Andrew Bolt ... Free speech goes down.

Aboriginal Identity..

It is not easy to define Aboriginal identity. People who identify themselves as 'Aboriginal' range from dark-skinned, broad-nosed to blonde-haired, blue-eyed people, very much to the surprise of non-Indigenous people.

Aboriginal people define Aboriginality not by skin colour but by relationships.

Ironically light-skinned Aboriginal people are being challenged on their Aboriginal identity, even though the official definition accepts anyone who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such in their community..

This was called the 'three-part' definition of Aboriginal identity and was soon adopted by all Commonwealth departments [2]. Variations of this definition were used later by legislative and government bodies. Many Indigenous persons carry 'certificates' from Indigenous organisations which state their Aboriginality.

However, the fact remains that a white authority defines who is an Indigenous person.

“Without our voices, Aboriginality will continue to be a creation for privileged opportunists and will always be about us rather than by us.

—Julie Tommy Walker, Innawonga woman and Aboriginal leader [35]
 
Andrew Bolt has history of his 'false beliefs bumping up against reality'-and he appears incapable of learning from banging his small, narrow mind against brick wall reality:

Mistakes Were Made...But Not By Me...

We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

—George Orwell (1946)

 
hahahaha.....from your website OO....


A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.

—Stephen Mitchell’s modern translation of the Tao Te Ching, in homage to Lao Tzu (ca. 500 B.C.)

.....except if, a certain profession dictates you cannot....

professional liability policies have a condition that prohibits (except at your own cost) making any voluntary admission of liability, settle any claim, assume any obligation, and/or agree to any means of resolution to a dispute

...and...

Errors and/or Omissions
In the normal course of daily business operations, you may become aware of circumstances that a client is unhappy with our services as performed. Additionally, you may become aware of a potential error or omission related to services performed by the firm or any of its related entities. It is important that we manage these situations promptly and properly as follows:

1. Do not acknowledge, apologize or attempt to negotiate a settlement.

--------------------------------


You see OO, it all sounds great and wonderful and fluffy in theory....but unfortunately cu@thetop and his ilk have already been there and swept the board clean. There ain't nothin' there. It's all just fluff and wind.
 
But do you really feel it's the right thing ?

2 wrongs don't make a right & all that stuff ?

You're correct; it's not right.

But the double standard with this issue really pizzes me off ; it's ok for certain ones to openly in public (and often very loudly) call out the term I previously mentioned, and nothing is ever done about that, but the first inkling of a hint at a skin tone in their direction, and it's world war 3.

I lived in an area where this was commonplace, so I'm not talking through my hat.
 
Since when is life a cut and dried egal contract? That's not a bad insight into your mindset and personality Dazz. Beside that, idiot Bolt could easily make an apology if not retraction.

The point of the court judgement is yes we can discuss aboriginally and ethnicity but not in the terms Bolt does. Nasty, demeaning, vilified......etc.....the question to ask is why?



hahahaha.....from your website OO....




.....except if, a certain profession dictates you cannot....

professional liability policies have a condition that prohibits (except at your own cost) making any voluntary admission of liability, settle any claim, assume any obligation, and/or agree to any means of resolution to a dispute

...and...

Errors and/or Omissions
In the normal course of daily business operations, you may become aware of circumstances that a client is unhappy with our services as performed. Additionally, you may become aware of a potential error or omission related to services performed by the firm or any of its related entities. It is important that we manage these situations promptly and properly as follows:

1. Do not acknowledge, apologize or attempt to negotiate a settlement.

--------------------------------


You see OO, it all sounds great and wonderful and fluffy in theory....but unfortunately cu@thetop and his ilk have already been there and swept the board clean. There ain't nothin' there. It's all just fluff and wind.
 
You can attempt to rationalise, defend, quibble and fluff your way all to the 'Andrew Bolt Stupidity Fund Donation Centre' to contribute to his legal costs. The facts remain the same...

“Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison…” — Edward Lazarus

It aint about anything but what Bolt chose to write without doing his due diligence, then ridiculing the people he wrote about, based upon his shoddy research, remnants of if you wanna get out of the hole you gotta stop digging. (he likes to dig without checking his facts, history and his behaviour in that context has shown us time and time again).

Thank goodness I don't apply the same 'diligence' to my investing, but if I did, there would only be myself to blame.

Andrew Bolt does not know how to man up and accept responsibility for his own stupidity.

Sadly, he isn't the only one, oh well.
 
I don't reckon Andrew would care.

He'd just laugh and keep arguing with whoever it was.

He's a big boy, and able to take a knock on the chin - unlike others.

Umm, did you read his article yesterday? Didn't sound like someone taking it on the chin.
 
One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.

A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !
 
Not quite the same. Bolt demeaned actual people in his articles. Not just a race.

One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.

A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !
 
Not quite the same. Bolt demeaned actual people in his articles. Not just a race.

I agree, but my comment is more a comment on the attitude of society. Some people laugh it off and others take court action, perhaps we white fellas need to become more indignant and sensitive to criticism. I wonder how we would get on in court ?

I agree that Bolts article was exceedingly poorly researched, if you are going to name names then you had better be right.

I don't think he has done anyone any favours, he has printed incorrect info, he has raised the question of journalistic freedom but has also shot down journalistic accuracy as well.

I think the original concept behind the story was probably to highlight the many people who by appearance would not be adjudged aboriginal yet they use resources made available for people that do appear to be aboriginal. In todays world there are still a few dinosaurs that judge by appearance and some aboriginal people could be discriminated against and are offered extra assistance.
 
I get your point. If he had written an article on the following, it would be no problem at all. We are allowed free speech, the problem - as we know - was that he vilified the people he named in the article. That would apply regardless of race.

I think the original concept behind the story was probably to highlight the many people who by appearance would not be adjudged aboriginal yet they use resources made available for people that do appear to be aboriginal. In todays world there are still a few dinosaurs that judge by appearance and some aboriginal people could be discriminated against and are offered extra assistance.
 
One thing that amazes me how any criticism of white anglo saxon traditions is perfectly OK but if there is any criticism or lampooning of other races, religions, attire, traditions then all hell breaks loose.

A very simple example: On St Patricks day a local talk back radio asked for Irish jokes, people rang up with all the old Irish idiot jokes. Then an Irish tourist rang up and asked is it OK if I tell some Aboriginal jokes ? Ummm ............... NO !

Macca, it amazes me they went so soft on him, they had the option to tackle him for defamation. And you have drawn a long bow from Andrew Bolt's behaviour, about what he wrote and said, based upon his lies.

Facts remain the same, Andrew Bolt stuffed up bigtime, (again). Nothing to do with free speech issue, just his stupidity. He aint no Messiah for free speech, but yes, his loyal baa lamb followers, all hail King of Stupid.
 
Back
Top