Perhaps you are wondering what has this got to do with jihad? Well, just about everything. I’ll tell you why: because it elevates one group of people over another and we
lose lost our free speech rights in the process. The Andrew Bolt case is a glaring example of how Political Correctness, Hate Speech Laws and Â Racial Vilification LawsÂ destroy our societies.
Blond Aborigines Claim PC Spoils in AustraliaÂ (Moonbattery)
In a world run by moonbats, the only way to get ahead is to be a member of a victim group. What are white guys to do? In Australia, theyÂ adapt:
Sydney law academic Mark McMillan, has won one of our richest prizes for Aboriginal students â€” the Fulbright Indigenous Scholarship.
Aboriginal, huh? Here’s a picture of McMillan:
If he can pass for an Aborigine, why not a woman of color?
McMillan has gone one better still: he’s also won the Black Women’s Action in Education Foundation Scholarship, originally intended to help educate black women, not white men.
The lucky beneficiary of politically correct spoils explains why looking like any other white guy makes him all the more the oppressed black Aboriginal female:
“I am a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned Aboriginal Australian …
“As a child, I grew up expecting everyone to be like me, to look like me â€” with the blonde hair and blue eyes.
“Clearly, my naive ideas about how Aboriginal people were ‘supposed’ to look were wrong. But being Aboriginal and fair and blonde was normal to me and I grew up in a world where I was treated ‘normally’ …
“Impeding my growth from that young person into the adult I wanted to become was the profound issue of identity. I was a white black man … I was becoming a victim.”
Incredibly, his shtick is on the level â€” and it works. MacMillan evidently has an Aborigine somewhere up his family tree. It’s unclear how he convinces people that he’s a woman, but he does proclaim himself to be a “proud gay.”
McMillan isn’t the only one working this swindle:
Sydney arts academic Danie Mellor, this week won our richest prize for Aboriginal artists â€” the $40,000 Telstra Award.
Here’s the allegedly Aboriginal Danie Mellor:
Given the requisite lack of honor, only the thinnest strains of non-European ancestry are required now to achieve the treasured status of sniveling victim.
Australian senator and shadow justice minister speaks on radio to Andrew Bolt Sept 29 2011
The whole racket was cooked up by the (socialist) Keating government, rather unsurprising…..
Shadow justice minister in Australia calls in to open line show to speak on the Andrew Bolt guilty verdict–-(Below the more button, the complete transcript of this segment of the show.Â The whole show can be heard hereÂ but below, a segment I found quite interesting and ominous.Â Continue readingÂ â†’)
Andrew Bolt has more:
The hate-spewing dimwits who comment on The Drum are too dumb to understand that their free speech rights will go next.
The key passage in Bromberg’s decision is:
I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles.
“Fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them)”? Any idea of the percentages? What proportion were offended and what weren’t? This is a case without victims, in which the judge has ruled that it is “reasonably likely” there are some victims out there somewhere or other. As to it being “reasonably likely” that they were offended, is it “reasonably likely” beyond a reasonable doubt? Or does every bedrock principles of English law have to subordinate itself to the human right not to be offended?
ON Twitter, after the Andrew Bolt judgment was announced on Wednesday, the reaction was overwhelming glee.
The cesspool of hate that threatens to engulf most social media was at its vociferous worst when commenting on the Federal Court ruling that my colleague, Andrew Bolt, had violated Australia’s racial discrimination laws.
Violent, obscene language that cannot be printed in a family newspaper was employed against Bolt by people who hide behind anonymous avatars.
Serial Twitter offender and former Age columnist Catherine Deveny wrote: “The boys in the big house are going to love #Bolt. He has such a pretty mouth.”
The Twitterati voiced delight as well: “Great victory against Andrew Bolt, hope one day he will be removed from radio and TV”.
One tweet said: “now for Alan Jones”.
The irony, of course, is that the chortlers are so stupid that they don’t realise they are next.
WHEN, in 1995, the Keating government amended the Racial Discrimination Act to outlaw “racial vilification”, the opposition warned that the prohibition went too far. Then Liberal Senate leader Robert Hill said the language of the amendment, “by making it unlawful for a person to do an act in public that is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people if that act is done because of the race of the offended person or persons . . . presents an unacceptable threat to civil liberties in Australia”.
The government dismissed with contempt the Liberal Party’s concerns about the effect of the new provisions on freedom of expression. Then minister for immigration and ethnic affairs Nick Bolkus, apparently oblivious to the Orwellian resonances of his rhetoric, described the conduct that the bill sought to outlaw as “speech crimes”. He said: “They are crimes which society and government have recognised need a legislative response because the behaviour that attaches to them is such that we can do without it and it has a deleterious effect on our community.”
Last Wednesday, when the Federal Court gave its judgment against Andrew Bolt in a case brought against him by a group of “fair-skinned Aborigines” relying on the 1995 amendments (in particular section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act), the prescience of Hill’s warning became apparent for all to see. The opposition does not criticise judge Mordecai Bromberg for reading the act in this way. Whether he was right or wrong in law is a matter on which, should there be an appeal, a higher court will have the final say. What his judgment reveals is just how far-reaching the effect of those amendments is.
GEOFF Clark has admitted that he took part in a class action against Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt over the general “tone” of his opinion pieces.
If even an appeal to overcome divisions of “race” can be declared against the Racial Discrimination Act, we have a problem:Â
THE Coalition has signalled it will try to amend the Racial Discrimination Act in government, branding it a “terrible statute” after News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching the law.