Bolt is a troll

[Lester Burnham]

Bolt sunk to a new low even for him today. After abusing the Greens for their logo attached to Whitlam he has unleashed on him depite the fact he is not even in his grave. Bolt has shown he is not even independent enough to be called a columnist.

I have now decided that I will avoid the Herald-Sun altogether, which basically means I have to get my form guide somewhere else and will hurt my access to footy news, be it on-line or ina physical form.

How about quoting what Bolt said that incensed you enough to start a thread.

 

[AM]

Judge Bromberg said it most eloquently when he said in his finding against Blot in Eastock v Bolt that the piece in question ".....contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language"

Fairly much covers everything the cretin writes. His personal attacks and ignorance not only cause division but are dangerous.

Sad thing is he thrives on the sort of notoriety we're giving him here.

Slightly off topic. To Riseupaustralia. Are your avatar and username meant to be ironic?

 

[Gough]

My view is based on that it passed on a bipartisan basis and nobody paid any attention to that particular law for years until the aforementioned cretin got his panties in twist about some indigenous folk. You might not agree, but I've found little evidence of anyone, aside Larry Pickering or the Adelaide Institute being remotely interested in 18c prior to the article's publication, they were trying to amend the law because of one person, and I happen to think that it is not the way lawmaking should be carried out.

 

[NSWCROW]

Don't let that slag Miranda devine get off
Her article was worse than Boltz

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Love to give that a 'like' but just can't bring myself to do that for anything associated with the sometime drummer and full time pseudo Pastor.

He is a truly horrific piece of work, no doubt.

Faith healer, miracle worker, tongues speaker and rabid, racist Muslim hater. WUT?

Plus multiculturalism is no good because it has CULT in it.

And he's an immigrant from Sri Lanka.

So many contradictions wrapped up in one 'person*'.

* loosely used term.

 

[Lester Burnham]

My view is based on that it passed on a bipartisan basis and nobody paid any attention to that particular law for years until the aforementioned cretin got his panties in twist about some indigenous folk. You might not agree, but I've found little evidence of anyone, aside Larry Pickering or the Adelaide Institute being remotely interested in 18c prior to the article's publication, they were trying to amend the law because of one person, and I happen to think that it is not the way lawmaking should be carried out.

You are wrong. The Libs/Nats opposed what was called at the time the Racial Hatred Act 1994 in both the HoR and the Senate. All the same concerns were raised before it was passed into law as have been raised after the Bolt case. The legislation is not certain and precise. Attorney General, Michael Lavarch, admitted this and said 'Yes, I understand there are grey areas in this legislation, but we will let the courts decide'. Law that is determined by unelected judges rather than parliament is bad law.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...p;query=Id:"chamber/hansardr/1995-06-21/0086"

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Isn't law determined by unelected judges all the time?

Or is it only bad on this particular instance?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Isn't law determined by unelected judges all the time?

Or is it only bad on this particular instance?

If you are actually interested in the subject, this is a good read.

Firstly, and most importantly, is the capacity of indeterminate racial vilification laws to unreasonably interfere with or pre-emptively chill the legitimate speech and communication interests of others. Whilst broad-ranging defences (the norm in Australian law[18]) may allay some of these speech and communication concerns, this species of indeterminacy in turn has the capacity to erode the efficacy of such laws by failing to provide a remedy or meaningful protection to victims of racial vilification. Consequently, the primary goal of racial vilification laws in Australia — to regulate racial vilification without curbing legitimate public communication — is compromised when the laws themselves lack sufficient precision and clarity. Improving their precision and clarity would make these laws more accessible and, in this instance, strengthen the rule of law.[19] With a firmer understanding of their legal rights and obligations the citizenry can plan their communicative conduct accordingly. This has an added importance with citizens now increasingly willing and able to seek legal redress for racial vilification.

Secondly, laws which 'leave too much to be decided by persons other than the people's representatives'[20] can be rightly criticised as undemocratic. This is not to suggest that reserving a measure of discretion for decision-makers in this area is objectionable. Indeed it is both inevitable and desirable with racial vilification laws as explained below.[21] It is problematic however when the putative legal standards contained in a law provide little interpretive guidance in most cases to the relevant decision-maker. It is undemocratic because judges and administrators are, in effect, exercising legislative power by determining the substantive content of the laws they are to apply.[22] This argument suggests that courts should limit 'themselves to the accurate application of general rules, rules which should be clear, precise and empirically applicable expressions of the political will of the people's representatives.'[23] It 'is democratic in that it affirms that the source of these authoritative rules is empirically identifiable institutional acts which are the outcome of democratic procedures'[24] not the subjective conceptions of justice of judges and administrators articulated on a case by case basis. My analysis will show that too often the application of racial vilification laws in Australia has exhibited this undemocratic quality. Consistent with democracy and the principle of popular sovereignty that underpins the Australian Constitution, legislative power ought to be exercised by our elected not unelected representatives.[25] Moreover, Geoffrey de Q Walker has noted that when 'law is simply a series of patternless exercises of state power ... the outcome of any encounter with government can no longer be predicted and equality before the law is also lost.'[26]

Thirdly, laws which lack sufficient precision and clarity obfuscate and complicate the role of those public officials charged with their interpretation and execution. For example, this may manifest as an unwillingness on behalf of prosecutors to mobilise indeterminate criminal racial vilification laws where the higher standard of proof required compounds the problem of legislative imprecision.[27] In the long-term, citizens (including public officials) may accord less respect to such laws which can undermine their efficacy, enforceability and ultimately their legitimacy.[28]​

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/s...nonyms=0&query=cth consol_act rda1975202 s18c

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Bolt sunk to a new low even for him today. After abusing the Greens for their logo attached to Whitlam he has unleashed on him depite the fact he is not even in his grave. Bolt has shown he is not even independent enough to be called a columnist.

I have now decided that I will avoid the Herald-Sun altogether, which basically means I have to get my form guide somewhere else and will hurt my access to footy news, be it on-line or ina physical form.

The West Australia Tabform on line goes alright, check it out.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Thanks, but it is no big thing for me.

I was more interested in your statement about judges determining law being bad.

I can see I need to contain what I say within 100 words or it will fall outside your attention span

Indeed it is both inevitable and desirable with racial vilification laws as explained below.[21] It is problematic however when the putative legal standards contained in a law provide little interpretive guidance in most cases to the relevant decision-maker. It is undemocratic because judges and administrators are, in effect, exercising legislative power by determining the substantive content of the laws they are to apply.​

 

[Riseupaustralia]

I can see I need to contain what I say within 100 words or it will fall outside your attention span

Indeed it is both inevitable and desirable with racial vilification laws as explained below.[21] It is problematic however when the putative legal standards contained in a law provide little interpretive guidance in most cases to the relevant decision-maker. It is undemocratic because judges and administrators are, in effect, exercising legislative power by determining the substantive content of the laws they are to apply.​

Yeah, try and keep it under 50 words, as I'm drunk.

Again, I go back to this...

Or is it only bad on this particular instance?

This kind of selective outrage really is petty and vindictive.

What Bolt said, as a commentator, was always going to draw more attention that your average Joe.

This is not some issue threatening the fabric of the laws governing our society as Brandis tried to make out, it is simply people being made accountable for maintaining a semblance of common decency.

Nothing more.

The ongoing debate, petty vindictiveness and nit-picking of the law is just pathetic.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Seriously - you people still read and watch Andrew Bolt? I just don't care what he has to say anymore, and I just don't pay attention. He is an irrelevance to me.

 

[scon]

Through the accident of circumstance I'm able to say in complete truthfulness that I have never seen it.

 

[Power Raid]

I can't believe Bolt is only being called a troll now. his concept is built on generating charged emotion from those with low IQs.

 

[skilts]

Gough the human being, family member and ex PM deserves respect. However his work life is a matter of national history. Bolts contribution to the debate over his political legacy does no more than balance the extremely biased interpretation of that legacy by the ABC. Fact remains he was a very poor PM, leading a dysfunctional government for only 2.5 years. Was correctly sacked by the GG then absolutely thrashed in a general election.

So, you were happy with Kerr granting a dissolution of both houses to Fraser, on the basis of an obstructionist Senate, even though Fraser had never presented a bill to that Senate, much less had it rejected? In fact, Fraser was the cause of that obstructionism.

 

[skilts]

Bolt's entire being is a calculated, money-making affectation. ****!

 

[skilts]

The saddest thing about Bolt is that, like so many journalists who think themselves smarter than they are, he has never forgiven himself for enduring the stupidity and shallowness which come from being unable to finish a simple Arts degree. Had he completed some form of further education, he'd be better equipped to write, and hopefully, better-informed. His type never overcome the indignity of this overwhelming sense of failure. Born of jealousy and angst, it (mis) informs the rest of their lives. Were it not so transparently pathetic, it would indeed be sad.

 

[Power Raid]

The saddest thing about Bolt is that, like so many journalists who think themselves smarter than they are, he has never forgiven himself for enduring the stupidity and shallowness which comes from being unable to finish a simple Arts degree. Had he completed some form of further education, he'd be better equipped to write, and hopefully, better-informed. His type never overcome the indignity of this overwhelming sense of failure. Born of jealousy and angst, it (mis) informs the rest of their lives. Were it not so transparently pathetic, it would indeed be sad.

ouch

time for suicide watch if he reads that

 

[Slax]

Gough the human being, family member and ex PM deserves respect. However his work life is a matter of national history. Bolts contribution to the debate over his political legacy does no more than balance the extremely biased interpretation of that legacy by the ABC. Fact remains he was a very poor PM, leading a dysfunctional government for only 2.5 years. Was correctly sacked by the GG then absolutely thrashed in a general election.

Whilst legally Kerr had the power, the way he went about it was extremely questionable, appearing to act solely on leanings of Fraser and not the government. He was also ordered to Buckingham palace to explain his actions to the Queen who was furious that she was not consulted over such a matter, as the GG is acting in her name. Kerr's politics were further questioned when Fraser attempted to appoint him as teh ambassador to UNESCO (a post he didn't take due to public outrage).

Kerr had other options available to him before chosing to go down that path, he should of taken the path taken by Sir Phillip Game when as governor of NSW he warned Jack Lang he'd sack him if he didn't change certain regulations, Lang didn't and Game sacked him. Kerr never put that to Whitlam, if he had history would of looked on Sir John Kerr in a much better light and he would of found he would of been able to live the remainder of his life in a far more easily than being sent to an early grave.

Would Whitlam of survived an election in 1976 if he had agreed to call one as Fraser requested? I doubt it, but history still tells us that Whitlam did more good for this country in his short time in power than Howard did in his decade.

 

[Maggie5]

Whilst legally Kerr had the power, the way he went about it was extremely questionable, appearing to act solely on leanings of Fraser and not the government. He was also ordered to Buckingham palace to explain his actions to the Queen who was furious that she was not consulted over such a matter, as the GG is acting in her name. Kerr's politics were further questioned when Fraser attempted to appoint him as teh ambassador to UNESCO (a post he didn't take due to public outrage).

Kerr had other options available to him before chosing to go down that path, he should of taken the path taken by Sir Phillip Game when as governor of NSW he warned Jack Lang he'd sack him if he didn't change certain regulations, Lang didn't and Game sacked him. Kerr never put that to Whitlam, if he had history would of looked on Sir John Kerr in a much better light and he would of found he would of been able to live the remainder of his life in a far more easily than being sent to an early grave.

Would Whitlam of survived an election in 1976 if he had agreed to call one as Fraser requested? I doubt it, but history still tells us that Whitlam did more good for this country in his short time in power than Howard did in his decade.

Apparently Jenny Hocking has written a new book on Whitlam and implies that Kerr was also consulting and receiving advice from senior judges.
Gough Whitlam: His Time
"Who was ‘the third man' who counselled the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, in his decision to sack the twice-elected Whitlam government and appoint Malcolm Fraser as prime minister? How much did the Palace know about what was happening? And what drove the Kerr to take the unprecedented action of removing an elected government from office?"
She was to appear on Q&A on Monday night but was sick

 

[Gough]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Garfield Barwick was providing some advice.

 

[Xsess]

Whilst legally Kerr had the power, the way he went about it was extremely questionable, appearing to act solely on leanings of Fraser and not the government. .

Kerr correctly dissolved the Parliament because the operation of government was at a standstill. This put the decision back to the people to either condone or condemn Whitlam's performance and re-establish a functioning government. The Whitlam Government was thrashed by the electorate, and a new Coalition government was instilled in a landslide. That's democracy.

 

[Slax]

Kerr correctly dissolved the Parliament because the operation of government was at a standstill. This put the decision back to the people to either condone or condemn Whitlam's performance and re-establish a functioning government. The Whitlam Government was thrashed by the electorate, and a new Coalition government was instilled in a landslide. That's democracy.

You'd just expect the GG to act like a man and confront the government before doing it instead of holding meetings behind everyone's back (including the Queen) like a coward.

 

[Xsess]

history still tells us that Whitlam did more good for this country in his short time in power than Howard did in his decade.

Whitlam set the high bar for incompetent government, only challenged by Gillard then Rudd.
Sure he did some good things, all PMs do even Fraser. But let's not kid ourselves, after 3 years in office the economy was a disaster.

 

[pazza]

Whitlam set the high bar for incompetent government, only challenged by Gillard then Rudd.
Sure he did some good things, all PMs do even Fraser. But let's not kid ourselves, after 3 years in office the economy was a disaster.

Menzies was a poor economic manager too.

In 1952, Menzies recorded substantial inflation. As noted by Whitlam in a speech in 1997.