ABC Apologises To Andrew Bolt

[icyfroth]

The ABC has apologised to News Corp commentator Andrew Bolt after a Q&A panellist accused him of "racial abuse".

In a discussion about racial discrimination laws last Monday night, indigenous academic Marcia Langton accused Bolt of heaping "foul abuse" on indigenous woman Misty Jenkins, forcing her to withdraw from public life.

Her comments stemmed from newspaper articles Bolt wrote that questioned whether "fair-skinned" people who identified as Aboriginal, such as Ms Jenkins, had exploited their ancestry to make political or career gains.

"Nothing that he said about her was political. It was simply racial abuse," Professor Langton said on the program.

"He argued that she had no right to claim that she was Aboriginal and, like most fools who put this argument in public, we are expected to deny our parents and our grandparents because somebody believes in race theories."

Bolt wrote in a blog that he was "devastated" by the comments.

Professor Langton later apologised to Bolt in an interview with him and broadcaster Steve Price on 2GB, saying that although she does not think Bolt is racist, "he's playing with racist ideas — he goes too far to the line".

Bolt published a transcript of the interview in his blog and called on the ABC to respond.

Last night on Q&A the ABC issued an apology through host Tony Jones, who said that Professor Langton had publicly apologised "so as a result the ABC also apologises for broadcasting her remarks".

But the apology was not enough for Bolt who said it "did not go far enough".

The columnist criticised the apology for "failing to include a specific acknowledgement that claims I'd subjected Dr Misty Jenkins to "foul abuse" and driven her from "public life" were utterly false. "

"But it is a start," Bolt said.

In September 2011 a Federal Court judge found that Bolt breached a section of the Racial Discrimination Act by writing newspaper opinion pieces about "fair-skinned" indigenous people.

The section, which the federal government has pledged to repeal, protects people from "offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin."

The judge ruled the offending articles were not covered by the legal exemption for making fair comment in good faith, because they "contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language".

From Here

God it's wonder Tony Jones didn't choke on that apology, lol.

Some interesting comments there down to the right.

[vampire-teddy]

now do we get an apology from channel 10  for putting him on TV in the first place and putting the rubbish he spurts out into  public arena.  oh that right channel 10 is part owed by gina isn't it

[tall_bearded]

Bolt may well be a racist, but Langton has a server case of foot in mouth.

She is a public figure who is prepared to pass public comment on other public figures.  It therefore behoves her to check her facts before engaging her tongue.

So what happened here?  She made an accusation.  She didn’t check her facts before making it. The accusation was factually incorrect.  She was forced to publically apologise.  Bolt is now milking it for everything its worth.  Therefore she really has no one apart from erself to blame.

So maybe next time she’ll check her facts instead of simply relying on the race card.

[azureline**]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Bolt may well be a racist, but Langton has a server case of foot in mouth.

She is a public figure who is prepared to pass public comment on other public figures.  It therefore behoves her to check her facts before engaging her tongue.

So what happened here?  She made an accusation.  She didn’t check her facts before making it. The accusation was factually incorrect.  She was forced to publically apologise.  Bolt is now milking it for everything its worth.  Therefore she really has no one apart from erself to blame.

So maybe next time she’ll check her facts instead of simply relying on the race card.

---

so, you can say he might be a racist but she can't?

I am not sure she made an accusation either, it was more of a comment. I also don't think she is blaming anyone but herself yet, on the other hand, Bolt seems to be taking exception to it but not taking blame for his own "accusations" or comments.

[boris1gary]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Bolt may well be a racist, but Langton has a server case of foot in mouth.

She is a public figure who is prepared to pass public comment on other public figures.  It therefore behoves her to check her facts before engaging her tongue.

So what happened here?  She made an accusation.  She didn’t check her facts before making it. The accusation was factually incorrect.  She was forced to publically apologise.  Bolt is now milking it for everything its worth.  Therefore she really has no one apart from erself to blame.

So maybe next time she’ll check her facts instead of simply relying on the race card.

---

Marcia Langton knows the "facts", below is what she has said in regards to her apology - I suppose she could have guessed that bolt would have cried about his "hurt feelings", but that is hardly a fact that could have been checked. The race card is a meaningless term that is used to discount racism and those that racism is used against and it is quite offensive.

I apologised for causing offence to him, because he stated that I should apologise to him because I had ‘hurt his feelings’ and offended him. I did not apologise for my beliefs or my intention of trying to explain my beliefs.

[freddie*rooster]

Has the man no shame?

Absolutely none, he's a mouthpiece for the LNP he say's what he's told to do say.

[bluecat*dancing]

From the transcript

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3946770.htm

TONY JONES: Let's hear from Marcia Langton, who was politely waiting to get in.

MARCIA LANGTON: Well, this Bolt case is being depicted now as if it were a matter of high politics. In my opinion, the articles that Bolt wrote about several Aboriginal people were far from the subject of politics and simply abusive. Now, just to take one instance, there was a young woman who was the victim of his abuse and she is now a world renowned immunologist, Dr Misty Jenkins. Now, she is very fair-skinned, like my children, and I've known her since she was a young science student at the University of Melbourne. She later went on to do a PhD under Professor Peter Doherty. Then she went to Oxford and Cambridge and she has worked hard all of her life and she is a dedicated scientist. Has never particularly benefitted from her identity as an Aboriginal person. She has more than earned her way in life on the merits of her work and yet she was the victim of foul abuse from Bolt and she, as a result of that case, withdrew from public life. She used to speak to students. Now, nothing that he said about her was political. It was simply racial abuse. He argued that she had no right to claim that she was Aboriginal and, like most fools who put this argument in public, we are expected to deny our parents and our grandparents because somebody believes in race theories. So, I absolutely refute...

GEORGE BRANDIS: Well, I don’t think Andrew Bolt believes in race...

MARCIA LANGTON: ..that this has to do with political debate and suppression of political debate. This is about preventing victims of abuse from being racially abused. Now, he could say something about me that had nothing to do with my race and that would not offend 18C. He could say all sorts of terrible things about me and so long as they were not defamatory or in breach of 18C, that would be legitimate debate and I welcome him to do so. I'm perfectly capable of defending myself. But very often people who are the victims of this kind of abuse are not capable of defending themselves.

[izabsmiling]

It was an apology for hurting the poor wee man's feelings.It makes him sad to accept what he has done wrong 

There is a link below to the 2011 Court judgement.

Tony Abbott faces internal backlash over racial discrimination law change

Liberal party’s first Indigenous lower house MP warns that he might cross the floor to vote against the legislation

• Daniel Hurst and Bridie Jabour

• theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 March 2014

Abbott sought to emphasise the common ground between his colleagues.

“Everyone in this room believes in freedom of speech, everyone in the room is against racism, everyone in this room thinks Andrew Bolt should not have been prosecuted,” the prime minister told Coalition MPs.

Abbott observed that there had been a very exhaustive process of consultation and the party needed to reconcile the three points of views. He went on to praise long serving member Philip Ruddock for transforming the relationship between the Coalition and areas of the Australian community, referring to ethnic groups.

“We are the right party to represent a diverse country,” Abbott said.

The government is yet to release legislation showing the extent of proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Labor and the Greens, which retain the power to block legislation in the Senate until July, have argued against the need for the change.

A federal court judge in 2011 found that Bolt breached part 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by publishing newspaper articles that questioned the motivations of fair-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal.

Concerned about the federal court ruling, the Coalition promised to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/tony-abbott-faces-internal-backlash-over-racial-discrim...

[izabsmiling]

If everyone in that room is telling the Judge he did wrong ...they may be in the wrong for doing that ?

[izabsmiling]

Criminal contempt

As we have seen, the courts can only operate effectively if they are able to enforce their will. That is the main purpose of the law relating to civil contempt. However, in order to operate properly, the courts also need to be free from outside interference and to maintain their dignity. That, too, is protected by criminal contempt.

It is the business of the legislature to pass laws, but it is the business of the courts to administer them; when members of a government try to interfere in court proceedings or to influence court judgments, they are likely to be reminded sternly that they are interfering. If they persist, they may well find themselves in contempt of court, even if they are government ministers. Nobody is above the law.

Similarly, the courts will protect themselves from interference by people attempting to bribe or threaten anyone connected with a case. They will also protect themselves from interference by journalists, and we shall look in detail in a moment at exactly what journalists may and may not write during a court case.

Courts also guard their dignity. This is not because judges consider themselves to be special people, but because they see themselves as representatives of the law itself. It is the law which must be respected by all citizens, and in order to ensure that respect, the courts insist on maintaining dignity. Courts are usually large and imposing buildings with national emblems above the bench where the judges or magistrates sit; judges often wear robes and wigs and people bow to them in court. All of these things represent the great stature and dignity of courts, which in turn are meant to encourage people to respect and obey them.

Both these things - freedom from interference and maintenance of dignity - are protected by the law relating to criminal contempt. The following things are prohibited:

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_68.htm

or can MP's and PM's do what they like ?

Doesn't reflect well in any case.

[just_me_karen]

Andrew bolt, the champion of "free speech", except where others use free speech to tell the truth about him. What a wuzz, threatening legal action and intimidating people.