Andrew Bolt has written about the utterly horrendous case of a man who was found guilty of raping a four-year-old girl, highlighting the man’s two-year suspended sentence and wondering how such a heinous crime can attract a sentence that seems so lenient.
I’ve tried – but failed – to imagine the circumstances in which a man who breaks into a house and rapes a four-year-old could escape jail… The judgment had better be convincing.
And fair enough too. But as always there’s probably lots and lots of relevant details about the case that aren’t reported for various reasons, and all commentators should be keep that fact in mind, just like Bolt did in his post. However, a comment published on the post seems to make assumptions about these unknown details and further assumptions about how these initial assumptions might’ve affected sentencing:
I emailed Andrew Bolt regarding this comment, asking him:
Are you comfortable with your site’s publication of the implication that the offender is of non-Anglo origin, and that he received a sentence that is viewed by many as lenient because of this background? Do you think in hindsight that the comment should’ve been moderated?
Andrew’s reply:
A question was asked. I do not deny the person’s right to ask it, even if I may not endorse it.
Was the commenter’s question also an implication, or was it no more than a question? Does publication of a comment constitute endorsement by the publisher, or is it no more than the commenter’s opinion? You decide.
72 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
And “here, here” to you Flashboy. Well said.
Alister, is it online somewhere? I’m not a lawyer but it would seem helpful if we could find it, or if an enterprising journo could write it up. As Ziegler says, day jobs and all that.
Shab: agree entirely. What I left unsaid, because I felt it was evident, was that there is, on the face of it, cause for concern, and I think it’s entirely reasonable for the AG and others to have a “WTF?” reaction; my own initial reaction was much the same.
However I doubt that the judge has erred so badly that the decision is not entirely defensible and correct at law. That’s a different matter from “would you or I, with the same training and experience base, have made exactly the same decision”; that fails the test for whether a decision is overturnable. That’s why I say that judges do get it right 99.9% of the time – defining “right” as “within the law, reasonable, and defensible”. There’s a lot of room within that for different decisions that are still correct decisions. Naturally judges apply a wide range of discretion, depending upon the applicable law and circumstances of the case, and maybe (but hopefully not) whether they got a blowjob last night. My point was around what the presumption about the decision should be – it should not be that the judge is so far removed from community expectations that they regard a four-year-old child being sexually assaulted as permissable, which is what the undercurrent of sentiment seems to be in some quarters. I’d sum up my position as “expecting that it’s probably okay, knowing the full set of facts, but I’d like to know what those facts are”.
I wouldn’t be particularly surprised if this story dies a quiet death once the AG and other powers-that-be get a full briefing and quietly back away from any further public statement.
Please note that, as always, I lay no claim to infallibility; I’ll just watch to see what transpires.
Just hypothetically – if it turns out that both the offender and victim are Aboriginal would this make the question valid?
The commenter has clearly made an assumption about how our courts operate – if evidence shows this assumption to be broadly correct then surely it is legitimate commentary – even if it is based on racial stereotyping?
“Was the commenter’s question also an implication, or was it no more than a question? Does publication of a comment constitute endorsement by the publisher, or is it no more than the commenter’s opinion? You decide.”
The comment by Ant of Melbourne clearly implies that those of Aboriginal or ethnic descent receive favourable treatment by the courts. The reason being that the legal system is dominated by ‘the Left’, whose interests are somehow advanced by such outcomes.
The mere publication of such a comment does not necessarily imply that the publisher, in this case Bolt, agrees with this analysis. Bolt states that “A question was asked” — which is the right of commenters — and that he “may not endorse it”. Obviously, the obverse is also possible. That is, Bolt may, in fact, endorse this view. But what exactly is Bolt endorsing? The right to ask questions? This ‘right’ is redundant; it’s the function of commenters to ‘ask questions’. The more serious question is: does Bolt endorse the view that the legal system is dominated by ‘the Left’, and it is for this reason that sentencing is less harsh in the case of Aboriginal or ‘ethnic’ offenders? Bolt does not answer this question.
In general, I think the responsibility of publishers is to state their position. The ‘right’ to ask questions can obviously be abused. That is, it’s perfectly possible to pose quite outlandish opinions in the form of a question: for example, ‘is person X a pedophile’? In such circumstances, it would seem incumbent upon the publisher to clearly answer this question (that is, assuming it is published in the first place). To do otherwise is to risk being subject to misinterpretation.
Finally, I think that publishers also bear some responsibility for the general tone of a publication. That is, the reiteration of certain questions and comments can create a particular atmosphere, which can appear to reinforce certain opinions and views. This can be deliberate, or ‘accidental’. One of the criticisms which I believe has been directed at blogs maintained by Bolt and Blair is that they perform precisely this function. That is, they allow for — in fact, encourage — the expression of views which are cruder but, nonetheless, perhaps more honest than the authors themselves are prepared to explicitly endorse.
I personally think that Andrew’s response was smug and not as critical of the “question” as I’d hope a decent human being would be.
Also let me take the time to welcome myself onto this blog.
How long are you boys going to keep up with this moderation thing? It must be rather taxing.
As long as we have to, notallright. It’s unfortunate but necessary.
Just out of curiosity, Scott, do you have any numbers on how many attempted comments haven’t made the cut?
It’d be single figures, I reckon. Mostly just little edits here and there.
Re-reading this post I found this question at the foot stuck in my silly empty noggin.
Does publication of a comment constitute endorsement by the publisher, or is it no more than the commenter’s opinion?
Ah, now I get it.
@ndy’s post above suggests that somehow Bolt is encouraging debate. My experience of the selective nature of the Bolt blog’s moderation suggests that “debate” is too kind a term for what amounts to a carefully-sculpted affirmation of Andrew Bolt’s views. It is all well and good to wrap oneself in the flag of freedom of speech; but the reason Pure Poison came into existence (I presume) was to highlight examples of cant and intellectual dishonesty dressed up as “debate”. Take the Alcopops issue: Bolt was quick to promote the Access Economics report that supported his views, but has been reticent about the Curtin report that contradicted them, to the point that I ( and I am sure many others) have had submissions to his blog ignored.
I don’t think it’s supportable to suggest that Bolt’s modus operandi is designed to allow freedom of speech in the way you do: it is designed to give Andrew Bolt a platform to air his views, and to selectively publish commentary that suggests majority support for his views. I have given examples in this blog of posts of mine that have been “snipped for trolling”: they are as innocuous as the verse on a greeting card.
Bolt is enaged in propagandising the news to pander to an audience, while assuming the mantle of All That is Good and Honest. This is fine intellectual dishonesty….or why would Pure Poison need to exist at all?
Now, I’ve reread that, and I don’t think anything needs to be edited out…. I’ve played the ball and not the man, I hope.
“Ah, now I get it.”
I’m also wondering if its mere coincidence that in today’s crikey email no less than 3 pieces targetted the issue of blog comments. one spotlighted comments at bolt’s blog, and the others in relation to comments left at crikey.
if the alleged accusations levelled at this blog and its comments are to be, oh I don’t know, say a benchmark of some sort, shouldn’t that same benchmark apply equally to other MSM blogs?
just a thought.
Um…
monkeywrench. I didn’t mean to suggest that Bolt encourages debate; “a carefully-sculpted affirmation of Andrew Bolt’s views” is probably a more accurate description of his online peanut gallery (in which the ‘performers’ are the strawmen he regularly erects).
Generally speaking, his blogposts are quite short, and he rarely advances a substantial argument. Instead, he quotes from other sources, and throws in a few comments of his own. This could serve as a jumping-off point, but Bolt rarely, if ever, proceeds to outline his views in more detail in the commentary. In large part, I think this is because the function of his blog is as you observe it to be.
Beyond this, I agree with Crikey commentator Robert Mullins (February 26, 2009): “people don’t read Andrew Bolt for his searing intellectual insight. They read him to be entertained, to have prejudices confirmed…”; unlike Robert, I rarely find Bolt’s views to be challenging, other than in the sense that I often wonder if he takes his views seriously.
Re the post in question, Bolt is questioning the apparent leniency of the sentence. He has a point. However, Bolt notes that “It is very dangerous to criticise judges or magistrates in this state, especially given that fellow judges may then sit in judgment over you. So don’t write what we must snip.”
Which is kinda amusing; which is to say, “entertaining”.
Regarding the actual popularity of his views… I think it’s wrong to under-estimate his support. That is, I think a reasonably large number of Herald Sun readers agree with him on most, if not all, of the positions he adopts, and he in fact serves as their media champion, bravely accepting large and regular payments to air his views in print, on radio, and on television.
On one reading, he articulates the views of a largely male, (lower) middle class, ‘conservative’ (read: reactionary) audience, which is angry at what they believe to be their marginalisation by the political and social forces which regularly constitute the targets of his ire: ecologists (misanthropes), feminists (misandrists), trade unionists (socialists), and various others who together constitute his, at times, rather comical interpretation of the contemporary ‘Left’.
Finally, I think Bolt and other members of the middle class commentariat function as a media filter (flak), the purpose of which is not so much to enter into a detailed defence of ‘capitalism’ or ‘human liberty’ (read: power and privilege) as it is to help frame the terms of debate and public discourse on matters of political importance. See: ‘The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective’, Edward S. Herman, Against All Reason, December 9, 2003. I’d provide a link but I presume they’ve been disabled…
First of all, on the basis of what I have read about this case, my mind boggles
at how the perpetrator could be given such a lenient sentence.
From what I understand though , the primary reason the hosts of this blog have encouraged others to provide example of posts of a poisonous nature that have been allowed to be posted on Bolt’s site, is too highlight the double standards that obviously occur with the moderation at his site, given that posts of a relatively mild nature that criticise Bolt’s positions, are regularly censored.
Allowing the comment above is further proof of that to me, given that in at least my
opinion, the comment is an obviously racist insinuation. My belief is that the comment from “Ant of Melbourne” does echo many of the insinuations that Bolt makes at times on his blog, hence the comment is allowed to stay. To me it also lends further weight to the possibility that the racist comments that supposedly have been recently attempted to post on his blog, don’t come from any “left wing” rabble rowser critic of Bolt’s, but rather from those that might actually support him.
Don’t know if anyone else said something about this, but Andrew has deleted some precarious comments about the judiciary in regards to this case, and good on him too.
Odd sensation just went up my spine.
@andy summed it up beautifully: “…they allow for — in fact, encourage — the expression of views which are cruder but, nonetheless, perhaps more honest than the authors themselves are prepared to explicitly endorse”. Precisely. It is this, more than the views expressed, that forces me to adopt an anti-Bolt position. The moderaters (which presumably include Bolt himself) allow views to be expressed that they are not brave enough to express themselves, and defend it as “free speech” and “just asking a question”. Free speech would more correctly be Bolt or a commenter openly stating their position and defending it as they see fit. The “just asking a question” defence is disingenous, to say the least; it isn’t simply that, it’s snidely implying something that can’t be taken head-on as the commenter, and Bolt, won’t actually stand behind their position. It’s like trying to argue with quicksilver. “I didn’t say that, that would be rascist.” “I may or may not endorse that comment, they have a right to ask a question”. Under those rules of engagement, Mr Bolt is fair game for something like this: “Are you a dog-f*cker and pedophile? Hey, don’t react like that, I’m just asking the question.”
Take a position, whatever it may be, and defend it; failing to do that shows only that there is no actual debate sought, the only goal is to insinuate a despicable viewpoint and that can be plausibly denied when the heat is on. I stand firmly behind anyone’s right to say what they wish (within the bounds of the law), as distasteful as I may find their views… as long as they would come out and actually say it. The “only asking a question” gambit is the refuge of the coward. The only grudging respect I could afford to Pauline Hanson was that she was clear about her position and defended it. I can stomach that much more easily than the environment of rascism, prejudice and superficial knee-jerk attitudes these blogs encourage through policies such as this.
Just hypothetically – if it turns out that both the offender and victim are Aboriginal would this make the question valid?
The commenter has clearly made an assumption about how our courts operate – if evidence shows this assumption to be broadly correct then surely it is legitimate commentary – even if it is based on racial stereotyping?
There is nothing wrong with asking the question, especially given the problems in 2007 with child & female abuse epidemic that was occurring in the aboriginal settlements. The criticisms back then were directed towards lenient sentencing of judges towards offenders and the possibility that tribal law was being taken into account.
As mondo has said, the commenter is making an assumption about our court systems and how they operate in regards to sexual & physical abuse in aboriginal settlements. A problem that totally outraged the public back in 2007 and a problem that the Rudd government has failed to address.
Yes, there have been cases where Aboriginal perpetrators appear to have caused the judge to call on the ‘mitigating’ factor. However, I don’t really get the opinion that ‘ Ant’ was implying this. Rather, I felt the writer was almost posing a Dorothy Dixer to Andrew Bolt based on the hypothesis the perpetrator was of North African origin.
If I am wrong I apologize.
#2. Meaning people appear to be very keen to ascribe evil to people from North African countries.
Richard Ackland has a summary of the facts behind the sentencing decision in today’s SMH (warning: the offence is described in some graphic detail). In short, it turns out the offender was of Aboriginal origin, but cultural background does not appear to have been a factor in arriving at the sentence.
Does turning out to be right make the original question (and its apparent implication) any more appropriate? I would argue it doesn’t – the sentence was based on other factors, and the coincidence of cultural background in this case does not validate the assumption in that original question.
I’d also note that the justice system has procedures in place for reviewing sentences – as demonstrated by this recent appeal. In other words, the system itself recognises that individual decisions can be incorrect and has ways of addressing those issues.
Does turning out to be right make the original question (and its apparent implication) any more appropriate? I would argue it doesn’t – the sentence was based on other factors, and the coincidence of cultural background in this case does not validate the assumption in that original question.
When you take into account the reasons for the intervention in 2007 regarding sexual and physical abuse of children and women in aboriginal settlements then the question is valid. One of the major criticisms of the time was that offenders were getting lenient sentencing.
By saying the question is not appropriate then all you are doing is attempting to stamp out debate on what is a very serious issue. In effect you are also polluting the debate with political correctness gone mad.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All