Somehow, in the shambolic mess of Justice Bromberg’s mind, a person who says that race should make no difference, and that people should be rewarded and assisted according to their abilities and needs, is guilty of racial discrimination.
Somehow, in the blinkered hollow of Justice Bromberg’s mind, people who claim extra rights and privileges on the basis of race, which they claim to be free to determine without reference to any racial characteristics whatever, are entitled to those privileges, and any questioning of this is insulting, intimidating, discriminatory and inflammatory.
God help us.
Say what? “Don’t discriminate about race” is discriminatory?
“Give us extra because we’re black” is not?
Never mind that the people who want more because they’re black are not black.
This is surely one of those WTF moments in Australian legal history.
A sad day for free speech, a sad day for rational discussion, a sad day for Australia.
Excuse me? What are you on about? Read the relevant parts of the Racial Discrimination Act, the judgement & the bio’s of the litigants and you immediately notice – if you have any sense of the law let alone objective and factual reporting (opinion?) – that Bolt was always out on a limb. Pandering opinion pieces to an audience that isn’t at all interested in fact but just require justification for their own prejudices is what’s ruining objective argument in Australia, not the law.
I have read the relevant parts of the Racial Disrimination Act. See my earlier post here:
https://qohel.com/2011/03/27/andrew-bolt-and-aboriginality/
That post included these comments:
To avoid any appearance of focussing on aboriginals, imagine that the Federal government has determined that red-headed dwarves are under-represented in Australia’s sports teams, political parties, art galleries and boardrooms. It is clear that they are frequently subject to humiliating insults – rusty, ginger, shorty, runt, etc – and that they face considerable obstacles in gaining employment and recognition.
A number of measures are introduced to remedy this situation. Special benefits are offered including access to education, prizes and scholarships.
After a while, members of the public notice that some of those claiming benefits seem to be of average, even more than average height. Some even have brown hair. It is hard to imagine that these broad-shouldered six footers with chestnut curls have suffered a great deal because of their red headed dwarfiness.
But when questions are asked about this, the questioners are met with outrage, and even threats of lawsuits. It is, they are told, the exclusive province of the red headed dwarf community to determine who are its members, and who are not. Any such questions raised by others are offensive and humiliating, and dwarfist.
That might be true if the question of who was in and who was out related to events and benefits solely provided and organised by the red headed dwarf community. But it does not.
It becomes a question of public interest because public money is involved. The public has set aside money to assist members of a group which appears to be under-privileged.
Money has been taken from tax-payers and allocated for that purpose. This money could have been used elsewhere, for roads, water supply, medical equipment, etc.
The public is entitled to be reasonably confident that the persons to whom their money is given are genuinely members of the group intended to be assisted.
This is not dwarfist. Nor is it racist. Persons claiming public money on the basis of membership of a particular group should expect the public to take an interest in whether they really do belong to that group.
Andrew Bolt is entitled to ask such questions. It is in the public interest that they be asked, whether by him or others.
Nor is it discriminatory, no matter how much the six foot dwarves are offended.
Possibly Andrew did get some minor factual matters wrong. He was working to a deadline. Mordy Blomberg had months to think this through, and got everything wrong.
I don’t understand what dwarves have to do with a decision that clearly was not intended to stop debate or the publication of anything to do with racial debate as long as it’s done “reasonably and in good faith.” These articles were not in good faith.
And Mr Bolt didn’t make ‘minor’ factual errors, he made up mountains of information about named individuals; if you print absolute lies & distortion you should be liable. If you’d been the target, Peter & Ella with facts about your whole life ignored, how would you respond?
From the judgement:
The imputations which I have found were conveyed by the newspaper articles were plainly calculated to convey a message about the race, ethnicity or colour of fair-skinned Aboriginal people, including whether those people are sufficiently of Aboriginal race, colour or ethnicity to be identifying as Aboriginal. I am satisfied that Mr Bolt both understood and intended that imputations of that kind were conveyed by the newspaper articles he wrote. I have therefore found that in writing those parts of the newspaper articles which conveyed the imputations, Mr Bolt did so including because of the race, ethnic origin or colour of fair-skinned Aboriginal people.
Well, if it was me, I would have rung him and talked with him about where I thought he’d gone wrong.
“The imputations which I have found were conveyed by the newspaper articles were plainly calculated to convey a message about the race, ethnicity or colour of fair-skinned Aboriginal people, including whether those people are sufficiently of Aboriginal race, colour or ethnicity to be identifying as Aboriginal.”
Um.. yes. And? Isn’t this the kind of discussion Bromberg said he didn’t want his decision to stop?
This illustrates perfectly the logic of liberals. They want to be able to insult, embarrass and intimidate anyone. They call this “speaking truth to power,” or being “transgressive.” But watch out anyone who questions them. That has to be stopped, and preferably made illegal. They are not inerested in freedom of speech, whatever they say. They are interested in themselves having freedom of speech. There’s a big difference.