people if they say they are black people even if they are actually white people has been held up to popular and public ridicule. This of course has damaged the legitimate concerns and issues of real black people.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:56 am

Piss on this fucking turd.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:04 am

You big baby.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:05 am

Oh right.

"steady on son, you're out of line"..

Relax old man. I couldn't even bitch slap you now.

Modern Leftits
User avatar
Posts: 17749
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: I'm on a horse.

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby equus » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:15 am

Argonheart_Po wrote:Modern-left activists, lawyers, academics and bad legislation have combined to create the extraordinary situation where eligibility for awards and prizes with an ethnic component now cannot - by law - be questioned.

The law of defamation deals with public statements which harm reputation and one would normally sue under that legislation. But the white black men and white black women who sued Bolt did so under the Race Discrimination Act and not in a libel action because the (RD) Act extends the constraints on public comment existing in defamation.

The Act restrains free speech.

The ruling shows that saying certain things can be punishable by law.

It was a disaster for free speech and a totalitarian step in the wrong direction.

But here's the rub - until you are a deliberate idiot - and there are plenty if urban-elite would-be INGSOC party members who have convinced themselves that white is in fact black, then the ruling was a disaster for those from the modern-left who sought to punish Bolt for holding ideas that they cannot tolerate.

Firstly the case now places limits on free speech in Australia. The next time modern-leftists in Melbourne mob up to attack Jews selling chocolate or in lock-step again with Islamic fascists they leave themselves open to being sued.

But it also publicised Bolt's views on racial identity to a much wider audience.

It has further made Bolt into a martyr in the public eye.

Then because of the absurdity of the case - the idea - held by janie and equus here - that white people are black people if they say they are black people even if they are actually white people has been held up to popular and public ridicule. This of course has damaged the legitimate concerns and issues of real black people.

Classic. You couldn't quite bring yourself to say it, and instead recited your strawman.
If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:38 am

stringer_bell wrote:"I couldn't even bitch slap you now.


Huh?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3757
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby stringer_bell » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:47 am

'Settle son. You're out of line.'

You are fucking pathetic.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:55 am


You are fucking pathetic.


Calm down champ.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 14560
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:31 am

Classic. You couldn't quite bring yourself to say it, and instead recited your strawman.


Which as an INGSOC apparatchik you weren't allowed to read.

Meanwhile implacable leftie Johnathan Homes has something to say on the subject:

...a profoundly disturbing judgment

Because to my mind His Honour's claim that his judgment need not affect the media's freedom to publish reports and comments on racial identity is clearly absurd.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-29/h ... nt/3038156

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13299
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:28 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Vince » Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:47 pm

on 2nd thoughts - cant be bothered.
"Do you ski?"
"Do I look like I can ski you fuckhead, I can barely walk."

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:28 pm

janieblack wrote:And why do you care if I am "picky"? We both welcome the outcome as a Good Thing. I simply think the path there might have been different and that a different charge might have got at the complaint with Bolt's articles in a more precise way.

It was the correct tool to use to get the job done. Pursuing a defamation action is a sport for rich and/or pompous fools. Such as Tony Abbot when he sued Bob Ellis over his own hurt feelings in 1999 (the 'Abbott and Costello' defamation case). Media organisations are extremely well-equipped to defend charges of libel. They get lots of practice at it, it's a business expense, it's part of the preparation to publish.

constraining antisocial behaviour

Blech. I hate this notion, frankly. Mainly because anywhere the term "antisocial behaviour" is used, it is undefined. Not good enough in my [leftie libertarian] books. And I don't want society to start defining "antisocial behaviour" as offending people, as it does under racial discrimination law at present. I think that sets the bar too low, as I said, and is too much of an impingement on freedom of speech. That said, I think Bolt's real crime wasn't "antisocial behaviour". I think it was slander and that is most definitely something that people should have recourse over in the courts. Shame that the criteria for proving slander is a bar too high.

First of all, 'constraining antisocial behaviour' was my choice of words to describe the effect of the judgment. They appear nowhere in Justice Bromberg's decision, which it seems no one in this thread was motivated to read lest it upset their preset convictions. Many forms of antisocial behaviour are proscribed, and rightly so. There is no such thing as the unfettered right to speak publicly in any way one chooses.

And you should have more confidence in the reasoning abilities of Justices of the Federal Court. These are not backwoods lawyers elected to office by some Appalachian community of inbred illiterates. Your view that it sets a low bar is wrongly held, and it seems to me you've absorbed the special pleading of numerous journalists who have hammered that point without explaining it or offering a substantive alternative. Especially those in the employ of News Limited.

I've spent some time over the past week reading through the judgments in similar cases. I'm impressed. The RDA is a good law, and justices interpret it with care, logic, integrity and precision. Tony Abbot promised during a speech to the IPA last year to repeal the bit of it that offends Andrew Bolt, reverting to even vaguer common law principles regarding incitement. How will that create certainty, definition or a 'higher' bar?

The result in Eatock vs Bolt was a good outcome from a sound process: Greg Craven described it as 'an exemplar of fine judicial and philosophical reasoning'. The plaintiffs took the appropriate action under 18C to challenge the writings of someone who disparaged them and people like them on racial grounds. They sought no damages, nor were they awarded any. The responding parties had their say under the 'fair comment' provisions of 18D (in addition to putting their positions out on various media platforms). In his summary of the judgment, Bromberg said:

13. Part IIA has a broader field of operation. Infused by the values of human dignity and equality, the objectives of Part IIA extend to promoting racial tolerance and protecting against the dissemination of racial prejudice.
14. Part IIA is also concerned to protect the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act exempts from being unlawful, offensive conduct based on race, where that conduct meets the requirements of section 18D and may therefore be regarded as a justifiable exercise of freedom of expression. In that way, Part IIA seeks to find a balance between freedom of expression and freedom from racial prejudice and intolerance based on race.
25. I have taken into account that the articles may have been read by some people susceptible to racial stereotyping and the formation of racially prejudicial views and that, as a result, racially prejudiced views have been reinforced, encouraged or emboldened. In the balancing process, I have also taken into account the silencing consequences upon freedom of expression involved in the Court making a finding of contravention.


There was no opportunism. No money changed hands. The original articles remain online. No one was imprisoned or lost employment because of the outcome. The respondents found no viable grounds for appeal. There was no diminution of the freedom of speech. But the distortion, collusion and political opportunism have continued ever since.

PreviousNext

Return to Famous Dishes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest