Just in ... up date soon

Andrew Bolt loses racial vilification court case

HERALD Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has lost an action brought in the Federal Court in which the columnist' was accused of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act.

Bolt was found to have contravened Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Nine applicants brought a class-action against Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times claiming Bolt wrote they sought professional advantage from the colour of their skin.

The judges ordered both parties to confer on relief arising from the action.

At issue was Bolt's assertion that the nine applicants had chosen to identify themselves as “Aboriginal” and consequently win grants, prizes and career advancement, despite their apparently fair skin and mixed heritage.

The nine applicants were led by activist Pat Eatock and included artist Bindi Cole, NSW Australian of the Year Larissa Behrendt, author Anita Heiss and former ATSIC chief Geoff Clark.



Four articles published by the Herald Sun columnist in the newspaper and his blog were “a head-on assault on a group of highly successful and high-achieving” Aborigines, Ron Merkel QC told the court during proceedings in late March and early April.

The nine people sought an apology from the Herald & Weekly Times and an order against republishing, but no compensation.

In an occasionally explosive case, Bolt’s writings about Aboriginal identity were painted as being akin to a “eugenics approach” and similar to writings that led to the Holocaust.

Bolt subsequently protested the slurs in court as “an unforgivable travesty.”

In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/andrew-bolt-x-racial-vilification-court-case/story-e6frg996-1226148919092

Geoff Clark: professional complainer and racial whinger.

Not surprising - these kind of bogus kangaroo court cases have about as much chance of delivering a not guilty verdict as the nuremberg show trials.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

Geoff Clark: professional complainer and racial whinger.

Don't forget repeat gang-rapist.

well done Green on removing the racist word from the title. leave the content to make such determinations. Thank you.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

Geoff Clark: professional complainer and racial whinger.

And he has ground for it ... because the Hard Right Bolt is a Racist Dolt and the court backed this up.

Another nail in the coffin for free speech.

The waste and dubious distribution of wealth in the Indigenous industry looks set to continue to the detriment of indigenous people that are suffering, whilst people that look as white as me skim cream from top. Well done judge.

Geoff Clarke, what a despicable pig of a man.

Bloody hell, I can't stand Bolt & I cant stand red headed lily white fat bastards calling themselves aboriginal either.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 10:55am: Geoff Clark: professional complainer and racial whinger. Don't forget repeat gang-rapist.

yes, forgot that one. he is not a nice person.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 10:59am:

Bloody hell, I can't stand Bolt & I cant stand red headed lily white fat bastards calling themselves aboriginal either.

i too despise people calling themselves aboriginal when they are white people. surely a natural and easy-to understand determination is that to be aboriginal you must be 50% or more indiginous blood.  surely, an amount less that half means you are mainly SOMETHING ELSE?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 10:59am:

Bloody hell, I can't stand Bolt & I cant stand red headed lily white fat bastards calling themselves aboriginal either.

hahahah, puts you in a tough spot

http://anitaheissblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/my-statement-on-todays-in-in-federal.html?spref=tw

Tuesday, September 27, 2011
My statement on today's win in the Federal Court!

MEDIA RELEASE:

ANITA HEISS’ STATEMENT ON EATOCK VS HWT

I published my first piece of journalism in 1992. It was a story about the Aboriginal Housing Company in Redfern. In the last twenty years, I have used my skills across publishing mediums and literary genres to write positive stories about Aboriginal Australia with the aim of building bridges between black and white communities.

On April 15, 2009, with a flick of his pen, Andrew Bolt in his article ‘It’s so hip to be black,’ managed to burn down many of those bridges, by writing words about me (and others) that discredited me professionally, while also offending, insulting and humiliating me. People on his blog also made racist remarks, that also offended, insulted and humiliated me.

I have always identified and lived as an Aboriginal woman, I’m a Williams from Cowra, a proud member of the Wiradjuri nation.

Mr Bolt’s article suggests I made a ‘decision to be Aboriginal…’ which ‘was lucky, given how it's helped her career’ and that I had ‘won plum jobs reserved for Aborigines at Koori Radio, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and Macquarie University's Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies’.

What Mr Bolt failed to mention is that I am an established writer and highly qualified with a PhD in Media and Communication, and that in fact none of the jobs he mentioned were actually ‘reserved’ or identified Aboriginal positions, and the Koori Radio role was actually voluntary and unpaid.

In his witness statement to the court Mr Bolt claimed to have used a photo of my mother on her wedding day as evidence to determine she, therefore I was of mixed-heritage and could not or should not identify as Aboriginal. The photo Bolt submitted was taken directly from my blog and a post I made on February 7, 2011, almost two years after he wrote his article, so his misrepresentations about me continued.


Read more @ http://anitaheissblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/my-statement-on-todays-in-in-federal.html?spref=tw


‘Free speech is the cornerstone of genuine democracy, but when writers publish disinformation dressed up as fact, lies as truth, slander as objective evaluation and call it free speech, they are devaluing its very essence and betraying all those who've fought for it.’


Dr Anita Heiss (www.anitaheiss.com) is the author of adult fiction, historical fiction, children’s fiction, non-fiction and social commentary. Her latest novel is Paris Dreaming (Random House, 2011).

While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.  

Quote:

Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH

In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer.

Free speech is the cornerstone of genuine democracy, but when writers publish disinformation dressed up as fact, lies as truth, slander as objective evaluation and call it free speech, they are devaluing its very essence and betraying all those who've fought for it.’




Lets hope their is a lesson to be learnt here for all journalist . And that they are reminded of this ALSO  in their coverage on Politics and Politicans !

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer.

Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.

spurs racial hatred? hardly. you over estimate Bolts influence or power. He appears to have stepped over the line in his article froma legal perspective but he was addressing a common complaint that people make that a large number of aboriginal people - espcially activists - seem to be disturbingly WHITE. 1/16 aboriginal may be aboriginal by law but certianly not by common sense.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn.

Actaully the Highh Court has already ruled that freedom of speech is protected within the constitution.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_white_is_the_new_black/


Put all your prejudices about the author aside, and see if you can find fault with the writing.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn.

So do you not think there are people out there playing on the tiny amount of Indigenous blood in them, to gain financial reward?

Really?

Bolt was right, IMO.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:20am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. Actaully the Highh Court has already ruled that freedom of speech is protected within the constitution.

No. They've ruled that freedom of political speech is protected.  But freedom of speech is not protected by the constitution.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. So do you not think there are people out there playing on the tiny amount of Indigenous blood in them, to gain financial reward? Really? Bolt was right, IMO.

Of cousre he is right - but these days, it is more important to be 'non-offensive' than to tell the truth.  You see it all the time - Jeff Kennetts comments in the last few days is another case where truth is swept under the carpet becasue some whiny minority group deemed it offensive.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. So do you not think there are people out there playing on the tiny amount of Indigenous blood in them, to gain financial reward? Really? Bolt was right, IMO.

That doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is when people like Bolt take a "moral high ground" by defaming and trying to inspire hatred.

I told you, I don't know anything about the plaintiffs. I don't really care for them. I'm simply happy Bolt got spanked finally for being a racist that he has shown to be in many past  opinion pieces.

"Journalist" and political commentator Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act over two articles he wrote in 2009.

Bolt was being sued in the Federal Court by nine Aboriginal people including former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark, academic Professor Larissa Behrendt, activist Pat Eatock, photographer Bindi Cole, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson, and lawyer Mark McMillan.

They alleged two articles written by Bolt for his employer, the Herald and Weekly Times, implied light-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal did so for personal gain.

Bolt's lawyer, Neil Young, had argued the articles represented his client's genuinely held views on matters of public interest.

But barrister Ron Merkel SC, appearing for the applicants, said the articles took a "eugenics approach" that was frozen in history.

Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.

He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918?section=nt

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:24am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:20am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. Actaully the Highh Court has already ruled that freedom of speech is protected within the constitution. No. They've ruled that freedom of political speech is protected.  But freedom of speech is not protected by the constitution.

no, they found that 'freedom of speech is containined within the constitution."

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:25am:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:21am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. So do you not think there are people out there playing on the tiny amount of Indigenous blood in them, to gain financial reward? Really? Bolt was right, IMO. That doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is when people like Bolt take a "moral high ground" by defaming and trying to inspire hatred. I told you, I don't know anything about the plaintiffs. I don't really care for them. I'm simply happy Bolt got spanked finally for being a racist that he has shown to be in many past  opinion pieces.

From one of the 'racist' articles in question:


Quote:

In fact, let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal?

It's lon been clear to me that it's not 'racism' as a whole that is verboten, but rather any semblance of white identity.  With each case like this, more and more people catch on, until this web of lies finally comes crashing down.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:24am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:20am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. Actaully the Highh Court has already ruled that freedom of speech is protected within the constitution. No. They've ruled that freedom of political speech is protected.  But freedom of speech is not protected by the constitution. no, they found that 'freedom of speech is containined within the constitution."

No. They found that "Freedom of political communication is implied in the constitution."

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:25am: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:21am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. So do you not think there are people out there playing on the tiny amount of Indigenous blood in them, to gain financial reward? Really? Bolt was right, IMO. That doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is when people like Bolt take a "moral high ground" by defaming and trying to inspire hatred. I told you, I don't know anything about the plaintiffs. I don't really care for them. I'm simply happy Bolt got spanked finally for being a racist that he has shown to be in many past  opinion pieces. From one of the 'racist' articles in question: [quote] In fact, let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal?

It's lon been clear to me that it's not 'racism' as a whole that is verboten, but rather any semblance of white identity.  With each case like this, more and more people catch on, until this web of lies finally comes crashing down.


[/quote]

Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:25am:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:21am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. So do you not think there are people out there playing on the tiny amount of Indigenous blood in them, to gain financial reward? Really? Bolt was right, IMO. That doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is when people like Bolt take a "moral high ground" by defaming and trying to inspire hatred. I told you, I don't know anything about the plaintiffs. I don't really care for them. I'm simply happy Bolt got spanked finally for being a racist that he has shown to be in many past  opinion pieces.

Well it should bother you.

The amount of money going to so called “indigenous” people for awards and grants, whilst the indigenous population stay stuck in the mire, is terrible.

If you don’t “let it bother you” then I guess you can be happy to label the man racist and say he tried to inspire hatred (considering the amount of defamation that happens around here, I’ll scoff at any inference of people talking up taking the moral high ground on that!!).

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:34am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:25am: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:21am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message.  I hear ya oberfuhrer. Free speech is not protected within our constitution. Protection has come about from case law.  And as such, different approaches are taken to speech that incites hatred or defamation.  Something that Bolt needs to learn.  Something that MANY HERE need to learn. So do you not think there are people out there playing on the tiny amount of Indigenous blood in them, to gain financial reward? Really? Bolt was right, IMO. That doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is when people like Bolt take a "moral high ground" by defaming and trying to inspire hatred. I told you, I don't know anything about the plaintiffs. I don't really care for them. I'm simply happy Bolt got spanked finally for being a racist that he has shown to be in many past  opinion pieces. Well it should bother you. The amount of money going to so called “indigenous” people for awards and grants, whilst the indigenous population stay stuck in the mire, is terrible. If you don’t “let it bother you” then I guess you can be happy to label the man racist and say he tried to inspire hatred (considering the amount of defamation that happens around here, I’ll scoff at any inference of people talking up taking the moral high ground on that!!).

Interesting. So, how much money is going to the so called "indigenous" people, as a ratio to the money going to the indigenous population?

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

Not surprising - these kind of bogus kangaroo court cases have about as much chance of delivering a not guilty verdict as the nuremberg show trials.

'March in the guilty party' said the judge.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:10am: While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.   spurs racial hatred? hardly. you over estimate Bolts influence or power. He appears to have stepped over the line in his article froma legal perspective but he was addressing a common complaint that people make that a large number of aboriginal people - espcially activists - seem to be disturbingly WHITE. 1/16 aboriginal may be aboriginal by law but certianly not by common sense.

Since when has the colour of your skin been the one requirement to be considered aboriginal ?
If it was, any albino abo would be automatically excluded from the race.  

Whatever your proportion of abo blood in your body be 1t 100% , 50%, .... 1/16th.   Its still in your body. Its in your heritage, and its a defining aspect of who you are.  You wear the baggage of that line with you, same as if you were 1/16th Jew or anything else.

An activist doesnt even need to below to a race to advocate positivity towards it.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:10am: While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.   spurs racial hatred? hardly. you over estimate Bolts influence or power. He appears to have stepped over the line in his article froma legal perspective but he was addressing a common complaint that people make that a large number of aboriginal people - espcially activists - seem to be disturbingly WHITE. 1/16 aboriginal may be aboriginal by law but certianly not by common sense. Since when has the colour of your skin been the one requirement to be considered aboriginal ? If it was, any albino abo would be automatically excluded from the race.   Whatever your proportion of abo blood in your body be 1t 100% , 50%, .... 1/16th.   Its still in your body. Its in your heritage, and its a defining aspect of who you are.  You wear the baggage of that line with you, same as if you were 1/16th Jew or anything else. An activist doesnt even need to below to a race to advocate positivity towards it.

Doctor...to be fair I'd say the proportion of blood is important... I have like... 5% Polish blood, but that doesn't mean I'm out there saying I'm Polish and demand a Polish citizenship.  Likewise, I'm 5% French. And while I'd love to get an EU passport, I'd never be able to.

Quote:

Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity.

Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:04am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 10:56am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 10:55am: Geoff Clark: professional complainer and racial whinger. Don't forget repeat gang-rapist. yes, forgot that one. he is not a nice person.

and didnt he get off scot free from that case as well???????>.

too long ago or something.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

"Journalist" and political commentator Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act over two articles he wrote in 2009. Bolt was being sued in the Federal Court by nine Aboriginal people including former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark, academic Professor Larissa Behrendt, activist Pat Eatock, photographer Bindi Cole, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson, and lawyer Mark McMillan. They alleged two articles written by Bolt for his employer, the Herald and Weekly Times, implied light-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal did so for personal gain. Bolt's lawyer, Neil Young, had argued the articles represented his client's genuinely held views on matters of public interest. But barrister Ron Merkel SC, appearing for the applicants, said the articles took a "eugenics approach" that was frozen in history. Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors. He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918?section=nt

Having read the original article it is hard to find how he could have offended the aboriginal community. they are sometiems offended themselves by people claiming to be aboriginal who clearly are not really.  I dont mind bolt or any journo being done for defamation or breach of the law but this seems hard to justify. i can see an appeal coming for sure. the high court might rule differently.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:41am:

Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl.

The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view.  I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that.

And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:10am: While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.   spurs racial hatred? hardly. you over estimate Bolts influence or power. He appears to have stepped over the line in his article froma legal perspective but he was addressing a common complaint that people make that a large number of aboriginal people - espcially activists - seem to be disturbingly WHITE. 1/16 aboriginal may be aboriginal by law but certianly not by common sense. Since when has the colour of your skin been the one requirement to be considered aboriginal ? If it was, any albino abo would be automatically excluded from the race.   Whatever your proportion of abo blood in your body be 1t 100% , 50%, .... 1/16th.   Its still in your body. Its in your heritage, and its a defining aspect of who you are.  You wear the baggage of that line with you, same as if you were 1/16th Jew or anything else. An activist doesnt even need to below to a race to advocate positivity towards it.

what a bizarre comparison... not surprised though... the glee club is celebrating a win at long last.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

9 people complained... yeah right!

I have seen aboriginies say exactly the same thing as Bolt... its a joke.but its on us..

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:42am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that. And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away.

I've read it before.   You want me to read it again?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:42am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that. And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away. I've read it before.   You want me to read it again?

Not neccessarily - just tell us what part of it is untrue.

Like everything we do  there is a fine line .  ' freedom of speech' is one .

Bolt is an example of some one that over steps that line and spoils it for the rest.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:26am: "Journalist" and political commentator Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act over two articles he wrote in 2009. Bolt was being sued in the Federal Court by nine Aboriginal people including former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark, academic Professor Larissa Behrendt, activist Pat Eatock, photographer Bindi Cole, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson, and lawyer Mark McMillan. They alleged two articles written by Bolt for his employer, the Herald and Weekly Times, implied light-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal did so for personal gain. Bolt's lawyer, Neil Young, had argued the articles represented his client's genuinely held views on matters of public interest. But barrister Ron Merkel SC, appearing for the applicants, said the articles took a "eugenics approach" that was frozen in history. Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors. He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918?section=nt Having read the original article it is hard to find how he could have offended the aboriginal community. they are sometiems offended themselves by people claiming to be aboriginal who clearly are not really.  I dont mind bolt or any journo being done for defamation or breach of the law but this seems hard to justify. i can see an appeal coming for sure. the high court might rule differently.

Oh look lets cut the poo, I don't like Bolt but he was always going to lose against our downtrodden, oppressed, segregated, ignored, forgotten, villified, etc etc original owners and their 10,000th removed grandchildren.
The are VICTIMS no matter what it's always someone/thing else's fault for what or where they find themselves.
If the court had ruled in favour of Bolt & you actually had to be Aboriginal/Torres Straight Islander to claim you were & prove it think of all the professional activists who would go from abo pensions to unemployment benefits,we'd be at 10% in 20 minutes.
I don't know the rest of the complianents but Geoff Clarke is nothing but & IRA reject who came over here & found a rort & has exploited it.
How the rest of the group allowed themselves to be involved with this criminal is beyond me & stains their rep & argument.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

Like everything we do  there is a fine line .  ' freedom of speech' is one . Bolt is an example of some one that over steps that line and spoils it for the rest.

nonsense!

hes got a rap over the knuckles for saying something against something that was written a long time ago... when most aboriginies were black or at least brown..I wonder how you tell aboriginal blood from say Lebonese blood..when you only have a drop or two.

personally i think this goes against the true aborigine and all they stand for.when I look at a white guy getting credit for being one.. it turns me off to be honest.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:47am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:42am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that. And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away. I've read it before.   You want me to read it again? Not neccessarily - just tell us what part of it is untrue.

Like I said, I don't really care about the plaintiffs and so on, just happy to see the racist spanked finally by the courts.

But if it pleases you, I'll read it when I have some more spare time and come back to you with an opinion on the actual case. :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:42am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that. And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away. I've read it before.   You want me to read it again?

were you offended by it? despite a few factual errors, was what he said essentially wrong?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:48am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:47am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:42am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that. And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away. I've read it before.   You want me to read it again? Not neccessarily - just tell us what part of it is untrue. Like I said, I don't really care about the plaintiffs and so on, just happy to see the racist spanked finally by the courts. But if it pleases you, I'll read it when I have some more spare time and come back to you with an opinion on the actual case. :)

so you dont care about the FACTS of the case, only that Bolt lost? and I guess youthink that entitles you to a credible opinion?

I bet we wont see much of this "news" in the News Ltd press.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:59am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:48am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:47am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:42am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that. And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away. I've read it before.   You want me to read it again? Not neccessarily - just tell us what part of it is untrue. Like I said, I don't really care about the plaintiffs and so on, just happy to see the racist spanked finally by the courts. But if it pleases you, I'll read it when I have some more spare time and come back to you with an opinion on the actual case. :) so you dont care about the FACTS of the case, only that Bolt lost? and I guess youthink that entitles you to a credible opinion?

To tell the truth this is the first time this news has crossed my path and I've read only the last couple of posts . But surely if the courts find you guilty it's exceptional that you're not?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

I bet we wont see much of this "news" in the News Ltd press.

wrong as usual.

http://www.news.com.au/national/andrew-bolt-breached-discrimination-act-court/story-e6frfkvr-1226148978809

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

so you dont care about the FACTS of the case, only that Bolt lost? and I guess youthink that entitles you to a credible opinion?

I don't know how many times you wish me to repeat this, longie. ;D  I've told you FROM THE VERY BEGINNING that I'm just happy that he is finally being spanked for something given all his PAST crap articles.  You take that with any grain of salt that you like ;D

Bolt lied.....What's new.....Anyone who listens to this bloke is an idiot!!!

::)

http://i.imgur.com/bvmyR.jpg

dem white blackfullas

one thing that image reminded me of is something ive tended to notice - almost ALWAYS do these racial hybrids have irish surnames. micks have the distinction of being the white ethny that will mate with ANYTHING. seriously, every single time I come across some x/y/z/white combo, “white” means oyrish.

thank god we aren’t cross-fertile with donkeys or we’d all be saddled with donkey/mick hybrids. if centaurs were real, they’d be mick from the waist up.

Who would have thought a court of law would find Bolt was a compulsive liar and racist?
This bloke is a dog pure and simple

a court found somebody to be a compulsive liar and *gasp*, a racist?!?!

convict him!!! throw away the key!!!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:40am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:38am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:10am: While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.   spurs racial hatred? hardly. you over estimate Bolts influence or power. He appears to have stepped over the line in his article froma legal perspective but he was addressing a common complaint that people make that a large number of aboriginal people - espcially activists - seem to be disturbingly WHITE. 1/16 aboriginal may be aboriginal by law but certianly not by common sense. Since when has the colour of your skin been the one requirement to be considered aboriginal ? If it was, any albino abo would be automatically excluded from the race.   Whatever your proportion of abo blood in your body be 1t 100% , 50%, .... 1/16th.   Its still in your body. Its in your heritage, and its a defining aspect of who you are.  You wear the baggage of that line with you, same as if you were 1/16th Jew or anything else. An activist doesnt even need to below to a race to advocate positivity towards it. Doctor...to be fair I'd say the proportion of blood is important... I have like... 5% Polish blood, but that doesn't mean I'm out there saying I'm Polish and demand a Polish citizenship.  Likewise, I'm 5% French. And while I'd love to get an EU passport, I'd never be able to.

Thats just a question of where you draw the line.

I have English born grandparents. They moved out here when they were young, and so I have been born and bred Australian for 2 generations (more on the other side of the family).

Yet I can still get an EU passport. Entitling me to travel and earn a lot more overseas than those without.  Bolt, and muppets like him, would have me tainted as an imposter.  Am I ?

I dont think it should prohibit me from being an activist on british issues either.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:23pm:

Bolt lied.....What's new.....Anyone who listens to this bloke is an idiot!!! ::)

"In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals"

No mention of lies... ;) ;D

Perhaps what really offended them was people learning the truth? :P

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:

Who would have thought a court of law would find Bolt was a compulsive liar and racist? This bloke is a dog pure and simple

"In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals"

No mention of lies... ;) ;D  

Perhaps what really offended them was people learning the truth?  :P

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: Who would have thought a court of law would find Bolt was a compulsive liar and racist? This bloke is a dog pure and simple "In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals" No mention of lies... ;) ;D   Perhaps what really offended them was people learning the truth?  :P

What truth? That Bolt is a derogatory, highly offensive maniac?

Grey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:59am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:48am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:47am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:42am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:41am: Quote: Wes, I'm not going to go through Bolt's articles.  I usually enjoy reading them when I'm drunk just to get a good laugh. But as per normal, we can quote all we want to make a point. I'm simply saying that from what I have read from him, I have found him to be more a racist than a protector of human identity. Perhaps the differnce betwen you and I is that I investiagte things for myself.  My motto in my signature is a good oneto live by - give it a whirl. The reason for that is that you go out and find the one instance that can serve your view. I stick to what I have read and form a overall view from that. And yet you refuse to read the 'slanderous' article in question.  I've even posted a link, it's just a click away. I've read it before.   You want me to read it again? Not neccessarily - just tell us what part of it is untrue. Like I said, I don't really care about the plaintiffs and so on, just happy to see the racist spanked finally by the courts. But if it pleases you, I'll read it when I have some more spare time and come back to you with an opinion on the actual case. :) so you dont care about the FACTS of the case, only that Bolt lost? and I guess youthink that entitles you to a credible opinion? To tell the truth this is the first time this news has crossed my path and I've read only the last couple of posts . But surely if the courts find you guilty it's exceptional that you're not?

Bolt wasnt found guilty of being a racist. his article was determined to offend people. quite the difference.

It's a disgraceful verdict, he was making the point that there are a few  Aboriginal people who look totally white who insist they are black - so what's wrong with that? He made the mistake of thinking he lives in a free country where we can say what we feel but obviously this is now not the case.  These few fools have legally reinforced what we already know - that Aboriginal people are protected and no adverse comments about them will be tolerated. Unfortunately, this will not help their cause.   A very bad day for Australia.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:40am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:38am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:10am: While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.   spurs racial hatred? hardly. you over estimate Bolts influence or power. He appears to have stepped over the line in his article froma legal perspective but he was addressing a common complaint that people make that a large number of aboriginal people - espcially activists - seem to be disturbingly WHITE. 1/16 aboriginal may be aboriginal by law but certianly not by common sense. Since when has the colour of your skin been the one requirement to be considered aboriginal ? If it was, any albino abo would be automatically excluded from the race.   Whatever your proportion of abo blood in your body be 1t 100% , 50%, .... 1/16th.   Its still in your body. Its in your heritage, and its a defining aspect of who you are.  You wear the baggage of that line with you, same as if you were 1/16th Jew or anything else. An activist doesnt even need to below to a race to advocate positivity towards it. Doctor...to be fair I'd say the proportion of blood is important... I have like... 5% Polish blood, but that doesn't mean I'm out there saying I'm Polish and demand a Polish citizenship.  Likewise, I'm 5% French. And while I'd love to get an EU passport, I'd never be able to. Thats just a question of where you draw the line. I have English born grandparents. They moved out here when they were young, and so I have been born and bred Australian for 2 generations (more on the other side of the family). Yet I can still get an EU passport. Entitling me to travel and earn a lot more overseas than those without.  Bolt, and muppets like him, would have me tainted as an imposter.  Am I ? I dont think it should prohibit me from being an activist on british issues either.

but you cant genuinelly claim to be english either. you are of english DESCENT - nothing more.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:40pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: Who would have thought a court of law would find Bolt was a compulsive liar and racist? This bloke is a dog pure and simple "In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals" No mention of lies... ;) ;D   Perhaps what really offended them was people learning the truth?  :P What truth? That Bolt is a derogatory, highly offensive?

That he may be.

No one said he was racist or a compulsive liar or a maniac. That is all loop supposition. Or made up hysteria.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:41pm:

Bolt wasnt found guilty of being a racist. his article was determined to offend people. quite the difference.

He was found to have contravened the Racial Discrimination Act.  You say that's not being a racist?  :o

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:40pm: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: Who would have thought a court of law would find Bolt was a compulsive liar and racist? This bloke is a dog pure and simple "In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals" No mention of lies... ;) ;D   Perhaps what really offended them was people learning the truth?  :P What truth? That Bolt is a derogatory, highly offensive? That he may be. No one said he was racist or a compulsive liar or a maniac. That is all loop supposition. Or made up hysteria.

And yet he was found to have contravened the racial discrimination act.   ... Still just loop suppositon? hysteria? ;D

toots wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:43pm:

It's a disgraceful verdict, he was making the point that there are a few  Aboriginal people who look totally white who insist they are black - so what's wrong with that? He made the mistake of thinking he lives in a free country where we can say what we feel but obviously this is now not the case.  These few fools have legally reinforced what we already know - that Aboriginal people are protected and no adverse comments about them will be tolerated. Unfortunately, this will not help their cause.   A very bad day for Australia.

it does seem a little unfair. what he said wasnt fundamentally inaccurate and reflects a common complaint that a number of 'aboriginals' in fact really arent at all but again only of aboriginal descent - a huge difference.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

No one said he was racist or a compulsive liar or a maniac. That is all loop supposition. Or made up hysteria.

And yet he was found to have contravened the racial discrimination [/quote]

No time for your selective garbage.

I didn't mention the contravention of the act.

Just the racist/compulsive liar/maniac comments all the loops are adding to the story.....bye.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:40am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:38am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:18am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 11:10am: While I don't know anything about the plaintiffs in this case, all I can say is that it is great that the idiot Bolt has finally been caught out.  Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH.   spurs racial hatred? hardly. you over estimate Bolts influence or power. He appears to have stepped over the line in his article froma legal perspective but he was addressing a common complaint that people make that a large number of aboriginal people - espcially activists - seem to be disturbingly WHITE. 1/16 aboriginal may be aboriginal by law but certianly not by common sense. Since when has the colour of your skin been the one requirement to be considered aboriginal ? If it was, any albino abo would be automatically excluded from the race.   Whatever your proportion of abo blood in your body be 1t 100% , 50%, .... 1/16th.   Its still in your body. Its in your heritage, and its a defining aspect of who you are.  You wear the baggage of that line with you, same as if you were 1/16th Jew or anything else. An activist doesnt even need to below to a race to advocate positivity towards it. Doctor...to be fair I'd say the proportion of blood is important... I have like... 5% Polish blood, but that doesn't mean I'm out there saying I'm Polish and demand a Polish citizenship.  Likewise, I'm 5% French. And while I'd love to get an EU passport, I'd never be able to. Thats just a question of where you draw the line. I have English born grandparents. They moved out here when they were young, and so I have been born and bred Australian for 2 generations (more on the other side of the family). Yet I can still get an EU passport. Entitling me to travel and earn a lot more overseas than those without.  Bolt, and muppets like him, would have me tainted as an imposter.  Am I ? I dont think it should prohibit me from being an activist on british issues either. but you cant genuinelly claim to be english either. you are of english DESCENT - nothing more.

Plenty of people claim to be "english" and "english decent" at the same time. The terms are generally interchangable.

But Aboriginals are different. If you have aboriginal blood you can legitimately claim a lineage of 1000's of generations of Australians spanning 30,000 years. Part of your make up is about as pure as anything in the world.  Its significance shouldnt be parodied by muppets like Bolt to sell a few newspapers.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:50pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:46pm: No one said he was racist or a compulsive liar or a maniac. That is all loop supposition. Or made up hysteria. And yet he was found to have contravened the racial discrimination

No time for your selective garbage.

I didn't mention the contravention of the act.

Just the racist/compulsive liar/maniac comments all the loops are adding to the story.....bye.

[/quote]

If you contravene the racial discrimination act, does that not make you a racist?

Quote:

Part of your make up is about as pure as anything in the world.  Its significance shouldnt be parodied by muppets like Bolt to sell a few newspapers.

And 'part' of my piss is pure H20.  I still don't reckon you'd drink it and say it's just the same as pure spring water.

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/todd_thumb.JPG



Substitute anything for 'white' - go to court and get convicted for racial something or other.

Post colonian PC - aintcha sick of it.

anti racist is code for anti white

why havent more people figured this out yet

Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons.
To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice''

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:59pm:

Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice''

Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white.

;D ;D ;D

WOW

Free Speech is not a get out of Jail free card for Racism. Feel free to say what you like, but don't get sh!tty when you get scrutinized for your comments.

if only it were, uh ..

"scrutinisation" that people were complaining about

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW

Who said they were dumbo?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW

What? ARe you saying you are pro-white??

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white??

I am pro-human. Full stop.

;D

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW Who said they were dumbo?

your dumbo mate.  

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:16pm:

Free Speech is not a get out of Jail free card for Racism. Feel free to say what you like, but don't get sh!tty when you get scrutinized for your comments.

his claim was that these people were claiming to be aboriginal while being as white as a scandinavian. with the exampls he used, his point was in fact proven. it is a sad day when being CORRECT is still wrong.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D

that sounds like a greens-lose statement. I hope you arent as idiotic as he is.

There's not much out there on MSM of course because this will be covered up as much as possible by the lame stream media..I wonder if Dutchy Andrew will be having his Dutch hate speech friend Geert Wilders to dinner at his house? Let's keep this thread going..Call it Bolt Watch. ;)

Justice Mordy Bromberg found Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by publishing two articles on racial identity which contained "errors in fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language".
Justice Bromberg said it was important to note his judgment did not forbid debate or articles on racial identity issues if done "reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment".
"Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people," Justice Bromberg said.
Ms Eatock and a group of eight other Aboriginals took Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times to court claiming racial vilifiication over two articles in which he criticised fair-skinned Aborigines for what he argued was a choice they made, as people of mixed racial background, to emphasise their indigenous heritage over their white heritage.
In the articles, on April 15 and August 21, 2009, Bolt wrote that some fair-skinned Aboriginal people, whom he called "political Aborigines'', had received prominence or indigenous awards because they chose to identify with their Aboriginality.
The Eatock action claimed Bolt's articles - which appeared under the headlines "It's so hip to be black'' and "White fellas in the black'' - had "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated'' them and were a breach of racial vilification laws.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/andrew-bolt-racial-vilification-court-case/story-e6frfku0-1226149011720#ixzz1ZDKUoxeb

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D

SO you can't tell the difference between different people?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D

So is andrew bolt:


Quote:

In fact, let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal?

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

The Eatock action claimed Bolt's articles - which appeared under the headlines "It's so hip to be black'' and "White fellas in the black'' - had "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated'' them and were a breach of racial vilification laws.

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/todd_thumb.JPG

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW Who said they were dumbo? your dumbo mate.

oooooh incisive.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

toots wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:43pm: It's a disgraceful verdict, he was making the point that there are a few  Aboriginal people who look totally white who insist they are black - so what's wrong with that? He made the mistake of thinking he lives in a free country where we can say what we feel but obviously this is now not the case.  These few fools have legally reinforced what we already know - that Aboriginal people are protected and no adverse comments about them will be tolerated. Unfortunately, this will not help their cause.   A very bad day for Australia. it does seem a little unfair. what he said wasnt fundamentally inaccurate and reflects a common complaint that a number of 'aboriginals' in fact really arent at all but again only of aboriginal descent - a huge difference.

"And it wasn’t just racial hatred at stake — Bolt was also a sloppy journalist, Bromberg said, that had cynically penned the pieces in a bald-faced attempt to be “destructive of racial tolerance”. The provocative “manner” in which Bolt bent his keyboard was crucial.

“The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language,” he said."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/28/bolt-decision-guilty-of-discrimination-judge-declares/

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D So is andrew bolt: Quote: In fact, let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal?

Hmm...not according to the courts though...

;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW Who said they were dumbo? your dumbo mate.

Who is his dumbo?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:32pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D So is andrew bolt: Quote: In fact, let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal? Hmm...not according to the courts though... ;D

The courts interpret the law, and that particular law is, for want of a better word, a steaming, stinking pile of crap.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D SO you can't tell the difference between different people?

Of course I do. I simply don't see differences between people as something that is horrible or something that impacts my life or something that can't be tolerated or something that can't be accepted.

You on the other hand...

Sad :(

The courts are only right when they are handing down verdicts against the Labor govt and Green groups  ;D

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:34pm:

The courts interpret the law, and that particular law is, for want of a better word, a steaming, stinking pile of crap.

Ah, well you can have whatever opinion you choose. But in the eyes of the law, Bolt is not pro-human. Right?

;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:35pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:34pm: The courts interpret the law, and that particular law is, for want of a better word, a steaming, stinking pile of crap. Ah, well you can have whatever opinion you choose. But in the eyes of the law, Bolt is not pro-human. Right? ;D

Well that passage was the closing paragraph of one of the 'slanderous' articles in question soo......

<<If you contravene the racial discrimination act, does that not make you a racist?>>
.............................................................................

Apparently not lol

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:35pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:34pm: The courts interpret the law, and that particular law is, for want of a better word, a steaming, stinking pile of crap. Ah, well you can have whatever opinion you choose. But in the eyes of the law, Bolt is not pro-human. Right? ;D Well that passage was the closing paragraph of one of the 'slanderous' articles in question soo......

I know. You keep quoting it over and over.  My point is it doesn't negate the COURTS decision that Bolt is not pro-human, which is what matters in our society and our laws. :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:35pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D SO you can't tell the difference between different people? Of course I do. I simply don't see differences between people as something that is horrible or something that impacts my life or something that can't be tolerated or something that can't be accepted. You on the other hand... Sad :(

Crap.  I bet you don't like aryan purity and all that jazz but you are happy to go along with it's mirror image, the 1/8 Aboriginal 'blood' somehow trumping the other 7/8th of a person on emotional and 'dreaming' and bugger knows what other grounds.

In other words, you DO support identity politics based on race, provided it's your endorsed, preferred race.

The thing about this kind of one-world inclusivity is that it is based on deep and abiding racism KKK man couldn't even fathom.

Your racism will not let people make their own way in the world on individual merit. Generations of blacks around the world are buggered not because of some KKK loonies but exclusively by the Emotionally Correct 'we are all the same' bvllshit  you trumpet out of the supposed goodness of your heart. Your heart may be good but it is no excuse for being an unthinking do-bader, decade in, decade out.

You need to twig to the immense harm you are doing to actual people.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:35pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D SO you can't tell the difference between different people? Of course I do. I simply don't see differences between people as something that is horrible or something that impacts my life or something that can't be tolerated or something that can't be accepted. You on the other hand... Sad :(

this isnt racism at all. this is about people claiming to be aboriginal who are not. if the mere existance of a minute genetic ancesrty is all it takes then the vast majority of us can claim to be virtually any race. this renders racial identifation irrelevent - which might have some value!! but this seems to be more ridiculous. surely identifcation to be part of a particular race should be more than exposure to it by someone 4 generations removed.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:35pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D SO you can't tell the difference between different people? Of course I do. I simply don't see differences between people as something that is horrible or something that impacts my life or something that can't be tolerated or something that can't be accepted. You on the other hand... Sad :( Crap.  I bet you don't like aryan purity and all that jazz but you are happy to go along with it's mirror image, the 1/8 Aboriginal 'blood' somehow trumping the other 7/8th of a person on emotional and 'dreaming' and bugger knows what other grounds. In other words, you DO support identity politics based on race, provided it's your endorsed, preferred race. The thing about this kind of one-world inclusivity is that it is based on deep and abiding racism KKK man couldn't even fathom. Your racism will not let people make their own way in the world on individual merit. Generations of blacks around the world are buggered not because of some KKK loonies but exclusively by the Emotionally Correct 'we are all the same' bvllshit  you trumpet out of the supposed goodness of your heart. Your heart may be good but it is no excuse for being an unthinking do-bader, decade in, decade out. You need to twig to the immense harm you are doing to actual people.

;D ;D Oh wow, what the hell are you now talking about?

Once again, I have no problem with any person, be they of aryan "purity" or 1/8 aborigine or 7/8s aborigine or wateva. ;D

That was a nice attempt to make your view valid though. I liked that spin :) Nice :)

PS: When did I say all people are the same? Are you now in the habit of putting words into people's mouth?

Quote:

I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D

you DO support identity politics based on race, provided it's your endorsed, preferred race.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:52pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:35pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D SO you can't tell the difference between different people? Of course I do. I simply don't see differences between people as something that is horrible or something that impacts my life or something that can't be tolerated or something that can't be accepted. You on the other hand... Sad :( this isnt racism at all. this is about people claiming to be aboriginal who are not. if the mere existance of a minute genetic ancesrty is all it takes then the vast majority of us can claim to be virtually any race. this renders racial identifation irrelevent - which might have some value!! but this seems to be more ridiculous. surely identifcation to be part of a particular race should be more than exposure to it by someone 4 generations removed.

This particular issue with these 9 aborigine people or so forth? I've already said I tend to agree with you longie that people who are generations removed from past heritage should not really claim it.  But then I also said I don't really know much about THIS particular issue or people. All I am saying is I'm glad that Bolt finally got spanked.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:58pm:

Quote: I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D you DO support identity politics based on race, provided it's your endorsed, preferred race.

Thanks for telling me what I support.  What should I eat for dinner?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:52pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:35pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:15pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:59pm: Because they are preening, Emotionallly Correct morons. To twig onto this stupid nonsense is 'not noice'' Yep. All the anti-racists are anti-white. ;D ;D ;D WOW What? ARe you saying you are pro-white?? I am pro-human. Full stop. ;D SO you can't tell the difference between different people? Of course I do. I simply don't see differences between people as something that is horrible or something that impacts my life or something that can't be tolerated or something that can't be accepted. You on the other hand... Sad :( this isnt racism at all. this is about people claiming to be aboriginal who are not. if the mere existance of a minute genetic ancesrty is all it takes then the vast majority of us can claim to be virtually any race. this renders racial identifation irrelevent - which might have some value!! but this seems to be more ridiculous. surely identifcation to be part of a particular race should be more than exposure to it by someone 4 generations removed.

I think it petinent that the cherokee nation in the US has just won the 'right' to deny descendants of their black slaves (yes, american indains kept slaves too) to claim to be part of the cherokee nation, on the grounds that they don't actually have any cherokee blood.


Quote:

The Cherokee Nation recently decided to limit its membership to people who can prove they have Indian blood. This strips of their citizenship rights about 2,800 African-Americans who are descendants of slaves once owned by wealthy Cherokees. Those rights include access to health care clinics, food distribution for the poor, and assistance for low-income homeowners.

In other words, they claimed to be something they're not , in order to gain benefits.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

Quote: The Cherokee Nation recently decided to limit its membership to people who can prove they have Indian blood. This strips of their citizenship rights about 2,800 African-Americans who are descendants of slaves once owned by wealthy Cherokees. Those rights include access to health care clinics, food distribution for the poor, and assistance for low-income homeowners. In other words, they claimed to be something they're not , in order to gain benefits.

To be correct though, the aborigines in this case actually have blood. The question is whether or not you can associate as an aborigine with aboriginal background if you only have a certain degree of blood.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

This particular issue with these 9 aborigine people or so forth? I've already said I tend to agree with you longie that people who are generations removed from past heritage should not really claim it.  But then I also said I don't really know much about THIS particular issue or people. All I am saying is I'm glad that Bolt finally got spanked.

That's smacking disgraceful from a grown-up.

You feign no understanding of what the Bolt decision involves, you are just glad he was found to be in the wrong for whatever.

You have reveled (if more revealing was needed) the lefty group think. The issues at hand do not matter, there is no merit in arguments, as long as the Enemy of The People,  Snowball is guilty and Comrades Napoeleon and Squealer are vindicated.

Nothing's changed since Animal Farm.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

That's smacking disgraceful from a grown-up. You feign no understanding of what the Bolt decision involves, you are just glad he was found to be in the wrong for whatever. You have reveled (if more revealing was needed) the lefty group think. The issues at hand do not matter, there is no merit in arguments, as long as the Enemy of The People,  Snowball is guilty and Comrades Napoeleon and Squealer are vindicated. Nothing's changed since Animal Farm.

Take it as someone still being happy someone got put away for manslaughter even though they were guilty of murder.  In the end, Bolt has been a racist paracite for many years, (and Wes I promise I'll get you those articles when I get some time), and it's about time things caught up to him.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 2:11pm: That's smacking disgraceful from a grown-up. You feign no understanding of what the Bolt decision involves, you are just glad he was found to be in the wrong for whatever. You have reveled (if more revealing was needed) the lefty group think. The issues at hand do not matter, there is no merit in arguments, as long as the Enemy of The People,  Snowball is guilty and Comrades Napoeleon and Squealer are vindicated. Nothing's changed since Animal Farm. Take it as someone still being happy someone got put away for manslaughter even though they were guilty of murder.  In the end, Bolt has been a racist paracite for many years, (and Wes I promise I'll get you those articles when I get some time), and it's about time things caught up to him.

Maybe he is racist, but so long as what his "racist" views are based on is the truth, it's nothing for you to worry about.  

Slow news day???
Let's all play word association, I'll start

STICK

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 2:11pm: That's smacking disgraceful from a grown-up. You feign no understanding of what the Bolt decision involves, you are just glad he was found to be in the wrong for whatever. You have reveled (if more revealing was needed) the lefty group think. The issues at hand do not matter, there is no merit in arguments, as long as the Enemy of The People,  Snowball is guilty and Comrades Napoeleon and Squealer are vindicated. Nothing's changed since Animal Farm. Take it as someone still being happy someone got put away for manslaughter even though they were guilty of murder.  In the end, Bolt has been a racist paracite for many years, (and Wes I promise I'll get you those articles when I get some time), and it's about time things caught up to him.

Hyperbowl, Julia.

CHUCKER

Abbott tells party faithful behind closed doors that he feels confident he will be PM by 21st August next year (he even 'knows' the DATE) and applauds lying media for getting his lying message across? Even says he is amazed at how gullible the Australian public are to believe ANYTHING they say for him. >:(

Hey Tony.

How stupid do you think WE are?

Two years yet..You can't possibly keep up this insane level of lies for two years without becoming a complete basket case.
:o

PETROL

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 2:52pm:

Abbott tells party faithful behind closed doors that he feels confident he will be PM by 21st August next year

As do 58% (and growing) of other Australians, from the rooftops.

FOOTY

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 2:52pm: Abbott tells party faithful behind closed doors that he feels confident he will be PM by 21st August next year As do 58% (and growing) of other Australians, from the rooftops.

Why the 21st of Aug?
Is that his used by date?  ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 1:35pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:34pm: The courts interpret the law, and that particular law is, for want of a better word, a steaming, stinking pile of crap. Ah, well you can have whatever opinion you choose. But in the eyes of the law, Bolt is not pro-human. Right? ;D

thats an absurd assessment, normally only expected from Greens_lose.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:59pm: This particular issue with these 9 aborigine people or so forth? I've already said I tend to agree with you longie that people who are generations removed from past heritage should not really claim it.  But then I also said I don't really know much about THIS particular issue or people. All I am saying is I'm glad that Bolt finally got spanked. That's smacking disgraceful from a grown-up. You feign no understanding of what the Bolt decision involves, you are just glad he was found to be in the wrong for whatever. You have reveled (if more revealing was needed) the lefty group think. The issues at hand do not matter, there is no merit in arguments, as long as the Enemy of The People,  Snowball is guilty and Comrades Napoeleon and Squealer are vindicated. Nothing's changed since Animal Farm.

please avoid the bad language Soren. the F word is not acceptable. thanks.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:35pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 1:34pm: The courts interpret the law, and that particular law is, for want of a better word, a steaming, stinking pile of crap. Ah, well you can have whatever opinion you choose. But in the eyes of the law, Bolt is not pro-human. Right? ;D thats an absurd assessment, normally only expected from Greens_lose.

I think we are thinking about a different context of pro-human?

Why the 21st of Aug?
Is that his used by date?

No doubt it came from the voices in his head. ;D

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 3:10pm:

Why the 21st of Aug? Is that his used by date? No doubt it came from the voices in his head. ;D

I reckon thats the date Andrew Robb has given him before the knives come out  :)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/white-fellas-in-the-black/story-e6frfifo-1225764532947

And the other 'hateful' article.  


I won't hold my breath waiting for the leftards to elaborate on what exactly is wrong with it....

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 3:10pm: Why the 21st of Aug? Is that his used by date? No doubt it came from the voices in his head. ;D I reckon thats the date Andrew Robb has given him before the knives come out  :)

You two talk between yourselves.  Two hairy ****s, a Lennon and a Che.  

Pete and Dud couldn't make a better parody of you.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 3:19pm: Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 3:10pm: Why the 21st of Aug? Is that his used by date? No doubt it came from the voices in his head. ;D I reckon thats the date Andrew Robb has given him before the knives come out  :) You two talk between yourselves.  Two hairy ****s, a Lennon and a Che.   Pete and Dud couldn't make a better parody of you.

Do you need a hug  :-*

Apparently a leaked secret closed door meeting where Abbott has told the party dunderheads that her God Cory Bernardi is NOT going to be a front runner in Tony(voices in my head) Abbott's new ministry of lies for the big boys.

That must have rattled her devotion to Tonesy wonesy. :'(

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/df/ac/hug,lonely-dfac4bf7b3061860918977a8ed0312ae_h.jpg

The voices in Tony's head are being transmitted via a big cactus!!

Well I never. ;D

After the verdict, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott warned against restricting "the sacred principle of free speech".

"Free speech means the right of people to say what you don't like, not just the right of people to say what you do like," he said.


Tony Abbott is correct.....However....

Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.

He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.

Quote:

contained factual errors.

I'd bet london to a brick that these 'factual errors' had absolutely no bearing on the meaning of the article.  Anyone and everyone is welcome to point them out to me, in order to help with my education.

As a self identifying aboriginal I hereby demand access to all the benefits to which I am entitled.  I will never have to do a days work again once I am aboard the aboriginal benefits gravy train however I do expect all of you to work extra hard to enable me to maintain my new lifestyle.

Belgarion wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:02pm:

As a self identifying aboriginal I hereby demand access to all the benefits to which I am entitled.  I will never have to do a days work again once I am aboard the aboriginal benefits gravy train however I do expect all of you to work extra hard to enable me to maintain my new lifestyle.

I doubt that many WASPS would want to swap places with an aboriginal person in this country even if you believe they live on easy street.

yeah  i definitely would never want to be an aborignal ever

i dont want to have an iq close to 63 and look anything like they do

It's called racial hypocrisy...something hard righters like Bolt and his fan club have in spades.

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

It's called racial hypocrisy...something hard righters like Bolt and his fan club have in spades.

Please explain this racial hypocrisy concept to me.  Is it something like people claiming that race doesn't exist, but that racism is everywhere?

Or is it more like claiming to be 'anti-racist' while supporting any explicitly racial group, so long as they are not white?

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:10pm:

yeah  i definitely would never want to be an aborignal ever i dont want to have an iq close to 63 and look anything like they do

Dont the Libs have the only Aboriginal in federal parliament?
If you dont like Abbos you should vote for the all white party..the Greens  :D

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:16pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:10pm: yeah  i definitely would never want to be an aborignal ever i dont want to have an iq close to 63 and look anything like they do Dont the Libs have the only Aboriginal in federal parliament? If you dont like Abbos you should vote for the all white party..the Greens  :D

what makes you think i like the libs

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:16pm: barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:10pm: yeah  i definitely would never want to be an aborignal ever i dont want to have an iq close to 63 and look anything like they do Dont the Libs have the only Aboriginal in federal parliament? If you dont like Abbos you should vote for the all white party..the Greens  :D what makes you think i like the libs

The Nationals are cuckolded to the Libs so you must support them coz without the Libs the Nats are just a minor party with less than 3% of the Aussie vote  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:20pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:17pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:16pm: barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:10pm: yeah  i definitely would never want to be an aborignal ever i dont want to have an iq close to 63 and look anything like they do Dont the Libs have the only Aboriginal in federal parliament? If you dont like Abbos you should vote for the all white party..the Greens  :D what makes you think i like the libs The Nationals are cuckolded to the Libs so you must support them coz without the Libs the Nats are just a minor party with less than 3% of the Aussie vote  ;D

mate i have been posting here for over four years with a consistent political ideology that i am very explicit about

why are people here so stupid as not to realise that the nationals_win schtick (as well as the claim i made to get made mod of the nationals forum) isnt just a big gag

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:20pm: barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:17pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:16pm: barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:10pm: yeah  i definitely would never want to be an aborignal ever i dont want to have an iq close to 63 and look anything like they do Dont the Libs have the only Aboriginal in federal parliament? If you dont like Abbos you should vote for the all white party..the Greens  :D what makes you think i like the libs The Nationals are cuckolded to the Libs so you must support them coz without the Libs the Nats are just a minor party with less than 3% of the Aussie vote  ;D mate i have been posting here for over four years with a consistent political ideology that i am very explicit about why are people here so stupid as not to realise that the nationals_win schtick (as well as the claim i made to get made mod of the nationals forum) isnt just a big gag

Because of my undying trust and belief in peoples nick names on here  ;D

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

The Libs always straddle the Nats when they need an extra 3% to get desperately over the line...considering how the Greens are more on the Nats side regarding CSG it's rather surprising they have taken the side of the Liberal Party who want to turn Australian farm land into a gigantic Gina Rinehart mineral pit.. >:(

Oh the hypocrisy of the right.

Today Tony's doing the rounds of MSM slush News media 7-9-10, flapping on about how he will not bring back work choices..Yet in a leaked article from his secretive closed door party meeting recently he espoused his intention to bring back work choices ever tougher, saying that Costello's model was not tough enough. :D

Can anyone believe anything this horrible liar says?

The Murdoch MSM should be charged with offences against humanity with their total lack of truthful journalism.

This is the biggest media set up I've ever experienced in all my political life thus far... It only proves how thick and easily lead the australian public are..Oh..Abbott also said at his secretive meeting that he was amazed at how the public believed the media lies..and was very happy about that.

Juzus smacking christ.  

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:

The Libs always straddle the Nats when they need an extra 3% to get desperately over the line...considering how the Greens are more on the Nats side regarding CSG it's rather surprising they have taken the side of the Liberal Party who want to turn Australian farm land into a gigantic Gina Rinehart mineral pit.. >:( Oh the hypocrisy of the right. Today Tony's doing the rounds of MSM slush News media 7-9-10, flapping on about how he will not bring back work choices..Yet in a leaked article from his secretive closed door party meeting recently he espoused his intention to bring back work choices ever tougher, saying that Costello's model was not tough enough. :D Can anyone believe anything this horrible liar says? The Murdoch MSM should be charged with offences against humanity with their total lack of truthful journalism. This is the biggest media set up I've ever experienced in all my political life thus far... It only proves how thick and easily lead the australian public are..Oh..Abbott also said at his secretive meeting that he was amazed at how the public believed the media lies..and was very happy about that. Juzus smacking christ.

What's that got to do with Andrew Bolt?

When we consider that Keith Murdoch, Ruperts old man used his newspapers and influence to conspire with Churchill to have the AIF diverted to protect British interests instead of coming home to defend this country against the Japs. The whole Murdoch family was and is a disgrace and we should give thanks everyday that Curtin stood up to these lying bullies and saved this country from the same fate China sucumbed to under Japanese occupation.
The Murdochs should be toppled from power, gaoled and the death penalty should apply to them for treason. Bolt is just one of Murdochs sick jokes on society.

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 12:29pm:

a court found somebody to be a compulsive liar and *gasp*, a racist?!?! convict him!!! throw away the key!!!

gee nationals... i'm offended ..wait your telling the truth
i'm with and italian
my sisters with a torres strait islander mix
so i guess you have point

south america has mulatto's and mestizo's, south africa has coloureds.

really  how can you have an australoid with a caucasoid skull, or vice versa, your either one or the other or mixed.
actually a few people in bolts article look genuinely mixed ...a few look totally caucasoid

To sum up my views  I quote ' that Bolt  supposedly vilified named individuals and in doing so made untrue statements about them? If someone did that about me, I’d want it addressed.'

Wouldn't you?



Ps, And if I remember correctly  on a similar level of addressing untrue statements. Didnt Abbott sued Bob Ellis for Defamation ?

scotty 1969 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 6:01pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:29pm: a court found somebody to be a compulsive liar and *gasp*, a racist?!?! convict him!!! throw away the key!!! gee nationals... i'm offended ..wait your telling the truth i'm with and italian my sisters with a torres strait islander mix so i guess you have point south america has mulatto's and mestizo's, south africa has coloureds. really  how can you have an australoid with a caucasoid skull, or vice versa, your either one or the other or mixed. actually a few people in bolts article look genuinely mixed ...a few look totally caucasoid

wat

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 6:04pm:

scotty 1969 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 6:01pm: barnaby joe wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 12:29pm: a court found somebody to be a compulsive liar and *gasp*, a racist?!?! convict him!!! throw away the key!!! gee nationals... i'm offended ..wait your telling the truth i'm with and italian my sisters with a torres strait islander mix so i guess you have point south america has mulatto's and mestizo's, south africa has coloureds. really  how can you have an australoid with a caucasoid skull, or vice versa, your either one or the other or mixed. actually a few people in bolts article look genuinely mixed ...a few look totally caucasoid wat

i think i misquoted... i said i was offended when you said  us micks would  breed with anything

but then i conceded that you are correct

I don't see what the fuss is about.

It's not like it was a criminal trial where he stands to get jail time or even a fine.

All he will be instructed to do is write an apology.

But first will be the unsuccessful appeal, then he will refuse to offer an apology and end up back in court only this time with a jail term as a possible punsihment.

And Andrew Bolt will be loving it all. A bucketload of publicity.

I think you all take the "Andrew Bolt" character too seriously. He's simply a persona developed to appeal to a certain part of the community - that's his gig, that's how he earns a living.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:02pm: As a self identifying aboriginal I hereby demand access to all the benefits to which I am entitled.  I will never have to do a days work again once I am aboard the aboriginal benefits gravy train however I do expect all of you to work extra hard to enable me to maintain my new lifestyle. I doubt that many WASPS would want to swap places with an aboriginal person in this country even if you believe they live on easy street.

The ones Bolt was writing about don't seem to be doing it too tough. That was a point he was making.

Suck a nut, Blot, you racist front bottom! :)

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 4:08pm:

After the verdict, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott warned against restricting "the sacred principle of free speech". "Free speech means the right of people to say what you don't like, not just the right of people to say what you do like," he said. Tony Abbott is correct.....However.... Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors. He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.

members of the WHITE aboriginal community perhaps. and what were the factual errors? if they were peripheral to the message then all it is is a technicality.

astro_surf wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:20pm:

Suck a nut, Blot, you racist front bottom! :)

bye bye astro for yet another stay in the land of the banned. if you cant express yourself better than that after repeated warnings then you ahve no one to blame but yourself.

48 hour ban...

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 5:31pm:

The Libs always straddle the Nats when they need an extra 3% to get desperately over the line...considering how the Greens are more on the Nats side regarding CSG it's rather surprising they have taken the side of the Liberal Party who want to turn Australian farm land into a gigantic Gina Rinehart mineral pit.. >:( Oh the hypocrisy of the right. Today Tony's doing the rounds of MSM slush News media 7-9-10, flapping on about how he will not bring back work choices..Yet in a leaked article from his secretive closed door party meeting recently he espoused his intention to bring back work choices ever tougher, saying that Costello's model was not tough enough. :D Can anyone believe anything this horrible liar says? The Murdoch MSM should be charged with offences against humanity with their total lack of truthful journalism. This is the biggest media set up I've ever experienced in all my political life thus far... It only proves how thick and easily lead the australian public are..Oh..Abbott also said at his secretive meeting that he was amazed at how the public believed the media lies..and was very happy about that. Juzus smacking christ.

absolutely unacceptable language and behaviour. welcome to the land of the banned for 24 hours.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 6:04pm:

To sum up my views  I quote ' that Bolt  supposedly vilified named individuals and in doing so made untrue statements about them? If someone did that about me, I’d want it addressed.' Wouldn't you? Ps, And if I remember correctly  on a similar level of addressing untrue statements. Didnt Abbott sued Bob Ellis for Defamation ?

he called them white aborginals. the claim to be aboraingal and they are white. it is a bit hard to argue against that.

freedom of speech only as long as its within the realms of someones idea of reform... yeah right....

otherwise there is no such thing..

I guess some wont be happy unless Bolt gets 10 years for his crime..its a bit like the Hinch persecution.. how dare he try to protect children.. who every heard of such a wicked crime..

to think something like this can stuff up the court system is more a mystery to me.

today a man has been charged with murdering his girlfriends 2 yr old child..I was sick when the policeman said she had sustained many old injuries..

they also buried little Keisha.. RIP.. I cry I really do..we spend money on crap like this court case oh my! someones feelings have been hurt...

and we dont have the money to save these babies.. it breaks my heart.

are we twisted you betcha we are.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:28pm:

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:31pm: The Libs always straddle the Nats when they need an extra 3% to get desperately over the line...considering how the Greens are more on the Nats side regarding CSG it's rather surprising they have taken the side of the Liberal Party who want to turn Australian farm land into a gigantic Gina Rinehart mineral pit.. >:( Oh the hypocrisy of the right. Today Tony's doing the rounds of MSM slush News media 7-9-10, flapping on about how he will not bring back work choices..Yet in a leaked article from his secretive closed door party meeting recently he espoused his intention to bring back work choices ever tougher, saying that Costello's model was not tough enough. :D Can anyone believe anything this horrible liar says? The Murdoch MSM should be charged with offences against humanity with their total lack of truthful journalism. This is the biggest media set up I've ever experienced in all my political life thus far... It only proves how thick and easily lead the australian public are..Oh..Abbott also said at his secretive meeting that he was amazed at how the public believed the media lies..and was very happy about that. Juzus smacking christ.   absolutely unacceptable language and behaviour. welcome to the land of the banned for 24 hours.

longy you refer to this person as a she!!! do you know or are you guessing?.. if thats true I trust to go they dont have children. I really do.

LW you are out of control.  The filth coming from the neocon sewer is more Putrid than usual and not a move by you. How can you call yourself an unbiased objective mod. Iit has become such a yawn reading the now one sided debates and watching you ban dissent wherever you detect it. What a hack. You need schoolin.  

P.s.  Go and talk your racist dribble to a couple black fellas and see how you do. So brave you hide in your bedroom tapping away with impunity.
What goes around comes around.

cods wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 7:28pm: Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:31pm: The Libs always straddle the Nats when they need an extra 3% to get desperately over the line...considering how the Greens are more on the Nats side regarding CSG it's rather surprising they have taken the side of the Liberal Party who want to turn Australian farm land into a gigantic Gina Rinehart mineral pit.. >:( Oh the hypocrisy of the right. Today Tony's doing the rounds of MSM slush News media 7-9-10, flapping on about how he will not bring back work choices..Yet in a leaked article from his secretive closed door party meeting recently he espoused his intention to bring back work choices ever tougher, saying that Costello's model was not tough enough. :D Can anyone believe anything this horrible liar says? The Murdoch MSM should be charged with offences against humanity with their total lack of truthful journalism. This is the biggest media set up I've ever experienced in all my political life thus far... It only proves how thick and easily lead the australian public are..Oh..Abbott also said at his secretive meeting that he was amazed at how the public believed the media lies..and was very happy about that. Juzus smacking christ.   absolutely unacceptable language and behaviour. welcome to the land of the banned for 24 hours. longy you refer to this person as a she!!! do you know or are you guessing?.. if thats true I trust to go they dont have children. I really do.

their profile claims to be female for all that is worth. but she/he/it has been a disgusting poster and being banned was only a matter of time. if she wants to behave when she returns then fine. but if not, she can do the astro-dance. banned for 2 days, posts twice, banned again.

Dr Brown wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

LW you are out of control.  The filth coming from the neocon sewer is more Putrid than usual and not a move by you. How can you call yourself an unbiased objective mod. Iit has become such a yawn reading the now one sided debates and watching you ban dissent wherever you detect it. What a hack. You need schoolin.   P.s.  Go and talk your racist dribble to a couple black fellas and see how you do. So brave you hide in your bedroom tapping away with impunity. What goes around comes around.

Whose sock puppet are you?

Dr Brown wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

LW you are out of control.  The filth coming from the neocon sewer is more Putrid than usual and not a move by you. How can you call yourself an unbiased objective mod. Iit has become such a yawn reading the now one sided debates and watching you ban dissent wherever you detect it. What a hack. You need schoolin.   P.s.  Go and talk your racist dribble to a couple black fellas and see how you do. So brave you hide in your bedroom tapping away with impunity. What goes around comes around.

feel free to leave. you dont add anything besides abuse anyhow.

Belgarion wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

Dr Brown wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 7:51pm: LW you are out of control.  The filth coming from the neocon sewer is more Putrid than usual and not a move by you. How can you call yourself an unbiased objective mod. Iit has become such a yawn reading the now one sided debates and watching you ban dissent wherever you detect it. What a hack. You need schoolin.   P.s.  Go and talk your racist dribble to a couple black fellas and see how you do. So brave you hide in your bedroom tapping away with impunity. What goes around comes around. Whose sock puppet are you?

sounds a bit gimme-like. it will soon reveal its sick underbelly if it is. gimme isnt anywhere near clever enough to have multiple IDs that arent identifiable.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:28pm:

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 5:31pm: The Libs always straddle the Nats when they need an extra 3% to get desperately over the line...considering how the Greens are more on the Nats side regarding CSG it's rather surprising they have taken the side of the Liberal Party who want to turn Australian farm land into a gigantic Gina Rinehart mineral pit.. >:( Oh the hypocrisy of the right. Today Tony's doing the rounds of MSM slush News media 7-9-10, flapping on about how he will not bring back work choices..Yet in a leaked article from his secretive closed door party meeting recently he espoused his intention to bring back work choices ever tougher, saying that Costello's model was not tough enough. :D Can anyone believe anything this horrible liar says? The Murdoch MSM should be charged with offences against humanity with their total lack of truthful journalism. This is the biggest media set up I've ever experienced in all my political life thus far... It only proves how thick and easily lead the australian public are..Oh..Abbott also said at his secretive meeting that he was amazed at how the public believed the media lies..and was very happy about that. Juzus smacking christ.   absolutely unacceptable language and behaviour. welcome to the land of the banned for 24 hours.

Which part was unacceptable.

The "juzus" the "smacking" or the "christ"?


I have no objections to you being a mod  (lets see how it works out) but I wouldnt want to be part of a forum where saying "jesus christ" was a bannable offense , or "effing" , "smacking" or "pharking" or anything similar.


The more socially unacceptable ones , yes , ban away.
But those ones are not obscene in my opinion.

This is a marvellous case of the PC brigade setting back their own cause another decade or two. If you're a light skinned blue eyed person who  'identify as an Aboriginal',  people will just snigger behind their hands,  'Preferment, know wha' I mean, eh, eh? Aboriginal, eh?' and dismiss you as lacking all personal merit and that you are just on a bandwagon. They have won the battle with Bolt but well and truly lost the war for recognition as equals. This just has made it a lot harder for Aboriginese to claim achievemnet on merit.

Hiding beihind group identity, like group think, is a buggered notion but some buggered people seem to prefer it to being taken at face value as a person, probably because they lack suifficient personal merit so they need to cover themselves in the group's supposed 'positives'. How stupid. The PC brigade is the left wing equivalent of right wing fascists. They are fascists of the 'nice' with claws out.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 8:19pm:

This is a marvellous case of the PC brigade setting back their own cause another decade or two. If you're a light skinned blue eyed person who  'identify as an Aboriginal',  people will just snigger behind their hands,  'Preferment, know wha' I mean, eh, eh? Aboriginal, eh?' and dismiss you as lacking all personal merit and that you are just on a bandwagon. They have won the battle with Bolt but well and truly lost the war for recognition as equals. This just has made it a lot harder for Aboriginese to claim achievemnet on merit. Hiding beihind group identity, like group think, is a buggered notion but some buggered people seem to prefer it to being taken at face value as a person, probably because they lack suifficient personal merit so they need to cover themselves in the group's supposed 'positives'. How stupid. The PC brigade is the left wing equivalent of right wing fascists. They are fascists of the 'nice' with claws out.

For example sorens use of "buggered" is totally ok with me.

They may have won the battle but they have lost the war, many will see this as proof that Aboriginal people are a protected species which causes huge resentment.  And it won't hurt Bolt in any way, it will probably make him more popular.

toots wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

They may have won the battle but they have lost the war, many will see this as proof that Aboriginal people are a protected species which causes huge resentment.  And it won't hurt Bolt in any way, it will probably make him more popular.

Yep.

There are a lot of totally buggered people in this world.

You mean unfvcked by group think?

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 8:31pm:

You mean unfvcked by group think?

The hilarivs thing is that yov actvally think yov are not buggered by "grovpthink".

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 8:31pm: You mean unfvcked by group think? The hilarivs thing is that yov actvally think yov are not buggered by "grovpthink".

You should have either wit or a sound argument. Having neither, silence is indicated.

Dr Brown wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

LW you are out of control.  The filth coming from the neocon sewer is more Putrid than usual and not a move by you. How can you call yourself an unbiased objective mod. Iit has become such a yawn reading the now one sided debates and watching you ban dissent wherever you detect it. What a hack. You need schoolin.   P.s.  Go and talk your racist dribble to a couple black fellas and see how you do. So brave you hide in your bedroom tapping away with impunity. What goes around comes around.

Are you implying black fellas have a propensity for violence?

I know it's true, but don't you know that's irrelevant if it can be deemed "offensive" by a meeber of a designated victim group?

____ wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

Just in ... up date soon

No more anti-Israel and anti-jew blatherings from you Green Boy.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 8:43pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 8:37pm: Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 8:31pm: You mean unfvcked by group think? The hilarivs thing is that yov actvally think yov are not buggered by "grovpthink". You should have either wit or a sound argument. Having neither, silence is indicated.

vh hvh.

soren is the only hvman being on earth that is NOT effected by his particvlar grovps "grovpthink".


His opinions are ENTIRELY his own with no inflvence or reference to ANYONE elses.





Do yov think he gives lessons?

This is just lame and lethargic. Come on, show some spirit. Tecnical support sayz: You don't need to alter the spelling of words that are not filtered.

(BTW, I do give lessons, so your lame-o nerdy hint-o is buggered - to speak Danish/Olde Anglese for a moment)

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:14pm:

This is just lame and lethargic. Come on, show some spirit. Tecnical support sayz: You don't need to alter the spelling of words that are not filtered. (BTW, I do give lessons, so your lame-o nerdy hint-o is buggered - to speak Danish/Olde Anglese for a moment)

Just making a point to LW and having some fun at the same time.

Not surprised you missed it.



Anyway...




ironic that a post by gimmee gimmee has resulted in him being banned  for a post that "offended" longweekend while longweekend is defending bolt despite bolt setting ;

"" out to offend from the word go and in fact he acknowledged that in his evidence.""


http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest/a/-/article/10358993/bolt-breached-discrimination-act-court/

if gimme gimme is your best argument, you are buggered.

Cheers.

Soren wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:34pm:

if gimme gimme is your best argument, you are buggered. Cheers.

Nice deflecting and ignoring the point.

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:28pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 28th, 2011 at 9:14pm: This is just lame and lethargic. Come on, show some spirit. Tecnical support sayz: You don't need to alter the spelling of words that are not filtered. (BTW, I do give lessons, so your lame-o nerdy hint-o is buggered - to speak Danish/Olde Anglese for a moment) Just making a point to LW and having some fun at the same time. Not surprised you missed it. Anyway... ironic that a post by gimmee gimmee has resulted in him being banned  for a post that "offended" longweekend while longweekend is defending bolt despite bolt setting ; "" out to offend from the word go and in fact he acknowledged that in his evidence."" http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest/a/-/article/10358993/bolt-breached-discrimination-act-court/