Aboriginal offenders get leniency under racist courts dispensing Aboriginality Apartheid

Rules for some it seems under Canberra’s leftist injustice regime.  If you’re a mainstream Australian and you offend then you cop the full force of the law, deservedly so.  But if you’re Aboriginal, the court system in Australia excuses you because you’re automatically deemed to be of a ‘disadvantaged minority’ because of your race, and so treated as a special case.

No more conspicuous is overt racism in Australia than is Race-Based Lenient Sentencing.

Notable are recent cases in point.

Lock doors & drive through


In the remote outback town of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory, the 2016 Census reported that of the almost 3000 residents, some 51.3% identifying as Aboriginal.  Tennant Creek has been in the news lately following recent media reports of toddler pedophilia by Aboriginal men.  The Aboriginal rapists have had their identity censored and the penalties waived because of the criminal offenders’ minority disadvantaged ‘status’.

One child is raped or abused every week in the Northern Territory by Aborigines as exposed in parliamentary estimates hearing in Darwin in June 2018.  The Department of Territory Families also told the hearing there were 41 substantiated cases of child sexual abuse in the past 9 months, and 18,442 notifications have been made to Territory Families in the past 9 months involving 9,000 children, plus systemic domestic violence by this backward patriarchal community permanently intoxicated by alcohol addiction.

It’s cultural dysfunction.

A stepfather (30) on the remote Groote Eylandt reservation in the Northern Territory twice raped his child stepdaughter between May and August in 2017.  The pedophile stated “I’m taking her to the room and I’m going to rub her in my sweat, which will protect her from the black magic.”  That’s just pure perverted evil.  Yet he was only handed a lenient sentence of four years and nine months in prison – just because he is Aboriginal.  The stepfather had syphilis and an “atrocious” criminal record, yet the court ignored all this including his recidivism under crap social justice provisions.

Aso, why should Bruce Roland Carter (38) who crashed his car at Murray Bridge, east of Adelaide on September 14, 2017 and who then bit off the ear of a good Samaritan who came to his aid, be sentenced to jail for just least two-and-a-half years?   The court heard he’s some famous actor intoxicated on alcohol and drugs, and well, Aboriginal.


Recently on March 28 in 2018, Aboriginal Jesse Green (27) brutally murdered young mother Teah Rose Luckwell (22) (below) inside her unit in Robert Street in South Tamworth.  Not only is Green a vicious murderer but a violent criminal recidivist.   Yet the magistrates court has taken Green’s mental health issues, age and Aboriginal identification into account.   Why?  Ok for Aborigines to murder and rape?  What’s the Aboriginality difference to the innocent victim irrespective of race?   What about the victim’s loss of the rest of her long life and of the child’s lifetime trauma and lack of a mother?   How does Teah get special leniency from the Aboriginality of her murderer?

Victim of Criminality

How is it Australian justice for this victim that the murderer be granted discounted sentencing leniency because a DNA swab showing the murderer has traces of Aboriginality?

Extreme Muslim terrorists, pedophiles and basically any offender could exploit such empty and irrelevant excuse for heinous crimes like rape, pedophilia and murder.

Murder is murder.  Race and ethnicity are no excuse for criminality.  Race is no excuse for criminality.  Aboriginality DNA is no excuse.  Background disadvantage is no excuse.  Lack of parental guidance, family violence, substance abuse, mental illness and repeated incarceration as a juvenile and as an adult are not excuses for criminality.  If Aboriginality is the cause of criminality, then there is something wrong with Aboriginality, so fix the Aboriginality, but don’t excuse the crime.

Murder is murder and rape is rape, irrespective of race, poverty or the Left’s long bow excuse of historical colonialism?  But it might have something to do with backward culture.  A neglected, abused, uneducated child of an outback dysfunctional family within a backward patriarchal and barbaric violent culture is more likely to steer toward a life of offending; than say a grammar school graduate from Toorak, Mosman, Teneriffe or Peppermint Grove.

Most Australians are not as fortunate, and many suffer disadvantage, not by their race, but by their happenstance in life.  They are not treated specially.  Australians are required to obey the laws of our land, so why should anyone in Australia have right to commit crimes with any degree of impunity or discounted consequences?  Criminal behaviour is wrong and harmful to society, irrespective of race or ethnicity of the offenders.

Try getting Legal Aid in Australia if you’re non-Aboriginal.

But as an Aborigine or Torres Strait/Tiwi Islander, there persists a prejudiced government policy conditioning so-called ‘first Australians’ to some elitist inordinate right to Aboriginal Legal Aid – which happens to be discriminately funded by White taxpayers in the main.   It just encourages all Australians conjure up some online DNA ancestral vanity test to posit skerrick ancestral Aboriginality.  For instance like going to a Romanian website that provides certificates of evidence of 1/1000 Aboriginal descent even if courtesy of an unnamed bloke eight generations having a one night stand with a ‘brick wall’ ancestor at some nondescript outback pub.

Surely, Skerrick Aboriginality DNA ought be sufficient to claim authentic Aboriginality and so entitlement to racial ‘special privileges’, but then under current laws, a simple Aussie birth certificate means you are indigenous to Australia, so what’s the diff?

“My DNA swab shows that me great, great, great uncle had permed hair so he had to be Aboriginal, so it’s all his fault.”

The social justice warriors pre-loaded into Australia’s judiciary and in Canberra’s biased Australian Law Reform Commission insist on two Australia’s with two sets of laws – one Australia for Ordinary Australians, and another imagined one for Aboriginal Australians.  It’s blatantly advocating an Apartheid Australia – a First World White one and a Third World Black one – hence the two flags for two Australias..  It is unjust, immoral and contrary to the Australian Constitution which prescribes one set of laws for the nation.  Under Section 109 ‘Inconsistency of laws’ “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

The social justice warrior agenda, typical of Leftist idealism, are ring-nosed by perceived injustice and the naive evangelists, without understanding more than the headline issues and the biased abstract spiel.   The Leftie lawyers and judges reckon that because they have been convinced of stereotypical image of Aboriginal socio-economic disadvantage, since they are not in a position to rectify the disadvantage, they instead reckon it’s somehow justifiable to misuse their legal powers to excuse criminal Aborigines.  They don’t think through the direct consequences, nor the broader dysfunctional community messages of their actions, nor the perpetuation of division they are inculcating.

The messages they are sending is that criminality is a symptom of Aboriginality, if not synonymous.

Aboriginality Apartheid is consistent with Aboriginal Welfarism – both ideals of the Left that only perpetuate race based division and inequality in Australia rather than the cohesiveness of the single Australian identity.

In 2011, William Bugmy, a recidivist criminal Aboriginal, was an inmate in the Broken Hill Correctional Centre on an eight-month stretch for assaulting police following a string of violent offences.

William Bugmy

While incarcerated, Bugmy threw a pool ball at a prison guard, striking him in the eye socket and, ultimately, leaving him blind in one eye.   Bugmy was charged with a serious assault, convicted and handed just four years and three months prison.  But in sentencing, the judge took account of the fact that Bugmy comes from a profoundly disadvantaged background – his Aboriginality.

Back in 1991 Stanley Fernando, an Aborigine, stabbed his girlfriend in Dubbo causing serious wounds to her neck and leg. His defence tried to claim the poor bugger me Aboriginality defence to get leniency, which he did, as a slap on the wrist, and a slap on the face of his poor girlfriend.

The eventual successful appeal decision in 1992 by Fernando’s counsel has led to what’s referred to by social justice warriors as the ‘Eight Fernando Principles‘ – which instead deserve to be dubbed Criminal Immunity by Aboriginality.   Basically they provide for lighter sentences for Aborigines because of the so-called Indigenous offender’s “reduced moral culpability” and promoting non-custodial penalties to respond to the disproportionate impact of imprisonment on Indigenous offenders.

Criminal Immunity by Aboriginality

1. The sentencing court should not ignore those facts which exist only by reason of the offender’s membership of such an ethnic group.

Mervyn Bugmy before breaking out of a Broken Hill prison in April 2018

2. The relevance of the Aboriginality of an offender is not necessarily to mitigate punishment but rather to explain or throw light on the particular offence and the circumstances of the offender.

3.  It is proper for the court to recognise that the problems of alcohol abuse and violence that to a very significant degree go hand in hand within Aboriginal communities are very real ones and their cure requires more subtle remedies than the criminal law can provide by way of imprisonment.

4.  Notwithstanding the absence of any real body of evidence demonstrating that the imposition of significant terms of imprisonment provides any effective deterrent in either discouraging the abuse of alcohol by members of the Aboriginal society or their resort to violence when heavily affected by it, the courts must be very careful in the pursuit of their sentencing policies to not thereby deprive Aboriginals of the protection which it is assumed that punishment provides. In short, a belief cannot be allowed to go about that serious violence by drunken persons within their society are treated by the law as occurrences of little moment.

5.  While drunkenness is not normally an excuse or mitigating factor, where the abuse of alcohol by the person standing for sentence reflects the socio-economic circumstances and environment in which the offender has grown up, that can and should be taken into account as a mitigating factor. This involves the realistic recognition by the court of the endemic presence of alcohol within Aboriginal communities where poor self-image, absence of education and work opportunity and other demoralising factors have placed heavy stresses on them, reinforcing their resort to alcohol and compounding its worse effects.

6.  That in sentencing persons of Aboriginal descent the court must avoid any hint of racism, paternalism or collective guilt yet must nevertheless assess realistically the objective seriousness of the crime within its local setting and by reference to the particular subjective circumstances of the offender.

Nicholas Bugmy in jail for theft before escaping

7.  That in sentencing an Aborigine who has come from a deprived background or is otherwise disadvantaged by reasons of social or economic factors or who has little experience of European ways, a lengthy term of imprisonment may be particularly, even unduly, harsh when served in an environment which is foreign to him and which is dominated by inmates and prison officers of European background, with little understanding of his culture and society or his own personality.

8.  That in every sentence exercise, while it is important to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and not to lose sight of the objective seriousness of the offence in the midst of what might be otherwise attractive subjective circumstances, full weight must be given to the competing public interest to rehabilitation of the offender and the avoidance of recidivism on his part.”

Third World Outback Reservation Australia


So of course the social justice warriors have run with this to get recidivist Aboriginal offenders off at every chance.

They reckon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold a unique position as Australia’s first peoples. They reckon that sentencing courts in all jurisdictions have the ability to take account of an offender’s background of disadvantage.  They reckon that courts consider a range of subjective factors arising from the offender’s history – experienced deprivation, poverty, trauma, abuse, being ‘stolen’, experienced detrimental and intergenerational effects of past government policies and criminal justice practices and poor bugger me excuses that tend to affect an Aboriginal person’s moral culpability.

They extend this to ongoing ‘complex effects of dispossession, colonisation and institutional racism on Aboriginal peoples’, including ‘poverty, unemployment, [poor] education, alcohol abuse, isolation, racism and loss of connection to family culture, land or Indigenous laws.’

Worse, is the call for special Koori Courts across Australia to dispense Indigenous specific laws with special discounted sentences or no sentences at all just because of the offender’s Aboriginality.  They’ll want their own prisons next, but they’ll be mostly empty, because they got off for being Aboriginal.

Social justice warrior at Deakin University, Professor Mirko Bagaric, from somewhere overseas reckons all the offending Aborigines in prison is “a national shame”.

Mirko reckons “The imperative to reduce Indigenous incarceration numbers is far greater than the need to cut court costs or catch a few extra criminals.”

One Australia. Do the crime, do the time.