I’ve linked to the excellent work of Australian newspaper columnist and blogger Andrew Bolt many times over the year on this blog (see here.)
So I was shocked to see that he was prosecuted and found guilty today in a federal court case over two columns he wrote in 2009 about race, entitlements, and politics.
It’s chilling. There’s no other word for it. And I shudder to think how “progressives” here in America would relish the legal bludgeon Australia’s politically correct mob used to punish Bolt’s views.
Via the Australian Herald Sun:
THE assumed right of unfettered freedom of speech was trumped by laws protecting against racial vilification this morning after the Federal Court delivered its decision on the controversial “white Aborigines” case of Pat Eatock v Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt.
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”.
Speaking outside court, Bolt said it was “a terrible day for free speech in this country”.
“It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discusss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves,” Bolt said.
“I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings,” Bolt said.
The columnist said he would read and consider the full judgment before commenting further.
Justice Bromberg said it was important to note his judgment did not forbid debate or articles on racial identity issues if done “reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment”.
“Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people,” Justice Bromberg said.
Ms Eatock and a group of eight other Aboriginals took Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times to court claiming racial vilifiication over two articles in which he criticised fair-skinned Aborigines for what he argued was a choice they made, as people of mixed racial background, to emphasise their indigenous heritage over their white heritage.
Ms Eatock welcomed the judgment, saying it was a statement against discrimination.
She said the court’s decision meant racial identity could be debated, but with respect.
Here’s the full text of the ruling.
There’s at least one free-market think tank and free speech defender in Australia standing up for Bolt.
But don’t look for any “dissent is patriotic” progs to protest the criminalization of politically incorrect speech.
Jesus, you’d think this was a capital punishment case, the way Michele Malkin tells it. This is simply a case of a judge trying to make a decision based on Australian law. She makes it sound as though progressives are dreaming of the day when the law allows them to take away people’s rights to free speech by making laws which do away with it. Nonsense! People who read her columns are like people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and such—they’re looking to get their rabble roused over nothing. The condition of this country would be a lot better if they would direct their resources to winnowing truth from exaggeration.
Gee liberal one is all for the decision. Big shock. If it had been a fellow leftist it would be livid. As has been proven over and over, scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
Who else (besides me) recalls when the state of Texas sued Oprah Winfrey for disparaging beef?
She ate her last hamburger, she said that on the air to millions of viewers.
Well, because we have the right to free expression in the USA she won her case.
It IS legal to disparage people, places and things in the USA.
Not true is other countries.
The UN has worked hard to make disparagement of religion a crime.
The Aussies are faced with a group of people who self-identify as Aborigine but who are called ”wadjila – a white,” by Aborigines.
One of Andrew Bolt’s original articles is here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_white_is_the_new_black/
It is worth the read.
Ward Churchill will immediately spring to mind.
This is and still is a wet dream to be realized here in America. We were on that road until just recently until and I have no doubt that liberals will continue to push for such laws using hidden agendas. Like what they called fairness in radio a while back. That a law be passed so successful people like Rush, Hannity, etc… would have to give the same amount of airtime for someone with opposing beliefs. Insanity! Just imagine if you would if the liberals had a law like the one down under here in America, look how they scream racists, homophobic, you fill in the blank at the TP people. They would use such a law like that one to crucify anyone who dared to disagree with their distorted beliefs. Liberals had nearly sequestered free speech by using public opinion in the wrong way before 2000, after fox got up and running people were finally able to discuss in a mature and rational manner policies which affect all of us as citizens of this country. So yes, a law like that can still be passed if we don’t pay attention to the liberals and politicians. Remember the Golden Rule with liberals, they despise any competition/difference in any area of life what so ever, and will go to any lengths to curtail it, and or stop it.