LATHAM RACISM AND THE FEDERAL COURT
Well, it’s taken 40 years or so but this is we’re we’ve arrived. This is where we’re at.
This recent phenomenon of overt, reverse, anti-white, racism is a direct result of the combination of three things.
Social media which in many cases is nothing more than a social sewer where keyboard warriors anonymously troll and say what they like, the most savage, vicious and vile, things, about people they don’t like. Then there’s rampant unbridled multiculturalism and the festering, weeping sore of cultural Marxism that’s breeding and multiplying at an exponential rate on the petre dish of the humanities and social science departments of our universities.
These three elements have combined to give confidence so that some people feel at liberty to say what they like about white people, the white race, whereas the same said about any other colour or race would result in censure, opprobrium, criminal charges and jail.
But where is the political leadership to say, simply, knock it off. Where’s the leadership saying to Vice Chancellors of universities promoting this vile and seditious stuff or promoting any of this kind of thing via their humanities, social science, history, english or any other department that they about to lose funding?
What we’re witnessing in recent times is the use of free speech as a vehicle against the very values that actually allows free speech.
What we’re witnessing is not the use of free speech but the abuse of free speech.
The same would also apply to any university, like Deakin who invite speakers from overseas to promote the idea that you shouldn’t talk to white people.
This was the theme of a talk delivered by Texas Professor Amir Jaima last month. The lecture was: “Don’t Talk to White People”
Why should tax payer’s money be spent on programs that promulgate such vile ideas that are inimical to community cohesion and can only lead to social disharmony??
Knowing that this Texas professor was coming to Australia to spread this toxic message, why was he given a visa?
What’s the difference between importing drugs that can mess with the mind and importing an individual spreading vile and toxic ideas that can mess with the mind?
And then we hear blather with a straight face to camera on the nightly news talking about jihadi radicalisation? How is this any different?
This too is radicalisation and sowing the seeds of dissent and disharmony to those of a receptive mindset.
Having said all of that by way of background, there’s an interesting test looming for the Federal Court with former Labor leader Mark Latham launching a test case on whether those who criticise white people can be legitimately be described as racists.
Bring it on. This will be the system on trial. We’ll at last find out whose side the system is on.
All Australians or the select few
Now, although this involves the Federal Court, when hearing about it at the launch of Mark Latham’s book several weeks ago I couldn’t help but consider it through the prism of that Star Chamber, the Human Rights Commission.
After the disgrace of the HRC and QUT students’ case and the unsigned, indigenous computer room and then the disgusting and disgraceful pursuit of cartoonist Bill Leak, the standing and reputation of the HRC is in tatters.
Both Gillian Triggs and Tim Southphomassane did immense, I would say irreparable damage to the HRC and it should be abolished.
18c should go with it. It should be abolished as well.
It is a law created for a problem that doesn’t exist.
The biggest crime with respect to 18c is the fact that it is entirely subjective. If one person in a hundred has hurt feelings he can lodge his case with the HRC.
I remember at the time of the Bill Leak cartoon affair and the way he was hounded, it reminded me of the poem written in the shadow of WW2 by the German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller.
“…First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me…”
Now turn that around, change the belief system or the profession.
“..First they came for the cartoonists and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a cartoonist..”
By way of background, Mark Latham plans to turn defamation proceedings that have been launched against him into a test case in the Federal Court on whether those who criticise white people can legitimately be described as racists.
The man in the street, the pub test would say that as we are a nation of laws and that we are all equal before the law, it would seem, prima facie, a no brainer.
Latham is being sued by commentator Osman Faruqi over a broadcast in which Latham said Faruqi and others were fomenting hatred of white people and effectively encouraging terrorists.
Latham says that Faruqi is challenging his right to object to anti-white racism.
Non-white people could lodge complaints under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act over remarks that caused them to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated. But apparently NON white people can say whatever you like about white people.
Faruqi is suing for damages over an August 2 episode of the online program Mark Latham’s Outsiders that named Faruqi and said the rise of anti-white racism was “phenomenally unacceptable”.
And Lathams, right. 100%. Again a no brainer. The rise of anti – white racism IS “phenomenally unacceptable”
Faruqi, wants the Federal Court to impose a permanent restraining order on Latham to prevent him publishing any defamatory imputations from the episode.
Latham has submitted more than 10 pages of tweets in which Faruqi disparages white people.
Latham plans to argue that they are his honest opinion, are fair comment and amount to constitutionally protected free speech on political and government matters. He also intends to argue that his program contained other meanings, including that Faruqi is a racist who has committed anti-white racism and that by contributing to fomenting anti-white racism Faruqi had given succour to terrorist fanatics.
Have a listen to some of Faruqi’s tweets and in the court of public opinion, see what you think. Just imagine if any of us made similar comments about non-whites.
October 14, 2017: I actually refuse to hold the door for white people. Life’s too easy for them as it is.
July 2, 2017: I have a rule of using all media appearances to make fun of white people.
December 26, 2016: Mediocre white people: they should be in the bin but instead they own everything and are every f.. king where.
September 29, 2016: Why do white Australians care so much about the anthem? It’s a bad song, it means nothing. Get over it.
April 14, 2016: Everyone on this #qanda panel looks exactly the same. Or maybe that’s because all white people look the same to me.
January 26, 2016: I love debates about sunscreen. Just more evidence that white people don’t belong in Australia.
December 5, 2014: There’s a lot of white privilege in these Christmas names you know. Just like Christmas itself.
It’s impossible to second guess what the court is likely to decide but when you read that list of tweets and imagine a reverse situation, it is also impossible to see how the court could find any other way but for Mark Latham.
Apart from anything else it would simply open up the flood gates for more of the same kind of racist abuse with white Australians just having to cop it.
Like I said, in this case it’s going to be the system on trial and soon enough well find out whose side the system is on. All Australians or the select few ..
Donations to help Mark fund his case go to google and key in the words, Stand with Mark Latham