I guess he won't be singling out aborigines for a while.
“On the basis of my findings, I am satisfied that … Mr Bolt … engaged in conduct which contravened section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.” – Federal Court Judge Justice Mordecai Bromberg handing down his verdict.
Much will be made about today’s Federal Court finding that Herald Sun writer Andrew Bolt’s attack on “white skinned aborigines” was a breach of our race discrimination laws. The full finding is HERE if you care to read it (warning – it’s very long and tedious).
But the bottom line, in my opinion, is this: Bolt was found to have gone too far in expressing his opinion that the so-called “fair-skinned aborigines” he targeted were getting some kind of advantage by disingenuously clinging to their aboriginal ancestry. He also made several errors of fact, which seemed to tip the balance between free speech and discrimination.
According to the Judge, Bolt’s use of provocative and inflammatory language was intentionally offensive, insulting and intimidating to “fair skinned” aborigines, so much so that it went beyond the issue of free speech and stepped into the realm of hate speech. It’s much like when you write something that’s critical of an individual’s behaviour – it’s fine to have an opinion about that, but when you attach malice and mistruths it ceases to be one.
My own take on Bolt’s articles is they were unnecessary and mean-spirited in their intent, which was to provoke feelings of ill will towards those in our society of indigenous descent. Why single out these people? It’s a constant theme with Bolt, as are his regular attacks on the stolen generation. It seems to me that Andrew Bolt simply has it in for aboriginal people, full stop. The Judge seemed to agree with that too.
That said, I don’t agree with those who claim the court’s decision is “a blow to free speech”. That’s rubbish. Just mind your manners in future, Mr Bolt (and others), and you’ll be fine. There’s no harm been done on that front at all and this decision simply means that Andrew Bolt has received a well deserved official kick up the arse … for being too hateful. Amen.
.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Actually Ray i think that you are wrong to suggest that Andrew Bolt is “guilty” of anything quite simply because this was not a criminal proceeding so it is not a case of guilt or innocence, but one where judgement is found for one side or the other.
I read the judgement earlier and It seems to me that there is a very good chance that thsi judgement will be overturned upon appeal, and I have no doubt that it will be appealed.
Further the whole basis of the anti discrimination act is profoundly flawed insofar as it relies upon determining “hurt feelings” of some hypothetical individuals, unlike a defamation case there seems to be no requirement that actual hurt or damage be determined just that someone “suffers’ some vague and unspecified or quantified “offence” at something said or published by someone else. That my friend is a very slippery slope indeed and It won’t be long before we end up facing our own O’ Brian’s because we dare to believe that two plus two equals four:
Iain, you might have noticed that I put the word guilty inside a pair of these: “. That’s because it was a quote from the news reports. I dunno if “guilty” is the right word either but there’s no doubt about the wording of the court’s decision, which was that Bolt breached the racial discrimination act. I guess he’s “guilty” of doing that like someone can be “guilty” of telling fibs. The word “guilt” is not exclusive to criminal actions.
I don’t think this is Orwellian, Big Brother or slippery slope stuff as you are clearly claiming with your words and – sigh – videos either. We have racial discrimination laws for a reason. Consider the alternative.
Btw, I don’t think aborigines are “hypothetical individuals”.
” It seems to me that Andrew Bolt simply has it in for aboriginal people, full stop. The Judge seemed to agree with that too.”
Where in the judgement would one gain that particular bit of info?
It appears to me that the judge found that Bolt went too far on this occasion, but he’s not mentioned any other instance that would lead one to believe that he believes Bolt has it “in” for anybody.
On the other hand………..there are thos who have it in for Bolt. And they have shown so above.
I agree with Iain. There should be an appeal and it should be won.
This is a blight on free speech. It means that one cannot write anything that may offend someone. Well that’s not how democracy works – that’s how Grods corp works.
Where in the judgement would one gain that particular bit of info?
He can’t mention any other instances because he can only rule on the pieces in dispute. But his finding speaks for itself – Bolt’s attitude to aborigines is unjustly harsh.
And no, I certainly don’t “have it in for Bolt”, you must be confusing me with the PP obsessives. Bolt bores me. So does PP.
Rubbish. Here, I’ll prove it:
That’s offensive but no one will take me to Federal court over it. Wake up – Bolt’s articles were racist. QED.
HOW long will this racist last on CH.10?——- you can tell Bolt the wordsmith, is a racist by his body language, this Stolen Generation Denier goes on about free speech, what about respect for fellow human beings?
Actually Ray you are being disingenuous as usual. And wrong as patologically programed.
Bolt was not founf d to have broken the law by what he said, rather by the manner in which he said it.
Everyone from Bright is an offensive twit at the best of times, but if I say that in a nice way I’m not being to “harsh” according to the judgement.
I’m tipping that this will go to the full bench and be tossed.
I agree about the Collingwood supporters of course, but at leas they hav two things St Kilda don’t. Living premiership coaches and captains and a coach. In fact they have two of those. And they also have a date this Saturday which Saints’ fans won’t have for some years.
Disingenuous & wrong about what? Just saying I am doesn’t make it so.
Also, I’m not sure how you draw your conclusion that Bolt didn’t break the law by “what he said”.
Saying everyone in Bright is an offensive twit is neither offensive or harsh and wouldn’t cause anyone to be upset … because it’s just your opinion and there’s no malice or made up “facts” to support your contention, unlike Bolt’s assertions about aborigines.
I think it is more than a free speech issue here. Don’t you just love it, the way people go after “the messenger”, rather than deal with the issue involved.
I do agree with the premise in his argument though. But, why should we face prosecution or some “out there” lobby group when we challenge their entitlements to the honey pot ? Ffs, I have seen personally, supposed aboriginals, whiter than I am, standing in a queue for the massive handouts. I agree with the concept of assistance for aboriginals, but, and I think this was Bolt’s point (that must have hit pretty close to home, for him to get sued ?), there are many that are falsely claiming aboriginal descent.
Why should we be so scared, or why is it seen as being racially discriminitary behaviour to challenge this ?
Precisely, Sax
One eight Aborigine, seven eighths Caucasian does not an Aborigine make.
He is known as Melbourne’s village idiot————-
from another blog, this quote from IPA chief John Roskam:
“Andrew Bolt lost his case in the Federal Court today. Today’s decision means that the right to not be offended is more important than freedom of speech.”
” I guess he won’t be singling out Aborigines for a while” so it’s back to Gillard bashing on his blog of pure bile.
Perhaps Richard, but doesn’t belittle the message any.
Even the village idiot can get it right every now and again ?
The law must be changed to Bolt’s requirements—–in his dreams. How many law suits is that now?
Anything to get an extra point in otherwise pretty sad ratings numbers ?
Sax & GD, I’m a bit confused about the existence of this “honey pot” and the “massive handouts” you claim that white-looking aborigines are getting. Could you please elaborate?
“Also, I’m not sure how you draw your conclusion that Bolt didn’t break the law by “what he said”. ”
It’s not my conclusion Ray. It’s what the judge himself said. Clearly you have not bothered to read the judgement closely – even at a glance.
Bolt’s assertions re Aboriginies was not wrong (according to the judge) he just put it in terms that were offensive.
It is also an opinion and even the judge agreed that he has the right to express it. He just can’t say it quite so nasty and upset the poor didums who have made a living out of being partly aboriginal. Bolt himself is fully Dutch, yet identifies as Australian. His point is that if there is a $ to be made from being aboriginal then people will claim whatever they can to be classified that way.
Yes, adding malice & untruths made it into something that breached the law. So, in other words, “what he said” was offensive … and broke the law. You’ve defeated your own argument.
And obviously YOU haven’t bothered to read this post and my ‘in a nutshell’ summary of the decision. To save you the trouble of working out where it is (hint, scroll up … use the arrows at the side that point this way ^), I’ll repeat if for you:
Sounds about right, doesn’t it?
Ray I think you have nailed it.
Very respectfully too I might add.
Iain. Thanks for sharing and being open to this topic.
Courageous and Fair.
Respek !!!!!
News ltd is simply capitalising on racism and intolerance
In our society Ray, it is not only permissible to challenge mistruths and malice, it is our duty to do so.
Well, here is a couple for you Ray.
I know for a fact, a couple, less than 20% aboriginal descent, claiming aboriginal/taxpayer sponsored housing, as well as employment, that is unavailable for whites.
Also, reverse discrimination, for plumb public service jobs. The discrimination ? Unbelievably tough selection criteria, that whites can’t possibly comptete with. For the rest of us, we cannot advertise employment vacancies specifying race colour etc, but for the aboriginal they can, and do, and get away with it ?
Another ? Access to brand newly constructed rental homes, at heavily discounted rents, in areas, that us average Aussies are desperate for rental housing, can only dream of. As well, I have known of families, (at least two from personal experience), that have totally destroyed more than one house, then were given another, destroyed that as well, and then another. Don’t say it doesn’t happen, because I know otherwise.
There is a couple to get you started. It is not being racially discriminitary either. But, like Bolt, get up, and speak up about it, and look what happens ?
It’s happening here !
This is just the tip of the iceberg. By closing one’s eyes, or worse still, attacking those that are attempting to discover the truth, in an attempt to appear politically correct, or racially non biased, is just sticking your head in the sand, and ignoring the problems. If white people, or whatever bloody colour were to try the same thing, there would be all hell to pay. Which is what is happening to Bolt. It’s all crap. The tens of millions of dollars, that respective governments throw at the problem, is designed for one purpose, and one only.
To try and keep them quiet.
Whatever happened to fairness, and the rule of law applying to everyone that lives within a community ?
I didn’t mention ‘honey-pot’ or ‘massive handouts’. What I did mention, and what Bolt has expressed, is that some people, ie Larissa Behrendt, who work in highly paid public service jobs, on the basis that they identify as ‘Aboriginal’, are more Caucasian than Aboriginal.
Rather than being activists for the indigenous cause, they are opportunists. The recent debacle between Behrendt and Bess Price, an Aboriginal woman in favour of the radical Northern Territory intervention, who appeared on Q&A, is a case in point. Price is a grass-roots spokeswoman for her community; Behrendt is an elite academic grossly out of touch with the actual indigenous situation.
Bolt is not being racist with his comments. He isn’t suggesting that Aboriginals shouldn’t receive an extra hand-up from Centrelink, or help with tertiary education. He is questioning the credibility of these opportunists, so-called activists, who use the indigenous cause to further their own careers and profiles, while doing little or nothing for the Aboriginal communities in the north and west of Australia.
Thanks for that Phil, but it’s my post, not Iain’s.
Sax, those so-called advantages for aborigines that you mention are not advantages. Are you suggesting you would like to qualify for that sort of help too? It’s like saying you’d like to get your wage AND the dole because you know one bloke who is on the dole and not really entitled to it. “Tip of what iceberg”? You’re overstating the amount and economic impact of indigenous programs. Maybe just pay your taxes and be happy you’re not one of them.
GD, I didn’t say you mentioned “honey pot” or “handouts” but you partly supported Sax’s point so that’s why I answered to both of you. The judge disagrees with you that Bolt’s comments were appropriate. Something about going too far, being too provocative and getting his facts wrong.
Another example of the elitist octoroons/Greens disconnect with the indigenous communities is this article in the media today.
‘Indigenous MP Carol Martin, the first indigenous woman elected to any Australian parliament will today announce her resignation after being vilified as a “toxic coconut” over her support for Woodside’s contentious $30 billion gas hub proposal near the West Australian resort town of Broome.’
‘Ms Martin has repeatedly urged opponents of the Woodside development to respect the Goolarabooloo Jabirr Jabirr people’s right to do a deal with the company for the gas hub. In June, they voted 60-40 in favour.’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/coconut-slur-the-last-straw-for-mp/story-fn9hm1pm-1226148561767
Apparently calling her ‘a toxic coconut’ isn’t racial vilification, but Bolt’s questioning of these issues is.
“It seems to me that Andrew Bolt simply has it in for aboriginal people, full stop. ”
Quite an absurd statement given his best friend at school was aboriginal and he helped another friend down on his luck, also aboriginal, to get a job at one of the papers he worked with in the past.
But then neither of these were white aborigines…
Hi Gabrielle, my opinion is based on Bolt’s constant aborigine-bashing like his diatribes on the stolen generation. What is the point of such opposition? It does indeed seem to me that he has a general disdain for aborigines regardless of what one-to-one friendly acts he may have done along the way.
GD, who says calling an aborigine a “toxic coconut” isn’t offensive and vilification? It sure is. Apparently though, it was in an anonymously circulated newsletter. That figures – who’d want to own those words?
(Not sure how you connect it to this case)
What is it in particular you object? That it was highlighted by Bolt and many others that the “Stolen Generation” was not based on race? Why is questioning the “official” position, fed to people by government, reduced to “aborigine-bashing”?
Why are you so afraid of looking at the facts wrt “stolen” generation?
Why does “opposition” scare you so?
Why is Bolt (and why are you, Gabrielle) so concerned about rewriting history re the stolen generations? Certainly there was displacement. Equally certainly some of it was probably necessary, to what extent I don’t know .. or care. Why do you? What does it matter now if a bridge was built by the apology that Rudd gave? It was just part of the reconciliation process and going on about it like Bolt does serves no purpose or good and does indeed suggest a strong dislike of those people.
It seems to me that you’ve got that backwards. He has shown in real life, in his upbringing, that he isn’t a racist, yet because he questions the distorted history propagated by the Left he is now the one being vilified.
I also grew up alongside Aborigines, in North Queensland. The stolen children stories don’t match my experience.
It matters, Ray, because the truth matters.
GD, one simple question: What is the point of questioning the validity of the stolen generation as Bolt does?
(I’ll try this again as there appears to be tech probs).
It matters, Ray, because the truth matters.
The tech problems must be at your end, Gabrielle, because your comment went up. Anyway, that’s just a cliched answer – “the truth matters”. How does it “matter” in relation to the stolen generation?
It has everything to do with it, Ray.
As for a bridge being built by Rudd. You’ve got to be joking. Once again you’re listening to elitist opportunists, rather than real people. I know aborigines who reckon it didn’t do a bloody thing for their cause. It was merely a symbolic feel-good gesture aimed at pleasing the chattering classes.
‘What is the point of questioning the validity of the stolen generations?’
As Gabrielle said, ‘It matters, Ray, because the truth matters.’
And I say, we don’t need to begin the 21st Century under a false cloud of undeserved guilt about our past. The Left have inflicted this false guilt on the populace, and are now doing it again in the form of lies about climate change. Unfortunately the worst aspect of this is that they are doing it to children in primary schools.
Whether looking forward or backward, the Left seem intent on writing history and the future in their handwriting, and God forbid anyone who disagrees. They are already trying to censor the media. They have succeeded in censoring some conservative writers, and now with this court decision, proved that the law is an ass.
We can only hope for a successful appeal.
GD,
1. From your link to the WA matter: Ms Martin was named last week in an anonymous 10-page newsletter as “brown on the outside and full of the milk of white man’s money” on the inside for not opposing the proposed gas hub. Her name appeared on a list of nine Kimberley Aborigines, including former Australian of the year Patrick Dodson, under the heading “toxic coconuts”. Ms Martin said it was the worst slur against her in public life, and she would sue the authors if they could be identified.. So what has that got to do with Bollt again? I can only conclude that you’re suggesting it was okay for the anonymous author to call her a “toxic coconut” because, you know, free speech “matters” – is that right?
2. I don’t take my cue from “elitist opportunists”, I form my own opinions. As I saw it, Rudd’s apology to the stolen generation was made more on the behalf of non-idigenous people and was widely supported in the general community (except for lovely people like Sophie Mirabella). Of course it didn’t make aborigines any better off in the short term, and of course it was a symbolic feel-good gesture. What’s wrong with non-indigenous people feeling better about indigenous ones? That’s what saying sorry does for you. Try it.
3. “The truth matters” argument doesn’t wash with me when it’s about pouring through history just to make a point and say “Look, I told you so – those abos are liars”, which I reckon is the only purpose to Bolt’s stolen generation bashing. Even if the stolen generation were not all “stolen”, so what? We are not “under a false cloud of undeserved guilt about our past” but , if we are, then how exactly is this “guilt” making our lives any worse?
4. Oh it’s all a “left” conspiracy to rewrite history? The dreaded “they” are out to get us. Watch out!
Boy, where do I start ?
Here is a few that will get you started.
1. Instant wealth from the mineral rights, to land that they reckon they have traversed for the last n thousand years ? Just ask BHP how much that adds up to ?
2. Preferential treatment in gaining access to tertiary education
3. Preferential treatment in gaining employment, especially with any government department or agency. Access to free legal to ‘bitch’ when they don’t ?
4. Creation of their own state within our borders, that limit white access, or in fact any access. (i.e Arnhem Land), Imagine if a white tried the same ? All hell would break loose. The history of Hutt River should ring a few bells here.
5. Free specialised health care as well as facilities. We have to pay for ours ?
6. As mentioned, access to specialised housing assistance, also not available to whites.
7. Access to free legal services to air their grievances, that the rest have to pay for ourselves.
There are just too many to mention. Have a read @ a site like http://www.indigenous.gov.au/ if you are truly interested. There is no argument, that there was some terrible instances of abuse, towards aboriginals, early in the piece, again another point, is how long do we have to go on paying for that ?
My bitch is not so much the preferential treatment, but the fact, that the same services, and benefits, are not available to ALL of us ? After all, we are all living in the same country aren’t we ?
Have to start the day early, so see you all later in the day.
Good quote from Gary Johns this in morning’s Australian:
“The issue of Aborigines identifying as Aborigines should be one of supreme indifference to public policy. As with any private association it is a private matter. It becomes public because there are public benefits in so identifying. The fact people are sensitive about the link between identity and benefit serves to underline the fact there is such a link: remove the benefits, remove the sensitivity.
“The decision argued that “Bolt could have made his point without attacking the basis upon which the participants identified as Aboriginal and without attributing to them ulterior motives for so identifying”. This is true, but in that case it would be better to use the law of defamation instead of playing the race vilification card.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cultural-identity-open-for-discussion/story-e6frg6zo-1226149876223
Well said. If the issue is the factual errors in Bolt’s articles and the allegedly insulting manner in which he wrote them, then the aggrieved should have gone for defamation. At least that would not put all discussion on issues of race and racial idenity in jeopardy.
Would it be fair to say, Bolt is now a convicted racist!
No Richard it would not be either fair or accurate for the very reasons that I cited to Ray about the use of the claim that Andrew Bolt is “guilty” of anything.
It is not being a case of being found guilty as a convicted racist rather, has been found guilty of lack of political correctness ?
BTW, for nothing, a quote attributed to Voltaire, but apparently written by Beatrice Hall in 1906, worthy of inclusion here, for all those die hards waiting to pounce, to further their b/s causes.
Yes Richard Iain is right. This is how News Ltd sees what the judge said.
“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”
http://www.news.com.au/national/andrew-bolt-breached-discrimination-act-court/story-e6frfkvr-1226148978809#ixzz1ZIKfqlfG
In isn’t ‘guilty’ of anything and the judge has not found that he is. He just “contravened the RD Act”.
And he didn’t lie, he just “distorted the truth” a bit.
He didn’t type badly researched rubbish, he just made “errors of fact”.
And he didn’t behave like a racist git with no concern for anyone else, he just used “inflammatory and provocative language”.
So you see, if you change the wording it doesn’t sound that bad Richard. Iain is right to play down his behaviour, I’m sure he pats his dog.
I can’t see why we all don’t base our views on the opinions of this man, like Iain and others do, he is quality… he is!
We may have to wait some time to see this as what it actually is – an attack on a very bad piece of legislation.
Julian Burnside made the point this morning that the judgement was “very carefully worded” and that he thought that it may well have been couched in terms that would result in an appeal. He made the point that lower court judges often do this when they believe a law is wrong so that it will be appealed.
There is no doubt that, despite the gloating and grandstanding of Bolt’s many critics (many of whom are consumed by a hatred of the man – including some here) that this judgement has an impact on people’s ability to make comment as opinion.
As an example we have a commenter here who very often makes comment that are intentionally offensive, humiliating and intimidating about a particular religious group. Those comments therefore break this law.
Burnside, while very happy that Bolt’s the victim of this decision, was rather sceptical of the motive of the court.
The high court will overturn this decission on appeal and hopefully we can all get on with life.
As an aside.
Geoff Clarke calling someone a serpent?
There are people in Warrnambool who see the irony of that.
LB,
I posted that same comment from Gary Johns on a later thread. Should have read this one forst, I see.
The issue that is obvious to me and which has become clearer over the decade I have lived in Australia is how divisive the mis-matched treatment of Aboriginals and other Australians actually is. Among poorer whites, there is massive resentment over being denied access to benefits and opportunites that are routinely given to Aboriginals. You know, there couldn’t be a better method of promoting racial disharmony if you tried. I shall be generous and assume it is an unintended consequence of public policy.
Sax, thanks for those examples of where and how aborigines are living off the fat of the land, according to you. I have a few queries on your list though:
1. Where are all these aborigines you say have gained “instant wealth” from mineral rights? They must have gone off to live overseas because they are no rich ones here. Plenty of rich miners though.
2. So aborigines are taking university positions away from white kids? Really? I hadn’t noticed that. It seems to me that white kids get plenty of opportunities via our education system – much more than you and I did and much more than marginalised aborigines. And they get Austudy if they move away from home. We should ban Abstudy for abos then because they’re stealing our kids spots in Uni? Great idea.
3. What’s the unemployment rate among aborigines? It must be zero if they’re getting all this ‘preferential treatment’ for government jobs. Maybe you could get back to me on that one. Try Google.
4. So Arnhem Land and other aboriginal reserves have State rights and collect taxes and all their aborigine residents live in luxury do they? Sounds like a little shekldom where all the citizens are wealthy – how do I get in? It must be a great life up there.
5. So anyone who doesn’t pay for their own health services shouldn’t have it and should be left to die? Why limit this great money saving idea to aborigines though? Think of all the money we could save if we also denied free health services to the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled and children. I agree and I’m ‘sick’ of seeing all these healthy abos living longer off my money – I want to see more dead ones. Hell, I remember when the average life expectancy for aborigines was only about 34 years of age but now it’s up to about 47. Pretty soon they’ll be living as long as we do and taking over. This must be stopped!
6. So there’s no “special housing assistance” to whites? The public housing in Melbourne, for instance, is all for aborigines? And the government has stopped giving first home buyers special assistance because they’re white? This is outrageous.
7. Legal Aid is only available to aborigines? Really?
Look Sax, Aborigines DO NOT receive special benefits that make them any better off than you or I.
So Luzu, if we cut out all these “benefits & opportunities” you claim are “routinely given to aborigines” then the “poorer whites” would no longer be poor, they’d all have jobs, education, good houses and more money? Is that what’s holding us back? It’s all “the abos’ fault”?
Leon, scroll down to the comments on the Johns’ article to comment no 6. I reckon it says it all:
Your comment has been published:
To view your comment online go to: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cultural-identity-open-for-discussion/story-e6frg6zo-1226149876223
Ray from Bolt’s point of view it isn’t a problem that aborigines are taking university positions away from white kids, rather that white kids – pretending that they are aboriginal – are taking university positions away from genuinely aboriginal kids.
The issue is that all of the list you have above are truely issues for TRUELY aboriginal people.
At some point in our history the indiginous comminity has to stand alone and not be using their “race” as an excuse for failure.
Then, damage, why aren’t the “TRUELY (sic) aboriginal people” protesting like Bolt is? They must be so thankful that he’s taken it on himself to be their spokesperson. What a guy!
Yes .. if it’s about a person’s race. That’s been the law for quite some time now. Check in with the AFL – they recognise it too.
“Among poorer whites, there is massive resentment over being denied access to benefits and opportunities that are routinely given to Aboriginals.”
Oh yeah Luzu, any evidence of these benefits that are denied to ‘whites’.
So if I have massive resentment at all my taxes going to single mum’s people on the DSP or the dole it’s okay to defame them all?
Ray,
You must learn to control yourself. There was no mention made of whites being poor because of Aboriginals. I made it clear that it is unequal treatment that causes resentment and is divisive.
Don’t patronise me, Luzu. This is what you said:
“Among poorer whites, there is massive resentment over being denied access to benefits and opportunites that are routinely given to Aboriginals.”
And that suggests that whites are getting less access to opportunities & benefits … because it all goes to aborigines. What’s your answer to this so-called ‘reverse racism’ Luzu, take benefits away from aborigines or give whites more?
Craigy,
I think you have confused two things. My comment was that it is the unequal treatment on the basis of race that causes resentment in those who cannot access the same level of welfare because of not belonging to a particular ethnic group.I think any attempt to claim that there is not more support available to those who claim Aboriginal descent should be ignored. Sax has shown above that there are many benefits that are denied non-Aboriginals.
What you claim (that if you resent your taxes going to single mums, you should be able to defame them) is an entirely separate issue.
Ray,
If you see my tone as patronising, I apologise. It seemed to me that your visceral reaction was in response to what you thought I said rather than my actual comment.
What is my solution? Equality before the law and in treatment by the government ie give whites and Aborigines the same.
I have a friend, a woman raising her two sons after her husband left her for another woman. As a recipient of SPP, she was required to front up to Centrelink now and then. On one occasion, being in need of money due to an emergency, she asked for some money to help. She was told she would have to wait two weeks. You can imagine her surprise at the answer when the Aboriginal people in front of her had received immediate assistance.
Ray, it is cases such as this, and I’m sure we’ve all had or know of similar experiences, that cause resentment. If you don’t have a problem with unequal treatment of citizens by the government, then there is no point continuing this discussion. Of course, you may wish to see the current racial preferences as restitution for past wrongs. That is your right.
But you cannot deny the resentment it causes. And that was my whole point.
Luzu, whites already have “Equality before the law and in treatment by the government” in comparison to aborigines .. and then some. Despite your singular example of the deserted wife, I’m sure she has had plenty of other advantages in life not enjoyed by those born into marginalised societies like most aborigines are. That’s the whole point of this so-called “unequal treatment” – they get that assistance as recognition that they are coming from disadvantage in the first place. It’s designed to bring them up to a level playing field, one that most haven’t reached yet. If you and others see that as getting advantages not open to whites then you are looking at it the wrong way. And don’t narrow that opinion to just people like me (or to so-called ‘leftists’ as GD likes to). Those programs were introduced and maintained by white people from both Liberal & Labor governments alike – you know, caring & intelligent people. Taking them away (or giving whites more to, um, compensate, as you suggest) defeats the whole purpose.
Ray
Look at who the leaders in the Aboriginal Community are.
Geoff Clarke was found to be involved in a number of rapes in the 70s and is a renowed abuser of the system. ATSIC was abolished largely as a result of his activity.And he’s still at the fore of aborinal “victory” still.
He’s never going to be a part of any solution and they have no leader who seems to be.
Really – just ask yourself what improvement to the lives of indiginous Australians has this decission brought?
And you really should make yourself aware that any law that outlaws “inflammatory and provocative” words, actions or images would relate to religious and cultural as well as racial issues Ray.
As I recall, the left’s indignation to the reaction to Bill Hendson’s child porn art, very often justified his work because it was “inflammatory and provocative”. As with the Piss Christ.
And next time Dawkins comes to Australia and says “inflammatory and provocative” things about the Pope or Arch Bishop Pell will you support his being brought in front of Obersturmführer Bromberg because Tony Abbott thinks his
inflammatory and provocative arguments offend?
Two words for you Ray, bool sheet !
Absolutely nailed it Luzu ! Just a few I mentioned above, but the political correctness brigade dutifully ignored them.
Ray
1. Just one for starters. There was an old aboriginal leader, back in the seventies I met, called Roy. Just Roy. He was one of the senior, if not the boss senior, of the elders in Arnhem Land. He was one of the first that allowed mining in the region. The royalties were substantial, even for those days. It created a massive infrastructure of schools, commercial properties, and accommodation for outsourced workers, coming into the region. It also allowed for airconditioning to be installed to every house in the region. At that moment in time, no white person could invest in the region. You couldn’t just land in the joint for example, and buy a house, or set up a business. All investment had to be presented to the Council for vote, and Roy’s ultimate approval. That was, and still is the reality of the situation as far as I know. But, unless you dealt with the community on a regular basis, you wouldn’t know these FACTS !
As to where the rest of the money went, God only knows.
As to Roy, haven’t seen him in years, probably dead by now. He was in his sixties then, but he was the guy you had to smooze, just to get through the front door, into the region, let alone set up a business or work there.
2. We shouldn’t. However, if there is equality, why is there a need for Abstudy in the first place ? There is obviously a perception that Aboriginals are segregated or discriminated against in education, for there to even be a need for Abstudy in the first place, would you not agree ?
The problem here is not Aboriginality, rather a society wide problem of application. Our kids just don’t want to waste years at tertiary institutions anymore. They want to get out and work, get their cars, overseas trips and so on. They are sick of the years of poverty, that being a student presents. Also, nowadays, there is no guarantee that a degree will bring a well paying career job anyway ?
3. The problem with unemployment, is not lack of opportunity, it is lack of application, and traditional interference. A lot of aboriginals see a career choice as a white man’s ploy to assimilate, and therefore reject it outright.
4. In your arrogance Ray, you have nailed it ! You can’t get in ! It is a closed community. For whites, invitation only. Where else in Australia could you get away with that ? Bloody no where that’s where, that’s the problem, and one that the average Aussie doesn’t know about. There’s your reverse discrimination !
5. Agreed, but don’t you honestly think, that the same should be available for ALL of us ? The reasons for the shorter lifespan are many, but the main should include lifestyle ? We all know the problems, and reasons for this statistic, and surely I don’t have to list them here ?
6. A bit emotional there, but I mentioned earlier in the piece, the differences, and reverse discrimination that goes on with housing. The same services offered the aboriginals should be available for everybody, that is what I am saying.
7. When it comes to instances of alleged discrimination, you bloody bet ya ! You, as a white person, walk in and try to get legal aid, especially for a civil case, and you will be laughed right out into the street.
As to equality , respective governments, in their rush to appear to be politically correct, and unbiased, and of course not to have a hoard land on the lawns of Govt House, have gone too far the other way.
Finally, (phew !)
Like hell they don’t.
Call me a racist if you like, perhaps I may be, but, all I am suggesting is that the rules should be the same for EVERYBODY regardless of whether or not you are black, white, or yellow with blue polka dots !
Apolgise for the length !
😦
Sax,
I’m going to be polite and basically ignore your rant. Thanks, it was truly enlightening. My, my, I never knew aborigines were so well off. Living like kings on mineral rights. Living in palaces, kids in schools doing well, employment opportunities and health care wherever you look. Oh to be an aborigine – they’ve got it all.
Damage,
I agree there are some real dickhead aboriginal leaders like Clarke. There are also some real dickhead white people in positions of authority. You know who they are.
The Bolt decision was not about bringing instant improvement to aborigines, it was about stopping people like Bolt eroding that progress by inflaming tensions and provoking hatred by driving a wedge. Hate speech directed at ethnic groups – you know, the thing that starts fights and builds resentment – or the removal of it, that was its point.
I think the law applies to religious discrimination too, so if you think you have a case there then go for it.
Hmm, I’m not sure how Henson’s works discriminate against anyone but, for the record, I reckon it was straight out child porn and sick.
And yes, I’m happy for you, Abbott, Pell or anyone else to take issue with what Dawkins says – whoever he is – and take a class action against him if you think he’s discriminating on the basis of religion. That’s your right so go for it. The court will decide if he’s overstepped it.
Typical unqualified, lazy, defeatist, egotistical Ray Dixon reply.
And you wonder why no serious arguer/blogger anywhere takes you seriously ?
BTW, you asked the questions, whatsmatter, don’t like the answers ?
Have a think about it for a second. No hurry. Been going since 2am this morning, the plane has been tucked in, and time for a few tinnies with the lads. So have fun with it. Will be back later, half p*ssed for a spiritied reply perhaps ?
😉
No need to be personal, Sax. Yes, I asked you to list the “honey pot” advantages that you claim aborigines are in receipt of. You did that, and then I responded with a counter view. But then you came back with a rant, to which I chose not to respond in full. No need to – it spoke for itself.
Ray
I think that the problem with your argument is that you think that having special programmes and schemes that have a racial qualification or prerequisite is OK because the Aborigines have had a tough time in the past and that many live in misery and poverty now.
My attitude and that of many who detest racism is simply that you can address poverty and hardship as social problems without taking ANY notice of race coming into the mix. Frankly If you find laws that discriminate against any particular racial group offensive, I can’t for the life of me see how having laws that discriminate in favour of the same group can be any less offensive.
Sorry, Iain, but that’s illogical. Firstly, I don’t think we have any laws that “discriminate against any particular racial group “. If we did though, I would find them offensive, as I’m sure you would too.
Secondly, what law “discriminates” in favour of aborigines? The RD Act is simply about stopping race-based abuse of minority groups – surely you get that and agree with its principle. But to say that it “discrimates in favour” of aborigines, well, you’ve lost me with that one.
There is no argument Iain that there should be special consideration for those indigenous peoples that feel/are being discriminated against. Absolutely no argument from me there at all. But what Ray is forgetting is that, in these days of political correctness, isn’t it also discriminatory for these same benefits, be available for ALL that live in this country, regardless of religion, race, colour or creed ? That is my point. In our galloping political correctness, peoples other than of aboriginal descent can only dream of the benefits available to them.
Whatever happened to equality for all ?
Again, the old addage, some people are more equal than others perhaps ?
Ray,
Here’s another example:
A woman I know bought a home with Keystart. Across the road was an Aboriginal ladyin public housing. Very nice she was, kept her house tidy, pleasant, said hi in the street. She decided to return to the NT where she came from. She told her cousin that she could come and take over the property. The cousin, unfortunately, did not have the same ideas about home maintenance and after several weeks of wild parties, domestic incidents and the appearance of a dead car out the front, my acquaintance rang the relevant authority to ask what could be done. The official at the other end of the phone listened to her complaint and asked a single question: “Is the person you’re complaining about Aboriginal?” When the woman replied ‘yes’, she was told that no action would be taken.
And another, Ray.
Yet another friend of mine had an Aboriginal woman move into Aboriginal only housing across the road. The woman was a drug addict and seemed to have a large extended family, none of whom were meant to live at the house but who appeared to have taken up residence. Her favourite past time was to sit at the front of her house and shout “White c**t” every time my acquaintance left her home. She also vandalised the front garden and threatened my acquaintance’s children with violence.
Now, if yelling ‘white c**t” at an Anglo every time they meet isn’t racial abuse, I don’t know what is. There was a man in Perth who was fined $7000 for calling his neighbour a ‘coon’. What was the difference here? Obviously, it is most important who is doing the abuse.
A friend of my sister’s lives in Kalgoorlie. She caught a couple of youths breaking into her home. She called the police. She was asked “Are they Aboriginal?” When she replied ‘yes’, she was told that the police would not take action because any offender charged would simply not turn up to court.
Do you really think, Ray, that the unequal treatment goes unnoticed? Do you really think it brings harmony between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal? Is it that you feel somehow the ‘sins’ of Australia’s past can be atoned for by a couple of decades of “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”?
Ray
Is a scholarship arrangement that requires applicants to be indigenous to qualify not discriminating for said indigenous people?
What about a legal aid service that is exclusively available to indigenous people?
Housing authorities that chose clients entirely upon their race?
As for laws that discriminate against aborigines, don’t you remember the laws that we used to have that restricted the free movement of Aborigines or the referendum that was needed to recognise them as citizens? thankfully such things are now a thing of the past and I just think that positive discrimination in their favour (based upon their ethnicity) deserves likewise to be consigned to history’.
Luzu.
Evidence,links, stats and docs please.
Otherwise you could end up at the Hun with bolt.
This is scuttlebutt. Hearsay, gossip and frankly irrelevant.
Phil
An excellent legal opinion about the judgement Here
Sax : “isn’t it also discriminatory for these same benefits, be available for ALL that live in this country, regardless of religion, race, colour or creed ?”
What benefits do you think you’re missing out on, Sax? Do you want Abstudy? Or do you want assistance to get into 2nd grade housing? Maybe you’d like to claim “mineral rights” over your own property? Well, just stake a claim. What makes you think that you are being discrminated against? I’d suggest that you are someone who, in every likelihood, has never suffered from discrimination, yet you’ve got this skewed view about anyone else receiving assistance. Are you so unsatisfied with your lot that you want/need what others have got? I dunno why you feel so envious of aborigines, Sax , but if you’re more disadvantaged than they are maybe explain your case and we’ll pass the hat around and throw you a few bob. I’d hate to see you go without.
Luzu, It sounds like you’ve got a lot of “friends” who live in some pretty sh*t places. I suggest … moving? Then again, they might end up in, let’s say, Doveton or Altona in Melbourne and suffer much the same experience from white cretins. Your examples prove nothing and, again, what’s your answer to all this?
Iain: “Is a scholarship arrangement that requires applicants to be indigenous to qualify not discriminating for said indigenous people?”
No. Discrimination means exclusion, not inclusion. I think you’re trying to say the scholarship discriminates against whites. But that’s just crap. White kids probably get far more scholarship opportunities than aborigines do. As for your other examples, what’s your point? In effect, you’re saying that aborigines deserve no special assistance – so just say it.
It’s all legal mumbo jumbo over there at Skeptic Lawyer, Iain. She’ll never be a judge. And a pretty stupid intro by her to suggest it’s more about skin colour – what about upbringing, environment & circumstance? As for her case analysis, she misses the whole point – which is simply that Bolt set out to incite hatred and used falsehoods to do so. He offended aborigines unjustly and unfairly. He broke the law and should apologise. END OF STORY.
Geez Ray, a lot of people above are saying the same thing.
We can’t all be wrong and you the only one right ?
Then again…..
C’mon man, in your paranoia about appearing politically correct, you are looking at the argument with blinkers. I know you aren’t that naive ?
You mean a lot of people are saying whites are discriminated against by what you call ‘reverse racism’ in favour of aborigines, Sax?
Meaning: Iain, Luzu and …. who else?
So it’s paranoia on my behalf? You’re claiming you’re disadvantaged, yet I’m paranoid for saying you’re not?
Oh, I see.
Let’s leave it at that.
The Bolt decision was not about bringing instant improvement to aborigines, it was about stopping people like Bolt eroding that progress by inflaming tensions and provoking hatred by driving a wedge. Hate speech directed at ethnic groups – you know, the thing that starts fights and builds resentment – or the removal of it, that was its point.
Actually if the decission is about that then it will definately be tossed in the high court.
A judges decission should be about the facts of a case and the law ass applied to those facts.
The above is a political aim and has no place in a court.
It show though what your understanding of the issue and the case is and that further discussion is futile.
Let’s perhaps not ?
Not just me either, and not just in favour of aboriginals. We have had variations of this discussion before on these pages ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG3pwYWSP34
I never said any dammed thing at all. Now you’re putting words in my mouth.
Re read what I said above. An even playing field for everybody, is what I called for, and an end to the reverse discrimination that IS going on out there.
Hell, that is supposed to be part of the Australian ethos, always has been as far as I can remember. WTF happened to that ?
I am not disadvantaged at all. I worked hard to get where I am, as probably have you, and others that comment here. All we want, is an even playing field FOR EVERYBODY, no matter where you come from, or what colour your skin is. Surely not a tough ask is it ?
That is the bit you are having problems with I think. You can’t see it.
Damage, that’s the premise of the RD Act – to stamp out racist hate talk that is made in public. The decision was made based on the facts that support that basic premise (or aim). It’s entirely consistent in my opinion.
Sax, our basic difference here is this so-called ‘reverse discrimination’ you talk of. I say it doesn’t exist, you say it does. Therefore, it would seem pretty obvious that you think that you (as a white person) are disadvantgeed and deserve better treatment. They’re your words – I just put them into a coherent form for you before I re-inserted them into your mouth.
MEMO TO ANDREW BOLT: ” Loose lips sink ships” Shalom Richard Ryan.
Ray
The point about discrimination is that different individuals are treated differently under the law on the basis of their ethnicity, if you have any notion of social equality then you have to appreciate that any difference in treatment on the the basis of race is abhorrent.
NOW that the courts decision is handed down, and Bolt is a confirmed racist. I hope CH. 10 does the right thing and end their association with him——in short sack him. Advertisers don’t want to be associated with a racist——–the Aussie dollar governs all principles, even in Bolts mantra—–free speech. Iain! sad to have to say it, he will be gone before Gillard.
Richard,
I’m already looking forward to Dr Jason Wilson buying me a Latte next month when Bolt’s show celebrates six months on the air, do you want to make a bet on Bolt outlasting Gillard?
Shall we say something nice in the drinking category? I’m quite fond of Port myself (and as the best bets are about a token rather than one’s house) so shall we say that should Gillard outlast Bolt then I send you a bottle of port and if Bolt outlasts Gillard then you send me two bottles of Port?
Because you sound sure enough of your proposition that you would have to be willing to give me odds on the result 😉
Everyone else understood what I was on about Ray, I don’t need you to misconstrue what I am saying, in an attempt to substantiate your weak arguing position.
There were numerous examples put up here to satisfy your needs Ray. The fact that you chose to outright ignore them, shows more about your argument. than anyone elses.
You also, on a losing argument, change tack, and start attacking the person instead of the argument. That is also typical behaviour for you.
Again, for your benefit, obviously, the last three times haven’t sunk in. The argument is not that I am being discriminated against, my premise is, that in certain situations, all european descented peoples are being discriminated against. All in a vain effort to appear to be politically correct.
Ever heard the term Aboriginal designated position ? Used to see it a lot, whilst perusing the morning papers. Where else, could a prospective employer get away with that ? What if the ad read European/white designated position ? All hell would break loose, and you bloody know it !
As for Bolt. I think he is smarter than all of this. His show is not rating all that well from what I hear, and we all know a bit of sensation doesn’t hurt flagging ratings. I think it’s all a bit of a media beatup actually, in an attempt to improve his, as well as the show’s position ?
That makes it Iain, Sax, Luzu and damage who love Andrew Bolt and want to have his babies….
And Ray, Richard, Phil and I who think he is a discredited hack who should be writing Opera reviews in ‘Classical Music Monthly’.
That’s about even……Tag team cage fight anyone??
Actually you could have these kinds of match-ups….I’ll give it a footy theme…
Iain on Ray….Iain at full forward, Ray full back….A good match-up with Iain kicking the odd own goal, Ray fails to control his anger from time to time and gives away some free kicks in front of goal.
Sax on Craigy…..On the ball, with a good chance they would talk each other to death at the ball-ups.
Luzu on Phil……Phil comes off the bench to take on Luzu at centre half back. Both can get a bit niggly…. Luzu moves to the forward pocket after some offensive comments about Luzu’s grandmother and army boots and has no further influence on the game.
Richard and damage provide the half time entertainment with cream pies and squirting flowers……..
Anyway…..it should be a good game tomorrow, it’s going to be mad in the city at lunch time today (grand final parade)….if you watch it on the TV, look out for me, I’ll wave to you….
Craigy,
I once had a dream I was playing in a rugby back line…Don’t know what that was all about. I do remember I didn’t want the ball in case I got tackled. Yes, I am a girl.
Craigy,
I don’t love Andrew Bolt. I’ve said that on a number of occasions.
Oh Craigy,
meow ?
Sax, please don’t accuse me of “attacking the person” when I haven’t done that. By your own admission you claim that programs designed to assist aborigines are “discriminating ” against you (and all “european descended people”) and that you are somehow disadvantaged compared to them.
What does it matter if some jobs are created for aborigines who make up just over 1% of the population? Those jobs probably wouldn’t exist without the government programs in the first place. Perhaps you can come up with some specific examples of white people complaining about this other than in blogs like these because out there in the real world most people don’t believe that aborigines are somehow better off than the rest of us.
The bottom line is they get these so-called “honey pot” benefits (the ones you would deny them) not because of any “politically correct” campaign but because they bloody well are disadvantaged and need our help & assistance. It’s a good thing, not something to worry or complain about. You’re just being mean spirited.
Just having some fun Luzu.
It’s no problem that you are female, our local woman’s team is as tough as nails, and wait….just a minute……With seconds to go in the last quater, Iain kicks off the side of his boot and it’s maked by LUZU, resting in the forward pocket……She snaps and kicks the winning goal from an impossible angle…Well in might happen one day!……
I have had a number of dreams about the Aussie Netball Team, but we won’t go there.
Point taken about Bolt.
Ray,
My point all along was that the unequal treatment (whether actual or perceived) causes resentment. Do you really think that the people who went through these things think “Well, you know, it’s OK because they’re Aboriginal and have had a tough life and they’re disadvantaged…’ No. It is unjust and you know it.
Why should the people I know ‘move’ when a simple, race-blind application of the law would solve the problem?
Luzu, you gave examples of police not arresting aborigines in W.A. That’s strange because as far as I know there are plenty of aborigines locked up for offences over there – and a much higher percentage than whites. My point (or joke) about “moving” was that there are crap neighbours everywhere, of all colours. It’s not something that only aborigines do.
I tried an lol after my comment of “0954 Meow” but it didn’t work, hence it lost it’s sarcastic dig ? So, a belated 😆 or 🙂 for you here if it works Craigy.
That’s exactly what you have done Ray, and you are doing it again.
Everyone else seems to have understood my main premise. For you, perhaps, a fourth explanation may be necessary.
What does it matter ?
If the situation had been the reverse, I guarantee you would be jumping up and down in the one spot, digging an express route to China, as a result. Discrimination, in either direction is unacceptable. A fair playing field for all. Equality for all. The three previous instances I have said that, seemed to have slipped past you. Funny how everyone else here seemed to get what I was saying ? What is happening now is we are throwing massive amounts of money at a problem, that will never go away, unless the main sources of that problem are dealt with.
Why does that matter ?
Hmm, look above perhaps ? If the situation had been reversed, with no money going towards aboriginal culture and well being, and perhaps that money going towards building mosques, what would be your reaction then perhaps ?
No one can deny, that to buy their silence, massive amounts of money has been thrown at the Aboriginal problems over the last ‘n’ decades, in attempt to buy it’s silence. So far, it hasn’t worked has it ? How much money should we throw at the problem, before some egg head finally convinces the rest of us, by standing up and saying something along the lines of – “Hey, we have to change tack here, this isn’t working anymore ?”
Luzu
Spot on ! Good comment.
“Tag team cage fight anyone??”
Whta is it with the Left and violence?
And Ray
Where exactly is the “HATE” in Bolt’s writings about this issue?
Sax, why do you keep claiming you have universal support for your position and that “everyone else here” gets what you are saying? I “get” what are you are saying too, but I don’t agree with it. Just because Iain & Luzu do agree with you doesn’t mean you’re right.
The “fair playing field” you advocate doesn’t exist for the great majority of aboriginal people. They are born into disadvantaged circumstances and that is why they get special assistance – to help bring them up to that level playing field. I agree that some “white looking” aborigines (of better circumstance & education) are probably taking advantage of those programs when they’re not really entitled to them, but (a) the benefits in doing so are not great (b) that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have those programs. By and large those programs are necessary and are supported by both sides of politics. It’s basically only those of more extreme right-wing views like Bolt (and you, obviously) who seem to oppose them. No social assistance program is perfect, Sax, but I don’t see anything constructive in what you’re saying.
It’s in the tone of the articles, damage, as noted by the Judge: “inflammatory & provocative language” designed to get a vitriolic response among readers directed at the “fair skinned” aborigines.
It looks like you have to dig pretty deep and hold your mouth a certain way to see it Ray.
Don’t you see a paradox in his “hate” and “racism” being directed towards the “fair skinned”?
And for those who don’t believe it was a tall poppy issue, who said this?????
“He’s got a wide audience and, subject to what he says, that audience is swayed and he has a lot of influence,”
Yes Iain, I have a notion of social equality but I don’t see that there is any discrimination whatsoever on the basis of race against the likes of you and I in this country – you know, the 99% of people who are not born aboriginal. You are not treated differently, discriminated against or disadvantaged under the law just because we have assistance programs for our indigenous minority. How are you affected by that – that is the test, Iain. If you can give me one clear and documented example of how you have suffered “discrimination” as a result of laws about or government policies towards aborigines I’ll gladly concede that you are right. I’ll even advocate its removal for you.
Yes, damage. On the surface some people of aboriginal heritage do appear to be more European. Your point is ….?
Your comment is very contradictory Ray. Please Explain ?
In one paragraph you come up with :
The “fair playing field” you advocate doesn’t exist for the great majority of aboriginal people.
which is a fair enough comment, then, your very next line reads
They are born into disadvantaged circumstances and that is why they get special assistance – to help bring them up to that level playing field.
How much of the taxpayer’s purse should be spent, in an attempt to change this situation Ray ?
You want to know what the real problem may be here ? It’s not politics, it’s not racism, and it’s definitely not discrimination. It’s a pretty simple explanation actually. One funnily enough, that the majority of the world’s indigineous populations suffer. The american indians a classic example.
Here it is, and see if this ‘floats your boat’ ?
It is merely a clash of cultures.
Today’s indigineous youth think they sit on the outside of modern “white” society.
They see the trappings of that society, and say, yep, want some of that. Only natural. Therein lies the problem.
They don’t realise the education, emotional as well as physical and mental application required, to succeed in our culture. Therein, jealousies and resentments begin.
Is this the white man’s fault ? Not entirely, but the problem is, for the majority of the time, is that they, collectively, want the trappings of our lifestyle, BUT, don’t want to do the ground work necessary to achieve those aims. In the interim, the jealousy festers, and ultimately overflows. I do not blame the younger generation Aboriginals, sitting in their self perceived squalor, watching us whites, and our extravagent life styles, and saying to themselves, I want some of this ? The problem becomes that they don’t want to apply themselves, or don’t know how to apply themselves, to the degree necessary to achieve their aims.
That is where the cultural clash occurs, and where the problems stem from.
How we deal with this situation, I will be honest, and say I don’t know. The governments over the last 100 years obviously don’t know either by the looks of it. Their traditional method, of throwing money at the problem, obviously isn’t working is it ? 100 years or so, and the problem hasn’t changed at all has it ?
That’s the argument and premise that has to be dealt with don’t you think ?
Here’s the thing.
If the playing field os so unfair to the “unfair” then why are the “fair” so determined to be identified as the “unfair”?
Have fun with it guys.
Friday arvo, planes are tucked in, works done, and traditional barbie and tinny time, in some rare sunshine and blue sky.
Catch you later
😉
Okay Sax, instead of saying “The “fair playing field” you advocate doesn’t exist for the great majority of aboriginal people”, I should have said “The fair playing field is out of reach for …” Is that better?
As for your “clash of cultures” theory (the one you don’t have an answer for), the thing we need to do is to give them better education, better housing, better health services and employment opportunities to help them achieve those aims of having an equal life to what you and I enjoy. And that, believe it or not, is exactly what we are doing. We can do it better of course, but at least we are trying and, believe it or not, it is working, albeit slowly. I agree that there seems to be a cultural overhang among aboriginal communities that holds them back. I agree with Pearson’s self help programs too but it’s not the only solution. But you are exaggerating when you say we’ve been “throwing money at it for over 100 years”. It’s only in recent decades that we even acknowledged aborigines as citizens, let alone put any of these programs in place. It’s a long process. I’d say it’ll take another generation or two before it’s resolved.
Is that fair enough? I’ve got work to do.
Craigy,
LOL! You brought a real smile to my face. Ta.
Luzu
Craigy lusts fro Bolt.
Of course he never reads, never listens and definately never – ever – watches.
But by osmosis he just “knows” all of Andy’s very thoughts and moods.
It’s lerve.
Catch a load of the Owen Dixon Onanist’s defence of Julian Burnside’s pitiful excuses for tweeting the most vile, religiously offensive and personally defaming accusations of Tony Abbott.
His excuse for spreading such vile commentry?
I thought I was only saying it to ONE person, not 5000. I don’t know much about twitter.
And the William St Bed Wetter actually defends Burnside?
FFS?
Congrats on the 100+ Ray
Good topic.
Keep on truckin guys !
😉
Damage evidence and links please ?
Gossip will not cut it tiger…
http://twitter.com/#!/julianburnside
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/09/30/and-mirandas-unhinging-gets-sillier/
The prosecution rests.
But, but …. he didn’t know how Twitter worked and that, gosh, people could read it.
Wow, a QC caught out! And just at the right time to expose the hypocrisy of the Left. Andrew Bolt expresses an opinion, and all and sundry, including resident blogger Ray Dixon, accuse him of ‘inciting hate’, yet QC Burnside defames the leader of the Opposition, labelling him a paedophile, and the Left are silent.
One rule for some, another for the rest of us. The rest of us, being the 54%+ of the population, who don’t want Labor in power, who don’t agree with this current socialist regime, and who will vote it out at the first opportunity.
The sooner this government is consigned to the boondocks the better. While not being in politics, Burnside is the willing instrument of the worst of the government’s policies. His personal attack on Tony Abbott is beyond reproach, and makes Bolt’s articles innocuous by comparison.
You’re comparing apples with oranges, GD, but for the record I reckon Burnside is a complete twat for saying that about Abbott. And a bigger twat for claiming “it wasn’t about Abbott – I don’t know how Twitter works”. And an even bigger twat because he then issued an apology(*) meaning, in my opinion, that he was indeed talking about Abbott in the first place.
But he hasn’t “discriminated” against Abbott as Bolt discriminated against aborigines – he defamed him.
You’re reading a hell of a lot into some QC’s stupid tweet if you use that to label your political opposites (all of them – including me) as some kind of hypocrites. That’s a real stretch mate. ‘Offensive’ in fact.
(* At least Burnside apologised for offending Abbott. Don’t you reckon Bolt should apologise too?)
As I was saying above Ray, I think that is where the problems start. Sometimes, that can cause more harm than good over the long term ?
The old addage of the grass is always greener on the other side of the street would seem to apply. Once they have a taste of all the ‘evils’ our society offers, that they have never either known about, or experienced, the more they want them. Most times, without doing the groundwork, or being too impatient to do the ground work to achieve those aims. We have all see the damage caused by alcohol to the aboriginal people ? Surely a classic example of the clash of cultures, and the damage that can be done ?
It is time that the Elders of the aboriginal people began to exercise their powers, instead of blaming the rest of us for all their woes. I have seen it done properly. I have seen old Roy personally, ring, and close the pub, once news came back saying there was trouble. It can be done, it IS being done, but it is THEY that want to have to do it. Easy up there, as they own the pub (and everything else for that matter ?)
GD
54% ? Man, that must be an old figure ? 😉
Newspoll has the figures, currently Liberal 58% to Labor 42% (2 party preferred)
(http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110906%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf)
That number will only get worse ?
Yes Ray, Burnside apologised, albeit conditionally. He still managed to stick the knife in. A bigger man would have admitted he’d made a faux pax, and apologised unconditionally.
Re Bolt: no he doesn’t need to apologise. There are plenty of reports showing that Professor Behrendt is 25% or less Aborigine, but 75% Caucasian, surfacing in the media. Her version of history isn’t as accurate as she portrays. Her father wasn’t a fully indigenous person, he chose to ‘identify’ with the indigenous when he found out he had aboriginal heritage. Her mother was white, Caucasian. Their daughter, Larissa (Prof) Behrendt, is at least 75% European, yet chose to use the drop of aboriginal blood in her veins to further her career. And that is what Bolt is saying, and is correct in saying.
Why this is racist, or ‘inciting hate’ is beyond me. Yet the left condemn these statements but are ok with slurs and smears of paedophilia directed at our opposition leader, purely because he is the opposition leader.
Seriously Ray, how can you side with these people? You are an intelligent man, for god’s sake! I know that the other lefty commenters here are loonies, with the exception of Craigy, who is just seriously deluded, I guess public service jobs do that to you, but really, Ray, this is loonie tunes.
The woman has previously said she wasn’t offended by the article, but now chooses to be.
I have the links if you can be bothered.
58% eh, Sax? Let’s have a party when it hits 60%. And won’t we hear the loopy, loony left yell and scream then! Now that a doyen of the left is calling Tony Abbott a paedophile, who knows where their bile and hate will end…
I don’t “side” with everything that’s said on the so-called left. GD. I agree with some things, I disagree with others and, quite frankly, I reckon only a handful of people would excuse Burnside for his stupid tweet.
Bolt & Burnside were both in the wrong. In Bolt’s case he was proven wrong in court (whether you agree with the Judge or not). And be realistic, GD, the volume (if not the content) of Bolt’s ‘offensive’ words far exceeded Burnside’s one-liner, although I agree that calling someone a ‘paedo’ is pretty low, especially someone as high profile as Abbott is.
Bolt & Burnside = Two Twats. They should both apologise … properly.
The have to do something drastic GD. They can’t argue the numbers, they are losing those, and they can’t argue the issues, they either haven’t got any, blaming it all on the overseas economic crisis, or as you say, resorting to name calling ?
That’l come back and bite on the caboose I think.
Seriously though, both sides are just as bad.
Night all !
Bolt has nothing to apologise for other than calling a spade a spade. Behrendt and her one eighth or less aboriginal colleagues on the government teat have a lot more to apologise for. Bess Price’ remarks prove this, as does the damning retort dished out by Behrendt over Price’s appearance on Q&A. This is a huge travesty of justice when an aboriginal woman, from her community, criticises an academic ‘aboriginal’, and a right wing journalist defends her statements, yet the media and judiciary descend on the messenger rather than the message. The message is that the ‘elite’ academic so-called aboriginals have lost touch, or never had touch with the real indigenous people. Bess Price was right to say what she said. Andrew Bolt was right to report what he saw.
The aggrieved would have been better to seek retribution via the defamation laws. Instead, lily-livered and professionally precious, they chose to rake the issue through the courts and media for highest exposure.
In all fairness, Bolt’s appeal will win, and this assault on freedom of speech, or rather, freedom of opinion, will be negated.
This freedom of speech , Bolt’s mantra is all B/S on his part, he is now a confirmed racist, he will not appeal.If he does,it will just inflame the situation, my tactics to bring this racist to heel, picket his family home, say with a 1,000 protesters, picket Ch.10 with say about 1,000 protesters, picket the Herald Sun say with about 1,000 protesters. I love direct action, my mantra, do unto him, as he has done to you,but with a 1000 protesters.
Yeah right, GD. The reality is that Bolt is an ‘abo-basher’ only this time he went too far in abusing and offending people on the basis of their race. It might have been a long-winded decision but the upshot is a simple one: You cannot unfairly attack someone on the basis of their race and fob it off as ‘opinion’. It’s racial abuse. You should get over it and so should Bolt. He should simply apologise and move on – he has NOT been harmed, damaged or had his freedom of future opinion curtailed, as this front page repeat of the same story (minus the offence) in Thursday’s Herald Sun proved. See it here:
http://alpineopinion.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/sorry-seems-to-be-the-hardest-word-for-andrew-bolt/
No Ray Bolt is not an ‘abo-basher’ he is like a lot of us someone who won’t let anyone use their ethnicity as a shield against legitimate criticism, In a society that values the concept of free speech there should be no statute like the one under which the court action has been brought. Did you by any chance read the piece by Katy Barnett that I linked to previously?
It explains in Layman’s terms why this is a bad decision and the legal and ethical problems with the law and this judgement
He’s entitled to his opinion, Iain, and he expressed it on Thursday’s front page. He’s not entitled (by law) to extend that opinion into an inflammatory criticism of someone’s race, which is what he did in the articles. Pretty simple equation. A simple apology is all it takes – why is “sorry” such a hard word to say? He should do it, it’ll make him (and everyone else) feel better. Storm. Tea. Cup.
Another video? Do words fail you, Iain?
Oh well, the Grand Final is about to start (yawn), so I might as well go and see which kind of obnoxious supporter gets bragging rights. It’s a choice between the bogans and nerds.
Yes actaully Ray, my back is reminding me of just how long drives over rough roads in a car with very stiff suspension has consequences and boy do I know it Today!
Mike Carlton suggests, Bolt would do better to quit the media and take up growing tulips and making cheese. Wearing clogs. Ah, the lying Dutchman.
I’m still waiting to hear that you are going to accept that Bet Richard, you know the one about Bolt outlasting Gillard..
Iain! I will take that bet—–Gillard outlasting Googler Bolt.