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.

[freakiness]

The nature of my apology

Marcia Langton

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. It was not my intention to cause
offence to Andrew Bolt. Andrew Bolt as a newspaper column, a
television program and a blog site, and ought to be capable of a
robust debate, that is a dialogue rather than a monologue. The
debate concerns the fate of Section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975 and whether this section should be
removed. I say it should not be removed and he has demanded
of the government that it be wholly removed. If the Parliament
removes this section, he, and others who hold his views, will be
free to continue to attack Aboriginal people on the grounds of
the colour of their skin.

[izabsmiling]

Silverfaun, have you ever read this ?

The Racial Hatred Act: What is the racial hatred act?

This is a plain English explanation of the legislation. Click here to see the Act itself in full.

The Racial Hatred Act introduced in October 1995 amends the Racial Discrimination Act, and allows people to complain about publicly offensive or abusive behaviour based on racial hatred.

Unlawful behaviour is defined as public acts based on the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people which are likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.

What is a public place?

A public place is defined as any place to which the public are either invited or have access, including shops, streets, workplaces, public transport, sporting arenas and parks. The definition also includes words, sounds, images or writing communicated to the public, such as through newspapers, brochures, TV and radio programs or the Internet.

What sort of behaviour is unlawful?

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/racial-hatred-act-what-racial-hatred-act

[silverfaun]

That is NOT the reason she and the ABC had to apologise, although Langton wants you to believe that.

This 9 page rant published on the ABC website goes to the exact reason the ABC should be behaeded, got rid of and save the taxpayers a billion dollars a year.

If they are so vital to out country let them try to make it in the real world not just in their little left wing groupthink environment.

[izabsmiling]

and there we have it .......

[debra9275]

thank goodness for the ABC  & their more honest reporting than other stations

Going on that march in march and reading all the articles written by  our so called unbiased press, was a real eye opener for me.

[freakiness]

The ABC apologised because Marcia did. She apologised for offending Bolt, for hurting his feelings as that was not her intention.

What did that prove? That she is the better person. That she is willing to apologise when she hurts someone's feelings, unlike Bolt who makes an art form of hurting and offending, and refuses to apologise for the damage he inflicts.

BTW it's a 19 page explanation. It pays to read and watch rather than argue based on second hand info.

[silverfaun]

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’’.

[freakiness]

---

@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 honestly not understand why people woul pretend to be white in the old days?

[sarah308]

---

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.....

[azureline**]

---

@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?

---

That is what I understand it to be but it seems some can pullup little bits to further their own agenda, rather than seeing the whole reality