Posts Tagged ‘Andrew Bolt’

SMALL UPDATE – at 20:00 20 July, a petition calling for removal of Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker has over 40,ooo signatories. Here ’tis

The Bronwyn Bishop saga continues and deepens. At the same time another pitiful effort is uncovered. (more…)

Free speech? Oh give me a break

Posted: September 28, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Andrew Bolt wasted little time in decrying today’s Federal Court ruling as being anti-free speech. 

What a load of crap.

There are already limitations of so-called free speech. For example, you cannot go around willingly defaming someone and expect to get away with it. Try inciting a race riot and you’ll be in strife (Alan Jones skated perilously close to that). There are plenty of examples if you want to go looking for them.

Despite Bolt’s protestations of innocence, the articles in question quite clearly accused specific individuals of pursuing their aboriginality for reasons of politics or financial gain which were not found to be appropriate or even necessarily accurate. He made significant errors of fact in his statements. And as rather clearly indicated in the blog of Dr Anita Heiss that I referred to in an earlier post, Blot was not above trying to pull a fast one in front of the court.

These were quite distinct, personal attacks on specific individuals. It was in no way a matter of making comment in ‘public interest’ as Bolt and his legal team tried to claim in court. And it sure as shit wasn’t trying to discuss matters of multiculturalism as also subsequently claimed.

Significantly, the Australian Press Council has come out and disputed Bolt’s claims, noting that the finding “says the media is still allowed to discuss racial identification issues, and even challenge the genuineness of the identification of a group of people, but only if it is done responsibly and with due care and attention to facts.”

All you had to do was read the reported Court findings to realise that. But far be it for the Bolter to let facts get in the way of a good story.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. In his usual, rightwing nutbag manner, Bolt chose a quite wrong and thoroughly despicable way of shooting his mouth off.  Given the quite incorrect and warped things Bolt stated in the articles, such as claiming Dr Heiss’s aboriginality got her a position in radio, while conveniently failing to reveal that this was a voluntary and unpaid position, I think Bolt is quite fortunate so far to have avoided defamation proceedings. If it were me, I would have been hitting the pig where it really hurt – right in his fat wallet.

The Bolter gets a bolt up the butt

Posted: September 28, 2011 in Uncategorized

Andrew Bolt is a well-known, rightwing nutbag who masquerades as being a journalist. He comes out with the most outrageous claims. For example, in the immediate wake of the nuclear disasters in Japan, he openly stated that not only was nuclear power entirely safe, that this was nowhere near as big a disaster as people were claiming. It is noticeable that he went quiet on that subject after it was conclusively shown to be a serious ecological, economic and social disaster.

Where the Bolter really crossed the line however was some two years ago when he wrote a series of columns against indigenous Australians that were nasty, spiteful and more akin to extreme rightwing Nazi propaganda than anything like responsible journalism.

It is with considerable satisfaction that I read that the Bolter has been given a serious bolt up his arse by the Australian Federal Court, who found the articles “were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.”

You didn’t have to be a genius to work out that Bolt was acting in a deliberately nasty manner, representing his own spiteful predjudices rather than anything remotely like acting in good faith.

The stunts that Bolt is prepared to pull were amply demonstrated earlier this morning on the blog of Dr Anita Heiss, one of the group sueing his fat arse:

“In his witness statement to the court Mr Bolt claimed to have used a photo of my mother on her wedding day as evidence to determine she, therefore I was of mixed-heritage and could not or should not identify as Aboriginal. The photo Bolt submitted was taken directly from my blog and a post I made on February 7, 2011, almost two years after he wrote his article, so his misrepresentations about me continued.”

In other words, this supposed ‘evidence’ was not even available to him at the time he claimed to have used it ie he’s a bloody liar!

I have said it before – live by the sword, die by the sword; write journalist crap and expect to get a bucketing.

Andrew Bolt, you are a despicable and hateful human being and the sooner the media can your arse the better for all.