Andrew Bolt on the Arrest of Paul Weston

Andrew Bolt is Australia’s most popular opinion columnist. He is no stranger to politically-motivated prosecution: he himself was charged, tried, and convicted for saying uncomplimentary things about fashionable Caucasian-looking leftists who self-identify as aborigines for political reasons.

On his TV program today Mr. Bolt discussed the politically-motivated arrest of Paul Weston in Britain. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Hat tip: The Observer.

11 thoughts on “Andrew Bolt on the Arrest of Paul Weston

  1. This Rowan guy is delusional. If he believes Malaysia and Indonesia are “different” he should explain why they are rapidly Islamising. He also claimed Churchill wrote the ‘River War’ quote only about the Sudan, which is simply untrue. Churchill experienced Islam in India, in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan, and unlike this Rowan guy, he knew what Islam is.

    Bolt himself is also wrong about Stirling, who is totally within his rights to say what he wants in the privacy of his own home. The criminal here is the gold digger. That fuggly female sold the tapes to Oprah and Magic Johnson to get their hands on Stirling’s property.

  2. Not a “healthy response” to Donald Sterling the law might not be punishing him but the self appointed race vigilantes certainly are. In any case Sterling’s comments are about how a couple project themselves in public, if there is a crime here it is invasion of privacy.

    Paul Weston’s predicament has a twist it is that he is not only being prosecuted for expressing an opinion (albeit a quote) but also on the suspicion of holding an opinion. In that the initial police action is literally against – a man that has empowered himself by holding a megaphone in the public space.

    The fear is not only of Paul expressing an opinion but that he maybe holding an opinion, whereby his physical presence alone in the public space maybe perceived as a threat or a crime by the authorities. That persona non grata, the de facto outlawing of the physical presence in the public space is far more dangerous than the prosecution of free speech.

  3. Free speech in Britain? Certainly there is. Britain (I forgot again, I should have said Great Britain, what is great about it, Great Caliphate of Britain) will encourage you to say anything, fabricate anything, as long as it is against Russia, and not against Islam. It also encourages you to create praises from thin air and fabricate stunning achievements and discoveries and scientific inventions, and glowing and golden non-existent civilization to Islam.
    Authorities in Britain arrest Paul Weston, the most noble person on earth. If x arrests an honorable man, then authority x is dishonorable. Where is Britain heading? Scary indeed. Why is it become so blind? Why for British authorities the wrong is right? How can Britain have the face of talking about democracy and going around the world fighting their perverted version of so-called democracy? There is no democracy, no values if there is no sense of what is just what is not. Are the sincere lovers and defenders of Britain traitors? Are the traitors and invaders the lovers of Britain? Britain destroyed Tommy Robinson, and Kevin at the time when he was about to be elected. Just like Paul Weston’s situation.
    These treasonous authorities were elected. After election they do what is dictated to them by Islam not fulfilling the promises to their voters. If tomorrow were an election people would go and elect another similar group mindlessly. Why do they go and elect and they know how they will behave? They will pamper to Islam and take 700 m pound checks to Pakistan and Abbas.
    Why does democracy deteriorate into something traitorous, worse than dictatorship? Into enemies of its indigenous people and friendly with invaders? Do the British public read? Have they heard about Tommy Robinson and Paul Weston? Do they care why Paul Weston is arrested? Britain is being destroyed by those who were supposed to protect her.

    • They have been deluded into self-identifying as the British State not as the British Peoples, this is how they can confer ‘Britishness’ to the most alien of species. They would not get the irony of a fellow Brit burning the Union Flag, they have been mystified by their own myth making.

      Scottish independence could break the delusion of the curse that has been set upon the British Peoples.

      • Yes I agree. Scottish independence will change the scenario totally because there will be no more Britain – a ‘fabrication’ that immigrants relate to in greater proportions than do the English. My big fear is that the Scots deliver a ‘no’ vote.

  4. Thank you Jolie Rouge. We want thinking, people with scruples, who are aware of what’s happening around them, analyze things, understand where these things will lead us, and their consequences in 15 years, and we try to check the courses that will take us to perdition. Baron does not like to waste his space by excerpts from others. But listen to the great man Vaclav Klaus says. And I remember when he was president he was the same. He said what he believed in when he left presidency as he was president. Unlike Tony Blair that recently he is shouting about the danger of the marching Islam, while he did everything in his power to facilitate Islam to take over Britain and Europe when he ruled in his stupid way. Now read the following:
    When was the last honest ruler of Britain that sounded like Vaclav Klaus? Chaotic freedom and selective freedom is deadly. In Britain successive governments have convinced people that when the British drink to excess and behave with abandonment and commit all sort of vices, and diatribe Christianity, that’s freedom. While disciplining the public to be extremely respective of Islam and no one else.

  5. Vaclav Klaus may have publically stated his dissaproval of the social engineering strategy of the European Union, and though there is some minor evidence for it, I would like to find more ”smoking guns”. One is the video evidence of Peter Sutherland actually describing the desire to decrease Europe’s homogeneity, but if anyone has more evidence, I would like to add it to my repertoire.

  6. The idea of not being able to criticise any ideology, including religions, is an absolute outrage and very dangerous. Repeal all blasphemy laws, in whatever guise they are implemented!

    • One can criticize most religions with no consequences, Islam is the major exception, criticize Islam and you will be arrested, criticize Judaism and there may or may not be consequences depending upon who you are; Ken Livingston got away with it.

      Personally, as a Jew, I would prefer freedom of speech, Ken Livingston made a remark that probably revealed to us more about his real character than any PC ‘hate crime’ legislation ever would.

      The moral of the story is of course to get violent and have a riot every time somebody says something you don’t like, then you get special priviliges.

      • Yes, that is Hesperado’s take: The violent bad cop enables the non-violent forward movement of the good cop.

        However, dependence on oil – and oil wealth – has propelled and perpetuated Islamic immigration in Europe via a Faustian oil for immigrants deal.

  7. When are the authorities and the courts going to grasp that Islam is not a “race.” Why are they so slow on the up-take? Also, I listened to the tape that V. Stiviano illegally made of her conversation with Sterling. Sterling’s “racist” comments are so vague, so ambiguous, and open to interpretation that one must cherry-pick his words to find anything blatantly racist in them. On the other hand, it was his former mistress’s remarks that could be construed to be “racist,” obsessed as she apparently is with her “mixed race” background and wanting to flaunt it wherever and whenever she can. She’s just a half-Chicana harpy bimbo looking for publicity. Sterling? He’s just a low-intellect, articulation-challenged Joe who’s more concerned with what people think of him. He has no integrity, no self-pride. Still, the piling up on him by everyone is not really indicative of “open discussion” of touchy topics in the U.S. It’s bad news, contrary to what Mr. Bolt says in his program here. It was “political correctness” in action.

Comments are closed.