Brandis: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know."

[ralphmalph]

Meh, it has been explained to you numerous times and with reference to the failed ALP candidates ruling.

As for selectively believing in free speech, that is entirely consistent with the notion of property laws ie defamation, incitement to murder etc.

.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...lt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

For reasons best known to its lawyers, the Herald Sun chose to argue that Bolt's columns weren't likely to offend anybody and/or that if they did it wasn't on the grounds of their race, colour etc. Both are self-evidently absurd propositions. As I've argued before, the act sets a disturbingly low bar. It's very easy to cause offence, and quite plainly Bolt's columns were likely to do so; and they were all about race, colour and ethnicity.

But despite the heading, the wording of the act doesn't mention racial hatred. And the courts have found that its intention is far broader than its heading states. As Justice Bromberg puts it (par 334): "In seeking to promote tolerance and protect against intolerance in a multicultural society, the Racial Discrimination Act must be taken to include in its objective tolerance for and acceptance of racial and ethnic diversity."
It appears to follow that any publication which discourages tolerance for racial diversity, for example by mocking particular people's 'choices' of ethnic diversity, and which in the process causes offence or humiliation, is unlawful.

Your link takes me to a David Marr article yet your quote appears to be from Jonathan Holmes.

Here's a bit from Marr:

But Judge Bromberg was perhaps most scathing about Bolt's failure to acknowledge that any of the nine had been raised black. "In my view, Mr Bolt was intent on arguing a case," said the judge. "He sought to do so persuasively. It would have been highly inconvenient to the case for which Mr Bolt was arguing for him to have set out facts demonstrating that the individuals whom he wrote about had been raised with an Aboriginal identity and enculturated as Aboriginal people.

"Those facts would have substantially undermined both the assertion that the individuals had made a choice to identify as Aboriginal and that they were not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely so identifying. The way in which the newspaper articles emphasised the non-Aboriginal ancestry of each person serves to confirm my view. That view is further confirmed by factual errors made which served to belittle the Aboriginal connection of a number of the individuals dealt with, in circumstances where Mr Bolt failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the error in question."

If he had got his facts right it changes everything. The imputations identified in the decision would change. Most likely, his editor says 'where's the story here?' and spikes the piece.

Every decision turns on its facts - you can not simply change those you don't like and think it won't change the outcome in the absence of clear statements supporting your argument.

All you are doing is linking to others' opinions but you don't think about or understand what they're saying other than to make an assessment of whether they support your line. I'm tired of pointing out the areas I disagree with in others' work and tired of your glib ill informed assertions.

 

[medusala]

If he had got his facts right it changes everything.

Well, no, many believe it would not have ie that doesn't necessarily mean it's fair comment.

I'm tired of pointing out the areas I disagree with in others' work

You keep banging on about getting facts right despite it being pointed out to you that isn't a complete defence.

 

[telsor]

I am sure there are, but we are talking Wilson and the validity of his opinion.

and I'm showing that by the standards of the HRC, he's as 'legit' a commissioner as others are.

Of course, there is also the age and disability commisioner, Susan Ryan, one time ALP senator... Not like that could be a partisan appointment, after all, she's qualified for age and disability due to...umm...well...she's 72.

 

[telsor]

Your link takes me to a David Marr article yet your quote appears to be from Jonathan Holmes.

Here's a bit from Marr:


If he had got his facts right it changes everything. The imputations identified in the decision would change. Most likely, his editor says 'where's the story here?' and spikes the piece.

Every decision turns on its facts - you can not simply change those you don't like and think it won't change the outcome in the absence of clear statements supporting your argument.

All you are doing is linking to others' opinions but you don't think about or understand what they're saying other than to make an assessment of whether they support your line. I'm tired of pointing out the areas I disagree with in others' work and tired of your glib ill informed assertions.

I suppose it's just lucky they got the right judge, right?

After all, Justice Bromberg, as a staunch ALP member and former candidate for preselection for an ALP federal seat would be nothing but fair to the likes of Bolt.

 

[Play by Numbers]

and I'm showing that by the standards of the HRC, he's as 'legit' a commissioner as others are.

Of course, there is also the age and disability commisioner, Susan Ryan, one time ALP senator... Not like that could be a partisan appointment, after all, she's qualified for age and disability due to...umm...well...she's 72.

That's fine, but not relevant to my point. Your argument was an appeal to authority, which alone is not enough, however, even if I were to humor it, Wilson is not an authority.

He has been very critical of certain rights in the past, is ideologically at odds with the public service and a critic of the human rights commission.

You argue for his expertise, since he was given a job, in a body he didn't even believe should exist.

The man is a blowhard, there to push an agenda and line his pockets in an ideologically inconsistent way

 

[telsor]

That's fine, but not relevant to my point. Your argument was an appeal to authority, which alone is not enough, however, even if I were to humor it, Wilson is not an authority.

As a Human rights commissioner, he is indeed an authority. That you don't think him so doesn't change that.

You're like the aboriginal guy in Little Graham's recent thread who doesn't recognise the authority of Australia...Doesn't change the fact that when he did the wrong thing, he got taken in by the cops, when he refused to turn up to court (due to not respecting it's authority), he was held without bail, and when he disrespected the judge, he was treated accordingly...

That he didn't recognise the authority didn't change the fact that it existed one jot.

 

[Play by Numbers]

As a Human rights commissioner, he is indeed an authority. That you don't think him so doesn't change that.

You're like the aboriginal guy in Little Graham's recent thread who doesn't recognise the authority of Australia...Doesn't change the fact that when he did the wrong thing, he got taken in by the cops, when he refused to turn up to court (due to not respecting it's authority), he was held without bail, and when he disrespected the judge, he was treated accordingly...

That he didn't recognise the authority didn't change the fact that it existed one jot.

No, he isn't.

It's simply a position, it does not give his opinion validity or weight.You are conflating the responsibility of the commission, with the expertise of an individual. This is one of the most spurious appeals to authority that I have read, Wilson has no idea and little regard for human rights.

As for your analogy, it is incoherent.

 

[ralphmalph]

Well, no, many believe it would not have ie that doesn't necessarily mean it's fair comment.

Many believe? From memory you've linked to two articles - one from a barrister who says it's possible and one from a journo who says 'it appears'. FFS you've got the text of the decision and the Act - why can't you cite that? In any event, it's simple logic.

You keep banging on about getting facts right despite it being pointed out to you that isn't a complete defence.

You're shifting the goal posts because you don't understand what you're talking about. Where have I claimed truth is a complete defence?

 

[ralphmalph]

I suppose it's just lucky they got the right judge, right?

After all, Justice Bromberg, as a staunch ALP member and former candidate for preselection for an ALP federal seat would be nothing but fair to the likes of Bolt.

Maybe, maybe not. A stronger argument would be to quote the decision and identify the flaws in the reasoning. It takes a bit more effort than casting aspersions on the integrity of the judge.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You keep banging on about getting facts right despite it being pointed out to you that isn't a complete defence.

As a Human rights commissioner, he is indeed an authority.

What's weird is how much time right-wingers spend defending right-wing commentators.

Just argue your points separate to whatever a Murdoch employee has said, or whatever an IPA person thinks. That way you won't be stuck making long-bow, self-defeating defenses that cloud the actual argument

The argument for free speech is clear. The fact it isn't completely 'free' is also understandable, and so you can argue the line (just as the free market isn't actually 'free' due to the need for regulation to stop monopolies, etc).

Just argue for your points and you won't end up sounding like stooges, because like it or not, but a big part of the pay packet for Murdoch commentators and the IPA is to support the Coalition. That's it. They get their messages from Coalition commentators and they give their own messages back (most PMs, potential or standing, Labor or Liberal, have gone out of their way to meet with Murdoch).

Meds regularly picks on an individual like The Kouk, and do you see lefties or centrists wasting time trying to defend him page-after-page, thread-after-thread? Nup. Free yourselves, righties - what else is free speech for?

 

[CountryRace]

the right to bag muslims with as much zeal as one can muster apparent

 

[Xsess]

What? We don't give scholarships because of skin color you fool. We give them (largely) to combat entrenched disadvantage.

What tangent are you coming from this time?

They do have scholarships for aboriginal and torres straight islanders you fool

Some "aboriginal" recipients have been awarded them with... lets just say dubious claims to aboriginality.

 

[Gough]

Do share.

 

[Qsaint]

Polite wasn't the words used. I believe it was 'truthful'.

It was polite

 

[Nankervis brothers]

What tangent are you coming from this time?

They do have scholarships for aboriginal and torres straight islanders you fool

Some "aboriginal" recipients have been awarded them with... lets just say dubious claims to aboriginality.

Can you offer an example of these apparently 'dubious claims'....?

 

[telsor]

What's weird is how much time right-wingers spend defending right-wing commentators.

Just argue your points separate to whatever a Murdoch employee has said, or whatever an IPA person thinks. That way you won't be stuck making long-bow, self-defeating defenses that cloud the actual argument

The argument for free speech is clear. The fact it isn't completely 'free' is also understandable, and so you can argue the line (just as the free market isn't actually 'free' due to the need for regulation to stop monopolies, etc).

Just argue for your points and you won't end up sounding like stooges, because like it or not, but a big part of the pay packet for Murdoch commentators and the IPA is to support the Coalition. That's it. They get their messages from Coalition commentators and they give their own messages back (most PMs, potential or standing, Labor or Liberal, have gone out of their way to meet with Murdoch).

Meds regularly picks on an individual like The Kouk, and do you see lefties or centrists wasting time trying to defend him page-after-page, thread-after-thread? Nup. Free yourselves, righties - what else is free speech for?

That's because the left, due to their inability to win an argument on it's merits chooses to attack the messenger in the hope of swaying opinion.

Who do the right demonise to anywhere near the degree of Bolt?

 

[Maggie5]

That's because the left, due to their inability to win an argument on it's merits chooses to attack the messenger in the hope of swaying opinion.

Who do the right demonise to anywhere near the degree of Bolt?

Good question, can't think of anyone who demonises people, religion, etc like him
There is only one Bolt.

 

[ralphmalph]

That's because the left, due to their inability to win an argument on it's merits chooses to attack the messenger in the hope of swaying opinion.

Pretty funny considering your comments about the judge!

 

[Malifice]

What tangent are you coming from this time?

They do have scholarships for aboriginal and torres straight islanders you fool

Some "aboriginal" recipients have been awarded them with... lets just say dubious claims to aboriginality.

We dont give scholarships because of skin color. You get this?

 

[Xsess]

We dont give scholarships because of skin color. You get this?

Yes.

We do give scholarships to Aboriginal and Torres straight islanders. You get this?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Who do the right demonise to anywhere near the degree of Bolt?

He's a polemicist; and a brilliant one.

He's a white wine drinking opera snob who's gpt many convinced he's the voice of the people.

He is the highest paid Australian columnist of the world's biggest media empire; and has managed to position himself as the anti-establishment outside.

C'mon. Kudos.

 

[swingdog]

He's a polemicist; and a brilliant one.

He's a white wine drinking opera snob who's gpt many convinced he's the voice of the people.

He is the highest paid Australian columnist of the world's biggest media empire; and has managed to position himself as the anti-establishment outside.

C'mon. Kudos.

Agree - he's been quoting Proust recently, which you have to think isn't the typical reading fare of his mouth-breathing followers.

 

[Xsess]

He's a polemicist; and a brilliant one.

I assume he's "brilliant" because his extensive use of facts maks his arguments almost impossible to refute?

Polemicist because you dont like those facts?

P.s he's also Australias most widely read -ie successful- columnist which may be why he's pulling the $.

 

[Malifice]

We do give scholarships to Aboriginal and Torres straight islanders. You get this?

Skin color has nothing to do with being an Aboriginal or TSI, and skin color is not a criterion for the award of those scholarships.

Those scholarhsips and things like ABSTUDY are awarded (in part) to combat entrenched social disadvantage faced by ATSI people. They are not awarded because one has 'dark skin'.

 

[Malifice]

I assume he's "brilliant" because his extensive use of facts maks his arguments almost impossible to refute?

Lol. The one article of his that went to court was clearly shown to contain numerous serious factual errors. Bolt even admitted as much.

What world do you live in?