PAUL COLLITS
On its face, I don’t have much in common with Eva Vlaardingerbroek.
Apart from curmudgeonly dissidence, Catholicism, being rabid right wingers, having routinely misspelled surnames, and obviously, our shared good looks. (Well, everyone who ever mentions Eva feels the need to state that she is beautiful).
This week past, Eva (simply calling her Eva will save on endless spell checks), a Dutch critic of Keir Starmer – he is evil – and mass immigration – girls and women are no longer safe on British streets – has been refused entry to His Majesty’s United Kingdom. She is not “conducive to the public good”.
Slippery Starmer has done an Alex Hawke/Novax Djokovic on Eva, a Barnaby Joyce/Johnny Depp’s dogs, a Karen Andrews/Katie Hopkins. (All were cases involving Aussie ministers deporting those deemed to be unworthy of a visa).
This from a UK Government that won’t deport violent Muslim murderers and which lets child rapists into the country at will. Gives them instant welfare. Puts them up in nice hotels. Lets them run their own legal system (sharia law). Weird optics, right there.
Eva’s big crime appears to have been a speaker at Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally and to have criticised the British Prime Minister. Called him evil and despicable, I think. A non-controversial, fact-based observation.
But this story is more about Lucy Connolly than Eva, appalling though the latter’s situation is. Connolly, jailed for an offensive Twitter post at the time of the 2024 Southport (UK) stabbings, is now being threatened – by her probation officer! – with a return to prison for more recent deemed-offences. Someone – perhaps from Keir Starmer’s office, who knows? – complained to Connolly’s probation officer over her reposting of social media suggestions by myriad Brits that Donald Trump, following his successful and widely admired arrest of a South American narco terrorist/tyrant, should next come for Starmer.
Here is what Connolly said in 2024, which sent her to prison:
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f**** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist, so be it.
The ruling class and the deep state don’t like racists. Doesn’t like having its own prejudices – in favour of Muslim immigrants and the wonderful diversity they bring – called out. Doesn’t like the debates and the perfectly reasonable and deeply considered alt-views that lie behind the angry words sometimes spoken online or on the streets, in the heat of battle.
Connolly’s original comment was nasty, to be sure. She did take her post down, fairly sharply. Understandably, tempers were raised at the time, in the wake of innocent, little white children being stabbed to death for the colour of their skin, or whatever was in the head of the killer. The emotions of the moment, and all that. It was occurring in the midst of riots. A Rotherham rioter, Peter Lynch, also imprisoned, took his own life while in jail.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw5w8nl5ezo
It was not a million miles from something the Quadrant Online editor, Roger Franklin, said back in 2017 following another Islamic attack, this time in Manchester.
The confected outrage was similar, but at least Roger wasn’t sent to prison. The comments in his article, directed at the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which I won’t repeat, were described by the then Liberal Party minister (Mitch Fifield) as “sick and unhinged”. Not really. Roger was merely ahead of his time in suggesting, in an admittedly brutal way, that the relentlessly pro-Islamist behaviour of the progressive class was providing a febrile environment for the radicalisation of Muslims and increasing the likelihood of an eventual Bondi. It has and it does.
Similarly, in 2024, Connolly was suggesting that hotels full of illegal, mostly Muslim, immigrants were breeding grounds for rapes and other vile and violent attacks on British citizens. But spot the difference. The ABC merely demanded an apology from Roger and from Quadrant. Lucy Connolly was sent to prison.
This time around for Connolly, it is all about re-posting a joke. Well, perhaps it was a serious suggestion. Take it whichever way.
Trump coming for Starmer? Hey, buddies, get in line. I suggested – first, I think – that, following Caracas, Trump should come for Aussie PM Albo.
Albo Derangement Syndrome
PAUL COLLITS · 7 Jan
The one key, unasked question following Donald Trump’s quixotic intervention in Venezuelan domestic affairs has to be – when is he coming for Albo? And how do we make the case and put it to the Pentagon? Nothing would please many of us more than the sight of Albo rotting in a Yankee prison.
Which raises the question. Would I be arrested in Australia if someone, under Albo’s own, recent, much debated proposed hate speech laws, claimed to be offended complained to the appropriate hate speech gauleiters? Would I be allowed into Britain?
It was suggested by British probation that Connolly’s latest intervention might “incite violence”. Really.
Back down under, in the context of a hot, post-Bondi debate over free speech and anti-Semitism, The Catholic Weekly has written up a good submission by the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney to NSW Premier Chris Minns’ own hate speech endeavours. He wants to ban “globalise the intifada” and similar phrases. (Stamer wants to ban the whole of X). Here is the Catholic submission, which urges the pause button:
The NSW Government’s inquiry into a law banning phrases like “globalise the intifada” should deal directly with racial and religious hatred and not risk unnecessary restriction of expression, says a submission from the Archdiocese of Sydney.
The criminalisation of hate speech is often imprecise, subjective, arbitrary and inconsistent, it contends.
The Minns Labor government announced an inquiry by the lower house law and safety committee on 22 December, with comments due by 12 January, and recommendations submitted to parliament by 31 January.
… The archdiocese agrees there must be a legislative response to the shootings at Bondi, “this dark day in our nation’s history.” However, it must be studied carefully to avoid the kind of overreach that has occurred in the United Kingdom.
“Our first response to bad speech should be better speech,” says the submission. “Engaging in respectful civil discourse should be possible without the threat of arrest and prosecution.
“Legal prohibitions and sanctions are not the ideal way to address speech that incites hatred and the criminal law is only a very small part of dealing with this issue.”
In the government’s terms of reference for the inquiry, the phrase “globalise the intifada” was singled out as particularly offensive. The archdiocese argues that banning specific phrases would not be effective.
“Prohibition and punishment are only two small tools in protecting against hateful speech,” says the submission. “The better way to protect against hateful rhetoric is to educate people in civil discourse and positive human behaviour.”
Suppressing opinions through the criminal law results in self-censorship without changing hearts. The submission quotes the late Pope Francis who declared in his 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti that “authentic reconciliation does not flee from conflict, but is achieved in conflict, resolving it through dialogue and open, honest and patient negotiation.”
The inquiry’s terms of reference require the committee to examine how successfully the United Kingdom has dealt with hate speech.
A spate of imprecise and subjective laws there has led to an explosion in prosecutions. In the year to June 2025, there were 15,128 prosecutions and 13,013 convictions for hate crimes.
There have been some extraordinary cases.
… The archdiocese observes that “the UK is not a good model for NSW to follow in seeking to address the incitement of hatred and promote social harmony and cohesion.”
Indeed, there have some extraordinary cases. Like Gary Linehan. What about getting closer to root causes? As Connolly says, Twitter is not real life. Real life is gang rapes and stabbings. And Bondi.
The Australian PM has gone full hate speech, post-Bondi and amidst a severe backlash against Albo for his limp wristed, pro-Palestinian post 7/10 policy stances. He is being booed off stages and feels distinctively uncomfortable attending Bondi funerals. He senses the deep loathing. Albo’s proposed hate speech legislation is way OTT. Threatens the innocent without seeking out the guilty. His appointment of a leftie Labor judge to oversee a reluctantly agreed Royal Commission is another marker of his ambivalence. These are the reflexive moves of a pro-Palestinian activist politician caught in the Bondi headlights.
The Lotus Eaters think Australia is now a “dystopian nightmare”. With a focus on the up-till-now proposed hate speech legislation. They have some interesting and disturbing observations. Essential viewing.
Well, it seems like Albo’s own intended hate speech laws have been “scuttled”.
Nor will we be getting the even worse (broader, to include other phobias) legislation proposed by the Greens. For now. As George Christensen has said, it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. (With implied apologies to the slim-challenged).
A view is forming that Albanese’s anti-free speech hate laws may be dead already.
If so, that’s cause for celebration. But don’t pop the champagne corks just yet.
As the old saying goes “It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.” In this case, it ain’t over until the 10 Greens Senators sing, in the hope that Albanese will dance to their tune.
The Greens have put forward proposals that will make the draft law worse, a feat that I would have thought impossible. They want so-called “homophobia,” “transphobia,” and other imaginary fears added to the list of things that will land you in jail.
Christian leaders are now lining up to tell the PM to reject this. Rightly so.
George also reposts another article, from Rebekah Barnett and Andrew Lowenthal.
(100) Rush Job: Australia’s new hate speech bill set to be scuttled
Rod Lampard suggests that the UK’s ridiculous and ridiculously tyrannical hate crime laws might also be in retreat.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-184000775
Maybe. All good, but too late for Lucy Connolly. At least, my forthcoming planned travel to the Mother Country might still get the go-ahead. Even though I recently called Sadiq Kahn evil.
https://substack.com/@paulcollits/p-180578525
Lucy Connolly has become a free speech icon. As has Eva with the long name. As has Roger Franklin at Quadrant. As has George Christensen. They all call out the deep state, especially when it uses Muslim attacks, whether perpetrated by Islamist cells like ISIS or by demented-and-radicalised lone wolves like the Southport killer, to introduce ill-advised, draconian, useless and unnecessary new laws that do nothing to solve the problem. But which tick the “do something” box and which advance the globalist censorship agenda.
The real solutions are relatively simple.
Recognise the problem’s root causes. Yes, use education to re-educate people about Islam realities. Halt all Muslim immigration. In the UK (and Australia, for that matter), get rid of all illegals. Use existing laws to crack down on terrorists and lone wolves. Deport any Imam found to be inciting violence against Jews or Christians or anyone other infidels. Avoid too little-too late bandaids. Maintain free speech. Don’t make it the first casualty of terrorist acts. Better distinguish criticism from incitement. Don’t use advocacy-as-policy – like the endlessly useless two state solution, or continued aid to UN front organisations of Hamas – as a dog whistle to anti-Semites. In doing so, pandering becomes enabling. Get your domestic intelligence services back on the job and less focused on their diversity training and woke philosophies. Anyone listening at ASIO? By all means have a Royal Commission, but don’t ever assume it will solve all.
Meantime … we suffer illiberal, wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing measures that will maintain deep state narratives and crush freedom.
Mission creep by Big Brother, all in the name of “safety”. It isn’t about safety. It is, as during the plandemic, about control. About compelled speech. About controlled speech, as Chris Davies noted on the Dan Wootton podcast linked above. And the recent retreats by Albo and (perhaps) by Starmer, might suggest that we-the-people have stirred, and are making our feelings known. Maybe. We shall see.
Starmer, like Albo, is (very obviously) simultaneously repressive AND incompetent. Such is our good fortune to be destined to live in such times. Not. Living in times of tinpot dictators. In times of a long, deliberate march towards 1984. In times where, if you dare to critique tyrants and their absurd, hated policies, you will be thrown in jail for longer than those who commit actual crimes. See under Lucy Connolly. In times of dissidents who are made political prisoners by the surveillance state. In times where progressivist governments pretend to care about anti-Semitism and introduce laws that will do nothing for the Jews but will do plenty for the woke conspiracy.
Good times? I think not.
Paul Collits
18 January 2026
This article (Hate Speech, Lucy Connolly and Me) was created and published by Paul Collits and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Leave a Reply