// you’re viewing...


CRYING WOLF: False cries of racism truly help bigotry

Is it racial vilification to question a person’s claim to be an indigenous Australian?

Of course, it depends how you say it. Or question it.

A number of Aboriginal leaders are suing under racial vilification laws, arguing that the Herald Sun’s popular columnist Andrew Bolt has vilified them.

While one isn’t meant to pre-judge cases before the Federal Court, we’re sure the judge, our old friend Mordy Bromberg, a former St Kilda player and long-time ALP member who was in the latte left-leaning ALP “Independents” faction (popular with barristers and baristas alike) before bombing out in a preselection for the safe federal Melbourne western suburbs seat of Gorton, won’t mind. It’s clearly a crock, a case brought for all the wrong reasons.

There’s not a racially vilifying word in any of Bolt’s columns. We know. We looked. Here. Here. And here.

Racial and ethnic identity is complex. Many of us don’t think about it all. To the best of my limited knowledge, my ancestors come from Wales and Scotland via England. But I don’t really know, having failed to sign up to ancestry.com [affiliate link here], ignored family members’ occasional interest in such things and while once gladly receiving votes from some in my elective office days who assumed I was Greek. Yassou.

Some people – and it’s a bit hard for most of us to relate to – latch on to a part of their family tree (be it Hungarian or Mongolian) and identify with it. Others yet are brought up immersed in a culture and sometimes a language from far away and find it a tremendous blessing. It binds families together and helps new arrivals find a solid footing here.

Some like Senator Eric Abetz – who yesterday ripped into Labor MP Michael Danby for not being sufficiently pro-Israel – have been unfairly criticised by association because they had a senior Nazi war-criminal as an great-uncle, in his case a charmer called Otto who was a Brigade-Leader in the SS before serving twenty years in jail for war-crimes.

Perhaps Herr Eric was over-compensating. Who knows.

So some shun their past, others ignore it or don’t learn about ti and others immerse themselves in a racial or national identity that could belong to another time or a far-away place.

Good luck to them. Whatever floats their boat. Indeed, if it helps them makes sense of the world that way and gives them a sense of place then we’re all for it.

But when some identify with the Aboriginal people, a group that has been the victim of sometimes the most searing and vicious and violent oppression ever seen in Australia, then I think it’s perfectly legitimate for there to be a healthy debate about whether just anyone can consider themselves to be an Aborigine when their family tree doesn’t show much of a connection.

When young author Helen Darville operated under a Ukrainian pseudonym Helen Demidenko, she was presumed by many to have a racial motivation; certainly no-one was criticised for being racist for challenging her ethnic credentials. Indeed she became a national punching-bag for a time because of a debate over her ethnic credentials. No-one suggested that the debate over her bona fides was motivated by racism, even when it had lynch-mob intensity.

That’s not to say we should be obsessing about racial background down to the level of racial fractions either, in the way past generations did. Indeed, Andrew Bolt didn’t do that, he merely questioned their credentials to claim Aboriginal community leadership.

There’s a balance. It’s a legitimate and certainly not a racist or racially vilifying discussion to question the ethnic credentials of public figures who make that a central part of their identity.


If I were to claim to be Eskimo, and formed my claim on the basis of a deep-and-abiding love of Eskimo Pies, I would be rightly mocked. And it wouldn’t be racist to call me on it.

So when Andrew Bolt, a lightning-rod for Lefty criticism, (pun intended) made the point that some – who didn’t appear to be likely victims of racism or exclusion because of their Aboriginality – were positioning themselves as the most prominent spokespeople of Aborigines, and enjoying the benefits the community has allocated to them, he made a typically reasoned and very well-researched argument questioning their claim. Even his foes and critics concede that Bolt is extremely thorough and diligent.

Looking at those columns, it’s clear. There’s not a word of racial vilification or disparagement on racial grounds. And not a word of racism. Bolt was merely pointing out the obvious that a few prominent Aborigines who seemed particularly keen to promote racial difference appeared not really have much of an Aboriginal background.

When there are – as there should be – affirmative action measures to address indigenous exclusion and inequality of opportunity, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask whether people who might not have been the victim of that exclusion might be muscling in on the quotas or benefits that ought really go to someone else. It’s not racist to ensure that programmes for Aborginal people actually go to Aboriginal people.

It’s not racist to raise that issue. Some – like those on Fairfax radio (increasingly the home of the bigot and the loon especially in Sydney where membership of One Nation helps you get on the roster) – might incite racial hatred every time they mention the First Australians but it is possible to discuss those issues, genuinely important public policy issues, without engaging in racial vilification, as any reasonable person would define it.

Far from racism, Bolt urged:

In fact, let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide.

And that’s why the litigation accusing Bolt of racial vilification on such a thin basis is such a big worry.

We hope that our chum, Justice Mordy Bromberg can see what many can which is that this case has been brought to falsely claim Andrew Bolt is a racist and to intimidate him into silence on this delicate subject. (Delicate for them)

Arguing about the ancestry of public figures, and their motivation for claiming an ancestry others might not think they really have, is not racial vilification when in the clearly non-vilifying political context of Bolt’s columns.

We thought racial vilification laws very important at their time they were passed. Too many searing anti-Semite Larouchite newsletters have been distributed in Caulfield, too many people of non-English speaking background involved in party politics automatically presumed by The Age and ABC to be corrupt branch-stackers, too many synagogues vandalised, too many Jewish men with yamulkes attacked, too many Muslim women in traditional garb screamed at (and worse) and too many Aborigines beaten up – we thought – for vicious statements of racism not to be made illegal.

There were many who thought these laws were prone to being abused. We’re sad to say it seems they were right.

The class-action plaintiffs claiming they’ve been racially vilified have not sued in defamation, because truth is a defence to defamation.

We haven’t yet read their statement of claim or heard their lawyer’s high-priced arguments.

But we see once again yet another example of those who’d be the first to tut-tut about conservative governments limiting free-speech rights failing to apply those stated principles consistently.

We don’t need to see the fine print to know this is scandalous, vexatious and outrageous litigation.

It trivialises not only racial vilification but will no doubt have the effect of making the fight against genuine racism seem petty and small and vindictive.

I don’t know what it is to be the victim of racial vilification or racism. But I hate it. My old man was a politician and at school as a group they tended not to be universally popular so I can relate to an exotic version of prejudice. While my modest good looks, right hook and charm were sufficient to combat occasional outbreaks, I didn’t like it much and I don’t doubt racism must hurt infinitely more.

History teaches us that racism is a cancer that we must constantly fight and smite in order to maintain a civil and decent and unified society. We should take it very seriously and I’m glad we do. We have seen the race-riots, the genocides and apartheid in other countries and know the high price of letting racism run rampant. We should have zero tolerance for it.

The litigation brought by some of those mentioned in Bolt’s column is a menace to that mission. Those involved in bringing the case, including former judge Ron Merkel QC, ought be ashamed of themselves. We can only hope that justice is done.

If Andrew Bolt, a popular columnist with a huge following across the nation, published in the nation’s most profitable and successful newspaper, can be dragged through this absurd process, then anyone can be. And will be.

Free speech has never had more outlets. And never had more threats to face either.


Comments are disallowed for this post.

  1. “a group that has been the victim of sometimes the most searing and vicious and violent oppression ever seen in Australia”

    Please show me the volumes of evidence you intend to use to support this outrageous statement.

    [VEXNEWS: We sink to the bottom of the evidentiary barrel and give you a Wikipedia link. No doubt there are better sources and we don’t doubt much of what’s on that page is true, sadly enough.]

    Posted by BillfromBendigo | March 29, 2011, 8:48
  2. Excellent article.

    Posted by Gregoryno6 | March 29, 2011, 8:57
  3. A pseudo pious tone from Vexnews today.

    My understanding is that the term ‘yellafellas’ was coined by aboriginals of darker skin who feel that such people (light coloured aboriginals) usurp or dominate access to whatever funds or jobs may be on offer to people of aboriginal descent at the time. So the issue is not one of racism given that it’s an issue within the aboriginal community too.

    Posted by coz | March 29, 2011, 8:59
  4. The best way to determine whether a person is an Aboriginal is a DNA test. True Aboriginals are 100% pure or “full bloods” but the others are ‘half casts” or mixed race.

    A recent US TV show on tracing the ancestry of various people using DNA showed a light skinned negro women who turned out to be 75% white (she looked shocked) and a white looking woman who claimed to be an American “Indian” (Native American) refused to take the DNA test probably because it would reveal how little Indian, if any, she was.

    The same could be said for many Australian “Aboriginals” who are getting lots of taxpayers money for being fake Aboriginals.

    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 29, 2011, 9:00
  5. As per the applicant’s Amended Statement of Claim dated 20 December 2010 [check against Court Documents and the further particulars therein]:

    [A] The applicant claims the group members to whom the proceeding relates are persons who:
    (a) by a combination of descent, self identification and communal recognition are, and are recognised as, Aboriginal persons;
    (b) are Aboriginal persons who have a fairer, rather than darker skin; and
    (c) were reasonably likely to be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, and were offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, by the Articles — those Articles identified as…
    (i) 20 March 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled “One of these women is Aboriginal”
    (ii) 15 April 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled “It’s so hip to be black” (also published as “White is the new Black”)
    (iii) 19 August 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled “Aboriginal man helped”
    (iv) 21 August 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled “White fellas in the black”

    [B] The applicant alleges on behalf of herself and the group members that taken individually and together, the contents of the Bolt Articles convey the following defamatory imputations:
    (a) the persons identified in the Articles and any other persons who like them have some Aboriginal descent and fairer rather than darker skins, were not genuinely Aboriginal and were not bona fide in claiming to be, and identifying as, Aboriginal persons;
    (b) the persons described in (a) merely pretend to be Aboriginal persons so they can access the benefits that are only available to Aboriginal persons;
    (c) the only genuine Aboriginal persons, and the only persons who may be treated as making a bona fide claim to be, and to identify as, Aboriginal persons are persons whose parents are both of Aboriginal descent and who have darker rather than fairer skins;
    (d) under Bolt’s criteria, persons having some Aboriginal descent but who are fairer rather than darker skinned are disqualified from, and cannot properly be regarded as, genuinely self-identifying as, and being, Aboriginal.

    [David Barrow from Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 9:21
  6. Claims from the applicant’s Application dated 7 September 2010 [check against Court Documents and the further particulars therein]:

    The group members seek the following remedies:

    (a) a declaration that the publication of the Articles by Bolt and HWT, and/or their involvement in or authorisation of that publication, was unlawful under s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

    (b) an order restraining Bolt and HWT from republishing or further publishing the Articles or articles or blogs having a content substantially similar to that contained in the Articles

    (c) an order that Bolt and HWT publish an apology to the applicant and to the group members…

    +there is no claim for money loss or damages or compensation other than legal costs of the proceedings

    [David Barrow from Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 9:23
  7. As per the Amended Defence of Bolt and HWT dated 24 January 2011 [check against Court Documents and the further particulars therein]:

    [A] Bolt claims that it is his belief that:
    (a) racism is abhorrent and a gravely divisive social force, which is perpetuated by emphasising racial differences;
    (b) in modern Australia, there is a discernable trend whereby persons of mixed genealogy, where that genealogy includes Aboriginality, choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, where they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all;
    (c) the applicant [Pat Eatock] and the group members illustrate that trend, in that they are each persons who choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, even though they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all; and
    (d) the trend is an undesirable social phenomenon because it emphasis racial differences, rather than common humanity.

    [B] Further, Bolt and HWT plead an exemption under section 18D(b) of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds:
    (a) Bolt wrote and published, and HWT published, the Publications in the course of a statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for the genuine purpose in the public interest.
    (b) Bolt wrote and published, and HWT published, each of the Publications reasonably and in good faith.

    [C] Further or in the alternative, Bolt and HWT plead an exemption under section 18D(c)(ii) of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds:
    (a) In writing and publishing the Publications, Bolt and HWT made and published a fair comment by Bolt on a matter of public interest.
    (b) In writing and publishing the Publications, Bolt was expressing his genuine beliefs.
    (c) Bolt wrote and published, and HWT published, each of the Publications reasonably and in good faith.

    [David Barrow from Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 9:24
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Mon 28 March 2011

    Mr Ron Merkel QC opened the case for the class action group members this morning before Justice Bromberg of the Federal Court in Melbourne.

    Mr Andrew Bolt was in attendance in the public gallery flanked by his legal team. Another 70 or so members of the public attended the proceeding.

    Mr Merkel opened the case by stressing that this was not a case about freedom of speech, as the applicants did not seek to interfere with Mr Bolt putting forward a theory to be test(ed), even if it is wrong. He is welcome to contend that the earth is flat, for instance.

    He said, however, that comments were made by Mr Bolt which identified particular individuals and caused them hurt in a wide public arena through publication of false allegations that those people with fairer-skin that identified themselves as aboriginals were not actually genuine in that identification and that they did so for some unfair gain.

    Mr Merkel also said that Mr Bolt’s comments in the 4 articles identified for the trial were gratuitous and designed to denigrate the people mentioned, and used selective journalism in a systematic and misleading way.

    Witnesses planned to be called this afternoon for the applicant’s side are Bindi Cole and Larissa Behrendt, with Pat Eatock planned to be called Tuesday morning. [note: incorrect order reported] The defence will have an opportunity to cross-examine each of these witnesses when they appear.

    In a departure from the usual court practice, the witnessed called for the applicant’s side will have an opportunity to read out a statement to the court. Leave was granted for this by Justice Bromberg given the case has some public interest, the issues are of a personal nature, and Mr Merkel persuaded his Honour that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that the witnesses have an opportunity to put forward the full context of their versions of the situation.

    Another 6 witness statements were also tendered into evidence this morning but the defence elected not to cross-examine these witnesses.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 9:28
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Mon 28 March 2011

    As it was the group members turn to first open their case this morning, Mr Neil Young QC representing Mr Bolt and HWT did not have much to say other than:

    (1) An objection to witnesses having an opportunity to read out a statement to the court, on the grounds that it may waste court time and resources. However, Justice Bromberg granted leave for the 3 witnesses that were being called to give personal evidence, given the case has some public interest, the issues are of a personal nature, and Mr Merkel persuaded his Honour that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that the witnesses have an opportunity to put forward the full context of their versions of the situation.

    (2) Mr Young also made a strong objection to a possible change in the scope of the remedies sought by the group members. The original Application of 7 Sep 2010 by the group members was for a declaration that the Bolt Articles was unlawful under s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; a restraining order against republication; and an apology, as well as the usual recovery of legal costs. It is the usual practice that a general claim is also made in pleadings for ”such further or other relief as the Court deems fit”.

    It was mentioned in open court this morning that there had been correspondence between the parties in the past week as to the intention of group members to apply for a broader set of remedies if the common claims were decided in their favour in the class action. Such further claims were said by Mr Merkel to be consistent with the general claim of ”such further or other relief as the Court deems fit” and it was anticipated that this would include individual claims that could include monetary compensation.

    Justice Bromberg was not aware of this development.

    Mr Young claimed that this was unfair and unjust as Bolt & HWT had prepared the case on the understanding that there was no monetary claim and also it may effect the whole class action procedures where aggrieved persons could have otherwise been better informed for their decision not to opt-out, if they knew of this development.

    Neither side pressed for a ruling from his Honour at this time on whether monetary compensation could be claimed by individuals following the class action trial on the common issues.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 9:29
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Mon 28 March 2011

    In the afternoon session personal evidence was given by Pat Eatock and Bindi Cole.

    Mr Merkel QC for the group members read out a witness statement on behalf of each lady before they entered the witness box.

    In my opinion, the witness statements were compelling personal narratives and I understand that they will be available as public documents through the Court Registry.

    There was not much time devoted to cross-examination of the two witnesses by Mr Young QC for Bolt and HWT.

    The case resumes tomorrow morning when it is planned that Larissa Behrendt will provide her personal evidence.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 9:30
  11. When I was an undergraduate at Monash int he late 80’s American Indians were in vogue with the lefties – the femminists and environmentalists all took inspiration from their (mythological and populist) versions of American Indian culture. At a party, lol, this girl was explaining her heritage as celtic, french and part native american. About five years later it suddenly became fashionable to claim part aboriginal – as in 1/8th and this sort of stuff.

    Posted by blackmambo | March 29, 2011, 9:57
  12. Adrian, if thats the case then there must be very few “true Aboriginals” left at all. I seem to remember someone saying the number is very low, but have never done research on it myself.

    I would add that if these laws are genuinely being used against Bolt in the wrong way, then I trust that Bolt will be fine. Personally, I trust our judicial system.

    This was the same for me with Assange. I support his work yet I wasn’t entirely outraged at his arrest because (in my opinion) he was arrested in probably the best place one could ever want to be on the entire planet. Britain. Strong judicial system, and I feel that much the same can be said
    of ours.

    Posted by Brenton | March 29, 2011, 10:40
  13. An excellent article Andrew. The only part I’d take issue with is your somewhat emotional comment:
    “the victim of sometimes the most searing and vicious and violent oppression ever seen in Australia”

    While there were undoubted wrongs committed by both Europeans and Aboriginals at the time, surely there is nothing unique in the process of the colonisation Australia that does not also feature in the history of a dozen or more other countries. In times far less enlightened than today, there were certainly many who could reasonably consider themselves to have been violated. My own Irish ancestor transported to Van Diemen’s Land for instance, who was abused in the hell-hole of Norfolk Island.
    I hold no grudge against the English Crown for it’s misdeeds of that time, nor would I contend that my 1/32 Irish blood should justify me doing so.

    Posted by BonShaw | March 29, 2011, 10:46
  14. No doubt, The Age newspaper will delight in beating up this court case and highlighting the claims of those hurt by the comments. However, the test is not whether someone was hurt or humiliated by the articles but whether the articles caused hurt and humiliation because of racist content – an entirely different matter.

    The Age is the newspaper that slurred me in a racist way when I won my acquittal from the Court of Appeal in 2008. I won’t repeat the headline (and give the slur more oxygen) but suffice to say it denigrated my Italian heritage and background.

    It was the first time I had been racially taunted since the early 1970’s – over 30 years earlier.

    In my early childhood, Italians had borne the brunt of the ignorance and prejudice of the 1950’s and 1960’s only to emerge fully integrated into Australian society and purveyors of fine Australian cuisine such as pizza and pasta and delights such as gelato and espresso.

    It is no surprise to me that the vilifier was The Age, that flagbearer and bastion of leftist hypocrisy – the once august newspaper edited by Perkins now reduced to a shadow of its great legacy.

    Perhaps, I should ask to join the class action and sue The Age under racial vilification laws. Wouldn’t that be fun? OK, I’ll settle for a without prejudice $1,000,000.

    Posted by Giuseppe De Simone | March 29, 2011, 11:33
  15. Whatever happened to free speech in this country without people crying foul? Let’s see how Hullsy apppointed judge decides to treat this case.

    Posted by Anonymous | March 29, 2011, 11:40
  16. There is no Eskimo race or ethnic group. If you said you were inuit and identified as such and lived and were part of Inuit culture and had inuit ancesters, then yes, you caln identify as such and no one has the right to question you.

    Are you Christian? Can you prove it? Show me a miracle. Turn water into wine please!

    Defending Bolt here is just daft. He is wrong and has used this to push his narrow minded views. We left blood percentages behind in Nazi Germany.

    Posted by Real | March 29, 2011, 11:59
  17. typical Adrian Jackson response – can we test your blood to see if it shows you are 100% f*ckwit.

    Posted by Real | March 29, 2011, 12:01
  18. We don’t need to test Adrian Jackson’s blood. It is a simple matter to test the bile that sprouts forth from his mouth.

    Then again, the blood test comment may have come from someone who just pretended to be AJ. I am sure even the real AJ would not be so insensitive and Neanderthal in his attitudes about race and identity.

    Posted by Giuseppe De Simone | March 29, 2011, 12:11
  19. Brenton yes there are few true Aborgonals left and they ate in isolatred part of rural ares of the NT WA and Qld mainly.

    Real & Giuseppe my background is English, Scots, Irish, Cornish (part of England) and Bavarian. An Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Teutonic background. All with blue eyes. Like Michael Mancell in Tasmania.

    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 29, 2011, 13:47
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Tue 29 March 2011

    The case resumed in the Federal Court this morning with Larissa Behrendt (a law professor amongst her other roles) giving her personal evidence.

    As per the practice yesterday, Mr Ron Merkel QC for the group members read out Larissa’s entire witness statement on behalf of her before she entered the witness box.

    Larissa made distinction between what is apparently known as the 3-Part-Test of aboriginality and other personal identification as an aboriginal person.

    The 3-Part-Test was said to consist of assessment of a person’s (1) ancestry, (2) acceptance in the aboriginal community and (3) self-assessment as an aboriginal person. It is a common assessment, apparently, for various forms of benefits such as special assistance admission programmes to universities, where Larissa said that she was familiar with the practice. Further, Larissa said that she supports the use of this assessment for the practicalities of providing benefits, and also thought it may be appropriate for issues such as treaties.

    Larissa was adamant, however, that beyond consideration for membership of a group where that group was being defined for some purpose such as access to benefits, that she felt that questions of identity are a very personal matter for the individual concerned.

    This was brought out through 30 minutes or so of cross-examination by Mr Nigel Young QC who is representing Mr Bolt and HWT in the proceedings.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 14:01
  21. the judge in question is an ex AFLer 1978-81, then went into law.

    Average goals in career 0.3, avg kicks 8.8

    Posted by blackmambo | March 29, 2011, 14:55
  22. Is that the same Mordy Bromberg who attempted ALP preselection about ten years ago?? He obviously lucked out and became a Judge instead.

    Posted by leftists are everywhere | March 29, 2011, 15:23
  23. Bolt seems to argue that being Aboriginal is purely a matter of descent rather than largely one of culture.

    The first position is, by definition, racist. The second is not. Most ethnic groups use a mixture of the two definitions.

    This is complicated by the fact that white Australia may treat light skinned and dark skinned Aboriginal people differently – and this has an undeniable impact on the life chances of the individuals involved.

    That said, Aboriginal people don’t primarily define themselves by how white people treat them, OR by how dark their skins are. Who is Bolt to say that they should?

    Plus – I don’t know why Bolt has a bee in his bonnet about this. Aboriginal people make up (using all the most generous definitions around) less than 3% of the population. What’s the big deal if some of them are light skinned?

    Posted by Zaf | March 29, 2011, 15:41
  24. at Zaf – The reason why Bolt has a bee in his bonet about it, is caus he is racist and is a hater.

    He has run anti everything Aboriginal; he hates single mothers; dole bludgers and que jumpers. If it sells papers he will use it.

    It is his Boer heritage.

    Posted by comrade | March 29, 2011, 15:47
  25. White aussies often tell me who I am, that I am a half caste, quater caste, half breed, ‘only’ part Aboriginal and so on. That because I live in the suburbs, employed and reasonably educated and dare to wear jeans, speak english and shop at the supermarket, that Im not a ‘real aborigine’. Yet, regardless of whether I am in Townsville, Adelaide, Perth, Alice Springs or Darwin, a Koori, Noongar or Murri will always claim me as one of their mob. I know whose opinion and acceptance means more to me.

    Posted by Anne | March 29, 2011, 15:59
  26. Adrian Jackson says – my background is Idiot, Dolt, Buffoon, Cornish (part of England) and Boer. An Anglo-Stupid, Clottish, Turdlike background. All with blue eyes. Like Herman Goering in Bavaria.

    Posted by Real | March 29, 2011, 16:26
  27. I saw Mr Bolt on the news and he really can’t himself. He was asked a question by a journalist and he made his normal snide remark thinking that the conversation was simply about who was “better” him or the journalist rather than thinking of the bigger picture.

    While I hope he defends the proceeding successfully, I wish he was not the main conservative commentator because frankly he’s a liability. Sure he preaches well to the converted but he lacks any persuasiveness because he has a pathological need to always win an argument. Often this means he looks like a fool and loses the real argument.

    Posted by Rudi | March 29, 2011, 16:37
  28. Real is an unhappy womyn. Perhaps your are sad that one of the ALP sisters was shot down in flames in NSW or was it that you did not get a spot on the Liberal Party executive.

    Incidentally, Wagner was from Bavaria and my relation Carl Johannes Zeitler was born in 1819 in Bayreuth in the Kingdom of Bavaria.

    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 29, 2011, 17:13

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 14:01

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 18:05
  30. Adrian Jackson wrote: “Real is an unhappy womyn.”

    I’m a bloke, and the opposite are called “women”. You may have seen them in the DVDs you watch at night Adrian? They look different, probably smarter than the male of the species, certainly more pragmatic and less aggressive.

    You should try one sometime. If you don’t have to pay for them it’s more fun, but given your appearance, you may well have to fork out, literally. Good luck mate, you need it.

    Posted by Real | March 29, 2011, 18:20
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Tue 29 March 2011

    As the proceedings continued in the morning following Larissa Behrendt’s evidence, Mr Young QC for Mr Bolt and HWT opened the case for the Defence.

    Mr Young said that the case was adequately set out in the Defence pleadings and it essentially concerned issues as to the application of sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act to the publications in question.

    Ultimately this is a balance between free speech and publications that may be likely to offend groups, he said.

    However he made a forceful submission that this was not a case about the holocaust, Hitler race laws or eugenics.

    Such views are unusual and extreme, he said, and are very offensive to be associated incorrectly with his clients – and are irrelevant to the issues in this case.

    Mr Young then called Mr Andrew Bolt to the witness stand.

    Mr Bolt’s counsel then sought an opportunity for Mr Bolt to respond to some comments made by Mr Ron Merkel QC when Merkel opened the case for the applicant group members yesterday morning.

    Mr Merkel, rose to his feet and objected that such an indulgence would see Mr Bolt giving a speech not giving evidence.

    Justice Bromberg was a bit troubled by the prospect of Mr Bolt giving a speech, but was persuaded by his counsel Mr Young that the response could be elicited by asking questions of Mr Bolt in the usual way of counsel in adducing evidence.

    There was a short recess then for Mr Bolt’s counsel to study the transcript of yesterday morning (a copy of which was lent to them by their opposite counsel as the version for Bolt & HWT had gone astray).

    When the matter resumed Mr Bolt was asked a question artfully by Mr Young such that he was able to give a response which referenced certain extracts of the transcript which read (approx):
    * Mr Bolt has taken us back to that eugenics then [of Nazi Germany] of aborigines
    * Mr Bolt is a man living in a mindset frozen in a point in time [controlled breeding eugenics of Nazi Germany]
    * this kind of thinking led to the Nuremburg [Race] Laws
    * the holocaust started with words and ended in violence

    Mr Merkel submitted that such comments were not directed at Mr Bolt but rather the process that is reflected in the types of articles that Mr Bolt published.

    Mr Bolt was given an opportunity to enter his response, and said that the references were false, grossly offensive and that he had been a vigorous opponent against eugenics is columns all of his life.

    …Cross-examination then ensued…

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 18:34
  32. @Rudi: adrian jackson i know you and you are hyprocritcal as you once whore one of those hats plus I”m hoping class action will come from us light skinned black fellows and women

    Posted by trawalla | March 29, 2011, 18:35
  33. Ms Real you are a womyn as a real man would use his real name. Womyn spelt thus takes the man out of the womyn

    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 29, 2011, 18:51
  34. The plaintiffs will get a pasting for this trivial and time-wasting litigation. Politely and in legalese of course.

    Aboriginality has been contested many times in the courts over the decades. Quadrant had a good article about it recently. Having a distant aboriginal relative does not make one aboriginal. The biggest scam of the lot is the ‘acceptance’ condition. It’s overdue for exposure and discrediting.

    Posted by Walter Plinge | March 29, 2011, 19:50
  35. “But Professor Behrendt, 43, said that while her grandfather was born in England, she had no knowledge of German ancestors.” Aust today.

    Bit of duplicitiousness don’t you think. Won’t do the research- just in case there are Germans falling out of her family tree.

    I know my family history back 300 years. She conveniently feigns ignorance.

    Dishonest is the word. Goes with the territory. Which is what this case is all about. NOT racial vilification but DISHONESTY.

    Basic surname search: “Behrendt …Dutch and North German: variant of Behrend.”

    Posted by Con Barrington | March 29, 2011, 19:55
  36. Whatever. Adrain, you’ve still got a blood reading of 56% anti-semite and 44% racist. You have a voter support of one (you) and a career in the army that makes Gomer Pyle look like a VC winner. You’re a crackpot numknut stalker and every day you become more and more of a clown. If I was your right hand, I’d file for divorce.

    Posted by Real | March 29, 2011, 20:23
  37. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTmQzjgZWkU This makes me the woman i am

    Posted by Queen Fegan | March 29, 2011, 21:04
  38. Grandma Ms Real please get real.

    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 29, 2011, 21:09
  39. @David Barrow:

    David B, on Monday Ron Merkel tried to hurl a curved ball of ‘compensation to follow’ after the ruling on the class action.

    Do you know of any social connection between Ron Merkel and Mordy Bromberg? Given Merkel’s shameless and unconscionable invoking of the holocaust and his repeated reference to Tobin v Jones (Holocaust Denial) it is absurd that he should suggest an immanent genocide if we (whites) just get enough of Bolts writings.

    It’s also unsulting.

    Posted by David R | March 29, 2011, 21:34
  40. @Walter Plinge: Indeed it is… “acceptance” can be grounds for promises of various benefits..which could sway peoples ‘acceptance’..it’s vulnerable to corruption at many levels.

    Posted by David R | March 29, 2011, 21:36
  41. It’s time Andrew Bolt received his cumuppance. He is nothing more than a professional whinger.

    If the second coming were to happen Mr Bolt would find a way to blame the Labor party.

    Posted by Robert | March 29, 2011, 21:40
  42. One more point folks. The intensity of the insult from Merkel about how “The holocaust started with words and ended with violence” can only be understood ONE way….

    i.e. “If we WHITE aussies just get enough of Bolts writing, we will likely carry out an anti aboriginal mass murder.”

    Now..that itself is grounds for complaint under the RDA and RRT2001..and I strongly advise any white reader to seriously consider lodging a complaint. Just visit the VHREOC web site and click on ‘online complaints’.

    This insult is all the worse when we know that Merkel..a Jew is speaking to Bromberg..another Jew (the Judge) and is invoking the HOLOCAUST !!!!! It is suggestive of Merkel trying to sway the Judge by touching on a very sensitive issue close to the Judge’s heart. How are we to know if Mordy’s parents or grandparents were not effected directly BY THAT Holocaust??? if they were.. invoking it looks like using the common Jewishness of Merkel and Bramberg to benefit the case for the complainants. (my opinion anyway)

    Posted by David R | March 29, 2011, 21:41
  43. You can email me at jdr_mot@bigpond.com and we can discuss strategy and progress.

    Posted by David R | March 29, 2011, 21:42
  44. thanks Andy. Bolt is Dutch isn’t he? 93% humorless, soulless, self-important prick.

    Posted by voice of reason | March 29, 2011, 22:38
  45. I have read the articles on question and can readily see the argument that Andrew Bolt was making. The people bringing this complaint have been able to access benefits of various kinds by either trading on their bloodlines or their identification with a culture which is not exactly their own. The tests prescribed for being aboriginal are ludicrous in the first place. How many of us have applied for jobs or benefits and the first question asked is of you are of aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent? What should that have to do with anything? This singling out of one group of our society for special treatment has been a talking point for years. It’s time it was addressed. Calling a person a racist for having such ideas is as useless and ridiculous as the practice itself. Many people of aboriginal descent are unable to take advantage of the education benefits available because they are taken up by people whose claim to aboriginality is tenuous as seen by a reasonable person. That was the point of one of Andrew Bolt’s columns. Nothing wrong with that except in the minds of those who have something to gain.This whole racist issue creates more problems than it solves and should be reviewed – soon.

    Posted by mags | March 29, 2011, 22:48
  46. This article gives too much weight to Bolt’s popularity and his newspaper’s readership – that is not relevant. Racism is racism. Andrew Bolt is uninformed filth. Very hard to pick a side on this one – Geoffrey Clarke vs Andrew Bolt. this is one of the few times I am on Bolt’s side.

    Posted by East Arnhem | March 29, 2011, 22:50
  47. By far the most disgusting gift to the Aboriginal people of Victoria by a few of the early European pioneers was damper poisoned with strychnine. Believing they were being fed, they dies in writhing agony.

    What with this and shooting parties, I guess they are among the most forgiving people on earth.

    I can supply archival references if the dull-witted racists here need them.

    Posted by Bollocks | March 29, 2011, 23:14
  48. The funniest thing is that many of the early European families have Aboriginal relatives and, today, many generations of Aboriginal relatives. This was proved by a well researched article in ‘The Genealogist’ magazine several years ago. Some of the posters maligning Aboriginal people here might be uttering hate filled messages to their own kith and kin!

    Posted by Bollocks | March 29, 2011, 23:24
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Tue 29 March 2011

    In the later morning and after the lunch recess, cross-examination of Mr Andrew Bolt was commenced and conducted by senior co-counsel Mr Herman Borenstein SC for the applicant group members.

    Mr Bolt acknowledged that he had an obligation to check the accuracy of the facts on which his publications were based, and also stated that his research was thorough and diligent.

    Mr Bolt said that he did not contact any of the persons featured in the 4 articles that are the subject of these proceedings because he was confident that taking material that these people had already put into the public arena would be accurate.

    Mr Bolt asserted that his blog is dedicated to exposing material that is factually inaccurate on matters of public importance.

    Mr Bolt denied that he made any accusations that any of the named group members, such as Bindi Cole, were not genuine about identifying as Aboriginal. Mr Bolt also denied that he was making any accusations that any of them did so to access benefits unfairly such as financial gains or career advancement.

    However, Mr Bolt, did say that assuming an Aboriginal identity could be done, in his opinion, for a political reasons or agenda, or due to the person being self-absorbed — and that through making this choice certain consequences are available after that (without specifying what those consequences might be).

    Such movements in society he says he has become aware of through his research of trends or fashions of our times.

    Mr Bolt said that he was driven by a sense of injustice that resources available to Aboriginal people should go towards those in poverty or lacking opportunity for such things as a good education.

    Mr Bolt also said that he was a person who attacked racial divisiveness as his way of attacking racism.

    Mr Bolt also then sought to make his point (offensively many in the gallery intimated) by pointing out Aboriginal activist Mr Geoff Clark in court and saying that he was a racist. Off Mr Borenstein objections, and despite Mr Young for Bolt trying to calm things down, Justice Bromberg urged Mr Bolt to give his evidence directly without seeking to use inadmissible analogies concerning specific individuals in the public gallery who would likely take offence from such comments.

    Mr Bolt apologised to Mr Clark of sorts by saying that this point was not personal, and noted, for what record or purpose it is not sure, that he actually liked Mr Clark and had shared a drink with him once. It was an unusual court moment.

    Mr Bolt admitted that his articles could cause offence and insult by confronting the people depicted therein with the consequences of their actions, and he added that he hoped that those people would then be remorseful as a result.

    Mr Bolt stated that it was his view that if one participates in public debate then one must be prepared to face criticism and that this is something that he is always prepared to do. As Mr Bolt put it, this is the lifeblood of democracy in society. He also added that when entering the public arena one must be prepared for disagreement, which can be bruising.

    Mr Bolt said that he did not believe that there is in fact a racial definition that divides us as we are all fundamentally human beings. We are all polyglots he said.

    …the trial continues with more personal evidence from Mr Bolt expected to be adduced over the rest of Wednesday…

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 29, 2011, 23:52
  50. I lived in Darwin during the 60-70’s and nobody with even a touch of colour would admit to aboriginality. They were of’island origin’, or even had ‘some southern European’ in their line. When the cash started to flow from a guilt ridden government, that all changed, and ‘aboriginals’, white than I, came out of the woodwork. Is somebody going to tell me, oir even suggest to me, that the two have no connection?? If they do, I’ll will contend that he making the suggestion is quite stupid.
    We are indeed fortunate to have a journalist of the calibre of Andrew Bolt. Check his interview with climate change pretender Tim Flannery if you need proof.

    Posted by Ross | March 30, 2011, 7:41
  51. Merely identifying with the aboriginal race is hardly grounds to claim aboriginality. My observation would be if one is 50/50, then that person could claim either, 25/75 (white/aboriginal), there is no choice; that person is aboriginal, and 75/25 (white/aboriginal), that person also has no choice, he is white.The current criteria permit abuse of the system, and I believe Andrew Bolt is making that point; there are those with not a touch of aboriginality gaining benefits to which they are not entitled.

    Posted by Ross | March 30, 2011, 7:50
  52. at Zaf – The reason why Bolt has a bee in his bonet about it, is caus he is racist and is a hater.

    He has run anti everything Aboriginal; he hates single mothers; dole bludgers and que jumpers. If it sells papers he will use it.

    It is his Boer heritage.

    Posted by comrade | March 29, 2011, 15:47

    And that would make you a Boer hater comrade?

    He is not alone in having an intense dislike for dole bludgers, queue jumpers and single mothers, spongers on the system.

    Posted by Ross | March 30, 2011, 8:00
  53. All I want to know is – who is paying for this tripe?!?! When these 9 stupid people lose their case, will the accused Mr Bolt have his legal fees paid for?

    OR Can any poor sod be hauled up by nasty wanna-be aboriginals to the Federal Court and when they lose the poor “accused” will have to cough up $50,000 in legal defence???

    Posted by WHO PAYS??? | March 30, 2011, 9:01
  54. Mags, your camp guard duty roster is ready, please arm yourself and report to Stalag 17

    Posted by Real | March 30, 2011, 9:25
  55. Ross & Mags, you will find more interesting evidence to support your progessive theories in a lively document called Protocols of the Elders of Zion. check it out online!

    Posted by voice of reason | March 30, 2011, 13:30
  56. Is today Day 3 in Court? WHO PAYS???? QC’s x2 x3 days x $5,000 a day + preparation fees adds up to a lawyers picnic!

    BUT WHO PAYS ???

    Posted by WHO PAYS??? | March 30, 2011, 15:17
  57. Quadrant thinks Andrew B should be second on the left’s hate list.

    Congrats AB :)

    Australia Day Hate List – 2011

    by Michael Connor

    January 23, 2011

    Hate defines the Left. Left intellectuals run on toxic. Read their venemous blogs, Twitters, magazines, newspapers and you enter a dark world of anger, hatred, and fear. On 26 January any Left intellectual who isn’t feeling cranky is obviously not having a good Australia Day.

    As a service to Quadrant Online readers celebrating our national day, and not listening to the ABC, we list a few of the things that make the Oz Left grumpy:

    Anti-GM gays, Andrew Bolt and the Bolters, Australian journalists (except those who write for the Review section), Australians who don’t work for the public service, Australia Day, Anzac Day, Christmas Day, people who live in the suburbs, people who live in the country, farmers, fishermen, miners, dams, Quadrant, Australian history, the flag, the constitution, Liberal voters, National Party voters, the ALP, Family First voters, One Nation supporters, the RSL, McDonald’s, McMansions, big TVs, big business, small business, monolingualists, husbands (in a non-gay context), Christians, our second-last prime minister, liberal democracy, capitalism, lamingtons, the national coat of arms, the Samuel Griffith Society, soldiers, conservatives, musicals not about Australian Left politicians, commercial television, non-indigenous trees, dog owners, cats, non-Left talk back radio hosts, timber workers, plastic bags, the right voting working class, the Labor voting working class, climate change realists, white people (except for White Aborigines), commercial radio, Woolworths, America, sovereignty (ours), realistic paintings, the Big Banana and other Big Things, cultural dissidents, men, sprinklers, green lawns, cars (other peoples), wood fires, rednecks, Sir John Kerr, VC winners, shopping centres, people who like shopping centres, bogans, Tony Abbott, patriotism, right wing blogs (actually, right-wing anything), freedom of speech, tolerance, 26 January, non-state controlled television, Geert Wilders, Slim Dusty, Oz flag tee shirts, people who wear Oz flag tee shirts, Windsor princes, Surfers Paradise, Young Liberals, air conditioners, the Pope, live Jews, CO2, Climategate, Keith Windschuttle’s Stolen Generations, “Christian names”, Cronulla, tea towels with Aboriginal art, full strength milk, bottled water.

    Posted by blackmambo | March 30, 2011, 16:20
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Wed 30 arch 2011

    The case resumed this morning with the continued cross-examination of Mr Andrew Bolt by senior co-counsel Mr Herman Borenstein SC for the applicant group members.

    Mr Bolt was presented again with the articles that are the subject of the proceedings and was asked to explain his intention in making some of the statements in them.

    At times Mr Bolt did not always stay confined to the questions that were put to him by counsel, and substantially repeated some of his testimony of the previous day.

    Mr Bolt expressed his personal view that race is a fluid concept that means different things to different people. He agreed that it could be defined as a cultural identity, but certainly not in terms of eugenics. He was of the view that it was not wise for a court to define in a fixed sense what it is to be an Aborigine, although he could see the value in having a definition of Aboriginality in a restricted way for the purpose of determining eligibility to benefits or to stand for election. Mr Bolt also emphasised again that it was his personal view that race was a term he felt uncomfortable with and to make it a generally fixed definition would be divisive.

    Mr Bolt repeatedly said that it was his view that a person identifying as an Aboriginal was making a choice, and that with that choice come consequences.

    Mr Bolt also said that because the subject of his articles have a public dimension that he could comment as he liked — or he had thought he could (presumably before these racial discrimination proceedings were brought against him and HWT). He said this was all part of a public conversation.

    Mr Bolt said that his articles were the result of his wide and extensive researches. The sources that Mr Bolt referenced for the articles were said to be listed in an appendix to his witness statement, which was tendered and taken as read at the start of his personal evidence yesterday.

    As a reality of writing columns that are restricting to about 1000 words, Mr Bolt said that in the tyranny of that defined space, as he put it, he needed to make the material fit and did so in a concise but always fair and accurate way. He added that he did have some more space for his online writings than he had imposed on him by the newspaper editors for his printed columns, and that his greater readership was trending more towards the online materials he thought.

    Mr Bolt said that he wrote his articles in what he intended to be an interesting way, which would provoke thought, and that he covered issues and expressed a view that was not often expressed because people could feel intimidated to do so.

    Some aspects of his writing was a joke or satirical he said, and may involve confronting people with their own contradictions which many of those people did not like and so tried to silence.

    With respect to the Aboriginality identification issues in his articles that were the subject of these proceedings he said that he felt he needed to make some points of public comment to show the absurdity to which we have descended.

    Mr Bolt said that he believed it was wrong that plum jobs (as he put it) are reserved for Aboriginals only.

    Mr Bolt referred to the Welcome to Country cultural practice of Aborigines as being a race-based entrenching of division that he was opposed to.

    Much of Mr Borenstein’s cross examination focused on putting to Mr Bolt that the intend of Mr Bolt in writing the articles included depicting some of the people therein in (1) a gratuitous or derogatory light (which Mr Bolt denied) and (2) also in a way that Mr Bolt would have apprehended would likely have caused offence or insult to those people (which Mr Bolt admitted in the context of his intent to make some points in a public conversation on the issues raised in the articles).

    The proceedings were adjourned by Justice Bromberg for a lunch recess.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 30, 2011, 16:33
  59. Andrew Bolt is a runny turd who whimpers like a baby when he gets dragged into court. I hope he gets whats he’s long deserved the dog!!

    Posted by Judge, Jury & Excecutioner | March 30, 2011, 17:04
  60. When alive ,we may perhaps most likely offend many people.Having said that, we should take into consideration whether or not they may be deserved offended.

    Posted by Nike Air Max 91 | March 30, 2011, 18:01
  61. It was great to see Bolt declare that Race is a myth and there is only one Race – the human race.

    This is of course correct. There is only cultural differences and racial ‘traits’ eg, hair and skin variations.

    Bolts has helped sell plenty of papers talking about races and national differences….so it is good to hear these rantings will be redundant now he has discover one human race.

    Perhaps now we do not need to fear a brown planet or white aboriginals.

    Posted by Race myth sells papers | March 30, 2011, 19:45
  62. As a Jew I am insulted at Merkel bringing in the Holocaust into the equation , Leave Jews out of this argument Merkel, we have enough enemies many of them Lefties like you.
    Merkel a Jew him self but not a participating member of the Jewish Community should leave the holocaust out of the argument.

    It wasn’t long when the ten Muslim terrorists in Melbourne were on trial Merkel made the absurd statement that the accused Muslims wont get a fair trial.. this Guy is a a little screwed up considering as a Jew he would be the Muslim terrorists priority number one target to kill

    I presume Merkel would even defend a Nazi’s right to kill Jews.

    I hope MR Young QC kicks Merkel and Bornsteins arses.

    I hope common sense prevails Bolt aint no Racist, we all know who the real racists, bigots and extremists are in this country, thats for sure!

    Posted by Michael | March 30, 2011, 20:18
  63. Can I be an aborigine? Can I be indigenous? I was born here. Where will I go if I’m told to go back where I come from? Elsternwick?

    Don’t like Bolt that much, but I do remember him blasting that idiot Liberal candidate from Seymour who was replaced by that dud VFF fraud McLeish after the idiot mentioned some idiotic racist rant and got busted on Melb radio.

    Who are the most racist people on the planet? The Chinese? The Japanese? Let’s go to Europe! No racists there.

    Has Mr Clarke raped anyone lately?

    Let our prejudices reign.

    Please sue me. I have no money.

    By the way, I don’t like religion and I don’t like the greens. Same thing. I do like beans though

    H the B

    Posted by H the B | March 30, 2011, 20:28
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Wed 30 March 2011

    The case resumed after the lunch recess, with senior co-counsel Mr Herman Borenstein SC for the applicant group members continuing to cross-examine Mr Bolt as to what his intention was in making some of the substantive statements in the articles that are the subject of the proceedings.

    Mr Borenstein had difficulty in confining Mr Bolt to the questions that were put to him, and Mr Bolt was determined to qualify most of his answers regarding his intentions such that at one stage Mr Borenstein asked a bit exacerbated is there a “vibe” that should be detected by Mr Bolt’s readers?

    Mr Bolt referred Mr Borenstein back to his response of the previous day, being essentially the point that assuming an Aboriginal identity could be done, in his opinion, for a political reasons and through making this choice certain consequences are available after that.

    Mr Borenstein took Mr Bolt to one of his articles where a person was identified as being gay and put it to Mr Bolt that he had included that information on the person’s sexual identity in the article in a gratuitous way and for the purpose of imputing a derogatory meaning about the person.

    Mr Bolt exploded in response from the witness box, saying very strongly that in no way did he use the term gay as an insult. Mr Bolt added that the godfather of his children was gay and also he had helped a gay Aboriginal person to secure a column with his HWT employer. To be depicted falsely as a bigot in this way, and in all the newspapers yesterday morning as linked to the Nazi movement and eugenics, was an unforgiveable travesty he said.

    Mr Bolt said that he strongly condemned homophobia and had been committed to this position extensively through his columns and blogs.

    So incensed was Mr Bolt that his Honour asked if he might like a 10 minute break from the witness box.

    Mr Bolt calmed down a bit, and elected to press on, but still looking indignant and fuming said that he did not agree that his use of the term gay in the article was an implied insult.

    The cross-examination of Mr Bolt ended on the issue of why he had included the saving-clause or disclaimer, as Mr Borenstein put it, in one of Mr Bolt’s article that “I’m not saying any of those I’ve named chose to be Aboriginal for anything but the most heartfelt and honest of reasons. I certainly don’t accuse them of opportunism, even if full-blood Aborigines may wonder how such fair people can claim to be one of them and in some cases take black jobs”, where Mr Bolt did not then repeat this or something similar in a subsequent article. Mr Bolt answered that it had probably not occurred to him and in any event the articles did not need a disclaimer.

    It was planned that the next day the Defence would make its final submissions and closing, with the final submissions and closing of the Applicant group members on the Friday.

    …The proceedings were then adjourned by Justice Bromberg for the next day…

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 30, 2011, 20:28
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT

    I have been attending court in person, writing up some notes and then posting factual summaries of the proceedings on both:

    (1) Conservative site:


    (2) Progressive site:


    If you decide to engage with each other, please be courteous.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 30, 2011, 20:33
  66. Good on you David, it’s been really interesting, sorry about our slow moderation.

    Posted by VEXNEWS | March 30, 2011, 21:55
  67. As Cardinal Richlieu famously said “give me six lines of any man’s writing and I will find enough to hang him”.

    Bolt’s testimony has hung him too.

    Bolt is a Dolt!

    Posted by Bollocks | March 31, 2011, 0:03
  68. ***Believing they were being fed, they dies in writhing agony***

    Glad you could join us on Vexnews, Professor Reynolds. Keep the manufactured theatrics coming? I couldn’t get enough of your Flanneryesque lies in ‘The Other Side Of The Frontier.’

    Posted by Byron in Wahroonga | March 31, 2011, 0:24
  69. ***all I want to know is – who is paying for this tripe?!?!***

    ATSIC, or the Aboriginal Legal Service, or the Human Rights Commission? It could be any bunch of taxpayer funded greedy parasites. One thing we can be sure of – if they’re successful against Bolt, they’ll cast the net a lot wider next time.

    Posted by Byron in Wahroonga | March 31, 2011, 0:27
  70. Bolt has buggered the Herald-Sun brand.

    Posted by Bollocks | March 31, 2011, 0:36
  71. Aboriginals Talking Shit In Canberra = ATSIC.

    What tops that one was in WA with Curtin University of Technology was originally was going to be called Curtin University of New Technology = C##T

    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 31, 2011, 0:44
  72. […] Andrew Landeryou’s take including some court reports in comments. […]

    Posted by Bolt vs the Pasty Nine | Asian Correspondent | March 31, 2011, 9:17
  73. […] comments to Andrew Landeryou’s post at VexNews, David Barrow has given a running update of the case. Share and […]

    Posted by Skepticlawyer » Bolta, racism and free speech | March 31, 2011, 9:39
  74. Brenton yes there are few true Aborgonals left and they ate in isolatred part of rural ares of the NT WA and Qld mainly.
    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 29, 2011, 13:47

    Its AborIginals

    Posted by Anonymous | March 31, 2011, 9:39
  75. NOTE#2
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT

    The action is being brought under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth):


    Key sections are…

    …SECTION 18C for the Applicant claim:


    Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
    (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
    (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

    (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

    … (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

    (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

    (b) is done in a public place; or

    (c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

    (3) In this section: “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

    …SECTION 18D exceptions for the Defence:



    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

    (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

    (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

    (c) in making or publishing:

    (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

    (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 31, 2011, 13:11
  76. Bollocks says “Bolt has buggered the Herald-Sun brand”.

    How? By attracting around 2 million hits to the paper’s website each month?

    Posted by gzg | March 31, 2011, 13:21
  77. The al’ age wishes it had as many readers as The Herald Sun thanks to Andrew Bolt and Alan Howe.

    Part of the silent Majority….


    Posted by Michael | March 31, 2011, 16:34
  78. Anonymous (31 Mar 11) I have a few problem with that post the internet frose a bit when I was typing it. That why using slang is easier like Abos, Poms and Skips.

    Posted by Adrian Jackson | March 31, 2011, 17:32
  79. Actually, Anonymous (March 31, 2011, 9:39),

    It’s aborigines.

    “Aborigine” is the noun.

    “Aboriginal” is the verb.

    Suggest you open a dictionary, and basic grammar book, before trying to be a smart alec about someone else’s innocent typo.

    Or else you risk looking like a tool. Which is what you look like now. A tool.

    Posted by EH Lee | March 31, 2011, 22:15
  80. Actually, Anonymous (March 31, 2011, 9:39),

    It’s aborigines.

    “Aborigine” is the noun.

    “Aboriginal” is the adjective.

    Suggest you open a dictionary, and basic grammar book, before trying to be a smart alec about someone else’s innocent typo.

    Or else you risk looking like a tool. Which is what you look like now. A tool.

    Posted by EH Lee | March 31, 2011, 22:15
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Thu 31 March 2011

    The case resumed this morning with Mr Andrew Bolt called again to the witness box by his counsel Mr Neil Young QC primarily to tender a few extra documents.

    Justice Bromberg then excused Mr Bolt from further testimony, to which Mr Bolt joked he hoped that his Honour would make that a promise.

    Mr Bolt returned to the public gallery to sit again with those members of his legal team that were not at the bar table, as well as senior Herald and Weekly Times management, and I believe his wife.

    Mr Young then tendered a few more relevant documents (such as academic articles and book extracts on race issues) that arose out of the examination of the witnesses in the past 3 days, and with the leave of Justice Bromberg, Mr Young then embarked on the final submissions for his clients Mr Bolt and HWT.

    Thus started a thorough journey of considering the points and philosophy (jurisprudence) of the law through leading case authority and the nature of statutory interpretation, as well as reviewing all the evidence of the case and how the facts are proven by the evidence, with the law applied to the facts for the Defence said to be made out.

    In summary, this journey followed the Defence pleadings of 24 January 2011 at section 4A:

    Bolt claims that it is his belief that:
    (a) racism is abhorrent and a gravely divisive social force, which is perpetuated by emphasising racial differences;
    (b) in modern Australia, there is a discernable trend whereby persons of mixed genealogy, where that genealogy includes Aboriginality, choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, where they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all;
    (c) the applicant [Pat Eatock] and the group members illustrate that trend, in that they are each persons who choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, even though they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all; and
    (d) the trend is an undesirable social phenomenon because it emphasises racial differences, rather than common humanity.

    Mr Young was slowed a number of times in his journey by Justice Bromberg seeking thoughtful assistance on the law, particularly on the jurisprudence of the issue of freedom of speech. Is there a right to a freedom of speech? To what extent is it a right that can be qualified?

    Mr Young also reserved a point of possible constitutional challenge on the operation of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

    By days end, Mr Young had made it through most of his submissions, but would need to continue tomorrow. It is envisaged now that the trial will continue until at least Monday, and Mr Ron Merkel QC for the applicant group members also indicated possibly Tuesday until the final submissions and closing arguments are all heard.

    …The proceedings were then adjourned by Justice Bromberg for the next day…

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David Barrow | March 31, 2011, 22:17
  82. Здорово вы мне помогли. Честное слово, новыми красками все заиграло.

    Posted by кран-балка | March 31, 2011, 22:45
  83. @gzg: I actually fing both the Age and SunHerald to be 2nd rate.

    Not what they used to be.

    Why would you read either?

    Now if you want to see a total tosspot I suggest you go to this Nazi’s website. http://faultline.org/site/item/conservatives_respect_property_unless_it_doesnt_belong_to_them/

    Posted by H the B | March 31, 2011, 23:18
  84. @gzg

    Andrew Bolt has destroyed the Herald-Sun brand because he has zero street cred after his lamentable, nasty articles and his tantrums in court. Anyone who would give his children a gay godfather has several screws loose.

    I hope to see Mr Bolt selling newspapers outside Flinders Street station soon.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 1, 2011, 0:06
  85. Bolt is nothing more than a paid political spokesman for the Liberal Party. He most certainly got a bonus after the last state election. Let’s now see if he is as attacking (as a good profesional journalist should be ) towards the new conservative government when most of the pre-election committments are not kept ???? I doubt it.

    Posted by anon | April 1, 2011, 9:12
  86. I was born in Australia. My parents were born in Australia. But my maternal grandmother immigrated from Scotland 101 years ago. Does that mean I can claim to be Scottish?

    Posted by Murray | April 1, 2011, 9:25
  87. @bollocks
    “Tantrums in court”? I missed that in the accounts unless you meant the sighing.


    I think you’ll find he in fact has a lot of “street cred” as reflected in his high readership numbers (as reflected in the number of page hits and comments on his blog.

    And as long as you decry what you perceive to be “nasty” articles, I hope you also line up to lament some of the hideous musings of left wing writers (eg Marieke Hardy and dare I say “The Drum’s very special case, the “late” Arlene Composta).

    Posted by gzg | April 1, 2011, 9:45
  88. @anon:
    “Let’s now see if he is as attacking (as a good profesional journalist should be) towards the new conservative government”

    I can only take this as a clear endorsement of Andrew Bolt’s past “good professional journalism”, with the inherent qualification that you want him to now switch sides.

    Posted by gzg | April 1, 2011, 9:47
    VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
    Friday 1st April 2011

    It was hoped that today would be the final day of trial, however, following a slower period of careful questioning yesterday of Mr Neil Young QC by Justice Bromberg on some of the complex jurisprudence, the trial will continue through until at least Monday, and possibly Tuesday.

    Perhaps because it was thought it was going to be the last day of trial, or just spontaneously, in what could charitably be described as an act of good will, as the parties entered court this morning, Mr Andrew Bolt presented the daughter of the lead applicant Pat Eatock with 9 copies of Gibbon’s “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” for her mother and the other 8 named group members. Pat’s daughter said that she thought that her mother was already well across all of that sort of history through her higher degrees, and perhaps so were the others, but if public libraries would take them then Mr Bolt could send them there for the public interest.

    As it happened, in a sort of spontaneous reciprocation, though really more in an effort of consciousness raising, I was asked by a representative of the applicant group members to present Mr Bolt with a statue of a white man standing on top of a hill sucking a spearmint. After at first giving a lengthy aesthetic interpretation of the work, Mr Bolt said that he understood it to be a sort of satire perhaps, which he opined tended to get steamrolled in court, and he even ventured a title for the posing man, aprilfool, and all were in accord.

    [David Barrow of Melbourne]

    Posted by David C. Barrow | April 1, 2011, 9:50
  90. I wish to focus on the media coverage of this story which has been truly poor. I mean talk about playing the man and not the issue. They just can’t get over their dislike of Bolt – then again I suppose the only media person I take the time to watch is Skynews – Vanessa Trezise the most beutiful journalist of all time!

    Posted by Nick Labiris | April 1, 2011, 11:55
  91. @gzg

    The grubby treatment of Aboriginal people since european colonisation began is disgusting enough. But to point out that most in SE Australia are quadroons or octoroons — as Mr Bolt seemed to be suggesting although not in those words — was lamentable. Their choice to identify themselves as Aboriginal rather than european is their’s alone. In our laws including, inter alia, the Census Act, they are entitled to do so. I did not ‘perceive’ Mr Bolt’s four articles to be nasty. They are. Many people in northern Italy have fair complexions, blue eyes and blonde hair. Does this mean they are not Italians? Such is the absurdity of Mr Bolt’s insensitive articles, that some Aboriginal people are too white to be black! Bah! Humbug!

    Posted by Bollocks | April 1, 2011, 13:48
  92. Andrew Bolt thinks it’s OK for people to be biracial or multiracial, provided they do so by his rules. Those are, they must choose their race according to how they look, not who they are.

    Sounds rather racist to me.

    Posted by Reductio ad absurdam | April 1, 2011, 15:13
  93. For those who have not read and comprehended the Bolt articles in question, please do so as otherwise your misrepresentations can be taken to be as intentionally disingenuous as the 9 “vilifed” individuals.
    I hope and trust that our judicial sysem exposes the claims as the farcical, self indulgent waste of a courts time that they are.
    These people may reserve the right to be offended. I reserve the right to ridicule those who choose to destroy the english language in order to interpret and justify their offense.
    The lengths people will go to these days in order to find something to be offended about.

    Posted by Alobar | April 1, 2011, 15:28
  94. @bollocks:
    “But to point out that most in SE Australia are quadroons or octoroons — as Mr Bolt seemed to be suggesting although not in those words — was lamentable”.

    He didn’t say it, and I’m not sure what would be your point. But if there is one, what are the stats as to quad or octo’s? Oh, and what was the point again?

    @Reductio ad absurdam:
    What are your rules? Pick an ancestor? Or the three point test?

    No room for argument or public debate (with a possible exemption if you are yourself indigenous by some criteria or another)?

    Posted by gzg | April 1, 2011, 16:25
  95. Gzg — Hello! Hello!

    Because the last ‘full-blood’ Victorian Aborigine (an old lady) died more than a decade ago, it follows that today’s remainder are all of mixed race. Applying or devising any rules measuring worth within such a group according to their colour, disciminates against ALL. This is what makes Andrew Bolt’s observations so offensive and objectionable.

    Are you starting to get the picture yet?

    Posted by Bollocks | April 1, 2011, 19:53
  96. @voice of reason: This was a fake document.

    Posted by CDM | April 1, 2011, 20:35
  97. If the money for being Aboriginal were to stop, and payment for being of Welsh ancestry commenced, I wonder how many of those people would suddenly find they were Welsh?

    Posted by CDM | April 1, 2011, 20:37
  98. @bollocks:
    Firstly, I now understand that comments or arguments are to be constrained to Victorian jurisprudence. So be it, albeit in full knowledge that at least one of the applicants hale from Redcliffe, QLD (a short drive from my abode).

    Who’s talking about “full bloods” let alone judging “worth” of anyone save as one being a human?

    Or as someone put it so well without regard to colour nor creed:

    “Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide.

    And again (sorry to repeat), what is your point?

    I think you are being a little flippant, yet make a valid point. But it takes little to offend those who so readily seek a racial divide, and you shold take more care.

    Posted by gzg | April 1, 2011, 22:01
  99. Bolano another day another failure, your disgraceful behavior today has cost you more members. The new power they join in droves.

    Posted by EBA time | April 1, 2011, 22:45
  100. @EBA Time. What does your pointless non sequitur have to do with the Andrew Bolt?

    Posted by WTF? | April 1, 2011, 23:04
  101. Why did you do it Bolano?

    Posted by Roller door boy | April 1, 2011, 23:14
  102. @gzg

    Oh Dear, another terribly slow learner.

    1. The case is being tried in a Victorian court.
    2. Hail not hale.
    3. Full blood was the generally accepted term when the old lady died.

    The rest of your post is, well, a bit strange. You support Andrew Bolt’s mean comments overall but have attacked every one of my posts. Now you are waffling about ‘being human beings set on this land together’. I am completely baffled.

    I wish you would gather your thoughts, sort out your agenda, and make YOUR point so that I can respond to it whatever it is.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 1, 2011, 23:30
  103. Racism is insidious and within all of us. It is a natural tendency to prefer that which is familiar to that which is foreign and racism is merely the negative prejudgment of the foreign in many cases without any conscious realisation of the decision. I see it every day in the slight sense of unease that people on the tram feel when a muslim youth with a backpack gets on the tram. There is almost an audible holding of breath – just for an instance – and many of them can be seen blinking and then getting back to their lives – having chided themselves for such a foolish thought. But the thought was there – it was real even if for an instant.

    It is not surprising that this case has drawn three lawyers – two barristers and a judge – who have cultural and possibly family history of repression and intolerance on race grounds on their mind. The Jewish people have sufferred much more than most for being different – words like holocaust, pogrom etc have entered our language because of the unspeakable horrors that seemingly civilised human beings have inflicted on their fellow human beings.

    It should be a matter of pride to their civic leaders and their community that people of Jewish heritage are the staunchest defenders of those less privileged. This is a modern day sign of just how valuable the deposit of values founding Jewish religion and culture that has been entrusted through the generations is.

    Good on you. I applaud you. I know your motives are decent and honest and proper.

    I do not need to remind those who have experienced it that it is very easy to stir up racial tensions when there is economic dislocation – one of the unfortunate truths is that those who are oppressed become the oppressors of those even less empowered. Unemployed youths can become vigilante gangs; fathers who lose their jobs become crusaders against the immigrants who “stole” their livelihood; people who lose their house burn down the home of the financier who took possession etc.

    I am a great admirer of Andrew Bolt. He is a thoughtful and incisive commentator. His style is sometimes confrontational because he exposes the most hypocritical amongst us. He is not always exact in his facts and sometimes he even gets it wrong as he has admitted under oath. However, the basic thesis that he articulates is not necessarily rendered invalid by a few mistakes or an exaggeration here or there or a bit of poetic licence.

    I defend Andrew Bolt not because I agree with him but because I sometimes disagree with him. I have a somewhat different view to him on the issue of identity and culture perhaps because I was once the victim of school boy racism in the playground and perhaps because I am still sometimes discriminated against because of my Italian heritage, usually by those who sanctimoniously purport to be free of such bias – the leftist intelligensia. While their language is somewhat more eloquent than “greezy slimey wog”, they none-the-less prejudge my actions and attack my background as an Italian by using terms like mafia to describe me.

    I had some misgivings about the articles Andrew Bolt wrote when I first read them. They seemed to miss the point of what it means to identify with a culture and a heritage.

    However, even if they were misguided (a point of view), the articles ought not be subject to the sanctions sought by those seemingly hurt and offended by them.

    I defend Andrew Bolt’s comments as fair commentary stated without any conscious bias and I abhor the consequences that may flow from any finding against him.

    Posted by Giuseppe De Simone | April 2, 2011, 8:18
  104. Bolt is in trouble of his own making here.
    The herald sun will pay again on this. I suppose his legal fees must be seen as cost that goes with the turf.

    Obviously the point of tabloid op Ed writing us to excite often base level responses and sell papers.

    It operates in a moral vacuum and as most targets lack the money to sue it often enjoys a legal vacuum as well.

    Let us stop pretending this is a free speech issue – the herald sun pays and bolt sprays.

    Posted by Horse has bolted | April 2, 2011, 9:01
  105. Bolt today and then who tomorrow?

    I know I can’t afford a QC on $10,000 a day to go to court for me against vindictive aborigines who have all their costs funded by the mug taxpayer.

    Posted by WHO PAYS??? | April 2, 2011, 9:57
  106. I wonder if vexnews would defend bolt if he had questioned other ethnic or religious groups with mixed heritage.

    Why this special media treatment for Aboriginal people with mixed heritage from Bolt and this site?

    It seems guilt about the Aboriginal issue still leads to rage and resentment from right wing bloggers.

    Posted by vexnews double standards | April 2, 2011, 10:48
  107. Unfortunately for those who can’t see past their snide contempt for the Herald Sun’s tabloid journalism or their vituperation for the views expressed by Andrew Bolt, it is a free speech issue.

    Every precedent that makes commentary or one sort or another taboo, becomes a brake on the right to express an opinion.

    Defamation laws are used in Singapore to silence political criticism and many politicians here in Australia have used claims of libel to be enriched with the Packer Pool or the Murdoch Mansion.

    No one is saying the law of defamation should be scrapped altogether but it needs to be applied very carefully when dealing with public officials and they should have thicker hides than the ordinary citizen who is defamed.

    Anti-vilification laws may start with some well intentioned anti-racist sentiment but when they are used, they generally divide the community and create more ill-will than the original comment.

    My general view is that in the absence of direct appeal to violence against a particular person or group (a matter covered by existing laws in relation to incitement), it should not be unlawful to make comments that are misguidedly stupid even those as outrageous as Southern Italians are congenitally lazy workcover-rorting organised crime stand-over thugs who bribe public officials to get what they want or catholic politicians are all paedophiles and perverts.

    We can be too precious in our protestations of hurt and offence. It is a sign of the maturity of a social or ethnic or cultural group that it is able to move on from the visceral reaction of wishing to strike out every time their community is attacked by a fool.

    The people claiming hurt from Bolt’s comments don’t strike me as a particularly disempowered bunch but I accept some of them do not have the same access to the media to express their view as a senior journalist does (besides the PM and Paris Hilton who does?).

    In some ways the opinions expressed by Andrew Bolt have received a lot more public consideration (especially amongst The Age readers) than they would have had they been left alone in the archives of a blog.

    I appreciate that some groups in society are more vulnerable than others and that many have experienced horrible mistreatment over generations. Clearly the Aboriginal communities are very much entitled to feel aggrieved about the history of white settlement in Australia and remain somewhat sensitive to any inkling of ongoing racism. However, their civic leaders must accept responsibility for promoting a view that mature dialogue with the other residents of this continent will achieve the most beneficial outcomes for all. In this spirit, it must be acknowledged that some comments will be misguided or hurtful and some will even be gratuitously offensive and plain stupid. However, progress will be most rapidly achieved when the community leaders develop the ability to ignore those comments and not give them further oxygen and to concentrate on engagement with those people of goodwill who are less obviously foolish in their remarks and less prejudiced in their views.

    While accepting that usually a person should be given the benefit of the doubt in a free and democratic society, it is a valid enquiry to ask whether someone truly identifies with a culture or a society or purports to do so merely for financial gain to access a benefit designed for and seemingly targeted to those most vulnerable and in need.

    This court case has set back the cause of Aboriginal reconciliation rather than advanced it. The resentment that will be engendered by success in this case will cause ripples of passive resistance and highlight other matters of concern such as the treatment of women and children in Aboriginal society generally.

    Posted by Giuseppe De Simone | April 2, 2011, 11:59
  108. On a scale of one to ten:

    Giuseppe De Simone 9.5
    “Horse has bolted” 2.5 (marked up for correct spelling)

    Posted by gzg | April 2, 2011, 12:31
  109. Andrew,

    You spiked my reply to gzg last night, then wrote a long boring rant under the pseudenym Giuseppe De Simone… why?

    [VEXNEWS: Apologies for our slow moderation last night, members of the defamed VEXNEWS Moderation Unit were variously embedded at awards nights, slap-up dinners, football and engaged in other unhealthy pastimes. Giuseppe De Simone is no pseudonym. He is one of a regular commentator here who writes under his own name, which puts him one up one those commenting as “Bollocks”. We don’t generally comment in the comments section, trying to give others a go without purporting to control the direction of discussion. When we do, we comment under own name, hoping that sets a good example.]

    Posted by Bollocks | April 2, 2011, 13:47
  110. Whether or not you agree with Andrew Bolt’s position, it is clear that it is a discussion that should not be closed down. It is ridiculous to say we should talk about it because of a few peoples feelings. What about everyone else’s feelings when free speech is banned. Free speech is something most of us all hold very dear.
    People who don’t like Bolt should try to put their personal dislike aside and think about the bigger picture of what it would mean if he lost this case.

    Posted by Melanie | April 2, 2011, 14:37
  111. Bolt would spend less time in court if:
    1) his articles were 100% accurate
    2) if his articles did attack groups and individuals

    His rants are not our free speech, his rants are simply free flowing screaches.

    Posted by Horse has bolted | April 2, 2011, 17:45
  112. @bollocks:
    1. The case is being tried in a Victorian court.
    2. Hail not hale.
    3. Full blood was the generally accepted term when the old lady died.

    Once I happened upon the little known fact that the hearing was in Victoria, I then noticed that the senior applicant hailed (not haled; mea culpa) from a northern state of Australia, from the Redcliffe by the sea as it happens.

    Andrew Bolt’s remarks were not related to any geographical region.

    You though focused on Victorian full bloods for some reason.

    “Because the last ‘full-blood’ Victorian Aborigine (an old lady) died more than a decade ago, it follows that today’s remainder are all of mixed race. Applying or devising any rules measuring worth within such a group according to their colour, disciminates (sic) against ALL. This is what makes Andrew Bolt’s observations so offensive and objectionable“.

    I do not especially care whether we discuss DNA percentages or not.

    So it is not OK to allocate worth based on skin colour. Hallelujah! We have common agreement (you, me, and Mr Bolt makes three).

    We are all “human beings set on this land together”.

    Are we equal Mr Bollocks, or are we not? You, me, the applicants and Mr Bolt?

    “You spiked my reply to gzg last night”

    What does that mean my friend?

    Posted by gzg | April 2, 2011, 18:39
  113. Andrew,

    Pologies — I thought Mr De Simone was you because he suffers from loquacity. Also, I can’t help it if people borrow my name as some of the comments in favour of Mr Bolt are complete bollocks. Luckily something prompted me to make a copy of my reply to gzg nearly 24 hours ago:


    Oh Dear, another terribly slow learner.

    1. The case is being tried in a Victorian court.
    2. Hail not hale.
    3. Full blood was the generally accepted term when the old lady died.

    The rest of your post is, well, a bit strange. You support Andrew Bolt’s mean comments overall but have attacked every one of my posts. Now you are waffling about ‘being human beings set on this land together’. I am completely baffled.

    I wish you would gather your thoughts, sort out your agenda, and make YOUR point clearly so that I can respond to it whatever it is.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 2, 2011, 19:34
  114. This is another classic case of the Aboriginal mafia using the racial card to denigrate someone smart enough to expose some of the rorts available to those who know the way the system works.Clark is a classic example of a thug and rapist being able to avoid proper punishment by claiming it is because he is Koorie that he is being singled out because of it.Utter crap.
    And I know as I am one of these “white” blackfella’s
    The one constant here is the representation of the same old Legal tarts who love this business as it is a potential goldmine to them and their presence is as offensive as the actual charge.In fact one could reason that they have a vested interest in the Abo industry especially the outcome of this case.

    Posted by hey bludder | April 3, 2011, 12:38
  115. One of the arguments put forward by Bolt in this case was his concern about lighter skinned aboriginal people receiving grants that should presumable go to darker skinned Aboriginal people.

    Let’s put aside the creepy racism in this line of thinking for a moment and look at the insincerity that lies at the heart of this defense.

    Can Bolt demonstrate any good will for the cause of these darker and more ‘deserving’ Aborigines? Has he used his column to argue for greater spending on Aboriginal health?

    The trouble with throw back right wing commentators in this country is that they spend all their time arguing about spending less money being spent on Aborigines. So there mock concern about caring for ‘deserving aborigines’ is sickening.

    If they could point to a handful of words from their hundreds of thousands of words that ever urged the spending of any resources on the betterment of Aborigines then we may be able to take seriously their concern about deserving ‘darker’ skinned Aborigines.

    The fact is ‘lighter’ skinned Aborigines are a favorite soft target for the extreme right wing media bullies who see and easy rallying point for a wider public campaign against all spending on Aboriginal welfare and development.

    Can we ask anyone to give up their rights to justice from media attack simply because of an ongoing attack on the broader concept of Aboriginal welfare and Aboriginal rights?

    Let individuals decide if they wish to seek the protection of the law and let the courts decide.

    There are legal freedoms too.

    Perhaps these freedoms are greater freedoms than the right of media bullies to show mock concern for ‘deserving Aborigines’ while stirring public resentment against the most disadvantaged group in the country – the long suffering Australian Aborigines.

    Posted by flimsy defence | April 3, 2011, 20:58
  116. Whatever the outcome of this case – it does not alter the fact that the living conditions and life expectancy of Aboriginal Australia is a shame for all Australians – black and white.

    Social, economic and educational outcomes for the Aboriginal population is like that of a failed third world state.

    Neither Bolt’s ravings nor the high courts rulings from on high will change this…

    Posted by Australia on trial | April 3, 2011, 21:11
  117. My dear Bollocks:

    I can assure you I am a real person. I always write under my own name because I believe in what I say and I am not ashamed of my values or beliefs or views even if some of them may have moderated over the years (or perhaps just my expression of them?).

    I come from a conservative Italian catholic aspirational working class background who lived and worked in the inner northern suburbs for years before moving closer to my wife’s family and ending up in leafy Kew. I am 52 years of age and have two young boys – 6 and 9, one of whom goes to the local catholic parochial school and the other goes to Carey Grammar. I studied my HSC (as it was then) at St Joseph’s Marist Brothers College in North Fitzroy (whose most famous alumnus is Bert Newton) and then did a Bachelor of Science at the University of Melbourne in computer science together with a law degree.

    I dabbled in student politics including three years on the executive of the Australian Union of Students and two years on the executive of the Students’ Representative Council at Melbourne including one year as Honorary Secretary. I was also the chairperson of the SRC at RMIT when I studied Real Estate in the TAFE College. I know reasonably well quite a number of former student politicians who have gone on to become political leaders but I rarely see or speak to them now-a-days.

    My politics is “always right” with a strong base in libertarian values of freedom and personal responsibility informed by my belief in an ever-loving, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent Trinitarian God and the remarkable gift of free will.

    I believe if the answer is government then the question is undoubtedly stupid. I tolerate government intervention to establish a minimalist legal framework only because the one we have is amongst the least bad in the world and it is somewhat superior in practice to the alternative of private armies and vigilante groups.

    I love the fact that many Australians can trace some forebear who was placed on a boat for being a law breaker and I hope this makes all Australians wary of giving government too much power lest even stealing a loaf of bread be punished by transportation.

    This brings me back to the law that is being invoked in the case of Andrew Bolt. It is very bad law indeed and the proverbial sledge hammer is being applied to crack an egg shell let alone a nut.

    Foolish people who don’t understand human nature passed a stupid law meaning well, in their interfering self-righteous way, but achieving the exact opposite.

    If Bolt goes down, can you imagine what will happen on the fringes of the political commentariat? The anti-semites will rail against the Jewish conspiracy. The nutters will talk of international governments that wish to enforce Asians and Black people on us. The crackpots will say that it is all about defending rapists and homosexuals and artists and novel writers (who after all are no better than rapists).

    The only thing achieved will be that a debate will go underground and be dominated by extremists when we should be having it rationally and calmly and with compassion about the level of support we ought be giving our indigenous peoples and whether it is right to allow them to self-select or some external standard should be imposed.

    That’s enough from me for tonight.


    Posted by Giuseppe De Simone | April 3, 2011, 21:42
  118. Hooray! At long last someone has made sense here. ‘Flimsy Defence’ has identified the core issue — did Andrew Bolt show any GOODWILL in his articles?

    Of course he didn’t! He denigrated light skinned Aborigines in favour of the more deserving few who luckily have darker skins. What part of the word ‘racism’ doesn’t Bolt and many of the posters here understand?

    Ignorance is bliss. The horrible massacres of Aborigines in the pioneer period are well documented but little known. They are by far the most forgiving people on this Earth.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 4, 2011, 1:46
  119. Giuseppe’s theory of the social safety valve of having mainstream media ‘vent’ racial sterotypes and hate is flawed.

    It was Packer’s and Abbott’s interventions with One Nation that helped it rise to 1.1 million voters.

    This distraction in Australian politics hurt an honest population debate by making the complaints of those on the urban fringe were dismissed as ‘red neck’ reactions.

    Of course now the real problems of a deregulated property market creating permanent land value inflation is coming home to roost.

    When first home buyers are even squeezed out of urban fringe land releases in Melton and Craigieburn you know you are in trouble with supply the most basic of commodities – housing.

    Silencing the bigots who blame Migrants and Blacks for our problems may just turn the debate back to where is needs to be about economics and the what regulation is needed to make the basics such as housing not a distant memory for young Australians.

    Or am I expecting too much for a conservative sitting on Kew land to give a damn about that.

    But let me ask this question closer to your declared values.

    Where are your family values when families are living in caravan parks?

    Posted by safety value theory flawed | April 4, 2011, 8:38
  120. @safety value theory flawed:

    I accept that we have many social issues but I can’t fix all of them by myself. All I can do is participate in the political debate and provide some tangible assistance where I feel I can help.

    Firstly, I do not feel any guilt for living where I do. I have a family and they deserve what I have been fortunate enough and worked hard to provide for them. If others feel envy, that is their problem not mine. I make absolutely no apologies for my choices.

    I am not a socialist so I believe that people have a right to enjoy that which they earn.

    However, I am a person who believes we should work together towards a more just and inclusive society that cares for those less privileged and in need.

    Shelter is one of the big issues. Homelessness is a social blight that creates many other costs on society. Those who are disempowered are more likely to lash out at the society that they feel has abandoned them.

    They may (note the use of the word may – some do, many don’t) resort to crime not because they are bad people but because they see no option. They may resort to drugs not because they are foolish but because they want some seemingly cheap escapism and to feel good (even for a moment). Similar considerations apply to alcohol. Violence is part of their lives – usually violence inflicted against them including quite often by the police.

    Affordable housing requires an acceptance that you won’t necessarily get what you aspire to. Many first home buyers aspire to three bedrooms with 42″ widescreens in each one and a double lock up garage. They don’t really care about public transport or social infratructure when buying their dream home.

    Urban infill is preferable to urban sprawl.

    I very much support the policy of revitalising transport hubs with a mix of housing including affordable housing. Moreland Council has the Bell Street and Sydney Road corner; there is the land around Melbourne University and Lygon Street that could really be developed to a very high density indeed with a New York style village feel; etc.

    In my area, I can imagine the Kew Junction area or around Swinburne/Glenferrie Station as suitable for much higher density development. This can support student housing, single parent families, low income earners etc.

    In my own small way, I have provided goods and funds to Vinnies and invested money in sustainable and affordable housing projects for the elderly.

    I suspect I have done more in a practical sense than many latte drinkers in Lygon Street who say the government should do something about it while they scoff down a muffin then get in their 4 wheel drive to go back home to their two storey terrace house in North Carlton only to take the tram in to work (as it is so socially responsible)!

    I have thought about these issues.

    I do not believe the problem is the deregulated property market or the urban fringe issue. Nor is the problem a debate and thoughtful examination of our obligations to those who identify with aboriginal or migrant communities. Your linking of the two is highly creative but “flawed”.

    Hansonism was not a creation of Packer or Abbott and they did not fuel the movement. Indeed, the fact that this populist movement was constrained to the ballot box (and not to the streets in violence) where it peaked and ebbed was a measure of the maturity of our democracy. I believe the response of our political leaders as a whole was quite sensible – the different approaches seemed to strike the right balance because it was only a significant feature in one federal election cycle – 1998 – at a time when the government was trying to win a mandate for a major taxation reform.

    You will not “silence” bigots. If you deny them the right to speak their venom, they will spew it out in violence towards those same groups. Resentment is a key feature of bigotry and resentment will not go away by passing some stupid white person’s law about what you can and cannot say. I have seen first hand the resentment directed towards the southern European migrants of the 1950’s and the 1960’s. I can tell you it is nothing new in this country and it is reborn out of ignorance and fear. The way to address ignorance is with knowledge and with some respectful acceptance of the reasons for the resentment.

    None of the above should be taken as implying Andrew Bolt spoke out of ignorance or fear or resentment. He expressed a valid point of view quite forcefully and should be allowed to continue to express it. I disagree with him on this issue but that is precisely why I believe he should be allowed to express it – because he brings the debate to the forefront and allows us to clarify our own views and causes us to express them even more strongly. That is what democracy is about. The issue is one of public policy not racism.

    Posted by Giuseppe De Simone | April 5, 2011, 9:22
  121. Good to see that in this case the group of 9 have stopped pursuing the monkey (bolt) and instead are asking for apology from the organ grinder (The Herald Sun).

    If Bolt did not write this bile then they would just hire someone else.

    Suing him gives him an importance he does not deserve.

    Posted by sanity | April 5, 2011, 18:20
  122. I think your perceived monkey is well capable of reasoned discussion and debate without an organ grinder behind him.

    Amazing though the vitriol that springs forth against any expressing conservative viewpoints.

    Posted by gzg | April 5, 2011, 20:31
  123. gzg – you are a bit of an tiresome organ grinder youself.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 6, 2011, 0:22
  124. Glaad you’re still awake Bollocks.

    “Bolt is a dolt”
    “Bolt has buggered the Herald-Sun brand”.
    “I hope to see Mr Bolt selling newspapers outside Flinders Street station soon”.

    It is certainly not me with the organ to grind.

    Posted by gzg | April 6, 2011, 3:37
  125. Whatever Bolt said isnt relevant. What is relevant is the lack of first amendment protection in Australia – and they keep chipping away at what little free speech we have left, narrowing free speech amd limiting it further.
    And to make matters even worse – only non whites can claim racial victimhood. Whites can not bring a complaint against non whites. Every day whites are becoming less numerous in Australia. Non whites are favoured in this country. When whites comprise 20 or 30 per cent of the population who do they imagine is going to stand up for them?

    Posted by glomga zlomp | April 7, 2011, 0:48
  126. gzg,

    By mentioning you as a tiresome organ grinder, I of course was suggesting your ‘organ grinding’ was of the Tosser variety rather than entertainment. Having to explain a joke defeats the purpose.

    You didn’t touch my comment that many European Australians have indigenous relatives. Why?

    Posted by Bollocks | April 7, 2011, 1:33
  127. @bollocks:
    The funniest thing is that many of the early European families have Aboriginal relatives and, today, many generations of Aboriginal relatives.

    You tossed in this unfunny and unnoteworthy comment for what reason?

    ….. Some of the posters maligning Aboriginal people here might be uttering hate filled messages to their own kith and kin!

    Oh! To vaguely connect to some imaginary “hate-filled” messages from unspecified villains.

    Bollocks, have you any point to make?

    @glomga zlomp:
    I agree with your comment on free speech.
    Whites can not bring a complaint against non whites”
    I’m not sure you are right in saying this, bt it would certainly be novel and probably a bit un-PC.

    Posted by gzg | April 7, 2011, 11:26
  128. Bolt has, in effect, exposed a legal dilemma: it is okay to award money, grants, prizes, jobs and the like on the basis of race, but it is not okay to criticise this process, because to do so may be considered racist.

    Surely the core problem is that we have, with the best of intentions, embedded racism in our constition, our legal system and in government regulations. Certainly some aborigines particularly those living remote areas, need better access to health, education and welfare than do the rest of us, but this “affirmative action” should be awarded on the basis of need, not on the basis of race.

    Surely we Australians should not be discriminated from one another racially, either positively or negatively. We should all be equal before the law but that does not mean that the needy in our community should be neglected.

    It should be against the law to discriminate between people on the basis of race. Laws that do so should be rescinded.

    Posted by John Reid | April 7, 2011, 16:56
  129. gzg

    “Early European families have Aboriginal relatives and, today, many generations of Aboriginal relatives”. Where do you think the pale Aborigines despised by Andrew Bolt and you came from, you pathetic idiot?!. You’re very picky, gzg. You also avoided my comment about the Aboriginal massacres of the pioneer period, which I said were “well documented but little known”. By going to your closest public library, even in Queensland, you could find out a lot about them instead of wasting our time. No more to say. My time is precious.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 8, 2011, 1:41
  130. Andrew, You have censored me again. I posted a reply to gzg last night which has disappeared after mediation.

    There is not much point posting here if I get censored all the time. The OC was a million times better without the censorship.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 9, 2011, 1:18
  131. This situation has arisen because some politicians wanted votes. What they have created is 2 nations within Australia. These 2 nations have different rules for just about everything. Adds requesting applications for a position can stipulate “white people need not apply”. Try running an add that says “Blacks need not apply”. People claiming aboriginality have access to very low home loans not available to the everyday home loan seeker. Nothing of what I have written is racist. It is just some of the many facts of difference created by a Political Party wanting votes.

    Posted by Molly Daveson | April 11, 2011, 10:53
  132. We dont need or want a human rights charter – we want First Amendment rights. You may as well throw in Second Amendment rights too. Disarming the people has been a slow process under English law – but theyve nearly succeeded. They should be resisted and pushed back. Now the criminals all have guns and we the people are defenceless. The cops wont come to your aid. My 15 year old daughter was held up at knife point – this was reported to the cops whilst it was happening – they turned up twenty minutes later and this was in an inner city suburb, Clifton Hill, early evening but still daylight. These days if you are a law abiding citizen you should be afraid – very afraid.

    Posted by glomga zlomp | April 11, 2011, 17:30
  133. “Early European families have Aboriginal relatives and, today, many generations of Aboriginal relatives”. Where do you think the pale Aborigines despised by Andrew Bolt and you came from, you pathetic idiot?!

    ?? I think the pale aborigines may be descended from not so pale aborigines and hardly at odds with anything I’ve ever said.

    Of course, you indicate the weakness of your strangely hostile position once you start on ad hom attacks.

    Not sure how a possible massacre (of blacks by whites or indeed, of whites by blacks) could tie in with any point Andrew Bolt may be mking regarding aspirational aboriginals.

    My time is precious.
    Regretfully, the same may be said of you.

    Posted by gzg | April 13, 2011, 18:06
  134. Can anyone say when this trial will return to court? Greatly appreciated the daily court reports.

    Posted by Nathan | April 13, 2011, 22:11
  135. gzg,

    You are a complete nong.

    Your comments show you are grossly ignorant about the European connection so far as pale Aborigines are concerned. Worse still, you seem to be a denyer about massacres of Aborigines in the pioneer period.

    You have completely underestimated my ‘hostile position’ to your bizarre, racist remarks.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 16, 2011, 2:11
  136. @(more_hostile_than_I_estimated) bollocks:

    I am not a racist.

    You may choose (to your discredit) to merely hurl abuse, or you may add some substance to your tenuous position by nailing exactly where I made a “racist remark”.

    (As a previously unappointed spellchecker, you should consider leading by example by the way).

    Posted by gzg | April 16, 2011, 14:48
  137. gzg,

    Go on, admit it, you are a frightful racist. Your support for Bolt through all our exchanges showed you are a racist through and through. You weren’t able to step outside your racist vews to consider where the pale Aborigines had come from, nor to comprehend the sickening Aboriginal massacres of the pioneer period. Your only response was to stubornly ask for more details.

    My dear fellow, I can’t be bothered.

    If you want to debate you have to be armed with facts and not suppositions. Come back in five years, when you have done sufficient research to contribute to this debate. At the moment you look like a prize ignoramus!

    Posted by Bollocks | April 18, 2011, 2:08
  138. @bollocks:
    “Find a racist remark” I asked (not being aware that apparently it is stubborn for an accused party to ask for evidence of guilt). Not even up to the standard of a starchamber!

    Shouldn’t have been too hard though given you not only said that I’d made more than one “racist remark”, but have now further escalated the charge to me being a “frightful racist”.

    Is your first name Larissa?

    Twits or Tweets

    Posted by gzg | April 19, 2011, 0:05
  139. You are like a dagg on a sheep–completely useless, a cause of flystrike, and very hard to get rid of.

    Posted by Bollocks | April 19, 2011, 0:46