Andrew Dodd at The Drum – “The Bolt decision will have implications for us all”
In essence this case was lost on this point – the belief by the judge that ‘people should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying’.
@Robcorr retorts via twitter:
Nonsense. The case was lost because Andrew Bolt imputed that some people are too fair-skinned to be genuine Aboriginal people, that those people choose to falsely identify as Aboriginal for personal gain, and that fair-skinned Aboriginal people were likely to be “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated”.Unfortunately, it seems that Dodd hasn’t bothered reading the full judgment before condemning it
The full text of the judgement can be read here.
21 Comments
Perhaps, Mr Bolt should’ve just stuck to pointing out the inherently racist nature of awards and competitions for which entry to is based upon racial profile, and ignored the generous definition of said profile?
Actually, the case was lost because AB’s defence team failed to predict that the Judge would find against them in relation to the claims made under 18C, and thus failed to present a relevant argument in relation to the exemption in 18D.
From the text of the judgement:
One of the difficulties with the s 18D case advanced by Mr Bolt and HWT is that they put their submissions in the absence of any recognition that the Court may find s 18C to have been satisfied by reference to one or more of the imputations upon which Ms Eatock relied. Somewhat like what might be done in a defence to a defamation case, Mr Bolt and HWT identified a comment or imputations said to be conveyed by the Articles. They then sought to justify that imputation by reference to s 18D. In doing that, they ran the same risk that a respondent runs in a defamation case, that the alternative imputations relied upon and sought to be justified will either not be accepted as having been conveyed by the publication or, alternatively, be regarded as separate and distinct from the defamatory imputations upon which the applicant relies.
Having taken that course, Mr Bolt and HWT made no specific submissions as to why, if the Court was to make a finding of s 18C conduct on the basis of the imputations upon which Ms Eatock relied (or similar imputations), that conduct ought nevertheless be excused pursuant to s 18D.
Getting a “Page Not Found” for The Drum link.
Yes, because those who are statistically disadvantaged in all facets of life, simply from belonging to a particular ethnic group, must remain that way in perpetuity. So Sayeth The Right.
Thanks Coldsnacks -fixed now.
ColdSnacks:
If we wish to have awards, competitions government programs etc for the disadvantaged, all fine and good: but being disadvantaged is measured by one’s financial means, not by one’s racial profile.
Looking at a few of the winners and attendees at the racially discriminatory Deadlys the other night, and no one looked particularly disadvantaged there. Indeed the vast bulk of recipients of these awards and programs are people who aren’t disadvantaged remote-camp dwellers, but sophisticated city-dwellers trading on a tiny component of their racial make-up.
I’m all for helping the disadvantaged, but let’s not do it via the filter of race.
What a phenomenally ignorant and idiotic statement.
At least you put it there…you own it
….implying, of course, that Aboriginal people aren’t allowed to scrub up for a TV appearance if they are from the Town Camps. Jesus, you’re a sub-rock dweller.
Whoa, now kiddies. Calm rebuttal will suffice, name calling only undermines your argument.
Aliar Jones:
I see you, unlike Monkeywrench, actually have no argument, only name calling, so I guess there is nothing to engage with. Keep at it.
monkeyWrench
I see your point, but I would hazard that the bulk of recipients are not town-camp dwellers; rather urban-dwellers who are no more disadvantaged than other citizen of any other race in a comparable socio-economic group. Thus, my argument that disadvantage should not be determined by race.
Huge HUGE assumptions on your part, Howard,B.,and of course, you seem rather ignorant of what the Deadly’s are about:
The Deadlys are an awards night for those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have made a special contribution to their- and our- culture. For you to complain about this as “racially discriminatory” betrays a typical and poisonous antipathy to the presence of any culture other than your own. You are a racist, Howard, which is why you are here supporting Bolt. “Disadvantage” has nothing to do with the Deadlys: it’s about honouring people who give pride to their own. You wouldn’t qualify even if they’d let you: there’s nothing to be proud of where you’re concerned.
He called you a racist…you’re obviously far more comfortable with that than being called an ignorant idiot…although in my books it’s an equivalent.
How’s that for an argument Einstein?
MonkeyWrench:
Whichever way you try and spin it, The Deadlys are an awards night in which only people who fit a certain racial profile will be eligible for an award: this meets the technical definition of racial discrimination. Pointing out such a fact is not racist, but I understand if you feel this discrimination is in some way justified for whatever reasons. However, it is rather laughable of you to try and paint me as a racist for pointing out racial discrimination. It does not betray “a poisonous antipathy” towards any other culture as you melodramatically claim, it is simply a statement of observable fact, and sadly it has caused you to embarass yourself with unfounded, foam-specked, slander in abscence of rational rebuttal.
If I was arguing for the exclusion from elgibility on the grounds of race, like The Deadlys do, then you could quite rightly say I am racist who dislikes the prescence of other cultures. But I’m not. I’m doing the opposite.
I am all for awards for acheivement and programs for the disadvantaged, but if eligibilty for such awards and programs are decided by race, then that is racial discrimination and I don’t mind saying so because it is patently obvious. You can argue that such discrimination is warranted for some reason, but you cannot try and paint that pointing it out is racism without diminishing what racism truly is.
Aliar Jones
You know, I was unsure at first. You certainly have the vitriol and bile, that unique combination of lack of substantial rebuttal but excess of childish insults, but could you really be Quantize?
But then you gave yourself away with the overuse of the ellipsis. I’d recognize that non-structured format coupled with that mindless venom anywhere: hello Quantize. Did PP finally get tired of you polluting their blog with your foul rantings or did you change names so you could start abusing people all over again without being dismissed as the same old ranter?
Interesting comment Howard, B.
You sound like you’ve been reading here a long time…is this your first screen name here?
‘Tis I, your old mate Bis. I went to resign up but found they no longer accept screen names less than a certain length. What’s your excuse?
Howard, Bis, whatever – this is the third thread that you have decided to pollute with your racist justifications. Instead of re-signing, why don’t you just resign.
Howard B, no abuse here but a simple point. Given the fact that Indigenous people in general rank so poorly on every single measure of health and happiness, the quickest way to identify the most disadvantaged people is to look at race. When designing programs to help the disadvantaged, a lot of time and effort goes into identifying e indicators of disadvantage; you can save all of that just by looking at whether or not they are Indigenous. It’s not foolproof (there are of course many Indigenous people doing quite well), but targetting programs is not free – why not take a cheaper short cut if you can.
The other issue that I have is the extent to which ‘white’ Australian (sorry, probably the wrong term here) identity is being crafted around a sense of exclusion ie. people are identifying the various groups they are excluded from, and build their identity around fighting exclusion. The reality is we are all excluded from something – I’ve never been a sportsman, so I’m excluded from all sporting presentations. I’m no swimmer, so I’m excluded from water-based fun. Can’t dance, so the disco is a total exclusion zone. But I don’t get upset if people who have a natural advantage in these areas getting recognised.
Silkworm
This is the second time you’ve engaged in unfounded slander, without even attempting to justify it. I’m happy to hear why it is you think my posts are in any way racists, insteading of replying with “whatever”, like a petualant teenager.
So if you have a point, make it, but if you just wish to cry ‘racist’ without reason and embarrassing yourself, carry on.
FatCat
Thankyou for your considered reply FatCat. Other ranters here take note, this is how you respond without embarrassing yourselves.
why not take a cheaper short cut if you can?
I see your point, but I would say you can still identify disadvantage without having to resort to patronizing discrimination. I would argue that all disrimination is likely to have after-effects long after the disadvantage it was meant to address is gone.
The other issue that I have is the extent to which ‘white’ Australian (sorry, probably the wrong term here) identity is being crafted around a sense of exclusion
This is nonsense. There are no awards or programs in this country that exclude people who are not ‘white’. Many different races and cultures have come here, thrived and become part of ‘white’ Australia.This would not have happened if there existed this sense of exclusion as you claim.
I’ve never been a sportsman, so I’m excluded from all sporting presentations
There is a difference to excluding people from an award based upon what the award is for, sport, music etc and a secondary condition that has nothing to do with what the award is for: what has race got to do with sport?
You know I’ve always thought the aged really have some cheek in identifying themselves as a group worthy of any special treatment…thanks Bis for sorting us all out.
Howard, when you offer some analysis of Indigenous issues that is based on something more substantial than “I watched the Deadlys on TV”, perhaps others here may take your arguments seriously. No one here is obliged to educate you, nor does ignorance automatically deserve a polite response.
I suggest you examine your comment at #5 on this thread and work out why that might be breathtakingly ill-founded, without blaming other people.
Know thyself!
Ruprecht
It must unsatisying having to rebut an argument you disagree with without a leg to stand on. If you have a point to make besides, ‘you’re ignorant’, then make it. If you don’t, save yourself the embarrassment of revealing yourself as disagreeing with something on grounds you can’t actually articulate.