Andrew Bolt convicted of heresy and impiety

Andrew Bolt was convicted for impugning various people by accusing them of being white, merely because they and their parents on both sides were physically and culturally white.  This (calling people white) has been declared to be a racist insult.

Having created special privileges for black people, many of our ruling elite naturally declared themselves to be of the privileged caste, though few of them have ever been close enough to an actual black to spit on them, nor would they send their children to a school where there was any danger of any substantial number of actual blacks attending .  To doubt their entitlement is clearly a racist insult, which must be punished.

Anita Heiss is as white as I am, has never lived anywhere that any significant number of blacks lived, and would never lower herself to live anywhere that any significant number of blacks lived.

 

 

3 Responses to “Andrew Bolt convicted of heresy and impiety”

  1. Erik says:

    Bloody hell. It’s all perfectly in accordance with the law, though. I went and checked here:
    http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2009C00388/Html/Text#_Toc287968360

    “It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
    (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
    (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.”

    The singular is particularly scary. Note that:

    “If:
    (a) an act is done for 2 or more reasons; and
    (b) one of the reasons is the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person (whether or not it is the dominant reason or a substantial reason for doing the act);
    then, for the purposes of this Part, the act is taken to be done because of the person’s race, colour or national or ethnic origin.”

    In other words, anything that has to do with race (like talking about race) and is likely to offend at least one person (like talking about race) and is done in public (like talking about race with someone other than your family) is criminal.

    Of course there are exemptions for “anything said or done reasonably and in good faith (…) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest”.

    I could drive a truck through the vagueness implied with all the reasonable-good-faith-vagueness-genuine-purpose-public-interest buzzwords. Or I could just hand it over to a pro-White government and see what they’d make of it when they got to conduct enforcement. I cannot conclude other than that the law effectively forbids dissent.

    • jim says:

      The clear meaning of the law is that it is illegal to talk about anything that has to do with race unless the ruling elite likes what you say.

  2. Tschafer says:

    “I cannot conclude other than that the law effectively forbids dissent.”

    Which, of course, is what it was really designed to do. Shocking, but not surprising…

Leave a Reply