Liberal Party treachery is more and more out in the open for all Australians to observe.
A recent investigation by Whitelaw Towers, Australia First Party and other patriotic people has revealed a clear link between Liberal Party dirty tricks player, Howard Crawford, and a Federal Court case which concerns the civil rights of all Australians.
This link may suggest a certain perverse conduct. It should awaken true patriots.
Commemoration of Cronulla Civil Uprising by a few Aussies down the beach
We all recall that Nick Folkes and his so-called Freedom Party and the ‘patriot’ Shermon Burgess, developed a plan to commemorate what they insisted were “the Cronulla riots” of 2005. They planned a peaceful rally and BBQ at the grassy Don Lucas Reserve at North Cronulla on Saturday arvo December 12 last year (2015).
Australia First Party has always said that ‘Cronulla 2005’ was NOT a riot on the side of the Australian people, but in reality a Civil Uprising initiated by beach locals intimidated by invading gangs of Lebanese immigrant males over many years.
Ethnic Arabs (mainly male Leb gangs) were responsible for armed affray, an act of mass racial-political violence (though politically unreported), though significantly not a riot either. The ‘Riot’ term has been a loaded term employed by political media, the multicultural lobbying industry and by politically corrupt police command. The same police command political-operational catatonia played out at the Lindt Café siege.
Since when do police become politicians?
Yet, we have said all the way along that Messrs. Folkes and Burgess had the right to talk of “riots”.
They could say if they chose, that it was a matter of Muslim harassment of Australians and finally Muslim violence against Australians, rather than as it was, a matter of racial violence. Essentially, they could celebrate whatever they chose.
We would have said that they were quite wrong in what they thought of the Civil Uprising, but free speech is about free speech.
Australia enshrines free speech, doesn’t it Premier Mike Baird?
Nick Folkes at his Cronulla Riots Commemoration
Jamal Rifi Supreme Court Action against Folkes and Burgess
The Supreme Court in Liberal Premier Mike Baird’s Sydney, exercised its powers over public assembly in New South Wales, prohibiting the Folkes / Burgess meeting. Mike Baird ordered NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione to prosecute for Liberal Party political reasons. The judgment of the Court is legalistically contained in ‘NSW Commissioner of Police v Folkes [2015] NSWSC 1887‘.
A key part of the judgement stated:
“The basis on which the plaintiff (Andrew Scipione as NSW Police Commissioner ) seeks relief is that he apprehends that, if the public assembly were to take place as planned, there would be a substantial risk that it would degenerate into a violent event in which clashes would occur between those who hold similar views regarding immigration as those propounded by the Party for Freedom (which opposes migration by Muslims to Australia) and those who hold different views.”
The judgement further said, relying on the ‘usual’ interpretation of the mass action of Australians on the afternoon of December 11, 2005:
“The affidavit of Chief Inspector Rochester sworn 7 December 2015 was read without objection. “ As the day progressed, the predominately Caucasian Australian crowd, fuelled by racial prejudice and excessive alcohol consumption became violent. The immediate result of this was that people of ethnic appearance were attacked on sight, with little or no provocation.”
I accept Chief Inspector Rochester’s unchallenged evidence “prohibition” 25(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) …..(1) Order, pursuant to s 25(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), that the holding of the public assembly referred to in the Notice of Intention to Hold a Public Assembly” dated 6 November 2015 is prohibited.”
There the matter could have ended.
While we believed that the judgement was unfair, it was based upon the standard rules. But then something else happened.
Over-riding the customary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of a State on matters of public order, the Federal Court of Australia carried out a judicial coup, using the provisions of the Racial Vilification Act’s notorious Section 18C. They also banned the meeting by way of injunction.
The terms of the coup are set out in ‘Sutherland Shire Council v Folkes [2015] FCA 1288‘ outlined at http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca1288
The Federal Court referred to a certain pleadings of a citizen, one political activist, Dr. Jamal Rifi and the Sutherland Shire Council’s Hard Right Liberal Mayor Carmelo Pesce, that the Folkes / Burgess meeting not take place, a plea made after they had already complained to the Human Rights Commission that the advertising for the meeting had offended them and would cause racial hatred.
The day a Leb used a multicultist law to prosecute Aussies peacefully commemorating an Australian civil uprising against the invading Lebs.The Federal Court sided with the enemy, stating:
“Dr Rifi is a Lebanese born Australian citizen. He is a former Commissioner of both the Ethnic Affairs Commission and the Community Relations Commission and has a distinguished curriculum vitae of community activity.
(Dr Rifi’s) complaint to the Commission, and that of the (Sutherland Shire) Council, alleged that Dr Rifi and residents and ratepayers of Middle Eastern and Lebanese race, nationality or ethnic origin, had experienced racial hatred amounting to unlawful discrimination under Pt IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RD Act) (see the definition of “unlawful discrimination” in s 3(1) of the AHRC Act).”
(No mention of the subsequent organised convoys of armed premeditated hatred arranged from Lakemba toward Aussie in Cronulla that night, but stopped in transit by same NSW Police).
Jamal Rifi is a dangerous Islamic Leb. He has built powerful Islamic connections with the Liberal Party and has now demonstrated influential legal power. How was he able to legally prosecute Aussie free speech?
Mike Baird?
Dr Rifi asserted that he has been and is offended, insulted and humiliated by the content of material that the respondents have published on their webpages and on their publicly accessible Facebook pages concerning persons of Lebanese or Middle Eastern race, nationality or ethnicity.
GAF!
Liberal Party offers free Multicultist Legal Counsel
He feared that Mr Folkes, Mr Burgess and others who will, or are likely to, address persons at the event will express the same or substantially similar views to those complained of.
Politically active is Dr Rifi
Dr Rifi had top legal counsel funded by whom…The Liberal Party?
Relevantly, the AHRC Act defines “unlawful discrimination” as meaning any acts, omissions or practices that are unlawful under Pt II or Pt IIA of the RD Act (s 3(1)).
A person aggrieved by an alleged unlawful act can lodge a complaint with the Commission on the person’s own behalf, or on behalf of others who are similarly aggrieved (s 46P(2)).
The Commission must refer any complaint lodged under s 46P to its President, who must inquire into and attempt to conciliate the complaint (ss 46PD, 46PF). The President may terminate a complaint for various reasons, including if she is satisfied that the subject matter involves an issue of public importance that should be considered by this Court or the Federal Circuit Court, or that there is no reasonable prospect of the complaint being settled by conciliation (s 46PH(1)(h) and (i))…etc,etc.
Dr Rifi and the Council principally relied on s 18C of the misnomer Racial Discrimination Act, which is in Pt IIA of the Act. That section is qualified by s 18D, and both relevantly provide:
Part II of the RD Act also provides in s 9(1) and (2) that it is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction based on race or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life, including any right of a kind referred to in Art 5 of the Convention.
20 The RD Act also makes it unlawful for a person: to publish, or cause or permit to be published, an advertisement or notice that indicates or could reasonably be understood as indicating an intention to do an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Pt II of the RD Act (s 16);to incite or assist or promote the doing of an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Pt II (s 17).”
Is that Scott Morrison?
Jamal Rifi (right) seems to control his instinct to do da Islamic finger up to Allah.
We’re a wake up Rifi Rafi!
What did all this gobbledegook mean?
A complaint had been made to the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission suggesting that Folkes and Burgess had done something naughty. They had been offensive and so forth and incited hatreds.
But then, Dr Rifi and the Sutherland Shire Council alleged that if the meeting went on in Cronulla, then the matters complained of would be aggravated. So, the Federal Court says:
“STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – construction of ss 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – where publication of material created apprehension of future unlawful acts or speech – where anticipated future acts or speech likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate persons of Middle Eastern or Lebanese race or national or ethnic origin – where such acts or speech not likely to be done reasonably for purposes of s 18D “.
So, let’s get this right. Someone complains to the Federal Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission that he’s upset about something. Then to make sure the subject of his hurt feelings doesn’t go further and he gets even more hurt feelings, he applies for a ruling at the Federal Court (which has legal supervisory power over the Commission) based on that ‘hypothetical’ action on the part of an offender – that a meeting (as in this case) be banned.
This assertion of power, contrived on the basis of an interpretation of the Racial Vilification Act, can now be employed anywhere and anytime throughout Australia, quite independent of the State Supreme Courts which have traditionally handled public order matters. And this power could be exercised not only on issues of race. It could apply by using other Federal anti discrimination laws on matters of sexual orientation or gender.
This is an anti-free-speech revolution. The Racial Vilification Act has been revolutionised by a construction. We now have a system of dual law in effect with a new hammer fashioned to bludgeon free speech, particularly on matters related to immigration and multiculturalism. If one cannot ban a meeting via a State Supreme Court, one can always ban it using this unassailable contrivance. As our Federal Constitution says: Federal law overrules State law.
Are we wrong to say this has been a clever ruse that has altered the dynamics of freedom of speech in Australia? Dr Rifi, who has sprung out of the bowels of the multicultural industry, must reasonably have known that. And we would say he truly did this to create a precedent.
Finally in February, Nick Folkes appeared in the Federal Court only to find (surprise, surprise) that Dr Rifi and the Sutherland Shire Council had withdrawn their complaint in the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission. Hence, the Federal Court discontinued the injunction and Folkes and Burgess walked ‘free’.
They considered it a great victory.
What? It was a civil liberties disaster!
It is really too simple to blame the hapless Messrs. Folkes and Burgess for not being aware of the effects of their actions. We would say that they should have known. They purport to be ‘leaders’ of a ‘patriot movement’. They bear a responsibility to know where they lead other people.
However, as we said right at the start here, does this oh-so-convenient case have another mystery?
Nick Folkes had a lawyer provided to him by the Liberal’s Howard Crawford.
Shermon Burgess did not.
That lawyer was Robert Balzola who happens to be an immigration lawyer and migration agent. Mr.Balzola has been the lawyer for many of the failed anti mosque cases brought by local community groups.
Robert Balzola is a supporter of the Liberal Party
Mr. Folkes has been left with heavy legal costs for which Howard Crawford has been caught out planning to do a “fundraiser” of up to $20,000 to pay. This would leave the Australian Party For Freedom a bitch of the Liberal Party.
But more! The case itself was one a big contrivance.
Smiling Mike Baird can be entrusted to put a good Merchant Banking spin on things
The clear provocative nature of the Folkes / Burgess propaganda with its talk of riots and its support of riotous conduct, its demand for the beach setting for their public meeting and its overall media circumstances which almost ensured disorder (from Arabs, anti fascists and so on), brings forward some questions. Who advised this line of propaganda? Who suggested that this line would bring results? Was it Crawford?
If we reach ‘stage one’ and say that the propaganda line was cooked up, there remains the deadly question: did someone in the Rifi camp respond accordingly to encourage the legal action? The action which would guarantee a finding against freedom of speech?
The Folkes / Burgess / Crawford link is public knowledge now. Crawford intends to bail out Folkes and keep him in the field – for now at least. He has a couple more idiocies left in him till Crawford wipes him off the map with the damage done.
Is the damage of the ‘Cronulla Riots Commemoration’ a sad fact that will be with the real nationalist and patriotic movement in the times ahead?
Islamization of Australia is real and legally active!
Liberal Party political use of key Muslims in Sydney
The programme is being generously financed…