- Andrew Bolt agrees with a retired lawyer in a newspaper article that current Australian of the Year, Mick Dodson, should not be Australian of the Year because he was once called “dishonest” by a Supreme Court judge.
- One of Andrew’s commenters leaves this comment:
But Andrew, the Court of Appeal has also branded you “at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless”. Do you hereby withdraw yourself from consideration for all future Australian-of-the-Years? — Rob
- Andrew Bolt hits back:
The court was wrong, and I note you fail to show in what way I was dishonest – a charge I utterly reject. I’d say more, but that case proved to me that there are grave risks in criticising a member of the judicial fraternity. Now, back to this matter…
UPDATE: More info on Bolt vs. Teh Law in comments.
(Thanks to Bolt reader Rob, and Pure Poison reader MR)
11 Comments
So the judge was wrong but Andrew has leant the lesson that he shouldn’t criticise a judge … wait … didn’t he just do that … again!! Classic.
Says it all really, Bolt is a (no, JG) hypocrite!
“I note you fail to show in what way I was dishonest – a charge I utterly reject.”
LOL. Of course he does.
When cross examined as to whether his alteration of an official court transcript without seeking clarification was an example of “selective quoting changing the meaning of what was said” he replied “Absolutely not…I think it was the right thing to do…” at par 285:-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2003/161.html
Even the court reporter was wrong.
It’s denial, plain and simple, and there is just no arguing with that…
Apologies, the correct paragraph reference in the judgement is 227…
Bolt always attacks the person. He rarely debates the issues or if he does then he uses the big-lie technique such as asserting that no one can name 10 people who are stolen generation. He even attacks Dodson because he has Irish ancestry. Supposed that condemns Pat as well. The Mick and Pat show. Have to be an Irish joke. No, Andrew is the joke.
I wonder what he’s doing to heed Mick’s message about education as a national goal.
MR
I think the final sentence of paragraph 227 is even worse for Bolt:
“No reasonable jury could have accepted his oral evidence.”
So not only did the Court find that his conduct in misinterpreting the court transcript in the article was somewhere between careless and dishonest, it also held that his testimony in the hearing at first instance (ie under oath) was also dubious (the same charge he makes against Dodson).
Agreed Dave55.
I was trying to point out (in a typically clumsy fashion) the nature of his response when confronted with otherwise compelling facts or arguments. It’s denial.
In this instance, the answer to the charge of hypocrisy is very simple – I’m not a hypocrite because I reject (deny) that I was dishonest. End of story.
Of course, there are consequences with this approach. As Rob pointed out in a later comment to the original post, Mick Dodson might simply say the court was wrong too. Quid pro quo…
MR
Absolutely!
MR, Bolt practices the same type of arrogant denialism that our former prime minister did whenever he said, “I reject that.”
Bolt is just like a little kid who when his parents discuss with him the fact that he is repeatedly accused by others of lying and dishonesty, throws a tantrum and yells out that “its just because everybody is just against me”. “They just misrepresented me because they are biased and of the left”.
I tend to think with Andy that objectivity is of “the left”.
Hmmm, so Andrew rejects the rule of law? Or at least believes himself to be a special case worthy of exemption.
Authoritarian personality much?
I wonder if he’s ever attacked millitants from either the Left unions or the Green movement for making similar verbal attacks on the judiciary? This could be something to keep tabs on…