Irony of this whole disgusting thing of course is that Andrew Bolt would be one of the most unfairly reviled persons in Australia, yet he’s never taken anyone to court. Photo is of another of the Aboriginal plaintiffs, Pat Eatock. Some comments from the news reports-

Justice Bromberg questioned whether a “reader of average intelligence” would have been able to deduce Bolt’s meaning.

Bolt on trial: judge questions key claims

Herman Borenstein, SC, for Ms Eatock, asked Bolt why he described Sydney academic Mark McMillan as a “gay white man with a law degree” in discussing how he came to be awarded a Black Women’s Action in Education scholarship. Mr Borenstein suggested he was gratuitously playing to a homophobic audience. “Why do you assume that calling someone gay is an insult?” Bolt replied. “There is no way I would use the word gay as an insult.”

The godfather of one of his children was gay and anyone who read his columns would know he had a record of opposition to homophobia. “First you smear me with the Holocaust, then you smear me with being a homophobic bigot,” he said. “It’s an unforgivable travesty.” Justice Mordy Bromberg asked if a clearly distressed Bolt wanted a break.

Bolt trial ‘an exercise in smear’

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt was forced to concede he got some of his facts wrong in a series of articles about light-skinned people of mixed heritage who identify as Aboriginal, but he refused to apologise for the errors as his trial on charges of racial discrimination continued in the Federal Court in Melbourne today.

Bolt’s wrong, but he’s not sorry

Mr Borenstein did, however, say many people – ”perhaps even some Herald Sun readers” – were homophobic, and suggested describing Mr McMillan as a ”gay white man with a law degree” in a blog on August 19, 2009, was calculated to inflame prejudices of Bolt’s readers.

Anti-gay claim enrages Bolt