Monday, November 14, 2005

Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt Forum, November 1- thomasr asks the Bolt

Update: I was holding back on posting this add on as I thought it might get a run on boltwatch. Given Mr Lefty has decided against. Here it is:

Bolt has extended his knowledge beyond Greenhouse Effect denial, etc into legal views for hire. Despite this:
An expert legal opinion obtained by Media Watch on the impact of the new Anti-Terrorism Bill says that journalists and the commentators they interview might be caught out by the new laws on sedition.

It's the view of many that these laws should not have provisions for this sort of charge against journos, etc. But Bolta thinks the laws are just fine- as long as sensible/honest/lovely people are the ones doing the prosecuting:

In response to Bolta's rather warped views on how the legal system should work:

And she quoted a column I'd written more than a year ago: "On Wednesday Pilger appeared on ABC TV's Lateline to promote his noxious views. This apologist for terrorists -- this moral pygmy -- is . . . welcomed into an ABC studio and promoted by SBS." So that's how Media Watch had me on a jury that jailed both Jones and Pilger for sedition under Adolf Howard's Nazi laws.

Dream on, Liz. I'd never have voted to jail them and doubt most Australians would. You'd have to be dumb or dishonest not to see the difference between despising Pilger's words and wanting him behind bars.

Are we to assume that Andrew's columns have a shelf life of less that one year. "... quoted a column I'd written more than a year ago..." Is he Australia's answer to Vicky Pollard? "Yeah, but no, but, no, but yew wasn't even there and besides John Pilger's all bald n moral pygymish and what would he know and so what I said that a year ago and anyway Tony Jones is all lefty..."

So, I sent this to see if Bolta was a fan of the legal work of Dennis Denuto:

Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt Forum, November 1

From: Tom R
Comment: Andrew, Curious about how you view the jury system when you said (re: John Pilger/ABC): 'I'd never have voted to jail them and doubt most Australians would.' Should juries decide a case on the evidence/facts as they relate to the law or: on the 'vibe', their feelings about the morality of the law, the appropriateness of the law as it applies to the accused.

If there is a law in place, and it is breached, should the police turn a blind eye on the grounds that 'it wasn't aimed at prosecuting THAT person'. Or, perhaps, just maybe, we should draft the laws in such a way to avoid giving the law enforcement agencies 'veto powers'? I would rather have law makers get it right, than leave it in the hands of a rookie cop or fed to decide whether to proceed.

And got this:
Andrew replies: On the evidence of what Pilger said, I see no possible way he'd be charged, or, having been charge, that any jury would convict. In suggesting a jury would in fact not only convict Pilger but Tony Jones, on the basis of what I'd written, Media Watch misrepresented me and the draft bill most deceitfully.

Thomasr sez:
"I see no possible way he'd be charged" Well thank you Bolt, QC, but I'll go with the opinions of barristers Bret Walker SC and Peter Roney who were asked by Media Watch: "Might Pilger and Jones have a case to answer?". The answer was "Yes". If you want to trot out your own legal opinion that says "no"- knock yourself out. But after your $250,000 performance in the Popovic case where you buried yourself in your own words, one might think you'd know where your legal opinion ends and bullshit begins.

The fact remains: If one SC/QC says there might be a case to answer, then all the "oh we wouldn't convict that person" rhetoric is not relevant: the laws need to be changed. Media Watch used your column because your typing fingers yet again ran away without your brain.

The forum- scroll to bottom
posted by thr at 9:14 am


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home