Will Canberra’s Blasphemy Law Soon Apply Nationally?

You may or may not have noticed a number of challenges to our implied right to free speech on political and social issues in our courts and tribunals in recent months.

I would like to bring 3 concerning cases, currently receiving very different types of legal and media handling to your attention that I believe could have massive implications for all of us:

The Bendigo 3 – Victoria

Burns v Gaynor/Corbett – NSW

And first up Bottrill v Sunol – ACT

I am really surprised this case has seen nothing in MSM yet, as it has all the elements of a sensational tale. And trying to follow it has been an adventure so far.

Today I headed out into the Canberra cold to listen in on what was supposed to be a directions hearing for the jurisdictional power of ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) in a religious vilification matter, with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) sitting in. This had already mysteriously not happened the previous Friday, with both claimant and defendant left hanging by ACAT and the AHRC, with no explanation.

Upon arrival, I asked the receptionist at ACAT if it was still an open hearing as the session details for the case were now suppressed on the website. She seemed puzzled “Well it shouldn’t be, it’s a discrimination case”. ( ACAT reference DT/0004/17)

At this point the case was called in, and again the AHRC were a no show, so the matter of applying ACT specific discrimination law to actions in another state or territory has yet to be settled.

Mr Sunol (a NSW resident)  is accused of posting defamatory material about Mr Bottrill (of the ACT) and his cult, the Ordo Tempus Orientis (OTO) on Mr Sunol’s Google blogspot under the Australian Capital Territory’s blasphemy law,  Section 67A of the DISCRIMINATION ACT 1991.

Lamen of the

Ordo Templi Orientis

 

 Bottrill v Sunol  – A Long Story Made Short 

The material was in fact posted by the blogs co-administrator, Luke McKee, who as far as I can tell has been posting on the subject of Australia’s child trafficking and paedophilia problem for a number of years on numerous online platforms including allegations against members of Ordo Tempus Orientis (OTO). He appeared on the Alex Jones Show recently divulging these same details and among numerous recordings released, is a phone call between Mr McKee and  Mr Bottrill on the subject, made through Mr Bottrill’s place of employment.

Mr Bottrill has also represented the OTO in previous causes of defamation in Vic and the ACT on similar subjects. Perhaps the most famous of which being Dr Reina Michaelson – her case and that of  two people jailed over the same material in a vilification case by the OTO and Mr Botrill in Victoria in 2005 is available and a highly recommended read.

A quick Google search will take you down the rabbit hole that is rumoured to involve the OTO, which has quite the reputation, mostly due to its prophet Alistair Crowley, who among other things named himself “The Beast 666” and was reputed to have some dubious personal habits and tastes.

Alistair Crowley

The ACAT presiding member decided it will order Google to remove Mr McKee’s blog posts, they unwillingly accepted that Mr Sunol had no current control over its current contents. Mr Sunol’s lack of IT knowledge and the side effects of a coma many years ago, were made abundantly clear during the hearing, in his speech and comprehension, and surely could not have been missed by either the claimant or the tribunal representative.

So the question remains to be answered, on the 27th July now it seems, can ACAT order a NSW resident to follow ACT legislation in NSW?? ACAT reference DT/0004/17

Which brings me to the 2nd case, Burns v Gaynor/Corbett

Currently I believe the applicant Mr Burns is appealing to the Supreme Court having lost in the High Court after Bernard Gaynor questioned the right of the NSW specific discrimination law being applied to the actions of a QLD resident in QLD.

This is a case of homosexual vilification, interestingly brought forward by Mr Burns, one of the only people to use this particular piece of NSW anti-discrimination law, section 49ZT. Mr Burns states on his personal blog he is an “experienced anti-discrimination campaigner”  who can “help you save on legal fees” if you would like to sue someone for homosexual vilification. In fact, here’s a coincidence for you, most of Mr Burns claims 50+ have been against ….. Mr Sunol  who  seems to have been a convenient case donkey in NSW for this particular piece of discrimination law.

For those of you who want “hate speech” laws tightened, I will pause a moment and let all that sink in…

OK I’ll spell it out for the particularly dense… if either of discrimination cases are successful, it sets a precedence for all state/territory laws to be applied across the country, at the discretion of these tribunals, courts and appointed experts?!

This is like Big Brother by stealth or maybe it is all coincidence…

All values demonised by the current establishment.

Finally the last case, the Bendigo Three

Currently underway in Victoria, this case has seen numerous propaganda attempts by social, political and media opponents of the three UPF defendants, but it is as much the gullibility of the public and hypocrisy of those proclaiming “they’ll get what they deserve!” I personally find so hard to believe.

We’ve had members of far left organisations including the group “Million Flag Patriots”, pretending to be part of the patriot movement to try and further tarnish the defendant and their supporters reputation as “hateful racists and bigots” deliberately clashing with mainstream media, who then merrily misreport it in the evening news.

Much the same was attempted when Kirralie Smith faced defamation accusations over comments about Halal Certification practices, with numerous unrelated issues being used as recruiting tools for protestors to attend fundraising efforts and court appearances.

I seriously wonder if any of the violent or troublesome far left activists turning up outside the court house were part of the group who vandalised the pond at Australia’s actual Parliament House, or part of the group that circumvented security to hang a banner from the roof or the group who glued themselves to banisters to frustrate security? Where were the media calls for punishment and accusations about the far lefts disdain for this country and its citizens!

Frankly,  those attacks on our official seat of governance, are far more offensive than a theatre production outside a council office, demonstrating an opinion about one of the more abhorrent aspects of a particular belief system. Which we should be free to criticise!

Picture taken during  alleged “offensive” demonstration in Bendigo 2015

So I ask you where are we going? How much longer will any opposing conservative or nationalist opinion be tolerated? My personal expression is starting to feel stifled by all the social pressure to not “offend a minority” but I am truly scared if we don’t yell now, we won’t get the chance.

We need to be observant and we need to “Rise Without Fear” and start telling others what we see, while it is still legal!!

  • Deplorable Steve

    The community will start taking matters into its own hands and unleash hell on these Marxist morons. And I can’t wait for it to happen.

  • Mitchell Honeysett

    Australian Constitution Section 117. Rights of residents in States A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

    This may apply

    • That’s a relatively clear and straight forward statement for this antiquated and out of date 19th century British Act, but as it applies specifically to subjects of the British Queen, as per the opening paragraph and Clause 2 of the Act, it can be legally argued that it no longer applies to subjects of the fictitional Queen of Australia that has been unconstitutionally created without the approval of the Australian people. If you were to try and use that Section 117 you would also have to take into account Section 116 that says, “The Commonwealth shall not make any law ……. for prohibiting the free exercise of ANY religion, …..etc”. The interesing point about this abomination of a Section is that the “founding fathers” chose to ignore defining what they would class as a “religion”. Hence Paganism, Satanism, Scientology, Mormanism, can all claim to be legitimate “religions”, just as can Christianity and Islam, and Budhism, Taoism and any sect or cult. In effect, none of this matters because, the Parliament and the High Court simply ignore the British Act any time they wish, except when they can use specific bits to serve their purpose. For example, if Parliament and the High Court were to follow the British Act they would admit that every referendum we have had in Australia since 1906, has been conducted unconstitutionally. Section 128 of Part 9 of the British Act states 8 specific times in the one Section that “the proposed law” must be presented to the people at a referendum. Not once has this happened. Everytime the people have been presented with a simplified question to answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Nowhere in Section 128 is Parliament given one of the 39 perennial loopholes of “Until Parliament otherwise provides…” to alter this Section 128 without going to referendum.