Racial Loyalty News

R.L. News => Creativity in the MSM (News) => Topic started by: Rev.Cambeul on 08 August 2009 at 08:37

Title: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 08 August 2009 at 08:37
Australian Press Council Complaints Form

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/compform.html (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/compform.html)

Re, http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/If-the-sheet-fits-wear-it-white-supremacy-is-like-so-passe (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/If-the-sheet-fits-wear-it-white-supremacy-is-like-so-passe)

Our Copy: https://creativityalliance.com/forum/index.php?topic=2595.0 (https://creativityalliance.com/forum/index.php?topic=2595.0)

The article is insulting to the religion of Creativity and specifically names me, Cailen Cambeul, in the context of the article. It falsely leads the reader to believe that all adherents of Creativity are prone to committing violence and murder with the insinuation that I personally have a criminal history to which the author only alludes to; that the religion of Creativity consists entirely of uneducated, illiterate adolescents, who are outcasts from society; that the amount of adherents to Creativity within Australia are no more than a few who individuals who gather together to something "to do with all their hate, ...." The author also refers to the religion of Creativity as "bizarre" which together with the preceding and final paragraphs of the article pertaining to Creativity, nullifies the rights of Creators to be accepted as a legitimate religious body. All of which is born out by abuse received by Creators in the form of email, abusive phone calls and face to face encounters as a result of the article.

Furthermore, although I did submit a comment to the article and made reference to my "right of reply," my comment was rejected. As such, I personally, my fellow Creators and the religion of Creativity as a whole, have been vilified by the author without even the right to reply.

The entire of the article pertaining to myself, Creators and Creativity, which consists of the first sixteen paragraphs of the article, is malicious, libellous vilification of a legitimate religious body. The article contains no background information or facts, and as such, there is no balance to the article. It consists entirely of the author's opinions encouraging ridicule and malfeasance by readers towards myself and other adherents of the religion of Creativity.

This sort of treatment might be appropriate for politicians and film stars who have abrogated many of their rights to privacy by the very nature of their profession, however,

E. Principles Breached
Looking at the Statement of Principles, or the print media's Privacy Standards, do you consider that any of the principles has been breached in this case? If so, write the number/s, indicating which principle, in this space.
Statement of Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8.
Privacy Standards: 1, 2, 6, 7.

Statement of Principles

1. Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission.

2. Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence.
3. Where individuals or groups are a major focus of news reports or commentary, the publication should ensure fairness and balance in the original article. Failing that, it should provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in an appropriate section of the publication.
4. News and comment should be presented honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy is not to be interpreted as preventing publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest. Rumour and unconfirmed reports should be identified as such.
5. Information obtained by dishonest or unfair means, or the publication of which would involve a breach of confidence, should not be published unless there is an over-riding public interest.
6. Publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the bylined opinions of others, as long as readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed, headlines and captions should fairly reflect the tenor of an article and readers should be advised of any manipulation of images and potential conflicts of interest.
7.Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should balance the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence.
8. Publications should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the race, religion, nationality, colour, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness, or age of an individual or group. Where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express opinions in these areas.
9. Where the Council issues an adjudication, the publication concerned should publish the adjudication, promptly and with due prominence.

Privacy Standards

1. Collection of personal information

In gathering news, journalists should seek personal information only in the public interest.

In doing so, journalists should not unduly intrude on the privacy of individuals and should show respect for the dignity and sensitivity of people encountered in the course of gathering news.

In accordance with Principle 4 of the Council's Statement of Principles, news obtained by unfair or dishonest means should not be published unless there is an overriding public interest. Generally, journalists should identify themselves as such. However, journalists and photographers may at times need to operate surreptitiously to expose crime, significantly anti-social conduct, public deception or some other matter in the public interest.

Public figures necessarily sacrifice their right to privacy, where public scrutiny is in the public interest. However, public figures do not forfeit their right to privacy altogether. Intrusion into their right to privacy must be related to their public duties or activities.

2. Use and disclosure of personal information

Personal information gathered by journalists and photographers should only be used for the purpose for which it was intended.

A person who supplies personal information should have a reasonable expectation that it will be used for the purpose for which it was collected.

Some personal information, such as addresses or other identifying details, may enable others to intrude on the privacy and safety of individuals who are the subject of news coverage, and their families. To the extent lawful and practicable, a media organisation should only disclose sufficient personal information to identify the persons being reported in the news, so that these risks can be reasonably avoided.

3. Quality of personal information

A media organisation should take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information it collects is accurate, complete and up-to-date.

4. Security of personal information

A media organisation should take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information it holds is protected from misuse, loss, or unauthorised access.

5. Anonymity of sources

All persons who provide information to media organisations are entitled to seek anonymity. The identity of confidential sources should not be revealed, and where it is lawful and practicable, a media organisation should ensure that any personal information which it maintains derived from such sources does not identify the source.

6. Correction, fairness and balance

In accordance with Principle 8 of the Council's Statement of Principles, where individuals are singled out for criticism, the publication should ensure fairness and balance in the original article. Failing that, the media organisation should provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in the appropriate section of the publication.

A media organisation should make amends for publishing any personal information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate, in accordance with Principle 2 of the Council's Statement of Principles. The media organisation should also take steps to correct any of its records containing that personal information, so as to avoid a harmful inaccuracy being repeated.

7. Sensitive personal information

In accordance with Principle 7 of the Council's Statement of Principles, media organisations should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the categories of sensitive personal information listed in Principle 7, except where it is relevant and in the public interest to report and express opinions in these areas.

Members of the public caught up in newsworthy events should not be exploited. A victim or bereaved person has the right to refuse or terminate an interview or photographic session at any time.

Unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings.

8. Complaints

The Council will receive and deal with complaints (see on-line complaint form) from person or persons affected about possible breaches of these Standards in the same way as it receives and deals with complaints about possible breaches of its Statement of Principles. Where the Council issues an adjudication in relation to these Standards, the publication concerned must prominently print the adjudication.

We shall see what and if any good this complaint does. I suggest that whenever we are libelled by the media, we flood the appropriate offices with complaints. It wont have the same impact as winning a court case, but it might encourage some journalists or editors to ensure that at least the truth - although with a hateful bent - is printed about us.

Title: Re: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 22 September 2009 at 01:40
Dear Cailen Cambuel,

Copied below is thepunch's response to your complaint.

At this stage you may elect to let the matter rest if you have been satisfied by the response.  However, if you remain discontented you may ask that the complaint be examined first by the Complaints Committee and then by the full Council.

Would you please advise this office, by 8 October, whether or not you are prepared to let the matter rest.  If not, I will set down the complaint for the first Complaints Committee meeting (see our complaints procedure on page 12, point 5) at which time is available.

Yours sincerely,

Deb Kirkman, Case Manager, Australian Press Council

"I have read Mr Cambuel's complaint and re-read Tory Shepherd's column and am not prepared to apologise, for three reasons. The first is that the "religion" of creativity to which Mr Cambuel refers is not a recognised religion at all, and this part of his complaint is largely incomprehensible. Second, the punch is an opinion website and Tory is entitled to form her own view, especially when it is framed around Mr Cambuel's quite candid description of himself as a racist. Third, our website is as a matter of principle not prepared to apologise to a white supremacist organisation."
Dave Penberthy

[FYI: http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/david-penberthy (http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/david-penberthy)]

Title: Re: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 22 September 2009 at 04:46
 To Deb Kirkman, Case Manager, Australian Press Council,

 Re: The Punch.

Thank you for your email. As a leading representative of Creativity in Australia, I am obliged to continue with this matter and ask that the complaint be examined first by the Complaints Committee, and then if need be, by the full Council.

The response from Mr David Penberthy brings up three matters which need to be addressed.

The first is that not only is The Punch refusing to report the facts, but Punch writers are also twisting the facts to produce a political slant to many, if not all news stories. If a Punch writer happened to pen an article about an Aboriginal Activist who's ambition was to deport or kill people of European origin from Australia, that person would be described as an Aboriginal Rights Activist, or at the very most, a Black Separatist (as Louis Farrakhan - leader of the Nation of Islam - is commonly referred to), but never as a Black supremacist. This example happened on ABC radio, Triple J, live on air in 1992. This is without doubt a discriminatory style of reporting that should not be allowed, especially when the religious group in question, such as Creativity, is clearly not a "supremacist organisation." At the very least, we may be described as separatists in the same vein as Louis Farrakhan and Australian Indigenous Sovereignty groups.

According to societal standards and beliefs prevalent in modern Australian society, supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not. To make it clear, adherents of Creativity do not wish to dominate, control or rule over anybody. By our own and Australian cultural definition, Creators are not supremacists.

From the founder of our beloved religion, Ben Klassen - Racial Loyalty, Issue 4, Fundamental Differences:

I have said it time and time again: CREATIVITY defies classification into any present categories of racial, political, or religious movements. It is not similar to, or a copy of any other movement, past or present. It is not a re-tread of Hitler's Nazi movement, nor are we "Neo-Nazis." It is not similar to, or affiliated with, any of the [Ku Klux] Klans. It is not a White Supremacy group, and we will clearly explain why not in the following discourse.

First of all, we want to make this point crystal clear: we are unique, in a class all by ourselves, a movement, a philosophy and a religion such as the White Race, unfortunately, has never had in all its history. Since it is extremely important to keep re-emphasizing that we Creators are in a class by ourselves, let us first brush aside some of the lesser comparisons before we come to the crux of our article. We are not a White Supremacist movement such as most liberal newspaper reporters neatly and quickly like to box us into. As I understand White Supremacy, it historically has represented the White Race as the ruling power over an inferior race, such as the British in India for two centuries, or the White masters owning, controlling and exploiting their Inferior black slaves, such as the plantation owners of the antebellum South. These two are only a meager example of hundreds, or thousands of other situations where the White Man was the lord and master, governing, controlling, working and lording it over some group or groups ....

Secondly and more importantly, in June of 2002, Creativity was legally recognised as a religion under United States law in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case No. 01-C-0162). (Full court transcript available at http://rahowanow.com/Legal-20020603-Religion-CreativityLegalReligion.pdf. (http://rahowanow.com/Legal-20020603-Religion-CreativityLegalReligion.pdf.)) This means that under various international treaties to which the United States and Australia are signatories of, Creativity is a religion and adherents of Creativity have the right to live free from religious persecution with the full protection of Australian law.

From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 26 of the ICCPR states that '.the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground'. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (established under the ICCPR) has defined discrimination as

[A]ny distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference.which had the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms.[5]

Article 2(1) of the ICCPR states:

Each State Party .undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory.the rights recognized in the present covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 2(2) and 2(3) require that legislation 'give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant' and that legislation providing for equal opportunity must be enforceable by 'such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights.' and that 'any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy.'
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm)

Finally, The Punch is not an opinion site as stated by Mr Penberthy. The Punch is part of the media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch, which includes the Adelaide Advertiser, and Ms Tory Shepherd is an acknowledged employee of the Adelaide Advertiser. So-called opinions, including MS Shepherd's which are to be found on The Punch website are accepted by the general public as genuine news articles that fall under the category of acceptable journalistic standards, which therefore negates any claim to pure opinion. This means that The Punch must be held accountable for articles by its writers, and not used as a platform for biased attacks on the religious and political beliefs of people that The Punch's writers clearly feel contempt for.

It is clear that Mr Penberthy believes that my own description of myself as a racist automatically denies me the right to fair and honest treatment by the media, and in particularly, The Punch. Again, this is obviously not the treatment that would befall an Aboriginal Rights Activist, who (might even be an adherent of a local indigenous religion) understandably loves the people of his own race above all people in this world, and is undoubtedly a racist, yet retains the legal right to a fair-go in the media. Am I such that I abrogate all rights to religious freedom and the right to political dissention simply because I am a White man of European descent?

Yours Sincerely,

Cailen Cambeul.
Title: Re: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 22 September 2009 at 17:37
"With each new site, I was mentally preparing myself to be outraged, appalled. Filled with a towering sense of injustice" - I wonder what that looks like !  ;D

"But the really, really scary buggers are the slick, sly ones trotting out well-rehearsed arguments about limiting immigration and stopping the formation of ghettoes and talking about floods of boat people coming" - Why would these be the "scary buggers" ?  ???

Just reading the comments on her posts, you can see that this liberal does not know what she is talking about with a few people hammering her. Talking to a liberal, or xtian is like being in a ass-kicking contest and having only one leg. I try and ignore them, they just make me see red ... other times I cant help myself and get dragged into their illogics.

So we are racist ... so what ? Like Klaasen said : "Yes, we are proud to be racists. Yes, we are prejudiced in favour of the White Race at all times, in all things. Only we call this racial loyalty, and anyone who is not loyal to the White Race we designate as a despicable traitor to his or her own race". A racist is nothing but racial awareness, and only an idiot or moron would not be racist ... would not be racially aware ... how could you not be racially aware ? Firstly you have to be colour blind, and secondly, you have to be brain damaged.

These idiots think the term "racist" means : Whitey killing nignog, mudslum or kike - this is not the work of a racist but a murderer. They twist the term and use it incorrectly. A racist puts his race first in all things, unless the person is a race traitor. Normally these liberals are married to a mud and for this reason cant stand racists and further believe that only Whitey is racist ... never nignog, etc.
Title: Re: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 25 September 2009 at 02:27
Dear Mr Cambuel

Further to your email dated September 22 regarding your complaint against the punch, they have no further comment to make. The complaint has been referred to the 21 October meeting of the Complaints Committee.

The meeting will take place in our office in Sydney and will commence at 2.30pm.

Attached is a copy of the guidelines on Complaints Committee meetings.  Would you kindly let me know if you will be attending either in person or via tele-conference.  If the latter could you please advise of an appropriate telephone number you can be contacted on.

Yours sincerely,

Andrea Hart
Assistant to the Executive Secretary

Guidelines on attending the Complaints Committee

1.   It is desirable for both the complainant and the publication to attend the meeting of the Complaints Committee where the complaint will be considered. If personal attendance is not convenient or feasible, the Council expects that either or both of the parties, as necessary, will make themselves available by teleconference.

2.   You will be invited to the next available meeting of the committee. The Executive Secretary will tell you in good time when and where this is scheduled. Normally the committee meets in Sydney. Sometimes the committee visits other centres. Alternatively, and less frequently, an assessment panel may be convened or an assessor appointed. (No guarantee can be made that a meeting will be held in a location nominated by either party.)

3.   Discussions of complaints by the committee are informal.

4.   Legal representation is not allowed. However, by arrangement with the Executive Secretary, a party may attend with a supportive friend or friends, or, if s/he cannot attend, arrange to send someone else.

5.   No new material will be admitted or may be tabled.

6.   The discussion opens with the complainant and publication representative being introduced to the committee. The Chair normally then invites the complainant, and the publication representative, in order, if either wishes, to briefly summarise the main points of the complaint. The committee will have read the file carefully, so it is best to speak directly to the point. No more than five minutes is allowed for opening comments by each party. It is usually better for complainants and respondents to speak to committee members informally than to read prepared statements.

7.   The Chair then invites members of the committee in turn to ask any questions they think relevant to the issues in the complaint. Answers should be directed to the committee, not to the other party.

8.   After this discussion is concluded, the publication representative and the complainant are able, if either wishes, to sum up their case or make any clarifying comments, each to speak for no more than two minutes.

9.   After the parties leave, the committee drafts an adjudication that it recommends to the Council, which usually meets the next day.
Title: Re: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 25 September 2009 at 02:30
Dear Cailen Cambeul,

The punch has been in touch with us again.  It is provided the following extract from your website.
A copy of the material will be included in the brief to Press Council members.

Do you have any comments to make on the material?


Deb Kirkman, Case Manager, Australian Press Council

Obviously Ms Tory Shepherd is little more than a university trained Marxist of the worst kind. Her world view – when looked at from the outside – is rather stunted, in that if you are White and did not go to university (like most Marxists, Ms Shepherd unintentionally expresses a fear of the uneducated proletariat/peasant/average Australian that her kind profess to be so in tune with and speak for), do not bow to her political, religious and racial beliefs that White people are to blame for all the ills of this world, then you too are a “white supremacist.” On the contrary; the ills of this world are caused by those such as Ms Shepherd. i.e., The manipulative, lying, ideologically driven, self hating Marxists who inhabit mainstream media (MSM) and the controlling political parties.

Ms Shepherd has absolutely no idea how to deal with people like us, without resorting to type. i.e. She has found that much of what we say makes a lot of sense to her, and rather than look the fool in attacking logical and well thought out political, racial and religious concepts, she has chosen to use smear words, catch phrases and rely on public misconceptions based on Jerry Springer and Hollywood. Notably Russell Crowe’s portrayal of the fictional, violent and delusional neo-Nazi youth that haunts what were once White working class suburbs, and the berobed, buck-toothed Kluxer, prowling the countryside clutching his shotgun and his noose, looking for “dem dare Negras.”

To begin with, we are Creators, not skinheads. Nor do we associate with or follow the habits or beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan. While there are both good and bad within the skinhead scene. It is just that, a scene – a fad. Creators can not be categorised as skinheads, any more than they can be categorised as factory workers, bikers, footballers, soldiers or for that matter, university trained certified practising accountants. As for the KKK, we Creators believe it to be a coral that keeps hobbyists and what would be hardcore activists in the comedy extreme, where they can be of no harm to multiCULTural/multiracial society. While we don’t particularly care about the hobbyists, it is a shame that potentially successful activists are corralled within the KKK.

We Creators are not “white supremacists.” According to Wikipedia, a White supremacist believes “that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not. …” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacist.) While we do accept that White people are intellectually superior to the other races, it does not mean we want to lord it over non-Whites in a world where Whites are the ruling caste and non-Whites are the lower, slave caste. We consider ourselves to be White Racial Loyalists, or White separatists, who simply do not want to live and breed with the other races of this planet. If we had our way, we’d ship them back to where they came from and forever cease to interfere with their culture and society. If they are capable of surviving without the benevolent hand of the White man acting as both safety net and all-round provider, then good for them.

Creativity in Australia does not consist of “just a few” youthful “loners looking for something to do with all their hate.” We are of all ages and we are more than you will ever know. It only makes sense that our people choose to shun publicity, as those who are common labourers run the risk of being outed as racists and having their employment terminated; never mind the doctors, lawyers and other business professionals who risk losing their livelihood because of people like Ms Shepherd who delight in exposing Nazis under the bed, while at the same time defending the failed concept of multiculturalism and the inherent segregation it creates within once homogeneous communities.

As for my supposed “chequered past.” Come on Ms Shepherd, can you not do better than that? You hint that I have a criminal background, yet as you have probably found, I do not have a criminal history available for you to bandy about, so you insinuate that I’m a shady character that fits into the tabloid you have already laid out before the most gullible of your readers.

Considering that Ms Shepherd has attempted to blend Creativity, skinheads, the KKK, Pauline Hanson and John Howard in one massive – but now expected – smear, it is good to see that at least fifty percent of the public comments [see article page] are from people who recognise the same problems in this world, that we do. Contrary to the attempts of the MSM and politicians, White people are waking up to the hypocrisy as espoused by Ms Shepherd and those of her ilk. You madam are rapidly becoming just another voice lost in the wind.

Note for those outside Australia: We now have the Australian Labour Party in control of the Federal Government. Anyone who is thought to be a supporter of the previous Liberal Government, is treated as a racist from a bygone era. Consider it this way: Liberal=Republican, Labor=Democrat, ex Prime Minister Howard=ex President Bush, and the current Prime Minister KRudd=President Obongo. To those of the inquisition, a witch is a witch is a witch. If you are not one-hundred percent pro Labor Party, pro melting-pot, pro “Sorry Day,” ad nauseum, the neo inquisitors of the 21st century will burn you.

Title: Re: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 22 October 2009 at 23:22
To Cailen Cambeul

Please find attached the Council�s adjudication on your complaint against The Punch website.

You will be aware that the newspaper is obliged to publish it with appropriate prominence.  It has the option of publishing it on October 29 and it will be released for general publication on October 30. The Council allows a few days between release and publication so that the parties can ensure that there are no errors of fact in the finding. It asks you to observe the embargo dates.

The Council would like to thank you for attending the Complaints Committee by teleconference. It always appreciates such appearances.

Jack Herman

The Australian Press Council comprises representatives of the publishers, journalists and the public. It seeks to ensure the freedom, and the responsibility, of the Australian press. It was established in July 1976 and has been in continuous operation for over 30 years.

website: http://www.presscouncil.org.au (http://www.presscouncil.org.au)

email: info@presscouncil.org.au

Adjudicated: 22 October 2009
Issued: 23 October 2009
For General Release: 30 October 2009
The Punch: 29 October 2009

Adjudication No. 1445
http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1445.html (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1445.html)
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/press-council-dismisses-complaint-against-the-punch (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/press-council-dismisses-complaint-against-the-punch)
And of course the reds: http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=1452#comment-994558 (http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=1452#comment-994558)

The Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Cailen Cambeul, of the self-styled Church of
Creativity, South Australia, that the News Limited website, The Punch, misrepresented adherents of
the church as uneducated, illiterate and prone to committing violence.
Mr Cambeul, who runs the church, complained that The Punch columnist, Tory Shepherd, insinuated
that he had a criminal history, and had nullified his church’s right to be accepted as a legitimate
religious body.

Ms Shepherd’s column, which appeared on July 30, 2009, was written after she explored an array of
unusual religious and political websites, including the Church of Creativity. She wrote that Cambeul
had “a bit of a chequered history” and that the church’s members were just “a few loners looking for
something to do with all their hate”.

In a brief reply to Mr Cambeul’s complaint, The Punch said that Mr Cambeul was a self-confessed
racist and that the Church of Creativity was a white supremacist organisation, not a recognised

Mr Cambeul, who describes himself on his website as, “The racist formerly known as Colin
Campbell”, argued that he is a white separatist, not a supremacist. However his advice to The Punch
that “We do accept that White people are intellectually superior to the other races” fits most
definitions of a supremacist belief.

The Council finds that the majority of The Punch’s column to which Mr Cambeul objected in fact
referred to organisations other than his own. It is difficult to see how the column could void his
church’s claim to religious legitimacy
, nor does the description of Mr Cambeul’s career as
“chequered” necessarily imply criminality.

The Council accepts that bylined columnists are free to express controversial opinions provided – as in
this instance - the opinions are derived from fact.

* * * * *

The Australian Press Council
Level 10.02, 117 York Street

(02) 9261 1930
1800 025 712

info@presscouncil.org.au Website: http://www.presscouncil.org.au (http://www.presscouncil.org.au)

The Australian Press Council is a body that deals with complaints about the performance of every section of the press in Australia, including non-members. Members of Council who represent publications complained against are excluded from any discussion of, or vote on, complaints against their publications. ... But every Member of the Council is a Nigger-Loving, White-Hating Libtard.
Title: Re: 2009-07-30 Australia: Making a Complaint against the MSM
Post by: Private on 20 January 2019 at 20:26
Possibly the most anti-White MSM reporter in Australia: