Hate speech trial in Australia

There is a big hate speech trial going on in Australia at the moment. Such trials are very rare in Australia so this one has attracted a lot of attention. The anti-discrimination laws are quite sweeping but officialdom doesn't bother about enforcing them unless some group kicks up a fuss. Then they put on a trial.

This trial arises from the curious fact that Australian government regulations regard white people as black if they say they are. No matter how white you are (blond hair and blue eyes included), if you have the tiniest bit of Aboriginal (black) ancestry you can say that you are an Aborigine and gain all the benefits, formal and informal, which accrue from that.

Australia has a range of "affirmative-action" type policies which do real blacks very little good at all but which are very useful to half-caste, quarter-caste and other part Aboriginal people. And the "black" activists are generally from that group too.

Conservative commentator Andrew Bolt voiced what most Austraians think about that. He regards it as a racket and said something to that effect. The faux-blacks, however took offence and lodged a complaint against him under the anti-discrimination laws, where truth is apparently no defence. The excerpt below starts out with Bolt's reply to what the "anti-discrimination" lawyers have said about him:

"Mr Merkel's offence, Bolt said, had been to allege that his writings on Aboriginal issues were akin to the pseudo-science of eugenics that ultimately led to the Nazi Holocaust. "It's not only false, it's totally offensive," Bolt said. For his part, Mr Merkel denied suggesting Bolt had espoused any theory of racial superiority. What he did accuse him of was focusing on biological descent to determine a person's identity in a highly offensive way.

Bolt, the alleged offender, clearly saw himself as the victim. But in this court case, victimhood is claimed by others - the nine prominent fair-skinned Aborigines who are suing the Herald Sun columnist and his employer.

Bolt's purported persecutors, Mr Merkel and Herman Borenstein, SC, represent the nine, who accuse Bolt of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act in articles and blogs published in 2009. They allege the articles implied they were "professional Aborigines" who had chosen to identify themselves as Aborigines based on the thinnest strand of their genetic make-up to gain financial and other benefits.

They want the judge hearing the case, Justice Mordy Bromberg, to issue an order restraining Bolt and the Herald Sun from publishing "substantially similar" material in the future, and want the offending articles taken off the website.

Beyond those with a direct interest, the trial is being closely watched because of its potential impact on racial vilification laws and constitutional limits on freedom of expression. As Neil Young, QC, representing Bolt, put it: "This case may ultimately be about the boundaries of free speech on one hand, and the publication of items that are likely to offend on the other."

At the centre of the trial is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which outlaws public acts that are likely "to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group, if the acts are "done because of the race, colour or ethnic origin" of the person or group.

Bolt and The Herald Sun deny racial vilification and say the articles were legitimate comment about people who "made a choice" to be Aboriginal, something Bolt believed was an undesirable trend that emphasised racial differences.

The free speech argument has backing from quarters not known for their sympathy for Bolt. Bernard Keane, Canberra correspondent for the [Leftist] Crikey website, accused Mr Merkel of launching a "most extraordinary" attack on Bolt and on free speech. While Bolt's articles were grossly offensive, "anyone who supports free speech cannot but be sickened" by the court proceedings, Keane wrote.

Liberty Victoria also sees risks for free speech in the case. The group's president, Spencer Zifcak, said it has always believed the Racial Discrimination Act imposes too great a restriction on free speech by banning speech that "offends or insults".

In court, Mr Merkel has denied the case is about freedom of expression, pointing out that the Racial Discrimination Act exempts fair and accurate material published in good faith. Most of the hearing was taken up with a close examination of Bolt's words, with the plaintiffs' lawyers exposing factual errors and omissions in Bolt's articles, aimed at establishing that he had not acted fairly, accurately and in good faith.

Source