Tweet
Have received this from my friend Cheryl:
Passing this on fyi and in the hope that you can all support Pat Eatock and others in their upcoming class action against Andrew Bolt and The Herald & Weekly Times. The court hearing is due to commence on Monday 28 March.
Please note: Links in the information below have been inserted by Miss Eagle.
*****
It would be fantastic to see a turn-out of community members at the upcoming court hearing: Pat Eatock V Andrew Bolt & The Herald & Weekly Times. This is a class action involving a number of Aboriginal people from Victoria and other states, where Mr Bolt has questioned people’s Aboriginality and their involvement in the Aboriginal community. The claimants have taken this action to the Federal Court under racial vilification legislation. The case is really important because it is standing up for Aboriginal identity and it is important to support the claimants who are likely to undergo some tough cross-examination from the lawyers representing Mr Bolt and the HWT.
Court seating capacity will depend on the courtroom assigned, but the court has set aside 5 days for proceedings. This could change once the case begins though, and it may continue on the following week. It is also likely that a judgement will not be provided until later in 2011.
The hearing is scheduled for:
Monday 28 March
10am
Commonwealth Law Courts Building/Federal Court of Australia (Victorian Registry)
305 William Street
Melbourne
In terms of this case coming together, thanks in advance must go to:
· Abbie Burchill (Past Tarwirri President & instigator of case)
· Ron Merkel QC, Herman Borenstein SC & Phoebe Knowles
· Matt Hansen (former Holding Redlich lawyer & Tarwirri member)
· Joel Zyngier & Georgie French (Holding Redlich lawyers)
· Holding Redlich probono program & partners
· Julia Kahan (Melbourne University arts/law student)
· Public Interest Law Clearing House
· The Victorian Aboriginal Health Service – Caroline Francis, Denise McGuinness & Rod Jackson
· Kaylene Hunter, Jarrah Jones, Tanya Pass & Sharon Barnes (Tarwirri members)
Thanks for your support.
Thankyou for the info. I'll be making a sizeable donation to Andrew Bolt. I hope he wins - for the sake of free speech in this country, which is a fundamental right we all should have.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, John. There are a couple of qualifications, though. With freedom should come responsibility else freedom is abused. And we all reap what we sow!
ReplyDeleteMiss Eagle, You do reap what you sow. Maybe Pat and her team did some sowing. There are 2 chances of Pat winning - Buckley's and Nunn. Many people who vehemently dislike Bolt will be in his corner on this issue.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely hope that Bolt and others like him will be held accountable for their hateful speech. Let's also be very certain that the foundations of freedom of speech, and the very principles behind that right are remembered as well - to protect those without privilege.
ReplyDelete@Mixhelle
ReplyDeleteI hope others like him will be held accountable too.... like all of the left wing demonstrators that burn effigies, flags etc, the ones that destroy public (and private) property, the ones who insult and assault police, throw tacks and ball bearings under the hooves of police horses and those that reign a constant stream of abuse at anyone who disagrees them.
As another anonymous said above. There are even people who detest Andrew Bolt that will be hoping he wins.
He didn't denigrate, he made an observation and commented on it.
Go Bolta.
ReplyDeleteThis is a waste of time and money, unless you are a lawyer.
Miss Eagle and friends - why don't you put your energy into a real cause, like getting a job and being productive. Obviously people who have time to turn up in court are on some sort of benefit that I am paying for.
This is an important case and the results will have a lot to do with helping to raise the standards for all Australians stuck out in the middle of Australia being faced with unbelievable hardships, abuse and cruelity.
ReplyDeleteI am hoping this case will expose the parisites that exploit these people and help to lift the lifestype of those who truely need the help.
While some city dwellers are arguing, camp dwellers are dying.
And ofcourse aboriginal's have never been held to account for their hate have they?
ReplyDeleteAndrew bolt is a man of integrity and a truth advocate , sometimes unfortunately some people just cant handle the truth..
When did asking questions about someone's Aboriginality or their involvement in the Aboriginal community become "racial vilification"?
ReplyDeleteIf someone is claiming special benefits or priveleges based on their "Aboriginality" then it seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to test their assertions.
This court case is a misuse of the law to punish anyone who dares to raise such questions and to prevent legitimate enquiries.
Freedom of Speech Mixhelle is not just for those that are on your side. We should support Bolt, as anything less is suppressing freedom of speech - whether you agree or disagree with him.
ReplyDeleteMixhelle.
ReplyDeleteWhat was "hateful" in his speech exactly?
To question is not to hate.
ReplyDeleteIf i was to use this forum to ask the criteria used to establish a persons Aboriginality, would I be a racist? Would you take me to court?
PS. Could you please enlighten me on the criteria used to establish a persons Aboriginality.
@Mixhelle ... actually "the foundations of free speech" and "the very principles behind that right" have nothing at all to do with your ideology or political agitation. They stem from the Judeo-Christian worldview (that Mr Bolt rejects) and from hundreds of years of "man in the street" conservatives standing up to the elitist "progressives" who would claim to decide who can speak freely and when. [I guess it's a bit like the soldiers fighting for the rights of those demonstrators who malign them, spit on them, and wish them dead to act as they do.]
ReplyDeleteTruth is never hate. Privilege is bestowed and the lack of it imposed. Free speech is not (and must never be) constrained by a single group's ideology, politics or sensitivities; its sole harness must be the rule of law ... so let's not "stack the room" but let the court decide.
Anonymous No. 2 : I hope you include in your list those who distort the facts and those who demean women. http://misseaglesnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/03/bronwyn-bishop-sophie-mirabella-co.html
ReplyDeleteI wish you all the success in your noble endeavour. Mr. Bolt is beneath contempt for his accusations concerning peoples "claimed" aboriginal heritage. Who is he to question what people feel is their heritage? If someone thinks they had an aboriginal great great great grandma, then that is their business, not Bolts. Our identity is OURS not some right wing plaything!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhatever can be said about Bolt, he tells the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis is a shameful attempt by the Aboriginal Industry to attack the truth because it does not suit their political ends.
The time is past when Politics was a social institution, working for the benefit of the community.
In its present state, Politics is a disease of the community, draining its vitality
I detest Bolt, but his comments didn't amount to vilification. Should he lose, watch as similar cases send our Court system into utter gridlock.
ReplyDeleteMixhell I hope Andrew Bolt wins BIG time and wipes the floor with you lot of crusaders…. Because its what you deserve... I have had a gutful of racism against white people in this country. Ordinary people are being suppressed by the likes of you. freedom of speech is fast becoming a thing of the past. People like you need to be put in there place….and I hope the people involved loose and are made to pay out of there own pockets and not with tax payer money.
ReplyDeleteI hope the commies win; it will mean another step to the right for the silent majority who are sick to death of the special interest groups running this country.
ReplyDeleteDo you have to Aboriginal to get in? And how do you decide if I am Aboriginal? Go ahead ....just ask me.
ReplyDeleteFor mine....anyone with .00001% of Aboriginal blood wants to identify so and call themselves a black man...fine. Just dont expect me to use a single cent of my tax money to pay for that privledge.
Is that racist...sue me.
I hope Bolt wins, so we can be free to speak out in defence of the young. The children whose future has been stolen by those indulging themselves in an imaginary past.
ReplyDelete"There are even people who detest Andrew Bolt that will be hoping he wins."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I think this may well be true. To the uniformed masses, this will appear to be a 'Emperor has no clothes' issue.
I have read all of the comments made by Bolt on this issue, and can find nothing hateful or racial in any of the comments made by him. He questions all manner of things in his daily column and that includes issues that can be divisive to some people. However in most cases the questions need to be asked. His observations on this issue are valid and probably reflect the feelings of a lot of Australians. When you say that we reap what we sow I can only agree with you, and others (including yourself) would do well to remember that comment.
ReplyDeleteGo the Bolta! I'm in your corner too mate. If the left wing thought police win this trial, we are all in BIG trouble. Miss eagle, what is irresponsible about pointing out that people with blonde hair and blue eyes do not look like aboriginies?. Its like saying that people with penises do not look like women. Its a fact!.
ReplyDeleteMy great, great grandfather was from Switzerland, but I do not consider myself Swiss. Even if there was money in it.
ReplyDeleteGee, tports, what a relief to have someone with a name responding! Folks, Networkers, I am all for free speech within limits and I give a go to people who don't always see my point of view - which is more than happens with some of the mainstream media.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, I have really had enough of Anonymous. I don't know if you are all the same. I am not sure whether I have moderated all of them - but if yours has not appeared let me know. Even if your not a blogger yourself, blogger can give you a "net name" which is preferrable to Anonymous. So have a think before your next post under Anonymous because if I continue to get inundated I will have to go into my sittings and ban comments from Anonymous.
Wow Miss Eagle, didn't take long for that inner authoritarian to come out did it???
ReplyDeleteAll anonymous posters to the Gulag!
I too support Mr Bolt's right to 'free speach'. In this case to make an observation about the "aboriginality" of someone is not racist - merely that, an observation. People are far too precious!
ReplyDeleteMr Bolte has every right to express his opinion, that is, if we are truly, a democratic country we say we are, just as you have exercised, by taking out this class action against him.
ReplyDeleteIf a donation is requested by Mr Bolte, I will gladly oblige.
Typical left wing pap. This attempt to muzzle Bolt for expressing valid opinions and asking reasonable questions are reminiscent of the disgraceful attempt to silence Mark Steyn in Canada? What was his "crime"? He wrote a book - a New York Times bestseller, as it turned out - and a series of follow up articles on a similar theme, pointing out the demographic challenges to the west by allowing unhindered muslim immigration. Read about it here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.steynstore.com/product49.html
The Thought Police had a go at him too, and dragged him to court - like Bolt! Steyn refused to back down or retract and eventually succeeded in defending his right to free speech - even if it offends, or is even intended to offend.
That is the "free speech" our forbears made great sacrifices and fought wars to preserve; not the kind of sanitised GroupThink the left would have. I hope Bolt succeeds, and continues to poke political correctness in the eye for decades to come!
I also hope Bolt wins, he is very perceptive and provides a balanced view when voicing his opinion. Fed up with the P.C. brigade on the left fringe blasting anyone who doens't agree with them and taking the high road by instigating legal proceedings just to big note themselves. If those from the loopy left want to have a 'feel good' moment, I suggest they become good citizens by working hard and being good to their families and friends.
ReplyDeleteGotta laugh at the marginalized right wing dopes claiming there's "racism against white people" in Australia.
ReplyDeleteThese are the same people who ACTUALLY deny there was systematic genocide and dismantling of Aboriginal culture since white invasion. They deny history, deny science (climate change etc.) and deny reality.
Dear Commisaredintoobedience! - thanks for the named post. Inner authoritarian - no! Interested in a more interesting comments page? You bet. After all you have chosen an interesting name - as long as you don't have to type it too often because it's long. I've given Anonymous whoever he/she/it/they are. Let's get rid of boring.
ReplyDeleteMy name really is Anonymous, Miss.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how the blogmaster on an article about freedom of speech is talking about banning comments she doesn't agree with.
Do you get the irony Miss Eagle?
I too am not a fan of Mr Bolt but my god I'll defend his right to free speech. He reported what a lot of people I know think. Faux-aboriginals draining the public purse and claiming grants, prizes that genuine, possibly disadvantaged aboriginals don't have a hope in hell of claiming. These faux-aboriginals come from a position of relative privelage and advantage and obviously got their backs up when their phoniness was called out.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but your attempts to stack the courtroom will be embarrassing and ultimately futile.
Perhaps anonymous posts derive from the propensity for aboriginal descended people to sue.
ReplyDeleteMost people claiming aboriginality are far more "white" in their descent. Why does the small aboriginal part trump everything else. It seems racist to believe that a quarter or sixteenth part of your ancestry is better than the balance.
I also hope Mr Bolt wins and is given a substantial pay-out to discourage the attempts to suppress free speach.
And Miss Eagle is WHO exactly? Anoymous bans anonymous. Love it!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, is reading comprehension not your thng or are you just unimaginative. I was not banning comments I don't agree with - if you notice comments I don't agree with have gone through. I have not yet refused one. However, Anonymous posts are on thin ice because they display a lack of guts, imagination and they are boring. If these caps fit you well continue to display them, but I just might decide to not display them through lack of interest.
ReplyDeleteDean - you've wandered off and branded everyone here he disagrees with as denying science [do you mean "THE SCIENCE", like "THE WORD"]and denying reality.
ReplyDeleteNothing like sweeping generalisations, massive assumptions and ad hominems, is there? Any facts to backup these smears dean?
The difficulty that Andrew Bolt has highlighted is that he has questioned the right of people to obtain benefit due to a *claimed* heritage. If there are to be benefits for Aboriginal people (and I believe there should be) then there needs to be a test of Aboriginality. Whether that is purely based on heritage or whether there is a behavioural or lifstyle element is a separate matter, but there needs to be a test to prevent rorting.
ReplyDeleteAs for the case itself, on the surface it appears to be unjust. Why would anybody be taken to court for expressing their view? On the other hand, if Bolt has indeed incited others to violence or misdeed, then he will be held accountable for that under the "hate speech" laws.
Miss Eagle, I haven't been able to find an example of "hate speech". Have you? If so, could you post it along with a few words explaining why it's hate speech?
Dear Ironing Mike, clearly you don't know the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity. Want a dictionary? I don't hide - and if you can be bothered to take the time I am trackable. As well, have been around the blogosphere possibly longer than you have been having hot dinners and no one has ever bothered to challenge me.And I am only banning boring not freedom of speech. Please remember that. You have bothered to get a net name. Anonymity or pseudonymity? Y can't others?
ReplyDelete" However, Anonymous posts are on thin ice because they display a lack of guts, imagination and they are boring. If these caps fit you well continue to display them, but I just might decide to not display them through lack of interest."
ReplyDeleteAs my namesake said above "who is Miss Eagle exactly"? Excellent point. Why is Miss Eagle less boring than Anonymous?
Besides, I wager your blog hasn't been this less boring for a long, long time.
I hope Mr bolt wins, free speech is worth fighting for, otherwise we end up with a fascist state of media. Remember Hitler was of the left, National Socialists.
ReplyDeleteApart from that I can understand his comments, I had a cousin who claimed Aboriginality via our Great Grandfather and was accepted into a mob. Problem was he lied our Great grandfather was GERMAN. I'm sure this is not an isolated case.
Let us hope Andrew Bolt is successful in defending the right to free speech.
ReplyDeleteDear Winny, I don't know what the "hate speech" comment is about at all.
ReplyDeleteYou see, all I did was publish something sent by a friend. If you look at my blog, I have posted stuff from various Networkers about events. I post stuff that I think might be of interest to Networkers who come to my blog. I didn't make any comment on the case. I added some links for clarity on who is who which is a practice I do on almost everything on the blog.
I have been inundated with people coming to this post and am flat out keeping up with moderating the comments which have come to this post.
So far I have not refused any comments and will only do so for bad abusive offensive stuff. Except, because of the preponderance of Anonymous comments on this post I have issued a warning that unless people post under their names or acquired net names, I will draw the line on their comments.
I think there's something deficient when people don't even bother to get a net name. Above all, though, it makes the comments section very dull and boring. It makes it impossible to follow a thread from an individual because you don't know whether Anonymous is one person or many. It's all rather stupid.
So do appreciate hearing from you Winny - not least because you have a net persona.
Andrew Bolt's case has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech; it has everything to do with the abuse of it in order incite racial hatred. The quicker this disgusting racist is shut down the better for all Australia.
ReplyDeleteHello again Miss Eagle,
ReplyDeleteThanks for a considered response. The "hate speech" comment relates to the issue of racial vilification. It amounts to the same thing.
I appreciate that you've just published "something sent by a friend" but do you support that something? If so, then I assume you must expect that Bolt is guilty of racial vilification (or hate speech or something similar). Maybe I'm wrong about this and you don't hold any view at all.
Do you think it is acceptable to question whether someone is aboriginal or do you believe it best to just accept their word?
I hope freedom of speech wins in this case. The odds are stacked against him but Bolt is an Australian who is willing to stand up and speak the truth.
ReplyDeleteAborigines from Victoria? I have been to Victoria many times during my 57 years, I even lived there in 1977, but I have never seen a Victorian Aborigine. Where would one need to go to find one?
ReplyDeleteAndrew Bolt has my full support.
ReplyDeleteI have a Pacific Island heritage (great great grandmother). Were there be some special advantage to be gained from this for me I would not expect that it would be considered reasonable that anyone should allow me to be considered a Pacific Islander. I am not a Pacific Islander.
The test of reasonableness should be applied. A strict test should be whether you have a parent who is an aboriginal and the less strict test should be whether you have a grandparent who is aboriginal AND THEN the test of whether the individual people within this group have been disadvanteged should apply.
There are many disadvantaged persons within the two categories above and there are many who are NOT disadvantaged. Being part of this group is not necessarily an automatic indicator of disadvantage.
The people who are abusing the system are those that are not disadvantaged and/or that fall outside of the categories. It is these dreadful greedy graspers who are taking away public money from those who are more deserving.
Perhaps people commented as anonymous for the same reason I did. I could not understand the verbiage in the facility to identify or name yourself.
ReplyDeleteI went to "Open ID" to enter this name, after trying some of the other options to no effect.
I will repeat that the manipulation of politics by the Aboriginal Industry is odious, and the attempt to shut down someone for speaking the truth is despicable.
I want to see Aboriginals helped, not power given to people exploiting victim politics, for no benefit to real Aboriginals.
It is these type of court cases that really are a total waste of time for the judicial system. It should have gone to mediation .To query someones identity (be it racial, sexual etc ) is not the same as vilifying .
ReplyDelete"I think there's something deficient when people don't even bother to get a net name. Above all, though, it makes the comments section very dull and boring".
ReplyDeleteThe anon comments have been as interesting as the "named" comments. I think you're just getting a bit precious over what you perceive to be entertainment value from a name.
"It makes it impossible to follow a thread from an individual because you don't know whether Anonymous is one person or many."
Some truth in that, but I think most of the anon's are the same person who is taking the mickey out of you on account of your authoritarian command.
It restores my faith in human nature to see so many in support of free speech.
Stack the courtroom indeed. What a crock!
I am originally a North Australian (NT & NQld)- spent a good bit of my long life living in & close to major Aboriginal communities in NT,Qld & NSW.I have longstanding friendships with Aboriginal people.I am 6th generation Australian & am aware of the ignorance & racism among Australian people & its long & current history.
ReplyDeleteI am keenly aware of how Aboriginal people are excluded & ignored.I don't know details of the case for which I provide details;that is why there is no comment about it.I am against anything remotely like racial vilification.I am against anything which smacks of judging people by race, colour, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, sexual preference etc. I am sure I don't always meet my own standards;I try to take people at face value while having intuitive antenna at work.There are Aboriginal people I don't like.Not all Aboriginal people like all Aboriginal people either!
Living in the sort of places I have, I have heard genuine queries about Aboriginals & I have heard & seen covert & overt racism. I also know, as a woman, the discriminated against are the ones who can suss out discrimination.Those discriminated against can almost sniff it on the air. There doesn't need to be a word,an action,a gesture to know one must beware.This is what I hate most about discrimination in any form. Its dishonesty. The unspoken,unacted lies.The nuances & dog-whistling.It revolts me to write about it.
Do I think it is acceptable to question whether someone is Aboriginal or do I believe it best to accept the person's word? My understanding is - based on what Aboriginal people say - the criteria for whether a person is Aboriginal is to identify as an Aboriginal person & be accepted by an Aboriginal community. I am happy to be corrected if I have this wrong.
Aboriginal society is very accepting.I have a white male friend who is an initiated Aboriginal person.I know the Aboriginal group with which he is connected.He lives life like you & I.If I introduced you, you wouldn't know of his Aboriginality & his skills within the community unless I told you.Such people are rare(some men draw close but seldom become FULLY initiated for very clear reasons).I don't think it is a matter of taking anybody's word for it.
What I would say is: Who is asking the question? Why do they want to know? If we make race an issue we are always going to be asking such questions.It is like Americans with African origins.Some, through inter-marriage with paler people, "pass".There's a word for it.If we were not race & colour conscious there would be no word.There are ads for brides in India asking for fair skin. There are consmetic lighteners for Indian women. Why? Fairer is valuable.Invent the difference,invent the description.
Aboriginal people in remote Australia are not treated as citizens. People in remote Australia, both black & white, are getting raw deals. Australia continues to be hollowed out. Check mobile phone companies' service area maps & you will see what I mean.White people in remote Australia are getting a raw deal. Aboriginals a raw-er one.
I have no comment on Andrew Bolt.Don't read,listen to,watch him.His reputation precedes him & he would not be a person of interest to me. There are richer veins of culture to be mined than the Herald Sun & its columnists.
What do hope to gain by inviting all your mates along to the court ? It is anyone's right to attend court hearings, space permitting, but do you presume to influence the judge ? If so, you will be shown the door should there be any interjection from your rent a crowd. I guess you'll then have a good cry on here about discrimination.
ReplyDeleteDear Dave Wane, perhaps you are one of those valued people who are colour-blind and don't note the race, ethnicity or colour of other people. However, Aboriginal people are everywhere if you are aware. I have lived in Victoria on six and a half years and I have got to know Yorta Yorta, Wadi Wadi, and people from other groups as well. Not hard. Then there is the rich Aboriginal cultural life which can be experienced here. Attending some of these events gives one a handle on Aboriginal people in Victoria. And then there are places like the Koori Heritage Trust.
ReplyDeleteTypical of the left. No respect for institutions of democracy and open society such as the process of the courts.
ReplyDeleteWhen your side doesn't win, you go "we don't care about the rules anyway" and resort to thuggery - like this.
Apologies. Previous post needs correction to read: "Pseudonymous bans Anonymous. Love it!". P.S. Good to see Arlene is still with us. You rock, AC!
ReplyDeleteA message to PeterF57:
ReplyDeletePeter while I don't agree with a lot of the stuff (agree on one major point) in your post, I didn't let it through when I came to moderate it. Not because of what I didn't agree with it. Could you adjust some of the language - I think you will realise what I mean. I think English is sufficiently versatile to give you a choice of strong language that is not crude vernacular. So just a couple of edits would do it and then re-send and I'll publish. Sincerely, Miss E.
Misposted again. Apologies. Any anagramatist worth his or her salt would know it's Alene not Arlene. (Thanks for the space, Miss E. No, sincerely.)
ReplyDeleteMiss Eagle you said "If we make race an issue we are always going to be asking such questions" I think Andrew Bolt would definitely agree with you there. Once you bring race into it, there must be a legitimate and much needed debate about what that means. Should someone just because they identify as aboriginal even with very distant or even non existent genetic links be giving more rights in grants than some one that doesn't have that identity. Or should that person be given the same access to grants that an Aboriginal facing real discrimination might be more deserving of. Do you think these questions should be silenced. I welcome the debate. There is no hate or vilification speech here and trying to stop the debate is a sure way to build tensions rather than reconcile them.
ReplyDeleteDave Wane, try anywhere the gravy train pulls into. You'll see heaps hanging about, hands outstretched for all the moola you and I and many other worthwhile people work for. And the sad thing is they all think they are entitled to it.
ReplyDeleteAnita, dishonesty is rife in all strata of society but I notice that only certain people get vilified for false claims on the taxpayers' purse. Predominantly unemployed and Aboriginal people get vilified. Doctors who act dishonestly (and they have done so in many & varied ways) have never - as far as I know - been referred to in terms of vilification as a category of person. Neither have the wealthy (and they probably rip off far more of the taxpayers money than any other category).Some farmers - particularly in Victoria - ripped off drought assistance packages to such an extent that drought assistance had to be abolished. But we haven't vilified them as a category of person for purloining the taxpayers purse. Currently, I hear that people -even relatives- are dobbing in people making false claims for emergency assistance.I don't imagine that is restricted to one racial category.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, Anita, I would say that we have to treat dishonesty equitably wherever it is found and by whomever it is found. When it's govt money, politics comes into it & it works in ways that are favourable to govt. If they think it is not politic to come out publicly against the wealthy and powerful or Aboriginal people, things can be difficult.
I know personally of one case where an Aboriginal person & his wife who were influential in a certain regional community ripped off Aboriginal Legal Aid & managed to disappear a couple of cars as well. Complaints (this was in the Hawke/Keating years) went unremarked from Canberra.However, a certain significant ALP identity who went on to greater political heights nagged Canberra & wouldn't let go. Man & Wife finished up doing jail time. Why Canberra was reluctant is unknown. Who was reluctant is unknown.But if people thought they were serving a political interest, they were wrong. All this lack of response did was enable vilification in general of Aboriginal people.
Among people sympathetic to Aboriginal people are people I call "the romantics".Not enough time & space to go into how I define that. I am sympathetic to Aboriginal people too but I don't have stars in my eyes. Read previous comments of mine to this post.
I think there will always be difficulties & ripoffs and they should be outed. But out individuals not a whole category of person. As for Aboriginality, what are we going to do? DNA everyone? You might uncover a few who didn't know they were Aboriginal & they might want to access some programs.
I do know for sure & certain, Anita, that a lot of people who rant about this topic don't have a clue what they are talking about. I have heard some absolute balderdash spoken in my time by people whose only motive can be bigotry or racism.
good luck to the people bringing the class action. "observations" are not just observations when they're motivated by racism.
ReplyDeleteas Miss Eagle says, it's very easy for people who aren't the subject of the discrimination to say that discrimination doesn't exist. You don't notice it because you're doing it too, unthinkingly, the same way you probably don't notice your own accent.
there are Aboriginal Australian people who proudly acknowledge their other ancestry as well - whether it's Chinese or Irish or Greek or Austrian. that makes them no less Aboriginal.
I know that both my parents (Anglo-Gaelic, Anglo-German adopted by another Anglo-German family), made me who I am, through genetics and upbringing - I have characteristics, whether physical appearance or habits & attitudes, passed down from all three of my grandmothers, some of them conflicting.
Deborah
No I won't moderate what I wrote. I used no swear words, which are nothing in today's society anyway.
ReplyDeleteWhat should I moderate? The word blackfellas? Gee, what colour are they? Are they black? Except for the non-black ones.
Crude vernacular. Jesus, you say you have lived next to black communities. And all the language coming out from those cesspools was surely all sweetness and light.
You are a hypocrite. You say you don't not post comments, well, here you have done just that.
You might like blackfellas. I admit I have very little time for about 90% of them, because they are wastes of space and subhuman in many aspects.
I don't include the beautiful little kids in this, they only change when they're about 12, thanks to the wonderful dreamtime culture, and of course the likes of you and other do-gooders who do more harm than good by not shedding the rose tinted glasses thinking that blacks have this wonderful culture that should be preserved.
Their culture is disgusting, and most wouldn't know their culture if it bit them on their black arses. Their only culture is the bottom of a plagon and the insides of little girls and boys. Absolute filth.
Kids are raped and sodomised, and nobody writes about that, because it might offend the sensibilities of those doing these heinous deeds.
So fuck those disgusting subhuman arseholes.
Now, there are some words that might offend, but as I wrote, in this day and age, fuck and cunt and arseholes are pretty much not swear words any more. To stinking blackfells, I'm nothing more than a white cunt, which I have heard countless times when walking past old stinky coon boy with his filthy hand out.
Hypocrite.
And I'll ask one question. Who is paying the lawyers these scumsucking parasites are employing for their court case against Andrew Bolt? I bet it won't be them. No, they'll be sucking on the gravy train, and when they lose their case, and Bolt asks for damages, who'll be paying? It sure won't be those toerags. It will be the taxpayer.
White scumsuckers pretending to be black just for the money. That's all it is, and the sooner knobs like yourself see this, then maybe things might get better for the blacks.
Why? Because you can't help people who don't want to be helped. And why would they want to be helped? They get monney for nothing, and you write that they have it bad. They have it bad because they want it that way. Idiots have pity on them and hand out money like it's not theirs they are giving away. Oh, that's right, it's not their money.
Why do you think toerag outfits like ATSIC always kept the blackfella down? So they could reap the rewards, which is the money, coming their way.
How much of that money has ever helped the blackfellas? They still live in third world country style communities, they stink, their kids starve, they rape kids and bash and murder women. They are filth, but you just keep on those blinkers.
People like you, truly, disgust me, perpetuating the myth of rainbow serpent dreamtime blackfellas, all roses and goodness, when it's a horror story, but let's just leave these little preciouses be, they are black, they are downtrodden, they are disenfranchised.
Yeah, tell that to the kids.
And guess what, I supposed you won't put this one up either will you?
PeterF57 out. In military terms, of which I proudly served my country for 23 years, means no more transmissions.
[POST 1 of 3]
ReplyDeleteThis is my first post on the The Network Blog.
As noted in this blog thread, Federal Court proceedings will be heard before Justice Bromberg in Melbourne from Monday 28 March 2011 (to run a week, with a possible extension of a further week):
VID 770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt and Herald and Weekly Times Ltd
My comments here are sourced from publicly available court documents, and in any event there can be no prejudice to the trial which starts on 28th March for posting this information, here or anywhere, for there is no jury involved in the trial. The matter is being heard exclusively before a judge who is independent by definition.
So some comments:
(1) interestingly this matter is being run as a Part IVA representative proceeding (class action) on a human rights issue -- probably the first class action on racial discrimination to be run this way in Australia and also perhaps the world
(2) there are nine identified group members, as well as a more general group definition of aggrieved persons, with all of them having had an opportunity to opt-out of the litigation before 26 November 2010
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
...continues...
[POST 3 of 3]
ReplyDelete...continued...
4C Further or in the alternative, Bolt and HWT plead an exemption under section 18D(c)(ii) of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds:
(a) In writing and publishing the Publications, Bolt and HWT made and published a fair comment by Bolt on a matter of public interest.
(b) In writing and publishing the Publications, Bolt was expressing his genuine beliefs.
(c) Bolt wrote and published, and HWT published, each of the Publications reasonably and in good faith.
(5) Further to the applicant's Amended Statement of Claim dated 20 December 2010 [check against Court Documents and the further particulars therein] the group members seek the following remedies:
(a) a declaration that the publication of the Articles by Bolt and HWT, and/or their involvement in or authorisation of that publication, was unlawful under s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
(b) an order restraining Bolt and HWT from republishing or further publishing the Articles or articles or blogs having a content substantially similar to that contained in the Articles
(c) an order that Bolt and HWT publish an apology to the applicant and to the group members...
+there is no claim for money loss or damages or compensation other than legal costs of the proceedings
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
I wish Andrew Bolt all the best with this case. It is really important that he wins for the sake of free speech in the country. It is absolutely disgusting - and quite alarming - that he is being taken to court in this way, in an effort to shut him up.
ReplyDeleteLooks like some people are not able to read or do not see the link regarding the actual law that was posted http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/cyberracism/vilification.html
ReplyDeletewhich seems pretty straight forward
1) The act must be done in public;
2) It must be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the people against whom it is directed; and
3) It must be done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the group against whom it is directed.
Its not a matter of 'free speech' or 'opinion' its a matter of offending and humiliating people in public due to race, colour or ethnicity.
If you are going to have affirmative action help a disadvantaged minority then the question of who is actually a member of that minority is relevent. What Andrew pointed out, is that many of these people would not be disadvantaged by their background, and are there is the appearance that their racial affiliation is largely due to benefits that accrue from it, rather than any real contact through blood or culture. Thats all well and good, until they call on public monies to fund it - at which point it is a question of public policy and Andrew's questions are perfectly valid.
ReplyDeleteThe real haters are the ones who want to see these faux aboriginals benefit to the deteriment of real aboriginals.
The problem Australia has is one group wants racism on their terms. They want special benefits that are not available to others and they don't want to be held to account for anything.
ReplyDeleteAboriginals have become a special bunch who cannot be challenged. Such actions will invite a raised and pointed finger along with the breathless gasp ...racist. Racist is not a real word anymore, it has become the same as denier. These words mean that we ...the special or the enlightened do not want to be bothered with being accountable, we will simply make your words worthless by giving you a name. So good luck Bolta, hopefully this court case will return some honesty and accountability to this country.
It is interesting the some of the commenters have suggested that because of past injustices, no one should question Aboriginal people - or people who claim to be Aboriginal.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
The fact of the matter that is that preferential treatment of anyone on the basis of racial background is racism, no matter how altruistic or benignly applied.
While no one is suggesting that people in disadvantaged communities should not receive help, to do so on the basis of racial identity is psychologically damaging.
And certainly academics in urban areas should not receive public money for racist reasons which is what ATSI-based grants are all about.
Regardless of our ethnic origins, we're all of the one race (human) and all have the same goals (love, food, shelter, success) and these should be goals should be rewarded by effort, not government handout and with all people willing to roll up their sleeves to help their fellow man when required and not relying on paternalistic governments to do the heavy lifting for us.
I wish you and your dirty little coterie of rich, upper class, tinpot fascists all the worst of luck with your attempt to curtail free speech.
ReplyDeleteI find it odd the number of people who are contributing posts here that are not focussed on what this case is about. Lots of distractions about the payment of benefits, one about the safety of children, and even one about the existence of Aboriginal people in Victoria.
ReplyDeleteIt's a legal case about whether or not Andrew Bolt has caused offense, insult, humiliation or intimation of Aboriginal people because they are not (allegedly) dark skinned enough to satisfy his eyes and went on to claim that those who identified as Aborigine did so to bring about ''political and career clout''.
I find Andrew Bolt a particularly unpleasant human, he seems to be a very angry and self centred person and makes his money and reputation in being so. However, he has the same rights as everyone else does in the country to speak his opinion providing he does so within the parameters of the law. Even those who are taking the case against him have the same rights and obligations just as we have.
So when the comments are made about the receipt of benefits, I read that there are many assumptions made. The first being that the only reason that people identify as being Aboriginal is so that they can receive benefits. I am amazed how well you are informed about those who receive benefits. I wouldn't have a clue about such information. It reads rather like there are a number here who believe that this is the main reason for wanting to be Aborigine. Each of you is relying on a racial generalisaton that I believe that none of you would have the information to argue. So then it might be that those who have argued that are opposed to all forms of benefits payable, you might equally have quoted returned servicemen and women who have been injuried in the course of active service, those who are in receipt of disability benefits or Austudy, or even the aged pension. But given none of that was raised, I suspect strongly that you raise it in this blog because you resent the payment of benefits to Aborigines and rely on your own bias and hatred as if it is enough to validate your support of Bolt's free speech.
So I guess too that you wouldn't mind if you and your race whatever it is would legally be open to being vilified. The media could have a field day. Each of you and your race have the same rights as everyone else. So, is it that you want to take the rights away from some or everyone????
I am delighted to read that some of you have declared yourselves to be not fans of Bolt but have written statements which appear to be offensive and insulting to Aboriginal people. You are doing a great job of proving that what Andrew Bolt wrote and the newspaper published does inspire expressions of racial hatred. It's a good thing you aren't his friends, he would be in trouble!
Personally, I wish those bringing the actions against Bolt and HWT's success in their case. I have been amply satisfied that offense has been caused and further statements of racial hatred have resulted.
Bolt is a journalist - he knew what he was doing. He may have opinions that I don't agree with but he is a smart and artful operator. The HWT can afford to pay the costs. It's not about money. It is a political statement and he is trying to redefine what it is to be Aboriginal - as if the only basis for discrimination is colour and not race.
Those who are bringing the complaint are not seeking damages - but an apology and for the blogs to be removed (but that was in The Age, so can we trust that information???)
I find the comments in the blog offensive and insulting - if it was written about me or my race I would feel exactly the same as those who are taking this legal action.
I don't really like Andrew Bolt. He still supports the collective idea of an ALP while their policies and conduct have made them impossible for me to support. One thing I detest is bigotry and and racism and I feel that the ALP have stood for both.
ReplyDeleteI understand I have Aboriginal ancestry but I do not qualify as a member of the Aboriginal community because I have none of the 'culture' which might allow me to identify as one. I was born in the US to Australian parents and so I am proudly American and proudly Australian, but not Aboriginal. But not being Aboriginal does not make me less of a man, and to say that it does is racist and bigoted. On this issue I stand shoulder to shoulder with Andrew Bolt.
Jill, Thank you for your extensive and lucid comment. I sure am glad you came to-day. Over 5,000 visitors to my humble blog - most of them, believe it or not, driven here by Andrew Bolt!
ReplyDeleteGood wishes
Brigid
aka
Miss Eagle
As per the applicant's Amended Statement of Claim dated 20 December 2010 [check against Court Documents and the further particulars therein]:
ReplyDelete[A] The applicant claims the group members to whom the proceeding relates are persons who:
(a) by a combination of descent, self identification and communal recognition are, and are recognised as, Aboriginal persons;
(b) are Aboriginal persons who have a fairer, rather than darker skin; and
(c) were reasonably likely to be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, and were offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated, by the Articles -- those Articles identified as…
(i) 20 March 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled "One of these women is Aboriginal"
(ii) 15 April 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled "It's so hip to be black" (also published as "White is the new Black")
(iii) 19 August 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled "Aboriginal man helped"
(iv) 21 August 2009, Bolt wrote an article titled "White fellas in the black"
[B] The applicant alleges on behalf of herself and the group members that taken individually and together, the contents of the Bolt Articles convey the following defamatory imputations:
(a) the persons identified in the Articles and any other persons who like them have some Aboriginal descent and fairer rather than darker skins, were not genuinely Aboriginal and were not bona fide in claiming to be, and identifying as, Aboriginal persons;
(b) the persons described in (a) merely pretend to be Aboriginal persons so they can access the benefits that are only available to Aboriginal persons;
(c) the only genuine Aboriginal persons, and the only persons who may be treated as making a bona fide claim to be, and to identify as, Aboriginal persons are persons whose parents are both of Aboriginal descent and who have darker rather than fairer skins;
(d) under Bolt's criteria, persons having some Aboriginal descent but who are fairer rather than darker skinned are disqualified from, and cannot properly be regarded as, genuinely self-identifying as, and being, Aboriginal.
[David Barrow from Melbourne]
Thank you David. I sincerely hope your comment casts more light than heat on the subject. Unless some want to put heavy sunglasses on - as well as the 30+ sun protection cream!
ReplyDeleteJill ...that was a lovely rant and proof positive of the dangerous threat we face in regards to freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteBeing offended is subjective, a returned serviceman or a recipient of Austudy may well be offended if their eligibility is ever questioned. Well too bad, the greater community has a right to expect that the system is not being rorted.
Recipients of welfare, jobs, positions and special dispensations based on racial grounds should be no less accountable than the rest of us.
The Aboriginal industry is a fatted cow and it gives well. Mainstream Australians expect that our money is being used efficiently and not rorted.
Aboriginals cannot expect to hide behind their invisible cape of protection in relation to these matters. If they are going to partake of racist benefits then they need to validate their race.
In my opinion we will always have race issues whilst we dole out special treatment to one group of people on racial grounds. We would not even be talking about this if the positions that Bolt was talking about were filled based on merit not ethnic heritage. Positive racism is as wrong the other.
Jill, here are the claims from the applicant's Application dated 7 September 2010 [check against Court Documents and the further particulars therein]:
ReplyDeleteThe group members seek the following remedies:
(a) a declaration that the publication of the Articles by Bolt and HWT, and/or their involvement in or authorisation of that publication, was unlawful under s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
(b) an order restraining Bolt and HWT from republishing or further publishing the Articles or articles or blogs having a content substantially similar to that contained in the Articles
(c) an order that Bolt and HWT publish an apology to the applicant and to the group members...
+there is no claim for money loss or damages or compensation other than legal costs of the proceedings
[David Barrow from Melbourne]
As per the Defence of Bolt and HWT dated 20 December 2010 [check against Court Documents and the further particulars therein]:
ReplyDelete[A] Bolt claims that it is his belief that:
(a) racism is abhorrent and a gravely divisive social force, which is perpetuated by emphasising racial differences;
(b) in modern Australia, there is a discernable trend whereby persons of mixed genealogy, where that genealogy includes Aboriginality, choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, where they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all;
(c) the applicant [Pat Eatock] and the group members illustrate that trend, in that they are each persons who choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, even though they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all; and
(d) the trend is an undesirable social phenomenon because it emphasis racial differences, rather than common humanity.
[B] Further, Bolt and HWT plead an exemption under section 18D(b) of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds:
(a) Bolt wrote and published, and HWT published, the Publications in the course of a statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for the genuine purpose in the public interest.
(b) Bolt wrote and published, and HWT published, each of the Publications reasonably and in good faith.
[C] Further or in the alternative, Bolt and HWT plead an exemption under section 18D(c)(ii) of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds:
(a) In writing and publishing the Publications, Bolt and HWT made and published a fair comment by Bolt on a matter of public interest.
(b) In writing and publishing the Publications, Bolt was expressing his genuine beliefs.
(c) Bolt wrote and published, and HWT published, each of the Publications reasonably and in good faith.
[David Barrow from Melbourne]
Pleae Note Correction: Defence of Bolt and HWT is dated 24 January 2011 to the applicant's Amended Statement of Claim dated 20 December 2010.
ReplyDelete[David Barrow from Melbourne]
Please Note Correction: Defence of Bolt and HWT is dated 24 January 2011 to the applicant's Amended Statement of Claim dated 20 December 2010.
ReplyDelete[David Barrow from Melbourne]
Miss Eagle, I wish to applaud you. While I largely agree with Bolt on this one, and you don't, that you allow an open debate here speaks to your fair mindedness.
ReplyDeleteThank you Stephen. I do try to give people a hearing - within some limits. I have been listening to both sides of the subject for decades now. And I'm not sure there is any part of the debate I haven't heard over and over again. However, I'm not about to stop listening.
ReplyDeleteExactly what is the purpose of "stacking a courtroom", or in your words "supporting the claimants"?
ReplyDeleteThey have a case or they don't. What is your intention should you manage to fill this court with "supporters"?
Marie, I am only the messenger. I won't be at the court on Monday. I don't know what "stacking a courtroom" means. I do know that I don't claim it as "my courtroom" as Andrew Bolt has done in yesterday's Herald Sun. Odd choice of words I would have thought when one was apologising to the court a sentence or two later in the post. I know when I have attended previous cases in support of someone, I just turn up, sit quietly and respectfully, and pay attention to what is happening in the court. I would hope that anyone who turns up to support either Andrew Bolt or the claimants/plaintiffs would do the same. Of course, if you were there to misbehave or act up, I'm sure you wouldn't be in the court for very long.
ReplyDeleteSome of my forefathers came from Ireland, and I am proud of my Irish heritage.
ReplyDeleteBut it would be a lie to say I am Irish.
Some of my forefathers came from Scotland, and I am proud of my Scottish heritage.
But it would be a lie to say that I am Scottish.
Some of my forefathers came from England, and I am proud of my English heritage.
But it would be a lie to say I am English.
And some of my forefathers came from Germany, and I am proud of my German heritage.
And it would be a lie to say I am German.
I know what I am. I am as Australian as the Australian flag on the uniforms that I have worn when twice deployed on active service.
Good luck and God speed, Andrew Bolt, in your court case next week.
Qlc01, just a couple of differences. In the UK and Ireland, depending on the generation in which a forebear came, you could claim citizenship while still holding Australian citizenship. For US citizenship, if you are born to American parents outside the USA, you have until you are twenty-one to claim US citizenship. And I am sure there are similar stories from many other countries. The other difference is that, for those claiming Aboriginal heritage, Aboriginal ancestry goes back 40 millenia or so in THIS country. Their heritage in this country is not as recent as yours or mine. And I might tell you that I am sixth generation Australian. Prior to my family's arrival in Australia my 5x great-grandfather was on the Endeavour with Cook. So my family's connection with Australian soil goes back much further than some of European ancestry - and I am not the one complaining. And the men in my family were represented in three foreign wars under the Australian flag.I might add that many Aboriginal people served their country in time of war. However, while there is much evidence that they were readily accepted there has also been evidence of discrimination, particularly in regard to pay and entitlements for ex-servicemen. To learn something of this, the experience of West Australian ex-servicemen is described on this site: http://noongarculture.org.au/contact-history/war-service.aspx. Do you think such discrimination is fair and equitable? Should they or their descendants be compensated?
ReplyDeleteWhat are you on about?
ReplyDeleteThe first part of your response focuses on the issue of an Australian wanting to claim foreign citizenship. What has that to do with anything I have said - all of which is about being Australian, despite country of origin?
I don't want to claim foreign citizenship - I am perfectly happy being an Australian.
Your next point of "40 millennia" is completely irrelevant - we ALL go back 40 millennia (unless you came down on a recent ship from somewhere in outer space - a distinct possibility, I admit, from the contents of your blog). So I do not intend to imitate you as you bow in awe of someone who claims to be an aborigine, based on his or her possible relationship to an alleged great, great, great, great, great grandmother.
To do that is to lie - just as I would lie if I claimed to be Irish / Scottish / English / Germen.
Your next point, in which you wave your family's military credentials, is puzzling - what is the point you are trying to make? I take my hat off to your military relatives - they are MY brothers-in-arms - but probably not yours, I suspect, your blood relationship notwithstanding. I know military minds and views - you don't - I am prepared to bet that they would be horrified by your beliefs.
You then descend into some unsubstantiated rant about discrimination faced by the "many Aboriginal people" who served their country in war. How many? Who were they? What discrimination did they face?
Because I can talk from personal experience about Australian military service - you can't - so back off and don't lecture me, girlie. I've served for decades including two operational deployments (East Timor / Afghanistan) - two of my sons currently serving (one deployed on Ops three times) - a nephew and a niece also currently serving - Dad served in WW2 - his cousin killed flying against the Japs in Burma - nine relatives served in WW1 (three killed, two wounded) - a cousin in Vietnam. So pull your head in, dipstick, and don't lecture me about what happens to soldiers and ex-soldiers. I know that soldiers look after their mates and I'm not prepared to cop a lecture from you as to alleged shortcomings that weren't also faced by many others.
Bottom line - let's get back on topic - all this garbage about being precious because of some weak, thin, crappy connection to a far-distant aboriginal relative - it's nothing more than snouts being shoved into the udder of public funds.
Again I say - good luck Andrew Bolt.
I am all for free speech within limits
ReplyDeleteWithin limits? In other words, you are not for free speech at all.
Free speech, expressing opinions freely, is an all or nothing kind of thing.
What limits do you impose? If I do not have the right to express opinions you, or others, may find offensive then I have no right to free speech at all.
This blog is your private property, and here you have the right to dictate what others may, or may not, say to your hearts content without infringing on their freedoms in any way. Your property, your rules. You are certainly free to opine what others should allow in their fora as well, however, what you may not do is seek to dictate the rules in any other forum whatsoever, for that would be an unacceptable infringement of their freedom. As is happening in the Bolt case.
Can you explain or justify what I think is a very strange and intellectually muddled statement?
COURT REPORT #1
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Mon 28 March 2011
Mr Ron Merkel QC opened the case for the class action group members this morning before Justice Bromberg of the Federal Court in Melbourne.
Mr Andrew Bolt was in attendance in the public gallery flanked by his legal team. Another 70 or so members of the public attended the proceeding.
Mr Merkel opened the case by stressing that this was not a case about freedom of speech, as the applicants did not seek to interfere with Mr Bolt putting forward a theory to be test, even if it is wrong. He is welcome to contend that the earth is flat, for instance.
He said, however, that comments were made by Mr Bolt which identified particular individuals and caused them hurt in a wide public arena through publication of false allegations that those people with fairer-skin that identified themselves as aboriginals were not actually genuine in that identification and that they did so for some unfair gain.
Mr Merkel also said that Mr Bolt’s comments in the 4 articles identified for the trial were gratuitous and designed to denigrate the people mentioned, and used selective journalism in a systematic and misleading way.
Witnesses planned to be called this afternoon for the applicant’s side are Bindi Cole and Larissa Behrendt, with Pat Eatock planned to be called Tuesday morning. The defence will have an opportunity to cross-examine each of these witnesses when they appear.
In a departure from the usual court practice, the witnessed called for the applicant’s side will have an opportunity to read out a statement to the court. Leave was granted for this by Justice Bromberg given the case has some public interest, the issues are of a personal nature, and Mr Merkel persuaded his Honour that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that the witnesses have an opportunity to put forward the full context of their versions of the situation.
Another 6 witness statements were also tendered into evidence this morning but the defence elected not to cross-examine these witnesses.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
COURT REPORT #2
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Mon 28 March 2011
As it was the group members turn to first open their case this morning, Mr Neil Young QC representing Mr Bolt and HWT did not have much to say other than:
(1) An objection to witnesses having an opportunity to read out a statement to the court, on the grounds that it may waste court time and resources. However, Justice Bromberg granted leave for the 3 witnesses that were being called to give personal evidence, given the case has some public interest, the issues are of a personal nature, and Mr Merkel persuaded his Honour that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that the witnesses have an opportunity to put forward the full context of their versions of the situation.
(2) Mr Young also made a strong objection to a possible change in the scope of the remedies sought by the group members. The original Application of 7 Sep 2010 by the group members was for a declaration that the Bolt Articles was unlawful under s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; a restraining order against republication; and an apology, as well as the usual recovery of legal costs. It is the usual practice that a general claim is also made in pleadings for ”such further or other relief as the Court deems fit”.
It was mentioned in open court this morning that there had been correspondence between the parties in the past week as to the intention of group members to apply for a broader set of remedies if the common claims were decided in their favour in the class action. Such further claims were said by Mr Merkel to be consistent with the general claim of ”such further or other relief as the Court deems fit” and it was anticipated that this would include individual claims that could include monetary compensation.
Justice Bromberg was not aware of this development.
Mr Young claimed that this was unfair and unjust as Bolt & HWT had prepared the case on the understanding that there was no monetary claim and also it may effect the whole class action procedures where aggrieved persons could have otherwise been better informed for their decision not to opt-out, if they knew of this development.
Neither side pressed for a ruling from his Honour at this time on whether monetary compensation could be claimed by individuals following the class action trial on the common issues.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
Dear David, thank you the report. Excellent work - it seems to me. I wasn't there but it seems to tally with the Crikey report. I have given your material a post of its own: http://misseaglesnetwork.blogspot.com/2011/03/taking-andrew-bolt-on-through-courts_9013.html
ReplyDeleteSo if you send any more - you can post them here - it keeps continuity with this part of the record. However, I will also give the material a separate post to give your work more prominence.
Thank you again.
Brigid
Thankyou Brigid. I am mindful that fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings is a solid defence to defamation.
ReplyDeleteI also sent a second report at the lunch recess but it does not seem to have gone through so please find it posted again below.
-------------------------------------
COURT REPORT #2
VID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Mon 28 March 2011
As it was the group members turn to first open their case this morning, Mr Neil Young QC representing Mr Bolt and HWT did not have much to say other than:
(1) An objection to witnesses having an opportunity to read out a statement to the court, on the grounds that it may waste court time and resources. However, Justice Bromberg granted leave for the 3 witnesses that were being called to give personal evidence, given the case has some public interest, the issues are of a personal nature, and Mr Merkel persuaded his Honour that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that the witnesses have an opportunity to put forward the full context of their versions of the situation.
(2) Mr Young also made a strong objection to a possible change in the scope of the remedies sought by the group members. The original Application of 7 Sep 2010 by the group members was for a declaration that the Bolt Articles was unlawful under s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act; a restraining order against republication; and an apology, as well as the usual recovery of legal costs. It is the usual practice that a general claim is also made in pleadings for ”such further or other relief as the Court deems fit”.
It was mentioned in open court this morning that there had been correspondence between the parties in the past week as to the intention of group members to apply for a broader set of remedies if the common claims were decided in their favour in the class action. Such further claims were said by Mr Merkel to be consistent with the general claim of ”such further or other relief as the Court deems fit” and it was anticipated that this would include individual claims that could include monetary compensation.
Justice Bromberg was not aware of this development.
Mr Young claimed that this was unfair and unjust as Bolt & HWT had prepared the case on the understanding that there was no monetary claim and also it may effect the whole class action procedures where aggrieved persons could have otherwise been better informed for their decision not to opt-out, if they knew of this development.
Neither side pressed for a ruling from his Honour at this time on whether monetary compensation could be claimed by individuals following the class action trial on the common issues.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
COURT REPORT #3
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Mon 28 March 2011
In the afternoon session personal evidence was given by Pat Eatock and Bindi Cole.
Mr Merkel QC for the group members read out a witness statement on behalf of each lady before they entered the witness box.
In my opinion, the witness statements were compelling personal narratives and I understand that they will be available as public documents through the Court Registry.
There was not much time devoted to cross-examination of the two witnesses by Mr Young QC for Bolt and HWT.
The case resumes tomorrow morning when it is planned that Larissa Behrendt will provide her personal evidence.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
I should have done this yesterday - but the last three days have been a little full. A friend has had difficulty getting her comment up and asked if I could put it up for her. So here 'tis!
ReplyDeleteIn reading some of these comments it simply confirms that this country has more than its share of uneducated bigots, racists and sexists.
No wonder we have wars with innocent people being slaughtered and genocide continuing in this country.QIc01's comments suggest that he/she is both very angry and very aggressive.
Why is it necessary to resort to character assassinate someone who merely seeks to speak truth on a blog. Is it an affront to him/her to learn the truth of what is happening in the country he/she is obviously so proud of. I envy him/her that pride but unfortunately pride can only come when truth is recognised, injustices addressed and there is respect for everyone no matter what their origins/background.
Andrew Bolt in his position of obvious power, privilege and ability to use/abuse freedom of speech must also show responsibility. His comments - thoughtless at best, spiteful and demeaning at worst - unfortunately expose him to be lacking in something called 'empathy' for his fellow human beings.
CITIZEN OF THE WORLD
COURT REPORT #4
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Clarifying the link between the Nazi Party and Andrew Bolt (the defendant), Clark et als barrister Ron Merkel said "the Holocaust started with words and ended in violence."
The aim in life is to do your own thing as long as you don't hurt anyone. Bolt has offended and hurt some of our First Nations peoples whose skin is not jet black. They are not black because kids were stolen from their families and placed into white homes. These kids lost culture, were taught Religion, grew up and interbred with palefaces so as to exterminate the aboriginal race. Also known as genocide. A lot of kids were born out of wedlock from aboriginal women who were locked up in the watch house.
ReplyDeleteIt's not rocket science, gaz, to chart the course of the rise of the Nazi Party from the late 20s onward. It was a long time between the early days of the Nazis and building the gas ovens and concentration camps of the Holocaust. The later actions all began long before - with ideas and words. Merkel was pointing out that the ideas and words being sprouted by Bolt now can have consequences later on - just as happened with the Nazis. The actions and consequences don't have to be carried out by Bolt himself - but his words and ideas can bear fruit in the hands of another. This is why free speech has to be balanced with responsibility. Free speech can, otherwise, turn into a free for all from which detriment arises.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, it is not rocket science. Give something enough thrust, it moves, that's rocket science - easy. Historical analysis is orders of magnitude more complex, with layer after layer to be peeled away. When Hitler came to power he initially used existing speech control laws which had been put in place by his (liberal) opponents to control him and his people. As he said following protests, "where were you when my people were being jailed under these laws?". There is nothing new in the laws you favour, Weimar Germany had them in plenty. Didn't do them much good, and Hitler took full advantage of them.
ReplyDeleteAs to linking Bolt and the NAZI's? You may not agree with Bolts specific opinions, but it is absurd not to recognise that he is a strong believer in democracy, individual freedom and diminishing the authoritarian power of the state - beliefs that are diametrically opposed to the totalitarian and overbearing state socialism of the NAZIs.
Frankly, if you can make this comparison I have no choice bar to assume you know nothing of either Bolts philosophy, NAZIsm, NAZI history or the Weimar Republic.
There is simply no rational comparison between them.
Godwins Law anyone?
RadicalFemme indeed: "They are not black because kids were stolen from their families and placed into white homes. These kids lost culture, were taught Religion, grew up and interbred with palefaces so as to exterminate the aboriginal race. Also known as genocide."
ReplyDeleteYou describe a most peculiar form of genocide indeed.
Death (nay, "deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" ..... by marriage or sexual liason! The belated solution would obviously be to ban such dalliances involving the evil "palefaces" and their counterparts ("darkies"?).
Thanks for your response Miss Eagle, but Andrew Bolt's musings are hardly a precursor to gas chambers. Shout him down if you like. Shutting him down because you don't like his opinions would be a travesty.
Grow a hide and fight your fight, but leave free speech alone.
CountingCats said... "Godwins Law anyone"
I was too polite to mention this law but it certainly did rear it's head early in the game.
Ban free speech? Ban sex between races?
ReplyDeleteMiscegenation? That's bad is it?
Racial classification laws? Officially classify people into racial groups?
Even the NAZIs had a cut off point of a single grand parent being Jewish before they'd classify you as a Jew. Anything less than that and you were considered Aryan.
Sheesh, and you compare Bolt with NAZIs?
As I said, intellectually muddled - and that is being very polite.
No-one in these many comments has brought up miscegenation. Is this your concern? My understanding - and I know you will be happy to correct me if I'm wrong - is that some people, including Andrew Bolt, have as their concern dishonesty and claiming financial gain, perhaps privilege or social benefit, from a fact that appears to them to be convenient. I hadn't noticed that any person in this comments section cared who had sex with whom. So is miscegenation close to the top of your concerns in this matter?
ReplyDeleteRadicalFemme said...
ReplyDelete"These kids lost culture, were taught Religion, grew up and interbred with palefaces so as to exterminate the aboriginal race. Also known as genocide".
Miss Eagle said...
"No-one in these many comments has brought up miscegenation".
The logical conclusion of RadicalFemme's bizarre (and indeed radical) linking of "interbreeding" and "genocide" is that she would be against miscegenation, past and present.
Some would think her position has a whiff of racism about it.
COURT REPORT #4
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Tue 29 March 2011
The case resumed in the Federal Court this morning with Larissa Behrendt (a law professor amongst her other roles) giving her personal evidence.
As per the practice yesterday, Mr Ron Merkel QC for the group members read out Larissa's entire witness statement on behalf of her before she entered the witness box.
Larissa made distinction between what is apparently known as the 3-Part-Test of aboriginality and other personal identification as an aboriginal person.
The 3-Part-Test was said to consist of assessment of a person's (1) ancestry, (2) acceptance in the aboriginal community and (3) self-assessment as an aboriginal person. It is a common assessment, apparently, for various forms of benefits such as special assistance admission programmes to universities, where Larissa said that she was familiar with the practice. Further, Larissa said that she supports the use of this assessment for the practicalities of providing benefits, and also thought it may be appropriate for issues such as treaties.
Larissa was adamant, however, that beyond consideration for membership of a group where that group was being defined for some purpose such as access to benefits, that she felt that questions of identity are a very personal matter for the individual concerned.
This was brought out through 30 minutes or so of cross-examination by Mr Nigel Young QC who is representing Mr Bolt and HWT in the proceedings.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
Thank you for your sterling efforts, David. I really appreciate what you have done as do many others. Will the case conclude this afternoon when Andrew Bolt finishes giving evidence - and then Justice Bromberg will reserve his decision?
ReplyDeleteI reckon I owe you at least some coffee and cake. My email address is accessible from this blog. So if you wish to do coffee sometime, please email me.
Thanks dcbarrow for the running commentary on the disgraceful court proceedings, though I thought today must have been a short session given the brevity of today's notes.
ReplyDeleteI found quite a bit of extra information included in Crikey's article "Andrew Bolt attacks ‘false, offensive’ claims". It's quite an entertaining albeit biased account of today's events.
See http://bit.ly/h5ysv4
COURT REPORT #5
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Tue 29 March 2011
As the proceedings continued in the morning following Larissa Behrendt’s evidence, Mr Young QC for Mr Bolt and HWT opened the case for the Defence.
Mr Young said that the case was adequately set out in the Defence pleadings and it essentially concerned issues as to the application of sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act to the publications in question.
Ultimately this is a balance between free speech and publications that may be likely to offend groups, he said.
However he made a forceful submission that this was not a case about the holocaust, Hitler race laws or eugenics.
Such views are unusual and extreme, he said, and are very offensive to be associated incorrectly with his clients – and are irrelevant to the issues in this case.
Mr Young then called Mr Andrew Bolt to the witness stand.
Mr Bolt’s counsel then sought an opportunity for Mr Bolt to respond to some comments made by Mr Ron Merkel QC when Merkel opened the case for the applicant group members yesterday morning.
Mr Merkel, rose to his feet and objected that such an indulgence would see Mr Bolt giving a speech not giving evidence.
Justice Bromberg was a bit troubled by the prospect of Mr Bolt giving a speech, but was persuaded by his counsel Mr Young that the response could be elicited by asking questions of Mr Bolt in the usual way of counsel in adducing evidence.
There was a short recess then for Mr Bolt’s counsel to study the transcript of yesterday morning (a copy of which was lent to them by their opposite counsel as the version for Bolt & HWT had gone astray).
When the matter resumed Mr Bolt was asked a question artfully by Mr Young such that he was able to give a response which referenced certain extracts of the transcript which read (approx):
* Mr Bolt has taken us back to that eugenics then [of Nazi Germany] of aborigines
* Mr Bolt is a man living in a mindset frozen in a point in time [controlled breeding eugenics of Nazi Germany]
* this kind of thinking led to the Nuremburg [Race] Laws
* the holocaust started with words and ended in violence
Mr Merkel submitted that such comments were not directed at Mr Bolt but rather the process that is reflected in the types of articles that Mr Bolt published.
Mr Bolt was given an opportunity to enter his response, and said that the references were false, grossly offensive and that he had been a vigorous opponent against eugenics is columns all of his life.
...Cross-examination then ensued...
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
"Freedom of speech does not give you the right to stand up in a crowed theatre and shout "FIRE"! quote: Mr. Merkel QC. That is the truth of the matter. Bolt hides behind the banner of "Freedom of Speech" and throws little literary bombs around and then stands back to see the carnage.He doesnt care at all about how it affects individuals. Its all about free speech.Right!! Listen to him bleat now. He is a horrible man not unlike some of the people who have written before me. Thank whoever we have people like Miss Eagle her friend, Darwi and Damian and( 3 cheers for) Jill in this world.
ReplyDeleteSorry, my last post was under Chris rather than my real handle, CountingCats. They were both me, not him.
ReplyDeleteMiss Eagle, don’t be ridiculous, as well as insulting to for no reason. Nothing I wrote could possibly be interpreted as a concern about miscegenation in the way you did unless you were choosing to deliberately smear for no justification.
Although no one other than me had explicitly used the word, RadicalFemme made her opinions of the principle clear in her shockingly racist and hatemongering rant, so admirably skewered by gaz. I really don’t give a toss who gets all nooky with whom, unlike RadicalFemme who seems dreadfully worked up about it. But then, I don’t define people by their ethnicity.
As to the other writings, what we see here are true believers in progressive liberalism, eager to impose political censorship, racial classification laws and inequality under the law, as well as demonstrating arrant racism, hatred of sex between racial groups and hate filled rants.
All in the name of tolerance………
Yet you imply that a free speaking and true believer in liberal democracy like Andrew Bolt has opinions comparable to NAZIsm?
Really?
Just because he thinks your racial classification laws are being scammed?
And this without your seeming to have a clue about what NAZI policies, history and philosophy were?
As that well known socialist Benito Mussolini said, on studying President Roosevelt’s progressive liberal policies – “The man is one of us”.
Instead of smearing, do you feel like addressing any of the substantive points I raised?
COURT REPORT #6
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Tue 29 March 2011
In the later morning and after the lunch recess, cross-examination of Mr Andrew Bolt was commenced and conducted by senior co-counsel Mr Herman Borenstein SC for the applicant group members.
Mr Bolt acknowledged that he had an obligation to check the accuracy of the facts on which his publications were based, and also stated that his research was thorough and diligent.
Mr Bolt said that he did not contact any of the persons featured in the 4 articles that are the subject of these proceedings because he was confident that taking material that these people had already put into the public arena would be accurate.
Mr Bolt asserted that his blog is dedicated to exposing material that is factually inaccurate on matters of public importance.
Mr Bolt denied that he made any accusations that any of the named group members, such as Bindi Cole, were not genuine about identifying as Aboriginal. Mr Bolt also denied that he was making any accusations that any of them did so to access benefits unfairly such as financial gains or career advancement.
However, Mr Bolt, did say that assuming an Aboriginal identity could be done, in his opinion, for a political reasons or agenda, or due to the person being self-absorbed -- and that through making this choice certain consequences are available after that (without specifying what those consequences might be).
Such movements in society he says he has become aware of through his research of trends or fashions of our times.
Mr Bolt said that he was driven by a sense of injustice that resources available to Aboriginal people should go towards those in poverty or lacking opportunity for such things as a good education.
Mr Bolt also said that he was a person who attacked racial divisiveness as his way of attacking racism.
Mr Bolt also then sought to make his point (offensively many in the gallery intimated) by pointing out Aboriginal activist Mr Geoff Clark in court and saying that he was a racist. Off Mr Borenstein objections, and despite Mr Young for Bolt trying to calm things down, Justice Bromberg urged Mr Bolt to give his evidence directly without seeking to use inadmissible analogies concerning specific individuals in the public gallery who would likely take offence from such comments.
Mr Bolt apologised to Mr Clark of sorts by saying that this point was not personal, and noted, for what record or purpose it is not sure, that he actually liked Mr Clark and had shared a drink with him once. It was an unusual court moment.
Mr Bolt admitted that his articles could cause offence and insult by confronting the people depicted therein with the consequences of their actions, and he added that he hoped that those people would then be remorseful as a result.
Mr Bolt stated that it was his view that if one participates in public debate then one must be prepared to face criticism and that this is something that he is always prepared to do. As Mr Bolt put it, this is the lifeblood of democracy in society. He also added that when entering the public arena one must be prepared for disagreement, which can be bruising.
Mr Bolt said that he did not believe that there is in fact a racial definition that divides us as we are all fundamentally human beings. We are all polyglots he said.
...the trial continues with more personal evidence from Mr Bolt expected to be adduced over the rest of Wednesday...
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
COURT REPORT #7
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Wed 30 March 2011
The case resumed this morning with the continued cross-examination of Mr Andrew Bolt by senior co-counsel Mr Herman Borenstein SC for the applicant group members.
Mr Bolt was presented again with the articles that are the subject of the proceedings and was asked to explain his intention in making some of the statements in them.
At times Mr Bolt did not always stay confined to the questions that were put to him by counsel, and substantially repeated some of his testimony of the previous day.
Mr Bolt expressed his personal view that race is a fluid concept that means different things to different people. He agreed that it could be defined as a cultural identity, but certainly not in terms of eugenics. He was of the view that it was not wise for a court to define in a fixed sense what it is to be an Aborigine, although he could see the value in having a definition of Aboriginality in a restricted way for the purpose of determining eligibility to benefits or to stand for election. Mr Bolt also emphasised again that it was his personal view that race was a term he felt uncomfortable with and to make it a generally fixed definition would be divisive.
Mr Bolt repeatedly said that it was his view that a person identifying as an Aboriginal was making a choice, and that with that choice come consequences.
Mr Bolt also said that because the subject of his articles have a public dimension that he could comment as he liked -- or he had thought he could (presumably before these racial discrimination proceedings were brought against him and HWT). He said this was all part of a public conversation.
Mr Bolt said that his articles were the result of his wide and extensive researches. The sources that Mr Bolt referenced for the articles were said to be listed in an appendix to his witness statement, which was tendered and taken as read at the start of his personal evidence yesterday.
As a reality of writing columns that are restricting to about 1000 words, Mr Bolt said that in the tyranny of that defined space, as he put it, he needed to make the material fit and did so in a concise but always fair and accurate way. He added that he did have some more space for his online writings than he had imposed on him by the newspaper editors for his printed columns, and that his greater readership was trending more towards the online materials he thought.
Mr Bolt said that he wrote his articles in what he intended to be an interesting way, which would provoke thought, and that he covered issues and expressed a view that was not often expressed because people could feel intimidated to do so.
Some aspects of his writing was a joke or satirical he said, and may involve confronting people with their own contradictions which many of those people did not like and so tried to silence.
With respect to the Aboriginality identification issues in his articles that were the subject of these proceedings he said that he felt he needed to make some points of public comment to show the absurdity to which we have descended.
Mr Bolt said that he believed it was wrong that plum jobs (as he put it) are reserved for Aboriginals only.
Mr Bolt referred to the Welcome to Country cultural practice of Aborigines as being a race-based entrenching of division that he was opposed to.
Much of Mr Borenstein’s cross examination focused on putting to Mr Bolt that the intend of Mr Bolt in writing the articles included depicting some of the people therein in (1) a gratuitous or derogatory light (which Mr Bolt denied) and (2) also in a way that Mr Bolt would have apprehended would likely have caused offence or insult to those people (which Mr Bolt admitted in the context of his intent to make some points in a public conversation on the issues raised in the articles).
The proceedings were adjourned by Justice Bromberg for a lunch recess.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
COURT REPORT #8
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Wed 30 March 2011
The case resumed after the lunch recess, with senior co-counsel Mr Herman Borenstein SC for the applicant group members continuing to cross-examine Mr Bolt as to what his intention was in making some of the substantive statements in the articles that are the subject of the proceedings.
Mr Borenstein had difficulty in confining Mr Bolt to the questions that were put to him, and Mr Bolt was determined to qualify most of his answers regarding his intentions such that at one stage Mr Borenstein asked a bit exacerbated is there a “vibe” that should be detected by Mr Bolt's readers?
Mr Bolt referred Mr Borenstein back to his response of the previous day, being essentially the point that assuming an Aboriginal identity could be done, in his opinion, for a political reasons and through making this choice certain consequences are available after that.
Mr Borenstein took Mr Bolt to one of his articles where a person was identified as being gay and put it to Mr Bolt that he had included that information on the person’s sexual identity in the article in a gratuitous way and for the purpose of imputing a derogatory meaning about the person.
Mr Bolt exploded in response from the witness box, saying very strongly that in no way did he use the term gay as an insult. Mr Bolt added that the godfather of his children was gay and also he had helped a gay Aboriginal person to secure a column with his HWT employer. To be depicted falsely as a bigot in this way, and in all the newspapers yesterday morning as linked to the Nazi movement and eugenics, was an unforgiveable travesty he said.
Mr Bolt said that he strongly condemned homophobia and had been committed to this position extensively through his columns and blogs.
So incensed was Mr Bolt that his Honour asked if he might like a 10 minute break from the witness box.
Mr Bolt calmed down a bit, and elected to press on, but still looking indignant and fuming said that he did not agree that his use of the term gay in the article was an implied insult.
The cross-examination of Mr Bolt ended on the issue of why he had included the saving-clause or disclaimer, as Mr Borenstein put it, in one of Mr Bolt’s article that “I’m not saying any of those I’ve named chose to be Aboriginal for anything but the most heartfelt and honest of reasons. I certainly don’t accuse them of opportunism, even if full-blood Aborigines may wonder how such fair people can claim to be one of them and in some cases take black jobs”, where Mr Bolt did not then repeat this or something similar in a subsequent article. Mr Bolt answered that it had probably not occurred to him and in any event the articles did not need a disclaimer.
It was planned that the next day the Defence would make its final submissions and closing, with the final submissions and closing of the Applicant group members on the Friday.
...The proceedings were then adjourned by Justice Bromberg for the next day...
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
Bolt, Allan Jones, Prue Macsween, Steve Price, et la... a serious embarrassment to Australian culture. When the devil comes to collect their souls he will be disappointed as they have already sold them. The right wing is lost in ideological corruption, they are nothing but mouth pieces for the 2/3 of American companies that failed to pay any corporate tax last year. Perhaps they are even too stupid to know it!
ReplyDeleteNOTE#2
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
The action is being brought under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth):
Key sections are...
...SECTION 18C for the Applicant claim:
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
... (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
(3) In this section: "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
...SECTION 18D Exemptions for the Defence:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
COURT REPORT #9
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Thu 31 March 2011
The case resumed this morning with Mr Andrew Bolt called again to the witness box by his counsel Mr Neil Young QC primarily to tender a few extra documents.
Justice Bromberg then excused Mr Bolt from further testimony, to which Mr Bolt joked he hoped that his Honour would make that a promise.
Mr Bolt returned to the public gallery to sit again with those members of his legal team that were not at the bar table, as well as senior Herald and Weekly Times management, and I believe his wife.
Mr Young then tendered a few more relevant documents (such as academic articles and book extracts on race issues) that arose out of the examination of the witnesses in the past 3 days, and with the leave of Justice Bromberg, Mr Young then embarked on the final submissions for his clients Mr Bolt and HWT.
Thus started a thorough journey of considering the points and philosophy (jurisprudence) of the law through leading case authority and the nature of statutory interpretation, as well as reviewing all the evidence of the case and how the facts are proven by the evidence, with the law applied to the facts for the Defence said to be made out.
In summary, this journey followed the Defence pleadings of 24 January 2011 at section 4A:
Bolt claims that it is his belief that:
(a) racism is abhorrent and a gravely divisive social force, which is perpetuated by emphasising racial differences;
(b) in modern Australia, there is a discernable trend whereby persons of mixed genealogy, where that genealogy includes Aboriginality, choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, where they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all;
(c) the applicant [Pat Eatock] and the group members illustrate that trend, in that they are each persons who choose to identify as Aboriginal persons, even though they could choose to identify with another race or other races, or with no race at all; and
(d) the trend is an undesirable social phenomenon because it emphasises racial differences, rather than common humanity.
Mr Young was slowed a number of times in his journey by Justice Bromberg seeking thoughtful assistance on the law, particularly on the jurisprudence of the issue of freedom of speech. Is there a right to a freedom of speech? To what extent is it a right that can be qualified?
Mr Young also reserved a point of possible constitutional challenge on the operation of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
By days end, Mr Young had made it through most of his submissions, but would need to continue tomorrow. It is envisaged now that the trial will continue until at least Monday, and Mr Ron Merkel QC for the applicant group members also indicated possibly Tuesday until the final submissions and closing arguments are all heard.
...The proceedings were then adjourned by Justice Bromberg for the next day...
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
COURT REPORT #9A
ReplyDeleteVID770/2010 Pat Eatock v Andrew Bolt & HWT
Friday 1st April 2011
It was hoped that today would be the final day of trial, however, following a slower period of careful questioning yesterday of Mr Neil Young QC by Justice Bromberg on some of the complex jurisprudence, the trial will continue through until at least Monday, and possibly Tuesday.
Perhaps because it was thought it was going to be the last day of trial, or just spontaneously, in what could charitably be described as an act of good will, as the parties entered court this morning, Mr Andrew Bolt presented the daughter of the lead applicant Pat Eatock with 9 copies of Gibbon's “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” for her mother and the other 8 named group members. Pat’s daughter said that she thought that her mother was already well across all of that sort of history through her higher degrees, and perhaps so were the others, but if public libraries would take them then Mr Bolt could send them there for the public interest.
As it happened, in a sort of spontaneous reciprocation, though really more in an effort of consciousness raising, I was asked by a representative of the applicant group members to present Mr Bolt with a statue of a white man standing on top of a hill sucking a spearmint. After at first giving a lengthy aesthetic interpretation of the work, Mr Bolt said that he understood it to be a sort of satire perhaps, which he opined tended to get steamrolled in court, and he even ventured a title for the posing man, aprilfool, and all were in accord.
[David Barrow of Melbourne]
Sorry to see no more comments nor court reporting.
ReplyDeleteAh, gaz, all is ephemeral. Or, as the Tao would say wu wei (see http://www.jadedragon.com/archives/june98/tao.html).
ReplyDeleteDavid Barrow came out of the woodwork with his court reporting which I thought was of quite a good standard. Haven't heard from him since Friday. Clearly, other things have taken precedence in his life over things Bolt. A friend - who has been in court most days - could not turn up in court yesterday either. So no news on that front.
Are you on Twitter? The Twitterverse had a great time amusing itself yesterday under #BoltsNewShow if you care to have a look at the witticisms.
UPDATE (sans DB):
ReplyDeleteIn pursuit of "a downhill escalator to a racist hell", "nine Aborigines suing columnist Andrew Bolt for racial discrimination yesterday dropped their demand for an apology".
http://bit.ly/i2XQ0D
I'm no legal eagle, but I'm wondering if the applicants are sensing treacherous waters ahead and are trying to forestall costs being awarded against them.
Regarding twitter, I have not yet descended to such depths, though better men have been before me. I'm sure the young'uns have been gainfully occupied twittering and tweetering on Andrew Bolt's (apparently unknown to him) focus group.
Miss Eagle, thought I'd said it before, but thanks for the airspace on this site, albeit my position being against your cause.
And finally, David Barrow's court reporting makes for a good read (I think this applies irrespective of the side one might take). Thanks Mr Barrow.