Guest post – Broken Promise – The promise we are glad Abbott has broken

May 28, 2014

Peter Wicks

 

It has come to light that Tony Abbott and the Coalition are set to break yet another election promise.

Unlike all of the other broken promises however I don’t think we will be seeing a backlash from the public over this one, although some sections of the public will no doubt be disappointed.

Fairfax has revealed that George Brandis is backing down to decency and public outcry over his proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, in what has become known as the Section 18C Attack, or the Bolt Bill.

Those who will no doubt be disappointed over Abbott’s latest broken promise will be some of the most influential to the Coalition.

Racists, Bogans, Nazis and bigots will together with shock-jocks, right-wing columnists, Senator Cory Bernardi and of course Attorney General George Brandis will no doubt mourn this day as a loss for freedom of speech, along with other Coalition MPs.

The freedom they desperately sought was the freedom to racially vilify people. The freedom to use words as a weapon and reduce people to an object that is easy to hate as Hitler did so effectively with his anti-Semitic propaganda designed to dehumanise Jews on his rise to power.

We all remember how badly that ended…

This freedom to vilify and preach hate was of course the promise that Tony Abbott and George Brandis made to columnist Andrew Bolt, and thankfully they have failed to deliver.

The promise was made after Bolt was found guilty of breaching the Discrimination Act in 2011 in Federal Court.

This is one promise I am glad to hear the Abbott government breaking, although it will no doubt lead to months of publicly crying like a baby from Andrew Bolt and others like him.

Andrew Bolt must be fighting back the tears

To those of us who accept people from all walks of life and backgrounds without judgement this is a huge win. It is a huge win also because it has proven that if there is a large enough outcry the government elected to represent us will eventually listen to us and may truly represent us instead of their nutty mates.

Australians have spoken with a united voice on this issue and boldly stated that it is not acceptable to vilify someone due to their race in this country.

Australians have heeded the old saying of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Australians accept that we are part of a multicultural society and that means that we should accept people of all races as they are part of the fabric of our great nation.

We’ve been a multicultural society ever since us white folk invaded aboriginal land.

It also shows that Australians are wise enough to recognise that the campaign of fear being perpetrated by those on the right is not working.

The campaign I speak of is the campaign that attempts to portray the extremists and the radical as part of the norm within some sections of society. An example of this would be the campaign about how one day we will have sharia law in Australia if we don’t do something now, as that is what all Muslims are apparentlyseeking.

I’m sure most of you have heard something along a similar line.

This is of course complete and utter crap. We are more likely to see Elvis as our Prime Minister than we are to introduce sharia law here.

Much to the displeasure of the racists and right-wingers we are an overwhelmingly decent society and we long to remain so.

As much as Andrew Bolt and others like him may subtly preach hate and fear, sadly for them most of their listeners and readers aren’t that easily led and are quite capable of differentiating between political commentary and the rantings of a fuckwit.

On this broken promise from the Coalition, I have two words to say.

I say these two words not because of any religious views (I’m an atheist), but because I think today is a great day to be proud of our nation’s ability to accept others and to make a stand against racism in all its forms, plus I can think of no other words that will piss off the right wingers more.

Praise Allah.
 
Follow Wixxy at his blog Wixxyleaks

Andrew Bolt spits the dummy, takes his toys and goes home

#QandA

But the accusation bruised Bolt so badly he stayed at home the following day, presumably clutching a security blanket.

In her comments Marcia Langton actually referred to Justice Bromberg’s judgement delivered in September 2011.

[The plaintiffs] Were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles

— JUDGMENT, Bromberg J, Federal Court of Australia, Eatock v Bolt , 28th September, 2011

i.e. the conditions necessary for a finding that a racist act had been committed had been proven.

We are still waiting two years later for the eminent judge to be the subject of a dummy spit.

And Mike Carlton expressed it beautifully

Now let’s see what Bolt wrote in his very own column.

Now after Price and Bolt had finished bullying Marcia Langton on air along came listener “Warren”.

Remember Bolt likes to portray himself as a champion of “free speech”. Guess that means free speech only for him and his kind.

For instance he had this to say about Indigenous academic Dr Misty Jenkins (as quoted by Paul Barry)

She (Professor Langton) then talked about her colleague Dr Misty Jenkins, whom Bolt had described in a previous column as “a blonde and pale science PhD who calls herself Aboriginal”

Errr…Misty Jenkins is Aboriginal

Now Bolt might be interested to know that it is not just Indigenous people who are offended by his words and their implications about Misty Jenkins.

And full marks to “Warren” for expressing our thoughts.

Source

Andrew Bolt: his rights our freedom

Tony Abbott and George Brandis – champions of “freedom of speech” hate speech

Flushed with the recent victory of its owner Rupert Murdoch in the Federal elections, The Australian decided to highlight what it obviously considers as a triumph for the new regime and a number one priority.

Budget cuts announced? Talks with regional partners? Business taxes? Education?

No folks, it was this (paywall).

NB If you type the article title into the Google search box you will be able to read the whole article

Some highlights (or lowlights) of the article

TONY Abbott plans to roll back Labor’s laws that limit free speech on the basis of not “giving offence”, defend religious freedom and reform the Australian Human Rights Commission.

When conservatives use the word “reform” it inevitably means a backward step. So until we hear otherwise it no doubt means that that the AHRC is going to be stifled, its powers reduced and its individual commissioners cut in number.

This would involve amending the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits remarks that offend others on grounds of race or ethnicity. This was the provision used to prosecute newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt.

So rabble-rousing second-rate hacks and aggro shock jocks, along with the bogotariat in the ‘burbs we deal with here will be given open slather to hate and vilify.

The text of the Act is here

Quote from Abbott:

” ….then we’ve got to allow people to say things that are unsayable in polite company

So Abbott is not only sanctioning the race to the bottom, he is happy to stand there with the starter pistol.

Tony Abbott explores the bottom

Mr Abbott’s stance on championing the right of free speech also involves support for the position of Senator Brandis that the Human Rights Commission Act may need to be amended to guarantee reform in its outlook and its promotion of traditional democratic freedoms.

In other words the AHRC, the main national safeguard against defamation and vilification of minorities, a body whose reach retired MP and former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon was hoping to strengthen and extend, is to be totally gutted – all in the name of protecting and nurturing those shonks who do not need protection.

Senator Brandis has attacked the Human Rights Commission as “an anti-discrimination commission” with little attachment to classical human rights.

Well hey George, how do you intend to go about protecting the rights of the vulnerable and the powerless….oh wait…?

Back in March we foreshadowed such changes to the Racial Discrimination Act on this blog. We can probably say that vilified minorities will have no choice in seeking remedies but to submit to the expensive and long process of civil court litigation.

Or, as is no doubt hoped by Brandis, they will silently endure defamation, harassment and vilification to keep happy all of those pure-at-heart libertarians, including members of his own party.

So is Brandis going to abolish the protected status MPs and Senators enjoy under parliamentary privilege? Like Liberals Corey Bernardi and Luke Simpkins for instance?

In fact the appalling far right stink think tank Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a frat boy grooming club and finishing school for future Coalition pollies, has suggested that “market forces” will punish discrimination.

Yeah right…

Courts are generally rightly concerned about the impacts of racism and bigotry and sympathetic towards its unfortunate victims. However successful litigation costs money. Minorities do not have the money, sometimes do not have the language skills to easily describe their distress and sometimes do not have the experience to successfully navigate the system.

The landmark findings against anti-Semitic vilification Gutnick v Dow Jones & Company Inc, upheld later on appeal, came firstly from a case mounted by an individual with considerable personal resources and secondly from an aggrieved Jewish organisation.

The second matter resulted in contempt charges against the defendant who refused to remove anti-Semitic material from a website.

More recently a case was brought against Andrew Bolt by nine prominent Indigenous people disgusted by Bolt’s references to their ancestry and skin colour.  Mike Carlton outlines its results here. The point of the case was not so much that these prominent people necessarily felt personally humiliated by the sneeringly patronising venal remarks made by Bolt. They would not have been surprised because like us they know full well that Bolt is an ignorant boofhead kept on a chain in Murdoch’s stable specifically to stir up those stupid enough to read his drivel.

The point was that not only were they appearing in court for themselves but they represented people who would have been aggrieved and hurt but who would not necessarily have had the wherewithal or the power to pursue such a case.

It would be desirable that all those demeaned and vilified by racists and bigots could easily and affordably access legal remedies, and that the law was enabling such access.

However it looks like the Coalition is keen to close off one of these avenues, so keen that it was one of its first announcements after what has been a puzzling policy vacuum.

The Coalition and those it protects will find out that letting the dogs loose works both ways

Read more

Senator George Brandis wants you offended and insulted

Andrew Bolt: his rights, our freedom reblogged by us here

Nuts come out after the truth has bolted

Feel free to speak about whatever I want you to

The Australian Independent Media Network

Part A

In an address to the IPA titled “Freedom Wars”, Tony Abbott declared that it is his intention to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, claiming that this section of the Act impacts upon Freedom of Speech. This ideal of freedom of speech is that which we should all aspire to, however, as a friend once stated: You mean the freedom to be an asshole. We will explore this later.

The text of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) can be found via Austlii.

Section C18 of the Act, that being which Tony Abbott so vehemently opposes concerns offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. That’s correct, it’s offensive behaviour, with the specifics being:

For an act to be unlawful it must fulfill the following criteria:

• that the action causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or…

View original post 1,688 more words

Kicking Against The Pricks

A slightly different take on Eddie McGuire’s comments

WixxyLeaks

Like many others I awoke to the news that Eddie McGuire did not need to take the “phone a friend” option to say something stupid.

I won’t repeat what Eddie said as it was stupid and foolish, and clearly many people took offense at it. Although it’s available all though the press, and you’ve probably heard it anyway.

I will however say some things in Eddie’s defence if I may.

In the context of how it they were used, his words were clearly meant as a joke. Now I know that is not an excuse, however I think the line with jokes comes down to intent.

I don’t believe Eddie had a malicious intent when he uttered the words he is clearly now regretting. He now seems genuinely upset that he has foolishly caused offense.

He has however done the right thing so far, he has fronted up and…

View original post 948 more words

The politics of race go beyond black and white

Tory Shepherd

by Tory Shepherd

04 Oct 05:55am

You don’t often hear people challenging someone’s claim to be Italian. Or Swedish, or American. Generally you accept what they say even if they don’t have an accent, or a funny surname, or blond hair.

[/caption]

Aboriginality, on the other hand, apparently remains a contested field.

The Federal Court last week decided that high-profile and controversial columnist Andrew Bolt had breached the Racial Discrimination Act in his columns ‘It’s so hip to be black’, and ‘White fellas in the black’, which questioned why nine prominent ‘fair-skinned Aborigines’ identified as Aboriginal.

Bolt has (loudly and publicly) claimed that the decision is an attempt to silence him and muzzle debate on race – and indeed the court’s decision will make some people more hesitant to speak or write frankly.

Bolt says he writes in order to unify, rather than divide people.

But the court’s decision and the renewed prominence of those articles have sparked more malignant and divisive chatter about whether people ‘choose’ to be Aboriginal when it suits them – what Bolt called a ‘popular’ choice.

Why would you accuse someone of choosing to be Aboriginal just to get some hazy, occasional benefit? Identity is a deeply personal thing, not a whimsical choice that happens in a vacuum.

Anyone who thinks someone of mixed genetic heritage would elevate their Aboriginality for personal gain wilfully misunderstands humanity in general. That many can feel proud of their heritage rather than ashamed as they may have in times past is a triumph.

To think this is a ploy is utterly arse-backwards.

It’s a symptom of this strange but creeping belief of some that the most disadvantaged are in fact unfairly advantaged.

These little Aussie battlers see their hard-earned money propping up the welfare system, and it fair makes them see red. Why should they work their gnarly fingers to the bone so people can sit around on their arses all day?

With their overblown sense of entitlement they’ve lost sight of what it means to live in a society; a society that has an obligation to the less fortunate.

They think people who have been sideswiped by colonisation, sent into a tailspin of poverty, ill health and despair, people who suffer appalling health outcomes, shorter lifespans and intergenerational unemployment, are somehow better off than they are.

The same people look at refugees making a new life for themselves and forward fraudulent emails claiming they take home huge amounts of cash in government benefits.

They probably think people choose to be disabled just to get the good carparks.

In Australia we prize individuality, we celebrate the ‘battler’ eking out an existence to keep his family fed, and in doing so we seem to have eroded the higher purpose of being a good group; a functioning civilisation.

The ‘tribe’ has shrunk from being a community of people to being a household of people, with many sure that their obligations end at the front door.

People see the distinct welfare for Aboriginal people – Abstudy, for example, or dedicated scholarships or housing – as favouritism, or misplaced atonement.

It’s a hard-hearted, self-interested bunker mentality.

Put aside the judge-a-society-by-how-it-treats-its-most-vulnerable platitudes, and look at the pragmatics.

Breaking the cycle of disadvantage through offering extra opportunities is a way to end the welfare dependency. Give people a leg up so they no longer need a hand out.

It worked for girls – who have come from behind on academic achievements but thanks to extra support are now in front; so it is now boys who are behind in school.

To all those who envy the ‘advantages’ of the vulnerable, one can only hope you one day enjoy them.

Source

Nuts come out after the truth has bolted

October 1, 2011

The usual reactionaries have risen as one in defence of Andrew Bolt, the Melbourne columnist and village idiot, convicted on Wednesday for breaching the Racial Discrimination Act. An attack on freedom of speech, they howled. A dark day for democracy.

Since the verdict, Bolt himself has played the martyred victim, drenched in self-pity, a sickening spectacle.

His fellow Murdoch hack, Miranda Devine, invoked the spectre of Nazi concentration camps, thereby immediately losing the argument. The shadow attorney general, George Brandis, blathered about George Orwell’s 1984.

Most ludicrous of all, one Sinclair Davidson, a Melbourne economics professor and, predictably, a “Senior Fellow” at that sink of right wing propaganda, the Institute of Public Affairs, wants to scrap the law altogether and let “market forces” punish discrimination. This is not satire. He meant it.

What these savants ignore is that Bolt just got it wrong. That’s W-R-O-N-G. As Justice Moredecai Bromberg found, the columnist’s two offending emissions in the Murdoch Herald Sun were shot through with “gross errors”.

The bottom of Bolt’s rant was that pale-skinned Aborigines were more white than black, and should behave that way. Instead, they had decided in adult life to become “official” or “professional” blacks, thus muscling in on “other people’s glories” – jobs, preferment and prizes that should be reserved for proper Aborigines.

He sprayed special venom upon the academic Larissa Behrendt who, he claimed, had a German father. “Which people are ‘yours’, exactly, mein liebchen?” he sneered. Bolt clearly prefers his darkies dark.

In fact, Behrendt’s father was a black Australian. She – and the other eight plaintiffs in the case – were raised from infancy in Aboriginal culture and society. Given that crashing blunder, the rest of his stuff falls in a heap, exposed for the racist garbage it was.

The judge did not smother free speech. He skewered dud journalism.

Bolt’s parents were from Holland. If he believes that freedom of speech carries a licence to spear people for their ethnicity, he will not then object to me suggesting he would do better to quit the media and take up growing tulips and making cheese. Wearing clogs. Ah, the Lying Dutchman.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, Mynheer.

Mike Carlton is a columnist with The Age

Source

Know The Laws Regarding Online Racism

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(Note: the word ‘origin’ can be defined as “a person’s social background or ancestry”. Social background can refer to a person’s adopted religion, especially if born into a country where culture is somewhat dictated by religion)
(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.

In every single post published by theantibogan on this website, the comments put forth by the perpetrators of discrimination would almost certainly be found offensive if read by the people belonging to the race/culture/religion they are referring to. Comments found on this website are made almost exclusively because of people’s race, colour and/or national/ethnic origin.
(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.

All comments used by theantibogan on this website have been pulled from public websites and publicly accessible social media forums including public news feeds and web based groups and organisations. All comments used on this website have been made with the realisation that said comments are viewable by any person of any age, gender or background with access to a computer and the Internet.
Part IIA Prohibition of offensive behaviour based on racial hatred
Section 18D (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.

The majority of comments (re)published on this website have come from Facebook forums and publicly accessible groups and news feeds. Any member of the public has access to these comments in their original state by right, and by being republished here, by invitation from another website.

If you come here to criticise the actions of the authors of this blog, keep these laws in mind, and realise that every person that has ever featured in this blog is in direct breach of Australian Federal Law.

Read the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 here.