I’ve waited years and years for this.

It’s a rare moment indeed in these days of sporadic mommyblogging, enormous wordless photo uploads, and talking in excruciating detail about stenography; but here is a link to a news story of current relevance! The man who has induced more rage in me than just about anyone else, Andrew Bolt, has been found by the Federal Court to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act.

A devastating blow to him, but still, he’s a very handsome man and they can never take that away from him.

Now that I don’t live in Australia anymore, I make a point of trying to avoid his “articles”. I prefer journalists to use reporting devices such as FACT, LOGIC and BALANCE instead of incendiary, empirically unsupported, step-jumping, belligerent distortion. Here is a piece that sets out what I feel about this judgment with a grace and elan I have neither the time, inclination or wordskills to replicate. It’s well worth the click.

I’ve given Bolty a lot of space on various of my blogs over the years, and don’t intend to give him any more after this. But I will point out, in response to his predictably griping, self-indulgent debrief on the front page of today’s Herald Sun, a couple of points about his (and all Australians’) freedom of speech “rights”.

The UN, in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has adopted an article in relation to free speech. The Commonwealth government has affirmed the principles of this declaration, including the free speech article. However, treaties and conventions like this only become enshrined in Australian law if and when the government passes a specific Act of Parliament related to them. As far as I know (I could be wrong – and if I am, I’ll admit it, unlike Bolty), no Australian government has thusly implemented free-speech provisions.

Therefore, there is no prescriptive right to freedom of speech, only an implied one; but since just about everything Bolt ever says is premised on a rickety scale from hearsay to conjecture to panic-merchanting, it’s not surprising he’s ridden “implication” all the way to the top and now can’t accept that…IT’S WRONG.

Also, AS IF he titles his article “Silencing Me Impedes Unity”. AS IF.

You can see I find it hard to stop myself when it comes to Bolt. So I’ll leave the final word to me dad. Way back in 2004, when I was in the heat of Bolt-rage and El Wayno was living in Hong Kong without access to the Herald Sun online, we would exchanges articles in the style of the great man. Kind of like fanfic, but where you’re not actually a fan. At all. This one from El Wayno is quite dated now (concerned mostly with, for example, the run-in between then-president George Bush and Senator Bob Brown) but it’s always been my favourite.

October 2004…
I have tried a dozen times to start this piece in a way that sounds less extreme. But the compelling truth about Bob Brown must be told. Greens in the past were recruited by Nazis, inspire violence and trample over the right of a fair go. Bob Brown protects dictators like Saddam Hussein and terrorists like Osama bin Laden (and single-handedly caused last year’s bushfires, he hates Bush so much).

There, that doesn’t sound too extreme. Let me continue.

Only 12 years ago Brown asked the government to intervene to save the Kurds from slaughter by Saddam. Now the hypocrite objects when Bush prevents this slaughter by bombing the crap out of Iraq and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Only a thug would object to Bush’s actions. Pointing out the unnecessary killing of Iraqis was heartless and may have hurt George Bush’s feelings. Not that that hoodlum would care.

I think we all remember last year how, during President Bush’s visit, Brown went to the appalling level of using argument, words and logic. I can’t even bring myself to mention Senator Nettle flinging herself at Bush in an effort to inflict maximum bodily harm on the defenceless president, still reeling from the shock of hearing that some Australians aren’t happy about his tendency to kill people in very large numbers indeed.

Oh, and what was Brown objecting to? He seems to have some pettifogging nit-picking notion that two Australian terrorists held by America deserve the protection of legal process. Some weird idea that all people should be equal before the law. What next, that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (don’t even start me on 11 September 2001 when unarmed protestors in Melbourne repeatedly belted police batons with their heads and held up traffic for over an hour.)

At this stage of the article I think I can stop being so reasonable and really express my thoughts, no matter how crazy they may seem, even if they offend some readers who value things like good manners, common sense and reality. Hitler was a vegetarian and he banned vivisection. There, I’ve said it. If you can’t see that Bob Brown is dangerous now, you probably think organic farming and national parks are good ideas too. Just like Hitler did. Well. Go watch Schindler’s List and you’ll see where that kind of thinking leads.

Bob Brown should be ashamed of himself for using the parliament to express an opinion as if he were some elected representative of the Australian people or something. Thank God there are still papers like the Herald Sun to publish reasoned refutations to his dangerous ideas.

As ever,

One Comment Add yours

  1. Jenny says:

    I only skimmed the article you linked to, and I am sure it makes some good points, but I think your word skills could improve on the last sentence in the opening paragraph: “It is, to my mind, a just decision, and not just in law.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s