Andrew Bolt's Blog,26/7/17; Laws of contempt available to Bromberg but not Triggs so Bolt shows his yellow underbelly; Bolt the Christian Crusader or zealot;

GILLIAN TRIGGS - POLITICAL AND WRONG TO THE LAST

Human Rights Commission head Gillian Triggs is biased. She gave false evidence to Senate committees -  then falsely claimed she hadn't, despite having apologised. Her commission has persecuted the innocent. And today she leaves with another false and biased claim: "We have a government that’s ideologically opposed to human rights."

 Professionalism in Australia is dead and as far as Bolt is concerned. Triggs need to be hung drawn and quartered on the altar of Bolt's temple of the extreme right why? The AHRC is nothing more than an instrument of repression of individuals. It's personal because Bolt seems to think the AHRC sent him to court.  However, it didn't he sent himself there. In his case, private mediation failed and the parties concerned chose to resolve their issue in court."First two of my own articles were banned. "Bolt The AHRC didn't ban Bolt's articles our courts did.

 According to Bolt, the courts have been hijacked by the  Left why? Judge Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt guilty and he has once had some affiliation with the Labor Party. Andrew Bolt also worked for the  Labor Party but as far as he's concerned he remained untainted and it still he feels looks good on his CV but not so  Bromberg who according to Bolt will have to carry that stain for life. The Arts, Judiciary, Universities Scientific organizations all our institutions have been hijacked by the Left and Andrew Bolt can prove it.  That is Andrew Bolt who says "I'm just a conservative and  not right wing" 

If style has meaning Bolt hides behind an image of a gentleman, pretends to be a sophisticate,  a dapper man, a bon vivant, man of higher tastes. But when you read Bolt's blogs you discover the real man behind the mask with a poison pen in hand. A vengeful vitriolic man on the edge, a ball of pus that bursts open with hatred for those that have slighted him in any way or have seen through his charade. Bolt claims to be a debater of issues but generally focuses on people, not their role not the systemic process but the very nature of people themselves and is it strange he more often than not fixates on women, Triggs, Baird, Ford, Gillard are among a few.

Triggs isn't a highly qualified judge a professional appointed head  Statutory appointed Independant body to over see Human Rights in a country that has no Bill of Human Rights written into it's Constitution. To Bolt Human Rights isn't an issue. Triggs is a liar, a torturer,  inquisitioner, with a personal political agenda to repress. Why does Bolt  have all this vitriol?Triggs or should I say the HRC didn't ban Bolt's articles Bromberg did. All the HRC did was to agree that there was an issue between Bolt and others and private mediation should be tried. Mediation failed and that's why it proceeded to court.

What Bolt, had written were judged to be lies. Bolt's irrationality reveals itself here " No wonder the Commission has an astonishing record of settling so cases in secret, which suggests to me that many people and companies are just handing over go-away money rather than risk their reputations..."  Bolt  The function of the AHRC is to provide two parties with the possibility of mediation and settlement of their dispute in private and not how the AHRC sees fit. Failing any resolution the parties choose to go to court. The choice is and was in Bolt's free and they both chose to resolve it in front of a judge. How can Bolt get away with what he's posted here in in the past about Gillian Triggs?Because he can't and hasn't the balls to attack Justice Bromberg. Derryn Hinch did and was slapped with a contempt charge and wound up in jail. Bolt has the freedom to attack Bromberg too for vengeance sake like Hinch. But he's a gutless Golem and goes for Triggs instead as she doesn't have the powers of Bromberg and the Law behind her to that extent. Bolt uses his freedom to stain the very nature of the freedoms he has.

 

ABC'S SOURCE: ABC WAS NOT FAIR IN SMEARING CHRISTIANITY

The ABC falsely claimed our worst wife beaters were evangelical Christians who went to church sporadically. The academic whose work the ABC cited says its anti-Christian report "fails the basic journalistic test of fairness": "[It] does not square with the evidence that church-going couples ... appear to be less likely to suffer domestic violence."  

1) Bolt has lied. Baird didn't smear Christianity she referred to some research data  and reported it. The ABC didn't run a series on anti- Christianity at all, if you try to Bolt's  link for his evidence all you hit is a PAYWALL.

2) Baird reported Wilcox's research findings which weren't wrong and threw them open for discussion. Bolt conveniently overlooks the fact that two senior Christians addressed those findings on the DRUM and both agreed along with Baird that they didn't represent Australia. However the Anglican Bishop did admit Anglicans and he had been extremely remiss in dealing with domestic violence and the support they'd provided when confronted by parishioner victims. That response by an Anglican Bishop and not an Evangelical or talking about lapsed Christian parishoners is totally ignored by Andrew Bolt. We aren't talking about what the Church "preaches" but the fact tha domestic violence is a fact of life among Christians and it's a fact known to the church which it Bishop agreed  has been mishandled. Wives were repeatedly sent back to violent family situations because the family was the all important unit.

3) Wilcox showed that sporadic evangelical  Christians did exist and they used their Chritianity to justify their domestic violent acts. Neither Baird nor Wilcox for one moment suggested that these were anything but an outlier group. Bolt begs to differ and declares it an attack on all Christianity.  He  projects his own flaws and puts them on Baird flaws she didn't commit. Bolt however has always and with the full force of his righteousness  declared that ISIL was representative of ISLAM. He's accusing Baird and the ABC of demeaning Christianity as he does ISLAM

4) Bolt regularly calls out Australian Aborigines as the most likely cohort in Australia to commit domestic violence and he's right.  What he doesn't ever say however is that Aborigines on the most part are Christians. I'm sure Bolt and Christians would raise hell and say they aren't representative of us in the same  way  Muslims say ISIL aren't Muslim.  Bolt is adamant that it's Aboriginal Culture that's at fault  along with poor child rearing. In other words Bolt blames the victims for their own demise. He avoids the association of alcohol and domestic violence and that it's visibility is associated with poverty. The more poor the more visible and Aborigines are the poorest people in this country. Domestic violence occurrs in suburbs like Bolt's as well but it's hidden and dealt with invarious and different ways

5) Religion and alocohol are also connected as Christianity is the only major faith on the planet that acknowledges alcohol as a gift from god. That's a fact and it's not a smear on Christianity and Bolt is right we are in the main a Christian nation and a world renown drunk one. We celebrated the movie Wake in Fright as a very much an Australian movie and our Christian kids are binge drinkers. Rehab centers are jammed packed with kids from private schools and elsewhere. Not packed with Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims but Christians.

6) Bolt never addresses these issues he's havin a media wara a war with the ABC with Julia Baird  because she addressed data. Data that just might make us think differently about who we are. If Bolt were preparing an essay for uni and he handed it in he'd fail. He refuses to empathize. He missed the point of Bairds findings altogether attributed to her things that were never said for the sole purpose of smearing the ABC and not defending Christianity at all.

7) Fairness isn't the issue here. Bullshit on Bolt's part is