Eatock v Bolt

Last updated

Eatock v Bolt
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court Federal Court of Australia
Decided28 September 2011
Citation(s) [2011] FCA 1103, (2011) 197  FCR  261
Legislation cited Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
Ruling
In publishing the two articles in question the defendants contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Bromberg J

Eatock v Bolt was a 2011 decision of the Federal Court of Australia which held that two articles written by columnist and commentator Andrew Bolt and published in The Herald Sun newspaper had contravened section 18C, of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA). The case was controversial and instigated community debate about freedom of speech.

Contents

Factual background

On 15 April 2009, The Herald Sun published an article authored by columnist Andrew Bolt in its print edition, entitled "It's so hip to be black", and republished the article on its website with the title "White is the new black". [1] :at [425],[440] On 21 August 2009, a second article authored by Bolt was published in print and online entitled "White fellas in the black". [1]

Pat Eatock, a woman of Aboriginal descent, brought proceedings in the Federal Court against Bolt and the proprietor of The Herald Sun, The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd, suing on her own behalf and on behalf of people like her who have a fairer, rather than darker skin, and who are recognised as Aboriginal persons in Australia. Eatock alleged that the two newspaper articles authored by Bolt conveyed offensive messages about fair-skinned Aboriginal people, by saying that they were not genuinely Aboriginal and were pretending to be Aboriginal so they could access benefits that are available to Aboriginal people. Eatock sought a declaration that the articles contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , an injunction preventing publication or republication of the articles, and an apology from the newspaper. [1] [2]

Witnesses

The other Aboriginal people involved in the case and called as witnesses were Anita Heiss, Bindi Cole, Geoff Clark, Larissa Behrendt, Leeanne Enoch, Wayne Atkinson, Graham Atkinson, and Mark McMillan. [1]

Relevant legislation

Section 18C of the RDA relevantly provided: [3] [2]

"(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group."

The exemption provision in section 18D relevantly provided: [3]

"Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment."

Decision

Justice Mordecai Bromberg found that the two articles authored by Bolt conveyed the following imputations: [1]

Justice Bromberg found that it was reasonably likely that an ordinary person within the group of fair-skinned Aboriginal persons would have been offended and insulted by the newspaper articles, in particular the challenge to the legitimacy of the identity of those individuals and the concentration on skin colour as the defining determinant of racial identity. In addition, Justice Bromberg found that it was reasonably likely that Eatock would be "humiliated and intimidated by her perception of the capacity of the articles to generate negative or confronting attitudes to her from others". Justice Bromberg found that the articles were written "because of the race, colour or ethnic origin of those people". As such, Justice Bromberg held that the publication of the two articles contravened section 18C of the RDA. [1]

Justice Bromberg held that the exemption provision in section 18D of the RDA did not apply, because the publications were "not done reasonably and in good faith" in the making or publishing of a fair comment or in the course of any statement, publication or discussion for a genuine purpose in the public interest. Bromberg said that the articles contained "erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language". [1]

Justice Bromberg also observed in passing: "The intrusion into freedom of expression is of no greater magnitude than that which would have been imposed by the law of defamation if the conduct in question and its impact upon the reputations of many of the identified individuals had been tested against its compliance with that law." [1] [4]

Reaction to the decision

A variety of journalists and commentators took issue with the Federal Court's decision on the grounds that it restricted free speech on a matter of public interest, given Bolt's articles had addressed matters of public interest such as criteria for eligibility for public funds, money, jobs and prizes; but other journalists and commentators supported the case as an example of a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression. [4] The political allegiance of the presiding judge to the Australian Labor Party has also been raised as an issue (Justice Bromberg had once stood for Labor pre-selection). [5]

Bolt himself described the decision as a "terrible day for free speech" in Australia and said it represented "a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves. I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings". [6]

Following the decision, in October 2011 Professor Adrienne Stone of Melbourne University supported the judgement and told the ABC radio Law Report program: "I think that there is an argument to say that people who've been subjected to this kind of insult, based on their race, especially since there are groups subject to historical disadvantage, are actually entitled to have the state intervene and say that there was an unlawful act here." Legal philosopher Dale Smith of Monash University told the same program that he disagreed with the decision, saying "we should ensure freedom of expression, and then find other ways of protecting or promoting freedom from racial intolerance and prejudice that don't infringe upon people's freedom of speech." Andrew Dodd, a former presenter of the ABC TV's Media Report program, described the decision as "a slap in the face for freedom of expression... because I think it does curtail the extent to which we are able to talk freely about issues that are difficult to discuss, which may have a public interest component, and which concern minority groups." ABC Radio presenter Daniel Browning, who had been named in one of Bolt's articles, said that he had felt "humiliated" and "professionally undermined" by the articles, and suggested the restriction on freedom of expression could be justified. [4]

In June 2013, trade unionist Paul Howes said in response to the case that he objected to the law for having "Orwellian" overtones and "I am concerned that people in some of the circles I mix, on my side of politics, increasingly seem to think that they should write, or invoke, or resurrect, laws that will shut Andrew Bolt up". [7] The ABC's Jonathan Holmes of Media Watch described Justice Bromberg's interpretation of the RDA, and his application of it to Bolt's columns, as "profoundly disturbing" because it reinforced concerns that section 18C creates "one particular area of public life where speech is regulated by tests that simply don't apply anywhere else, and in which judges - never, for all their pontifications, friends of free speech - get to do the regulating". [8]

In 2016, Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching, said she was "very surprised" when Justice Bromberg decided to hear the Bolt case, given that “He was an active ALP person, he was active enough that he was in a faction, he ran for preselection... Obviously he would have had some views about [Andrew Bolt], and perhaps he was not the best person to hear [the] case.” Bromberg had run unsuccessfully for Labor preselection in Melbourne in 2001. [5]

Related Research Articles

Although Australia is considered to have, in general, both freedom of speech and a free and independent media, certain subject-matter is subject to various forms of government censorship. These include matters of national security, judicial non-publication or suppression orders, defamation law, the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), film and literature classification, and advertising restrictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Brandis</span> Australian politician

George Henry Brandis is an Australian former politician. He was a Senator for Queensland from 2000 to 2018, representing the Liberal Party, and was a cabinet minister in the Abbott and Turnbull governments. He was later High Commissioner to the United Kingdom from 2018 to 2022.

Andrew Bolt is an Australian right-wing social and political commentator. He has worked at the News Corp-owned newspaper company The Herald and Weekly Times (HWT) for many years, for both The Herald and its successor, the Herald Sun. His current roles include blogger and columnist at the Herald Sun and host of television show The Bolt Report each weeknight. In Australia, Bolt is a controversial public figure, who has frequently been accused of abrasive demeanour, racist views and inappropriate remarks on various political and social issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racial Discrimination Act 1975</span>

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Australian Parliament, which was enacted on 11 June 1975 and passed by the Whitlam government. The Act makes racial discrimination in certain contexts unlawful in Australia, and also overrides state and territory legislation to the extent of any inconsistency.

Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a crime under the laws of several countries.

Louis Beers was an Australian comedian who performed under the stage name King Billy Cokebottle. He attracted controversy at his performances by wearing blackface to impersonate an Aboriginal Australian. Beers was born in Holland and his family migrated to Australia when he was 3 years old, where he grew up in the Perth suburb of Riverton in Western Australia. He began performing as King Billy on Perth radio in the 1970s and moved to Townsville, Queensland in the early 1990s. Changing attitudes towards the use of blackface and towards racism in Australia led Beers to receive less work in his later years. Despite the contents of his performance, Beers denied allegations of racism and claimed to have Aboriginal family members.

<i>Alas Poor Yagan</i> Cartoon resulting in a racial discrimination complaint

Alas Poor Yagan is an editorial cartoon, drawn by Dean Alston and published in The West Australian newspaper on 6 September 1997. It consists of a panel of eight drawings of Noongar activist Ken Colbung speaking to a group of three Indigenous Australian children. The cartoon's content offended many Australians, and resulted in a complaint of racism to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The commission eventually ruled that the cartoon made inappropriate references to Noongar beliefs but did not breach the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal to the Federal Court of Australia.

Geoff Clark is an Australian Aboriginal politician and activist. Clark led the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) from 1999 until it was effectively disbanded in 2004.

<i>Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) was a case before the High Court of Australia determining that the HREOC could not validly exercise judicial power. The High Court maintained a firm position against attempts to confer judicial powers upon non-judicial bodies.

Mordecai "Mordy" Bromberg SC is an Australian judge who was appointed to the Federal Court of Australia in 2009. He was previously a senior barrister, and in his youth also played four seasons of Australian rules football for the St Kilda Football Club.

Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians have been described by academics and commentators as often negative or stereotyped. It is said that in issues which concern them, the voices of Indigenous Australians are drowned out by non-Indigenous voices, which present them as problems for the rest of society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Mansell</span>

Michael Alexander Mansell is a Tasmanian Aboriginal leader who, as an activist and lawyer, has worked for social, political and legal changes to improve the lives and social standing of Tasmanian Aboriginal (Palawa) people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech by country</span>

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, or race. Some jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

Bindi Cole Chocka is an Australian contemporary new media artist, photographer, writer and curator of Wadawurrung heritage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leeanne Enoch</span> Australian politician

Leeanne Margaret Enoch is an Australian politician currently serving as the Queensland Minister for Communities and Housing, for the Arts, and for Digital Economy. She has also served as the Labor Party member for Algester in the Queensland Legislative Assembly since 2015.

June Patricia "Pat" Eatock was an Australian indigenous activist and academic.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, deals with offensive behaviour "because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin" in Australia. It is a section of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which was passed by the Australian Parliament during the term of the Whitlam government and makes racial discrimination unlawful in Australia. Section 18C was added by the Keating government in 1995. The Section has been controversial and subject to much debate.

Aboriginal Australian identity, sometimes known as Aboriginality, is the perception of oneself as Aboriginal Australian, or the recognition by others of that identity. Aboriginal Australians are one of two Indigenous Australian groups of peoples, the other being Torres Strait Islanders. There has also been discussion about the use of "Indigenous" vs "Aboriginal", or more specific group names, such as Murri or Noongar (demonyms), Kaurna or Yolngu, based on language, or a clan name. Usually preference of the person(s) in question is used, if known.

Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 , (2011) 197 FCR 261, Federal Court (Australia).
  2. 1 2 Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
  3. 1 2 Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
  4. 1 2 3 "The Racial Discrimination Act: Eatock v Bolt". The Law Report. ABC Radio. 4 October 2011.
  5. 1 2 "Andrew Bolt race-case judge 'had ALP links'". The Australian . 16 November 2016.
  6. "Andrew Bolt – Herald Sun columnist guilty of race discrimination". The Age . Melbourne. 28 September 2011.
  7. "Andrew Bolt: Freedom of Speech in Australia - Speech made by Paul Howes". Institute of Public Affairs Occasional Paper. Archived from the original on 3 October 2011.
  8. "Bolt, Bromberg and a profoundly disturbing judgment". The Drum. ABC. 30 September 2011.

Further reading