The politically correct Left are crowing about the court judgement against columnist Andrew Bolt who dared criticise the opportunists who attach the label Aborigine to themselves in order to attract a whole raft of privileges and benefits not available to whites. Resentment against these people began in the mid 1980s when "Aboriginal" activist Michael Mansell jumped up and down in the media, advocated a separate country for Aborigines and travelled to Libya to have meetings with Colonel Gaddafi.
If you recall, Bolt wrote an article in the Herald Sun headed "Hip to Be Black" which named a number of people who are involved in this rort. These people took a class action under the Racial Discrimination Act and Racial Vilification Act and had a compliant, left-wing judge hearing the case and won.
The scenes on TV last night of Aborigines celebrating were sickening. One of those people was rapist Geoff Clark who terrorised the town of Warrnambool for several years.
Watching these scenes, I was immediately taken back 16 years to the disgraceful Hindmarsh Island Aboriginal secret womens' business scandal. A group of conservationists in early 1995 wanted to stop a bridge being built from the mainland to Hindmarsh Island in SA, they enlisted a group of Aboriginal women to concoct a fabricated story about "secret womens' business", they took the owners of the holiday resort on Hindmarsh Island to the Federal and High Court in ongoing legal action - funded and supported by the Labor government at the time - and won. There were similar celebratory scenes on TV of Aborigines celebrating and cracking open champagne, and in suburban homes across Australia the anger, rage and hate was palpable. The Keating Labor government was finished. Even after the conspiracy was uncovered, the Left continued to defend the idea of "secret womens' business" and published books supporting the nonsense even after Keating had been destroyed at the polls and the Liberal government under John Howard was governing with a near record majority.
In this latest case we have a columnist detested by the Left and their followers crucified because they don't like his opinions. They want to shut him up. Well, it won't work. I know from personal experience that the application of anti-discrimination rules to muzzle free speech - rather than silencing dissent and creating a happy, harmonious society - only causes resentment and hardens any discriminatory views. The "victims" are seen as a protected species enjoying privileges over and above the ordinary, normal person simply because of genetics. I was editor of a student newspaper at uni in the 1980s and found that it was impossible to do my job due to a left-wing editor-in-chief who ruthlessly applied censorship based on a Student Media Policy which was totally over the top.
Andrew Bolt tried to address the media outside the court after the ruling and some thugs yelled out something when he referred to free speech. Typical, eh? The pathetic statements by the "Aboriginal" litigants claiming the ruling was "a victory for free speech" were nothing short of bizarre. How do they figure that? The reverse is true, of course. If they think this is somehow a "victory" they are sadly mistaken. Aussies don't like uppity Aborigines and they especially don't like them abusing the legal system to stifle criticism. They especially resent the overuse and abuse of the word "racist" whenever anybody tries to discuss the subject of Aboriginal affairs.
This ruling has set back the Aboriginal cause several years. It has severely damaged the reputation and standing of their community and has resurrected the image of a privileged race enjoying privileges not available to others. And for what? Is anybody now better off? Has anybody benefitted as a result? No, no and no.
The only winners are the lawyers who have pocketed megabucks and the redneck element who have had all their negative opinions of Aborigines reinforced. It is not healthy.
