The Nuts & Bolts of the Bolt CaseThe Nuts & Bolts of the Bolt Case

http://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-v-bolt-2011/http://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-v-bolt-2011/

The Bolt CaseThe Bolt Case

Background to the Case, 2004-2011: Background to the Case, 2004-2011: Support from law students. Support from law students. Tarwirri Tarwirri Indigenous Law Students & Lawyers Association.Indigenous Law Students & Lawyers Association.

Case went to trial before Justice Case went to trial before Justice Bromberg in Federal Court, 28 March Bromberg in Federal Court, 28 March to 5 April, 2011.to 5 April, 2011.

Decision handed down 28 Sep, 2011: Decision handed down 28 Sep, 2011: Bolt and Herald Sun found guilty of Bolt and Herald Sun found guilty of breaking the law on Racial breaking the law on Racial Discrimination. Discrimination.

The Bolt Case, 2011The Bolt Case, 2011Federal CourtFederal Court

Bolt’s Articles cast aspersions about the Aboriginal Bolt’s Articles cast aspersions about the Aboriginal identity of a number of named Aboriginal persons by identity of a number of named Aboriginal persons by questioning the motives of those persons for questioning the motives of those persons for ‘choosing’ to be Aboriginal, as well as the basis for ‘choosing’ to be Aboriginal, as well as the basis for them identifying as Aboriginal.them identifying as Aboriginal.

The Articles implied that our choice for identifying The Articles implied that our choice for identifying as Aboriginal was opportunistic and for the purpose as Aboriginal was opportunistic and for the purpose of providing us with financial and other benefits of providing us with financial and other benefits reserved for ‘genuine’ Aboriginal persons who are reserved for ‘genuine’ Aboriginal persons who are darker, rather than fairer, skinned Aboriginal darker, rather than fairer, skinned Aboriginal persons.persons.

By doing so, Bolt’s articles were reasonably likely to By doing so, Bolt’s articles were reasonably likely to hurt, offend, humiliate and insult such persons.hurt, offend, humiliate and insult such persons.

Bolt Case, 2009-2011Bolt Case, 2009-2011 Case lodged on behalf of Case lodged on behalf of

all people, recognised all people, recognised under law as Aboriginal under law as Aboriginal persons, who were persons, who were reasonably likely to be reasonably likely to be offended, insulted, offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated humiliated or intimidated by the publication of the by the publication of the articles. articles.

Nine individuals were Nine individuals were named as group members named as group members in the action: Pat Eatock, in the action: Pat Eatock, Professor Larissa Professor Larissa Behrendt, Professor Anita Behrendt, Professor Anita Heiss, Dr Wayne Atkinson, Heiss, Dr Wayne Atkinson, Graham Atkinson, Geoff Graham Atkinson, Geoff Clark, Bindi Cole, Leeanne Clark, Bindi Cole, Leeanne Enoch and Mark McMillan. Enoch and Mark McMillan.

Articles conveyed the following Articles conveyed the following imputationsimputations

1.1. The persons identified in the Articles, were not genuinely The persons identified in the Articles, were not genuinely Aboriginal and were not bona fide in claiming to be, and Aboriginal and were not bona fide in claiming to be, and identifying as, Aboriginal persons;identifying as, Aboriginal persons;

2.2. The persons described claim to be Aboriginal persons so they can The persons described claim to be Aboriginal persons so they can access the benefits that are available to Aboriginal persons;access the benefits that are available to Aboriginal persons;

3.3. The only genuine Aboriginal persons, who may be treated as The only genuine Aboriginal persons, who may be treated as making a bona fide claim to be Aboriginal persons are persons making a bona fide claim to be Aboriginal persons are persons whose parents are both of Aboriginal descent and who have whose parents are both of Aboriginal descent and who have darker rather than fairer skins and;darker rather than fairer skins and;

Under Bolt’s criteria, persons having some Aboriginal descent but Under Bolt’s criteria, persons having some Aboriginal descent but who are fairer rather than darker skinned, are disqualified from, who are fairer rather than darker skinned, are disqualified from, and cannot properly be regarded as, genuinely self-identifying as, and cannot properly be regarded as, genuinely self-identifying as, and being, Aboriginal persons.and being, Aboriginal persons.

Legal ProceedingLegal Proceeding Holding Redlich acted on behalf of group that included Dr Wayne Atkinson Holding Redlich acted on behalf of group that included Dr Wayne Atkinson

and his Brother Graham who are Yorta Yorta Dja Dja Wurrung descends and and his Brother Graham who are Yorta Yorta Dja Dja Wurrung descends and are graduates/lecturers, Universities of Melbourne and LaTrobe. are graduates/lecturers, Universities of Melbourne and LaTrobe.

RDA,1975 was statute law that was used in the case, sec 18C, 18D.RDA,1975 was statute law that was used in the case, sec 18C, 18D.

Legal Council led by Ron Merkel QC (former Federal Court Judge) and Legal Council led by Ron Merkel QC (former Federal Court Judge) and Herman Bornstein QC who did the cross examination of Bolt. Bolt admitted Herman Bornstein QC who did the cross examination of Bolt. Bolt admitted under oath that he made errors in reporting on members of the group under oath that he made errors in reporting on members of the group which was reaffirmed in Justice Bromberg's judgement –will return to this.which was reaffirmed in Justice Bromberg's judgement –will return to this.

Council argued that a selection of Mr Bolt's articles and blogs offended, Council argued that a selection of Mr Bolt's articles and blogs offended, insulted, humiliated and intimidated the group members. insulted, humiliated and intimidated the group members.

The articles in question - “It's so hip to be black”, “White fellas in the The articles in question - “It's so hip to be black”, “White fellas in the black”, “Traditions in a naïve style” and the blog entry titled “Aboriginal black”, “Traditions in a naïve style” and the blog entry titled “Aboriginal man helped” – challenged the right of those people of mixed ancestry to man helped” – challenged the right of those people of mixed ancestry to identify as Aboriginal.identify as Aboriginal.

Note there were two other articles that were not presented in which Bolt Note there were two other articles that were not presented in which Bolt made personal attacks on the Aboriginality of Dr Wayne Atkinson and his made personal attacks on the Aboriginality of Dr Wayne Atkinson and his brother Graham dating back to May 2004 and first raised during one of my brother Graham dating back to May 2004 and first raised during one of my lectures at University of Melbourne in May 2004-see articleslectures at University of Melbourne in May 2004-see articles

Articles, not used in Case: 5 May, 2004, 19 April,2006Articles, not used in Case: 5 May, 2004, 19 April,2006

http://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-v-bolt-2011/http://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-v-bolt-2011/ Articles, not used in Case: 5 May, 2004, 19 April,2006Articles, not used in Case: 5 May, 2004, 19 April,2006

http://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-v-bolt-2011/http://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-v-bolt-2011/

Action brought under Action brought under Section 18C, RDA, 1975Section 18C, RDA, 1975

Makes it unlawful, to do any act that would Makes it unlawful, to do any act that would offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or a group of persons, where that act is done or a group of persons, where that act is done because of the person's race. because of the person's race.

Section 18D contains a number of exemptions Section 18D contains a number of exemptions that allows for the making of fair comment on that allows for the making of fair comment on a matter of public interest so long as you do so a matter of public interest so long as you do so reasonably and in good faith.reasonably and in good faith.

RDA has a strong Freedom of Speech defence RDA has a strong Freedom of Speech defence

embedded within the law that ensures embedded within the law that ensures insulting or humiliating people because of insulting or humiliating people because of their race or colour must be done their race or colour must be done reasonable reasonable and in good faith.and in good faith.

Racial Discrimination Act, 1975Racial Discrimination Act, 1975

The RDA, 1975 is a statute passed by the Whitlam Government in The RDA, 1975 is a statute passed by the Whitlam Government in 1975.1975.

The RDA was Australia’s first federal anti-discrimination law and The RDA was Australia’s first federal anti-discrimination law and applies throughout Australia to all people regardless of their age applies throughout Australia to all people regardless of their age or where they live. The RDA aims to ensure that everyone is or where they live. The RDA aims to ensure that everyone is treated equally, regardless of race, colour, descent, immigration treated equally, regardless of race, colour, descent, immigration status and national or ethnic origin.status and national or ethnic origin.

The RDA is administered by the Australian Human Rights The RDA is administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), with an Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), with an Australian Human Rights Commissioner responsible for investigating complaints. The Commissioner responsible for investigating complaints. The Commission also works to raise awareness about the obligations Commission also works to raise awareness about the obligations that individuals and organisations have under the RDA.that individuals and organisations have under the RDA.

Each of the states and territories has adopted legislation similar Each of the states and territories has adopted legislation similar to the RDA.to the RDA.

http://reconciliation.org.au/home/resources/factsheets/q-a-factsheets/five-http://reconciliation.org.au/home/resources/factsheets/q-a-factsheets/five-fast-facts---the-racial-discrimination-act fast-facts---the-racial-discrimination-act

http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/whitlam_1.pdf http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/whitlam_1.pdf

The power assigned to the RDA arose from the The power assigned to the RDA arose from the International Convention on the Elimination of all International Convention on the Elimination of all

Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Australia is a Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Australia is a signatory.signatory.

The ICERD (1966) was one of the first human The ICERD (1966) was one of the first human rights treaties to be adopted by the United rights treaties to be adopted by the United Nations. The Convention is widely supported, Nations. The Convention is widely supported, with more than 156 countries having ratified with more than 156 countries having ratified it.it.

Australia ratified the Convention on 30 Australia ratified the Convention on 30 September 1975 and thereby undertook not to September 1975 and thereby undertook not to engage in any act or practice of racial engage in any act or practice of racial discrimination against individuals, groups of discrimination against individuals, groups of persons or institutions, and to ensure that persons or institutions, and to ensure that public authorities and institutions do likewise.public authorities and institutions do likewise.

1995:Keating Govt Amended Section, 1995:Keating Govt Amended Section, 18D, to outlaw Racial Vilification18D, to outlaw Racial Vilification

Made it unlawful for a person to Made it unlawful for a person to do an act in public that is do an act in public that is reasonably likely in all reasonably likely in all circumstances to offend, insult, circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people if that person or group of people if that act is done because of the race act is done because of the race of the offended person or of the offended person or personspersons

Use of RDA in Australia Use of RDA in Australia Since 1975, thousands of individuals and organisations Since 1975, thousands of individuals and organisations

have used the RDA to address racism, either by making have used the RDA to address racism, either by making complaints or negotiating policy changes.complaints or negotiating policy changes.

Under the RDA, it is against the law to discriminate in Under the RDA, it is against the law to discriminate in employment, education, access to premises, the provision employment, education, access to premises, the provision of goods and services, accommodation and sport on the of goods and services, accommodation and sport on the basis of someone’s race. Resolving a complaint under the basis of someone’s race. Resolving a complaint under the RDA can involve changes in an organisation’s policies or RDA can involve changes in an organisation’s policies or practices, an apology or payment of damages. practices, an apology or payment of damages.

The RDA means that you can’t be discriminated against The RDA means that you can’t be discriminated against when you apply for a job, for example, and that it’s illegal when you apply for a job, for example, and that it’s illegal for someone playing footy to make a racial slur against for someone playing footy to make a racial slur against another player. Anti-racial discrimination legislation at the another player. Anti-racial discrimination legislation at the federal, state and territory level is a critical avenue for federal, state and territory level is a critical avenue for people who experience racial discrimination to seek justice people who experience racial discrimination to seek justice before the law.before the law.

Free Speech ProtectedFree Speech Protected

‘‘Bolt and his defenders were Bolt and his defenders were crying about an imagined right crying about an imagined right to unrestricted free speech. But to unrestricted free speech. But speech is already restricted, for speech is already restricted, for instance by Defamation laws instance by Defamation laws that protect people’s reputations that protect people’s reputations and by the Trade Practices Act, and by the Trade Practices Act, which outlaws false claims about which outlaws false claims about products’ (Age, 2 October, 2011)products’ (Age, 2 October, 2011)

Defence of Fair Comment, sec, Defence of Fair Comment, sec, 18D, RDA, 197518D, RDA, 1975

Judge found that the defence of ‘fair comment’, which is also a defence in the Law of Judge found that the defence of ‘fair comment’, which is also a defence in the Law of Defamation, requires that commentary be made on the basis of true facts. And that Defamation, requires that commentary be made on the basis of true facts. And that because of the factual inaccuracies, this could not be characterised as a fair comment. because of the factual inaccuracies, this could not be characterised as a fair comment. He also found that there was a lack of reasonableness and good faith on the part of Mr He also found that there was a lack of reasonableness and good faith on the part of Mr Bolt, because of the inaccuracies and also because of the manner of his mocking and Bolt, because of the inaccuracies and also because of the manner of his mocking and satirical tone.satirical tone.

Section 18D, the defence section, is there to ensure that a public debate of this kind Section 18D, the defence section, is there to ensure that a public debate of this kind can be had. But it can't be had at all costs. It's possible to engage in a discussion about can be had. But it can't be had at all costs. It's possible to engage in a discussion about race, engage in a very critical discussion about race, but you must do so acting fairly race, engage in a very critical discussion about race, but you must do so acting fairly and on the basis of true facts. And that is what was found to be absent by Justice and on the basis of true facts. And that is what was found to be absent by Justice Bromberg in the Bolt Case.Bromberg in the Bolt Case.

The Judge found that there was an infringement of Section 18C, that there was an The Judge found that there was an infringement of Section 18C, that there was an imputation contained in the articles that would offend not only the particular group of imputation contained in the articles that would offend not only the particular group of people identified here, but a broader group of Aboriginal people, who would feel as a people identified here, but a broader group of Aboriginal people, who would feel as a result of these articles, that they were not entitled to identify as Aboriginal, and that result of these articles, that they were not entitled to identify as Aboriginal, and that they would have the experience of having their successes questioned, and that other they would have the experience of having their successes questioned, and that other people might respond to them by thinking that whatever it is that they'd succeeded at people might respond to them by thinking that whatever it is that they'd succeeded at in life was given to them on the basis that they were Aboriginal. in life was given to them on the basis that they were Aboriginal.

Finally, that there was a sort of dishonest decision to identify as Aboriginal, self-Finally, that there was a sort of dishonest decision to identify as Aboriginal, self-interested decision to identify as Aboriginal in order to receive benefits. And those interested decision to identify as Aboriginal in order to receive benefits. And those three negative imputations were thought to be offensive not just to the nine people three negative imputations were thought to be offensive not just to the nine people here but to the broader group of Aboriginal people.here but to the broader group of Aboriginal people.

Analysis of Bolt Case, on Law Report, Radio National,4 October, 2011 Analysis of Bolt Case, on Law Report, Radio National,4 October, 2011 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/

Federal Court FindingsFederal Court Findings

The Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt and publisher Herald & Weekly Times found guilty of The Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt and publisher Herald & Weekly Times found guilty of engaging in unlawful racial discrimination. engaging in unlawful racial discrimination.

The manner in which the articles were written was offensive and contained “errors of fact, The manner in which the articles were written was offensive and contained “errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language”. Judge took into distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language”. Judge took into account the hurt and insult involved with the publication of the articles and found that the account the hurt and insult involved with the publication of the articles and found that the offensive conduct was “reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on Aboriginal people offensive conduct was “reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons”. and in particular young Aboriginal persons”.

The judge noted that it was “not unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification” The judge noted that it was “not unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification” but the manner in which the subject was dealt with must be reasonable and in good faith. He but the manner in which the subject was dealt with must be reasonable and in good faith. He also emphasised that “people should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of also emphasised that “people should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying”. public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying”.

““The Court recognised that you can have a debate about racial identity but you must The Court recognised that you can have a debate about racial identity but you must conduct the debate in an appropriate way. There is a balance between freedom of conduct the debate in an appropriate way. There is a balance between freedom of expression and freedom of identity. expression and freedom of identity.

““The court accepted arguments that Aboriginal identity is not „chosen‟, and not reserved The court accepted arguments that Aboriginal identity is not „chosen‟, and not reserved for people with darker skin colour. People do not have the right to offend, insult, humiliate. for people with darker skin colour. People do not have the right to offend, insult, humiliate. and intimidate Aboriginal persons who don't fit their pre-conceived notions of what an and intimidate Aboriginal persons who don't fit their pre-conceived notions of what an Aboriginal person should look like.” Aboriginal person should look like.”

Justice Bromberg said the nine individuals who gave evidence in the case had identified Justice Bromberg said the nine individuals who gave evidence in the case had identified themselves as Aboriginal since childhood. He said: “None of them “chose” to be Aboriginal themselves as Aboriginal since childhood. He said: “None of them “chose” to be Aboriginal and that none have used their Aboriginal identity inappropriately to advance their careers.” and that none have used their Aboriginal identity inappropriately to advance their careers.”

Vindication of Aboriginality, Vindication of Aboriginality, but no Compensation?but no Compensation?

‘‘The evidence given by Dr Atkinson was not contested and I have no The evidence given by Dr Atkinson was not contested and I have no reason to not accept it as truthful.reason to not accept it as truthful. In particular, I find that by reason of In particular, I find that by reason of Dr Atkinson having been raised as an Aboriginal person, he has and does Dr Atkinson having been raised as an Aboriginal person, he has and does genuinely self-identify as Aboriginal. genuinely self-identify as Aboriginal.

He has Aboriginal ancestry and communal recognition as an Aboriginal He has Aboriginal ancestry and communal recognition as an Aboriginal person. He is an Aboriginal person and entitled to regard himself as an person. He is an Aboriginal person and entitled to regard himself as an Aboriginal person within the conventional understanding of that Aboriginal person within the conventional understanding of that description. description.

He did not consciously choose to be Aboriginal or improperly used his He did not consciously choose to be Aboriginal or improperly used his Aboriginal identity to advance his career. He is a highly respected and Aboriginal identity to advance his career. He is a highly respected and committed member of his Aboriginal community and is entitled to regard committed member of his Aboriginal community and is entitled to regard his achievements as well deserved rather than opportunistically his achievements as well deserved rather than opportunistically obtained. obtained.

I accept that he feels offended, humiliated and insulted I accept that he feels offended, humiliated and insulted by the Articlesby the Articles or or parts thereof in the manner outlined by his evidence’ (Para 105 of full parts thereof in the manner outlined by his evidence’ (Para 105 of full judgement) (note other two articles were not included in the evidence)judgement) (note other two articles were not included in the evidence)

From: Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 (28 September 2011).mhtFrom: Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 (28 September 2011).mht

Outcome of CaseOutcome of Case Very pleased with the outcome and the findings of the Federal Court in the Bolt Case. Very pleased with the outcome and the findings of the Federal Court in the Bolt Case.

Free speech has nothing to fear from this Judgement. Justice Bromberg found that the Free speech has nothing to fear from this Judgement. Justice Bromberg found that the case was not about free speech but there is a right and a wrong way to go about case was not about free speech but there is a right and a wrong way to go about exercising the value of free speech. That is, It cant be done by not using factual exercising the value of free speech. That is, It cant be done by not using factual evidence to back up your arguments.’. It cant be done by ‘distorting the truth’ about evidence to back up your arguments.’. It cant be done by ‘distorting the truth’ about matters of public importance and it defiantly cant be done by using ‘inflammatory and matters of public importance and it defiantly cant be done by using ‘inflammatory and provocative language’ to make personal attacks on individuals or by using value provocative language’ to make personal attacks on individuals or by using value judgments to make false claims about people’s identity and cultural background. judgments to make false claims about people’s identity and cultural background.

I think that is the essence of the case for the applicants and the Atkinson brothers.I think that is the essence of the case for the applicants and the Atkinson brothers.

We’re pleased not just for us but for our families and the next generation coming We’re pleased not just for us but for our families and the next generation coming through who have been reared in an environment in which they have been taught to be through who have been reared in an environment in which they have been taught to be proud of their Aboriginality and to use this to walk tall wherever they may choose to go proud of their Aboriginality and to use this to walk tall wherever they may choose to go in life. We are indeed a proud people who are more than willing to share our unique in life. We are indeed a proud people who are more than willing to share our unique identity, cultural heritage and our family history with people from all walks of life. identity, cultural heritage and our family history with people from all walks of life.

Thank YouThank You

Dr Wayne Atkinson, Yorta Yorta, Dja Dja Wurrung ElderDr Wayne Atkinson, Yorta Yorta, Dja Dja Wurrung ElderSenior FellowSenior FellowSchool of Social and Political ScienceSchool of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of MelbourneUniversity of Melbourne

Annexure to Court Annexure to Court Orders,19,Oct, 2011Orders,19,Oct, 2011

EATOCK v BOLT AND THE HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES PTY LTDCORRECTIVE NOTICEORDERED BY THE EATOCK v BOLT AND THE HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES PTY LTDCORRECTIVE NOTICEORDERED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF Australian legal proceedings brought by Pat Eatock against Andrew Bolt and FEDERAL COURT OF Australian legal proceedings brought by Pat Eatock against Andrew Bolt and The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia ordered that this notice, The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia ordered that this notice, including the following declaration made by the Court on 19 October 2011, be published in the including the following declaration made by the Court on 19 October 2011, be published in the Herald SunHerald Sun in print and online. The reasons for judgment of the Federal Court of Australia in this in print and online. The reasons for judgment of the Federal Court of Australia in this matter (including summary of those reasons) are accessible from the Federal Court website [matter (including summary of those reasons) are accessible from the Federal Court website [and and in relation to the publication of this notice onlinein relation to the publication of this notice online – “and via the following link ( – “and via the following link (insert insert hyperlinkhyperlink)”].The Court declares that: On 15 April 2009, the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd )”].The Court declares that: On 15 April 2009, the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd published in the published in the Herald SunHerald Sun newspaper an article written for publication by Andrew Bolt under newspaper an article written for publication by Andrew Bolt under the title “It’s so hip to be black”. On or about 15 and 16 April 2009, that article was also the title “It’s so hip to be black”. On or about 15 and 16 April 2009, that article was also published by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd on its website, under the title “White is the published by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd on its website, under the title “White is the new black”. On 21 August 2009, the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd published a second article new black”. On 21 August 2009, the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd published a second article written for publication by Andrew Bolt in the written for publication by Andrew Bolt in the Herald SunHerald Sun newspaper under the title “White fellas newspaper under the title “White fellas in the black”. On 21 August 2009, that article was also published by the Herald and Weekly in the black”. On 21 August 2009, that article was also published by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd on its website, under the title “White fellas in the black” (collectively “the Times Pty Ltd on its website, under the title “White fellas in the black” (collectively “the Newspaper Articles"). The writing of the Newspaper Articles for publication by Andrew Bolt and Newspaper Articles"). The writing of the Newspaper Articles for publication by Andrew Bolt and the publication of them by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd contravened s 18C of the the publication of them by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd contravened s 18C of the Racial Racial Discrimination Act 1975Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and was unlawful in that: a) (Cth) and was unlawful in that: a) the articles were reasonably likely the articles were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate some Aboriginal persons of mixed descent who have a to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate some Aboriginal persons of mixed descent who have a fairer, rather than darker, skin and who by a combination of descent, self-identification and fairer, rather than darker, skin and who by a combination of descent, self-identification and communal recognition are and are recognised as Aboriginal persons, because the articles communal recognition are and are recognised as Aboriginal persons, because the articles conveyed imputations to those Aboriginal persons that: (I) there are fair-skinned people in conveyed imputations to those Aboriginal persons that: (I) there are fair-skinned people in Australia with essentially European ancestry but with some Aboriginal descent, of which the Australia with essentially European ancestry but with some Aboriginal descent, of which the individuals identified in the articles are examples, who are not genuinely Aboriginal persons but individuals identified in the articles are examples, who are not genuinely Aboriginal persons but who, motivated by career opportunities available to Aboriginal people or by political activism, who, motivated by career opportunities available to Aboriginal people or by political activism, have chosen to falsely identify as Aboriginal; and (ii)have chosen to falsely identify as Aboriginal; and (ii)fair skin colour indicates a person who is not fair skin colour indicates a person who is not sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely identifying as an Aboriginal person.(b)sufficiently Aboriginal to be genuinely identifying as an Aboriginal person.(b) the the Newspaper Articles were written and published, including because of the race, ethnic origin or Newspaper Articles were written and published, including because of the race, ethnic origin or colour of those Aboriginal persons described by the articles; and (c) that conduct was not colour of those Aboriginal persons described by the articles; and (c) that conduct was not exempted from being unlawful by s 18D of the exempted from being unlawful by s 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) because the (Cth) because the Newspaper Articles were not written or published reasonably and in good faith: (i)Newspaper Articles were not written or published reasonably and in good faith: (i) in the making in the making or publishing of a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) in the course of or publishing of a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) in the course of any statement, publication or discussion, made or held for a genuine purpose in the public any statement, publication or discussion, made or held for a genuine purpose in the public interest.interest.

Appeal ProcessAppeal Process Could be appealed to Full Bench Could be appealed to Full Bench

of Federal Court, (three judges) of Federal Court, (three judges) and then to High Court.and then to High Court.

HWT for Bolt decided not to HWT for Bolt decided not to appeal-end of case? appeal-end of case?

Bolt reignites debate: Serial Bolt reignites debate: Serial Offender or what?Offender or what?

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/bolt-link-to-racist-reviews-http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/bolt-link-to-racist-reviews-of-book-20120411-1wsa1.htmlof-book-20120411-1wsa1.html

Recommended ReferencesRecommended References

http://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-vhttp://waynera.wordpress.com/eatock-v-bolt-2011/-bolt-2011/

Addie Walsh, Andrew Bolt, Free Speech Addie Walsh, Andrew Bolt, Free Speech & the Racial Discrimination Act.& the Racial Discrimination Act.

Jerome Holleman, Perceptions of race & Jerome Holleman, Perceptions of race & Aboriginal identity in the Bolt Aboriginal identity in the Bolt Case,2011.Case,2011.