Thank you Graham for a balanced and thoughtful discussion of this case. Although I expected the decision to be what it was, given the broad nature of the leislation, I was surprised by Justice Bromberg's emphasis on the 'tone' of the Bolt article and on Bolt's use of sarcasm in that article. What are we coming to when judges, as you rightly point out, can interpret what one might have meant rather than confining themselves to what one actually said?

No doubt others will comment on the sloppy research underpinning Bolt's piece and I readily concede that point but it cannot be against the law to be sloppy, even though one might receive professional criticism for being so.The repeal of this noxious law is long overdue. Fortunately the Bolt case has made repeal much more likely

I'm no legal expert, but from what I've read and heard there is quite a good chance of this decision being overturned on appeal. Shouldn't we wait for the outcome of any appeal before we start counting chickens?

From any reasonable perspective, the decision in Eatock v Bolt is loud and clear: don't tell lies and make false claims about the motives of people based on their ethnicity.

If the Coalition turns this into an attack on free speech, race laws and Aborignal people upon their ethics be it.

But Bolt has yet to explain where he got his (false) information about the nine claimants from and until he does so, he will forever be remembered as a hate writer.

He attacked a Muslim school in Melbourne for failing its students in VCE - when, in fact, the students do the much harder International Baccalaureate.

He lost NewsCorp shareholders $2 million dollars when he defamed Victoria's deputy chief magistrate and now, one wonders, how much more will he cost shareholders?

I disagree with the ruling. I don't see how Bolt's articles constituted racial discrimination. There is an obvious case for defamation, which no doubt would have been successful based on the findings on this case by Justice Bromberg.

However, I disagree that this case, should it hold up at appeal, could be detrimental to democracy and free speech. The basis of the finding was that Bolt's facts were wrong, and he knew it. "Sloppy journalism" is a cop-out for Bolt sympathisers.

Democracy relies on people having a voice. It also relies on people being properly informed. Without either of these, the democracy itself is corrupt and loses its credibility.

If distortions of truth, omission of facts and lies are not removed from free speech, it becomes freedom to deceive. Such deceit would not be tolerated in any other profession. Why should journalists, who hold positions of authority as professionals in public discourse, not be held to account like any other profession.

paulr .. are you a shareholder in News Corp? Probably not, I am, and I am very happy for the organisation to fund BoltA for whatever it takes to challenge bad laws, as I believe the majority of shareholders are - we don't want the company's product to become like other Australian newspapers and just become poor quality scrap paper. There's a reason the other new companies share price is tanking, the product is heavily biased towards people who don't even buy it, but whine continuously about everything they don't like.

Moving on .. Whether BoltA is right or wrong, all the time, is beside the point.

The point is you have someone who is not afraid of the politically correct police and asks hard questions .. he is bound to offend. This has a place in Australian society, heis not a classic wild colonial oy, but plays the role.

My concern is the empowerment of those who "take offence", it is the new cultural defence.

We are encouraging censorship by the offended, and the people who are in the business of victimhood who regularly take this offence, because they can .. it gives them momentary attention, possibly compensation.

I believe the "victims" will end up regretting their stands as this is more and more becoming something a major party needs to address to appeal to their constituents.

The law is wrong and bad, as it only assists a portion of the community to attack other parts of our community. We used to just ignore or toughen up against criticism, now we reach for a lawyer, disgusting.

BoltA is not racist, and the left seem not to worry about what he says, but what he "means" in their tiny little imaginative worlds.

Thanks for an interesting summary of the issue, Graham. I hope nobody assumes my comment with respect to the judge's Jewish heritage was motivated by anti-semitism. I was simply drawing attention to it as a possible factor informing his judgement. We all have predispositions and community influence can be a strong one, especially that of a close-knit community like that of Melbourne's Jewry. I'm sure his Law is nonetheless sound, even if the particular interpretation might not survive an appeal.

Bolt is not racist, surely he can say what and how he feels.
Although my forbears came from Scotland I am not Scottish, I am Australian, full stop. When I look at most Aborigine descendants most have a very distinct white colouring of Skin, why do they persist in being Aborigine when in actual fact they are of Australian descent from white Australians, get over it half and quarter cast Aborigines, I am sure you would not want to return to the days of boomerang throwing and catching snakes, no more than I want to eat Hagis. I do like your dream time dances which to be hoped will always be part of you, the same as I like Scottish reels but that does no mean I too have to be still doing Scottish reels or wearing a tartan skirt.
Andrew an article well written and most Australians would agree with you.We are becoming too much of a society where we cannot say what we think and feel is right.

One can't help to think that this political decision comes largely from jealousy. One man whose program is watched by more than the Insiders and whose blog attracts huge number of contributors has the left squirming in jealousy. Many on OLO even hate him largely because his views reasonate so much with those who refuse to have faith in the 'íntellectual' elite. He has exposed the hypocrisy of the gw warming scam, the aboriginal industry, the totally hypocritcal failed Gillard immigration debacle and the idiotic nature of the carbon tax. His opponents hate him with a passion because he reasonates with those who believe in common sense which is something sadly lacking from the left. The decision will make him more popular as the ridiculous nature of this foolish law is exposed.

Amicus, The point is not that Bolt (or anyone else) is challenging something or someone or some group. The point is that he bases many of his challenges on lies and untruths.

When will someone who supports Bolt actually agree that he got his facts wrong and when will Bolt and his lawyers explain why he did not challenge the plaintiffs' heritage in court?

The absence of any explanation is that he wants to say anything about anyone. So in his eyes, it would be ok for me to write that his mother was a prostitute and his father a paedophile and he never went to school and cannot write; but he is far too intelligent to declare untruths and drivel and therefore someone else writes his columns for him and he doesn't know any better - clearly wrong, but that is what he is wanting me to be able to say and write about him or anyone else.

I also hope the plaintiffs sue him for defamation.

No, I'm not a shareholder in NewsCorp, but the cost of Bolt's lies has an impact on the company's revenues... so why does NewsCorp encourage him to write lies? Unless the editor of the Herald-Sun is too afraid of Bolt.

I have to agree with the gist of Graham Young's assessment bar the usual Left-bashing/chattering classes commentary of which he like most RW commentators seems unable to refrain from among some otherwise good arguments. I wonder when the Right 'chatters' what they call it - probably networking or spreading the word or faith. Who knows.

The outcome of this case is surprising and will likely be overturned on appeal. Bolt's article does not breach the RD Act and I would not classify his comments as villification.

There is certainly a good case for defamation by the plaintiffs in relation to personal accusations.

The Courts are not a place for oversighting sloppy journalism otherwise media outlets would never be out of the Courts.
Welfare distribution is tied into disadvantage where there is inbuilt prejudices towards a group of people based on their ethnicity or colour of skin etc, whether in the process of seeking work, accessing education and expectations of respect. Bolt was basically arguing, albeit sarcastically, that the plaintiffs were not disadvantaged in the same way as full-blood aborigines. This does not in itself constitute a breach of the RDA.

There should always be freedom to discuss issues around welfare distribution and what constitutes 'disadvantage'. There have been aboriginals saying similar things, one should not conclude that Indigenous Australians are a homogenous group.

I would expect most rational people to understand ethnicity is not defined by physical appearance but to bloodlines, but this decision goes too far in setting a precedent for some honest discussion around race, ethnicity and welfare.

Bolt is a Dolt. Of that there is no doubt, his interviewing style is the most biased I've seen on Australian television, he interrupts his guests if they are not saying what he expects them to say and he leads his 'witnesses'.

While it must lead some to temptation, it is not appropriate IMO to agree with this decision just because Bolt is a Dolt or as a backlash against declining standards in journalism. We can best do that by not buying the offending newspapers or turning off the TV.

Great post Pelican

Have a question for you, does this ruling limit "free speech"?

I don't see that it has. There has been no change at all to what passes for free speech in Australia, noting that we do not have a constitutional right as is set down in USA legislation.

" Freedom of Speech and the Constitution

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116)...

... In 1942 a Constitutional Convention held in Canberra recommended that the Constitution be amended to include a new section 116A preventing the Commonwealth or a State passing laws which curtailed freedom of speech or of the press.(9) The government did not accept this proposal and it was not included in the referendum on 19 August 1944, when other constitutional amendments were proposed.

The advantage of having such rights written into the Constitution is that they are 'entrenched' and cannot be amended or removed by any government without the overwhelming approval of the people voting at a referendum to amend the Constitution.(10) Rights contained in other legislation, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, are not entrenched. They may be amended or repealed by any government with the consent of Parliament. "

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm

I posit GY's OLO has nothing to fear from Eatock V Bolt. Although I do know that OLO posters have been silenced through GY's rules about disagreeing with the moderator; as is his right of course. Just making the point that none of us are truly free; in the purest sense of the word.

Hi Ammonite
I cannot comment yet on whether this ruling might inhibit free speech or whether the ruling will set a too broad precedent for similar cases.

The ruling may possibly inhibit some journalists or social commentators who might perceive the ruling as a new line drawn in the sand that they may not be willing to cross. There is a huge abyss between sloppy journalism and breaches of the RDA and that is where I have a problem. In many ways the ruling may do more harm to the objectives of the RDA.

I am not sure I buy into the whole damaging to free speech argument this ruling has invoked. Much of it is the expected RW reaction but there is an element of truth in among the bluster albeit overplayed.

There is a difference between villification and what Bolt has written IMO, and I would hate to see the freedoms we take for granted diminished in any way. There is always a battle going on legislatively speaking between freedom of speech and what constitutes hate speech or villification.

My own feeling is that Bolt was not engaging in 'hate speech' in this case and it does raise some concern about the 'line'. He is guilty of sloppy journalism and making personal accusations that he has neither backed up with evidence or with interviewing the people concerned. But that is an entirely different area of law.

My thoughts come from looking at this issue purely from the legal implications (from my layman's POV), putting aside political ideology or personal feelings about Bolt.

For the sake of consistency, I'd like to see a few lawyers go through the halls of academia, particularly the Humanities department, and make those who negatively stereotype Western culture (re-whites) accountable under the Racial Discrimination Act. Until those who denigrate Western culture (re-whites) are made accountable, then the Racial Discrimination Act will be little more than a code word for anti-white.

Aristocrat,

Have you got an example for us?

I think runner got close to the problem.

Graham, I think you will have to ban any discussion of race.
Some of the comments in this thread go close to the limit.
There is I think another boobytrap lying here.
Could a similar ruling be made regarding religion ?
After all some religions are closely related to race and when there is
a comment made about a particular religion, an accusation will be made
that it is racial.

So I think you should ban all race and religious discussion.
Waiting for a possible appeal would not protect you I suspect.

Oh yes I forgot, you should also ban discussion on immigration.
Commentators on immigration are often accused of racism.

Graham, I read the interview with Larissa Behrendt and the judge's summary - links to both were posted by you on the forum - but I don't see why you find it hard to square those accounts. To me they matched.
Probably every publisher and producer in the country thinks the sky has fallen in right now, but I think the decision and the Racial Discrimination Act will prove no more onerous than defamation law and no more of an impediment to free speech. (Although it could be argued that defamation law is an impediment to free speech)

Even thorough research will-not always uncover all evidence. Journalists will play it safe by avoiding making the specific claims that Bolt made. Personally, I hate the move away from reporting facts toward editorialising. Few columns on this court case have detailed exactly what Bolt claimed, what evidence the court heard and what they accepted as fact. Many incidents polarise public opinion, because we don't know all of the facts and are left to imagine them.

People who advance any opinion should be expected to clearly detail all of the evidence that supports their argument. Those who disagree should do the same. Furthermore, finding a few errors in this supporting evidence does-not (necessarily) disprove any argument. For example, none of Bolt's errors of fact disprove his central argument that these plaintiffs have little in common with the disadvantaged aborigines that certain handouts were designed to help.

I didn't realise that Bolt was a Zionist.He may have intentionally done this to get the present result.

You seem not concerned by our sedition laws Graham,but they are so broad in their definition that any one of us can be charged with sedition if we disagree with our Govt.Have a close look at them.

@Trashcanman

Re: <<Aristocrat, Have you got an example for us?>>

Here's one for you Trashcanman:

"The historian and educator Diane Ravitch tells how she was asked to preview some proposed educational text for children for the US Education Department:
‘After I read a dozen such passages, a combination of fiction and nonfiction, I realized that the readings themselves had a cumulative subtext: the hero was never a white boy. Instead, the leading character – the one who was most competent, successful, and sympathetic --- was invariably either a girl (of any race) or a non-white boy. Almost without exception, white boys were portrayed as weak and dependent”

And,

"When Ravitch enquired why so few reading passages were drawn from classical children’s literature, the publisher explained that it was ‘a well-accepted principle in educational publishing that everything written before 1970 was rife with racism and sexism. Only stories written after that date were likely to have acceptable language appropriate multicultural sensitivity”

From: The Big Mo –Why Momentum Now Rules Our World – Mark Roeder

Totally true about the sedition laws. If they were enforced just about anyone could be done.

I found a review of the Andrew Bolt speech to which I referred in my comment:
http://www.icjs-online.org/indarch.php?eid=802&ICJS=71&article=681
I can't find the actual transcript, I read it on the Catch The Fire Ministries site a couple of years ago but it's no longer available.
I quoted from memory but I wasn't incorrect and Bolt did go much further in his remarks in the original piece, leading me to my "off the leash" analysis.
I really don't see "conservatives" watering down Racial and Religious tolerance laws, I've tried to demonstrate that the politicians all sing from the same hymn book on that score.
Do I need to post links to the photos of Chabad functions attended by John Howard, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, Ted Baillieau, John Brumby,Nathan Rees, Stephen Harper, George Bush, Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton...I'll stop, lest the list run on for a page.
Did you guys listen to the link I provided on Nazi Germany's Admiral Canaris, Lt Colonel Bloch and the Lubavitcher Rebbe?
That's truly shocking stuff and this is no ordinary religious sect.

Amicus and Ojnab,
Bolt is a racist - his use of eugenic assumptions and his belief that he has the right to determine another person's race based on his self-determined criteria identifies him as a racist.

Ojnab, you ask a very relevant and insightful question. Why is it that some people persist in being Aboriginal? This is the case even when family income means there is no personal benefit. Could it be that mainstream Australia is not as welcoming to 'fair-skinned' Aboriginal people as they make out. Or, maybe it has something to do with spiritual beliefs, family connection, or all of the above.

Why does it bother non-Indigenous Australians that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders hold onto their identity - even when it is not about money (and there are plenty who do).

Is there a dread that Indigenous Australian's do not want to be 'white' and to fit into mainstream society because it is so very unattractive.

After all, Indigenous Australians experience the very worst side of mainstream Australians - as Bolt demonstrates.

If 'fair-skinned' Aboriginal people were to be forced to identify as 'white' they may fear that they would not be able to join in the regular discussions on quantum of blood etc. After all their acceptance as 'white' will always be conditional.

whether Bolt is racist or not is irrelevant. The left think everyone who is white, male and disagrees with their views are racist. Even the supporters of Howards boat policy were all considered racist until along comes Ms Gillard who must be triply racist (Oh that's right she is not a white male), The point is he basicly told the truth. Some cash in on their race. Yea that make me racist because I agree with the truth and have seen it first hand.

Aka,
In your opinion it's Racism, you're only using that term in relation to White people, anti Racism is a code word for Anti White.
What you are suggesting is a hypothetical scenario, wherein the Anti Racist definition of Whiteness and White Australia is accepted by White people.
I can tell you right away that it is not.
At this point the racial identity of White Australians is very much in a state of flux due to the dissonant message coming from Anti Whites:
"There's no such thing as a White Australian/ White Australians are Racists".

Graham made an typical Anti Racist comment in the article at the head of this page "White, whatever that means"...ask an Aborigine or a Third World migrant"Who are the White Australians?", you'll get a pretty definitve answer.
Anti Whites have however lost control of the anti Racist message, Whiteness is now being shaped by multiculturalism, migrants are defining White Australia and they don't have too many harsh words to say about us. I was recently told by a fellow tradesman, of Middle Eastern extraction that Aussies and Italians were the best people to work for, followed by Greeks and Lebanese.
Multiculturalism was intended to destroy us but it's shaped us into something arguably better and stronger than we were before, a more cohesive, tolerant and worldly ethno racial group who know where they've come from and can see where they're going.

You can't subjugate a people to a Genocidal ideology like anti Racism unless they are demoralised, if you've failed to demoralise White Australians then keep trying to blend them out of existence they will become hostile toward their tormentors and act to overthrow them.
It may come as a blow to anti Racists but White Australians don't listen to you because they don't respect you and they don't respect you because you want them to be blended out of existence.
We're not idiots.

It has long been established in the biological sciences that race DOES NOT EXIST, and that there is more genetic diversity within 'racial' groups than there is between 'racial' groups.

We're all people - well meaning folk who try to introduce arbitrary and meaningless distinctions 'twixt aboriginally descended Australians and European descended Australians do us all a grave disservice.

How can Bolt possibly have discriminated against a particular race, when race is a fantasy only maintained by some folk when it suits them to do so?

Race does exist, it's real and it matters what's more science proves that it's so.
Back to our friends the Kohanim:
http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php
There are other studies as well, wherein subjects are asked to give an account of their ancestry then are DNA tested, their answers are always pretty accurate.f someone says they are of a particular race, or ethnic group (which is a term coined by Eugenicist Julian Huxley to describe race) then it's a pretty sure bet they're telling the truth.
I find Rizla's post racially offensive,if I call myself a White man then I'm telling the truth, if Geoff Clark says he's Aboriginal then that's what he is .

If race isn't real then why are scientists testing for it?
In Rizla's post we see another Anti Racist position, "race is meaningless".
Bulldust, tell Pat Eatock there's no such thing as race.
Don't you think that if science had disproved race then Andrew Bolt's counsel would have used that as a defence?
Race is real, the law recognises it, science backs that conclusion and furthermore there are no such things as "social constructs" under the law.

Jay,

You might find my post racially offensive, but your posts are scientifically inaccurate - as a member of the Sceptics society, I know which I consider more offensive.

The concept of race might still hold currency in the field of sociology, but it no longer does in the field of biology - which is where some of my scientific background lies (I'm more familiar with chemistry, but I know more about biology than the average bear, and I take particular interest in mammalian biology). According to current biological theory, every human on earth is a member of the same taxonomic class, Homo sapiens sapiens, and racial variation is associated more with phenotypic expression and sociological factors than the underlying genealogy.

I will gladly call you a turnip if that's what you feel you need to make you happy, but I won't believe for a second that you are actually any form of root vegetable. If Geoff Clark, yourself and Pat Eatock (whoever he may be) wish to share in your collective delusion, I'm really not that worried. There are abuses of science taking place that I consider much more concerning (mostly involving quackery in place of medicine), so I'm content to let you delude yourself whilst more important battles are fought.

TAR:"According to current biological theory, every human on earth is a member of the same taxonomic class, Homo sapiens sapiens, and racial variation is associated more with phenotypic expression and sociological factors than the underlying genealogy."

And what do you think causes the phenotype? Races are largely a product of founder effect and isolation, as well as some adaptation to environment (equatorial peoples tend to be darker than those from high latitudes, for example).

Jay, your point with respect to racism is valid. The same people who would object to a racist term being applied to a black or Asian person would quite happily accept a racist comment made about someone of European appearance.

Unfortunately, the Left in our thoroughly cossetted modern Australia is full of hypocrisy. It's all about picking winners and losers and creating a class division that can be exploited for political purposes. Those who do it bear only a passing connection to those they claim to be doing it for, while they gain much more personally than any of the supposed beneficiaries.

It's a cruel, nasty dog-eat-dog joke and it applies across the "social welfare" field in Australia. Aboriginal welfare politics is just one (fairly significant) part of the overall picture of cowgirls(mostly) riding shotgun on a fine herd of milkers.

Antiseptic,
Well it's only an opinion that Whites are racists, these people only say that about White people because they're anti White, fighting racism is just the excuse they use to cover up their hatred of White people.
I tend to agree with judge Bromberg on Bolt's actions and it doesn't bother me one bit if Aborigines are ripping off the system, the system tried to exterminate their race, do we wonder that they'd treat it with contempt?
No person who is racially aware can respect the hypocrisy and double standards of the Anti Racist system under which we live.
Anti Racists in the main are ignorant thugs, the more educated ones, the "suit and tie" Anti Racists are more dangerous but like all elitists they're vain, self righteous martinets whose arrogance and bad character always shows through despite the facade of respectability they build around themselves.

Excellent article highlighting some of the repercussions of this case, Graham. I have seen many racist (and irrational) comments on this site, but the thought of silencing these commentators is abhorrent to me. When you stifle freedom of expression you also stifle freedom of thought. Laws should govern actions (which includes speech if it is an incitement to commit a crime), not prohibit discussion or the formation of opinions. I read just as many things I disagree with as I agree with on blogs and so forth, possibly more - I would hate to live in a world where there was only one point of view!

Until a few months ago I had never heard of Andrew Bolt then for uni I had to do a media anaylsis of stories about his case. It was disappointing to note that many stories made no mention of the definition of Aboriginality and no mention of the historical context which made the issue of identification such a hot issue. It was back in the 1980s that the three part defintion - descent, self-identification and community recognition - was adopted. Yet 30 years later there seems to be ignorance of this and non-indigenous people seem to think it okay for them to comment or decide who is indigenous and who is not.
Larissa Behrendt and Anita Heiss have intellects the size of Stephen Fry's. That's why they have succeeded. They have also studied hard, worked hard and achieved solid records. The law may theoretically apply to everyone but many light-skinned Aboriginal people would not have the resources to take legal action. Where I live there are a number of people who are regarded as Aboriginal but in the eyes of many not "real" Aboriginal people, who presumably have black skin. This is especially hard on the kids growing up. This case was a win for them. There has been a lot of comment about freedom of speech but for people who are of indigenous descent, who identify as indigenous and are recognised by their community as such, and are treated under the law as such - isn't it about time the public accepted their identity without questioning it or holding them up to contempt and suspicion for "choosing" to be indigneous to gain "advantages". Freedom of speech in many media articles didn't extend to fully informing the public. Many journalists and commentators showed no sign at all of even being aware of the three-part test, which although not perfect, has been around for decades. The question of free speech needs to be balanced against the effect on fair-skinned indigenous people.

Jay & Antiseptic,

I quote from my 1st-year biology textbook:

"Human beings, like all other species, have differentiated in their characteristics as they have spread throughout the world. Local populations in one area often appear significantly different from those that live elsewhere. For example, northern Europeans often have blond hair, fair skin, and blue eyes, whereas Africans often have black hair, dark skin, and brown eyes. These traits may play a role in adapting the particular populations to their environments. Blood groups may be associated with immunity to diseases more common in certain geographical areas, and dark skin shields the body from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation, which is much stronger in the tropics than in temperate regions.

All human beings are capable of mating with one another and producing fertile offspring. The reasons that they do or do not choose to associate with one another are purely psychological and behavioural (cultural). The number of groups into which the human species might logically be divided has long been a point of contention. Some contemporary anthropologists divide people into as many as 30 “races,” others as few as three: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Oriental. American Indians, Bushmen, and Aborigines are examples of particularly distinctive subunits that are sometimes regarded as distinct groups.
The problem with classifying people or other organisms into races in this fashion is that the characteristics used to define the races are usually not well correlated with one another, and so the determination of race is always somewhat arbitrary. Humans are visually oriented; consequently, we have relied on visual cues—primarily skin colour—to define races. However, when other types of characters, such as blood groups, are examined, patterns of variation correspond very poorly with visually determined racial classes. Indeed, if one were to break the human species into subunits based on overall genetic similarity, the groupings would be very different than those based on skin colour or other visual features."

TBC

@Amanda, when someone claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of the colour of their skin, it is reasonable to make observations about the colour of that skin. There are plenty of laws to deal with racism, and even to deal with what Bolt wrote (if you believe it was wrong) - such as defamation or libel - but to put this into the realm of racial discrimination is thoroughly unjust. If the law as it has played out in this case were used in the same way against indigenous Australians and their discussion of white Australians, I doubt you would be so reckless in your attitude to free speech. This is not an objectively good outcome for anyone. Even if what Bolt wrote was incorrect, muzzling him means indigenous people (and other "minority" ethnic groups) will no longer be accountable for their words, actions, and privileges; and that isn't equality, that's reverse discrimination.

aka "Bolt is a racist - his use of eugenic assumptions and his belief that he has the right to determine another person's race based on his self-determined criteria identifies him as a racist."

Interestingly, Michael Mansell in Tasmania had the same issues, claiming 70% of people who identified as aboriginals, were not and were only doing it for personal benefits .. I'm sure though you already have condemned him as racist.

I do believe the "racist" tag is more fervently applied to Andrew Bolt since there is an leftist obsession that anyone who disagrees must be tagged, and his tag is "racist". Mostly by people who have not read what he writes but rely on second hand bilious sprays. Bolt is hated by the left generally as he has an uncanny ability to push the very buttons, regularly, they despise .. he holds a mirror up to them, and they don't like what he shows them about themselves.

Bolts complaint is with people who self identify to obtain advantage, of the resources set up to assist the disadvantaged. Perhaps it is his manner that causes offense, but it seems the sentiment is shared by many Australians.

Amanda, I don't know why anyone who comments on anything has to, for your benefit, supply definitions .. we all know what is going on we don't need to drown in the academic definition battles from 30 years ago.

The current debate, now pretty well silenced and the usual outcome, resentment from the victims, the average Australians. Of course they are expected to continue funding all manner of attacks on themselves.

The plaintiffs have won a minor battle, but not the war and probably have now polarized opinion, and not for the good of Australia but just the egos of a precious few.

Some people might think their claim to be offended, is merely protecting their own benefits. They are more like the people they love to hate and who they do not want to be identified with, than they want to admit.

So who are the real racists?

The debate is not silenced at all. Much of it though is at the same level of Bruce Ruxton who, in 1988, called on the Federal Government "to amend the definition of Aborigine to eliminate the part-whites who are making a racket out of being so-called Aborigines at enormous cost to the taxpayers". http://aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01RN18.htm
It is difficult for publishers when there is a law case and the goal posts seem to have changed but responsible publishers like Graham don't seem to have a problem with anti-discrimination laws and this is similar. I am sure there were similar diiscussions about loss of free speech when these laws came in but I can't see that discussion of homosexuality has been stifled, for example see the discussion of gay marriage. However discussions of homosexuality aren't stuck in the 1980s.

I think Bolt pretty much epitomizes the worst face of the Australian media. And I think it's about time those of the invasion tribes stopped blaming the victims.

But we must all fight against over restriction of free speech. Therefore I support Bolt on this occasion. The issue is that important.

john

Bolt has pointed out that the Invasion tribes have mixed with the "victims" and the problem is that they identify with both, but then pick sides to their own advantage .. shopping for benefits has been the observation of many commentators on the same issue.

It's possible they may have even modified their lifestyles, to include such benefits, who knows, but it does leave them in the position of gaining benefits unavailable to other Australians, and then able to be offended by anyone pointing this out.

Barry Jones of the ALP made a similar observation, but of course, he's not the left's hated thorn. Michael Mansell similar comments. Bolt's mistake was to name individuals who thus were able to take personal affront .. for that, he was wrong.

Some people do not like this most unwelcome truth, so call him racist .. for disturbing their tranquility I presume.

So what do they do on Australia Day, cheer or moan, or both? Surely they benefit from both sides of their ancestor's cultures? Invaders and invaded, blended together into what? Hatred of one side or the other of their ancestry? I suggest the problems they see all around them, to be offended, are closer to home that they admit.

An interesting aside to the way you can look at these things, I saw an interview with a man from Kenya (where Obama's father is from) around the time Barrack Obama became the first black President of the USA, the man said, "if this had been in Kenya, he would have been their first white President"

...continued

"In human beings, it is simply not possible to delimit clearly defined races that reflect biologically differentiated and well-defined groupings. The reason is simple: different groups of people have constantly intermingled and interbred with one another during the entire course of history. This constant gene flow has prevented the human species from fragmenting in highly differentiated subspecies. Those characteristics that are differentiated among populations, such as skin colour, represent classic examples of the antagonism between gene flow and natural selection. As we saw in chapter 20, when selection is strong enough, as it is for dark coloration in tropical regions, populations can differentiate even in the presence of gene flow. However, even in cases such as this, gene flow will still ensure that populations are relatively homogeneous for genetic variation at other loci.

For this reason, relatively little of the variation in the human species represents differences between the described races. Indeed, one study calculated that only 8% of all genetic variation among humans could be accounted for as differences that exist among racial groups; in other words, the human racial categories do a very poor job in describing the vast majority of genetic variation that exists in humans. For this reason, most modern biologists reject human racial classifications as reflecting patterns of biological differentiation in the human species. This is a sound biological basis for dealing with each human being on his or her own merits and not as a member of a particular “race.”"

I may be skating on thin ice here, but there is a dilemma regarding racial vilification, for example, living in Kalgoorlie for many years, and visiting the City four to five times a year, I find myself being abused verbally by some indigenous Australians, the language used because I dared to look at them, was uncalled for and easily fell in to the realms of vilification, so is this a one sided part of the vilification laws,or are only the non indigenous subjected to the law of vilification? Your thoughts are of interest to me.
NSB

Amicus, you are missing the point. You state "Amanda, I don't know why anyone who comments on anything has to, for your benefit, supply definitions .. we all know what is going on we don't need to drown in the academic definition battles from 30 years ago.".

The thing is I don't think you do know what's going on. You don't need to define anything for my benefit but if you want to argue from an informed position you need to know that the definition of Aboriginality is not academic. It's official. It's been in every day use for decades. There's been a ton of reportage and comment and opinion about who is Aboriginal and who is not, but not much mention that there is a working definition.

It's such a shame that despite your claim that "we all know what's going on" actually there's a huge amount of ignorance. Discussing indigenous issues is like discussing sexism or homophobia thirty years ago.

A number of people had their racial identity attacked and fought back in the courts, as they were entitled to do. Bolt hasn't lost his freedom of speech. In fact he sprays his opinions in a blog, a column and on television. He just has to be more responsible with what he says.

Hi Amanda,

Bruce Ruxton: is that the much-decorated World War II veteran ?

Definitions are all very well, but so often they can be corrupted and distorted. Every aspect of the definition of 'Aboriginal' can be twisted or got around somehow.

Being 'accepted within the Aboriginal community' tends to get morphed into 'being verified by an Aboriginal organisation' which is not difficult, especially if one is good friends with anybody in the organisation. People in such powerful positions in organisations are conned every day into 'signing people in', and many organisations are funded on the basis of how many Aboriginal people use their services. Ergo .....

Historically, the legacy of discriminatory policy lingers for generations, and many, many people have been, as it were, confined to the Aboriginal realm by virtue of which parents raised them, i.e. usually their Aboriginal mother if the white father had shot through. Pale or dark, their siblings were Aboriginal. The only relations they knew were Aboriginal and the whites in the area would know them as Aboriginal. So it is no mystery if many Aboriginal people are paler than their white neighbours.

So it can become very difficult for people in organisations to say yes or no, this or that person is or isn't Aboriginal. They may face threats of legal action if they don't 'sign in' somebody, particularly if that person has powerful Aboriginal friends. It happens :)

Cheers,

Joe

NSB we do not need laws to stop people calling us names.Assault is a matter for the police.Are we now going to bring in laws because some called their friend an idiot.Are we going to have intellectual vilfication laws? There will be no end to it and many here on this topic see free speech being attacked.Gillard has already initiated an enquiry into the media because of its' stance on AGW and CO2 taxes.

" I may not agree with what you espouse,but will fight to the death for your right to say it." Attributed to Voltaire but many say Evelyn Beatrice Hall was the author.

As I've said previously,look at our sedition laws.They are so broard in definition that anyone of us can be charged with it.

Rizla,
I wonder how many of the scientists testing for sickle cell anemia in Black people or BRCA1/BRCA2 in Ashkenazi women were given that text at school?

Andrew Bolt Racist?
Far from it he's Anti Racist to the core, he merely identifies the problems differently to Communist Anti Whites, judging from his statements to the court he's in Rizla's camp

''I don't believe in racial division, between black, white or anything else,'' Bolt told the court soon after entering the witness box for the first time.

A little later he added: ''If I look at the people suing me, I don't find I'm of a different race to them … I find that notion offensive, and it harks back to Nazi Germany. I believe, fundamentally, that there is a human race, and beyond that it's all culture.''

Being anti Racist and anti Race are two sides of a dialectic, the truth of the matter in that dialectic is a desire for all White communities must be assimilated.
The tactics vary from left to right but they all want the same thing,
Leftists and "respectable" Conservatives like Bolt all agree that the solution to Racism is the assimilation of all White communities into the Third World and that anyone who objects to this program of genocide is a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Jay,

i've heard about the evils of assimilation for close on fifty years, but I think it's never been anything more than a boogey-man, used to scare small children. Racists certainly used it against Aboriginal people, to discourage them from seizing equal opportunities, as if equality would turn you white (so persuading people to disparage equality for themselves, as Anthony Dillon wrote in his Australian article today). Or getting a decent education would turn you white, as if whites had the monopoloy on education. Or living next door to a white family would turn you white. (Or vice versa, I suppose: did that ever happen ?) Utter rubbish, the ultimate con-job.

People choose to do A or B, they use cultural practice X or Y, we all cherry-pick from a vast array of possibilities. Chinese food tonight, Italian tomorrow, and neither one makes you Chinese or Italian. I wonder if that's one reason why most Australians don't like to learn, or even hear, another language - because they are sh!t-scared that they will morph into some sort of alien.

Assimilation hasn't happened, certainly not for Aboriginal people, IF what is meant by it is that people 'forget' that they are Aboriginal, or adopt some other identity holus-bolus. How do you do that ? I don't know. I'm not sure if it is possible, except for very young children, over a very long period.

Joe

Joe,
I don't deny the attempted Genocide of Aborigines, I've long promoted the view that we need a permanent justice and reconciliation panel made up of White and Indigenous Australians, that we should name names, who did what, where and when and if they're still alive we should prosecute them.
I doesn't matter how anti Racists dress up their views they are promoting genocide, they only identify Whites as racist and they only support unlimited Third world migration into White people's living spaces.
I'm opposed to anti Racists be they Communists or "respectable" conservatives like Andrew Bolt because they are anti White and promote the genocide of my race.
If we lived in an all White country those people would still be trying to wipe us out, they'd just find another excuse and another code word for Genocide.
All races have self destructive elements and traitors, there were Aboriginals who betrayed their own people and Jews who worked for the Nazis.My race differs in that it has more of these people than other groups and what's worse is that they are allowed to hold positions of power in society.
Anti Racists want to destroy any healthy, normal White groups, as to why, I don't know, ask them why they want to wipe us off the planet.
Ever noticed how these people will not deny supporting the Genocide of White people and make all sorts of excuses for their views, they just deny that it's actually happening?
What does that remind you of?

Is it science fiction hour? Did Biff Tannen take the sports almanac back to 1955 and change the future on me?

Well, Jay, I've disagreed with many Aboriginal people about an impossibly broad definition of 'genocide' that some might throw around, and in the case of white people, I'm even more convinced it's out of the question, a nightmare of paranoids.

How might it possibly happen ? Violently ? Hardly likely. By inter-marriage ? That's up to the people involved - if two people love each other, there's nothing more beautiful than committing to sharing your lives together. I did, and I was the luckiest b@stard in the world, for forty three years. I'd do it again in a heart-beat.

So what do you mean by genocide ? How can that ever happen to the the 90 % of Australians who are white ? Seriously, get a grip on reality, Jay: it ain't going to happen.

Cheers,

Joe

Jay,

I would hazard a guess that there are few working biologists who studied the same text as me - it was only published in 2002, so presumably most working biologists used earlier texts. I fail to see what this has to do with the accuracy of the information presented in the text. And I should point out that the higher incidence of sickle cell anaemia (for example) in sub-Saharan African populations (NOT black people - Australian aboriginals can be black as the ace of spades, but don't share the higher incidence of sickle anaemia with their African cousins) doesn't demonstrate any biological basis for race. I guess you missed this bit of my last post:
"when selection is strong enough... populations can differentiate even in the presence of gene flow. However, even in cases such as this, gene flow will still ensure that populations are relatively homogeneous for genetic variation at other loci.

For this reason, relatively little of the variation in the human species represents differences between the described races. Indeed, one study calculated that only 8% of all genetic variation among humans could be accounted for as differences that exist among racial groups; in other words, the human racial categories do a very poor job in describing the vast majority of genetic variation that exists in humans."

Either that, or you were just too stupid and/or ignorant of biology to actually understand what it meant.

As for your paranoid ravings about white genocide: where I come from, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So prove it: show me a single example of ANYBODY calling for the 'Final Solution' to the white problem, and I'll be slightly less inclined to believe that are either barking mad, or a complete twat with the intellect of a gerbil.

TBC

continued

For the record: I am anti-Racist. I am white. I hereby deny supporting the genocide of white people. Indeed, I flat out oppose the genocide of anybody. I believe that all people are capable of racism, and I oppose unlimited migration from anywhere to anywhere. Please refrain from putting words into other people's mouths and then attacking the strawmen you have just created. And if you can't manage that, please refrain from believing that attacking strawmen gives your non-arguments any semblance of credibility.

TAR, as I said, race is down to founder effect and isolation. no isolation, no race. However, there HAD been significant isolation of populations throughout history. The Aborigines are possibly among the most isolated for longest. Polynesians haven't been isolated for long, but I don't think you'd have any trouble recognising a polynesian person.

Moreover, people have mostly tended to breed, in the abseence of something like rapes or war, within their own group, or at least, with people who look like them. This may be sociological, but it has an impact on the genetic variation within the population. Small variations are important - we share nearly all of our DNA with other species, the usual example given being chimpanzees at around 98% commonality. At one stage there was a serious consideration given to renaming Homo as a member of Pan, in much the same way Canis Domesticus has been reclassified as a subspecies (created through purposeful selection) of Canis Lupus.

Therefore, your claim that there isn't enough variation is simply not valid. Racial groupings do have distinct characteristics. They also have distinct sociological drivers in many cases. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As to what that means, don't ask me. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing preventing anybody in australia from doing as well as anybodt else, other than individual variation in capacity. It's a shame that there is so much effort made by some in the victim industry to make sure Aboriginal people have an additional burden imparted by their race.

Here's a start Rizla:

Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn't the kind of society we are."
- Malcolm Fraser [1] former Prime Minister of Australia.

"I believe that Australia will ultimately become a Eurasian country as Australian Europeans and Australian Asians marry one another. I think that a desirable trend". Bill Hayden [6]

"I believe very strongly we must fight for the end of the Anglo-Celtic domination of Australia. We must fight for the end of that situation in which those, like myself, who are descendants of the Anglo-Celts say that no one else would really be suitable in a top position in Australia".
- Professor Manning Clark.[9]

"Australia is something of a freak in Asia, a kind of ugly duckling, ruled by a transplanted European people soaking up the sun and skin cancer in a climate for which they were never intended…The Asian Australians who come here and form the links and bridges must have a sense of Australia first, a commitment to Australia and not a sense of carving out spheres of influence within Australia for the various countries from which they come. The lazy country will become the lovely country, the white society will be the honey-coloured society and the ugly duckling will become the honey coloured swan."
- Dr. Stephen Fitzgerald.[8]

Jay,

None of that is genocide: voluntary mixing, inter-marriage, friendships, multiple identities - how on earth is any of this genocide ? You really have to bend the definition of the word out of shape to link what may happen to the killing off of large numbers of people by virtue of their 'race'.

Seriously, Jay, what do you mean by genocide ?

Good luck,

Joe

Jay,

Words cannot express how stupid I think that notion is, at least not in this forum.

Tell me,

Did the Angles genocide the Saxons, or vise versa? Or did they self-genocide, some kind of 'homogenocide'? Can we call that homogenized?

Can I be sent to the Hague for having a child with an Asian woman (due next week :)?

You call it genocide, I call it natural selection. It's a global phenomena which has been happening for millennia. Get over it

Antiseptic,

I think you'd have a enormous difficulty recognising a polynesian person in the absence of visual clues. Race might exist, but it doesn't exist in the dark - and biology is not determined by whether or not the lights are on. If you attempted to single out polynesian people from others using only their genome, I am quite confident that you would fail to succeed.

I have no problem with sociological theories regarding race - but within the field of biology, the notion of race is only marginally more credible than intelligent design.

Jay,

I dislike having to repeat myself, but as for your paranoid ravings about white genocide: where I come from, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So prove it: show me a single example of ANYBODY calling for the 'Final Solution' to the white problem, and I'll be slightly less inclined to believe that are either barking mad, or a complete twat with the intellect of a gerbil.

Trashcanman,if you're not promoting genocide I have no problem with you but I wonder why do you even feel the need to bring up your personal life?
Being anti Racist and Anti Race are just two arguments being used to justify the assimilation of White people into the Third World.
The definition of use of "Force" is commonly left to the target group in these situations, I have no choice but to live around people from the Third world so in my mind that constitutes a use of force.
Tibetans have no choice in the matter of Han Chinese flooding into their living spaces and neither do I, a Tibetan who takes the part of the Han Chinese and demands special rights and privileges for them would be called a traitor, I feel strongly about White people who side with migrants and demand that they have special rights (ie to choose who shares their living space) and I should be denied those rights.
Third world migrants have a choice, either live in a mono racial country of their birth or come here, there are no White countries left on the planet so I am denied that choice, there's no White country for me to move to if I wanted to.
Punjabis can go through their whole lives with only other Punjabis as neigbours if they so choose, so can Vietnamese,Iraqis and Afghans, they have that choice.I don't have that choice, you see in Graham's piece the way he views "segregationists", that we're suspect and might get him into trouble, that's a typical anti Racist position to take.
Did that situation come about by "Natural selection", no, it was a deliberate act to reduce the population of White people in Europe, North America and Australia, the people promoting multiculturalism stated that as their goal.
Only White countries are being targeted for assimilation by Anti Racists, those same people cry over Tibetan children being forced to live with Han Chinese but are glowing with pride as Han Chinese migrants flood into my children's home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfB_F936bU8

Graham _____:____ Bromberg J looks at a line of cases, and the way in which the act was negotiated through parliament and concludes that to come within the ambit of the act you must have made a statement for reasons which include race and offended someone of that race, but that the plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate racial hatred.

Comment:

Bolt is not the only victim.

Australians need not be regarded as members of a racist community, however Australians do suffer a racist problem.

Australian problem is racist government.

Government control of the Parliament - regardless of party in control.

This results from team-centric game-playing by our legislators.

Disadvantaged are attempts to reasonably consider legislation, and the consequences of legislation, whether in draft or under review.

Australia's "racial discrimination" legislature is typical, examine all those exemptions from applying legislation and see how it supports racist outlooks.

example: Look to communities existing under the various "Land Rights" legislations where racism develops as the norm.

Typical from these government products are their arguments to justify exemptions allowing refusal of leases to tenants.

Also find justified is segregation, the separation of entire communities from wider Australia, the segregation of families on the basis of racial tests - which the Commonwealths Attorney-General told Parliament do NOT exist.

Both governments and the HREOC refuses to conduct public hearings into complaints arising from these problems.

Governments - and the HREOC, need dump their "acceptable flavor approaches" to racism, such the larger part of the problem !

Antiseptic.
There's research being done into the possible biological causes for "Racism", the studies of the effects of Oxytocin are particularly worrying.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/06/1015316108

So we have the disturbing prospect of Anti Racists in the scientific community looking for a biological explanation for Racism and the Anti Racist activists using that as yet another justification for White Genocide.
Remember anti Racists only care about Racism in White countries and they only support assimilation in White countries, they are Anti Racist and only identify White people as having a race problem.
If they can construct a Genetic or biological basis for their Genocidal beliefs about Whites they'll use it, you can bank on that

Most high profile Geneticists and Biologists profess Anti Racism, sure, they have to to that simply in order to work but we know that Stephen Jay Gould for example was Anti Racist and identified White people as perpetrators in his "Mismeasure of Man" hypothesis.
Anti Racists still love old Stephen Jay even though he's looking like he might have been little more than a biased, Anti White whose 1981 book was as we say "full of factual errors.
"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
We see it on this board all the time, Gould mocked and denigrated Murray and Hernstein, so too his acolytes in the anti Racist camp mock, berate, threaten and deride those who challenge them.
Anti Racists are nasty thugs, observe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNA3YMmC9zM

HJay,

In connection with your claims of White genocide, I'm still waiting for a definition of genocide, of something which is supposed to be happening. No rush :)

Joe

Jay,

You are aware that not all sources of information are equally credible, aren't you? And that random nutcases shooting their mouths off on YouTube are about as credible a source of information as 'what some bloke down the pub told me'? After watching them, I have two questions:

What is the chick in the first video on, and where can I get some?

Where is the thuggery I'm supposed to be looking for in the second video? I watched until about halfway before I got bored, but all I saw was some skinny nerd talking to a camera. It's really not cricket to promise good old fashioned biffo and then deliver a talking head: that's false advertising.

TAR:"I think you'd have a enormous difficulty recognising a polynesian person in the absence of visual clues. "

Well, I think I'd have a hard time recognising lots of things in the absence of visual clues. Why do you exempt our most important sense from the valid modes of observation? Moreover, visual cues are a very important part of human sexual behaviour.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but pretending that such differences are not relevant is akin to arguing that breeds of dogs with lots of specific characteristics other than just appearance are non-existent.

Founder effect and purposeful isolation from the broad canine population is what created the dog breeds. The same thing creates races in humans. the main difference is that dogs pay no attention to appearance in their own sexual selection, while for humans it is a very important cue.

Jay, oxytocin is a tremendously powerful hormone responsible for a huge range of effects. I see no reason that the drive to tribalism would not be a part of that.

Joe,
http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm

Rizla,
She's a good looking White woman all right, but most White women are beautiful, ugliness only comes from a bad character.
Never mind that the second video entirely backs the thesis in the first, ie that anti Racism is just a code word for Anti White.
Calling someone a Nazi is in effect calling for them to be killed, because that's what they do with "Nazis" don't they?
Drawing a moustache and "Hitler fringe" on the image of that lady is painting her as the world's greatest mass murderer, the only reason he's targeted her is because of her pro White views.
There have been videos put up calling for that woman to be raped by black men, killed, etc, etc and that clown threatens violence by calling her a "Nazi". Anti racists actually have no point to make other than their Anti White views, and you have to read the words I post Anti RACIST is a code word for Anti White because they only identify White people as Racists.
I'm not talking about healthy, normal people who try to treat all races the same just for the sake of harmony I'm talking about people who want to destroy my race, who make a point of denigrating, vilifying and threatening pro White people and even innocent "civilians" and children.

Jay,

"Calling someone a Nazi is in effect calling for them to be killed, because that's what they do with "Nazis" don't they?"

Well, apart from Adolf Eichmann, what Nazis have been killed in the last fifty years ?

So is this your series of long bows:

* 'anti-racism' means 'anti-white',

* 'anti-white' means 'calling someone a Nazi',

* 'calling someone a Nazi' is 'inciting other people to kill a Nazi',

* 'inciting people to kill a Nazi means genocide of White people'.

Ergo: 'anti-racist' means 'genocide of White people' ? Is that how it works ?

Is that all there is ?

Jay,

I got the impression from your earlier posts that you thought all people who were anti-racism were therefore anti-white and secretly wanting the demise of the white race, i.e. genocide. Which is what I saw as being ridiculous. Not liking people who hate for ignorant reasons can hardly be automatically interpreted to mean one hates white people.

However, I now realise you are really identifying a specific group in society who, yes, may hate white people and hide it as anti-racism or anti-nazism etc. You should probably have made that a little more clear earlier. I don't disagree that these people do exist.

This group however, represent a very small sub-set of society. I think it is a long bow, to borrow Joe Loudmouth's words, to infer they are having any influence over policy, public opinion etc. and very unlikely that there is any chance of "genocide" ever occurring.

There are indeed crazies who believe all sorts of things and get fired up over it to the point of aggression and violence. Some of them get together in big enough groups that they are able to avoid paying tax because they hold these crazy beliefs (e.g. scientology).

I am a very strong anti-racist, but I acknowledge racism comes from people of all races. In fact, I think it is impossible for anyone, even myself, not to have racist notions at times. Be it homoracism or heteroracism (I admit, I experience both, much to my own dismay).

In reference to white people having nowhere to go that's all white. Well, the British, French, Spanish, Dutch etc all sowed that seed a long time ago when they started moving into everyone else's homeland. This was an all-black country 220 years ago before the mass immigration of Europeans began. There are now white people living in every country in the world.

You want one set of rules for whites, and another set for the rest. It's an unreasonable stance that just won't wash.

Joe,
No of course not, as in all cases of attempted genocide all the little things, the slurs, the jokes, the vilification feed into and enable the overall, larger criminal enterprise.The guy in the video called the Original Savage Chick (I don't know her name) a B*tchy version of David Duke and Hitler then defaced an image of her to make it resemble Adolf Hitler.
C'mon Joe, you're not naive, the "Kill all the Nazis" meme is ubiquitous in popular culture, anyone who is branded a "Nazi" is said to fair game for threats, intimdation, rape, murder...etc.
Here's a few brief examples:
Mate there's an Australian Anti Racist named Jock Palfreeman in jail in Hungary for murdering one man and wounding another because he presumed they were "racists" or "Nationalists".
Two Swedish Nationalists were set upon in 2010 by an Antifa gang led by a man named Dennis Mirabelles and beaten with hammers resulting in life threatening head injuries to both, they nearly died in in tensive care.
Example, the American Renaissance group tries to hold a conference every year in the U.S, every year Anti Racist thugs threaten the staff or owners of the proposed venue and the conference convenors with violence or make hoax bomb threats by phone. In 2009 they obtained personal details of hotel staff, approached their homes and threatened them and their families with violence if the conference went ahead.
And then there's the topper of all anti Racist murderers Anders Behring Breivik, have we forgotten him so soon?
As Graham said, I'm a minority of one here and I do have other commitments so I can only do so much to support my accusation of Attempted Genocide against anti Racists, I could ask for support from White Nationalists if you like but since I'm not one of them they probably wouldn't want to work with me.

Own goal, Jay,

Breivik, the murderer of nearly eighty people, manifestly 'Anti-Racists', is surely on your team, the White Supremacists ?

Just saying :)

Joe

Joe,
What the?
Breivik hates "White supremacists", his hero is Max Manus, he is said to have dated non White girls and had many immigrant friends in his youth.
If anything it was a clash of the two streams of Anti Racism on Utoya.
Leftist and "respectable" conservative Anti Racists disagree on a lot of points but they all agree that anyone who speaks up on behalf of White people is a Nazi who is going to bring Hitler back, they say it all the time, Bolt eve said "Racist" views were akin to those expressed in Nazi Germany.

Errata: Jock Palfreeman is in jail in Bulgaria, not Hungary, I was typing in a hurry.

Jay,

I freaking love white people: anybody who tells you that whitey has not done more for mankind than any other skin colour is talking shyt, 'coz whitey is way over-represented in the annals of scientific discovery - and it is science and his close bedfellow technology who contribute most to the betterment of mankind.

But this has nowt to do with 'race'. Whitey isn't better than darkie because he belongs to a different race - whitey and darkie are equal, and both members of the same race: the human race. Whitey was just in the right place at the right time.

Well said, TAR.

TAR.
Find a post of mine to which that line of thinking relates.
You're only taking me to task because I'm White, you say you are anti Racist, what you are is anti White, anti Racist is just a code word for anti White.

Until the cosmos realigns or the "Space Brothers' come and re wire the African's DNA the world remains as it is, Nairobi is never going to look like Vienna unless it's razed and re-built by Austrians.

Actually you guys are playing your side all wrong, the typical Anti Racist line is that White people EVOLVED from Black people, we faded or changed colour from drinking milk...or something.
Think about the implied inferiority of Black people which that line of reasoning entails.
See anti Racists want to make all White societies and only White societies into Brown societies, to take them back to their roots, so to speak. The fact that their plans have met with nothing but dismal failure every time they've gained some momentum seems not to deter them. They even re jigged Marxist socialism from Scientific Materialism to Scientific Racism and managed to shoot backwards at warp speed while alienating their hitherto faithful White working class.
That's the problem with attempted Genocides, they never work, there are estimated to be as many if not more people of Indigenous Australian descent than there were 200 years ago when all this malarkey got started.
In fact the effect of the attempted Genocide has been to create a Race, "Aboriginals" (Koori if you like) out of a previously diverse population.
So it is with White Australians, Anti Racists have tried to wipe us out by flooding the country with Third Worlders and in doing so have defined the White Australian ethnicity and set us on a course toward ethnocentrism.
Every non White migrant knows what an "Aussie" looks like, we're the whole reason they come here and most of them really like us.

Jay,

(1) If anti-racist is fully synonymous with anti-white as you claim it to be, it follows logically that racist is fully synonymous with white, unless the prefix 'anti' assumes different meanings.

(2) I have already stated I am anti-racist.

(3) I have also already stated that I am white.

(4) Hence, I am racist (from (1) and (3)).

Therefore: I simultaneously anti-racist and racist (from (2) and (4)).

This is a textbook reductio ad impossible, and it means that your premises are flawed.