Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Andrew Bolt'

Tag Archives: Andrew Bolt

Of cabbages, kings and a meeting of Blog war protagonists

AnimatedCatsLitterRollerCoasterRide

Leon Bertrand and I have   a face to face meet up with Scott Bridges planned for today which should be quite interesting to say the least, because how often do you get a chance to meet up with your online “enemy ” after a decade long blog war?

Hold on comrades this could be an interesting ride

 

 

Brendan O’Neill on the new totalitarians, now policing even our private thoughts and word games

Hat tip to Andrew Bolt on this one:

Brendan O’Neill on the new totalitarians, now policing even our private thoughts and word games:

WHY is it bad to hack and expose photographs of a woman’s naked body but apparently OK to steal and make public the contents of a man’s soul?

This is the question that should burn in our minds in the wake of the Barry Spurr scandal.

For just a few weeks ago, when a hacker invaded the iCloud ­accounts of female celebs and ­rifled through their intimate snaps, there was global outrage… To peer into a woman’s most intimate moments was a “sexual violation”, said a writer for Guardian Australia…

Fast forward to last week, and some of the same people whose jaws hit the floor at the audacity of those who leaked these women’s private, unguarded pics were cheering the hacking of Spurr’s private, unguarded words.

Spurr, a professor of poetry at the University of Sydney, has had his private emails pored over and published by pseudo-radical, eco-miserabilist website New Matilda. In some of his emails, in what he has since claimed was a cheeky competition between him and his friends to see who could be the least PC, Spurr used words that would no doubt cause pinot gris to be spilled if they were uttered at a dinner party.

He described Tony Abbott as an “Abo lover”, referred to a woman as a “harlot”, called Nelson Mandela a “darky”, and used “Mussies” for Muslims and “chinky-poos” for Chinese. He now has been suspended by the university.

Many people will wince on reading those words. Just as we will have winced if we happened upon those photos of well-known women doing porno poses or ­engaging in shocking sex talk in videos shot by their boyfriends.

And that’s because these behaviours, both Spurr’s knowingly outrageous banter and the act­resses’ knowingly sluttish poses, share something important in common: they were private acts, not intended for public consumption. They were things done or said between intimates, far from the eyes and ears of respectable ­society. Yet where right-on commentators and tweeters stood up for the right of famous women not to have their private nakedness splashed across the internet, they have relished in the exposure of Spurr’s soul to the panting, outraged mob.

 

A most worthy argument from one of the lefties I truly respect.

Cheers Comrades

headline_new

Brendan O’Neill

Marcia Langton,being oppressed or is she is not a very nice person?

Marcia Langton’s objections to the repeal of 18c in today’s Oz where she said:

“As a victim of frequent rac­ism, I have tried to think of racist behaviour that would not be exempted by the proposed repeal bill and cannot think of one,’’ Professor Langton says.

“None of the requirements of good faith, accuracy, genuine, reasonable, public interest are provided for in the exemptions, and I have concluded that the repeal bill, if it were passed, would provide me — and other victims of racism — with no protection at all from low-level racist abuse, or abuse that a ‘reasonable, ordinary Australian’ would not deem to be intimidatory, in the media, in public, on social media, in the workplace, in educational institutions, or other public institutions.”

Professor Langton says the repeal bill would encourage racists to be more emboldened in public and to use subtle forms of intimidation and aggression, “which I know from personal experience can be just as dangerous and distressing as overt forms”.

She says that, amid increasing racial attacks on public transport, the passage of the bill would ­expose victims to further attacks.

“The reluctance of most victims to make formal complaints or to contact police compounds this problem of their vulnerability to increased attacks by those emboldened to behave in even more offensive and aggressive ways on public transport and in public places,” she says.

Professor Langton goes further, arguing that the bill would undermine the success of multiculturalism and reconciliation in the community and lead to more events such as the race riots in the southern Sydney suburb of Cronulla in 2005.

And she warns: “The youth sui­cides that result from cyber bullying may well increase, and so too would internet bullying among school students.’’

Source

 Thinking back to her last appearance on QandA  where she (and the ABC) had to apologise for her outburst against Andrew Bolt   made me wonder just how a woman so blighted with racism managed to get herself into a safe and secure academic position and how she came to be consulted  so often by governments on matters indigenous. I also can’t help wondering if she might be mistaking reactions to her antagonistic, confrontational and abrasive personal style of public discourse as racism when its her total lack of respect and  generosity to all of her interlocutors that generates and equally terse response to her whenever she discusses the issues with others.  Strangely enough in this country where we have manged to do tolerance and “multiculturalism” pretty well  its antagonistic people like Langton  who try so hard to grandstand about “racism” that are a  problem, at least as significant as those very few individuals who are actually racist, because their whole ego and self image are totally tied up with the notion of ” being oppressed” that they want to magnify and exaggerate the whole issue of ” race” enough to justify their own bigotry .

We have a country that does diversity, equality and tolerance pretty well and long may that be so but we won’t do it any better if people go out of their way to find offense when and where no offense was intended, we can and I hope will, continue to do better to promote inclusion and acceptance of diversity as a nation but the strictures of blame and well nurtured resentment over long past events will not help anyone.

Cheers Comrades

australian_flag_ani

How dare you question my Saxonality? Or George Brandis and our right to be bigots

 

From my appearance with a (now greying) red beard, blond hair and blue eyes its pretty obvious that I have some measure of Anglo Saxon  blood in my veins, thanks to the period of English history when the Saxons were ascendant . What would people think if I were to begin to insist that I am a Saxon? Or if my children were to do the same and therefore ignoring the fact that their Opa  was a Dutchman from Rotterdam? Or that their Grandmother’s family were all good Irish Catholics? Under the way of thinking of those who sued Andrew Bolt I or my children should forever be unquestioned were we to insist that we are Saxons (even though my daughter has dark hair and hazel  eyes ) if my family insisting that we are Saxons is a shallow a conceit, and one that I could insist upon would it make someone a bigot if they were to question that conceit?  I might certainly dislike my conceits being questioned, I might even feel offended , insulted even a bit intimidated because I have had something as fundamental as they way that I ethically self identify but would it mean that those who ask those uncomfortable questions are “bigots” ?

Yesterday in the senate our Attorney General said in answer to a question that “every Australian has the right to be a bigot” it was a nicely put  argument that has got the latte sippers choking on their milky brews because I gather that many on the left are rather certain that being a bigot is about the worst thing that its possible to be unless you are an adult with an unhealthy interest in the contents of a child’s underpants which is of course just a (little) bit worse. Strangely enough Pat Condell published a vid yesterday in which bigotry is quite cleverly considered, its only a short rant so please consider this:

What Condell’s rant tells us with some clever wit is that the politically correct want to control the way that people speak , often for rather noble reasons, but noble reasons or not  the result is more toxic than the intemperate speech that the PC police would have silenced. Which brings us back to the clause in the racial vilification act that the government proposes to seriously amend.

The problem that our friends from the left far too often use a claim of bigotry as a sort of universal shut up when there is a truth that they find uncomfortable, a certain learned gentleman of this blogs acquaintance was very fond of insisting that anyone who thinks that marriage should only be between one man and one woman is a bigot. Our learned friend is obviously wishing to see the standing of homosexuals in our society raised and more respected.  Likewise our own Ray Dixon is extremely sensitive about the way that Muslims and Aboriginals  are perceived in our society he has the most noble motives in his desire to see multiculturalism work and to ensure that those from outside the majority are do not have to endure any kind of prejudicial treatment.  The problem with wanting to enforce any sort of superficial niceness is that the result is  a sort of bullying that Pat Condell so eloquently rails against in his video it ends up protecting that which, in a civil society, should be free to explore ventilate and maybe reconsider.  Thus when 18c was used to shut Andrew Bolt up so that the notion of self selected ethnic  identity by those who sued him under 18c would remain unconsidered, our society lost a good opportunity to take a long hard look at ourselves and just what it means to have any sort of ethnic identity. Some who harshly ventilate  their own feelings or beliefs of such issues may certainly meet the definition of bigotry but the way to counter such views is not with the blunt instrument of a widely cast law but by their fellows convincing them that the prejudice is both wrong and more importantly unproductive and  unlikely to “win friends or influence people”.

What George Brandis was saying is an iteration of the famous Voltaire aphorism , namely “I utterly disagree with what you are saying but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it” its not a principle that we should disavow at all if we want to enjoy a truly free and pluralistic  society but its a sad reflection  of of friends from the left who are both very keen to be the champions of free speech and to enforce”niceness”  is it any wonder that they are being called hypocrite?

So lets defend free speech and encourage niceness in social discourse because, to cite another aphorism you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force him to drink.

Cheers Comrades

The ABC’s Q&A apologises to Andrew Bolt for ‘racist’ slur

bolte1

click for source

The ABC are to be congratulated for apologising but they also deserve to be admonished for not pulling Langton up for making such a vile and unwarranted slur in the first place. I put that down to the rather common view that anyone who is not white can not possibly be racist themselves.  The simple  fact is that accusations of racism are an a to common resort of  scoundrels who don’t want to burrow  down and explore the deeper ethical questions about public identity, especially when some of those identities offer the qualification for particular government largess.

Cheers Comrades

11472-Stirring-Coffee

 

 

Bigger Bolt, tighter nuts

While I don’t always agree with the things Andrew says I do warmly welcome his return to the Sunday morning TV schedule because I just love to see the counterpoint of his show compared to “Insiders” on a Sunday morning

click for source and the comment thread where the Guardian readers have coniptions

click for source and the comment thread where the Guardian readers have coniptions

Its amazing just how many of the left just about have kittens at the thought of Andrew on the airwaves , Gee anyone would think that the left can not stand any voices that come from a conservative view point…

Stay tuned Comrades

You will watch and Love the Bolt Report.You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report  You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report

You will watch and Love the Bolt Report.You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report You will watch and Love the Bolt Report

Salivating luvvies

Luvvies of the left are probably pre-emptively foaming at the mouth already about this:

Before the election, Senator Brandis had promised to amend Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act so speech that is found to be offensive and insulting is no longer defined as racial vilification. He said yesterday he would be engaging in consultations about whether the amendment should go further and wind back other potential grounds for liability.

The changes would be in the first bill he presented to parliament, but because of the consultations it might not be introduced until early in the new year. He predicted the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act meant the government would be accused of condoning racist behaviour. He rejected that and said it was one of the initiatives aimed at supporting freedom of speech. “You cannot have a situation in a liberal democracy in which the expression of an opinion is rendered unlawful because somebody else . . . finds it offensive or insulting,” he said.

The decision to examine more extensive changes to Section 18C comes after several commentators, including Brisbane academic James Allan, had argued that the threat to free speech from the Bolt case meant the entire provision should be repealed.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/attorney-general-george-brandiss-first-task-repeal-bolt-laws-in-name-of-free-speech/story-e6frg97x-1226755431421#sthash.yARBakmd.dpuf

We Grown-Ups are, on the other hand, quite relaxed and comfortable that our rights to offer even unpopular opinions are going to be protected from vexatious “shut up” litigation. Without the right to offer unpopular opinions our whole society is diminished and I for one will be happy to see the whole of 18C revoked.

Laters Comrades

Animated_Rolling_Eyeball-1

The million hit Blog

survivor1

If you are reading this it means that the hit counter for the Sandpit has ticked over the one million hits milestone  which is worthy of note in anyone’s  language, more so in the case of this blog because for most of its existence there has been a sustained campaign to harass and denigrate yours truly and the other authors who post here.

breaking_news_animated

I started blogging on a whim mainly because I needed to register with Blogger to comment on an Anti Andrew Bolt  blog, I have  changed the name and the platform on which this blog is published several times until I settled upon the current title and I am  very happy to n0w share this blog with three other regular contributors who ad greatly to the diversity of  the posts published here. The heart of blogging is not so much the posts themselves but rather it is the comment threads that those posts inspire and over the years we have had some very lively discussion threads that have given their participants lots of fun.

tumblr_mcgfy3btH41rsbrcmo1_500

You see fun is what this blog is all about. Even when we have covered the most serious issues I like to think that we can do so with enough levity to keep it friendly.

one.million.hits-animation

So in the style of an awards night I have to offer a very sincere thank you, firstly to my fellow authors Ray Dixon (and his alter ego SockPuppet),  GD and to  Leon Bertrand, further I want to thank our readers for coming back on a regular basis to enjoy the musings on this page especially those of you who disagree with what I and the other authors write because without that disagreement we would not have the lively arguments in the comment threads. I also want to thank my wife and family for putting up with this sometimes grumpy blogger on a daily basis and last but not least I want to thank our family dog Bonnie for reminding me on a regular basis that I am only human and that nothing is more important than “walkies “

Cheers to all of our Comrades

Walkies!!!!

Walkies!!!!

%d bloggers like this: