This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/andrew-bolt-indigenous-australian-come-off-it

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Andrew Bolt, Indigenous Australian? Come off it Andrew Bolt, Indigenous Australian? Come off it
(about 1 hour later)
Right wing commentator Andrew Bolt is at itRight wing commentator Andrew Bolt is at it
again, this time arguing the sky will fall in if there is any constitutional recognitionagain, this time arguing the sky will fall in if there is any constitutional recognition
of the fact of Aboriginal people being here before whites arrived. Everyone knowsof the fact of Aboriginal people being here before whites arrived. Everyone knows
Indigenous people were here, so what’s the great fuss? Bolt’s view is an attempt toIndigenous people were here, so what’s the great fuss? Bolt’s view is an attempt to
revive the Terra nullius doctrine which, for 200 years, fictionalised that the British camerevive the Terra nullius doctrine which, for 200 years, fictionalised that the British came
to an empty land and peacefully settled. That myth was discredited by the high court of Australia with its Mabo ruling 22 years ago, but to an empty land and settled peacefully. That myth was discredited by the high court of Australia with its Mabo ruling 22 years ago, but
people like Bolt are still yet to catch on.people like Bolt are still yet to catch on.
Bolt also plays mischief-maker, claiming toBolt also plays mischief-maker, claiming to
be an Indigenous Australian. Like Pauline Hanson did in her maiden speech tobe an Indigenous Australian. Like Pauline Hanson did in her maiden speech to
the parliament in 1996, Bolt makes his claim based on a technical view thatthe parliament in 1996, Bolt makes his claim based on a technical view that
everyone born in Australia is legally, but not socially, an Indigenouseveryone born in Australia is legally, but not socially, an Indigenous
Australian. His mischief is to ignore common sense and community normalityAustralian. His mischief is to ignore common sense and community normality
which distinguishes between Indigenous Australians on the one hand,which distinguishes between Indigenous Australians on the one hand,
and white Australians like Bolt on the other. and white Australians like Bolt on the other.
Bolt wants to lead his followers through the chaos he ferments.Bolt wants to lead his followers through the chaos he ferments.
As part of the scare-mongering tone of his article, Bolt gets it wrong about the aim of the Aboriginal provisional government (APG), claiming it is a separatist movement. The APG wants an Aboriginal assembly of elected Aboriginal people with legislative power, returned land and a budget – in the same way different states do. And this aim is within the federation of Australia. How is that separatism?As part of the scare-mongering tone of his article, Bolt gets it wrong about the aim of the Aboriginal provisional government (APG), claiming it is a separatist movement. The APG wants an Aboriginal assembly of elected Aboriginal people with legislative power, returned land and a budget – in the same way different states do. And this aim is within the federation of Australia. How is that separatism?
Bolt also claims the courts lean "too far" towards Aboriginal people. This is a case of never letting the facts get in the way ofBolt also claims the courts lean "too far" towards Aboriginal people. This is a case of never letting the facts get in the way of
a good story. Aboriginals make up 26% of the prisoner population, yeta good story. Aboriginals make up 26% of the prisoner population, yet
only constitute 2.5% of the Australian population. In 20 years since the Royalonly constitute 2.5% of the Australian population. In 20 years since the Royal
Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, Aboriginal imprisonment rates have climbed from one in seven to oneCommission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, Aboriginal imprisonment rates have climbed from one in seven to one
in four. Too far? Come on.in four. Too far? Come on.
There is a big difference betweenThere is a big difference between
theoretical equality – a belief that 20m Australians all live the sametheoretical equality – a belief that 20m Australians all live the same
and have the same opportunities – and real equality. Rich and poor cannot beand have the same opportunities – and real equality. Rich and poor cannot be
treated alike for stealing bread. Sentencing courts across Australiatreated alike for stealing bread. Sentencing courts across Australia
acknowledge that people are not all the same. A woman suffering domesticacknowledge that people are not all the same. A woman suffering domestic
violence who strikes out because she’s had enough should not get the sameviolence who strikes out because she’s had enough should not get the same
penalty as an alcohol fuelled king-hit merchant. Nor should the background of peoplepenalty as an alcohol fuelled king-hit merchant. Nor should the background of people
suffering daily discrimination, leading to family dysfunction, be ignored assuffering daily discrimination, leading to family dysfunction, be ignored as
Bolt would have it. Yet Bolt implies that the courts should consider everyone’sBolt would have it. Yet Bolt implies that the courts should consider everyone’s
background except that of Aboriginal people, and claims that is equality.background except that of Aboriginal people, and claims that is equality.
Bolt claims "Australia is now under threat" from just talking about constitutional reforms – but then again, he is very prone to exaggeration. What is really at stake is whether constitutional recognition will benefit Aboriginal people or merely warm the hearts of middle-class Australians – that's the nub of the debate.Bolt claims "Australia is now under threat" from just talking about constitutional reforms – but then again, he is very prone to exaggeration. What is really at stake is whether constitutional recognition will benefit Aboriginal people or merely warm the hearts of middle-class Australians – that's the nub of the debate.
This national discussion can be robust if the views of all – includingThis national discussion can be robust if the views of all – including
the alleged beneficiaries of constitutional recognition – are to be heard. I support Bolt’s right to participate in the debate, butthe alleged beneficiaries of constitutional recognition – are to be heard. I support Bolt’s right to participate in the debate, but
he should avoid inflaming prejudice against Aboriginal people which leads tohe should avoid inflaming prejudice against Aboriginal people which leads to
personalising and dismissal of Indigenous opinion. Sadly, Bolt is secure in the knowledge he canpersonalising and dismissal of Indigenous opinion. Sadly, Bolt is secure in the knowledge he can
regularly attack fair skinned Aboriginal people as not being eligible to speak forregularly attack fair skinned Aboriginal people as not being eligible to speak for
their people (the federal court found Bolt breached racial vilification laws), and thereby deny them the same freedom to participate in public debate that hetheir people (the federal court found Bolt breached racial vilification laws), and thereby deny them the same freedom to participate in public debate that he
enjoys.enjoys.