Both of these comments would come under the racial discrimination act, because they mention race. That is all it requires. In Jay's comment, if he had stopped at the first paragraph and only mentioned Zionism, it probably wouldn't have, as Zionist is not a racial term, but as soon as he uses "Jewish" it does. (Unless you argue that "Jewish" refers to religion rather than race, in which case it wouldn't, but I think that is too long a bow).
So in both these cases I now need to assure myself that the commenters have done their research, and aren't just spouting unsupported opinions, but I also have to determine whether they really mean what they say. In the case of Jay this could be quite difficult. He's in a minority of one on the site, but he's a segregationist and believes that races shouldn't mix. So even though he can back-up his assertion that Bromberg has been associated with Chabad, I'm not sure that this is enough. I may need to try to determine what a judge might think, given his past utterances, he is really saying.
So the upshot of this is that I will be much less enthusiastic about publishing any articles that deal with race, not so much because of the articles, but because of the difficulty in actually allowing discussion on them.
Advertisement
I've deliberately chosen a passage where two commenters are discussing Israeli matters because while it is fashionable for many on the left to stigmatise any non-PC discussion relating to aboriginal identity and policy, it is also fashionable to be pro-Palestinian.
Now, because of Eatock v Bolt, I'm going to have to look more closely at work by Antony Loewenstein, for example, not just to check Antony's work, but to consider what sort of discussion might arise from it. And on the other side of the argument I'm going to have to be more careful about David Singer.
In the end it's going to lead to a lot less legitimate discussion and fewer opportunities to change the course of policy.
This is no time for journalists or those in public debate to be rejoicing in the martyrdom of Andrew Bolt. It's a time to be actually reading the case material and then combing our archives and records to ensure that in any of the matters we do not offend.
Then we might all have a better appreciation of the threat that the judgement poses to free speech in any matter which might pertain to race, and hence the threat that it poses to a proper functioning democratic society.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
72 posts so far.