Australia

"A popular right-wing commentator was found guilty Wednesday of breaking Australian discrimination law by implying that fair-skinned Aborigines chose to identify as indigenous for profit and career advancement."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...27/international/i201259D10.DTL#ixzz1ZFhi6MCw

I'm curious. I know we have a few people here from Australia and I'd like to know both what you think of this law and whether or not you agree or disagree with what the commentator said.

 

HOLY (*)(*)(*)(*)T!!!!!! I cant believe he was actually found guilty!! What a travesty!

Well, Andrew Bolt, the guy in question, is without a doubt a complete idiot and buffoon. However the point he made in that article of his was actually a fair one. It wasn't racist. He merely commented, in a very provocative manner, that people claiming to be Aboriginal were only doing so for social status and to be recognized through government sponsored programs that recognize achievement within the seriously hindered Aboriginal community in the country. There were people he mentioned that had some distant relative who was Aboriginal and that made them qualified as 'Aboriginal' and thus up for the awards. Personally on this race aspect I didnt really care since the whole concept of race is biologically bs. What got me was that, lets just say he was a racist, which he wasn't and wasn't trying to be - who cares? You should BE ALLOWED to be racist - its part of freedom of speech. Similarly, in my state of Victoria, the state government passed a law banning public swearing! How unbelievable is that! Especially in Australia - the place where the national tourism ad had "where the bloody hell are you?" as its tag line for a while!
I dont like this turn of events. I dont mind seeing Andrew Bolt go down - but not on something as silly as this. As Chomsky said, if you dont defend freedom of speech for those you hate, then you font defend freedom of speech at all. It scares me to see how much society in our country has become so irresponsible. People think 'oh I dont like something, therefore I cna get the government to get rid of it' - whether its opinions, or swearing as I mentioned. I talked to one of my friends about it, whose economically fiscal like me, and he had this statist attitude about the whole concept as I described above. Its scary to see such thought play out in government. Generally Australians are quite libertarian, but its when things like this pick up off the ground that I get worried - especially when both our major federal political parties oppose a bill of rights etc.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope I made my points clear.

 

1. The articles were found by the Judge to have had the intent of creating racial hatred. They were simple hate piece articles on the theme of "These people just call themselves Aborigines to make money. They are really just scamming the system like a lot of people who call themselves Aborigines, but really aren't."

2. Andrew Bolt named several people in his articles and criticised them personally.

3. Andrew Bolt was found not to have checked his facts and had therefore written several complete untruths.

4. Andrew Bolt made no attempt at all to contact the Several Aborigines he named either for comment or verification.

The Judge by the way, is Jewish and applied the Golden Rule.

To put that in context, what Bolt did was the equivalent of writing articles on the theme of "Everybody knows Jews always cheat on their taxes."

Furthermore, the Judges ruling was brilliant. He ordered the parties and the newspaper to meet and work out what they were going to do to make amends - then appear before him with their proposed solution on 5 October.

 

And in Australia, saying such a thing (true or not) is a crime?

Wow.

Orwell would be proud. Australia sucks ass.

 

I still disagree with the premise of the ruling:

But this whole concept of 'creating racial anger' or whatever, is total nonsense. I could be charged for the same crime if someone found me wearing a shirt saying 'proud to be white' amounted to the same effect! Freedom of speech needs to be paramount.

These are all defamation related crimes not racism.

 

The reason I was curious was that I know people here who have claimed minority status for the benefits conferred and no other reason but saying so certainly isn't a crime.

One was a man who got a very large small business loan from the federal government and no one knew he was an American Indian. He never really started a business and never had to pay the money back.

The second was a man who no one knew was Asian. When people asked he said, "My grandmother was Japanese and I thought it would improve my chances of getting this job." His name was, of course, European and he certainly did not look Japanese.

I was just curious about this court decision. If I were this gentleman I would insist on a fine or a jail sentence and the judge could stuff his "brilliant" idea of working it out.

 

People in brittle transparent domestic facilities should desist from launching ore projectiles.

 

A++++ for style.

 

Who cares? People have to take responsibility for their own emotions.

You're a poopyhead.

Who is supposed to be the arbiter of truth?

 

If you actually want to learn about this case, instead of just making stupid comments, read this article:

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

 

frodo,

Do you actually think calling a fellow poster stupid somehow enhances your argument. All it does is make you look childish and petulant.

 

The part of the ruling I found especially scarey was where the judge said he would prohibit reproduction of the articles and will order the newspaper to print either a correction or apology.

It is always dangerous when the freedom of news organizations is lessened by the decree of one person, in this case, Judge Bromberg.

Bromberg ruled out Bolt and his publisher's defense under a clause of the Racial Discrimination Act that exempts "fair comment." Bromberg said he will prohibit reproduction of the offending articles and will consider ordering the newspaper to publish a correction if it doesn't print an apology.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...27/international/i201259D10.DTL#ixzz1ZHUPCgWc

 

Fell well short of racial hate speech for which the law was designed. IMO the whole thing was a spat that should have been settled in civil court by way of a defamation case.

 

That's a crime in your country?????
That law is so stupid! I think that also contributes to my belief that those in most countries don't actually have freedom of speech guaranteed. Sure, they can say most things, but if someone gets offended it's illegal.

Personally I don't care. What that moron wants to say, he can say it. He's just trolling up RL.

 

These types of laws are stupid. Basically you're guilty of the crime if someone is offended. This makes ALL speech potentially illegal.

 

Shhh, you might offend someone! Keep it down!

 

I dont see any threat to freedom of speech by this ruling. Dont lie, its easy.

 

I think you are misunderstanding this, Bolt lied and specifically named individuals.

 

I have to agree......Putting put your opinion should never be considered discrimination.....Now if he had been actively attempting to get companies to stop hiring these people, I would agree with sending him to jail, but for simply saying that they abuse the system? He should be pardoned.

 

But it wasnt his opinion, it was deliberate slander. Just because the action and decision was by criminal rather than civil law doesnt make it an attack on free speech.

 

Wow. Who knew that freedom of speech was in such dire straits in Australia. Illegal to offend. Unbelievable.

That judge is an Australian (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag and a simpleton by the way. I'll risk any Aussie arrest warrants that may arise from that statement.

 

Actually the law was enacted with the full support of the Jewish Lobby. They use it any time someone criticizes Israel.

 

Actually, who cares...?

 

Well, it would be unbelievable to an American.

 

Only 310 million, fleeing from deprivation elsewhere, chose that option.