Media

Apr 9, 2014

Media briefs: Janet v 18c … racing v mining … March madness …

Rundle: the 18c wars, latest dispatch ... Wrong place for a mine (better for horses) ... Front page(s) of the day ...

Rundle: the 18c wars, latest dispatch. I’m betting by now that more than a few Libs are wishing they’d never hitched their wagon to Andrew Bolt’s obsessive pursuit of Aboriginal people who do not display the “purity” of their race through appropriately dark skin. It’s an ugly, demeaning cause, it has put relations between the Libs and the Jewish-Australian community at their lowest point since Robert Menzies praised Hitler. It has even managed to unite otherwise divided Aboriginal leaders against them. Nor is the campaign getting much of a run in Anti-News Unlimited’s tabloids, a sure sign that they think the issue isn’t playing in the heartland.

2 comments

Leave a comment

2 thoughts on “Media briefs: Janet v 18c … racing v mining … March madness …

  1. David Barrow

    I [David Barrow] submitted the following comment to the Janet Albrechtsen online article “One voice on free speech” in the Oz. The Oz moderators do not seem to have found freedom time to publish it as yet:

    Janet asks: >>But where are those brave ¬individuals? Is there just one Labor MP with a genuine commitment to free speech? Where are the cultural warriors on the Left willing to defend Bolt’s right to free speech?>>

    Will Warren Mundine do? — in The Australian, “Race act debate misses the point

    [Quote Begins] Many conservatives mistakenly believe Bolt was prevented from making legitimate comment on whether special benefits are being abused or misdirected. I agree that people should be free to comment and debate on those topics. But they already are. Bolt can talk freely about these issues without breaching section 18C.

    Bolt can point out if someone with no indigenous ancestry receives a prize for people of indigenous descent. He can point out if a special benefit for people who are disadvantaged has been given to someone who doesn’t meet the relevant disadvantage test. No breach of section 18C.

    Bolt can argue that a prize or benefit for indigenous people should have a disadvantage test, such as means testing or a condition the recipient be from a remote area. No breach of 18C there, either.

    He can even argue there should be no prizes, awards or special benefits, whether given by government or the private sector, that are limited to people of particular ethnic or national backgrounds; that all prizes must be open to all people. Even that wouldn’t breach 18C.

    However, if Bolt wants to argue that a prize or special benefits for indigenous people should only be awarded to people with dark skin or who are “full blood” then my sympathies end. Because that’s the mentality of the authorities-of-old who purported to define my tribe — my family — by appearance and by blood-quantum.

    Since the judgment, Bolt regularly posts photos of indigenous people on his blog who don’t fit his view of what an Aboriginal person should look like with the caption “No Comment” and a statement that his lawyers won’t let him say anything more. Targets of his “No Comment” comment include schoolchildren who visited the Prime Minister and Josephine Cashman, a member of the Indigenous Advisory Council. Given the chance, perhaps he’d post my family photo to his “No Comment” series too. [End Quote]

  2. Pete from Sydney

    Anti-News Unlimited’s tabloids?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...