A sad day for free speech

In the United States, the first amendment of the constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is deeply unfortunate that such a right is not guaranteed in Australia (although freedom of religion is in the constitution), for freedom of speech is a right which has recently been contravened, as Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of breaching the racial discrimination act.

The Australian writes that “there were cheers and applause in the court when Justice Mordecai Bromberg read out his verdict.” How remarkably disturbing that the court was full of individuals who thought it right that someone be barred from expressing their views. It brings to mind the following scene from Star Wars.

I strongly doubt that the members of this  cheer squad understand the fundamentals of free speech. Anyone can express their opinion, no matter how much other detest it, no matter how offended they are! It is as simple as that! If you disagree with what someone says, you challenge them! You do not take away their right to say it!  The nine applicants of the class action in question took the latter path, and are now revelling in depriving a man of what should be the most sacred of rights.

The Bunyip asks why the Baillieu government keep these PC-enforcing thugs in the courts.

According to ongoing reports, ex-Labor candidate and Labor-appointed judge, Mordy Bromberg, has ruled that “the way Bolt went about writing his columns” — the radio reporter’s words —  settled his guilt.

Why is an enemy of free speech on the bench?
Why is Premier Ted Baillieu not cleaning out the courts, putting the Labor-appointed hacks, lickspittles and be-wigged totalitarians out to pasture?

We don’t have a liberal party in Victoria, we have two labor parties.

Justice Bromberg may well have upheld the law as it is written, but if that is the case, then the law is just plain wrong. We need laws to protect our right to speak as we wish, not to allow one party to prosecute another for their views. We need a section of the constitution to read something similar to the American first amendment. Given how the government, led by the greens, are going after those they disagree with, we need it desperately.


About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A sad day for free speech

  1. I believe that those who took Andrew Bolt and the newspaper to court should have been forced to produce evidence of their right to native title before any case was permitted to go to court. I have mixed parentage, from several different nationalities and so do my children, but they are all Aussies. The Aboriginals and others are given special treatment that I didn’t receive, should I ask for repayment because some of my ancestors were sent to Australia as convicts after trials that would be considered illegal under today’s laws. The purpose was political, the English wanted to claim Australia so they sent my ancestors here, who were so criminal that as soon as they arrived first on Norfolk Island, then later to Tasmania they were given land grants, so why should their descendants be forced to financially recompense the Aboriginals who were here first? The root of this problem is financial not about racial identification. If someone is not either a half-blood aborigine or a full-blood aborigine then I really don’t see why they should be compensated financially by the rest of us. I do not look down on anyone because of their race or colour this is simply a matter of inequality against those of us who cannot claim aboriginal ancestry back there somewhere possibly more than 100 years ago.

  2. I would like to add that I have some Native American friends in order to qualify for housing assistance from the Cherokee Native American Association they had to prove their ancestry first to the Cherokee Elders.

  3. Baldrick says:

    It smacks of political correctness gone mad.

  4. Bob Campbell says:

    This was basically decided on the basis of the claiments feelings were hurt by what Bolt wrote. Nothing to do with whether what he wrote was basically true. The judge said he had made ‘some’ factual errors and could have asked that these be corrected. Who among us could say we have never made a factual error in what we say or write – perhaps even the judge. This is PC and MC gone mad.

  5. I guess we will not be allowed to sing “My Boomerang Won’t Come Back” by Charlie Drake anymore either.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s