That’s Not A Knife
Not guilty, due to being a famous actor:
ABORIGINAL actor David Gulpilil has been found not guilty of carrying an offensive weapon after a judge accepted that the machete he produced during an argument was used for cultural purposes.
If that’s not the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is.
Explore posts in the same categories: Political Correctness
A Yobbo\'s View 
January 10, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Its a racist kind of judgement that operates on the presumption of diminished aboriginal culpability.
January 10, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I hope the crown appeal this idiotic decision.
January 10, 2007 at 9:54 pm
It’s ridiculous, but surely you’ve heard ridiculouser? 🙂
January 10, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I see you’ve played knifey/spooney before.
January 10, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I remember watching an ABC docco on this guy with Steve Edwards. Dave was walking the cameras around the collection of strung-up tarps and lean-tos that constituted his camp in some remote place in the Top End. He declared “I’m waiting for the government to build me a house.”
Steve and I broke into hysterics. He said it as though it was the most natural thing in the world. He’ll probably get one, too.
January 11, 2007 at 7:34 am
That’s a load off my chest. At least I know now that if I hold up a service station in Western Sydney, I can claim my weapon is being used “for cultural purposes”.
January 11, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Yobbo – famous actor or famous Aboriginal? Being realtively new to these parts, and being English, does ths mean that i can go round with a cricket bat in my rucksack?
January 11, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Being English you should be able to carry a culturally significant Lee-Enfield .303
January 11, 2007 at 6:50 pm
“being English, does ths mean that i can go round with a cricket bat in my rucksack?”
Not any more.
January 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Being English……you can aplly the rule of “303 sir”…lol……To quote “judge accepted that the machete he produced during an argument was used for cultural purposes.”…..well I can only hope that the judge is never in a home breake situation where that same item or any other is used against him.
Heaven fobid…..this will open another can of worms.
Lucky for him he wasn’t in Victoria or W.A…….the Police would have shot him
January 12, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Englishmen carrying cricket bats? I didn’t know they played cricket in England… ;p
January 13, 2007 at 9:42 am
Damo1900 says “well I can only hope that the judge is never in a home breake situation where that same item or any other is used against him.”
Well I can’t say that I would be too upset if the judge found himself the target of such a cultural exchange. Might make him act like a judge next time.
January 13, 2007 at 1:06 pm
So, do you think if you married a Japanese woman you could claim her culture for the purposes of carrying a katana?
Until then, I’m half Scottish in blood so I should be allowed a Claymore, right?
I’d be interested to know when in their long history the Australian Aboriginal began forging steele weapons. Otherwise, why would it serve any cultural purpose?
January 13, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Have I misread the article?
Apart from the opening two paragraphs, it sounds like he isn’t being charged for misusing the machete. It sounds like he’s being charged for merely possessing it – “Gulpilil pleaded not guilty to carrying an offensive weapon” … “I accept the defendant’s explanation for his possession of the machete.”
Shouldn’t libertarians oppose misuse of machetes, not try to outlaw them completely?
(The judge may have been less lenient if the defendant were a non-famous whitefella in Cronulla, but that’s another story)
January 13, 2007 at 10:16 pm
He produced the Machete during an argument. He wasn’t just carrying it around.
January 13, 2007 at 10:41 pm
If he was misusing a machete, shouldn’t they prosecute for misuse, rather than possession?
January 16, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Why shouldn’t we be surprised http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21063123-5006009,00.html
The coppers certainly aren’t anymore
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21061858-1246,00.html?from=public_rss
January 16, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Err I should have pointed out that the gang, ….err tribe specifically mentioned in the 2nd article are NOT to be confused by men of middle eastern appearance. They’ve got much darker tans than that.