Diluted Sovereignty: A Very Australian Example

Australian concepts of sovereignty have always been qualified. First came the British…

The bottom feeders

There are a number of species in the animal world that survive…

National Museum of Australia launches environmental sustainability action…

National Museum of Australia Media Release The National Museum of Australia has launched…

Ticketing Woes: The Patchy Record of Myki

What is it about government contracts that produces the worst results and…

The rebirth of Donald Trump has biblical overtones.…

Who else but Florida Governor Ron DeSantis would be game enough to…

Ben Roberts-Smith: The Breaking of a Plaster Saint

It was an ugly case lasting five years with a host of…

The Strange Case Of PWC Or Where's Sherlock…

Someone has assured me today that Price, Waterhouse, Cooper did not change…

Australia's Humanitarian Visa System is Inhumane: An Open…

By Loz Lawrey Dear Minister Giles, Since my previous emails to you of 14…


Je Suis Andrew Bolt – How Andrew Was Subjected To Terrible Treatment Over 18C!

Remember the headlines about the death of free speech. Remember the editorials? The Herald-Sun saw it thus:

“But should there be a law to protect people from being offended? Gagging people from fairly and legitimately held opinions is censorship. It is a basic denial of freedom of speech, which was pointed out by Attorney-General George Brandis in front of a hostile panel and audience on Q&A on ABC television on Monday night.

“The discussion on the repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act turned into an attack on Bolt. An opinion as to some people using their ethnicity to their advantage might have been offensive to some, but should that have prevented Bolt from saying as much? The Herald Sun says the answer to this is an emphatic “no’’…

“But calling on the Government to adjudicate in a debate is to diminish people’s right to voice their opinions, blunt as they might be.

“Senator Brandis said in his option Bolt is “no racist’’ and brought some sense to the Q&A tirade by pointing out that, in his opinion, a failure to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form is to say “political censorship is OK”. No, it’s not, and the Racial Discrimination Act, Section 18C, is an Act too far.”

And remember how terribly Mr Bolt suffered after he lost the case. Ok, he didn’t do jail time and he wasn’t fined, but the judge found that many of the claims he made were factually inaccurate, and if a journalist like Andrew is restricted to making accurate statements, it’d only be a matter of time before he lost his job. Luckily 18C only applies to certain areas so Mr Bolt has been able to happily continue to write the world has been cooling for the past seventeen years in spite of record temperatures.

No, the terrible treatment he suffered was that he was found to have breached the law. I imagine it must be very hard for him trying to speak to members of the Coalition. “We can’t work with that man,” they must be saying. I know, I know, it’s an “unjust law”. We all should be able to say whatever we like without the need to stick the facts… I mean, if it’s good enough for the President of the United States, then surely…

Anyway, the Coalition must surely be shunning Bolt as the man was found to have broken the law. I’ve been trying to find the condemnation, but it must have been removed from the internet because they were all inaccurately calling him South African or something, and therefore it offended him and breached 18C Not that being called “South African” is insulting per se, it’s just that as he was born in Australia to a Dutch parent and therefore still has the trace of some strange accent… And by strange I wouldn’t want to insult or offend anybody, whether Dutch, South African or Boltish… or even Baltic…

Whatever, I’m sure that the right wing must have really got stuck into Andrew, given their condemnation of Sally McManus for merely suggesting that where laws are unjust – such as illegal walk-offs when safety is breached – then she’d support unions who took action . “We can’t work with her,” said Turnbull. (I guess they won’t be able to work with Adani now either.) Christopher Pyne said that there’d be chaos if Australians failed to follow the law. Michaelia Cash said that it was an “extraordinary admission” that McManus thought that unions could pick and choose when they broke the law and when they didn’t. (Actually, I suspect that everybody “picks and chooses” when they break the law, then it’s up to the police to “choose” to find us and arrest or fine us!) And George Brandis, the chief law officer of the land, said nothing… probably because he’s too busy preparing the diary that the court ordered him to release it six months ago.

So if that’s how the Coalition reacted to someone who merely said that she’d support unions who broke unjust laws, imagine how they must have treated poor Andrew Bolt who actually breached a law! He must be a complete person non grata in Liberal-land.

Or is it a case of all laws are equal but we didn’t write all of them, so some laws are more unjust than others?


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. leighton8

    Point very well made … and taken ….

  2. helvityni

    I certainly could not work with Cash, Pyne, Dutton, Morrison, Brandis….I’m trying to find one person amongst them with whom I could spend at least ONE working day…

  3. Terry2

    When Leigh Sales quizzed Turnbull on the amount of time the right wing of the coalition spent on 18C and asked why it got so much attention when voters have more pressing concerns such as medical expenses, suicide rates and childcare costs, Turnbull threw it back on the ‘elite media’.

    “Leigh, this is a question you should address to your editors at the ABC – very seriously. 18C is talked about constantly on the ABC, talked about constantly in what’s often the elite media. I have focused overwhelmingly on the economy,”

    Turnbull then had a parliamentary enquiry and whilst that enquiry came up with nothing definitive, there will be a push next week in parliament to change the Racial Discrimination Act and in particular 18C and the right-wing of the coalition are demanding that changes be legislated.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out but with the influence that the Right have over the PM, I think they will probably get their way…..as always under this administration. It then remains for the Senate to block the legislation.

  4. Michael Faulkner

    Figures which are not on any LNP politician’s lips, ….. well there were furious hubristic outbursts of polemic about workplace deaths a few years back and even a Royal Commission when 4 young men died in separate incidents arising from the Rudd Government’s Home Insulation Scheme.

    In 2016, across Australia, there were 178 work-placed deaths nationally, with Transport, Postal and WareHousing (64), Agriculture Forestry and Fishing (41) and Construction (30) being the industries where they most occur.

    In 2017 to mid March the national workplace death figure was 32.

    For LNP politicians reacting in confected horror at the prospect of Sally McManus being open to breaking unjust laws, they are simply yet again demonstrating their values of property and profits over people’s safety and wellbeing at work. Sally McManus’s task as ACTU Secretary, is to support those Unions working for the improved safety of their members. Good on her for not being up-front on this.

    Imagine if a Liberal politician died in the course of his/ her work as the consequence of a safety issue. There would be a flurry of activity, and efforts to change precipitating circumstances to prevent such an occurrence happening again. For construction workers who have much less political clout and who may see a mate die at their worksite, their primary resource is through their union to push further for workplace safety. And of course industry and governments may not like that, when unionists push to change an existing unjust or discriminatory law.

  5. wam

    hahaha what a beauty, Rossleigh.
    The tlob has spent millions of words denying man’s influence in any climate, stolen generation, positive action and pale Aborigines is affronted by having his arrogance, in naming examples of his understanding of Aboriginal visage, exposed as unlawful.
    Remove 18c and ordinary people will have only the legal system to use to challenge the loud mouths of the media, who have unlimited access to lawyers who will use tactics that ensure any vindication will cost you everything you own.
    even cassidy was embarrassed by the excesses of stuchbury but the ABC, meagre as it has been this century, has lost any sense of fairness,

  6. Cliff

    Amanda Vanstone and her department broke the law and fined heavily for the deaths of 5 people. The Libs got her out of the country while the s..t hit the fan. I was in the Torres Straight when Amanda flew up to TS to hand over the boats to the Islanders. The boats were unsafe, the buoyancy chamber was not sealed and the boats were not equipped with radios which is illegal for a government vessel. They were equipped with sat. phone so that all communications went thru the department in Thursday Island and if they had radios boats in the area could have rescued them. I was on a large vessel and we would have passed about 6 miles to the east of them.

    When they were screaming for help the head of immigration took himself off to a dinner dance and left the communications in the hands of a junior. Another help addition the department kept the safety gear,life jackets flares in a locked compartment because they were worried about theft.

    If you want to learn more Google “Malu Sara” and you will find plenty to turn your stomach.

    It beats me that no won hasn’t done serious time for this

  7. Lance

    Bolt -and the paper that printed his ill reasearched, distorted slander against Elders -did not appeal against the finding
    or the ruling.
    The elders did not want gaol time or money -they wanted an admission they were harmed
    in-those written false accusations—– and an appology for those false accusations
    Bolt till this day has not been contrite in any one way of his– deriding ,slanderous-twisted truth— and ill reasearched written trash.
    in the words of the Australian Attorney General–“People have the right to be bigots “.

    Legacy passed to the Australian populace by –“The Horrid Howard Years “.

  8. GraemeF

    A complaint was made to the media authority about Bolt constantly misrepresenting the facts in regards to global warming. The complaint was dismissed. To quote SMH.

    “Andrew Bolt’s comments about climate change on his television show were so hyperbolic and subjective that no reasonable person would think he was providing a “concluded scientific position”, the television regulator has found.”

    It takes a lot to stop the ‘free speech’ of liars with big media and political support.

  9. richard ryan

    Bolt is put on this earth as a warning to others , what a poor excuse for a human being, a reject created by God.

  10. richard ryan

    AND he earns big dollars for this bile and smear ,as his bloggers hang off every word he spouts, like dags on a sheep’s crutch.

  11. Mark Needham

    “his bloggers hang off every word he spouts, like dags on a sheep’s crutch.”
    Doesn’t happen here.
    Mark Needham

  12. Tim

    *persona. And I don’t believe McManus was talking about a situation where the meaning of the law was contentious prior to judgement and even then the correctness of that judgement at law was widely disputed. The whole premise of the article is a disingenuous false analogy. Note, this is not to dispute the justness of the law, however much that is also in question.

  13. ajmcgowan

    Rossleigh: is your name actually Ross Leigh, or just Rossleigh? I would like to cite your article in an academic essay, but I can’t figure out how to cite anything with an author that only has one name.

  14. Rossleigh

    My name is Rossleigh Brisbane, Cheers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: