The parliamentary report into s18C of the RDA is bad news for racists and Malcolm Turnbull.
Repealing Section 18C has the potential to legitimise the racist hate-speech that Australian people of colour already have to deal with.
We can make jokes about our own, but when you make jokes about us you perpetuate demeaning stereotypes.
“These words are clearly racist.”
To demand the dilution of hate laws while opposing a regime of contestable human rights shows how bizarre and dishonest this issue has become
An Aboriginal woman who lodged a racial discrimination complaint against Bill Leak explains why she dropped the case.
A white nationalist ethnostate. A secret D.C. party. Many chilling revelations.
When your words make her put her wrist to the razor I don’t defend your right to say it! When you words make people spit and stare at her I don’t defend your right to say it! When your words make a mother shed endless tears I don’t defend your right to say it! When your words make them…
The baying pack of Coalition backbenchers demanding the abolition, or at least the dilution, of the Racial Discrimination Act may be sincere crusaders for free speech. On the other hand they may be motivated by a desire to attack small-l liberals, of whom one is (or at least was) their own leader, Malcolm Turnbull. And some are just nasty.
Source: Not a priority | The Monthly
Today, the first sitting day of a new parliament, thirteen, yes thirteen coalition backbenchers defied their Prime Minister and called for an amendment to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that would see the words “insult” and “offend” removed. Thirteen white Liberal backbenchers want to be legally permitted to racially offend and insult. So desperately…
News Ltd’s Simon Benson “assumed” the plot involved beheadings. Here he is with his “Canberra source”:
Shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre is frowned upon in most societies and thought an example of a limit on freedom of speech we can all agree on. Tony Abbott did something far, far worse yesterday. He told an entire nation they could be randomly beheaded at any moment.
He then told us to calm down, and behave as if he hadn’t said it.
He added to the usual terrors female shift-workers endure on late night buses, late night trains and the long walk from a railway station home at 1.30 a.m. — the ultimate horror of having your head cut off.
He did it by adding the word ‘random’: by not even implying, but saying straight out that you didn’t have to be famous, or politically connected to a particular cause, or a prominent member of a particular faith. You could be an ‘innocent bystander’, beheaded.
He then said it was very easy to do. All one needs, he said, is a knife and cell-phone, and an accomplice with a car.
Is this responsible? Is it the act of a nation’s leader, or a cyberbully? It seems to encourage terrorists, implying they can’t be easily detected and it doesn’t matter who they kill.
Forty-six people ‒ Australian people ‒ died from cigarettes yesterday, none from decapitation.
Three or four motorists will die this weekend, in car accidents.
Before Christmas, two young men will die in pub brawls.
‘Domestic’ terrorism will occur — a father kidnapping and threatening his estranged wife or children once or twice this fiscal year.
I will bet a lot of money no-one will be beheaded here in Australia.
It is because it is not a very Australian thing to do. People who live here don’t do that sort of thing and thereby imperil their families, and the livelihood of their parents, brothers and sisters. It is a long way from the battlegrounds of Baghdad, Mosul, Gaza, Donetsk, where such ‘terrorist’ things do happen lately — incidents in war.
And this is why it hasn’t happened in ninety-nine years and nine months here, since the Battle of Broken Hill in January 1915. It is not a particularly Australian thing to do.
And frightening old women with it is, I think, unbecoming for a prime minister. And possibly illegal, as it ‘encourages the terrorists’.
If the Prime Minister were serious about it, the two big football games this weekend in Sydney would have been cancelled, along with the opening night of The King And I. If he were serious, there would be random body searches of Middle Eastern women entering the Sydney Art Gallery. Most art galleries, given ISIL’s hatred of art, would be closed for six months.
But he isn’t serious, he’s making mischief.
He’s lost most of the policy battles of his first year and he’s thought a joke by many people, by many others a disgrace, and he’s embarked on the biggest ‘scare campaign’ since the Yellow Peril.
He’s become what I call the Chicken-Little-in-Chief. And he shouldn’t, any more, be given the time of day.
He’s blown it. May the sky come falling down
Multiculturalism is alive and well in the UK
Shepparton, City of Harmony
BENDIGO Festival of Cultures
HUMANITY DENIER ANDREW BOLT
Capitalism is an idealised concept that attempts to describe the way we behave economically and structure our lives. Some individuals break the rules commit crimes, sometimes in association with like-minded others. CBA financial planners, Wall st, etc. Mainstream media doesn’t cry “We were raped by Capitalism”. No we call them rogues, crooks, gangs & misfits.
Crime occurs in all communities of various description Communist,Democratic,Assimilated and Multicultural. Each has different approaches to policing and dealing with crime but crime occurs. Andrew Bolt is specifically opposed to multi-racial communities as they promote diversity as opposed to homogeneity and according to him encourage deviant behaviour. He believes in Assimilation. Rotherham this morning’s blog had a headline ‘Raped by Multiculturalism’ What went on was in Rotherham for Bolt is a direct consequence of Multiculturalism and the weakness of the Left, He has cherry picked to prove his retarded point.
Bolt doesn’t raise the issues of sexploitation of women on a large-scale such as by the Russian & Italian Mafia by white christian ‘civilized’ Europeans. He doesn’t examine sexploitation in Britain as a whole the scandals at the highest levels of Tory politics. That’s of no use to him. But a badly run orphanage in Rotherham suits him down to the ground. It’s not about lack of funds under staffing or just poor welfare support it’s a direct result of Multiculturalism.
Bolt shows us a bylaw indicating the word ‘Asian’ not to be used as an identifying term when talking about suspects of anything in Rotherham. However strikes me that bylaw supports everything Bolt claims to be an anti-racist, that colour and ethnicity are irrelevant when it comes to law and that’s why he proudly says ” I am not a racist.” He is however a hypocrite and totally two-faced. Bolt infers the leftist council in Rotherham were ‘sacrificing the young girls on the altar of ‘political correctness’ for not allowing suspects to be called ‘Asian’ or ‘Muslim’. Bolt the non racist agrees with the bylaw. Australia should not be differentiated by colour either. Colour does not exist.
There was an orphanage in Brighton some 50 + years ago a very conservative WASP suburb like Malvern where Bolt lives. It wasn’t a secret that young testosterone & alcohol fueled young men would come from all directions to scale the fence at night like tom cats to dally with those state wards in their dorms. Multiculturalism wasn’t an aspect of that suburb Mr Bolt. Lack of supervision and underfunding certainly was. The Brighton police were aware of it nobody was charged and it wasn’t just an urban myth. Multiculturalism wasn’t a driving force back then Mr Bolt. Doesn’t suit your argument does it Bolt.
Importing a cherry picked example is Bolt’s way of disproving any Multicultural Policy. One could argue that Rotherham is the exception that proves the rule and exceptions do exist. It’s far more persuasive than saying multicultural societies have a tendency to drive young men into illegal gang activity and in Bolt’s case Muslims.
One has to doubt somebody who denies any history prior to his birth in 1959 to try to win a point.On the Bolt Report the man said indigenous Australians today were not the first arrivals in this country therefore have no right to be mentioned in our constitution. He agrees with Tony Abbott that the defining moment in the history of this country was white settlement not invasion. The other 60,000 years is irrelevant. Therefore no mention of persons prior to settlement need be mentioned ‘Terra Nullis is ok. It seems to me that’s what the Rotherham bylaw is trying to achieve. There are no ‘Asians’ in Rotherham. But here Bolt want’s them named and shamed Pakis are Pakis , Muslims to boot and should be identified not protected by ‘political correctness’?He is a RACIST
Trying to understand Bolt’s ideas is like herding cats. He’s a one-eyed extreme conservative with a collection of arguments selectively picked to support a moral framework which he treats as some universal given . He is an elitist of the worst kind. The only reason Rotherham is of any use to him at the moment is to indulge in his favourite pastime of Muslim bashing.
Bolt doesn’t raise the issues of sexploitation of women on a larger and more brutal scale than Rotherham all by white christian Europeans. He never really says anything about the Italian & Russian Mafia or sexploitation in Britain in general. He doesn’t raise the scandals at the highest levels of Tory politicians, paedophilia ,rent boys & prostitution in Westminster these are of no use to him. But a badly run underfunded orphanage in Rotherham suits him down to the ground it’s in his cross hairs and suits his Labour vs Conservative debate in Britain. Bolts just copied and pasted it because he’s a lazy mother.
I have also observed the total unabashed acceptance by children of different races at school, and at the local swimming pool where mature judgement is made by children unhindered by the prejudicial ignorance of adults.
My thoughts drifted to my own youth and I wondered just what it is that causes people to be racist. I recalled as a small boy being told what side of the street to walk to school because Jews lived on the other side. I lived through the post war era of immigration when Australians belittled and sneered at Italians and Greeks. Then later with bi partisan agreement we accepted the Vietnamese who came by boat. But not before debasing them with the worst part of our own uniquely Australian prejudice.
Memories came back to me of a pub I used to drink at on my way home from work. The beer garden attracted a cohort of Aussie builders who sub contracted concreting work to a group of Italians. I would observe how the Aussie fellows would run them down with the foulest of language and then drink with them, without a hint of condemnation when they arrived.
There was a time when a relation who was traveling by caravan around Australia rang me from some remote area highly populated by indigenous people. After the usual greeting the following words were advanced.
‘’I’m not a racist but’’ When you hear someone say those words they generally are. What followed was a tirade of critical commentary about every aspect of Aboriginal culture and living standards. I have no doubt that much of what she was saying was true however, there was no situation that wasn’t replicated in white city society. Her comments were therefore racist. The singling out of any group for reason of drawing attention to color is abhorrent to me.
More recently I have experienced racism where I live. I have two neighbors (one now deceased) who when talking about indigenous folk have described aboriginals as taking up to much space.
At a junior football final a couple of years ago a teenage boy was standing behind me verbalising a young aboriginal player of immense talent. I allowed the insults to insinuate themselves into the minds around me. The aboriginal boy had heard the remarks and was a bit distressed about it. I turned and said to the boy of uncouth mouth.
‘’So yours is what a racists face looks like’’
The teenager slunk away probably not used to having his racism confronted. In the unnatural silence that had invaded the group where I was standing I received a couple of congratulatory slaps on the shoulder.
You see I hate all forms of racism in a way that even someone like me, with a love of the moulding of words as disciples for good, cannot do. It was a little brave of me to do what I did because I am getting on in years but we must confront it.
In watching the antics of children of different races in their play we can bear witness to the sin of the abusers of decency. By the influence of those who cannot concede that we were all black once. And those who believe that superiority is determined by a chemical compound.
Children celebrate difference and prove to us that racism is not a part of the human condition. It is taught, or acquired. You have to learn it and those who tutor it and preach it are to be pitied for their ignorance and imbecility. No one is born a racist but we are born into racist societies.
What is racism?
It is best described in two parts. Firstly it is the belief that one race is superior to another. That it accounts for differences in human character and ability. Secondly racism is, discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Scott Woods puts it another way.
The problem is that white people see racism as conscious hate, when racism is bigger than that. Racism is a complex system of social and political levers and pulleys set up generations ago to continue working on the behalf of whites at other people’s expense, whether whites know/like it or not. Racism is an insidious cultural disease. It is so insidious that it doesn’t care if you are a white person who likes black people; it’s still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don’t look like you. Yes, racism looks like hate, but hate is just one manifestation. Privilege is another. Access is another. Ignorance is another. Apathy is another. And so on. So while I agree with people who say no one is born racist, it remains a powerful system that we’re immediately born into. It’s like being born into air: you take it in as soon as you breathe. It’s not a cold that you can get over. There is no anti-racist certification class. It’s a set of socioeconomic traps and cultural values that are fired up every time we interact with the world. It is a thing you have to keep scooping out of the boat of your life to keep from drowning in it. I know it’s hard work, but it’s the price you pay for owning everything.
Racism is preserved in many and various ways. Even Christian art propagates the myth of Jesus being white when in fact he would have been dark skinned and of Middle Eastern appearance. But art depicts him as white with European features and more often than not as effeminate.
Christians also cannot bring themselves to the point of accepting that dark skinned people were responsible for the introduction of religion into society. No white person has ever introduced a major religion. Some Christians even quote Bible verse to justify white superiority.
Even the law disproportionally targets colored (I hate that term) people resulting in levels of incarceration much higher than other groups.
The worst perpetrators of racism are those who do it through the guise of free speech. People like Andrew Bolt. A journalist of mediocre talent who writes in a grammatical style attractive to the intellect of 13 year olds, unable to challenge the mind (or his argument)with a word, or sentence.
Recently he wanted the law changed so that he would be freer through his column to abuse and defame. When the legislation was turfed because of its unpopularity Tony Abbott felt obliged to phone this journalist of such little virtue and apologise.
People who support Bolt and his racism need to ask just why it is that he is fixated on the subject of race (and Muslims and climate change) and the answer is simple. Murdoch has built his news empire on smut and controversy. The formula has made him extremely wealthy. And there is no doubt that Bolt is paid extraordinary amounts of money to proliferate the pages of the Herald Sun with this sort of gutter journalism.
Let us not forget what Justice Bromberg, said about Bolt’s use of language. He said,
“His style and structure is highly suggestive and designed to excite. His style was ”not careful, precise or exact” and the language not moderate or temperate but often strong and emphatic”. There is a liberal use of sarcasm and mockery,” he wrote. Language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilised. It is language, which invites the reader to not only read the lines, but to also read between the lines.”
We should also remember that during the London riots, of the not too distant past Bolt in one of his pieces used the word ‘aped’ to describe the copycat behaviour of some people. The use of the word was legitimate in that sense until you appreciate that he was talking about black West Indians, and then the word became racist.
Bolt keeps coming back to skin, or the color of it as if it were a sexual fetish that gives him endless gratification.
And it must be said that Andrew is a convicted racist and has been found to on many occasions lie in his writing, particularly on the environment. In addition he has been convicted of defaming a female magistrate.
He wants the law changed so that in the future under the guise of free speech he will be able to vilify at his heart’s content.
Take two recent examples from his TV program. ‘’The Bolt Report’’
Bolt is an opponent of an attempt, which has bi partisan support, to recognise indigenous people in the constitution, contending that to single out any particular group is racist because it divides Australians? Former Labor minister Craig Emerson thus declared him a racist by his own criteria.
“Then you are a racist,” Emerson said, “because of the comments you made in relation to Indigenous people. By your own criterion, and that’s what you did. You identified a group of people and went for them.”
He was correct. Emerson’s remark relates to the legal case in which Bolt was found to have breached racial discrimination laws in articles that implied light-skinned Indigenous people identified themselves as Aboriginal for personal gain.
He was guilty by his own admission.
Another more recent example is when he quiet bizarrely declared that ‘’aboriginals weren’t here first’’. As I said earlier he has this thing about race that sends him into some kind of mental climax that needs constant stimulation. If you want to figure out the argument he was putting go here and then explain it to me. I cannot.
I will end where I started with my observation of that gregarious dark skinned boy playing joyfully in fellowship with his light skinned mates, and the fact each was different in color, one to the other didn’t enter the unblemished purity of their companionship. And I silently prayed that it never would.
Wonder When the Seed Is Planted
I look upon the child’s face and see
Innocence – unblemished purity
Translated in looks virtuous
How sweet how incorruptible
Then it happens with measured subtly
The distortion of youthful thought
Insinuated into free
And immature minds
I wonder when the seed is planted
When evil first takes hold
And intolerance evolves
To become scum on the pond of life
Who grants permission to damage the child?
Of its pristine purity
The wonderment of adventure
And unfiltered creativity
Is it the sin of the father?
That makes a child loathe
That makes them xenophobic
Racist just like him
When does it take root this hatred?
That enters the child’s mind
To be carried with them always
Fermenting as they grow
Are parents so imbued?
With experiences of the past
That forgiveness is impossible
Bad memories seem to last
So they pass it onto their children
And intolerance lingers on
Licking on the finger of hate
It seems to have no end
I can only ask that compassion
Might replace their putrid sin
And the cry that is inside each heart
Will – let understanding in
4100 submissions almost 80% unanimously rejected the Brandis draft for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act to be known as the “BOLT LAW” Brandis refused the Fairfax FOI request but allowed the ANU one. The Australian Attorney General’s proposal would give a a green light to racism. Despite the objections George Brandis intends to do his master Tony Abbott’s bidding and push ahead with the changes. Bolt calls it Freedom of Speech. “every individual should be permitted to say what they want” but not every individual Bolt is permitted the same platform with which to say it.