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.

[izabsmiling]

Silverfaun, please read the info about what racial hatred is (it includes liable,defamation..which you yourself accuse someone else of ...among other things ) ,where and to whom these Laws apply 

and read your posts after that .

[izabsmiling]

I doubt very much that Andrew Bolt can prove her wrong (not rightfully in any case) ..the judgement and his own defence Lawyer's words that his publications represent Andrew Bolts own views ...have him cornered... as he should be.

In fact I think she may have a better chance of winning a case against him ...for all the garbage he has stirred up 

cheer on Andrew Bolt ? 

not in my name 

[freakiness]

Marcia Langton was not wrong. Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching the law. 

Andrew Bolt has made an art form of stirring up racial hatred. 

BTW, not once on QandA did Langton call him racist.

[izabsmiling]

He doesn't pass out apologies where our Courts find that he should 

This is all serving his own personal interests 

[silverfaun]

Langton said on ABC Q and A that:  he (Bolt) heaped foul abuse on Misty foul political abuse that was so bad she retired from public life, She also accused him of Racial Hygiene (Whatever that means) These utterances were completely and utterly false and she was forced to apologise for (saying this) This was not about hurt feeling or racial abuse she heaped on Bolt, it was her totally false utterances and vilification of Bolt..

This has nothing whatsover to do with the Bolt case so please refrain from making comparisons to it.

[silverfaun]

---

@sarah308 wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@silverfaun wrote:

Say no more??

Langton, The Age, October 2, 2011:

THERE were many Aboriginal people who … (did) pretend to be ‘’white’’ … Not quite despised but regarded as gutless, they were the ones who sneaked back to take advantage of the miserable “benefits’’ that came with policy reform in the 1970s. Then, we called them “very late identifiers’’.

---

So what?

Do you understand that she's an academic researching and specialising in indigenous subjects?

---

do you understand that she was WRONG and way out of order and so was the ABC............ na doesnt seem that you do.

well she was... it is that simple...... and if it went to court she would lose.

time to move on and find another topic to spend hours posting on.....

---

Correct, but muddying the waters to vilify Bolt is fine with most on here. I bet they never even read the case file of his trial and that has been seen for what it was, a witchhunt on a journalist. If any other journalist did the same nothing would have come of it.

The hatred shown on here for a centrist journo is appalling and vilification in itself.

[izabsmiling]

Silverfaun wrote: The hatred shown on here for a centrist journo is appalling and vilification in itself.

can you prove this   hatred and villification exists ?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

Say no more??

Langton, The Age, October 2, 2011:

THERE were many Aboriginal people who … (did) pretend to be ‘’white’’ … Not quite despised but regarded as gutless, they were the ones who sneaked back to take advantage of the miserable “benefits’’ that came with policy reform in the 1970s. Then, we called them “very late identifiers’’.

---

See. That's what happens when you quote Bolt instead of the reading the context. Which means you have no idea what you are talking about.

Langton was specifically talking about light skinned indigenous people who tried to pass themselves off as white to avoid discrimination. They wre despised by their own communities when they ventured back.

There is a lot more to the article but here is some context around it:

Among the many race-obsessed expressions in his offensive, and now, unlawful, columns was the accusation that the defendants, all ''fair-skinned'' Aboriginal people, claimed to be Aboriginal to receive certain benefits. As every person who has been raised by an Aboriginal parent knows, we must be ''twice as good as the white man'' to finish school and get a job and suffer endless racist slurs while doing so from idiots who say things like, ''You don't look Aboriginal. Why don't you identify as white?''

What are our children and grandchildren to say to these fools? Deny their mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, and other family members because one of Bolt's ilk is offended by their Aboriginal identity?

This must be what Bolt wants. Just like the old Protection Board of the 19th century, he must believe that he can intimidate and terrify Aboriginal people into sneaking away and pretending to be ''white'', to deny their Aboriginal parentage and upbringing and the values and world view learnt in an Aboriginal family.

There were many Aboriginal people who were so intimidated and did sneak away and pretend to be ''white''. It was called ''passing'', a play on words, connoting both ''passing away'', as in dying, and ''passing himself off as white''.

[izabsmiling]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@silverfaun wrote:

Say no more??

Langton, The Age, October 2, 2011:

THERE were many Aboriginal people who … (did) pretend to be ‘’white’’ … Not quite despised but regarded as gutless, they were the ones who sneaked back to take advantage of the miserable “benefits’’ that came with policy reform in the 1970s. Then, we called them “very late identifiers’’.

---

See. That's what happens when you quote Bolt instead of the reading the context. Which means you have no idea what you are talking about.

Langton was specifically talking about light skinned indigenous people who tried to pass themselves off as white to avoid discrimination. They wre despised by their own communities when they ventured back.

There is a lot more to the article but here is some context around it:

Among the many race-obsessed expressions in his offensive, and now, unlawful, columns was the accusation that the defendants, all ''fair-skinned'' Aboriginal people, claimed to be Aboriginal to receive certain benefits. As every person who has been raised by an Aboriginal parent knows, we must be ''twice as good as the white man'' to finish school and get a job and suffer endless racist slurs while doing so from idiots who say things like, ''You don't look Aboriginal. Why don't you identify as white?''

What are our children and grandchildren to say to these fools? Deny their mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, and other family members because one of Bolt's ilk is offended by their Aboriginal identity?

This must be what Bolt wants. Just like the old Protection Board of the 19th century, he must believe that he can intimidate and terrify Aboriginal people into sneaking away and pretending to be ''white'', to deny their Aboriginal parentage and upbringing and the values and world view learnt in an Aboriginal family.

There were many Aboriginal people who were so intimidated and did sneak away and pretend to be ''white''. It was called ''passing'', a play on words, connoting both ''passing away'', as in dying, and ''passing himself off as white''.

---

Good post Martini.

[silverfaun]

This thread is an old one. Playing catchup won't revive it. ABC apologised to Mr Bolt, Langton also made a public apology end of story.