Bolt trial: free speech under threat
Breaking News:

Bolt trial: free speech under threat

White "Aborigines" use Racial Discrimination Act to stifle criticism. 

Andrew Bolt's show trial.

What do these women have in common?

       Larissa Behrendt        Bindi Cole          Pat Eatock             Anita Heiss

Don’t laugh, but they all claim to be Australian Aboriginals. The above lovelies are part of a group of  nine "Aboriginals" who hauled a journalist before the Australian Federal Court under the provisions of Australia's notorious Racial Discrimination Act for daring to criticise them for claiming Aboriginality in order to receive some of the special benefits available to Aboriginals.

The picture on the left is of a real Aboriginal. Do you see the resemblance?

Aboriginals are Australia’s sacred cows. They are beyond criticism. No one dares criticise them for fear of being howled down as a racist. Years of political correctness and bleeding-heart paternalism has seen special laws passed to favour them and untold billions of taxpayers dollars lavished on them.

Emeritus professor Helen Hughes and researcher Mark Hughes report that in 2008-09, Australian government expenditure on Australia’s 330,000 Aboriginals and part-Aboriginals reached a massive $22 billion. The portion of government expenditure allocated to the 75,000 Aboriginals living in remote communities is more than $100,000 per person per year, or $400,000 per family of four. Those figures do not take into account the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to Aboriginal groups from mining royalties.

The researchers estimate that around 50 per cent of the government funding finds its way into the “Aboriginal industry”,  the vast army of bureaucrats, administrators, consultants and academics together with what I call the black aristocracy. These are the Aboriginals and part-Aboriginals who receive special grants, prizes, scholarships, payments and privileges to sit on committees and advise and consult to government. Special departments of Aboriginal studies are created in universities to be filled by the black aristocracy. Taxpayer funded arts and literary prizes are available only to Aboriginal claimants.

White "Aborigines" use Racial Discrimination Act to stifle criticism

Now the Aboriginal industry has found a new weapon to slap down criticism and avoid scrutiny.

Journalist Andrew Bolt wrote two articles critical of certain persons clearly of European descent who claimed Aboriginal status to receive, according to Bolt, some of the special benefits available only to Aboriginals.

Thanks to political correctness, the definition of Aboriginal has become very fluid. Regardless of skin color or looks, a person only needs to have an Aboriginal somewhere in their ancestry to claim Aboriginality.

If the authorities and journalists wanted to be accurate and not politically correct, they would refer to part-Aboriginals as  mulattos. The Australian Oxford Dictionary defines a mulatto as “a person of mixed white and black parentage”.

In two columns written in 2009, Bolt says a number of people, often more European than indigenous, have been able to advance their careers by applying for positions, prizes and scholarships by self-identifying as Aboriginal. He says it is "sad that we harp on about differences and rights based on such trivial inflections of race". For expressing these opinions, Bolt was hauled before the courts.

The Federal Court action brought against Bolt and his publisher, The Herald & Weekly Times by nine fair-skinned “Aborigines” claimed that he "offended, insulted and humiliated" them in breach of the federal Racial Discrimination Act.

In one column entitled “It’s so hip to be black” Bolt wrote of fair-skinned people claiming Aboriginal status to advance their careers.

About one such person, Bolt wrote, “Larissa Behrendt (pictured above) has also worked as a professional Aborigine ever since leaving Harvard Law School, despite looking almost as German as her father.

She, too, chose to be Aboriginal, a member of the "Eualayai and Kammillaroi nations", and is now a senior professor at the University of Technology in Sydney's Indigenous House of Learning.

She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine, including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers, and is often interviewed demanding special rights for ‘my people’.”

And just to keep it in the family, Behrendt is the partner of Michael Lavarch. Lavarch, whose name will forever live in infamy as the Labor Party Attorney General who introduced the insidious Racial Discrimination Bill into parliament.

Under Section 18C, someone's subjective sense of being offended or humiliated has been made determinative of whether an unlawful act has been committed.

The mulattos engaged a group of Jewish lawyers headed by senior counsel and retired judge, Ron Merkel (pictured left) to take their case. The Jewish establishment is very sensitive to criticism and would undoubtedly be quite pleased with the wide-ranging provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act to stifle criticism of special identity groups.

And by happy accident or design, the court was presided over by Jewish Labor Party hack, Justice Mordecai  Bromberg.  Bromberg ran  unsuccessfully for preselection as the Australian Labor Party candidate for the seat of Burke in 2001.

Although Bolt’s articles were critical of white-skinned Aboriginals taking benefits intended for true Aboriginals, his criticisms were restrained and not particularly personal.

Merkel on the other hand went feral. He raved on about eugenics, anti-Semitism and holocaust deniers and linked all these evils to Bolt without a scrap of supporting evidence.

He could only have got away with such egregious conduct in front of a Jewish judge. Bromberg (pictured left) did not attempt to restrain him.

Justice Bromberd

Like some others who joined the Federal Court during the Rudd-Gillard years, Justice Bromberg has strong Labor credentials. He sees the judiciary as a way of delivering what he describes as social justice. He joined the court in 2009, eight years after failing to secure Labor Party preselection for a federal seat.

At his ceremonial welcome to the bench he listed the reasons he had accepted judicial appointment. They included “my impassioned commitment to the rule of law and to the continued contribution this court makes to upholding the law as an instrument of social justice”.

He started his legal career at Slater & Gordon, Julia Gillard’s old firm, where his contemporaries included Bernard Murphy, who joined the Federal Court in 2011.

The only evil of Hitler’s regime not dragged up by Merkel, was Hitler’s show trials, which this clearly was. Bolt was never going to win with the court run by the Jewish legal establishment running their holocaust agenda  and stacked with Aboriginal activists, sniggering and  hissing as Merkel played up to them.

Finally on 28th September 2011 Justice Bromberg in a long, rambling homily, found Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times guilty of conduct that contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

It was a great day for the black aristocracy.

It was a sad day free speech in Australia.

Laws similar to Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act introduced into other Western countries are slowly eroding the great Western tradition of free speech.

The threat to our freedom of speech in the West today does not come from some Soviet-style secret police. It comes from turf-protecting bureaucrats who find themselves all of a sudden in the human rights game. It comes from people in identity groups who want to create a right not to be offended. Unfortunately there are no useful legal tests about hurt feelings.

In Canada, Mark Steyn, another white conservative writer, was hauled in front of a human rights commission to defend his views about multiculturalism and the growing conflict between Islam and the West.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician faced two trials for inciting hate and discrimination against Muslims for criticising Islam.

According to Wilders himself, it was not he who was on trial, but his "freedom of speech" and that at stake were traditional European freedoms. In a February 2010 interview he said he was "fighting for one thing: the preservation of our culture, which is based on Christianity, Judaism and humanism – and not on Islam... While Islamization of our society grows, the political elite looks in the other direction and ignores the real problem, namely, the impending loss of our freedom. I am fighting not against Moslems, but against the influx of a totalitarian ideology called Islam."

It is the mission of this website to expose this creeping stifling of free speech.


  1. Joseph22 May 2013

    The West faces real threats to freedom of expression

To add a comment register here