http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/geoff-clark-loses-seat-on-framlingham-aboriginal-trust-board-in-coup/story-fn59niix-1226159672897
The appalling Geoff Clark, one of the plaintiffs in the Eatock v Bolt case- and the only one whose character I question - is at it again!
The law should have buried this man a long, long time ago.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Sunday, 2 October 2011
So many assertions, so much toxic crap
So many assertions made without even the thought of supporting evidence, it is amazing such toxic crap could be published by a serious media outlet.
I am the first to agree there are many things this country should try to atone for in its historical treatment of our Koori population. But to blindy attach all past injustice (real and imagined) to one man's direct and limited query of certain individuals, then to taint it as a slur against an entire race is disgraceful, lazy, and (frankly) racist in itself. It highlights why so many Koori are rebelling against the self interested "professional race politicians" and instead focussing improving their people's lot rather than the politics of the grudge. (Call out to people like Noel Pearson and Bess Price who are focussing on decent outcomes rather than pursuing the politics of grudge and entitlement.) It also highlights why, whatever you might personally think of the individual, why all should question those who hide behind "offence" as "racial vilification" when other options like defamation are available.
Look into the background of someone like Geoff Clark (one of the plaintiffs) yourself and ask why would someone like him seek redress in "offence" from "racial vilification" rather than pursuing other options available to him. Ask yourself what would someone like him be seeking to protect? Then ask: Was Andrew Bolt's a legitimate question to ask?
Regardless of your politics, and regardless of your views on Andrew Bolt generally (and I declare I admire him), be careful how quickly you assume it is OK to close down discussion just because you may not agree with THIS individual on THIS topic.
Try to ask yourseklf honestly: 'would my view be different if I agreed with the person under attack?' And: 'Would my view be different if I knew the complainant had something to hide?'
If you can't honestly say "Yes" to both questions, then you must support Andrew Bolt on this issue. His right to free speech is YOUR right to free speech.
If he defames you, sue him for defamation. If he gets his facts wrong, correct him and humiliate him. If he fails to argue a reasonable case, debate him and reveal this to be the case.
If he asks a question, reasonably, answer it. If he asks a question impertinently or inappropriately, call him on THAT.
But the solution is NEVER to say "You MUST NOT make those comments". Professor Langton calls this an "imagined" right to "unrestricted free speech".
She wilfully ignores the point made most often: That the complainants did not claim Mr Bolt defamed them. Clearly, no one (or at least no one I am aware of) has claimed an "unrestricted" right to free speech. Amusingly, this point is made by Professor Langton herself as if to prove she has made a winning point against the other side. Buit it is an argument she puts up a straw man only to triumph in knocking it down.
So...assertion number 1: Untrue.
From here she meanders into a diatribe of the hsitory of the Koori people's mistraetment since white settlement. Some of it is disturbingly true. Soem of it may be. The point is not that it is not true; the point is it is raised in a manner which links Mr Bolt's views to it somehow.
Whcih of Mr Bolt's expressed views suggest his "way of thinking" include:
Andrew Bolt was found guilty of contravening the Racial Discrimination Act. This basic misnomer does not get corected and must be opposed; how did he disciminate against his alleged victims? In truth, he didn't and, to be fair, they didn't claim he did. But the "shorthand" suggests he has been found guilty of racial discrimination.
The plaintiffs did accuse him of humiliating them and essentially depriving them of their right to assume their chosen racial identity as they see fit on their own terms.
The court found, on balance, he did this using unreasonable and inflammatory language and by getting some facts wrong (note the plural but only one is cited).
And Professor Langton launches from the appalling state of Aboriginal disadvantage (a real and prsent issue the nation struggles with) and somehow relates it back to what she calls his "way of thinking".
The court did not find this to be true. Frankly, one wonders how the laws of defamation allow such nonsense.
The court did not make any findings about his "way of thinking" as approevd by Professor Langton or not. And what the court also did not find was that Mr Bolt "deprived" the plaintiffs of their chosen identity.
The court found that they are entitled to choose their identity on their terms and that he, on balanced, humiliated them by questioning it in a "rude" and in an "infammatory" way.
Hopefully the court system in Australia will make its judgement on Bromberg J's findings and rationale. I do not agree - and would be greviously worried if the law is indeed as he interprets it - because I ask the question.
Why can't I ask the question?
Is it because it the imputation may be that there is an alterior motive to this choice? If it is, repute it and sue the man.
But that was not the claim made. So, they were not defamed.
No, their racial identity was in some way impugned by Mr Bolt's asking, not why did they decide that they were Aboriginal, but why did they decide they were not <insert other various origins>.
Was it because their public persona benefitted from being "aggressively" Aboriginal? Is that why Larissa Berhardt has so demeaned "local" Aborignals like Bess Price because Ms Price and her husband think that "local" issues like poverty are more important than the principles of political 'point scoring'.
This is why Bess Price offends Ms Bernhardt so. Because she holds up a mirror and she does not like what the reflection shows.
It does not support her world view.
The less said about Geoff Clark's character, the better. The public record raises many queries on his conduct. As a minimum he has exhibited the same arrogance and disdain for accountability recently exposed within the trade union movement.
It seems a power base may have been challenged and the power base chose to silence a critic. Not to argue him down, not to discredit hom, but to silence him.
And the Age's nonsensical diatribre does not chnage that basic fact.
So, no matter how much you hate Andrew Bolt and his views; no matter how little you respect hsi personally; ask yourself, if there was a BAD reason as to why these individulas deny the other aspects of their background, would it not be a good thing top be able to ask the question?
Just because it is not the case here, should not we be able to ask the question? Just in case?
I am the first to agree there are many things this country should try to atone for in its historical treatment of our Koori population. But to blindy attach all past injustice (real and imagined) to one man's direct and limited query of certain individuals, then to taint it as a slur against an entire race is disgraceful, lazy, and (frankly) racist in itself. It highlights why so many Koori are rebelling against the self interested "professional race politicians" and instead focussing improving their people's lot rather than the politics of the grudge. (Call out to people like Noel Pearson and Bess Price who are focussing on decent outcomes rather than pursuing the politics of grudge and entitlement.) It also highlights why, whatever you might personally think of the individual, why all should question those who hide behind "offence" as "racial vilification" when other options like defamation are available.
Look into the background of someone like Geoff Clark (one of the plaintiffs) yourself and ask why would someone like him seek redress in "offence" from "racial vilification" rather than pursuing other options available to him. Ask yourself what would someone like him be seeking to protect? Then ask: Was Andrew Bolt's a legitimate question to ask?
Regardless of your politics, and regardless of your views on Andrew Bolt generally (and I declare I admire him), be careful how quickly you assume it is OK to close down discussion just because you may not agree with THIS individual on THIS topic.
Try to ask yourseklf honestly: 'would my view be different if I agreed with the person under attack?' And: 'Would my view be different if I knew the complainant had something to hide?'
If you can't honestly say "Yes" to both questions, then you must support Andrew Bolt on this issue. His right to free speech is YOUR right to free speech.
If he defames you, sue him for defamation. If he gets his facts wrong, correct him and humiliate him. If he fails to argue a reasonable case, debate him and reveal this to be the case.
If he asks a question, reasonably, answer it. If he asks a question impertinently or inappropriately, call him on THAT.
But the solution is NEVER to say "You MUST NOT make those comments". Professor Langton calls this an "imagined" right to "unrestricted free speech".
She wilfully ignores the point made most often: That the complainants did not claim Mr Bolt defamed them. Clearly, no one (or at least no one I am aware of) has claimed an "unrestricted" right to free speech. Amusingly, this point is made by Professor Langton herself as if to prove she has made a winning point against the other side. Buit it is an argument she puts up a straw man only to triumph in knocking it down.
So...assertion number 1: Untrue.
From here she meanders into a diatribe of the hsitory of the Koori people's mistraetment since white settlement. Some of it is disturbingly true. Soem of it may be. The point is not that it is not true; the point is it is raised in a manner which links Mr Bolt's views to it somehow.
Whcih of Mr Bolt's expressed views suggest his "way of thinking" include:
- only white people are "normal";
- only people of "the races he approves of" are entitled to the above "unrestricted free speech";
- that "undesirable others" arew members of a "race";
- link to a claimed code of "racial hygeine";
- link to a code of a"master race";
- opposed mixing of races.
Andrew Bolt was found guilty of contravening the Racial Discrimination Act. This basic misnomer does not get corected and must be opposed; how did he disciminate against his alleged victims? In truth, he didn't and, to be fair, they didn't claim he did. But the "shorthand" suggests he has been found guilty of racial discrimination.
The plaintiffs did accuse him of humiliating them and essentially depriving them of their right to assume their chosen racial identity as they see fit on their own terms.
The court found, on balance, he did this using unreasonable and inflammatory language and by getting some facts wrong (note the plural but only one is cited).
And Professor Langton launches from the appalling state of Aboriginal disadvantage (a real and prsent issue the nation struggles with) and somehow relates it back to what she calls his "way of thinking".
The court did not find this to be true. Frankly, one wonders how the laws of defamation allow such nonsense.
The court did not make any findings about his "way of thinking" as approevd by Professor Langton or not. And what the court also did not find was that Mr Bolt "deprived" the plaintiffs of their chosen identity.
The court found that they are entitled to choose their identity on their terms and that he, on balanced, humiliated them by questioning it in a "rude" and in an "infammatory" way.
Hopefully the court system in Australia will make its judgement on Bromberg J's findings and rationale. I do not agree - and would be greviously worried if the law is indeed as he interprets it - because I ask the question.
Why can't I ask the question?
Is it because it the imputation may be that there is an alterior motive to this choice? If it is, repute it and sue the man.
But that was not the claim made. So, they were not defamed.
No, their racial identity was in some way impugned by Mr Bolt's asking, not why did they decide that they were Aboriginal, but why did they decide they were not <insert other various origins>.
Was it because their public persona benefitted from being "aggressively" Aboriginal? Is that why Larissa Berhardt has so demeaned "local" Aborignals like Bess Price because Ms Price and her husband think that "local" issues like poverty are more important than the principles of political 'point scoring'.
This is why Bess Price offends Ms Bernhardt so. Because she holds up a mirror and she does not like what the reflection shows.
It does not support her world view.
The less said about Geoff Clark's character, the better. The public record raises many queries on his conduct. As a minimum he has exhibited the same arrogance and disdain for accountability recently exposed within the trade union movement.
It seems a power base may have been challenged and the power base chose to silence a critic. Not to argue him down, not to discredit hom, but to silence him.
And the Age's nonsensical diatribre does not chnage that basic fact.
So, no matter how much you hate Andrew Bolt and his views; no matter how little you respect hsi personally; ask yourself, if there was a BAD reason as to why these individulas deny the other aspects of their background, would it not be a good thing top be able to ask the question?
Just because it is not the case here, should not we be able to ask the question? Just in case?
AFL Grand Final - post mortem
Well, I actually rated about 0 from 10 in predictions.
At a stretch, I could say that I was right in an overall kind of way...I was saying that, while I thought Collingwood would prove the doubters wrong AND win very clearly...AND you'd know in the first quarter that Collingwood had showed up to play.
But I was thinking that, the longer Geelong stayed with them, the more the mental pressure would heap on Collingwood, the more nervous they'd become and the worse that burden would be...Then Geelong would win...
OK?
All right, I was wrong on every count.
But at least I stayed the good uncle; I stayed away on Saturday night and din't tease him over Collingwood's loss. He even admitted that he nearly cried when they lost..And I didn't even tease him.
And even consoled him with a new prediction of a Collingwood v Hawthorn 2012 Grand Final...
Another prediction to get wrong.
At a stretch, I could say that I was right in an overall kind of way...I was saying that, while I thought Collingwood would prove the doubters wrong AND win very clearly...AND you'd know in the first quarter that Collingwood had showed up to play.
But I was thinking that, the longer Geelong stayed with them, the more the mental pressure would heap on Collingwood, the more nervous they'd become and the worse that burden would be...Then Geelong would win...
OK?
All right, I was wrong on every count.
But at least I stayed the good uncle; I stayed away on Saturday night and din't tease him over Collingwood's loss. He even admitted that he nearly cried when they lost..And I didn't even tease him.
And even consoled him with a new prediction of a Collingwood v Hawthorn 2012 Grand Final...
Another prediction to get wrong.
One Day In September
Postscript to AFL Grand Final...how could I forget to listen to this at least once? Ah well, better late than never...
Saturday, 1 October 2011
AFL Grand Final Day
The season comes down to this. There is something marvellous about spring in Melbourne; one of the factors is that the weather can either be wintry and miserable or 30+ degrees.
Today, for that one day in...err October, it's bloody cold.
Colingwood, the best team of the year (clearly) and the largest club in Melbourne (if not Australia) are taking on Geelong, premiers from two seasons ago and the best team of the past five years. Too often the best clubs do not play off so this year, hopefully, it will be a cracker of a game.
It is with a heavy heart, though, that I must tip Collingwood to go back to back. oddly enough, until three weeks ago, they were overwhleming favourites and the question was only "Who could even challenge them?"
Then the Cats did just that. They beat Collingwood by 96 points, albeit in a dead rubber in the final home and away round, and the Woods have looked vulnerable since.
Now, Geelong are favourites.
I have a suspicion that, once the game starts, we'll see early that Collingwood have come to play. the excellence they have displayed all season will come to the fore and they will win comfortably. I suspect we will wonder why we ever doubted the outcome; excellence does have a way of winning through.
Sadly, if I am right, Collngwood will equal the record number of Premierships currently held by my beloved Essendon and Carlton.
But, as they and their supporters are generally an uncouth and unlikeable bunch, taking gloating and bad sportsmanship to new levels (what is with this booing of opposition captains in the Grand Final lame kiddie Parade for God's sake???)
Even my own flesh and blood, my nephew Will, usually a decent, honest and civilised young man succumbs to it. And, despite my unending love for the boy, part of me (OK, all of me)is just hoping for a Geelong victory so I can rub his cheeky little nose in it. And, as for his dreadful father (my brother in law), revenge for 1999 would be so sweet..Maybe In can even resurect the trick I played on Will for many years, convincing him my cat (Jessie) barracked for Geelong. His embarrassment was so acute when his best friend looked at him like he was Joffa at a black tie dinner with those metal pointy things on the table...Aahhh, generalisations at twenty paces...
Does the cruel, fiendish plot taking shape in my mind officially mean I have become a bad uncle?
But I digress...
Sadly, I suspect it will all come to nought. Collingwood by a long 7 goals to send off both their coach, Michael Malthouse and the Geelong era, into the ether...
Go Dons!
Today, for that one day in...err October, it's bloody cold.
Colingwood, the best team of the year (clearly) and the largest club in Melbourne (if not Australia) are taking on Geelong, premiers from two seasons ago and the best team of the past five years. Too often the best clubs do not play off so this year, hopefully, it will be a cracker of a game.
It is with a heavy heart, though, that I must tip Collingwood to go back to back. oddly enough, until three weeks ago, they were overwhleming favourites and the question was only "Who could even challenge them?"
Then the Cats did just that. They beat Collingwood by 96 points, albeit in a dead rubber in the final home and away round, and the Woods have looked vulnerable since.
Now, Geelong are favourites.
I have a suspicion that, once the game starts, we'll see early that Collingwood have come to play. the excellence they have displayed all season will come to the fore and they will win comfortably. I suspect we will wonder why we ever doubted the outcome; excellence does have a way of winning through.
Sadly, if I am right, Collngwood will equal the record number of Premierships currently held by my beloved Essendon and Carlton.
But, as they and their supporters are generally an uncouth and unlikeable bunch, taking gloating and bad sportsmanship to new levels (what is with this booing of opposition captains in the Grand Final lame kiddie Parade for God's sake???)
Even my own flesh and blood, my nephew Will, usually a decent, honest and civilised young man succumbs to it. And, despite my unending love for the boy, part of me (OK, all of me)is just hoping for a Geelong victory so I can rub his cheeky little nose in it. And, as for his dreadful father (my brother in law), revenge for 1999 would be so sweet..Maybe In can even resurect the trick I played on Will for many years, convincing him my cat (Jessie) barracked for Geelong. His embarrassment was so acute when his best friend looked at him like he was Joffa at a black tie dinner with those metal pointy things on the table...Aahhh, generalisations at twenty paces...
Does the cruel, fiendish plot taking shape in my mind officially mean I have become a bad uncle?
But I digress...
Sadly, I suspect it will all come to nought. Collingwood by a long 7 goals to send off both their coach, Michael Malthouse and the Geelong era, into the ether...
Go Dons!
Love the bloke in this video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4503197627730611742
Aside from the comical southern American accents and the IQs which drift roughly equivalent to a cigarette butt, the video (if you believe the publishers) was put on line in full view of the WWW.
On the positive side, it has been taken up (in theory at least) by an anti-drug website, ironically named "Simple Ways to Make Methamphetamine" on the basis that active meth users will search for said recipe (or videos) and somehow be converted by the stupidity of the blokes on the video.
I doubt it myself. They strike me as dumb beyond belief and the bloke's reaction funnier than a whole season of 2.5 Men.
But, then, if you find out it is there when you are fioending, maybe you will remember it when you decide you are ready to get clean.
Maybe I am convincing myself of the logic after all....
Aside from the comical southern American accents and the IQs which drift roughly equivalent to a cigarette butt, the video (if you believe the publishers) was put on line in full view of the WWW.
On the positive side, it has been taken up (in theory at least) by an anti-drug website, ironically named "Simple Ways to Make Methamphetamine" on the basis that active meth users will search for said recipe (or videos) and somehow be converted by the stupidity of the blokes on the video.
I doubt it myself. They strike me as dumb beyond belief and the bloke's reaction funnier than a whole season of 2.5 Men.
But, then, if you find out it is there when you are fioending, maybe you will remember it when you decide you are ready to get clean.
Maybe I am convincing myself of the logic after all....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)