Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at Andrew Bolt on S11

“There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.” ~ Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)

Andrew “at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless” Bolt, in one of his numerous and pathetic attempts to re-write history, claims (Just a seedy deal, Herald Sun, March 7, 2007):

PREMIER Steve Bracks has now made three excuses for secretly paying $700,000 to S11 protesters. And each of them is false…

Like I care?

…But why are you [ie, Bracks] talking money, anyway, instead of your duty to uphold the law? All of which makes your decision to give in to an orchestrated campaign by far-Left activists not just stupid, but seedy. Everything about this payoff should have screamed “no” to a government with the public interest in mind.

As far as I’m aware, the decision to settle out-of-court was made by lawyers — you know, the law-talking guys? And they did so on the basis that reaching such a settlement would be in their best interests… and er, those of their clients: the Victorian Government, on the one hand, and the 47 litigants, on the other.

So, they had their reasons: 1.3 million reasons, as it happens.

As for the Premier’s “duty to uphold the law”, unless Bolt is thinking of, say, defaming another magistrate, it’s something most don’t need to be reminded of.

Or perhaps Bolt is implying that Bracks himself has broken a law?

Or something?

Speaking of which, in June 2002:

Victorian Supreme Court judge Bernard Bongiorno ruled that Bolt, a Herald Sun columnist, had seriously defamed Deputy Chief Magistrate Jelena Popovic, and awarded her almost $250,000 in damages…

And if screaming persists, see your doctor.

Consider how it all started.

Let’s.

On September 11, 2000, several thousand people began not a protest, but a three-day blockade of a World Economic Forum meeting of businessmen and politicians from around the world.

Well, actually, tens of thousands. And besides being a blockade and protest, it was also a festival. But let’s face it: when wankers like Bolt hear the word “festival” they reach for their electrodes. (And yeah: it’s sometimes called civil disobedience.)

Their aim was confrontational and illegal — to physically deny people their right to meet and speak.

Well shit, fancy that. Bolt and I are here in rare agreement: the aims of the World Economic Forum are both ‘confrontational’ and — when pursued by its corporate members (as they are, vigorously) — frequently result in gross violations of the law (not to mention human rights). Thus the WEF promotes policies consciously designed to further exclude the masses from meaningful participation in both the development and implementation of social policy, as well as seek to restrict their ability and willingness to exercise their basic rights to speech and assembly. See : Public Citizen, Davos World Economic Forum: Pricey Corporate Trade Association Loses Its Camouflage (2002).

What’s more, it was clear from the official S11 protest website that violence was not just likely, but planned, at least by some. Read some of the posted messages:

“If you’re not ready to go home with a few bumps and bruises, then don’t bother because it will be bloody.”

“Violence is not a morally wrong tactic.”

“I suggest bringing marbles, which when rolled out in large quantities make the (police) horses unable to walk.”

Y’know, sometimes Bolt stoops so low, I think he must be in training for a limbo dance competition. Well, either that, or he’s just a vulgar corporate propagandist; one of many.

In reality — a concept with which Bolt is obviously only very loosely familiar — the defunct “official S11 protest website” — www.s11.org — was neither “official” — it was maintained by an autonomous group of geeks — nor the source of these comments, which are derived from a yahoo list. Further, this list — melb2000, also defunct — was open to anyone to join and to post comments.

So much for the actual context. As to the comments themselves:

the first is indeed an accurate one — police were fully expected to violently abuse protesters, and they did. In fact, in addition to “a few bumps and bruises”, the taxpayer-funded police broke bones, smashed teeth, and inflicted numerous other injuries on literally hundreds of protesters;

the second is merely an argument which, like all three comments, is deliberately removed from its context;

as for the final comment, Bernard Barrett, in his excellent dissection of the corporate propaganda produced by Bolt and other hacks inre S11 (Beating Up: A Report on Police Batons and the News Media at the World Economic Forum, Melbourne, September 2000), writes:

AAP’s 2.54pm story, containing quotes from deputy commissioner O’Loughlin, included some significant information about missiles. It said: “A bag of marbles was taken off a protester this morning.” (It would be interesting to find out whether this person had obtained the marbles idea from reading Andrew Bolt’s Herald Sun article on August 31.)

This AAP story affirms that these marbles were confiscated, in a bag, not thrown. However, for the benefit of the evening TV news, the marbles were removed from the bag so that they could be displayed in a policeman’s hands – eleven marbles in one hand and three nuts and a screw in another hand (Channel Ten). Thus, viewers were left with the impression that the marbles were thrown.

Thursday’s Herald Sun also reported that the marbles had been thrown and omitted the information about the marbles being confiscated in a bag. The Herald Sun and the TV stations need to explain what happened to the 2.54pm AAP story about the marbles being confiscated and in a bag, rather than thrown…

Actually, the only thing the corporate sector “need” do is continue to feed the chooks.

To resume:

The police, alarmed, tried to talk to the protesters’ main spokesmen to find ways to avoid trouble. And they asked if the protesters planned to be peaceful, why did they want a first-aid tent?

Excellent question. By the same token, if — and that’s if — the police do not actively seek to promote bloodshed, why do they carry guns? Taxpayer-funded guns? Do they actually want to provoke members of the general public to violent confrontations with the forces of Laura Norder?

Yes. Yes they do.

Obviously.

Nothing the S11 organisers said was reassuring.

Nor was it accurately reported; least of all by Bolt.

And so 2400 police were brought in to protect the meeting in our biggest policing operation in living memory.

Yet, the mayhem that broke out on September 11 was even worse than feared. Police were punched, pelted and kicked. Workers at Crown and its shops were attacked, with one suffering a suspected broken jaw and another broken ribs.

Buses trying to bring in forum delegates were smashed and turned back. Property was trashed, cars vandalised, motorists on nearby streets stopped, ambulances blocked and journalists assaulted.

And in those three days of violence 170 police were hurt, some seriously.

Um… really?

1) Fears of police violence were well-founded. As for protester violence, not one single protester was convicted of a violent offence.

2) As the lying liar knows full well, the “suspected broken jaw” of the Crown employee he refers to above was later diagnosed as “severe bruising” (Ombudsman’s Report, Appendix 1). Further, it’s worth noting that none of the alleged injuries to Crown personnel — including privately-contracted security personnel / hired goons — have been proven; and in such circumstances, if any injuries did occur, they may just as likely have been the result of police action. In fact, in his Report, the Ombudsman merely notes that he received uncorroborated “advice” from anonymous police sources that “some” Crown personnel were injured.

3) Journalists were indeed assaulted: by police. In fact, Luke Roche, an SBS camera operator, was one of the 47 litigants! Further, according to one source, two “Age photographers were thrown to the ground” by police on the morning of September 12. (Incidentally, it further notes that ‘A young protester was run over by a police car after she became pinned under its wheels. An AAP journalist who witnessed the incident said: “I saw the car rise up and come back down with a loud thump”, yet the police failed to stop.’).

Finally — at this point — the only reference I can find to anything like what Bolt is alleging to have occurred is on p.189 of the Report, in which Perry claims that there was a police report on Monday or possibly Tuesday of unidentified “missiles being thrown at boats as they moved along the river, including a filmed attack on a television news crew”. Further, Perry does not record whether or not this “attack” actually succeeded, or whether or not the paper planes launched at the film crew merely joined the rest of the debris filling the Yarra.

To Be Continued…