Ziggy Zapata Title

REPEAL STUPID LAWS

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein

GET RID OF POLITICALLY CORRECT AND RACIST LAWS

In recent years, various federal and state laws have been passed to enshrine political correctness and stifle and intimidate free expression and association. These laws usually masquerade under titles such as the Anti-Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act and the Racial Vilification Act. The problem with these laws is that the way that they have been framed is blatantly discriminatory and racist, which makes a complete mockery of their alleged aims.

These ridiculous and unwarranted laws, backed up by various government tribunals and kangaroo courts, actually institutionalise discrimination and racism by allowing certain minority groups to be exempt from those laws. It is clear to see that these laws are targeted only at white heterosexual people who are completely unprotected by them, while minorities have a myriad of exemptions that allow them to practice discrimination and racism and this is blatantly unfair.

THERE IS NO APPEASING THOSE WHO ARE DETERMINED TO BE OFFENDED
SO DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME TRYING TO DO SO

THE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT

This piece of legislation makes it unlawful to insult, humiliate, offend or intimidate another person or group in public on the basis of their race. This is fair enough, because nobody should be targeted because of something completely out of their control, such as their skin colour, race or anything to do with their DNA. Anybody who attacks somebody because of their race is a stupid idiot. It's like attacking somebody because they were born in a particular nation, where obviously that person had no control over this.

The problems with the Racial Discrimination Act are the various definitions of what is race. The Act states that it is unlawful in public if the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group. This has been severely misused by various religious and ethnic groups to accuse people of racial discrimination or vilification, when those people have criticised or insulted the religions of those groups.

Nationality has nothing to do with race. Nationality is a political mechanism and a person can change nationality merely by applying to a nation for citizenship, but he certainly cannot change his race by applying to be a member of another race. The same goes for ethnicity, which is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other. What the hell has ethnicity to do with race if a person merely identifies with a particular group for whatever reason?

Even an imbecile should know the difference between race, nationality, religion and ethnicity. but certain religious groups, predominantly Muslims, very frequently play the race card when their religion is criticised or its vile nature and repugnant cultural practices are exposed. Many news reports show Muslims calling their critics 'racists' when those critics have done nothing more than attack Islam and its followers for various crimes and atrocities or even merely criticise their behaviour towards non-Muslims. The worst part is that the various government tribunals treat religious criticism as racism, which is stupid beyond belief and patently false.

REALLY STUPID ASPECTS OF THE LAW

One of the more ridiculous aspects of the Racial Discrimination Act is that some acts can constitute racial hatred, including speaking, singing and making gestures in public, as well as drawings, images, and written publications such as newspapers, leaflets and websites. So which gesture can constitute racial hatred? Flipping somebody the bird, as the Americans would say?

How can any person make the provable claim that somebody raising their middle finger at them is being racist? The person might have been giving them the finger because they were cut off in the traffic or they didn't like the colour of their ties. So if a white person is dragged before one of those politically correct tribunals because he flipped the bird to a black person, how does that black person prove that this gesture was racially based and not intended to convey something entirely different?

There are many gestures that mean one thing to one person and something completely different to another. For instance, if a person gives the thumbs-up gesture in Britain, it generally means 'Excellent' - it's a gesture of praise. But in Australia, giving the thumbs-up to a person is literally telling them to get fucked. Raising the index and little finger at an Italian is a huge insult by referring to him as a 'Cornuto', a man whose wife has been unfaithful. Performing the same gesture to an Australian means absolutely nothing.

RACIAL TERMS GOOD FOR SOME AND NOT OTHERS

It is quite all right to call an American a Yank, a British person a Brit and an Australian an Aussie, so why is it considered a racial slur to call a Pakistani a Paki or an Aborigine an Abo? In fact research shows that Aborigines called each other Abos until the 1950s, when in a bout of massive hypocrisy, they suddenly took umbrage at anybody else calling them Abos.

Go to the USA and hang around areas settled by blacks and you will hear them constantly calling each other Niggers. Many US late-night comedy shows feature black comedians constantly using the word Nigger. But woe betide any non-black person who dares use that word. In a display of unmitigated hypocrisy, he will be castigated severely by the same blacks.

>p> The word 'Nigger' is merely a corruption of the word 'Negro' only because uneducated Americans could not pronounce it properly, just as they could not pronounce the word 'Vermin' so the term 'Varmint' entered their vernacular. The same goes for the commonly used term 'Critter' because Americans were too lazy to say the word 'Creature'.

It's simply beyond belief, but in Australia and the USA, the word 'Nigger' is considered to be a racial slur, when it is nothing more than a mispronunciation of the word 'Negro', which is merely the Spanish word for 'Black'. The crazy thing is that it is considered insulting by black people if white people use it, but quite acceptable when black people call each other 'Niggers'.

I have video clips of well-known black comedians freely using the 'Nigger' word in their stand-up routines. I also have a video clip of well-known black American pastor James Manning calling former US President Barack Obama a 'Nigger'. So why is it a mortal sin for white people to use the word 'Nigger', when blacks use it all the time against each other. I have personally witnessed this during my trips to the USA.

As far as I am concerned, if black comedians and black ministers of religion can call each other 'Niggers' and use that word in their comedy routines, then I and anybody else can use the word 'Nigger' and if blacks complain, we should tell them to stick their complaints of racism up their black arses.

Italians don't have paroxysms of rage if they are called 'Eyeties'. Most French people don't mind being called 'Frogs' and they have their own expression for the English - 'Rosbif' (roast beef) and literally nobody objects to this. But somewhere, somehow, some anally retentive politically correct dickhead has ruled that certain abbreviations and terms are racist or ethnic slurs, yet others of the same kind are quite acceptable and this is really stupid and unfair. So this part of the Act is ridiculous and any competent legal mind can tear any accusations of racism on this basis apart instantly.

ANDREW BOLT WAS PERSECUTED FOR EXPOSING THE TRUTH

Renowned journalist Andrew Bolt was at the wrong end of a racial vilification accusation and dragged into court because he had the temerity to tell the truth, that some ostensibly lily-white people with a tiny shred of Aboriginal DNA from many generations ago were claiming to be Aborigines and benefiting from this. Incredibly, the prosecution succeeded and Bolt was found guilty of this nonsensical charge.

What Bolt really showed the world was that the law was a monstrous ass, along with the judge who made that idiotic and unjustified ruling against Bolt. These so-called 'Aborigines', who were maintaining that they were indigenous people when they had very little or almost no Aboriginal ancestry, were trying to prove something similar to the concept that a glass of water with one drop of beer in it was beer.

Bolt made a mockery of this and rightly so, but not unexpectedly, left-leaning failed Labor Party political candidate, trade union advocate and Labor Party appointee Judge Mordecai Bromberg of the High Court upheld the complaints of these white 'Aborigines' because Bolt used rather flowery and insensitive language in his report about the issue. But Bromberg could not find any errors of fact that Bolt used to prove that these 'Aborigines' were Caucasians with a microscopic piece of Aboriginal DNA.

Bromberg literally sanctified the right of white people to identify as Aborigines if they had one Aboriginal or part-Aboriginal ancestor ten generations ago. Even worse. Bromberg managed to stifle legitimate debate on this subject and frighten people into expressing what was literally the truth, that these so-called 'Aborigines' were just white folk with a microscopic trace of Aboriginal ancestry. One could say that according to this Bromberg clown, a glass of water with one drop of beer in it is really a glass of beer and could be sold as such. In my opinion, Bromberg has brought the Australian judicial system into thorough disrepute with this ruling.

It is like US President Barack Obama describing himself as black and being insulted if somebody calls him white. The truth is that Obama has a black father and a white mother, so in actual fact he is a half-breed Mulatto. Obama has never described himself as a white man, but he has no hesitation in describing himself as a black man, but he is just as much white as he is black. And if Obama was in Australia and somebody called him a white man, he could have that person prosecuted in one of the politically correct kangaroo courts that preside over the utterly ludicrous Racial Vilification Act.

This sort of idiocy is why the Racial Discrimination Act should be repealed forthwith, because it actually enshrines racial hatred and discrimination. The body that oversees this Act, the Human Rights Commission, another politically correct waste of time, should also be scrapped because this taxpayer-funded organisation actively discriminates and tries to punish some people and not others for the same alleged offences.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS

Most Australian states have passed laws to outlaw many forms of discrimination. The problem is that these laws and the way that they are applied actually enshrine racism and discrimination.

These anti-discrimination laws make it illegal to discriminate against people on the following grounds:

There are many other grounds for discrimination that are unlawful, however all of these laws have exemptions that make them a complete mockery. For instance, it is illegal for people to discriminate against homosexuals, but it is quite lawful in many cases for homosexuals to discriminate against heterosexuals. This has been demonstrated in a number of legal cases where heterosexuals were ejected from gay bars and their complaints dismissed, whereas in one notorious matter, a pair of lesbians who were thrown out of a pub for passionately kissing each other complained and the complaint was upheld and the pub was prosecuted.

It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a person on the grounds of disease, such as HIV. Why? AIDS is an infectious and incurable ailment that can be transmitted by bodily fluid such as the aerosol particles from a sneeze. So if people are concerned about protecting their own health, why should they be forced to employ people who will be in close proximity to them and who carry an incurable disease? Would anybody be prosecuted for refusing employment to a person infected with cholera or typhoid? Of course not. This is why these anti-discrimination laws are completely insane, because they force people to place themselves in danger or be prosecuted if they refuse to do so.

One of the worst aspects of these idiotic laws is that governments themselves enshrine discrimination on the basis of race. The disgraceful and blatantly racist NSW Department of Education employment application states:

So why should an Aboriginal teacher be given preference over anybody else with the same qualification merely on the basis of his race? In NSW, any person who wishes to go fishing has to purchase a fishing licence, however Aborigines are exempt and they can go fishing without requiring a licence. Why? This is government-sanctioned racism at its worst. When government agencies commit and sanctify blatant acts of racism like this, then it is apparent that the anti-discrimination laws are a sick joke.

The Aboriginal flag has been recognised as an official banner by all Australian governments. Why? It only represents people of one particular race on the basis of that race and nothing else, therefore it is blatantly racist. Would any Australian government officially recognise a White Australia flag that represented only white Australians, even though white Australians are the vast majority and are quite entitled to have such a flag recognised? Of course not, which proves conclusively that all Australian governments enshrine and actively practice discrimination and racism against white people.

The most unfair aspect of the idiotic anti-discrimination laws is that they completely abrogate the right of people to freely associate with others. For instance, it is illegal for a Jew to refuse a job application from a Nazi or neo-Nazi. It is illegal for a storekeeper to refuse to serve a Muslim, even when that Muslim walks into that store wearing an Islamic State hoodie and it is obvious that he follows a doctrine that requires him to kill all non-Muslims, including that storekeeper. It is illegal for a person to refuse employment to a male even if he prefers to employ a female and vice-versa.

These insane laws punish people for exercising their right of free association, whether it be in the field of employment, leisure and in many other areas. The right of free association is enshrined in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and Australia is a signatory to this treaty. However, the various governments of Australia completely ignore the rights of citizens to choose the people with whom they wish to associate and have passed laws to punish people for merely wanting to do this.

POLITICALLY CORRECT JOB ADVERTISEMENTS WASTE THE TIME OF APPLICANTS

In any case, most of these idiotic laws are unworkable anyway. For instance under these laws, an employer is not permitted to advertise for a female applicant - his advertisement must be gender-neutral. He is not permitted to specify age or whether he prefers somebody of a certain race or that he won't employ somebody of a certain religion.

So all this achieves is that hordes of people might apply for a job and and the employer will merely employ the person that fits his personal preferences of gender, race, age or anything else, completely wasting the time of those others who stood no chance of getting the job anyway. And if only one applicant shows up for an interview and he does not fit the employer's criteria, the employer can just refuse to employ him and state that the job has been withdrawn for the time being.

Of course there is nothing to stop an employer from stating his own personal preferences in an advertisement, so something like this would be perfectly legal.

So whether or not it is implied in the advertisement that the Managing Director will only hire a gorgeous young blonde female with big tits, it is blatantly obviously whom the Managing Director will hire and he will reject anybody else who shows up. An ageing fat dumpy brunette will obviously not get the job and there is absolutely nothing that she can do about it. The employer has every right to state his personal preferences about anything in public.

The employer has the right to select whoever he wants from the retinue of applicants who shows up and obviously he will choose the hot blonde babe with the big boobs. If it happens that no blonde with big boobs shows up as a result of that advertisement, there is nothing compelling the employer to hire anybody at the time. He can run the advertisement again in a week or two and hope that a female who fits his desires makes an application for the job.

In the meantime, compliance to the idiotic anti-discrimination laws that did not allow the employer to specify in his advertisement that he would only hire a young blonde female with big tits will have wasted the time of all the other people who applied for the job, but did not meet the employer's personal preference.

So these stupid laws don't work anyway. Why? Because human nature is at work and people consider that they have the right to be able to make their own choices as to who they wish to associate with, employ or do anything else with. No amount of politically correct and idiotic legislation can stop this.

CONCLUSIONS

The Federal Racial Discrimination Act and the various state anti-discrimination laws need to be completely repealed, because they abrogate the free association rights of all citizens and they are racist and discriminatory in the way that they are applied. Anybody who is accused or prosecuted under any of these insane politically correct laws should fight them tooth and nail all the way to the High Court and if necessary, the United Nations International Court of Justice.

Everybody should be equal under the law - with no exceptions on any grounds whatsoever. Everybody should have the right of free association. Everybody should have the right of free speech and nobody has the right to not be offended. As long as these politically correct racist and discriminatory laws are in place, Australians should completely ignore them and practice discrimination anyway. These laws are a gross insult to all Australians.