Andrew Bolt

Sep 29, 2011

Does this look like being “silenced”?

Is this the most spectacular own-goal in troll

Pure Poison IconIs this the most spectacular own-goal in trollumnist history?

In a column arrogantly titled “Silencing me impedes unity”, published on the front page of the Herald Sun (and with further pages of comment inside, Andrew clearly demonstrates how yesterday’s Federal Court judgment did no such thing. He writes hundreds of words about race, making the same points he claimed he intended to make in his column. He writes them from a position where, far from being “silenced”, you could hardly walk past a newsagent without being made fully aware of them.

The only thing Andrew Bolt appears to no longer be comfortable putting are the critical errors from the original pieces, the damaging errors that hurt the particular ordinary people about whom they were made – but that’s alright, because he dismisses them by saying “none seem to me to be of consequence”. So, according to Andrew’s own words, nothing of consequence has been lost.

The lie in the claim that Bolt’s “free speech” has been crushed is out there for all to see. In fact, today, it’s kind of hard to avoid.

ELSEWHERE: And while we’re at it, we were a little surprised by this paragraph of Bolt’s:

Believe me, I wouldn’t ever want to test that assurance after going through what I have — two years of worry, two weeks in court, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs, just to test whether my columns could pass this muster.

“Going through what I have… hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs”. Is Andrew Bolt claiming that he has personally paid “hundreds of thousands of dollars” of his own legal costs in this case? Not his employer’s notoriously deep pockets for litigation?

(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)


191 thoughts on “Does this look like being “silenced”?

  1. A mystifying contradiction | Pure Poison

    […] Bolt in the Herald Sun last week: Believe me, I wouldn’t ever want to test that assurance after going through what I have — two […]

  2. Howard,B.


    Incorrect. I said no award should restrict eligibility on the grounds of race. Comprehension fail.

    Aliar Jones

    I’ve never cast this as ‘left’ vs ‘right’ previously and you’re the only one out the two of us who has played the ‘racist’ card here in this debate. If you wish to talk of idiocies and assimilation, you can start with the idiocy of failing to ensure the assimiliation of people into the modern economy which has resulted in a chunk of the Australian population living in dysfunctional third-world conditions. If there was ever a failure of a ‘left-wing’ policy, the twin social disasters of ‘separatism’ and ‘self-determination’ are there for all to see.
    To define race as even a factor in disadvantage is to paint people as charity cases by the colour of their skin and reinforce the patronizing idea that a person’s race is the root of their problems.

  3. silkworm

    The Southbank Crank said that pale-skinned aboriginals do not deserve aboriginal awards – these should be reserved only for dark-skinned aboriginals – while Howard the Bis said that no awards should be reserved for any aboriginals at all. Thus, Howard the Bis is even more EDIT than the Southbank Crank.

  4. Aliar Jones

    [Race is not an infallible measure for measuring disadvantage, only economic circumstances can provide that. Thus your comparisons are false. ]

    Nobody stated it was, but to ignore it as a factor is also stupid.

    Your whole whine is predicated on a desperate attempt to make the left seem racist because they’re not so idiotic to ignore the cultural consequences of assimilation as you are.

  5. Brett Coster

    Caught a very few seconds of the Bolt Report at around 10 am yesterday while changing channnels looking for AFL programs talking about my Mighty Cats’ demolition of Collingwood. (It was a very satisfying weekend.) Maybe daylight saving has stuffed up some schedules?

  6. dexitroboper

    I wouldn’t trust the Lying Dutchman – he outed the author of the Anonymous Lefty blog {EDIT: Well, he wasn’t the first.} and News Limited’s James Massola outed Grog’s Gamut. If you annoy them enough you will be attacked directly.

  7. Tomus Barava

    silkworm @ 180

    That’s interesting, I suspect it got a run in some areas as this SMH story references an interview with George Brandis on the bill of rights from the show.

  8. Bellistner

    Huh. That’s weird. TGM aired in Brisbane in both timeslots (starring the utterly irreedemable Senator Brandis).

  9. Bellistner

    More like the Network Ten Lawyers silenced him.

  10. Howard,B.


    We have indeed strayed somewhat, but I’m sure Dave and Jeremy are not new to the spectatcle of two opposing windbags not wanting to grant the other the final word. However, I am pleased to note you’ve dispensed with the name calling, emotive hyperbole and general spiteful tone of posts previous. Thankyou.

    Message sticks and other forms of symbolic communication, whilst interesting in themselves, are not ‘written language’ as you claim. They can only communicate a predifined and limited set of messages, whilst language is defined by being able to construct an infinite amount of unique messages. These methods would lack the nuance to tell a children’s story let alone record your ‘formal declaration of conflict’.

    Any 1st year legal textbook will tell you that ‘law’ is but a set of predifined rules within a society, and nothing more. Was there any law in 18th century British Law binding the British regarding ‘proper legal transmission’? Serious question. Is it practical to expect such a transmission to occur in the first place, between a conquerer with a sophisticated legal and political system and a series of disparate stone-age tribes without the means to record and understand it in the first place, let alone the comparable legal and political structures?
    Speaking of which, who would we sign a treaty with today? Who represents ‘Aboriginal Australia’? With what political authority?

    I see you are edging toward a realization regarding the folly of dividing the country by race, by acknowleding a person can be of more than one race. Let’s use that fact to go the last step:
    Premise 1 – People can be of more than one race.
    Premise 2 – People of race A are ‘thieves’.
    Premise 3 – People of race B are victims of ‘thieves’.
    Conclusion – People of race A and race B are both ‘thieves’ and victims of ‘thieves’: statement is a paradox.
    This paradox also undermines your idea of a treaty: if people of race A must sign a treaty with people of race B, which side are the people of both race A and race B?
    The folly of dividing the country racially, Jules, laid out bare.

    You are incorrect to state I ‘refuse to acknowledge the past’. Indeed, the colonization of this country was a bloody business, but all things must be judged and understood by the standards and context of the time in which they occured. The colonial epoch was a time when violence was a common and accepted means to achieve one’s desired ends. I daresay some pre-settlement tribal practices and inter-tribal warfare would breach the standards of today too, Jules, but it would be absurd to apply today’s standards thereto, would it not?

    I maintain that the nine plaintiffs, who are certainly not ‘second class citizens’ or ‘pariahs in their own land’, demostrate that intergration and assimilation is a proven success, and the pitiful plight of those stuck out in the economic black-holes of remote camps demonstrate that the ideologies of separatism and self-determination, have proved to be the greatest public policy disaster in Australian history.

    I highly doubt your claims regarding hunter-gatherer lifestyles. With this kind of spare time I’d expect Aborigines would have mastered nuclear-fusion by the time Captain Cook was in short pants.

    I never mentioned ‘wages and conditions’, merely highlighted the increasingly competitive nature of a globalised world, and the individual’s need to compete in it, or else rest all their hopes on the off-chance of being saved by Jule’s Collectivist Utopia.

    There was a game on Saturday?

  11. silkworm

    I’ve just looked at the TV guide on the net for this morning and it says that the Bole Repore was scheduled for 10am, the usual time. Did anyone catch it? Did his trial get a mention?

  12. silkworm

    The Bole Repore was advertised for 12pm today, but was a no-show. As for the 4pm show, there was none. I told you Bole was finished. Looks like we have successfully silenced him!

  13. jules

    MoC, same here wrt names. Mine is on my email and the mods here (and AB for that matter) know it.

    Howard – I suggest you do some study about the indigenous populations in Australia. Here’s some hints, see the books of Big Bill Neidje for a record of “written” or symbolic law, any number of other 1st year undergrad writings for formal and informal declarations of war and further examples of symbolic communication thats “written” or painted or burned into wood, any 1st year legal textbook for a run down on the whys and wherefores of proper legal transmission. Which actually means more to us in whitefella culture cos our legal system is based on consistency and precedent as well as parliamentary democracy. Another hint, research the term “message stick” and the different incarnations those forms of written communication may have.

    Until we address the issues of proper transmission we are thieves. Thats unfortunate but it’ll never go away unless we acknowledge it, and take appropriate steps. IT ain’t that hard tho. Guarantee the benefits of our modern community to our indigenous brothers and sisters, and make them feel fully Australian, ie stop treating them like 2nd class citizens and then everything you are complaining about will fade into the past. Its people like you tho that are stopping that happening. Cos you refuse to acknowledge the past, and think murder and massacre was something to be proud about, or when faced with the reality of it – swept under the carpet.

    I’m Irish and I’m Indian, and I’m Australian. I’m not part any of those things. Maybe its semantics we’re arguing about tho. However, don’t call me part anything. Don’t call any blackfellas I know part anything either. I’ll tell you now they won’t appreciate it.

    While you are at it study some more about the actual energy requirements of various lifestyles including the hunter gatherer one. I’d recommend you do some while you are at it. Naturally it depends on the resources available in particular areas, but I think the figure is 22 hours work per week to provide food and medicinal needs per person balanced out over a community naturally. It takes more than that to grow and supply grain for oneself and the army you’d need to protect your grain.

    Where I live there are at least 50 edible plants of various sorts growing in the area. I can id about 30 of them off the top of my head. I know how wallabies and kangaroos usually move when you chase them, what patterns of movement they follow etc etc. I reckon myself and 3 mates could take a wallaby in a day (8 hrs hard work) without rifles, and it’d feed us for at least 4. Its not enough on its own but you get the picture.

    Of course this has nothing to do with the emotional and physical benefits of not being a pariah in your own land, or having a several thousand year old culture recognised and acknowledged, which was what I believe started this particular digression. Funny how even here you refuse to do that.

    And on “competition” or productivity while competing with China. I presume you think our manufacturing should compete with companies like Foxxcom. By increasing working hours and dropping wages – so long as it ain’t you yeah? All the more reason to nationalise the mines, perhaps create a “national dividend, and make everyone shgareholders in a corporate nation? Following the path you recommend (competing on someone else’s terms against unreasonable odds) – well it isn’t the path successful people take. Chose your own ground to fight on – don’t do it on someone else’s terms. There an old chinese book about that actually.

    This argument is getting so far OT its not funny. I’m happy to continue it tho, but if Jez and Dave are getting bored we can put on hold till our next disagreement devolves into this exact same discussion.

    Finally Howie, hope you enjoyed the game on Saturday. Another great Australian invention, so it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t particularly like it.

  14. Matthew of Canberra

    Uh huh. No kidding. And at least ONE of those droogs has figured out how easy it is to hack the drum voting system:

    Hi Andrew,

    Checked the Drum poll at 12:01 – 55% for a travesty against free speech, 45% against…
    Cynicmonster of Vic. (Reply)
    Sun 02 Oct 11 (12:08am)

    Borneo replied to Cynicmonster
    Sun 02 Oct 11 (11:28am)

    If the left can do it, then so can we. I have been networking on Facebook, for all those that want to keep freedom of speech go to the drum and vote. It was 49% our way when I started. It is now 56% our way. So, there are still good people out there.

    Meanwhile, I noticed recently that AB made approving eyes towards chris christie.

    Well, I think Chris Christie is wanker. And I sincerely expect that, given a quick read of the evidence, that CC would think even worse about … you know, the Great Racial Peace Maker.

    Just a suspicion. I’ve been watching the guy for a while. Both of them.

  15. Jack Sparraaggghhh

    I’ve exchanged emails with AB and some of his people and they seem like decent folks

    I trust him not to get himself into a disgraceful episode of stalking online adversaries because it would be an epicly bad career move. But beyong that, hmm, dunno. He frequently cites approvingly the online punditry of people whose conduct has verged (at best) on that kind of behaviour.

    Back when John Howard refused to say ‘sorry’ to Aboriginal Australia, my wife had a letter published in the papers, including the Herald Sun, in which she excoriated the then-PM. Because it was leading into an election, those papers published her (our) full address.

    The day it was published, we received at least two haranguing phone calls from readers who objected to her expressed opinion. That was the last time she troubled herself to write to the papers, being effectively ‘silenced’ because some of those winged monkeys can’t allow an opinion to stand in any given forum without going to extremes.

    So please, Kym, get lost with this “gutless toe rag” palaver. Anyone who writes to the papers or online using their ‘real’ name would be well advised to get a silent line. And don’t write to the papers at election time.

  16. Matthew of Canberra

    “here as many gutless toe rags who lack the stones to use thier real names here as there are at Bolts play thing “

    Matthew Of Canberra’s as close as I’m willing to go. I can actually do without the grief that might result from the droogs from various sites figuring out how to use the white pages – I trust the moderators (seriously – I’ve exchanged emails with AB and some of his people and they seem like decent folks), but not the winged monkeys who frequent the blogs. The email address linked to this login (and every blog post I’ve ever made, including andy’s place) is actually my full name, complete with a middle initial. No secrets there. That email address actually gives one enough information to pinpoint me on google maps.

    So I’m satisfied with that compromise. I can be held to account for what I say, but without every psychopath in the ACT freaking out my neighbors or egging the wrong house because they never quite got the hang of numbers.

    “what surprises me is that other genuine journos dont call him out on that fact”

    They’re certainly doing it this week. 🙂

  17. Kym Durance

    geeez — there is almost as much pocket pissing here as there is on Bolts place — not to mention the under graduate bullshit arguments — the other sad fact is that there as many gutless toe rags who lack the stones to use thier real names here as there are at Bolts play thing — I dont get it really — toughen up or move on — but then again I am an ageing f*cker and stopped giving a f*ck a while ago — facts are AB uses a classic conservative stratagem and leads by intimation (at least his sycophantic acolytes) – he knows he structures his articles to whip up contempt – what surprises me is that other genuine journos dont call him out on that fact —

  18. Howard,B.

    Formal transmission of law? You still have not answered how aborigines would have recorded your ‘formal declararion of conflict’, let alone how they would have a record of ‘law’ to ‘transmit’ in the first place. There were no written languages prior to settlement, although your claim to the contrary is interesting: care to elaborate?
    Just as one can be part-Chinese, part-English, part-Uzbekistani, one can also be part-Aboriginal, this is self-evident. It does not deny that part of a person’s heritage as you claim, it merely acknowledges the other part.
    This would not normally be a problem, but seeing as you seek to divide the country into ‘thieves’ and victims of ‘thieves’ based on race, you have created a logical paradox for yourself that you have demostrated as being unable to reconcile without ignoring the obvious fact that people can be of many different races.
    Your naive statement regarding life before settlement surprised me in its childishness. A hunter-gatherer lifestyle is patriarchal, brutal and short. It requires one always be hunting or gathering as the energy spent securing food is only marginally less than the energy provided by the food itself. It is only with the advent of agriculture that free-time became abundant.
    I suggest you take of all your clothes off and go spend a few days in the nearest woodland to experience this nirvana you imagine stone-age life to be. I’m confident you’ll come back with a new found appreciation of the ‘modern world’ you seem to think is so deficient.
    Whilst I’m sure we would all like more free time to pursue leisure, the fact is we are adults who must compete in ever inceasingly competive world. I suggest you take to trip to China to discover why your juvenile notions of ‘taking it easy’ are just that: silly naivity.

  19. jules

    Yes there does, to allow a formal transmission of law. Its what the Mabo case was all about. Your question is irrelevent. There is no such thing as “part indigenous” – you are either indigenous or you are not.

    The term part-indigenous is a bit like the term “half caste” – its a reprehensible term used to seperate people from their heritage. Therefore your question, like your support of football codes, is invalid. Those plaintiffs are indigenous people – and you aren’t. Obviously this makes you jealous, but given your attitude to Australia (one huge quarry) you’ll never be “indigenous” to this land in any way. Even when we sort our historical issues, you’ll still be an outsider. I feel sorry for you. BTW there were written languages. More lies or ignorance on your part.

    “Alternatively, we could all live in mud-huts until the sun-explodes.”

    We could indeed tho building adobe houses is difficult and time consuming, timber is better, and more sustainable if you do it right. I’m not against environmental trade off. I’m against stupidly destroying the environment that provides us with the resources we need for a healthy life – specifically food and water. Oh and against allowing the profits from our resources to follow them offshore.

    Whether one is indiginous or not, the only way out of squalor and poverty is to become competitive in the modern world, as the nine plaintiffs clearly demonstrate: assimilation into the wider society has proven to yield the best results.

    ER thats bollocks – its the modern world that has created squalour and poverty for non european civilisations across the globe. You think all indigenous people pre invasion lived in “squalor and poverty” – that might need some documented proof. Most of Africa has gone backward wrt standard of living since European invasion started. 50 years ago the people of Afghanistan had a far higher standard of living. If your version of being “outside poverty and squalour” is measured by the electronic toys you have access to you must have a pretty empty and meaningless life. That is sad, if its true.

    Life in Australia pre invasion was pretty good. People worked significantly less hard than they do now and had a greater amount of leisure time which they used to create culturally significant artworks; sing songs; hold dance parties, barbies and sporting festivals.

    In fact there is much that is similar between pre and post invasion Australia on that level. Most of us would be happier to work less, spend more time fishing, playing music and eating with our friends and family and kicking a footy round or playing cricket or bowls or jamming. This country has gone backwards in the last 30 years as far as that level of quality of life goes. I suspect people like you are responsible for that.

    Oh and yeah

    go roos.

  20. Howard,B.

    Fran, from way back

    Sorry, I missed your post.
    Race is not ‘germane’, in this case. Regarding health stats, people are not unhealthy because of their race, but because of their lifestyle choices. If anyone of any race lived in the middle of nowhere in fetid, open-air squalor living on chips, coke and cask-wine, they too would exhibit similair problems. Thus race is not the root cause, and so it should not feature in the solution. To do so only reinforces the patronizing and incorrect belief that a person’s race is the cause of their problems: it marks people as charity cases by the colour of their skin.
    Race would only be ‘germane’, if their was a particular genetic condition that needed to be addressed. In this case it is primarily an issue of personal lifestyle choices, and should be addressed as such.
    I do admit, it is a special case in that the failed policies of separatism and self-determination have encouraged people to live in places and circumstances which the rest of the country would recognize as detrimental to economic well-being and the positive health outcomes that flow from it.

    I concede your technical point regarding s18d. I remain with misgivings about the subjective nature of judging what is in ‘good faith’ and what is not, and that we are making causing ‘offense’ and actionable transgression to begin with.

    I would suggest trying less to bamboozle with obscure vocabulary and Latin legal jargon: you make good enough points without it.

  21. Howard,B.

    There does not need to be ‘formal recognition fo conflict’. How where the Aborigines going to record it without a written language anway? Scratch it on the side of a rock as a picture?
    You have still not answered the question: if non-indiginous Australians are ‘thieves’, does this logically make the nine plaintiffs ‘part-thieves’? Or do you have a scale ranging from ‘little-bit-thief’ to ‘mostly-thief’?
    Very good, Jules, you understand that development requires environmental trade-offs, and many will be permanent. Alternatively, we could all live in mud-huts until the sun-explodes.
    Whether one is indiginous or not, the only way out of squalor and poverty is to become competitive in the modern world, as the nine plaintiffs clearly demonstrate: assimilation into the wider society has proven to yield the best results.

  22. SMaturin

    go roos.

  23. jules

    No it wasn’t. There was no formal recognition of conflict let alone any formal end to it.

    As for cultural development … wellll … we live in a technological dark age – humans are in the process of destroying the planet, are responsible for the 6th, possibly 5th greatest extinction event in the history of the planet. Have perfected ways of destruction but precious little else. Spend a fortune on weapons of increasing destructive power. We drop white phosphorus on civilians, wipe out villages for access to their trees and minerals, spray populations with herbicides for no good reason. In the time its taken me to type this 1000 children have died from preventable causes while we build more efficient killer robots.

    In our short time in Australia we have initiated the greatest extinction rate on the planet, so we have contributed more to the 5th or 6th greatest extinction event in the history of life than any other group of people, destroyed countless acres of productive land via salinity, wrecked the Murray Darling basin, most of the Big Scrub, massacred and murdered countless people and I could go on and on.

    But we have iPads, so it must be ok. We have Justin Bieber tours, so culturally we’re in front there.

    I don’t follow aerial ping-pong.

    Yeah, you don’t follow logic or human decency either. All your loss
    i guess. This is for you:

    I don’t say this to be deliberatley dismissive or ‘racist’

    Yes you do. You’re either lying to us or yourself saying otherwise.

  24. dag


    Your comment: I don’t follow aerial ping-pong. Explains alot about your acting like, your head has been forcefully inserted into someones backside.

  25. Howard,B.


    No, the continent was conquered. The modern world arrived in the form of the British Empire, and everyone here is now a citizen of the resulting state. The Mabo ruling is itself an act of that state, demonstrating that we are all now citizens of the one nation regardless of race. No one should feel they are a ‘thief’ in anyway, that is just a melodramatic moral pose, for melodramatic moral posers. People can not be regarded ‘thieves’ for merely being born a citizen of a country born of conquest: that would render a good part of the world population as ‘thieves’.
    I suppose the nine plaintiffs are ‘part-thieves’ according to you? Oh, the dilemma! I hope you are beginning to see the absudity of divisions based on race.
    You cannot try and equate the state of technological and cultural development of a society of stone-age hunter gatherers with that of a developed industrialised one. Whilst I’m sure the former had many interesting and ingenious ways of life, they all became increasingly irrelevant as the rest of the world modernized. I don’t say this to be deliberatley dismissive or ‘racist’ , it is just an observable reality.
    Thus, when viewed from the broad scope of history taking into account the violent nature of the colonization, the settlement of Australia gave more than it took away. Unless of course you feel a continent of stone-age hunter gathering tribes would have somehow carved a place out in the modern world all by themselves.
    Regarding your AFL reference, I don’t follow aerial ping-pong.

  26. jules

    Howard @ 158

    Well I missed that pile of rot, it must have been in the permanent mod queue that dogs this thread.

    We do not live on ‘stolen property’ any more than people of Norman descent in England live on ‘stolen property’.

    Well no you are wrong about that. The transmission of law and sovereignty in Norman England was via a clear conquest. It happened nearly 1000 years ago. Its known as the Norman Conquest. There was even a William the Conqueror that got his name by leading said conquest. However according to our own high court this country is still stolen property. You may be comfortable being a thief. I am not.

    You still have not grasped the idea that the modern world was never just going to let the world’s greatest quarry go unsettled on account of allowing people to remain in this blissful state of stone-age innocence you seem to imagine traditional life was.

    Its not the worlds greatest quarry its my home you unAustralian schmuck. Maybe you should piss off back to whatever European rock you crawled out from under. We could give your spot to a deserving asylum seeker there are boatloads of them at the moment. If by “:the modern world” you mean the multinational and foreign govt owned mining companies that drain profits while they flog our resources for a song while trying to cut wages and minimise their investment in our nation, not to mention as they poison our water supply ruin our top soil and pinch the energy sources my great grankids might need, well all the more reason to nationalise all the mines in the country immediately.

    The only thing you mentioned that “settlement” brought that wasn’t here in some form was electricity. For the first 130 – 150 years medicine actually went backward. Your dismissal of indigenous culture is either ignorant or racist. Its also unAustralian.

    but the Aborigines would be no better position today in the modern world had settlement not occurred:

    Yeah, all those massacred blackfellas and their non existent descendants are clearly better off. You and your ex PM namesake go well together don’t you.

    Meanwhile we have drifted far from laughing at the Sook from Southbank as he cries about our legal system and the fact that it actually worked the other day. That was the original point of this thread, and so far said Sook is still freee, un executed. Not in a gulag and still free to languish over Richmond’s loss to the mighty Kangas in the last home and away game of 2011.

    You’re still unAustralian and should leave the country tho.

  27. Howard,B.

    . If you were genuine in your claim you’d be able to specify which “affirmative action” programs you are talking about, and why they are so bad.

    Very well. We can start with fee exemptions for many things, such as education. Should we wish to make education more accessible to the disadvantaged we can just have one fee exemption for those who are deemed disadvantaged by economic circumstance rather than the colour of their skin.
    Such a move would remove the patronizing ‘special needs’ tag from a group of people, and increase unity. So not only are we sure to be granting people exemptions who genuinelly need it, we also remove an unhelpful piece of policy that reinforces the idea that one’s race is the cause of one’s problems.

  28. jules

    Riiight so you got nothing.

    What a surprise.

  29. Howard,B.

    Jules @ 161

    There are programs aimed at adult illiteracy. By your logic they should be available to people who read excellently

    Reading ability is an infallible measure of an individual’s literacy, and thus is a suitable measure for eligibility to an illiteracy program, as having poor English skills is an infallible measure of the need for assistance with English. Race is not an infallible measure for measuring disadvantage, only economic circumstances can provide that. Thus your comparisons are false.

    How will your “alternative policies” address those specific disadvantages?

    Firstly, by removing the constant, patronizing reinforcement that a person’s race is somehow the cause of their problems. By treating disadvantage in a manner blind to race, we increase unity and remove the tag of ‘special needs case’ from people who do not need to be patronized by well-intentioned busy-bodies who seem more interested in extolling their own moral virtue rather than finding practical long term solutions.

  30. jules

    “…can you explain why the mere promotion non-affirmative action policies in relation to this debate makes me a morally deficient racist?”

    Well cos you’re promoting this as a general principle despite the specific disadvantage those progranms are designed to combat. If you were genuine in your claim you’d be able to specify which “affirmative action” programs you are talking about, and why they are so bad.

    Do you even know what affirmative action means?

    Probably not, so I’ll spell it out. Its action thats taken in response to an identified disadvantage among a specific group.

    There are a variety of programs in Australia aimed at helping indigenous Australians, just as there are programs aimed at children from immigrant families where English is a second language. There are other programs aimed at rural children of all backgrounds, to address the disadvantage of being from a rural community. By your logic they should be available to city children too. There are programs aimed at adult illiteracy. By your logic they should be available to people who read excellently.

    That indigenous Australians have an identifiable disadvantage specific to them is enough reason to promote the idea of programs aimed at indigenous people.

    How will your “alternative policies” address those specific disadvantages?

  31. mondo rock

    A sincere thanks to those on this thread who have detabed the issues and raised substantive points and rebuttals – I’ve had a ball.

    We Sydneysiders have a long weekend to enjoy now though, so I’m off.

  32. Howard,B.

    Post Hoc @ 124

    LOL. There is no ‘inconsistency’. The two scenerios you posited involved one private citizen verbally abusing another. Your latest lame attempt at ‘gotcha’ involves a private citizen disrepecting an officer of the law. In neither situation should anyone be in trouble for hurting someone else’s feelings, but in the latter someone is getting in the trouble for disrepecting the institution of the law. Note that this doesn’t need to involve verbal abuse: if you snapped-off a steaming one on the judge’s desk or gave the policeman the bird, I imagine the result would be the same.
    I look foward to the next round of Post Hoc’s Gotcha. Next!

  33. Howard,B.


    Jules, the idea of a treaty is silly and impractical. A treaty with who? with what? Inter-marriage has seen the idea of ‘Aboriginal Australia’ and ‘Non-Aboriginal Australia’ become so blured as to become meaningless. The way foward is unity, not pointless divisive gestures. We do not live on ‘stolen property’ any more than people of Norman descent in England live on ‘stolen property’.

    You still have not grasped the idea that the modern world was never just going to let the world’s greatest quarry go unsettled on account of allowing people to remain in this blissful state of stone-age innocence you seem to imagine traditional life was.

    Settlement brought many things, and you stated a few, but you forgot to mention: reading, writing, science, mathematics, agriculture, medicine, electricity, and I could go on and on. The point being quite clearly more was gained then lost in the process.

    Ned Kelly would have been better off if he had not been hanged, the people of Carthage would quite clearly have been better of had the Romans left them alone, the Dodos would have found it preferable if their nests hadn’t been destroyed, but the Aborigines would be no better position today in the modern world had settlement not occured: they would still be stone-age hunter-gatherers at the mercy of a resource hungry world.

    Name calling has not made your points any more valid.

  34. mondo rock

    LOL Chris – your response is the blogging equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?”

  35. Howard,B.

    Chris Tallis

    Insults, Chrissy, only serve to highlight your lack of rebuttal. Speaking of which:

    I suggest simply and strait forwardly we compensate members of that race for past racist activity

    Sure, if someone’s alive who can prove they were racially discriminated against in a practical sense, let them go for it. But to suggest that someone born after these events is entitled to some form of justice for a wrong they never experienced personally is laughable.

  36. Holden Back

    I just can’t wait for ‘Bolt from the Blue!’, the moving modern musical, telling the struggle-filled life story of our hero, as he tries to work out just where he fits in.

    The show-stopping re-working of ‘Tulips from Amsterdam’ as he tries on one nationality after another should be worth the price of admission alone.

  37. mondo rock

    Mondo @ 148 I’d suggest Chris is asserting what he is asserting cos the substance of the alternative proposals is basically racist, morally deficient and inferior

    So Jules, since it’s clearly obvious to you, can you explain why the mere promotion non-affirmative action policies in relation to this debate makes me a morally deficient racist?

    What if my suggested policy solution actually has merit?

  38. Matthew of Canberra

    “As to the Coalition changing the legislation, is it just me or does it beg the question “Why now, why not in the 11 years they were in a position to do so?””

    Because only unimportant people have been affected by it thus far – you know, little people. People who don’t work with a news organisation with 70% of the market. One powerful right-wing journalist gets a rap on the knuckles and everyone jumps to attention.

    The chilling effect on free speech of this law is apparently very sensitive to whose speech it is. If any of us had been in that dock, I doubt this would have attracted more than a couple of column-inches.

  39. Chris Tallis

    Well thanks for that mondo you have made my day.

    What you have written about my posts bears little resemblance to my actual posts but given your obvious comprehension difficulties that is easily understood. That you have “your head firmly inserted into the sand” on this issue is again obvious given that you accuse me of not “addressing the substance of the alternative positions [that I am] being asked to consider” when I indeed have.

    That you do not understand why we should treat Aboriginals differently as a racial group because of a moral obligation to correct past wrongs is hardly a failing of mine. And finally your continual use fallacies to bolster your argument does little more than show to all that you and bolt are birds of a feather.

    In short – you act as a poster boy for why your side of the debate has its head firmly inserted into the sand.

  40. Matthew of Canberra

    Fight! Fight! Fight!

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details