MURDOCH’S RACISTS, TIM BLAIR AND ANDREW BOLT, EXPOSE THEIR RACIST CREDENTIALS

Both Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, two of Rupert Murdoch’s most disgusting racist propagandists, have shown in their respective columns just how low they can go in demonising asylum seeking refugees.

In their twisted minds they suggest that insulting refugees is somehow far better than refugees drowning - as if one has something to do with the other.

The Australian naval officer that did the insulting did so because he’s a racist. He didn’t insult them to save them from drowning. Putting the two together as Blair and Bolt have done, simply demonstrates the purely racist intent of their commentary.

Both are classic examples of the propagandist’s skills whereby little is actually said by them but they leave it to their respective followers to fill in what they really want to say because they are too cowardly to actually say it themselves. A reading of the comments against Blair and Bolt’s post shows the true extent of their racism – if you can bear to read them.

As usual, Blair and Bolt push their hatreds up to the edge and leave it to their tiny band of racist Bloggies to shove it over.

MURDOCH MINION, TIM BLAIR, ATTEMPTS RACIST DECEIT

Tim Blair, one of Murdoch’s propagandists at the Sydney Daily Telegraph, exposes himself as a deceitful commentator when he posted a piece titled ‘Sexist, racist decision reversed’ at his blog today.

In it, Blair claims that Australian Immigration Minister Scott Morrison had reversed a decision made by the Labor government that refused an African woman a visa to come to Australia for facial reconstruction surgery after having been shot as an infant. While it is true that the woman in question was denied a visa by the previous Labor government, Blair infers that Morrison has reversed the decision of his volition and out of a sense of sympathy when in fact Morrison only makes the decision to issue the visa after 40,000 people petitioned the government on the woman’s behalf to allow the visa.   

Its doubtful Morrison would have issued the visa without the petition.

Blair’s piece is typical of the deceitful methods used by Murdoch’s propagandists as they go about the business of twisting the truth in order to project their brand of Fascism as some kind of benign good for the nation.

HAS THE WEST’S WAR AGAINST ISLAM RADICALISED WESTERN MUSLIMS?

The so-called ‘war on terror’ is now seen for what it really is; a euphemism for a war against Islam. It began as a war fuelled by Western greed and power as European colonialists divided and conquered Islamic lands in order to plunder their riches. The war about religion and beliefs had long run its earlier course during the Crusades. By the nineteenth and twentieth century it was no longer about religion; it was about oil. Today it has come full circle; it’s still about oil, as well as regional control and hegemony, but for those that resent the West’s intrusion into their lands and the plundering of their wealth, religion has become the means rather than the reason for their determination to fight back.

As Europeans and Americans colonised and controlled Islamic lands through war and influence so Islamic peoples, many of them fleeing the war poverty colonialists had brought to them, searched for a better life in the West. But, wherever they went to settle in Western lands, racism was all that greeted them. Even those that had converted to Christianity were not immune from attack. Colour alone was enough to cause abuse. Anti-discrimination laws needed to be enacted in a bid to stop racism but it was never enough. The abuse continued and in the sixties many African-Americans and those of West Indian and African descent in Europe began to turn to Islam as they rejected Western abuse.

Then 9/11 happened. The West’s ‘war on terror’ was soon seen as a war against Islam. Islam in Europe and the US at first rejected the violence the West accused the Muslim extremists of committing but then those Muslims in the West became victimised themselves by the communities they lived in. While wars raged in the Middle East and Central Asia, hatreds fuelled by resentments have now boiled over into the streets of Europe and America. And fuelling the resentments is a mainstream media full of racists dedicated to stirring up hatreds by relentlessly demeaning and marginalising Muslims that live in the West.

Wanton acts of extreme violence by those that profess to be Muslims are held up as being typical of all Muslims. Their violence is used to promote more hatred and so the cycle of violence and hatreds are perpetuated.

The recent violence in the West by radicalised Muslims – the Boston bombings; the riots in Sweden; the horrific hacking to death of a soldier on London’s streets – are all as a result of the West’s media promoting Western exceptionalism and demonising Islam.

Rupert Murdoch’s various mainstream media outlets have all played a major role in the promotion of these hatreds. In the US commentators at Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal have contributed to the hatred; in the UK Murdoch’s Sun and The Times newspaper have made their contribution to inspire hatred. In Australia racists like Tim Blair (read the comments that accompany this lunatics propaganda) and Piers Akerman at Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph in Sydney (who even tried to blame the Victorian bushfires of 2009 on Islamists), and Andrew Bolt at Murdoch’s Herald-Sun in Melbourne have all sought to promote hatred of Islam throughout the West. Their hatreds inspire revenge. These hate merchants at Murdoch’s online papers open their columns to comments from people who are attracted to this kind of Islamophobic racism. For the most part dissenting comments are not tolerated.

As a result, the worldwide anti-Islam movement is growing. The extreme right-wing racist neo-Nazi English Defence League has already organised anti-Islam demonstrations as a reaction to the slaying of a British soldier in London yesterday.

As the hatreds of each side feed off each other, so the violence associated with those hatreds grow. Provocations by the right-wing arm of the mainstream media, mostly belonging to Murdoch, do nothing to relieve the problem; they only fuel the hatreds that radicalise people from both sides.  

BOLT VILIFIES BLACK ATHLETE BECAUSE BLACK ATHLETE COMPLAINS ABOUT BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

Andrew Bolt today played the race card yet again by accusing a black athlete of playing the race card by complaining about being discriminated against.

Bolt, even if he knows nothing else about human decency, truly knows the meaning of the word ‘Chutzpah’!

IS ANDREW ABOUT TO BOLT THE MURDOCH STABLE TO BE WITH THE FAIRFAX FILLY?

Rumours are flying around at the Herald-Sun offices about Andrew Bolt’s intentions. It’s reckoned that he maybe hanging in at the Herald-Sun treading water while he waits for Gina Rinehart to get her foot in the door at Fairfax.

Ever since his publishers stopped him from doing his own blog moderating and then failed to find staff moderators to do the job due, so Bolt claims, to staff cut-backs, Bolt’s readership has dropped dramatically to the point where he’s no longer earning his keep.

Bolt’s quick staccato ‘cut and paste’ style of blogging journalism where he simply regurgitates stuff that others have written which he can then scoff at with just a sentence or two suited his column to attract interactive readers keen to comment about his posts, but it loses momentum when there’s no response. Readers have lost interest and gone elsewhere.

But Bolt has only himself to blame. He refused to publish dissenting views and even deleted dissenting views that snuck in under his radar. I emailed him and complained about most of my comments not being published and some being deleted after being published. I told him that, if I didn’t get a reasonable explanation for his action, I’d complain to the Australian Press Council (APC). He emailed me back saying that if I threatened him with ‘legal action’ (by which he meant me making a complaint to the APC) he would ban me. He was hoping to put me in a Catch 22 situation whereby, if I complained to the APC about being banned from writing dissenting comments and threats to ban me, he’d ban me anyway because it ‘wasn’t worth the legal risk to them’ – whatever that was supposed to mean. Anyway, it seems it has backfired on him and now no one is allowed to comment and his blog has all but dried up.

If, indeed, Bolt was hoping for Rinehart to get her foot in the Fairfax door and then offer him a blog at, say, The Age, then he might just have to think again.

Rinehart’s plans to get seats and influence on the Fairfax board, which may well have allowed her to get a spot for Bolt, seems to have stalled lately, especially since the rest of the Fairfax board are insisting that she has nothing to do with the editorial content of the company’s products.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode.  

BOLT GETS THE MESSAGE

I was wondering how long it would take him, but finally, Bolt’s got the idea:

We’re now picking up boat people almost within sight of the Indonesian coast - so why not just pick them up from the airport and spare the expense?

Why not indeed! I’ve been advocating doing just that for yonks. It’s good to see he’s finally woken up. Virtually all of them are going to end up here anyway, so why not?

ANDREW BOLT ONCE AGAIN USES A BOATPEOPLE TRAGEDY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

Andrew Bolt today told his dwindling readership about the Barokah boatpeople tragedy which occurred in December last year when a boat full of asylum seekers capsized in Indonesian waters and Australian authorities refused to help in the rescue. The disaster, the scale of which is only just becoming known – as is Australia’s role, or rather lack of it, in the events that followed the initial distress call from the boat – is an indictment of the Australian government.

For the racist Bolt, however, this is simply another opportunity to propagandise his anti-boatpeople stance by pretending to be horrified at the tragedy and saying that it is another reason why boatpeople should be deterred from coming to Australia and that incarceration in places they don’t want to be while they await a long drawn ‘processing’ of their claims will provide that deterrence.

To top it off, Bolt then uses the tragedy to push his anti-Left barrow saying that, “if this had happened under John Howard’s watch, we’d no doubt have had another SIEV X spate of protests and plays, accusing the Liberals of murder”.

Of course, it doesn’t matter under whose watch the incident occurred, someone needs to be held accountable, and policies need to be put in place to ensure that asylum seeking refugees that want to come to Australia are able to do so safely without risk of either sinking or going to off shore detention centers for indefinite periods if they survive the journey.

Australian’s need to demand an enquiry into the incident and to demand that refugees are treated a refugees and not criminals that need locking up.

TIM BLAIR CAN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE SMUGGLERS AND BOATPEOPLE

In his xenophobic column a few days ago, Tim Blair seems to be confused about who are boatpeople and who are people smugglers.

He starts his piece by going on about ‘simpletons believing asylum seekers are incapable of calculation or strategy’. But then the only ‘simpleton’ capable of writing this rubbish, Blair himself, proceeds to talk about how people smugglers supposedly plan a strategy that will ensure boatpeople get to Australia. Surely Blair’s aware that they are two different entities.

Then, just to reinforce the notion of Blair’s simpleton ignorance, he finishes off this particular piece of lunacy with:

Quality prankage deserves a response in kind. This might be fun: “We have received your distress call. Passport details, please.”

The thing the vast majority of refugees fleeing their country are most unlikely do before leaving is to pop into a government office and ask for a passport!

The only simpleton here is Blair.

ANDREW BOLT’S AUDIENCE HAS DROPPED TO RECORD LOWS

There was a time when every rednecked Islamophobic racist in Australia would get on to Bolt’s blog for a read or to drop a comment in support of his xenophobic nonsense. However, since his managers have banned him from moderating comments at his own blog, his audience, according to my spy at the Herald-Sun, has plummeted and are likely to fall much further as more and more readers find it impossible to get a word in edgeways and simply lose interest and either not bother attempting to make comments or migrate to Bolt’s competition at Tim Blair’s Blog for Morons. The bottom line is; Bolt’s influence is on the wane and, hopefully, this will reflect in the long term on public opinion and possibly even on the numbers watching his Bolt Report show on Ten.

This can only be good news for real Australia.

Bolt has been his own worst enemy. He’s moaned and carried on about freedom of speech yet the reason for his managers banning him from moderating his own blog is because he has hypocritically been deleting or not allowing to be published comments that dissent from his own view. Some people – myself included – have stood up to his abuse of his blog in this manner and have complained to the Australian Press Council. This has been the result.

The downside, of course, is that the likes of Tim Blair and Piers Akerman are likely to get an increase in readership as the Bolt’s Bloggies attempt to find another vent for their racist and Islamophobic garbage.

WHY ARE AUSTRALIANS IGNORING THE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS OVER THE BOATPEOPLE ISSUE?

While Australians and the politicians hum and ah over the deaths of hundreds of asylum seeking boatpeople and then argue among themselves as to whether the Nauru solution is better than the Malaysia solution, why aren’t Australians discussing the most obvious solution? It’s a solution which avoids all the deaths and misery of indefinite incarceration. Let’s call it the Australian solution – which is to bring them direct to Australia by the safest means possible which is flying them here. If they can pay people smugglers thousands of dollars then they can surely afford the $450 fare on an airline ticket to get here.

These people want to come to Australia. The vast majority of them will end up here eventually anyway - regardless of where they are sent to - so why do we need to send them to Malaysia or Nauru or anywhere else first?

The answer is blindingly obvious.

The reality is, frightened as most Australians are to admit it, some Australians are racists. Politicians and commentators on the right do not want Islamic or non-Europeans in Australia, it’s as simple as that. They’ll deny that they are racists until the cows come home, but that’s what they are - racist. And when I say politicians on the right, I’m not just talking about Liberals; I’m also talking about some in the Labor ranks as well. And of those politicians that aren’t racist, there are many that, for the sake of politics, will bow to public opinion or, at least, to the loudest or most influential of commentators in the media that are also blatant racists and who are currently pushing public opinion against boatpeople.

Despite the denials of the racist right, Australia has a long history of racism. Not only do Australia’s racists don’t want non-white boatpeople in Australia, they never really wanted the non-white people that were already here when their antecedents first arrived here a little over a couple of hundred years ago. And white Australians have been kicking up a fuss every time a non-white group arrived on our shores ever since.

The racist attitudes of some Australians haven’t changed with the arrivals of the latest groups of people wanting to come to Australia – boatpeople who are mostly from places we were involved in invading but, more importantly, mostly Islamic.

It’s time Australians got to grip with themselves and faced the reality that it is complacent majority of Australians who allow the minority of racists among us to dominate the policies that lead to the deaths of the boatpeople.

Enough is enough. Those Australians that call for a halt to boatpeople arriving in Australia should be called out for what they really are – racists every single one of them!

Raise the refugee intake quota and fly them in!

ANOTHER BOAT TRAGEDY, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR RACIST ANTI-BOATPEOPLE PROPAGANDA

It seems there may have been another boatpeople tragedy near Christmas Island with a boat carrying some 150 people capsizing.

The Murdoch racist Andrew Bolt has predictably been quick to seize the propaganda moment using the tragedy once again to peddle his anti-boatpeople racism that demands that boatpeople are stopped by imprisoning them in places they don’t want to be for long periods. Somehow, so Bolt and a myriad of other racists and assorted xenophobes think, this will stop boats from being unseaworthy and allowing boatpeople safe passage to Australia.

The only way to stop the drownings is for the Indonesian and Australian governments to get together and provide seaworthy boats or, better still – and cheaper – aircraft for those wishing to seek asylum in Australia.

BOLT GAGGED BY HIS OWN PUBLISHERS?

This could be good news for those that challenge Andrew Bolt’s extreme right-wing views at his online blog. In his latest post he writes, almost as an ‘Oh, and I nearly forgot’:

Please note: I am told there will be no moderating of this blog outside office hours.

He then adds very importantly and hoping no one really notices:

I cannot moderate it myself, I am told.

Last week Bolt deleted a comment I made against one of his posts saying: ‘SNIPPED FOR STUPIDITY’. My comment was well within the guidelines so I emailed Bolt and asked why it had been ‘snipped’ and told him that, if I did not receive a satisfactory explanation, I would lodge a complaint with the Australian Press Council (APC).

Despite being within the guidelines, Bolt said that my comment was vilifying, stupid and defamatory. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. Bolt then said that if I took ‘legal action’ he would ban me from commenting on his blog.

I have since lodged my complaint with the APC.

I don’t know, but I hope that Bolt’s gagging by his own publishers has been as a result of my and I suspect others complaints and I look forward to challenging his extreme right-wing views by commenting at his blog.

TIM BLAIR AND THE ‘WE CARE ABOUT THE DEAD BOATPEOPLE’ CON

Racists, Islamophobes, xenophobes and rednecks just hate being called racists, Islamophobes, xenophobes and rednecks, so when a boatpeople tragedy happens they see it as an opportunity to kill two birds with one piece of propaganda and immediately jump on the caring conservative bandwagon in an effort to convince people that they truly care about the welfare and safety of asylum seeking refugees coming to Australia by boat. This is exactly what Murdoch minion and racist warmonger Tim Blair has done.

Blair tries to make the case that racists, Islamophobes, xenophobes and rednecks are really ‘caring conservatives’ and, because they’re so caring, they want to make life really tough for boatpeople - for their own good, mind you - by banging them up in detention indefinitely in places they don’t want to be in order to deter people trying to seek asylum in Australia by boat.

Let’s get one thing straight here; the likes of Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, et al, have absolutely no interest in the wellbeing or safety of boatpeople. They are racists that do not want non-white people in Australia – especially if they are Muslims.

The ‘we care about the dead boatpeople’ nonsense is just a con that attempts to cover their real motives of keeping boatpeople out of Australia.

TIM BLAIR EXPOSES HIS PRIORITIES WHEN IT COMES TO BOATPEOPLE DISASTERS

On Thursday last week Tim Blair’s piece about the boatpeople tragedy started by saying; ‘Stop the Boats’ then, almost as an afterthought, he added ‘Stop the Deaths’. Anyone with any real concerns would simply be saying ‘Stop the Deaths’. But then everyone knows where this Islamophobic racist’s priorities really lie. After all, why else would one promote the world’s second most Islamophobic war mongering loon on the planet, Mark Steyn. (The world’s most Islamophobic lunatic is probably Daniel Pipes, but there would be others in the running.)  

Like Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair’s obsessive interest in boatpeople and the disasters that occasionally befall them is simply the propaganda opportunity these tragedies provide in order for the likes of Blair and Bolt, et al, to push their anti-Islam and xenophobic nonsense to the people of Australia.

In light of the fact that asylum seeing refugees will continue to find way to come to Australia no matter what, the best way to stop the deaths would be for the Indonesian and Australian authorities to ensure that boats are seaworthy or, better still, simply fly them in. Making life difficult for these people will not stop the tragedies and nor will it stop them coming here.

BOLT THINKS TOO MANY ABORIGINES AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS ARE CALLING THEMSELVES ‘ABORIGINES’ AND ‘TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS’

Bolt’s latest post at his online blog at the Herald-Sun infers that too many indigenous people are claiming to be indigenous.

He thinks last year’s census figures prove it.

Fortunately, the rednecks and racists that inhabit his blog have been deprived of the right to peddle their sick views; comments are not allowed.

BOLT THINKS TURKEY HAS AN EXCUSE TO START WORLD WAR THREE

Bolt headlines a post at his online blog with:

Jet down. Turkey has reason to move on Syria

For Bolt, the shooting down of a Turkish jet by Syria is an excuse to kick off WW3. Never mind that the Turkish warplane had flown into Syrian airspace and never mind that Syria had since apologised for the incident and are assisting in the search and rescue of the two crew of the downed aircraft.

Now it’s Bolt the Warmonger.

IS BOLT ENDORSING RACE RIOTS AND ENCOURAGING ‘TRIBALISM’?

In a post today at his online blog at the Herald-Sun, Andrew Bolt wrote:

The danger of riots isn’t just or even mainly a sign of economic stress. It is also a sign of increased tribalism…

First off, one needs to ask; ‘What riots?’ Well, apparently there was a ‘secret briefing’ to the government warning of the vague possibility that if the economy turns a bit nasty there ay be some riots in the streets by those unfortunate enough to be effected by such a downturn in the economy.

Bolt, however, sees this more of a racial thing than an economic thing. Never one to miss an opportunity to stir the racial pot, Bolt, merely by mentioning the notion that riots could be ‘a sign of increased tribalism’ – when there is no evidence at all that there will be any riots, let alone race riots – is effectively encouraging just that.

What else would one expect from a convicted racist?

BOLT CONTINUES TO EXPLOIT BOATPEOPLE TRAGEDY TO PUSH HIS ANTI-BOATPEOPLE STANCE

Bolt’s column continued today to sickenly exploit the recent boatpeople tragedy by cynically calling for the government to stop the boats by threatening people that come to Australia by boat with long detention in places they don’t want to be in order to deter them from coming to Australia.

Clearly, the only reason they want to deter asylum seeking boatpeople from coming to Australia, is not because they care about their safety, but because they are Islamophobic racists and do not want non-white people to come to Australia. It’s as simple as that.  

CONVICTED AUSTRALIAN RACIST ANDREW BOLT WANTS TO STOP BLACK AFRICAN IMMIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA

In his online blog today at Murdoch’s Herald-Sun newspaper, Andrew Bolt, a well known convicted Australian racist, has suggested that Australia stop allowing black African migrants into Australia.

The article is probably the most blatant piece of racism yet from Bolt who usually attempts to avoid being so obvious about his racism.

Bolt uses an article in the Age newspaper as an opportunity to peddle his hatred. The article tells of a group of Australian students who happen to be black who are complaining of police harassment when they visit the inner city in Melbourne. They have said that many of them are getting fed up with this harassment and, if it continues, there could possibly be a backlash such as there was last August in the UK when Londoners rioted over the death of a black Londoner who was shot to death by the police.

Racism, sponsored deliberately by the likes of Andrew Bolt and his fellow Murdoch so-called ‘journalists’ like the Islamophobic Tim Blair, Piers Akerman et al, is marginalising black youth in Melbourne who, in turn, look to each other for socialising and studying whilst readying themselves for work – if they can get it.

It’s time to end racism in Australia. Bolt’s blatant racism should never be allowed to take hold in Australia.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMERICAN NATIVE IDENTITY RACISM AND AUSTRALIAN NATIVE IDENTITY RACISM

White ultra right-wing racists in Australia and neoconservatives in America have both adopted a propaganda line which seeks to vilify people who identify as having native heritage. The racists of Australia and the neocons of America do this by claiming that some people who identify as having native heritage but who have lost much or all of the physical features associated with the native people of Australia or America respectively are using their racial identity for purely pecuniary reasons. However, while both propaganda memes are racially based, the reasons why Australian natives are abused in this way and the reasons why American natives appear to be abused similarly are quite different from each other.

In Australia, the ultra-racist Murdoch journalist, Andrew Bolt, was recently found guilty of racial vilification in an Australian Federal Court. Judge Mordy Bromberg found Bolt guilty of vilification by virtue of Bolt’s claim that the Aboriginal people he was referring to were not really Aboriginal and only claimed to be Aboriginal in order to gain certain financial benefits. Judge Bromberg found for the plaintiffs based on the fact that the plaintiffs, all with Aboriginal heritage, had, despite their lack of Aboriginal features, identified as being Aboriginal and had always been accepted as Aboriginal by Aboriginal people for all of their lives and long before they had any knowledge of awards or grants being available to Aboriginal people. Judge Bromberg found that Bolt had failed to support his claim that those Aboriginal people concerned had claimed Aboriginality solely for the purpose of gaining a pecuniary advantage and that, in accusing them of fraud, Bolt had racially vilified them. For Bolt the intent was to vilify Aborigines that were fair skinned and had lost the Aboriginal features of their ancestors. The accusation that they had defrauded the Australian taxpayer by claiming Aboriginality was merely an excuse that provided Bolt with yet another opportunity to push his racist propaganda in his online column at Melbourne’s Murdoch-owned Herald-Sun newspaper. Judge Bromberg saw through Bolt’s deception and found for the plaintiffs.

In America, the neoconservatives are currently pushing a similar line about racial identity against a candidate for the US Senate, Elizabeth Warren. Needless to say, Professor Warren is a Democrat and she will be running against the Republican incumbent, Scott Brown in the upcoming elections.

As seems to be the norm in American politics these days, especially during election seasons, both sides tend to dig up as much ‘dirt’ as possible about their adversary and sling it at each other in the hope that some might stick thus giving the other some kind of advantage. Usually, the kind of ‘dirt’ dug up tends to be about the honesty and integrity of the other and thus goes to credibility.

In the case of Elizabeth Warren, it appears that at some stage in her career she had claimed American native heritage by virtue of her great-great-great-grandmother being identified as a Cherokee Native American. Warren’s neoconservative detractors claim that she made such a claim in order to gain a benefit in her academic career. Following typical neoconservative propaganda practice, the author of The Weekly Standard article, Michael Warren, (presumably no relation!) isn’t quite game enough to out-rightly state that Elizabeth Warren was flat out lying about her heritage, so instead, he quotes someone else who is game enough to say she is lying and, in this way, projects his endorsement of the idea whilst avoiding any potential legal action against him for defaming her.

While the accusations made by Andrew Bolt in Australia are the same as the accusations made by the Republicans and their neoconservative supporters in the US and which are as despicable as each other, the motives for Bolt’s accusations against the Australian Aboriginals are completely different from the neocon’s accusations against Elizabeth Warren. For Bolt the motivation was quite simply to racially vilify Aboriginal people generally, while in the US the neocons were simply attempting to defame a political adversary for political reasons though, in the process, they have also managed to vilify a person of native heritage.

Bolt is complaining that he is being denied his freedom of speech by being ordered by Judge Bromberg not to vilify in future. He points to the same accusations being levelled freely against Elizabeth Warren in the US as an example how the right to freedom of speech should be applied in Australia. But this, again, is just a propaganda ploy Bolt is using. Judge Bromberg has not deprived Bolt his freedom of speech as he claims, but rather Bromberg has merely found Bolt guilty of vilification and has warned him against re-offending.

Conversely, in the US, while the neocons accusations are despicable and may be considered bordering on vilification, the accusations were made primarily and deliberately to defame Elizabeth Warren for political reasons. Warren may or may not find that she has reasonable grounds to take her detractors to court but, if she does, it will be to sue them for defaming her whereas the Aboriginal people who took Bolt to court did so because they were vilified by him. His defaming them was as a result of his vilification of them, but in the case of Elizabeth Warren, her vilification is as a result of the neocons defaming her.

The two cases have similarities but have very different motives. Bolt cannot claim they are the same and hold the US up as a shining example of free speech.