Australian Politics Forum - 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #225 - Sep 29^th, 2011 at 12:33pm

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:47pm:

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/white-fellas-in-the-black/story-e6frfifo-122...

And the other 'hateful' article.

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

as explained by Anita Heiss (one of bolts examples of white aboriginals) ;

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

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

How about badly researched journalism designed to get his lapdogs yapping wesley?

the infernce is that voluntary positions cannot help ones career. Does that sound right? has noone ever taken a voluntary position to gain connections, infleunce and prestige, thus furthering their career?

Perhaps 'reserved for' could be disputed, but if it's a toss up between a honky and a 'woman of diverse background' the diverse background will win every time, especially when it's in the aboriginal industry.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5396
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #226 - Sep 29^th, 2011 at 2:54pm

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 7:54am:

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

Geoff Clark: professional complainer and racial whinger.

Geoff Clark doesn't even look Aboriginal, for crying out loud! Bolt had a point and it's a shame that what he said can now be found to be illegal.

Quote:

Victoria's new governor, Alex Chernov, may CLAIM to be "Jewish" in his official biography - but he doesn't even LOOK Jewish

A "real Jew" would have a bigger HONKER

His SCAM is to gain influence in the rich, Jewish "high society"

Is that "freedom of speech" - or LIBEL ?

Which brings us to an interesting point. If these alleged aboriginals felt that Bolt had libeled them, why did they not use the libel laws instead of claiming racial vilification. Could it be that under the libel laws there would have been no case to answer, but under the Orwellian racial vilification laws the burden of proof is small to non-existent?

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #227 - Sep 29^th, 2011 at 3:29pm

Belgarion wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Which brings us to an interesting point. If these alleged aboriginals felt that Bolt had libeled them, why did they not use the libel laws instead of claiming racial vilification. Could it be that under the libel laws there would have been no case to answer, but under the Orwellian racial vilification laws the burden of proof is small to non-existent?

It's an interesting question but considering defamation law is fairly strict I think they have had a case. The use of a racial vilification laws seems to have been done to make a point.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #228 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 12:41pm

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

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

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

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

that language is unacceptable soren. please tone it down and exclude the F word from future posts.

SO, no slot on Q & A for me then?

Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #229 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 12:57pm

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 12:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

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

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

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

that language is unacceptable soren. please tone it down and exclude the F word from future posts.

SO, no slot on Q & A for me then?

Wink

Why the Egyptian women used it several times on Monday.
If it add's force to the point your trying to make & is not just used to offend I see no problem with it, I use it, we are all adults.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #230 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 3:33pm

Kytro wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Which brings us to an interesting point. If these alleged aboriginals felt that Bolt had libeled them, why did they not use the libel laws instead of claiming racial vilification. Could it be that under the libel laws there would have been no case to answer, but under the Orwellian racial vilification laws the burden of proof is small to non-existent?

It's an interesting question but considering defamation law is fairly strict I think they have had a case. The use of a racial vilification laws seems to have been done to make a point.

They actually adressed this in the after verdict presser.
They said they used the racial villification law because it was about race & they did not want to be seen as just suing for money.
Even though they won the case no money changes hands(maybe Bolt has to pay their legals but certainly no compo) where as the Libel would have awarded monetary compensation.
It was about them not money & that's what they wanted.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #231 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 6:43pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Kytro wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Which brings us to an interesting point. If these alleged aboriginals felt that Bolt had libeled them, why did they not use the libel laws instead of claiming racial vilification. Could it be that under the libel laws there would have been no case to answer, but under the Orwellian racial vilification laws the burden of proof is small to non-existent?

It's an interesting question but considering defamation law is fairly strict I think they have had a case. The use of a racial vilification laws seems to have been done to make a point.

They actually adressed this in the after verdict presser.
They said they used the racial villification law because it was about race & they did not want to be seen as just suing for money.
Even though they won the case no money changes hands(maybe Bolt has to pay their legals but certainly no compo) where as the Libel would have awarded monetary compensation.
It was about them not money & that's what they wanted.

And now people will only whisper behind their backs.

fabbo.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #232 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 6:58pm

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 6:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Kytro wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Which brings us to an interesting point. If these alleged aboriginals felt that Bolt had libeled them, why did they not use the libel laws instead of claiming racial vilification. Could it be that under the libel laws there would have been no case to answer, but under the Orwellian racial vilification laws the burden of proof is small to non-existent?

It's an interesting question but considering defamation law is fairly strict I think they have had a case. The use of a racial vilification laws seems to have been done to make a point.

They actually adressed this in the after verdict presser.
They said they used the racial villification law because it was about race & they did not want to be seen as just suing for money.
Even though they won the case no money changes hands(maybe Bolt has to pay their legals but certainly no compo) where as the Libel would have awarded monetary compensation.
It was about them not money & that's what they wanted.

And now people will only whisper behind their backs.

fabbo.

People whisper all sorts of stuff behind peoples backs everyday.
Writting and printing those FALSE accusations is another matter.
For the 3rd time I believe Bolt is correct about certain people declaring aboriginal hertiage for monetary gain.
Bolt just was lazy and tried to pick high profile people to bolster his argument.
He and his defenders have no one to blame but Bolt himself.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #233 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 7:06pm

Belgarion wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 7:54am:

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

Geoff Clark: professional complainer and racial whinger.

Geoff Clark doesn't even look Aboriginal, for crying out loud! Bolt had a point and it's a shame that what he said can now be found to be illegal.

Quote:

Victoria's new governor, Alex Chernov, may CLAIM to be "Jewish" in his official biography - but he doesn't even LOOK Jewish

A "real Jew" would have a bigger HONKER

His SCAM is to gain influence in the rich, Jewish "high society"

Is that "freedom of speech" - or LIBEL ?

Which brings us to an interesting point. If these alleged aboriginals felt that Bolt had libeled them, why did they not use the libel laws instead of claiming racial vilification. Could it be that under the libel laws there would have been no case to answer, but under the Orwellian racial vilification laws the burden of proof is small to non-existent?

Actually neither....
'Real Jews', from the Middle East, might have 'Big Honkers'....BUT 'real jews' from Europe wouldn't have the same physical attributes as Middle Eastern people....

The Middle Eastern genotype of dark skin, and big noses doesn't always breed 'true' for people of European backgrounds.....but the religious/cultural background DOES 'breed true'.....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16010 South West NSW Gender:	Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty Reply #234 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 7:23pm ... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2011 at 11:13am: Quote: Speech that spurs racial hatred or defamation against minorities is not FREE SPEECH In other words, free speech only applies so long as you agree with the message. I hear ya oberfuhrer. Yup, pretty much....
Back to top	"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition. It's similar to a strawman fallacy" Bobbythebat IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #235 - Oct 6^th, 2011 at 9:24pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 6:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Kytro wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

Belgarion wrote on Sep 29^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

Which brings us to an interesting point. If these alleged aboriginals felt that Bolt had libeled them, why did they not use the libel laws instead of claiming racial vilification. Could it be that under the libel laws there would have been no case to answer, but under the Orwellian racial vilification laws the burden of proof is small to non-existent?

It's an interesting question but considering defamation law is fairly strict I think they have had a case. The use of a racial vilification laws seems to have been done to make a point.

They actually adressed this in the after verdict presser.
They said they used the racial villification law because it was about race & they did not want to be seen as just suing for money.
Even though they won the case no money changes hands(maybe Bolt has to pay their legals but certainly no compo) where as the Libel would have awarded monetary compensation.
It was about them not money & that's what they wanted.

And now people will only whisper behind their backs.

fabbo.

People whisper all sorts of stuff behind peoples backs everyday.
Writting and printing those FALSE accusations is another matter.
For the 3rd time I believe Bolt is correct about certain people declaring aboriginal hertiage for monetary gain.
Bolt just was lazy and tried to pick high profile people to bolster his argument.
He and his defenders have no one to blame but Bolt himself.

What you are saying is that Bolt is 'guilty' of looking at a woman (Behrendt), looking at her name (Germanic), looking at her dad (bearded Italian looking fella) - and without checking 'Who's who' he said 'hey, you guys don't look like Aboriginese. WHat's with occupying a chair of law set aside for Aboriginese?"
Or looking at Ms Cole, brought up by a Jewish mother from England, daddy-o absent - 'hey, what's with the Aboriginality? " So now we need a Federal Court Judge to make a ruling about the extent of fact checking necessary for an opinion piece.

Fabbo.

Is Gillard Welsh or Australian. Abbott English or Australian? The Governor of NSW Lebanese or Australian? Hockey Lebanese or Australian?
Crowe, Phar Lap NZers or Australians? Gibson, American or Australian? Siedler Austrian or Australian? Murdoch American or Australian?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2011 at 12:08pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #236 - Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:03am

The Leninists pride themselves on being'progressives', always looking for radical change in the order of things -gay marriage, adoption rights, taxation as a way to prosperity, ramming throuh a carbon tax the majority don't want, changing the constitution to replace the monarchy with a president and so on. In short, they pride themseles on being iconoclasts and radical innovators.

Yet when Bolt says something contrary to the established order of niceness, they are all of a sudden rigidly, loudly, sneeringly (what's new?) for conserving the established Leninist pieties and speech codes.

Hypocricy doesn't even begin to describe it. Two-faced, spineless table thumping demagogues is more like it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2011 at 12:08pm by Soren »

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #237 - Oct 8^th, 2011 at 11:57am

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

The Leninists pride themselves on being'progressives', always looking for radical chang in the order of thins -gay marriage, adoption rights, taxation as a way to prosperity, ramming throuh a carbon tax the majority don't want, changing the constitution to eplace the monarchy with a president and so on. In short, they pride themselvs on being iconoclasts and innovators.

Yet when Bolt says something contrary to the established order of niceness, they are all of a sudden rigidly, loudly, sneeringly (what's new?)for conserving the established Leninist pieties and speech codes.

Hypocricy doesn't even begin to describe it. Two-faced, spineless table thumping demagogues is more like it.

I see no one wants to get into your debate soren i wonder why??.

I am appalled that that creep Geoff Clark was one of the 9..I mean we are meant to feel sorry for this creep.. like hell.

Back to top

IP Logged

darkhall67

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1935

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #238 - Oct 8^th, 2011 at 3:09pm

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

The Leninists pride themselves on being'progressives', always looking for radical change in the order of things -gay marriage, adoption rights, taxation as a way to prosperity, ramming throuh a carbon tax the majority don't want, changing the constitution to replace the monarchy with a president and so on. In short, they pride themseles on being iconoclasts and radical innovators.

Yet when Bolt says something contrary to the established order of niceness, they are all of a sudden rigidly, loudly, sneeringly (what's new?) for conserving the established Leninist pieties and speech codes.

Hypocricy doesn't even begin to describe it. Two-faced, spineless table thumping demagogues is more like it.

What a load of sh1t.

Bolt lied.

Got caught.

People he was lying about took him to court.

bolt was found to have lied.

bolt was punished.

Get over it.

You people defending the creep and his behavior ad nauseum really destroys your credibility .

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58216
Here
Gender: male

Re: 'Hard Right' Bolt Is Guilty
Reply #239 - Oct 8^th, 2011 at 3:33pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 7:23pm:

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

Quote:

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

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

Yup, pretty much....

Verbal assult becomes a legal problem if it is not supportable and turns out to be based on lies.

Freedom of speech does not and never has included the right to publicly lie about people.

Back to top

IP Logged