Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    In Australia, Elizabeth Warren would still be 1/32 Cherokee

    In Australia, Elizabeth Warren would still be 1/32 Cherokee

    Huh? you say.  Pay attention, you’ll get an education like I just did.

    Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in Australia  linked to one of my Elizabeth Warren posts in his post titled, Cherokee no more.  The following sentences at the end of his post jumped out at me:

    I would like to discuss certain Australian analogies, but lawyers advise me the risks are now unacceptably high.

    Such are our disgraceful laws against free speech.

    What was that all about?

    Here’s what:

    Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt says a Federal Court judgment against him makes it a terrible day for free speech in Australia.

    Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg has found Bolt breached the Racial Discrimination Act in two articles which implied some fair-skinned Aborignals were not really Aboriginal but claimed to be for the benefits.

    Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg said it wasn’t covered by free speech or fair comment provisions because the articles had factual errors, distortions of the truth and inflammatory language.

    Outside court, Bolt said the judgment placed too many restrictions on the discussion of multi-cultural issues.

    The group of fair-skinned Aboriginal people who’ve won the Federal Court action against Bolt say they don’t expect the Herald Sun columnist to apologise for breaching the laws.

    Here are the provisions of the law in question:

    “(1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

    (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

    (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.”

    One of Bolt’s colleagues noted the irony of the social media mob celebrating:

    The cesspool of hate that threatens to engulf most social media was at its vociferous worst when commenting on the Federal Court ruling that my colleague, Andrew Bolt, had violated Australia’s racial discrimination laws.

    Violent, obscene language that cannot be printed in a family newspaper was employed against Bolt by people who hide behind anonymous avatars.

    Serial Twitter offender and former Age columnist Catherine Deveny wrote: “The boys in the big house are going to love #Bolt. He has such a pretty mouth.”

    The Twitterati voiced delight as well: “Great victory against Andrew Bolt, hope one day he will be removed from radio and TV”.

    One tweet said: “now for Alan Jones”.

    The irony, of course, is that the chortlers are so stupid that they don’t realise they are next.

    The Federal Court has shown us that the Racial Discrimination Act can be used to silence unfashionable opinion.

    We are heading there, folks.  One can’t have a discussion about gay marriage without supporters of one man / one woman — the standard which has been in place for millenia, being accused of hate speech.  People who question climate change dogma are accused of hate speech.  Everything with which the left-wing disagrees now is hate speech.

    But we’re not Australia yet.

    In Australia, Elizabeth Warren would still be 1/32 Cherokee.  In the land of the free, she’s just someone who claimed to be Native American for benefits.

    Update: Victor Davis Hanson, Diversitygate:

    I guess some of us are on a different planet, because both Warren and Harvard University seem to have been unethical at best and unlawful at worst — if she or anyone from the Law School (no less!) signed forms or affidavits attesting to Warren’s Native American status in accordance with federal affirmative action/diversity guidelines.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    BannedbytheGuardian | May 16, 2012 at 6:22 am

    In conclusion . We paid not one penny not one pound for the whole wonderful rich continent. only one land treaty (Melbourne ) was ever signed over.

    If in 1970-2012 some Aboriginal & Torres Islanders are getting more from treasury than I or Andrew Bolt then it is fine.

    It is not sending us broke.

    Cheers & sad to see the racism here. It is almost as bad as You guys & the French.

      Matthew Of Canberra in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | May 16, 2012 at 7:20 am

      I agree. The people who most go on about “deserving” and “undeserving” aborigines seem to also be the people who’d happily see all aboriginal welfare simply done away with. It’s not about who’s deserving – it’s about somebody other than Number One who’s perceived by be getting something that Number One thinks he or she might like more. The whole “taking something other aborigines deserve more” trope only came about as a way to whack some people who didn’t fit certain others’ ideas of what an aboriginal person ought to be (i.e. drunk, black and up-north). I haven’t seen a groundswell movement on The Right to actually go and FIND these “more deserving” aborigines and demand that they get what they need or deserve. It only seems to go one way.

      It does appear that there are serious problems with aboriginal lifestyles, governance, health etc. But I think the question of “how much they get” is way down the list of problems to be solved.

        Rubbish Matthew. The whole question of “welfarism” is central to the lifestyle issue! There are plenty of remote communities which have taken it upon themselves to make the community members “work for welfare”. The question of “entitlement” itself is damaging to the extent that it removes much of the sense of self-responsibility. Then there is also the question of apportioning the welfare money. I know of communities in the North West which get relatively little in Federal funding. I am aware of others, in other parts of the country, which might be better connected politically, and get regular shipments of Land Cruisers, courtesy of the Government, and other income, but receive hundreds of millions per year in mining royalties. When Keating passed his “Native Title” legislation, he set up a fund ostensibly to provide funds for Aboriginal groups/communities who weren’t covered by Native Title – this was sold as being urban Aboriginals, and those in other long settled areas where Native Title was extinguished. Yet it turns out that a high proportion of that fund (scarce dollars) went to communities in the NT who had already had land rights from previous governments – with far more rights and potential access to funds than mere “Native Title” provides! Even if the level of Aboriginal welfare isn’t an issue, the distribution surely must be, as must some of the terms.
        This, incidentally, is a separate issue, although one must wonder if it, too, is illegal to discuss properly in a public forum given the relatively broad interpretation of the Lavarch vilification law.

      Cynicmonster in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | May 16, 2012 at 11:07 am

      “Cheers & sad to see the racism here.”

      T’was a matter of time before this comment was made.

      Perhaps you could point out the racist comments here and the reasons why they are so…

      What on earth do you mean by “You guys and the French” “Banned”??? Who are the “you guys”?

    Cynicmonster | May 16, 2012 at 11:02 am

    “The people who most go on about “deserving” and “undeserving” aborigines seem to also be the people who’d happily see all aboriginal welfare simply done away with.”

    Rubbish. I’m betting most here don’t have a problem with aboriginal welfare, or other gov’t welfare for that case, as long as it is being used effectively to address the issues you raise such as lifestyle, health, governance, etc. Is it wrong to think/hope that ‘our’ $$$ are going to good use?

    “I haven’t seen a groundswell movement on The Right to actually go and FIND these “more deserving” aborigines and demand that they get what they need or deserve. It only seems to go one way.”

    Yes, it does seem to only go one way…seemingly to the educated, well employed people. If you can’t admit that both sides of politics have done a poor job, particularly regarding aboriginal welfare and outcomes, you are simply toeing a party line.

    “But I think the question of “how much they get” is way down the list of problems to be solved.”

    Perhaps on a personal basis, but the budget is pretty big for welfare, and if continuous handouts are resulting in creating a welfare mindset with little or no improvement in the problems you identify above, the questions should be asked…

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Cynicmonster. | May 16, 2012 at 2:50 pm

      Cynic –

      The readers at LI have no idea about much in Australia. They were just trying to back up Prof’s faulty nterpretation a foreign law. case.

      The case has been decided , The verdict accepted by the defendants.

      Go cry with the Loser Bolt.

        It seems pretty clear, “Banned”, that you applaud the case, and the judgement, because you do not like Andrew Bolt. And I strongly suspect that this isn’t simply based upon those particular articles (which I doubt you’ve read anyway). This has the whiff of seeking to use the law, and judicial activism, in order to silence your political opponents. That is not a good look.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend