Marcia Langton:  Elderly black hate-speaker



Andrew Bolt writes:

Professor Marcia Langton recently apologised to me privately for publicly claiming in an Age article I believed in a “master race” and “racial hygiene”.

That false and foul claim was made in response to a Federal Court declaring unlawful columns in which I actually argued the very opposite - that we should not divide ourselves by “race”, and especially not by trivial inflections of it. Why couldn’t we simply judge each other as individuals?

I never got that public apology.

Instead, last night on Q&A Langton again vilified me as a racist, to the applause and sniggers of some in the audience. Talking of articles in “the Bolt case”, in which I was taken to court and ordered not to repeat what I’d written, Langton claimed they just racially abused people. She claimed one person, Misty Jenkins, had been racially abused by me so badly- had been so bullied - that she withdrew from the Aboriginal community. We needed laws against this kind of thing, she claimed.

Source

Bolt goes on both to show the falsity of Langton's claims and to document how she seems to hate just about everybody.  Hate defines her.  No wonder she is popular on the Left.  Karl Marx hated just about everybody too.  Even a Left-leaning newspaper refers to her as "Langton disagreeing with everyone about everything"

It seems to me that only her claim to being Aboriginal gets her  any attention -- and not many Aborigines have blue eyes, pink skin and fair hair.  But we are not allowed to question claims of Aboriginality in Australia:  No free speech on that matter at all.  You could be hauled before the egregious judge Mordecai Bromberg for doing so  -- As Andrew Bolt was.


There is no disputing that these people are Aborigines


Greenie hate speech

A West Australian Green Senator recently delivered a speech in parliament house Canberra which has become a favourite of the Green/Left.  Some excerpts from the poisonous diatribe:

Mr Prime Minister, at your next press conference we invite you to leave your excruciatingly boring three-word slogans at home.

Western Australians are a generous and welcoming lot, but if you arrive and start talking proudly about your attempts to bankrupt the renewable energy sector, cripple the independence of the ABC and privatise SBS, if you show up waving your homophobia in people's faces and start boasting about your ever-more insidious attacks on the trade union movement and all working people, you can expect a very different kind of welcome.

Just as the reign of the dinosaurs was cut short to their great surprise, it may be that the Abbott government will appear as nothing more than a thin, greasy layer in the core sample of future political scientists drilling back into the early years of the 21st century.

People have been keeping a record of every time you have been given the opportunity to choose between predator capitalism and the public interest, and it is bitterly obvious whose side you are on.

And, perhaps most profoundly, your determined campaign to provoke fear in our community-fear of innocent families fleeing war and violence in our region-in the hope that it would bring out the worst in Australians is instead bringing out the best in us. Prime Minister, you are welcome to take your heartless racist exploitation of people's fears and ram it as far from Western Australia as your taxpayer funded travel entitlements can take you.

Source

The "racist" accusation had to get a trot of course  -- a confession that abuse was all he had to offer.  Abbott is in fact famed for his personal work with Aborigines so is no racist.  That Ludlam was basically lying is set out below.  The truth never deters the Green/Left.

By  "innocent families fleeing war and violence in our region" Ludlam means illegal immigrants from middle class backgrounds in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan who are simply seeking a higher standard of living.  Australia's conservative government has stopped such illegal immigration stone dead.  Australia has an extensive program for genuine refugees.

Ludlam is a 44 year old artist born in New Zealand. I suspect that he sees himself as a young man in a hurry.




Greenie lies about Abbott

GREENS senator Scott Ludlam debased himself and lowered the tone of his campaign for re-election by accusing Tony Abbott of being homophobic and racist in a Senate speech, community leaders said yesterday.

The speech, which was delivered to an empty chamber on Monday but went viral on social media and has received almost half-a-million views on YouTube, accused the Prime Minister of “waving homophobia” and “racist exploitation” of the electorate.

Former Labor national president and chair of the Prime Minister’s indigenous advisory council Warren Mundine said Senator Ludlam was “full of crap”.

“Look, I know them both and they’re both pretty good guys but Scott is ramping up his election campaign and he’s playing politics,” he said.

“It’s a load of rubbish, he’s way off the board.” Mr Abbott’s personal friend Cate McGregor, who transitioned from male to female while serving in the army, defended him against claims of transphobia on social media this week.

“He has shamed many progressives, including lawyers, in his acceptance of me as well,” she wrote.  “He is my friend. And a good one.”

Mr Abbott’s sister Christine Forster, a Sydney City councillor and in a committed same-sex relationship, said her brother showed his real colours by the friends he kept across the sexuality spectrum, including the openly gay journalist — and a former mentor of Mr Abbott — Christopher Pearson, who wrote a column for The Weekend Australian.

“He was very good friends with Christopher Pearson, and his passing was a terrible loss for Tony,” she said.

“You know, it’s almost tiring having to say Tony is not a homophobe, he’s not racist.

“Scott is a Green and in that speech he was talking to Greens and it was a cheap way to get a headline.”

Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said it was unhelpful to charge Mr Abbott with homophobia when he had clear but changing views on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“Many people who oppose marriage equality do so, not out of homophobia, but out of sincerely held religious beliefs or views about the nature of marriage, and I think the Prime Minister falls into this latter category,” Mr Croome added.

“While I’d like Mr Abbott to support marriage equality I also acknowledge that he has already come a long way on the issue.”

Senator Ludlam did not respond to a request for comment.

SOURCE





Fraudulent asylum seekers are blocking real refugees

THE more we hear about the Manus Island riot in which Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati was killed, the more horrendous the violence sounds.

But two points are worth making. The first is that no boat has arrived in Australia for 76 days. After Rudd dismantled Australia’s border protection in February 2008, 52,000 asylum seekers arrived by boat, an average 27 people a day. So Morrison has prevented the arrival of 2000 people who would have compounded pressure on the 4000 already in offshore detention, including 1300 at Manus Island.

Second, Berati’s family in Tehran has told Fairfax Media he “set out for Australia hoping to further his architectural studies” because he had been unable to find work in Iran’s “sanction-strapped economy”. He was not fleeing persecution, but seeking a better life — and who could blame him?

He might have made a first-class migrant — if he had come through the proper channels. But those who pay people smugglers and throw away travel documents to pose as refugees are not just subverting Australia’s laws, but denying genuine refugees a place. Compassionistas just refuse to admit it.

The latest report from Aid To The Church In Need shows persecution of Christians around the world is exploding, with the number of martyr killings doubling in the past year. Last year in Syria 1200 Christians were killed for their faith.

These are the people for whom our refugee program was designed. If the government can empty out Labor’s legacy of detention centres, there is a case for increasing our humanitarian intake. But that is a luxury available only when we stop the boats.

SOURCE





Our constitution is the best, so why change it?

by legal academic James Allan

There are two ways of understanding disagreement on important public issues. One way is to assume your own view is the result of some sort of pipeline to God, indisputably good in other words, and so all those who disagree with you are either dumb, malevolent or in need of some re-education.

The other way is simply to recognise that a lot of smart, nice, well-informed people simply disagree on all sorts of important issues, ranging from euthanasia to how to deal with those trying (dare one say illegally?) to come to this country by boat, over to labour relations, or to whether to amend our Constitution, and more.

Notice that on this second understanding of disagreement the obvious way to resolve issues is to count us all as equals and vote, a process otherwise known as democracy. As for the first way to understand disagreement, well, notice that it rests on the rather implausible premise that by some cosmic fluke your moral and political antennae quiver at just the perfect frequency; that you are the pinnacle of moral evolution as it were, while all the many people who disagree with you are somehow substandard.

I start by mentioning that because almost all of the talk I have read of late on amending our Constitution to insert some sort of recognition of indigenous peoples clause seems to me to be premised on the view that change is self-evidently good and that opponents either need to be re-educated or exposed for the racists they are, or some combination of the two.

But that is plain out bunk. And it’s bunk whether it comes from the left of politics (as in the past) or whether it now comes from the right of politics.

First, let’s be clear, writing and amending a constitution is not a matter of the heart, as Tony Abbott suggested recently. No, it is about producing a document that will stand the test of time and that (in my view) will allow democracy to flourish so that our children and grandchildren can make decisions for themselves.

And that is a matter of hard-nosed calculation with more than a little cost-benefit analysis. It is not a matter of emoting or tugging at the heartstrings.

So let me turn to this issue. To start, you need to realise that Australia is one of the oldest democracies. Yes, our young nation has been a democracy — a successful democracy — longer than all but a half-dozen or so other countries on earth. And that is in part because the Constitution we have is, in my view, the best written Constitution on the planet.

What we have sure as heck ain’t broken. And that is something for any sensible person to consider when people push for change.

There is this, more crucial, second consideration. In the past two decades our top judges have taken to interpreting our written Constitution in a way that I think is very hard to defend. Twenty years ago the High Court discovered, or read in, or flat out made up (according to taste), an implied freedom of political communication.

I count myself as one of the biggest free speech adherents in the country and, in substantive terms, I like this outcome. But as a matter of honestly interpreting the words of our Constitution, these cases strike me as so implausible as to be laughable.

And in a democracy where all of us count equally with an equal vote to choose people to make social policy, that is a very bad thing.

Or more recently, in a couple of voting rights cases, our High Court in my view issued two of the least defensible and most interpretively implausible decisions I have read since coming to this country. In both instances they overruled the elected parliament and struck down statutes passed by the elected representatives of the people.

And they did so, in my view, with virtually no textual warrant from our Constitution. They treated the words as some sort of jumping-off point for seeing the Constitution as a "living tree" that can be pruned and altered over time — but of course only by them, seven unelected ex-lawyers.

Of course not everyone sees these cases the way I do. But notice that once you go down this road, it becomes something of an unknown how a change to our Constitution today will be treated by a future High Court in 15 or 20 years.

Let me be frank. I am an ardent adherent of letting the numbers count and of democratic decision-making. And I fear that this mooted change to our Constitution to insert some sort of recognition clause might be used by latter-day judges to do all sorts of things unimaginable, or pooh-poohed today.

If you doubt that, ask yourself how many people back at the start of the 1900s thought that the phrase "directly chosen by the people" could be used by judges to dictate when the electoral rolls could close or that some of those in prison could vote when parliament said they could not. The answer is that none of them back then thought this. They thought they were leaving these issues to the parliament.

So when people today assure you that the words they propose to insert will transfer no power to our unelected judges, there are some sensible grounds for being sceptical, at least until we see what explicit words emerge as the proposed amendment.

Frankly, I am mildly doubtful that anything nearly explicit enough to reassure me will emerge. But who knows?

Here’s a third reason for scepticism about this proposed change. I spent 11 years teaching law in New Zealand. In many ways I loved the place. But to hear some proponents of this constitutional amendment point across the Tasman to the Treaty of Waitangi over there, and to do so as some sort of model we ought to copy, frankly beggars belief.

Here is a small taste of what has happened in New Zealand in the name of this short three-clause treaty. First, the judges there have simply invented a "partnership" principle — they’ve decreed that there is some sort of partnership between the crown and Maori.

Then there is talk of "Treaty principles", though no one honestly has the slightest idea what this one-page 1840 signed document has in the way of principles. It is just a springboard to read in the desires of today’s metropolitan elite.

Then there are all the race-based divisions it has fostered in New Zealand. There are the weird divisions between tribal and city Maori and the endless "final settlements" that never prove final. And there’s the way it fosters rent-seeking behaviour that benefits the tribal elite far, far more than the poor in cities.

Put bluntly, the renewed emphasis on the treaty in New Zealand has undermined democracy. I repeat, it seems bizarre to me that proponents of change here in Australia would want to hold up New Zealand as a model for us to emulate.

So, yes, we can all keep an open mind on this issue until we see the proposed wording of any mooted change to our Constitution. But let’s be clear and honest. There are solid, powerful and democratically motivated grounds for being very leery of this suggested constitutional change.

SOURCE