I'll copy the article here (parts of it) and substitute the real identity of the 'target' group with "Aboriginal" and we can see how such speech would be if it was real. (which it is not) Apologies to Noel Pearson (whom I admire and respect) for using his name here. It is NOT about him.
ABORIGINALS. Noel Pearson on Trial.
I can't believe you people. I'm out of the country for five minutes and you decide to have a show trial for Noel Pearson! What, are you, crazy or something?
Number one, I should have been there to mock and taunt him. Number two, it wouldn't have made any difference because this guy will be hoovering up the attention like a big hot meal.
I think I've earned some cred to speak on matters concerning the Odious Pearson.
I stand proudly behind my characterization of this worthless bloodclot as a worthless bloodclot
But I'm telling you, hauling him in front of some tribunal to answer half a dozen thought crime charges is a grave mistake.
It's a mistake because it dignifies the gaping, septic wound that is his column with treatment better reserved for better men. The punitive powers of the law are inappropriate responses to his witless jabbering. We call upon the Law to save us from genuine threats. The appropriate response to Pearson is disdain and mockery and the poking of his readership with sharp sticks in their yellow, suppurating eyeballs.
So what if he is read - and avidly so - by a veritable legion of mouth breathing pinheads and shambling inbred fools, by barely closeted homophobes, and racists and the bottom feeding scum at the foulest end of the rank, sour, stinking swamp that passes for public discourse by the Aboriginal Activists.
There is no way, in the end, to constrain the Bloodclot, without also constraining those of us who would have at him in the fiercest and most violent terms.
(Copied under fair use provisions of the copyright act)
Before exploring this further, it's worth looking at the LAW... Australian crimiinal code section 80
===================================================================
Offences
(1) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:
(a) the first person intentionally urges another person, or a group, to use force or violence against a group (the targeted group ); and
(b) the first person does so intending that force or violence will occur; and
(c) the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion; and
(d) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
===================================================================Now.. even a person of mediocre and borderline intellect can see that IF this was about Noel Pearson, it would be horrifying and extremely illegal. Not because of Pearsons 'race' but because of the violence which is incited against his readers, presumably aboriginal, as a 'group' which has a 'political opinion'.
THE REALITY. In fact, if you change the words "Pearson" replacing them with Andrew Bolt and his readership, and look at it again..would that diminish the fundamental criminality of an article like this ?
I don't think so.
The terms, used for Bolt.(and by inference, his readership)
-Odious
-Worthless Bloodclot
-His writings are a gaping septic wound
-Witless Jabbering
-Mouth breathing pinhead
-Shambling inbred fool.
-Racist.
-bottom feeding scum.
-Homophobe
ACTIONS encouraged or declared (toward Bolt and by inference, his readers)
-Poke their eyes out.
-Have at him(them) with the fiercest violence.
Between you, me and the gatepost..I smell a story and a criminal charge against Mr John Birmingham who
writes for the Brisbane times.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/bolt-trial-only-serves-to-feed-the-beast-20110406-1d42p.html
Does one need to say that in not ONE of Bolts articles is there even the mildest suggestion of the slightest violence against fair skinned aboriginals.Yet Ron Merkel, QC saw in such mild critical articles a precursor of the "Holocaust".. but in Birminghams article incitement to real violence is clear, unambiguous and stark.
Has the world turned mad or is that thing about the 'Liberal Gene' perhaps truer than we thought?
QUESTION Can such writing result in actual harm by those on the political Left, toward those on the political Right? Here is an example from a Teacher who's specialty is 'Early Childhood education". (Would you send 'your' child to such a person for education?)
She sent this email to Republican Congressmen in Wisconsin.
Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die. (it goes on further)
Well at least she said "Please" .......
PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND TO JOHN BIRMINGHAM'S ATTACK ON BOLT.
Addtional Note re Birmingham's disgraceful attempt at repressing Bolt. To understand the revolutionary mentality in John Birmingham, and why he is so adamant the Andrew Bolts be 'supressed/oppressed and marginalized' we need to hark back to 1965 and an Essay which has become almost the anthem of the New Left and progressivism in general. Herbert Macuse wrote "Repressive Tolerance" in that year, and with his contact with large masses of students in the USA and the rest of the world, those ideas are now to be found in both the scientific and humanities/sociology (particularly) areas of most Universities. Let's have a peek at just the very first paragraph of Marcuse's 'enlightened' essay:
This essay is dedicated to my students at Brandeis University.
THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.(Herbert Marcuse)
Birmingham is just expressing the same 'repression' that Marcuse called for. What a pity that the true violent nature of his inner mind and attitude and that of the Left became apparent in so doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment