Uploaded December 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
One would be forgiven in thinking that mainly Aboriginal people are dying in custody based on recent headlines. (Thank you to the viewer who highlighted this.) The Guardian reported: “‘Deaths, after deaths, after deaths’: Indigenous deaths in custody reach their highest level since 1980.”
They note that 33 First Nations people died over the last year, noting there were a total of 113 deaths in custody. Simple maths would tell us that therefore 80 non-Indigenous people died in custody, but for some reason, that doesn’t make the news. I’ll get to the rates of death soon.
Our favourite taxpayer-funded race-baiter, the ABC, wrote: “‘It’s maddening’: Anger and frustration amid record Black deaths in custody.” Why do they insist on using the word ‘Black’?
They start their article with the obligatory ‘Aboriginal Lives Matter’ photo, as if other lives are less important, and note that more than 600 First Nations people have died in custody since 1991—a period of 34 years. Just to keep things in perspective, according to the latest Deaths in Australia report, 937 First Nations people died from diabetes over the three years 2021–2023. I’m not taking away from these 600 deaths in custody, but it’s far from a leading cause of death. Perhaps the protesters should be fighting against diabetes by encouraging their supporters to focus on preventative health measures like eating fibre-rich foods and choosing healthy fats.
But I digress. The ABC article gets its data from the latest Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) report. You can download the PDF from the AIC’s website.
Just to be clear, the Australian Institute of Criminology tracks two types of deaths in custody: deaths in prison custody and deaths in police custody. Let’s start with deaths in prison custody.
This is Figure 3: Indigenous deaths in prison custody over the last four decades or so. Our focus is on the death rate per 100 prisoners. As you can see, over the last decade, the rate has been relatively steady at around 0.13 Indigenous deaths per 100 prison population.
Now compare that to the non-Indigenous rate for the same period, Figure 5. Again, using the rate per 100 prisoners, we can see that over the last decade the rate has been relatively steady at around 0.20 non-Indigenous deaths per 100 prison population. Placing them side-by-side, we can see the stark difference: 0.13 for Indigenous prisoners versus 0.20 for non-Indigenous prisoners. So, while the media focuses on the number of Indigenous people dying, the death rate within the prison population is actually lower. If anybody should be protesting deaths in prison custody, it should be non-Indigenous people who are dying at a higher rate.
If we look at Table 1: Indigenous deaths in prison custody, 2024–25, they include the manner of death. You can see that 8 Indigenous prisoners died from natural causes, 10 died from self-inflicted harm, while one died from other non-stated reasons. You can see that none died from homicide, so the idea that Indigenous deaths in prison are largely due to direct third-party violence or foul play is simply not borne out in the statistics.
Now let’s turn to the other category: deaths in police custody, which covers deaths such as ones occurring in police stations or vehicles, or during arrests or police shootings. Figure 4 shows Indigenous deaths in police custody since 2011. For some reason, they don’t go back four decades like their prison data. We can see that in 2024-25, there were six Indigenous deaths in police custody. Table 2 details how they died. Again, under manner of death, one was a justifiable homicide—a police shooting, and two people died from accident or misadventure. There was no information regarding the other three.
For comparison, Figure 6 shows the non-Indigenous data over the same time period. As you can see, 16 non-Indigenous people died in police custody in 2024–25. Table 4 shows the manner of their deaths. These include self-inflicted harm, justifiable shootings, and accident or misadventure.
To be fair to the ABC, although they completely frame this around Aboriginal deaths in custody, they do admit that “Indigenous people were less likely than non-Indigenous people to die in custody as a proportion of their prison population,” as we saw in the data. However, they also note that “they were far more likely to die as a proportion of their total population.” The ABC explains this disparity by stating: “Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people make up just 3.8% of Australia's population but account for more than one-third of the country’s prisoners.”
So yes, Aboriginal people are dying in custody, but certainly not because they are systematically more likely to be killed by police or prison guards. Rather, it is because their higher rates of crime lead to gross over-representation in the justice system. And yes, that is the core problem that we as a society need to solve.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
One would be forgiven in thinking that mainly Aboriginal people are dying in custody based on recent headlines. (Thank you to the viewer who highlighted this.) The Guardian reported: “‘Deaths, after deaths, after deaths’: Indigenous deaths in custody reach their highest level since 1980.”
They note that 33 First Nations people died over the last year, noting there were a total of 113 deaths in custody. Simple maths would tell us that therefore 80 non-Indigenous people died in custody, but for some reason, that doesn’t make the news. I’ll get to the rates of death soon.
Our favourite taxpayer-funded race-baiter, the ABC, wrote: “‘It’s maddening’: Anger and frustration amid record Black deaths in custody.” Why do they insist on using the word ‘Black’?
They start their article with the obligatory ‘Aboriginal Lives Matter’ photo, as if other lives are less important, and note that more than 600 First Nations people have died in custody since 1991—a period of 34 years. Just to keep things in perspective, according to the latest Deaths in Australia report, 937 First Nations people died from diabetes over the three years 2021–2023. I’m not taking away from these 600 deaths in custody, but it’s far from a leading cause of death. Perhaps the protesters should be fighting against diabetes by encouraging their supporters to focus on preventative health measures like eating fibre-rich foods and choosing healthy fats.
But I digress. The ABC article gets its data from the latest Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) report. You can download the PDF from the AIC’s website.
Just to be clear, the Australian Institute of Criminology tracks two types of deaths in custody: deaths in prison custody and deaths in police custody. Let’s start with deaths in prison custody.
This is Figure 3: Indigenous deaths in prison custody over the last four decades or so. Our focus is on the death rate per 100 prisoners. As you can see, over the last decade, the rate has been relatively steady at around 0.13 Indigenous deaths per 100 prison population.
Now compare that to the non-Indigenous rate for the same period, Figure 5. Again, using the rate per 100 prisoners, we can see that over the last decade the rate has been relatively steady at around 0.20 non-Indigenous deaths per 100 prison population. Placing them side-by-side, we can see the stark difference: 0.13 for Indigenous prisoners versus 0.20 for non-Indigenous prisoners. So, while the media focuses on the number of Indigenous people dying, the death rate within the prison population is actually lower. If anybody should be protesting deaths in prison custody, it should be non-Indigenous people who are dying at a higher rate.
If we look at Table 1: Indigenous deaths in prison custody, 2024–25, they include the manner of death. You can see that 8 Indigenous prisoners died from natural causes, 10 died from self-inflicted harm, while one died from other non-stated reasons. You can see that none died from homicide, so the idea that Indigenous deaths in prison are largely due to direct third-party violence or foul play is simply not borne out in the statistics.
Now let’s turn to the other category: deaths in police custody, which covers deaths such as ones occurring in police stations or vehicles, or during arrests or police shootings. Figure 4 shows Indigenous deaths in police custody since 2011. For some reason, they don’t go back four decades like their prison data. We can see that in 2024-25, there were six Indigenous deaths in police custody. Table 2 details how they died. Again, under manner of death, one was a justifiable homicide—a police shooting, and two people died from accident or misadventure. There was no information regarding the other three.
For comparison, Figure 6 shows the non-Indigenous data over the same time period. As you can see, 16 non-Indigenous people died in police custody in 2024–25. Table 4 shows the manner of their deaths. These include self-inflicted harm, justifiable shootings, and accident or misadventure.
To be fair to the ABC, although they completely frame this around Aboriginal deaths in custody, they do admit that “Indigenous people were less likely than non-Indigenous people to die in custody as a proportion of their prison population,” as we saw in the data. However, they also note that “they were far more likely to die as a proportion of their total population.” The ABC explains this disparity by stating: “Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people make up just 3.8% of Australia's population but account for more than one-third of the country’s prisoners.”
So yes, Aboriginal people are dying in custody, but certainly not because they are systematically more likely to be killed by police or prison guards. Rather, it is because their higher rates of crime lead to gross over-representation in the justice system. And yes, that is the core problem that we as a society need to solve.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn



![The “Controversial” New Olympic Rule: Biological Reality
Ever since the second modern Olympic Games held in Paris in 1900, Olympians have been broken into two distinct categories: male and female. I know—that sounds absurd in the modern world. But it’s true; people back in 1900 thought that men and women were different when it came to sports. They were sexist, they were transphobic, they were probably even—dare I say it—racist.
But fast forward 120 years or so, and biological reality is now questionable. Now, in the name of inclusivity, we’ve seen a push to allow athletes to enter female-only competitions based on how they identify.
For example, my male stallion—who identifies as a female human—recently entered the Queensland 100m final. Not only did she win the age championships, but she also broke the world record. See? Women can do anything!
But enough joking around. Let’s get back to the real world, where the new strategy for breaking female records apparently involves being a biological man.
But in the year of our Lord, 2026, something strange has happened—something that went completely against the approved script. As the ABC simply put it: “Trans athletes banned from competing in Olympic Games.” Apparently, the IOC has decided that only biological females will be allowed to compete in female events from now on. What? That’s crazy! Only females can compete in female events?! Who could have possibly seen that coming? Unsurprisingly, this “return to reality” has caused absolute chaos and controversy—at least in some circles.
The new IOC president, Kirsty Coventry—the first female and the first African to hold the office—made her decision very clear. She said:
“At the Olympic Games, even the smallest margins can be the difference between victory and defeat. So, it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports, it would simply not be safe.”
In classic, “impartial” ABC style, they’ve questioned the move with headlines such as: “Warnings of abuse as trans women banned from Olympic female events,” and “Australian Olympic Committee backs Olympic transgender rules despite human rights concerns.” Human rights concerns? What about the rights of women to actually have a fair competition in their own category?
The Conversation, of course, got in on the sanctimonious moralising, claiming: “The Olympics’ transgender athlete ban is a legal and moral minefield.” And we can’t forget The Guardian: “Human rights experts raise concerns over Olympics transgender women athlete ban: Critics say new IOC guidelines violate fundamental human rights.”
That’s right—I was born a man, went through puberty as a male, and have increased bone density and other physical advantages, but now, as a trans woman, it’s my “fundamental human right” to dominate biological women in the Olympics!
Just to be clear, nobody is saying trans women can’t compete. They just can’t compete in the female category.
Unsurprisingly, The Guardian brought race into this. They actually claimed: “Athletes who are intersex or have differences of sex development, including cisgender women, will be overly affected by the new guidelines, with women of colour likely to be disproportionately targeted due to their appearance.”
What are they even saying here? That “women of colour”—whatever that means this week—are more likely to “look like men” and therefore face more scrutiny?
So, is this Korean sprinter more likely to be tested? What about this Indian tennis player? Who exactly are they talking about? It seems the only ones “targeting” women based on their appearance are the very journalists claiming to protect them.
The Guardian also interviewed human rights lawyer and former Olympic swimmer Nikki Dryden, who is firmly against the move. She warned:
“If these rules are adopted… your daughter… may be subjected to sex testing just to participate. Worse, it creates a culture where [someone] feels entitled to question whether your daughter ‘looks female enough’ to belong. That is not protecting women’s sport. That is policing girls’ bodies… The IOC’s new guidelines will be unlawful in Australia… Moving towards exclusionary, invasive rules is not only unnecessary, it is a step back over 25 years.”
But exactly how “invasive” are we talking here? The Conversation spells out the process:
“The screening will be done via an athlete’s saliva, a cheek swab or blood sample. Any athlete whose test shows the presence of the SRY gene [the gene associated with men’s sexual development] will be banned from the women’s category.”
So, a cheek swab. One time. To ensure the category for biological females actually contains… biological females.
So, what do you think? Has the IOC finally made the right move here? Or is the very fabric of human rights and the future of civilisation at risk because we’ve gone back to defining a woman as… a woman? Let me know your thoughts in the comments—I’m sure they’ll be civil.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn The “Controversial” New Olympic Rule: Biological Reality](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cokAfcq6phA/mqdefault.jpg)






