Monday, December 23, 2013
GLAAD: Lethal Enforcers of the Left's Tolerance Mob
"Duck Dynasty's" Phil Robertson is not alone. He's the latest in a long, long lineup of politically incorrect targets of the left's sensitivity mob. Founded in 1985, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) gangstas won't stop until both the cultural and legal enforcement of their agenda are the norm.
The A&E network (Atheists & Elitists) suspended the reality TV patriarch and self-made businessman on Wednesday for the Biblical views he expressed in an interview with GQ. Robertson was asked by the liberal magazine what he viewed as sinful. Drawing on the condemnation of sexual immorality in Corinthians 6:9, he cited "adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God."
Robertson's punishable transgressions? Responding honestly to a question posed to him (this was not an unsolicited "anti-gay rant"; it was a response) and abiding by his Christian faith. GLAAD's P.C. Praetorian Guard sprung into repressive action. The same group that initially gave f-word-spouting, homophobic liberal Alec Baldwin a pass accused Robertson of uttering "some of the vilest and most extreme statements" against "LGBT people" ever. (They should listen to the Koran-inspired executioners' rants of gay-hanging and gay-stoning Iranian mullahs sometime.) GLAAD also railed against Robertson's "vile" preference for female anatomy over male as if it were an international human rights violation.
A&E folded faster than a stadium seat, immediately disavowing Robertson and suspending him from his family's show indefinitely. Meanwhile, network execs continued to cash in on the lucrative "Duck Dynasty" empire with a marathon of program reruns on the very day they threw Robertson under the bus. The network is free to do that, of course. And I am free to tell you all about the radical thugs that A&E indulged.
GLAAD has worked tirelessly to marginalize and suppress the free speech of Christian leaders, Christian businesses and conservative talk-radio hosts dating back to their infamous Dr. Laura boycott 13 years ago. The group's mission is not about equality or defending against "defamation." It's about silencing critics, making open debate radioactive, demonizing people of faith and making even the slightest perceived slight a hate crime.
Last year, GLAAD speech-squelchers issued a blacklist of 34 Christian commentators they wanted networks to ban from their air for "extreme" views (read: opposing gay marriage). Earlier this year, GLAAD attacked the National Geographic Channel for partnering with the traditional values-promoting Boy Scouts on a reality TV program. GLAAD is free to start its own Gay Scouts, but instead chose to harangue NatGeo for refusing to run a "disclaimer" at the beginning of each show condemning the Boy Scouts' leadership policies.
It's not enough to live and let live. You must repent and genuflect before the self-serving gods of selective progressivism. That's why GLAAD forgave Hollywood director Brett Ratner for using the word "fag." He was allowed back into the protected Hollywood club after submitting to GLAAD reeducation camp and appearing in GLAAD public service announcements. Bill Clinton, who authored both the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies so reviled by the homosexual lobby, ended up receiving a GLAAD "Advocate for Change" award earlier this year -- for changing his mind when politically expedient.
For the civility police, the operational motto is always: "Do as we say, not as we do, in the name of social justice. Amen."
In the 1960s, radical philosopher Herbert Marcuse popularized the "repressive tolerance" theory of modern progressives. "Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left," Marcuse pontificated. "Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed."
The tolerance mob's insatiable quest for power and control has led to such unhinged witch-hunting that many of its own erstwhile allies are balking. Novelist Bret Easton Ellis called GLAAD the "gatekeepers of politically correct gayness." He was attacked as a "self-loathing gay man," but unlike A&E, he didn't give in. "An organization holding an awards ceremony that they think represents all gays and also feels they can choose which gays can and cannot be a member of the party is, on the face of it, ridiculous."
The liberal The Atlantic magazine recounted how GLAAD invited Fox News anchors Kimberly Guilfoyle and Jamie Colby to a New York event and then issued a press release condemning them and their employer after the network failed to cough up big donations for gala tables. Wrote the Atlantic's James Kirchick: "Aside from raising money to perpetuate its own existence and throwing swanky parties (the event feting Bill Clinton was one of three different media-award ceremonies, with others in New York and San Francisco), GLAAD has no purpose. That is, unless one views it not as a gay-rights organization but rather a partisan liberal one."
Nail, meet head. GLAAD's counterculture warriors know full well: It's a small leap from forcing Phil Robertson, the Boy Scouts and Rush Limbaugh out of the public square to forcing wedding photographers and cake bakers to serve gay customers against their will and mandating that Catholic medical providers and Hobby Lobby violate their religious conscience and cover abortion pills in order to stay in business.
These GLAAD tidings have everything to do with repression and nothing to do with rights.
NYC: Lesbian boss ‘fired me for being straight’
A married, heterosexual gym teacher at a tony Upper West Side private school was fired because his lesbian supervisor disapproved of his “traditional family status,” the canned teacher claims in a new Manhattan lawsuit.
Gregory Kenney, 50, taught gym at the Trinity School on W. 91st St. for 16 years before he was let go in June 2012.
Kenney, who lives with his wife and three young children in LI, says he was a well-liked employee at the elite institution that counts Truman Capote, Ivanka Trump and Eric Schneiderman as alumni, until a gay athletic director named Pat Krieger took over in 2009.
Krieger allegedly forced him to coach three sports, even though his contract only required him to join two teams, according to his reverse discrimination suit.
When he complained that the extra responsibilities interfered with his family obligations Krieger allegedly told him, “We all make choices,” the suit says.
After Kenney told Krieger that he couldn’t keep working nights and weekends, she reported him to the headmaster “while a single, female teacher faced no scrutiny when she refused to coach a third season.”
Kenney claims the allegedly biased athletic director “routinely favored other single, younger females without children and discriminated against [him] because of his gender, sexual orientation, ‘traditional family status,’ and age.”
“He felt ostracized because of his family,” Kenney’s attorney, Steven Morelli told The Post in an interview.
“He had been doing this for so many years and he certainly did the job well or they would have gotten rid of him a long time ago,” Morelli added.
Kenney coached soccer, basketball and golf at Trinity, where tuition costs as much as $41,370 a year.
“On at least one occasion Kenney was dissuaded from attending social events with his peers because he was a heterosexual, married male with children, who wouldn’t fit in with [Krieger’s] ‘culture.’”
He says three other married coaches with young children were also sacked. Kenney was replaced by a gay female, according to court papers.
Kenney, who has 7-year-old twins and a 9-year-old, is still looking for a new job. He’s seeking unspecified damages in the suit.
'Police ignored victims of Muslim child sex grooming gang because they were from COUNCIL ESTATES' (Projects; Welfare housing)
The only thing British police and social workers are good at is persecuting decent families for fancied infractions. Real abuse gets ignored
Hundreds of young girls were allowed to fall into the hands of Asian grooming gangs because police and social workers may have been scared of seeming racist, an official report says.
They refused to believe that race was an issue even though dozens of young, white girls were being specifically targeted and groomed for sex by older Pakistani men.
Children in the town of Rochdale were let down by all 17 agencies that were meant to protect them, the report said.
Police chiefs yesterday dismissed accusations of political correctness. They said the girls were targeted by because they were vulnerable, not because they were white.
But a review into the scandal says there was a ‘colour-blind’ approach by police and social workers that was ‘potentially dangerous’.
The findings have been backed by Rochdale’s Labour MP Simon Danczuk, who said ethnicity ‘is a factor’. Tory Baroness Warsi said there existed a small minority of Pakistani men who saw white girls as ‘fair game’.
Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation said elders of the Pakistani community were ‘burying their heads in the sand’ on the matter. The review highlights a catalogue of failings. Experts in child sexual exploitation estimate that between 2003 and 2012 hundreds of young girls slipped through the care net in Rochdale alone.
Extrapolated across the UK, the number of young victims could run into many thousands.
The report criticised social workers, police and the Crown Prosecution Service for failing to join together sufficiently to halt the grooming. Last night Mr Danczuk said it was clear that all the agencies dealing with children in care had failed.
He said: ‘This report shows that policies, culture and attitudes within many agencies were actively unhelpful when dealing with victims of child abuse and that’s why we have to see a very different approach.
‘It worries me that the reports show there is evidence of a focus on performance targets, which has meant that child sexual exploitation is not a police priority.’
Jane Booth, chair of Rochdale Safeguarding Children Board, said she had been shocked by what the board’s report had uncovered.
‘This is a bleak situation,’ she said. ‘These young people were let down by all the agencies they dealt with. What shocked me was the willingness of staff to accept that they couldn’t do anything.’
She said the girls were often already vulnerable because of family issues and once they fell into the grip of the gangs ‘they were not listened to or understood’.
The young girl whose abuse at the hands of an Asian gang provoked a wave of revulsion was told she had made a ‘lifestyle choice’.
The 15-year-old, who was being repeatedly plied with alcohol and then raped by the gang, was told it was her own decision.
The victim, known as Girl A, said the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service had ‘ruined her life’.
She said: ‘They knew all along what was going on. They knew crimes were being committed, but they just told my mum and dad I was making lifestyle choices.
‘How is being raped by dozens of men a lifestyle choice? Why would any girl of 15 want to do that?’
Girl A was 14 when the gang began to groom her. By the time she escaped, shortly after her 16th birthday, she had been raped countless times and passed between gang members across northern England.
The child she gave birth to a short time later was initially taken into care before being returned to her.
Now 20, Girl A says failures by the police officers who initially dealt with her case and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers who decided not to take it to trial allowed her to slip back into the gang’s clutches.
She became so desperate that she made repeated suicide attempts.
It was not until last year that her nine abusers were finally brought to justice. Girl A is convinced that she and numerous other girls were abandoned to their fate because the authorities were terrified of appearing racist. ‘They didn’t want to acknowledge that it was Asian men hitting on white girls in case it started a race thing. It was uncomfortable for them. But it’s not racist if it’s really happening. I never wanted to be part of anyone’s agenda. I just wanted to be rescued.
There were cases going back 10 years they knew about. If they’d opened their eyes to it they could have helped girls like me.
‘But they just buried it. They were turning a blind eye to girls being raped in their own town.’
She recently accepted six-figure compensation from Rochdale council and has co-written a book about her ordeal.
Girl A is convinced the type of abuse she suffered is still going on in towns and cities across Britain.
‘I fear for kids of 11, 12, 13. If I went out on the streets tonight, I’d probably see girls like I was. And in the daytime I’d see them being picked up outside schools. Girls like that need to know that when they’re offered stuff it’s never for free. There’s always a price to pay’.
She added: ‘People need to realise that it’s only a minority of Asian men who do this. They think white girls are available, and they see them as pieces of meat.’
Her ordeal has had a lasting effect, she says. ‘I know I don’t really have emotion any more. I’ll never forgive the men – and I’ll never forgive social services. I never want to see them again’
The board has demanded action plans from all the agencies. Last year nine men – eight Pakistanis and an Afghan – were jailed for between four and 19 years for grooming young white girls in Rochdale, plying them with alcohol and gifts before passing them around the group for sex. Forty-seven victims, some as young as 13, were thought to have been abused by the gang. Two were forced to have abortions after becoming pregnant.
Yesterday another five men who sexually exploited a 15-year-old girl in Rochdale in 2008 and 2009 were jailed for between two and a half and eight and a half years. About a dozen similar cases in northern England are under investigation.
A 2012 report by the deputy children’s commissioner said that 33 per cent of child sex abuse by gangs in Britain was committed by Asians – who form 7 per cent of the population – but concluded that it was ‘irresponsible’ to dwell on the point.
The head of children’s services in Rochdale resigned last year in the wake of the scandal.
It is thought that only two agencies – Greater Manchester Police and Rochdale social care – have disciplined staff over the failures.
Greater Manchester chief constable Sir Peter Fahy admitted his force had allowed itself to ‘get into a mindset of hopelessness’, but said: ‘I think there is a real danger that if we try to see this as a racial issue – which we don’t believe it was – it then means society is not confronting some of these really difficult issues.’
Australia: A specious defence of Judge Mordecai Bromberg in the Bolt free-speech case
The long and windy article below can be severely condensed with very little loss but I reproduce it in full for the sake of fairness. The article simply regurgitates what Bromberg said about Andrew Bolt's wrong "facts" in Bolt's articles about white "Aborigines".
Bromberg said he was not against free speech but merely opposed to Bolt making claims of fact that were not true. On that basis most issues of most Australian newspapers would be worthy of punishment. They often present as facts things that are not true (many global warming claims, for instance). The remedy for that however is for someone to present more accurate facts at a later date, not to involve the judiciary. Note that this was not a libel case but an anti-discrimination case.
And the examples of wrong facts given are tendentious. Everything Bolt said does have a basis in fact as far as I can see. Bolt was condemned for saying that "Anita Heiss had won "plum jobs"" when the job concerned was an unpaid one. But who says a "plum" job had to be a paid one? For many people fame and prestige are a bigger prize than money and the job concerned would undoubtedly have conferred a modicum of fame and prestige.
And note the hilarious claim below that Heiss's other appointments were not prejudiced because "Neither the arts board position nor the university job was reserved for indigenous applicants". Who said they were? The formal rules and the private criteria can be very different -- and given the ubiquity of "affirmative action" thinking among Leftists, there can be little doubt about what actually tipped the balance.
I could go on along those lines in discussing Bolt's other condemned facts but I think that readers can probably do their own dissections without further help from me.
And in the end Bromberg lets his own case down by conceding that he really thought that Bolt was being racist. Read with care the second-last paragraph below and you will see. That Bolt was motivated solely by a disgust at Aboriginal welfare provisions being ripped off was clearly not visible to Bromberg.
I am not surprised that Bromberg was over-sensitive about matters involving race. He is Jewish and Jews have a history which makes that understandable. But arriving at a strained judgment largely on the basis of his own sensitivities was very unjudicial. He should have recused himself from the case.
During the 12 months since journalist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching racial discrimination laws — on the basis that his published facts were wrong — error and invective have continued to warp the debate.
Has Australia just experienced one of the great media heists in modern history?
It's a year since the Eatock v Bolt decision was announced on September 28, 2011, in the Federal Court, a landmark case brought under Australia's Racial Discrimination Act. And much of the subsequent commentary has been — like the Andrew Bolt articles that triggered the case — filled with errors and designed to sting.
For example, Justice Bromberg's judgment has been seriously misreported. Parts of it have been ignored completely.
It's telling that we should still need to ask: What was the real reason Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times (HWT) were found to be in breach of the Act? How many untruths were published? And what motivated this "offensive conduct reinforcing, encouraging or emboldening racial prejudice"?
The applicant was Pat Eatock, a fair-skinned Aborigine, who brought the suit on behalf of herself and others, who claimed Melbourne's Herald Sun had accused them of pretending to be Aboriginal to gain benefits fraudulently. Attempts at conciliation had failed.
Rupert Murdoch’s HWT declined to appeal. Instead, it commenced a vigorous — and extraordinarily successful — campaign in the court of public opinion to undermine the judgment.
The applicants claimed two of Bolt's articles published in 2009, titled 'It's so hip to be black' ('White is the New Black' online) and 'White fellas in the black', were derisive and riddled with fabrications.
Justice Bromberg found in their favour. His findings were "that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles" (summary 17); and:
"I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D [guaranteeing free speech]. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language." (summary 23)
Rupert Murdoch's HWT declined to appeal. Instead, it commenced a vigorous — and extraordinarily successful — campaign in the court of public opinion to undermine the judgment.
To understand the process of attempting to undermine the judgment in the minds of readers, we need to grasp the intent of two provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act.
Section 18C requires that the articles were "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people …" Hence for the HWT to have been in breach of the law, offence taken must be established.
The judge found that the applicants had been offended. That wasn't hard. Both sides knew this to be so beforehand. The contest wasn't about whether or not offence had been caused.
The case was about 18D, the vital section guaranteeing liberty of opinion and freedom of speech. "Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy," Bromberg asserted early in the proceedings.
The judge made it clear that 18D protects any opinion, however obnoxious or offensive — provided it is genuinely held, for academic, artistic or scientific purpose, or in the public interest, or in publishing a fair and accurate media report.
He repeatedly reinforced this: "Those opinions will at times be ill-considered. They may be obstinate, exaggerated or simply wrong. But that, of itself, provides no valid basis for the law to curtail the expression of opinion."
The issue central to the case was not whether Bolt's article was an expression of opinion, but whether the factual allegations on which that opinion was based were accurate. This question occupied most of the court's time and is the subject of the greater part of the judgment.
So the case was clearly not about freedom of opinion. It was about freedom to spread untruths.
In Bolt's articles Bromberg found inferences which leave "an erroneous impression", "gratuitous references" based on "a selective misrepresentation", and omissions which "meant that the facts were not truly stated".
He found assertions "shown to be factually erroneous", comment that was "unsupported by any factual basis and erroneous", asserted facts that were "untrue" and several contentions that were "incorrect" or "grossly incorrect".
His key finding was that "in relation to most of the individuals concerned, the facts asserted in the Newspaper Articles that the people dealt with chose to identify as Aboriginal have been substantially proven to be untrue". (378)
“Freedom of expression is an essential component of a tolerant and pluralistic democracy,” Bromberg asserted early in the proceedings.
For example, Bolt wrote that Anita Heiss had won "plum jobs reserved for Aborigines" at Koori Radio, at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board and at Macquarie University. (381) The Koori Radio job was a voluntary unpaid position. Neither the arts board position nor the university job was reserved for indigenous applicants. Three untruths there. In one sentence. More damagingly, Bolt asserted that Heiss had made a conscious "decision to identify as Aboriginal" and was "lucky, given how it's helped her career". Bromberg found, however that Ms Heiss "has Aboriginal ancestry and communal recognition as an Aboriginal person." And further, "She did not consciously choose to be Aboriginal. She has not improperly used her Aboriginal identity to advance her career."
Bromberg's conclusion was emphatic: "Untruths are at the heart of racial prejudice and intolerance."
The day after the judgment, the dissembling, the skewing of commentary away from the core of the judgment began. The Herald Sun led the resistance with a front page declaring 'THIS IS A SAD DAY' with a large photo of Andrew Bolt looking, well, sad. Bolt himself declared it a "terrible day for free speech in this country".
It was then widely asserted in Murdoch outlets, much of the rest of the media and even some legal opinions that the decision had attacked and diminished freedom of opinion.
A Herald Sun piece titled 'Ruling against Andrew Bolt will harm healthy debate', say libertarians' called for the Act to be reviewed.
The article quoted 10 'libertarian' commentators besides Andrew Bolt. On careful reading, however, only two were critical of the decision: academic and former Murdoch employee Andrew Dodd and Institute of Public Affairs director John Roskam.
The campaign was underway. Brendan O'Neill wrote in The Australian, "For simply expressing his opinion about the weird fluidity of modern-day identity politics, Bolt was found guilty of racial discrimination."
O'Neill called the judgment "shocking" and an "alarming attack on journalistic liberty", and described it as having "spectacularly illiberal implications" and as serving up "a double whammy of censure and censorship".
O'Neill's published article made no reference to the multiple errors of fact made by Bolt in his articles. He did quote paragraph 23 of the judgment, shown in full above, but the published piece omitted the two key phrases, thus:
"He [Bromberg] slated Bolt for 'the manner in which the articles were written', for their 'inflammatory and provocative language'."
What happened to "they contained errors of fact" and "distortions of the truth"? Gone. Edited out. Bolt himself was quick to quote O'Neill's treatise.
Former Liberal candidate Chris Kenny also railed in The Australianthat the finding "has drastic implications for free speech". He acknowledged there were misrepresentations. But, hey, so what?
"Errors are always unfortunate and sometimes egregious but in this case they are hardly the central point," Kenny wrote. "Some of what Bromberg cites as factual error is more a matter of emphasis. It is a canard to suggest the case was about disputed facts: it was about apparent offence caused by Bolt's controversial and strongly worded opinion."
Kenny then emphasised the key Murdoch talking point: "It is Bolt's opinions and the way they were expressed that are at the heart of this case, not his facts."
Incidentally, Kenny erroneously referred also to "the now banned columns". They were not banned. They are still accessible online, with the required corrective notice.
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has vigorously backed News Limited. An article by the IPA's James Paterson achieved wide circulation the next day via The Drum. It was quick to assert that Bolt had been prosecuted "for expressing an unfashionable opinion".
So the case was clearly not about freedom of opinion. It was about freedom to spread untruths.
That column — also posted on the IPA website — completely ignored the untruths, misrepresentations and omissions made by Bolt, noting disingenuously that he had merely written "a couple of controversial articles".
Not surprisingly, Fairfax media ran significantly different analyses. "Bolt was wrong. Spectacularly wrong," wrote David Marr in The Sydney Morning Herald.
"Freedom of speech is not at stake here," Marr argued. "Judge Mordecai Bromberg is not telling the media what we can say or where we can poke our noses. He's attacking lousy journalism. He's saying that if Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun wants to accuse people of appalling motives, he should start by getting his facts right."
This was a minority view, however, drowned out by louder voices. Among lawyers to comment was Professor James Allan of the University of Queensland. In The Australian he called for the Act to be repealed. "Start with section 18C, the provision relied on against Bolt," he wrote.
Allan continued, "But on top of that, Bromberg decided that the onus of proof for triggering the section 18D exemption lay on Bolt and, anyway, that the articles as written were not reasonable nor written in good faith. It is not at all clear on what basis the judge comes to those latter conclusions other than he thinks Bolt was being gratuitously offensive, that Bolt made a few factual errors…"
Firstly, onus of proof for 18D has always been on the respondent. (paragraph 337) It rests with the applicant for 18C.
Secondly, the judge made the basis for his conclusions perfectly clear: "The deficiencies I have relied upon … are about deficiencies in truth. The lack of truth in conduct which contravenes 18C, seems to me to have an obvious bearing on whether the conduct should be exempted from unlawfulness by s 18D." (386)
Thirdly, there were not "a few factual errors". There were many. Some "grossly incorrect".
So how many errors were there? In all the volumes of commentary it seems no-one has counted them.
The Herald Sun's hometown rival newspaper, The Age, began a list in the early aftermath of the judgment, in an article gleefully titled "Andrew Bolt: Australia's least accurate columnist?"
The Age was content to stop at 13. Bromberg in fact identified at least 19 errors — in two articles. (Paragraphs 351 to 413)
Since the judgment, comments in the blogosphere have amplified the flawed analysis of the judgment and Bolt's professionalism.
Henry Thornton declared, "Bolt's mistake was to put unwelcome truths into print, to point out that the Emperor has no clothes …" Again, there's no reference whatsoever to the untruths.
And, bizarrely, "Honesty about this [Aboriginal and Torres Islander] industry is now a violation of the law as understood by the political activists who have captured control of the judicial system."
Sustained commentary throughout the past year has reinforced these strained interpretations. Despite claiming that he had been gagged, Bolt himself has maintained a continual offensive.
Last month, in The Australian Financial Review, Bolt told former opposition leader Mark Latham he was still "very depressed, very alarmed and very cynical about these laws".
"What does it say about free speech?" he asked the former Labor leader. "My columns were figuratively burned — that's what it was, it was book burning."
The remarkable success of the Murdoch campaign was confirmed last month when Opposition Leader Tony Abbott promised to repeal part of the Racial Discrimination Act.
"The article for which Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. There may have been some factual errors. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it's others' right to say what you don't like, not just what you do. It's the freedom to write badly and rudely," Abbott reassured the IPA.
Wrong and wrong. There's nothing 'may have been' about the errors. They were clearly identified — 19 of them. And the Act does not impede bad or rude writing. It impedes fabrication.
What the judge has made of the year's commentary we don't know. But we do have the view of one of his former associates.
Earlier this month Benedict Coyne, who previously spent time as Justice Bromberg's associate, responded to Mr Abbott's promise. "Mr Bolt's shoddy journalism, however, is an unlikely candidate, on its merits, to give rise to a reconsideration of part IIA of the RDA.
"The lesson that is ripe to be drawn from the facts of this litigation is, we suggest, not that section 18C should be repealed but, rather, that Mr Bolt should go back to journalism school."
Finally, why so many untruths in Bolt's pieces? Were they accidental? How so with "editorial oversight by an editor of the Herald Sun, whose function is to check articles and identify any changes that may be required"? (13)
These questions are left hanging in Bromberg's paragraph 458 regarding remedy, which has not been referred to in any analysis on record: "Mr Bolt and HWT contended that the terms of any declaration made should expressly state that the conduct in contravention of s 18C 'did not constitute and was not based on racial hatred or racial vilification'. It is contended that the inclusion of these words will facilitate the educative effect of the declaration made and contribute to informed debate. I do not regard the inclusion of the words suggested as appropriate."
So the question was left open: if, as Bolt and the HWT maintain, the articles were not indeed "racial vilification" and were not based on "racial hatred", then what were they?
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.