Jewish Supremacists Lead Minorities Blocking Repeal of Hate Laws

[Rev.Cambeul]

Note: When contacted by Australian Creators, the Australian Human Rights Commission denied that it has any right to investigate complaints made by Creators, as the complaints were not related to denial of employment or otherwise job related issues, denial of service and refusal to obtain housing. However, the AHRC does investigate every tiddly little complaint by every money-hungry mud looking to profit at evil Whitey's expense. So understand that the AHRC is not a taxpayer funded government run body dedicated to equality - the AHRC is solely dedicated to the cultural genocide of White Australia.

@Cailen.



Time to drain 'human rights industry' swamp

Jennifer Oriel | The Australian | 7 November 2016

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/jennifer-oriel/time-to-drain-human-rights-industry-swamp/news-story/1debafb67eeb23437dfb17a8a5ff3ddc

Extract: With a national debt of $450 billion, a foreign debt over a trillion dollars and a bulging deficit, the Australian people cannot afford the vast system of activism swamping taxpayer-funded minority groups, media, academe and the law. To paraphrase Donald Trump, it's time to drain the swamp.

The AHRC is an activist organisation, the purpose of which has expired. It should have been retired after formal equality was introduced across Australian jurisdictions. The realisation of equality as a national condition is good for human rights, but bad for business. And human rights is a big, redundant business funded by taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet. To justify their appalling waste of taxpayers' money, activists curate a culture of complaint in which citizens are grouped by state-designated "attributes" such as race or sex and encouraged to complain about perceived offence. Section 18C is the perfect tool to sow endless division and the culture of complaint that sustains the human rights industry.

The final reform needed is to replace current discrimination legislation with codified formal equality and reduce the protected attributes to people with disabilities, and primary carers for the disabled, the young and the elderly. We should support welfare for those genuinely in need and use it to assist fellow Australians find suitable employment. The AHRC and state discrimination commissions are fossils from an era where citizens were treated unequally before the law. Today, they promote new forms of inequality under the euphemism of affirmative action while silencing political dissidents under 18C. The AHRC has become a force for social discord and division. Let it go.

[Rev.Cambeul]

The following article shows that no matter how liberal, how anti-racist you claim to be, when it comes down to it, you are WHITE and you are automatically guilty of anything and everything of which any darky, Semite or slant-eyes may accuse you.

Harden the f*ck up! Get active and fight back, or castrate and remove yourself from the gene pool - or better yet, hang yourself and get out of our way. We are at war and we do not intend to lose.

Aut Vincere Aut Mori


@Cailen.


Plight unmasks the injustice of 18C

Hedley Thomas | The Australian | 12 November 2016

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/plight-unmasks-the-injustice-of-18c/news-story/c996e4c63d49a13b0a2cc0192bbb7eba

Kyran Findlater made an alarming discovery when he checked his LinkedIn page one day in November last year.

The married Brisbane man, 26, a robotics engineer and graduate of the Queensland University of Technology, had been working in Canada since December, 2014. He had not heard of Cindy Prior.

He knew nothing of a racial vilification case Prior had brought against him and six other QUT students under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act over their Facebook posts in late May 2013.

Until now, Findlater, a quietlyspoken young professional with no interest in, or history of, political activism, did not want to speak publicly about any of these facts. He feared the smear of racism, and damage to his reputation, budding career in Canada and family.

He is sharing his story with The Weekend Australian because he is distressed at the idea he could be seen as a racist by those who do not know the facts. He believes Australians need to understand how innocent people are being harmed by misuse of what he regards as a bad law, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, administered by an incompetent handler, the Human Rights Commission.

"The fact that myself and the other students were even dragged into the litigation against QUT is a disgrace to the legal system in Australia,'' Findlater said from his home in a small town in Canada's British Columbia.

The LinkedIn message he got last November 13 came from Prior's Brisbane solicitor, Susan Moriarty, who conveyed news that stunned him: Findlater was, the solicitor explained, being sued in the Federal Circuit Court for Prior's "psychiatric injury and economic loss linked to racial vilification posts you uploaded to QUT Stalkerspace (Facebook page)" in May 2013.

But there was a way out. Moriarty, winner of the 2015 Australian Employment Discrimination Lawyer Award from Corp INTO Magazine, added: "Our client is prepared to discontinue her complaint of racial vilification against you and agree to confidentiality in consideration of your payment to her of the sum of $5000. If we do not receive your response to this offer on or before 25 November, 2015, we shall assume that you do not wish to settle, and continue proceedings against you."

Findlater recalls that he was confused and deeply concerned. He went back and read what he had written on Facebook in late May 2013 after another student, Alex Wood, had posted about being ejected from QUT's indigenous-only computer lab ­because of the colour of his skin.

Wood and his friends — who had visited QUT's unsigned computer lab, called the Oodgeroo Unit, to access its unused computers for study — are white. They did not know that made the lab off-limits to them. Prior, who worked there in an administrative role, is indigenous. She asked their race and told them to leave because of their non-Aboriginality.

Findlater says he cannot stand racism. He believes that race-based barriers sow division, and that universities should promote cohesion, not segregation, among students, many of whom he ­believes will impart those values as role models and leaders in their professional lives.

Findlater's Facebook post that offended Prior, after her ejection of Wood, an engineering student, on May 28, 2013, stated: "My Student and Amenity fees are going to furbish rooms in the university where inequality reigns supreme? I believe if we have to pay to support these sorts of places, there should at least be more created for general purpose use, but again, how do these sorts of facilities support interaction­ and community within QUT? All this does is ­encourage separation and ­inequality."

The post made Findlater a ­defendant, along with six other students, in Prior's Federal Circuit Court proceedings in November last year with a claim for $250,000 in damages.

What Findlater did not know when he checked his LinkedIn and saw Moriarty's "urgent" message was that the racial hatred claims levelled against him were not new — in fact, they had been in Prior's formal written complaint, naming him, to the Human Rights Commission since May 2014.

For reasons including natural justice, the commission is required to tell people when they are ­accused of racial hatred. This is to help them clarify the circumstances or deny they said something racially abhorrent or explain the context. The commission's president, Gillian Triggs, has claimed this week in interviews that the taxpayer-funded body and its staff had been working with the QUT students "in good faith" to try to resolve the complaint for some 14 months after it was lodged by Prior. But the commission's own records show that claim by Triggs is false.

Most of the seven students found out for the first time in late July 2014 of the existence of the complaint. They were given just three business days' notice to ­attend a conciliation conference in Brisbane. But nobody — not the human rights body, nor QUT, nor Prior — had ever successfully alerted Findlater.

QUT confirmed yesterday, after doing checks following The Weekend Australian's questions, that a letter it sent by registered post on July 28, 2015, to alert him did not reach Findlater and the email it sent on the same day had not been opened, possibly because it went to an old email address.

Findlater said the first he knew was when he saw the LinkedIn message, three months after the failure of the commission's August 3 conciliation conference in which he was a named party. Documents show the commission had decided by late August that there was "no reasonable prospect of the matter being settled by conciliation", ­resulting in it being escalated to court.

How, Findlater asks, can the commission be serious about "conciliation" when it does not once tell him there is a complaint? How, he questions, did it decide conciliation would not be possible when he did not know about it?

Back in November last year, when he saw the LinkedIn message, Findlater did not know that a growing number of people — solicitors for Prior, commission staff and Triggs, QUT staff and their vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake — had known since late May the previous year that he was one of the seven at the heart of an 18C ­racial hatred complaint of which he was unaware.

Findlater had even joined the staff of QUT in its robotics lab. He was an employee at the same time the university knew of the 18C complaint against him; he was easy to find and contact. Yet he was not told. He is appalled at the commission's conduct and deeply disappointed with the university.

In his reply to Moriarty last November, he wrote: "Firstly, I do not wish to settle on this matter. I have reviewed my involvement in the social media posts in which I have allegedly racially vilified your client (or anyone else for that matter) and I feel that the defamatory allegations against me cannot be substantiated."

Having decided to stand on principle and reject the invitation to pay money, Findlater prepared for the next stage — the court proceedings, and a December 7 date for the case to be mentioned in an open hearing.

"I was in Canada and I had one month to scramble and find a ­lawyer,'' Findlater says.

"If I had known there was a conciliation meeting months earlier with the Human Rights Commission, I could have gone and tried to explain to Ms Prior that I was sorry her feelings were hurt and that I'm not a bastard. I could have attended some form of conciliation and tried to have it ­resolved and concluded so that there would have been no court proceedings. But I was never given that ­option. I was never contacted about it by QUT or by the ­commission. It is very disturbing to be named before a court as a human rights violator. This is not who I am."

He spent money on legal ­advice from a Queensland solicitor, who wrote to Moriarty with a proposal that both sides walk away with no payment.

Moriarty replied to Findlater's solicitor on December 14: "Our ­client did nothing wrong on 28 or 29 May 2013 but the posts, in which your client was a voluntary and enthusiastic participant, have contributed to the ending of her career with the Queensland University of Technology. The timing of your client's posts ties him to the debate which emerged on QUT Stalkerspace following (another student's) post on 28 May 2013 challenging the ethics and ­legality of study rooms for indigenous persons at the University.

"By our reading of your client's contributions, your client's posts were popular. As is the case, for every comment that went up in response/reply to his post he would have received an email each time and he also would have received an email of every 'like' that went up also. We note there were ten (10) 'likes' in relation to one of your client's posts. He will be expected to discover those responses as part of his List of Documents.

"It is also the case that the decided law merely requires our client to prove her identification with and membership of a race of people subjected to an act or course of conduct the law regards as vilification and discrimination on the basis of 'race'. Our client will compromise her claim and agree to a Deed of Release incorporating the normal terms of ­indemnity, confidentiality and non-derogation in consideration of a payment to her of $5,000.00. The Offer is open for fourteen days from today's date."

Findlater and his family worried about this over the Christmas break. They believed it was grossly unfair. There was more legal correspondence between his solicitor and Moriarty, resulting in him incurring legal fees of about $10,000. He knew he was not a racist. But he could not afford to run a financially-crippling legal defence.

In early January, during a visit to his family in Brisbane, Findlater decided to call it quits. He and his wife were worrying a lot. The stress was not worth it.

He wrote to Ms Moriarty with an offer to settle, to limit the costs and end the concerns he and his wife held about the case. He ­explained in his offer letter that he had significant debts from his ­engineering degree at QUT, and other bills in Canada from his relocation there.

He asked if, instead of $5000, he could pay $3500, which he would need to borrow. He wrote that he was making the offer "in the hope that I can avoid the ­expense of time and money during the proceedings and in the hope that your client will gain something in the process".

His offer was rejected in a letter from Ms Moriarty who replied that her client, Prior, "advises that her review of your Facebook and LinkedIn profile establishes that you have been a well-paid employee since graduating as an ­engineer from QUT.

Her research demonstrates that your wife too has a degree. While you may have some financial difficulties, as you allege, there is nothing to indicate that those difficulties are anything but temporary".

Moriarty set a deadline of late February for full payment of the $5000; Findlater paid.

"My reasoning for taking the settlement offer was to avoid a protracted legal process where I could not be present to defend my name,'' he says.

"I feel that I did the right thing at the time because it was the safest route, and many people agreed with me at the time that I should settle but there is the whole injustice of it. If I was living in Australia I would not have paid, I would have fought it with the other ­students.

"Sure, my quote was the face of reason, but now when I Google my name, my positive achievements in life have been sullied, perhaps permanently, by the media coverage and headlines now associated with my name."

On issues of race and segregation, Findlater says: "I really think that all Australians should be given equal opportunities. Why should it matter what their race is? By segregating people with facilities like the computer lab, we are telling them they are disadvantaged, we are reinforcing it. It's divisive and unfair to them."

From Canada, he has been closely following The Australian's reporting of the case since February. He cheered the dismissal of the proceedings against three of the students — Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell — by judge Michael Jarrett earlier this month.

He was surprised that Triggs claimed publicly that the commission "investigated" the case and engaged with students.

He has been buoyed by the public support and the growing calls to change 18C and investigate the commission's handling of the cases.

He has always been reluctant to speak out but he changed his mind to ensure that the facts in his case were on the public record and well-understood, so that strangers knew, as his family and friends knew, that he did nothing wrong, and should not have been put through the worrying and costly process.

"I am glad about the possibility of review and amendment of 18C to avoid people being dragged through the mud like this again is comforting to me," he says.

"I feel like I was unfairly targeted. I am frustrated that the lady was able to take me to court over what was, in my opinion, something very harmless. But that's the problem with 18C — it allows this to happen over opinions and free speech. None of the things I posted were racist or vilifying of anyone. I feel let down by the legal system and frustrated that nobody told me until it was too late. I got sucked into this legal vortex and I felt helpless to do anything. It cost me a lot of money that I will probably not see again. It's not good that I was part of it. If I Google myself, it pops up.

"I blame the Human Rights Commission and QUT for not telling me. It compromised the chance for the complaint to go away. There was no conciliation.

"I am surprised by the audacity of Professor Triggs in saying that the commission did all these things for the students. It is a terrible performance for someone in a highly paid position. If the commission had done its job in the first place I would not be in this ­situation."



Note: Do take the time to read the comments at the bottom of the original article. They show that people are beginning to wake up to the hypocrisy ... but as yet, they are not prepared to fight tooth and nail. They don't yet understand that it is their lives and the future of their children, their culture and their civilisation that are at stake. #WhiteGeNOcide

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/plight-unmasks-the-injustice-of-18c/news-story/c996e4c63d49a13b0a2cc0192bbb7eba

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children."

[Rev.Cambeul]

An ABC TV presenter claims that we need 18C to stop White people from saying things that will get them attacked by violent, out of control Aboriginal mobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrvNwIhlDwU&ab_channel=JillJacks

Just in case you the viewer is dumb enough to still think that so-called minorities need legal protection from the unthinkingly offensive White majority, and that minority violence is justified by White Racism, then it is you that is as much to blame for the violence against Whites as those that perpetrate it.

In Australia, refusal by a White person to give a cigarette to an Indigenous person when they demand it is considered justification for violence. If the police get involved, they will always accept the accusation that the victim is a "F*cking White dog!" A "Racist White c*nt!" "He/she called me a coon/nigger/black c*nt." The White victim is quietly shipped off to hospital and the Aboriginal criminal is free to go. (So it's been for decades, now add the Africoon to the mix who gets the same Black Privileges.)

Of course, if the White victim fights back and wins or at least drives off his attacker, the police will charge him with any number of criminal offences, from riot and affray to assault and hate-crimes.

Furthermore, this type of violent interaction (often with police intervention as described above) is not limited to Indigenous Australians vs White Australians. With decades of government multicultural policies in place, White Australians have to contend with the same bullsh*t from every self-entitled minority that finds its way Downunder.

So, to all the White Marxists and anti-Racist Libtards out there, next time you justify Black on White violence just remember, when we come for you, it wont be to pinch your smokes and give you a smack on the jaw. When we come for you, it'll be with rope in hand ready to hang you from the nearest tree. We are White Racial Loyalists: We will ship those niggers back, but we hang race-traitors.



@Cailen.

[Rev.Cambeul]

https://twitter.com/CailenCambeul/status/800814298045956102

"This is the right for people to be protected from being harassed, bullied because of their race, because of their sex," she said.

"That's what 18C is there for. It's to protect those who are vulnerable. It's not just the Aboriginal community. It's the Jewish community. The refugee community. It is women, people who are trans, people of different sexes. We need to stop talking about it being free speech. It's protecting the marginalised. It's for equality and protection."

Marginalise: To treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral.

The thoughts, the beliefs, the very culture, the historical and future significance of White people in their own countries have not only been marginalised, but are vilified daily on the streets and in people's homes via the mouthpiece of MSM. Section 18C and other Hate-Crime laws across the world are not about the promotion of equality. Hate-Crime laws are the promotion of the supremacy of one race, gender, religion or personal PC choice over another - and ultimately, it's always WHITEY that's to blame for everything.

Keep it up libtards; the White Man is waking up. The Day of the Rope is coming ....

@Cailen.

[Rev.Cambeul]

And the Jewish Supremacists rise ...

Submissions from community groups to the inquiry, which the Prime Minister ordered to examine the law and the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission, show a backlash against reform that mirrors a campaign more than two years ago when Mr Abbott, as prime minister, promised to revoke 18C but was ultimately forced to abandon the controversial plan.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry claims in its submission that any amendment to 18C would send "a strong and dangerous message from Australia's political leaders that a degree of racism in public discourse is to be considered acceptable".

The Chinese Australian Forum predicts any change "may well see the Coalition government lose power and seats in the coming elections", singling out the multicultural Sydney seats of Reid, Bennelong and Banks.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/malcolm-turnbull-faces-section-18c-test-amid-ethnic-opposition/news-story/dacbbe824735cde032905b90918fd35f?nk=5210ea90b0ec71d2453bb016f53292c9-1483005747

Be sure to read the comments on the article page above. They are probably the best I've ever seen from Australians. Finally proof that the average people are waking up and beginning to get active, instead of their typical pull yer head in ... she'll be right mate ... I like chinky takeaway drivel.

@Cailen.

More: https://creativityalliance.com/australias-new-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-more-jew-than-any-hebe

Malcolm Turnbull: Definitely not my Prime Minister ....

[Rev.Cambeul]

I rise today also to speak about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and its report on the freedom of speech in Australia, particularly as it pertains to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

I note that this is a fraught issue, with many stakeholders and with many submissions, and I acknowledge the diversity of opinion. I think that is a very good thing; it reflects a healthy Australian society. The fact that we are having this debate here is also an indicator that we have a healthy, functioning democracy.

There are a number of things that I want to say up-front, because those opposite have misconstrued many of our positions with words like 'divisive' and 'hysteria'. I want to make it very clear where I stand, so I want to lift the bonnet a bit on my thinking before I get to 18C itself. I am not a libertarian, but I am a Liberal, which is to say that I am committed to freedom: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of enterprise and a whole host of freedoms that we hold dear in this country. Of course, today we are talking about freedom of speech.

I am going to quote John Donne and, at risk of sounding terribly heteronormative, I am going to use the original words of his poem:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

Freedom only makes sense in the context of community. We do not live in isolation from each other in this country. We have constant exchange with our neighbours. We have a mutual dependence upon each other, which is why we come together to form local, state and federal governments. That reflects our search for order and our desire to secure our collective freedoms. Government is especially important when we come together to do tasks that we cannot do ourselves, especially in emergencies. So I just want to make clear that I am not a libertarian; I am a Liberal, and I believe in limited government, in the separation of powers and in the diffusion of power. That is why our Westminster system, I think, is the best system of government in the world, and I am proud that Australia has that as our system of government.

But alongside those freedoms and rights come responsibilities. As I said, we have a mutual dependence upon each other. At the heart of our democracy is the volunteer spirit. In an ideal world, every Australian would self-regulate or self-govern, but of course that is not true. But it does raise the question: what role does government have in our lives? Is it the supporting act or is it the main protagonist? I am of the view that it is the supporting act, and my point about 18C is that it ultimately is symbolic of government overreach. It is government overreach interfering in the lives of individual Australians and regulating one of our most basic freedoms, which is freedom of speech.

I also want to be very clear on my anthropology, my view of humankind. I believe that all people are endowed with respect and inherent worth and dignity, whatever their race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex or sexuality. It does not matter: everyone is deserving of respect, because we are all endowed with inherent worth. I want to state that upfront very clearly. I also believe that a healthy civic society means that government can step back out of our lives. We call these mediating institutions or prepolitical institutions, and every single electorate has them. We start with the family and we work outwards to clubs—sporting clubs, Rotary clubs, Surf Life Saving clubs—churches, temples, mosques, schools and charities—you name it. They are in every single electorate around this country, and I believe they should be the first line of defence against discriminatory speech. They should be the first line of defence. I would rather see them empowered than big government interfering in people's lives, which I think is what has been the case with the exercise of 18C. Of course, in my electorate, and I am sure around the country, people have disengaged from civic society, so this is a task that all Australians should be engaged in: to rebuild a strong civic society.

Back to the topic of the Racial Discrimination Act and 18C. This is part of the question: what sort of a society do we want? Do we want one regulated by the state, or do we want one regulated by the citizenry? Do we want the state as the main protagonist or the supporting act? I think we have seen with the QUT case and the Bill Leak case that 18C has allowed vexatious litigation to creep into our society, where people are being inhibited in the exercise of their freedom of speech. We are seeing creeping political correctness across the board. We are seeing it in universities and schools. Not every Australian fully understands what 18C means, but for a lot of people it is emblematic of that creeping state interference and political correctness.

George Orwell wrote a famous essay, 'Politics and the English language', and in that he argued that language and thought are intimately related, so if we are to truly exercise freedom of conscience we need to have the freedom to exercise our speech as well. Of course, 'If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,' as he famously made clear. If we have the state regulating our speech, you also have the state regulating our thought, and I think that looks a lot like 1984, another great book by George Orwell.

The cases that have been litigated under 18C have caused a lot of psychological stress and trauma to those involved and also significant financial cost. I think of Bill Leak. You may not like Bill Leak's cartoons, and that is fine. I find them funny. I have found some of his cartoons to be very risque and found that they push the boundaries, but that is who he is. I want to acknowledge that after the 'Je suis Charlie'attacks in January 2015 he had the courage to do a cartoon in which he illustrated the Prophet Mohammed. Whatever you may think of that, he showed significant courage. He had to relocate his home because of death threats to him on the internet. I find it rather ironic in a free society that when he published a cartoon—whatever you might think of that cartoon—he was then pursued under 18C for that cartoon. What the terrorists themselves could not achieve in a free society, we had a mechanism of government for, which was used to pursue him for another cartoon of his. I think that is just unacceptable.

I turn to the report itself and recommendation 1. I approve of recommendation 1, which recommends addressing racism in Australian society. Absolutely we need to address racism. We need to address racism in all the mediating institutions that I just mentioned. Recommendation 2 says:

Recognising the profound impacts of serious forms of racism, the committee recommends that leaders of the Australian community and politicians exercise their freedom of speech to identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech where it occurs in public.

I affirm that absolutely. In fact, I copped a flogging on Facebook a couple of weeks ago after Larry Pickering's comments at the Q Society. I condemned his remarks. I condemned him for what he said about gay people and I condemned him for what he said about Islamic State and their barbarous acts in Iraq and Syria. A lot of people said I overstepped the mark. Great! I am happy for that. I enjoyed the flogging, in a sense, because it was another healthy indicator that democracy is alive and well and everyone can have their point of view.

I now turn to recommendation 3, and specifically to where it says:

(c) removing the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' from section 18C and replacing them with 'harass'; I think we need to do that. My colleague Senator James Paterson last night said that in this parliament we have a unique opportunity, a pathway where we have consensus around some of these recommendations. I recognise that this parliament is a tough one. It is rather austere from a legislative point of view. It is difficult to get legislation through. But I think we can all agree, on the evidence, that the QUT case, the Bill Leak case and others are a step too far. We absolutely need to reform the legislation. Politics is the art of the possible. I would rather not have 18C at all. I know that is not going to be achieved, but I do think we need to make changes. We need to make the threshold much higher to avoid the vexatious litigation that we have seen.

Ultimately, as I said, I am a Liberal, so I am going to err on the side of individual liberty. I hope that my fellow Australians are committed to a united country that is not divisive; that can preserve freedom and also ensure that the responsibilities of individual citizens are enforced and met. Section 18C has a chilling effect and we need reform. That is why I endorse it.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Report

Effectively, he wants us dead ... but he wants his Liberal voters to have free speech ... but if they go to far, he wants them killed too.

That's Liberal in Australia, Republican in America and CONservative in the UK. What's the diff? Absolutely none.

Obey Bibi and keep your thoughts in check.