In Australia, a chilling verdict against free speech
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.
When I commented about the court case on Twitter tonight, a liberal Australian wrote to me:
“So you think it’s right for headlines such as ‘White fellas in the black’ to be used? What if your Asianess was questioned?”
To which I replied:
*People “question my Asianness” every damned day. [See here for tonight's freshest serving.[ So what? Thank God it's not a CRIME here in America.
*Liberal racist filth flung at me constantly. [See the minions of Alec Baldwin.]
My response is MORE/BETTER speech to counter it, not less speech.
***
On a related note: How long before we dissenters from the liberal racial orthodoxy are all sentenced to eat “conscious cupcakes” and repent? Click the link to read about the prog backlash against UC Berkeley conservatives’ mock affirmative action bake sale:
vent organizers received numerous threats on Facebook, and some of the group’s members changed their names and profile pictures. “This event was not organized by a bunch of white guys,” Mr. Lewis said. “We’re not racists.” The group’s 10-member board of directors includes several Asians and a Latino, he said, and more than half the board members are women.
Student leaders worried that the bake sale would make students uncomfortable and aggravate tensions on campus.
“A number of students have come to me very concerned,” said the student body president, Vishalli Loomba, 20, a fourth-year molecular and cell biology major. “Many feel the differential pricing is offensive and that it makes them feel unwelcome.”
Despite the outcry, organizers said the sale would go forward unless they were threatened with physical violence. Mr. Lewis said Republican groups from nearby colleges — including the University of California, Davis; California State University, Sacramento; and Saint Mary’s College of California — had called to say they were sending carloads of supporters to the bake sale.
The race-based prices will be posted on signs, but organizers said they would not enforce them and would instead allow students to pay whatever they wanted.
One group of students decided to protest pastries with more pastries.
As of Monday afternoon, more than 600 people had R.S.V.P.’d on Facebook to attend the “Conscious Cupcakes Giveaway,” scheduled for the same time and place as the Berkeley College Republicans’ bake sale and the student government’s phone bank.
“Join us in celebrating and representing U.C. Berkeley’s diverse community!” read the event announcement. “We recognize we still have a long way to go in bridging the gaps in understanding the complexities of race, gender and sexuality, but we take the first steps by taking our first bite of free Conscious Cupcakes in solidarity!”
One Berkeley student wrote on the event’s page: “conscious cupcakes > discriminatory cupcakes.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Subscribe to the Michelle Malkin newsletter
February 22, 2012 12:44 PM by Michelle Malkin
33 CommentsSurprise: UK’s Version of ‘Buffett Rule’ Failing to Bring in Expected Revenue
February 22, 2012 11:05 AM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
The high priests of eco-destruction
February 22, 2012 07:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
119 Comments
Gallup: Unemployment Climbing Back to 9% for February
February 21, 2012 02:56 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsDisability Claims Up As Unemployment Benefits Run Out
February 19, 2012 11:16 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
It Wouldn’t Be Saturday Morning Without Another Friday Night Solyndra Document Dump to Sift Through
February 18, 2012 09:52 AM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Categories: Political Correctness,Politics,Race Hustlers
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Hot Air
» Open thread: The last debateRedstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?Redstate
» Daily Links – February 22, 2012Redstate
» Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research
I`m with you 100% Michelle ! It looks to me that an Australian aboriginal just played the race card and the court fell for it. More race baiting and hustling and PC won !
And to think, Australia WAS one of the few places outside the US I had any interest in seeing ! No more !
I attended the first 35 minutes of the College Republicans’ bake sale at Berkeley. Protesters argued that such an expression of speech insults the barriers that prevent women and racial minorities from succeeding. Meanwhile a young woman at the table was doing a brisk business selling the cupcakes and cookies (all prices were suggested — each customer could self-identify which category he or she wanted to identify with) while former UC Regent Ward Connerly (of Prop 209 fame) debated affirmative action with a member of the UC staff. A College Republican engaged in a similar, heated (but civil) debate with an angry student.
In other words, the bake sale was a complete success — as the Berkeley College Republicans the campus was forced to consider the question of why discrimination on the basis of race and gender is acceptable for college admissions — but a grave injustice when it comes to purchases of baked goods.
This type of thing has gotten really, really bad in recent years.
All across the West, criticism of non-Whites, females, homosexuals, non-Christians, etc, is being ruthlessly crushed by the Left.
Try this: Start bashing Christianity and Christians with a group of leftists, then start criticizing islam and muslims and watch how extremely upset they become.
The double standards are totally absurd.
This kind of make no law and you will be free was and is common in England and Australia, we talked about using that framework here, I think we can all appreciate our first amendment that much more at this point.
Our set of negative rights specifically restricting government and making our rights inalienable has served us well letting liberals change it or continue to threaten and take away our liberty is a horrendous mistake.
Brava!
Re: On September 27th, 2011 at 11:28 pm, aunursa said:
John Stossel held a similar “affirmative action bake sale” in Manhattan back in 2010, modeled on an earlier Bucknell University demonstration.
As far as the Australian anti free speech verdict, I guess that lessens the country’s attractiveness as a potential refuge should Obama succeed in destroying America,
Michelle, will you and your gathering of supporters come up with a more appropriate term for the area of political behaviour displayed by the left that is too often referred to as being ‘politically correct’?
The term implies that those who disagree with such behaviour are absolutely wrong. When someone uses the term around me, I suggest to them that they are referring to politically left leaning ideology, not politically correct ideology, since there are differing views on politics and therefore a separation in opinion on what is correct in politics.
And, of course, Ms Eatock will decide what is respectfull and what is not!
Welcome to the world of FASCIST word control Ms Eatock.
Frankly, I find your demands quite barbaric!
Actually, that was the view of the Federalists, as our Constitution was presumed to establish only the explicit powers given government, ALL others residing with the States and the People. We have the Doubting Thomas Anti-Federalists to thank for our Bill of Rights. The Bill was not regarded as excluding the rights not enumerated therein, rather as a good start on the long list of Freedoms that all Free Men should enjoy. Sadly, we now regard it as the only rights we are guaranteed, rather than a very short non-exclusive list. We have turned our own Bill of Rights into a document limiting the People more than it limits the Government.
Voltarine was absolutely correct.
‘~’
Marxist Approved?
Socially Destructive?
Cowardly Control?
Despicably Craven?
Noose Wearing?
Crypto-Subversive?
Soul Destroying?
Satanically Directed?
Powerfully Corrupt?
We can do this all day!!
‘~’
Politically Corrupt?
Pretentiously Destruct?
Must. Stop. Thinking!!!
First, Ms Malkin is NOT Asian; she’s American.
Second, Oliver Wendell Holmes, I hope, is burning in purgatory right now.
He was one of the first ones to come up with the idea of “prevention”, I believe.
It was he who, under Wilson, came up with the absurd notion that it was perfectly okay to suppress free speech for the sake of safety. He asserted that it was within the government’s mandate to suppress someone shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater in the absence of a fire.
But, the problem with that is, suppose no one is harmed? Suppose everyone just yells at the man to sit down and shut up? Suppose everyone behaves responsibly and leaves the theater in an orderly fashion, and returns once it’s determined there is no fire? Suppose the man sincerely believed there to be a fire, but simply was wrong?
The standard Holmes uses is the same standard our gov’t uses today to take away our liberties. An unwillingness to risk harm serves as the excuse to curtail liberties.
If a man shouts fire in a crowded theater, and someone is killed as a result, he should be charged with murder or some form of manslaughter. If a man shouts fire in a crowded theater and no harm is done, what is the excuse for curtailing his liberties?
Cases like this derive from such decisions, and are even less forgivable, for their standard is not whether harm may or may not be done, but that feelings may be hurt. The ultimate ploy to steal liberty in the name of safety. To infantilize the population to such an extent that you can curtail essential liberties rather than risk making someone unhappy.
When I was young, I was taught that I could take all the steps I wanted to rob a bank; plan it out, “case the joint”, prepare a getaway… and I’d committed no crime up to the point where I actually robbed the bank. Now I can be arrested for planning a bank robbery in case I might go through with it.
All this enslavement, and there’s no more accurate word for it, is a result of attempting to prevent bad things from happening.
God gave us free will. He doesn’t stop us from doing bad or good things. For doing bad things there are consequences. For doing good things there are rewards. But the gov’t presumes itself wiser than God, and instead of rewarding and punishing behavior, attempts to induce or prevent behavior.
Perfectly Incorrect?
Perfectly Corrupt.
I’m going with this one.
Hiraghm, good post. Until the Government can read my mind and declare something I think about doing illegal, to hell with them. I will think about what I want, as long as it is not imoral
Thanks Michelle for highlighting this cast, along with the Aus Governments recently announced ‘Independent Media Inquiry’
If you read the whole article you can see similar debates relating to the FCC and the fairness doctrine.
I know that for a lot of articles, there is a US focus (as it should be), but as an Aussie who reads many worldwide blogs, there are many ‘dots’ that are out there that need to be connected as there appears to be a coordinated approach to free speech suppression here, in the US and the UK.
Is it not curious to anyone that Mr Bolt (who is a fine journalist and has his own TV show as well) also works for News Corp and his boss is Mr Murdoch.
Michelle, another thought, bloggers should unite and publish the ‘offensive’ articles.
The ‘offence’ was not the subject matter, but as the judge described he “found a contravention because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with”, the “language, tone and structure of the publications”.
Not only though police, but word choice police.
The newspaper articles are here… at the end of the judgement. The remedy sought was to purge internet archives of the Herald Sun and this was knocked back by the judge.
Here is what he said in the judgement.
So all bloggers, publish away in the interests of free speech and maintenance of a record of history!
Justice Bromberg? Even their judges are Bolsheviks too?
the left can say anything they want about conservatives, most of it made up. but how dare a conservative tell the truth, they should be jailed for life. i would bet axelrod and crew would gladly start locking up people on the right here, if they could.
sonerai32645 : I hearby confess that I am thinking immoral thoughts right now. What do you suppose should be done about it?
Oops, I did it again. Perhaps I should turn myself in to Attack Watch?
What goes on in my head is my own business. Technology is coming far too quickly that will allow someone to detect immoral thoughts and you think that’s ok.
What is the difference between regulating my thoughts and any other conspiracy. You are far too eager to surrender liberties.
Yeah, then I read the New Republic has an article by Obamacrat, Peter Orszag on, “Why we need less democracy”.
These people don’t just want Socialism, they want full-blown Totalitarianism. We have to fight them with every breath and at every opportunity.
Who decides what’s “respect” and what isn’t?
I used to make this point to people frequently back 20 years or so ago. Now that I am older, and more cynical I’m no longer sure that either argument matters much. Activist judges began decades ago to take Constitutional silence on a subject to mean “rule however you want” on a subject, and now even enumerated positions are “reinterpreted”, and then locked in place by “precedent” to again mean that the government has all authority, and we are protected little, if at all, from their tyranny.
Look at the amendments: They have been legally twisted into tortured parodies of what they were intended to be. I’ll break down the 1st, but all of them have been likewise corrupted. (I’m certainly no lawyer, and don’t pretend to be, but if you are, and you think you can explain all this, I’m all ears.)
1st Amendment: “speech” was interpreted by the courts to mean “activities that convey feelings (“expressive speech”) (like art) rather than simply “communicating with words”. This can mean almost anything (or nothing). Further, when convenient, Congress is not the only one limited in “making law” regarding speech, but every state and local authority, as well as private businesses of every size (I notice the courts have retained the power to tell you to “shut up”, which seems telling).
Then there is the “establishment clause” which has been interpreted to mean religious displays on any kind of “public land” (another problem for another day) are forbidden, as that would be tantamount to “establishing a national religion”. Therefore religious speech is restricted, and its free exercise is prevented.
When you actually put the 1st Amendment back together and try to understand it with (just some of) the myriad legal interpretations that have wrested it into meaninglessness, you get an incoherent mess: You get the government protecting what it feels like and blocking what it wants, which is just what happened in this case in Australia.
So what, really, is the difference?
Lag time. Pure and simple. From the ramp up to the 2010 mids on, the Prog movement had peaked. Voters can change their minds on a dime.
Deep, long held Prog-convictions by judges.., not so much? Consider these the death throes. Like fingernails growing on a
corpscorpse.“Goes to state of mind your Honor, of which you apparently have none. Hey, is that a model XL900 penis pump under that robe?”
I’ve said it many times before. Democracy is a gross impediment to Marxian Socialism. They give it lip service because they must to maintain appearances. But as Obama has alluded to many times in his speeches, (one to Latinos a few weeks ago) he would much prefer to bypass Congress and rule by executive fiat and diktat rather that submit to the restrictions of governing in a constitutional republic. This is the way of the Marxist in every government on planet earth.
Those words FREEDOM and LIBERTY take on real meaning now don’t they? Not just dry words on old vellum.
This is very chilling. Hopefully, the people in Australian will wake up. But if we did not have a First Amendment we’d be having court cases like this in the U.S. It’s another indication of how great the Founding Fathers really were.
“How long before we dissenters from the liberal racial orthodoxy are all sentenced to eat “conscious cupcakes” and repent?”
Well said, Michelle..well said.
vergolfer,
Oh I think they have woke up! Otherwise Mr. Bolt’s columns would have been relegated to the scrapheap of journalism and gone unread. Certainly not shared by the likes of our own MM.
Aussies WERE reading ( and that apparently was the ‘problem’? ) My concerns for them date back to the 80′s and many ports of call where I was repeatedly told by Progs Down Under that “You Yanks just don’t get it!”
Oz, the land of the original loooong Unenjoyment Claim.
“A number of students have come to me very concerned,” said the student body president, Vishalli Loomba, 20, a fourth-year molecular and cell biology major. “Many feel the differential pricing is offensive and that it makes them feel unwelcome.”
Gosh, how unwelcome will you feel when the ChiComs reach our shores and start driving you onto reservations?
The Berkeley Bake Sale was consciously misrepresented in the first article I read in our local paper. It said that the PRICE OF THE CUPCAKES was lower for black, Asian and Latino cupcakes, as though the racial distinction and pricing structure attached to the food itself. That was patently false. Instead, the price to people of color who purchased the cupcakes was lower, showing that racial preferences are ridiculous when charging less to some for the same exact cupcake.
The outrage over the misrepresentation was understandable. The outrage over the reality is ridiculous. Typical liberal biased unfactual reporting, and typical mob outrage without seeking the facts.
I’m glad that it has now been reported accurately, and think the exercise was an appropriate display.
huh. There’s your sign right there; why is a woman afraid of either ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’?
No one is talking about the 300 lb gorilla in the room: what he actually wrote.
These are the seeds that spawn violence. We keep preaching about the need to “sit down” (most of these progs look like Michael Moore and Al Gore who have been granted waivers on FLOTUS’ war on obesity) and talk things out when we stick our noses in other countries’ business. But here at home?
This one of the byproducts of LOTE in lieu of standing our ground. SHOUT IT OUT! We won’t vote for the status quo!
BTW, one of the key threats to the GOP establishment is Florida’s plan to have their primary on Jan 31. Having Cain win in FL just before the rigged NH primary is not like his coming off of an IA win.
The GOP establishment is feeling it. ABO is about as dumb an idea as I can think of. It stops us from seeing the Tea Party victory unfolding before us.
How would Australia judge some of the things said on Huffington post and other left-wing sites by the commentors? What about the signs we see displayed at Union rallies? Disgusting, vile, obscene, yet no one stops them or finds them “guilty” of violating any laws. Sometimes I wish we could…but NO NO NO!! That is a slipperty slope.
I wonder how many of us in this country would be brave enough to stand up for our right of free speech if the government told us to stop saying certain things, for instance at a Tea Party gathering? What if they said that the sign which states, “Jesus loves Muslims” was offensive to Muslims and must not be displayed? That is not too far fetched! Would we stand up for OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT? Even if they said, take down the sign or we will arrest you? How about, “take down the sign or we will break your kneecaps”?
I like to think I would stand up for the Constitution. But I don’t know for sure. Do you??
I briefly scanned over the ruling that posted the original articles with photos of the people calling themselves Aboriginal.
I am now convinced that from now on, beef stew must be known as “carrots,” as in, “It’s beef stew, but it’s carrots.” This also means I have to rename my extreme three-bean chili “CO2′s Red Onion Co₂nco₂ction.”
Yeah I do happyscrapper. I might be old but I still can stop someone from breaking my kneecap.
I still have a mean streak.
I’ll always fight for my rights.
The Second Amendment is there for a purpose.
Waaaaaahhhhhh! Try being a middle-aged, straight, white, Christian male for awhile you dweebs!
BTW: I think that 123upnorth may be on to something. From now on when anyone refers to something being “PC” I’m going to say “You mean politically LEFT?” As politics vary, there is nothing “correct” about most of the PC crap that is foisted upon us by these people…
‘Jaw Jaw Is Better Than War War’ – Winston Churchill
This ruling will ultimately result in violence. If the Left restricts free speech in this country human nature will take its course and there will be more violence, not less.
why do I get the feeling that aligning oneself with a particular group of others is purely for gain?
Australia sorta lost its appeal to me when the government banned most private ownership of guns.
We have the 1st and 2nd amendments as useful instruments to primarily protect we citizens from the abuse and tyranny of government.
Purely for status, recognition, preferencial bias, power and/or money. You betcha.
the perks of quotas
I am trying. As it is I’m my employers sole meeting of my section’s unofficial quota for that described class.
You’ve already got some democrats coming out and testing the waters by openly wishing that we could just do away with those pesky elections “for a while.”
Given that mindset, it’s not a stretch of imagination but an implied assumption that “free speech” (for some, anyway) is already on the chopping block.
Try being a middle-aged, straight, white, Christian male for awhile you dweebs!
Lucky you!! Job security!!
Do they go unconscious when you bite into them? These people are at Berkeley?
(sorry if someone already mentioned this.)
Such a nebulous, subjective cop-out, completely open to whim
Sad. Once upon a time liberals would actually defend the right of free speech, now they are the ones who would happily squash it. Obama would come over to your house and personally stuff a gag in your yapper if he could – and Mr. Harvard Constitutional Lawyer would be very pleased with himself no doubt.
…that Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler would have no problem with this ruling.
United we stand, divided we fall. But of course people who think like Obama seek division in order to maintain and/or gain more power.
At one point I entertained retiring in Australia, but now I’m not so sure. They are a harbinger of thing to come here, and can serve as a warning if only we pay attention. Case in point: gun control. The people I met when I was there were extremely PO’d about what happend to their rights, and we could see the same thing here if we are not diligent. The Gun control advocates started with “we just want to register handguns, so we can keep them out of the hands or criminals”. Then they moved to voluntary surrender of handguns “they have no use other than killing people”, then on to mandatory confiscation of handguns and registration of long guns. Now it is illegal for you to have a firearm unless you belong to a sanctioned club, and the guns must be locked at the club along with your ammo. Since the number of clubs is controlled, and only the rich can afford to pay club dues, the average citizen is disarmed again. Kind of reminds me of feudal Europe. The gentry get to have their fox hunts and the peasants have to defend themselves with sticks. To top it all off, the amount of gun crime has skyrocketed since the citizens were dissarmed- whoda thunk!
Plus they drive on the wrong side of the street- what’s up with that?
And all this time, it is they, and the Brits who claim WE drive on the wrong side.
A “good faith” viewpoint for the Australian judge and other progressive identity-politics mandarins means either it’s uttered by members of a designated victim-constituency or it’s not disapproved by them. It’s a question of who is and is not deemed to have legalistic standing to name, describe, and make the rules concerning an important social and political issue. Bolt was neither a member of nor an advocate for the victim constituency at issue, one of whom accused him. Eatock speaks for the truth on the subject because he’s closest to it.
Needless to say, progressives do not favor extending the logic of personal-standing authority so that tax policy is the domain of those who actually pay taxes; nor do they wish military men and women and their families to have a dispositive voice in military policy.
College is where smart people go to get stupid. I should know. I have two degrees.
With that said, it should be pointed out that in college, you take a test and receive a grade. However, if you receive a higher grade than I do, isn’t that discrimination? Shouldn’t I be given special consideration because I am an “under-privileged minority?” How can I be expected to compete? Those college professors are all racists.
Whew! I feel better now.
I’ve known a couple of people from Australia. They have been proud, independent people. I have not been in touch with them for years now. I cannot help but wonder how they reacted to the incremental loss of their right to possess firearms. When that passed, I wrote Australia off. They are heading down the path of socialism, although not quite as bad as Great Britain yet.
America take note. As CO_Engineer #52 noted, our Second Amendment can be obliterated one small step at a time, just as firerarms ownership was in Australia. We must not give an inch. Liberals and anti-gun zealots will take a mile.
Our First Amendment has already started to by the wayside. We have courts making decisions that limit speech. We have education institutions, government agencies and private businesses complying with speech codes under threat of disciplinary actions, fines and dismissal. If we allow the speech police to continue their incremental march toward censureship, we will someday lament the loss of the First Amendment as well.
The ex-Mrs. Ragman is Australian, and a primary school teacher, to boot. She used to tell me that in the country schools, that had a significant aboriginal population, it was common practice to let the aboriginal students decide where they were to sit in the classroom, as many of them were not from the same tribal group, and by tribal custom, were not allowed to sit next to other students of the “wrong” group. I wonder if this tribal custom is still in effect today? Great example of non-descrimination, when the kids aren’t even allowed to sit next to each other.
Not if we’re going by the analogy you used to shouting fire in a crowded theater (though no one actually gets hurt). The analogy would be more like attempting a bank robbery, though you were unsuccessful at getting any money or causing any damage (maybe you forgot to load your gun or something).
Not that that really applies to the current situation, though.
Elaine Benes: [Australian accent] Maybe the dingo ate your baby.
I’m not racist. I hate everyone!
:}
Elaine at the wedding in India:
hey! Monkey boy!