Complete Blog

This page contains a complete list of all blog entries, starting with the most recent posts.

Nomination for the Independant Media Award

Posted by on 1:22 pm in Featured, General | 0 comments

Nomination for the Independant Media Award

It’s a great honour for this webpage to have been nominated for the Independent Media Award by the Australian Free Speech Coalition.

Independent Media Award

The Australian Free Speech Coalition was founded after the Victorian government stung the organisers of Lauren Southern’s event in Melbourne with a $68,000 bill, even though the disruption that occurred in Melbourne was planned, organised and orchestrated by the anarchist and marxist group, Antifa.

The Australian Free Speech Coalition is not only fighting against the ‘Thug’s Veto’ imposed by the Victorian police. It is also moving to recognise the importance of free political communication and independent conservative commentary in Australia.

The winner of the Independent Media Award will be announced this Saturday.

You can vote for the winner here.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support and continued readership since 2013. Without you, my webpage would be nothing.

It is encouraging to have been nominated for this award despite the fact that I have been unable to write since July due to ongoing lawfare against me by homosexual activists to shuNomination for the Independant Media Awardt this site down.

This might seem like an attack on me. But it is primarily an attack on you. Anti-free speech activists are desperate to stop you from being able to access and read content that they disagree with. Voting on this award is one way you can take action to protect free speech in Australia.

There can be no doubt that there is a concerted campaign underway in Australia to silence those who speak up for truth, whether they be doctors, mums or even workers.

That is why it is so refreshing to see that the Free Speech Coalition is recognising independent commentary in Australia and it is certainly a great encouragement for me to continue defending the rights of the natural family unit and our Western Christian civilisation.

Thank you,

Bernard Gaynor
Christus Rex!

Legal Update: Taking the ADB President/NCAT to court

Posted by on 7:39 pm in Defence, Featured, General, Politics | 7 comments

Legal Update: Taking the ADB President/NCAT to court

One month ago I announced that I would be taking legal action against the ‘Anti-Discrimination Thought Police’ in New South Wales for the ongoing and unlawful persecution I have faced for my views on marriage, family and morality.

Since then I have been working non-stop to prepare that legal case.

And late last week I filed a summons in the New South Wales Supreme Court seeking rulings against the President of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB), President of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) and the New South Wales Local Court.

I am seeking declarations that the President of the ADB, President of NCAT and the Local Court have no power to hear complaints against me and prohibition orders preventing any further action.

I have been forced to take this action after continued attempts to hear complaints against me, despite a unanimous High Court ruling in April that it was unconstitutional to do so.This shows that the ‘Thought Police’ are prepared to break the law to enforce their radical worldview on all Australians.

They are menace to society and freedom and should be abolished.

I must admit that I have been increasingly stressed after four years of unlawful litigation and persecution. However, I am very proud to have taken this latest step.

This will be a landmark case and it will put the ‘anti-discrimination industry’ on trial for the first time in Australian history. In essence, we are now on the attack and we need to continue.

Thank you for your support. I could not have reached this point without your generosity, encouragement and prayers.

I must continue to focus on this case and so I will not be writing for my website in the short term (other than the occasional update). I find this extremely frustrating but I have no doubt that effort required for this battle will be worth it.

However, I do leave you with this reminder that insane political-correctness has overtaken our military.

The Royal Australian Navy is now having its sailors and officers wear pink nail polishto show their support for ‘diversity’:

I was sacked by this mob for refusing to participate in this rubbish. That sacking is my badge of honour.

I will keep you informed as legal matters develop.

Kind regards,

Bernard Gaynor

Now Garry Burns wants the taxpayer to bail him out

Posted by on 11:58 am in Featured, Values | 2 comments

Now Garry Burns wants the taxpayer to bail him out

The Australian today is reporting that Garry Burns has asked the New South Wales government (that would really mean you) to pay for his legal costs:

Serial litigator Garry Burns wants taxpayers to foot the bill for his failed High Court action under NSW anti-discrimination laws against two interstate residents.

In April, the High Court unanimously dismissed an ­appeal from Mr Burns, who had been seeking to pursue Queensland-based former army officer Bernard Gaynor and former Victorian political candidate Tess Corbett in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The action was part of a campaign by Mr Burns that included more than 100 complaints to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board against people who had made public homophobic comments.

The High Court ruled that under the Constitution, state tribunals that did not have the status of a court could not resolve disputes between people from different states. In doing so, it upheld a unanimous ruling from the NSW Court of Appeal, and made a costs order against Mr Burns.

Mr Burns wrote to NSW ­Attorney-General Mark Speakman last week arguing he could not afford to pay a $575,000 bill he had been hit with after losing his High Court challenge.

In an email to Mr Speakman last week he said: “In relation to the High Court costs my lawyers have written to the Crown Solicitor’s Office asking that office to cover those costs because I don’t have the funds of $575,000 to pay those costs and as this was litigation in the public interest those costs should be covered by the CSO.”

He said his actions were “public interest litigation where I’m seeking remedies to promote tolerance and understanding of ­homosexuals and not seeking personal compensation”.

Mr Gaynor, a conservative blogger, has so far been the ­subject of about 36 homosexual vilification or victimisation complaints lodged by Mr Burns with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, resulting in at least 18 NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal cases, and litigation in the NSW Local Court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court.

He has spent more than $200,000 fending off the legal complaints and has been forced to sell his house.

Mr Gaynor said he would be pursuing cost orders where he had received them, but it was “outrageous” Mr Burns expected NSW taxpayers to “bail him out” because his litigation had been unsuccessful.

Who knows? Perhaps Burns might be successful. After all, the New South Wales taxpayer has already stumped up millions over the past four years to find the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board to oversee this farce.

Indeed, therein lies the real problem. It is not an obsessive serial litigant who clearly lacks the self-control or awareness to live normally in this society. It is the ‘Thought Police’ that are happy to use and abuse him for their own ends.

The more complaints Burns lodges the more money and power the Board has. And when Burns is all used up and discarded? They’ll just find another loser to abuse.

The only way these sort of scandals won’t occur again in the future is if the ‘Thought Police’ have to pay up themselves for the mess they’ve created…

Taking the ‘Thought Police’ to court

Posted by on 2:49 pm in Featured, Values | 13 comments

Taking the ‘Thought Police’ to court

Yesterday the NSW Local Court and Garry Burns were put on notice: steps are underway to enforce the rulings of the High Court and NSW Court of Appeal on the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the NSW Local Court.

I have commenced preparations seeking orders in the NSW Supreme Court prohibiting the continuation of any of Garry Burns’ complaints against me.

Garry Burns protested that this was a ‘delaying tactic’, that I had only won in the High Court on a ‘technicality’ and that he wanted his day in court after an ‘arduous’ process.

The truth is that the anti-discrimination apparatus in NSW has given the finger to the rule of law, unanimous victories in the Court of Appeal and High Court that the process used against me is unconstitutional is not a ‘technicality’ and Burns has had more days in courts than pretty much anyone in this nation.

And if Burns thinks the process has been ‘arduous’ for him, then I’m entitled to claim that it’s also been more than bothersome for me too.

I can understand why many of you think that I should be ‘suing’ Burns. However, this sentiment misses the point: Burns is a problem but he is not ‘the’ problem: the system itself must be addressed.

My action in the NSW Supreme Court will be taken against those in positions of authority who are allowing this abuse to continue and who should never have allowed it in the first place. If the ‘Thought Police’ are not held to account, they will simply ensure that Burns is replaced with someone else.

Burns is nothing more than a lowly soldier. The real enemy are those in command who are enabling and protecting him. They must be the targets.

I will keep you updated as this process unfolds.

I would also like to make some other points about Garry Burns.

I do not hate this man, although his actions are unconscionable and in justice they must be addressed.

I pray for him every day.

While there is life, there is hope. Burns still has a great potential to do a great good: given his actions he has an opportunity to rectify great wrongs. I can only hope that he does.

Garry Burns complained after yesterday’s hearings that he had been subjected to death threats. In my experience, Burns’ views and reality are often at odds. More than likely, he is just discovering that in this battle there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and is having some difficulty processing that or the fact that he is facing public scrutiny for the first time.

I am aware that many of you who have commented on my Facebook page or shared its posts have been ‘trolled’ by Burns. He is looking to intimidate and cause trouble. My advice is not to engage with him.

It is extremely hypocritical that someone who has encouraged others to assault me at tribunal hearings, who has called for me to be flogged in Martin Place and who is prepared to write this would complain about ‘death threats’:

Garry Burns

However, while I have trouble believing Burns’ claims, I also know that even hypocrites do not deserve to have their safety threatened.

If you are engaged by Burns please keep it classy. We do not need to stoop to his levels. And we can win this with dignity, patience and by maintaining civility and the rule of law.

I once again thank you for your support and generosity. It is greatly encouraging – with a special thanks to the lovely lady who travelled to the Local Court yesterday to stand by my side!

Kind regards,

Bernard Gaynor

Gay ‘Thought Police’ lawfare scandal continues

Posted by on 11:40 am in Featured, Values | 13 comments

Gay ‘Thought Police’ lawfare scandal continues

It has all been happening today. And it is set to continue tomorrow.

Firstly, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) was set to give the High Court the finger and continue its unlawful hearings against me.

This prompted me to issue this press release this morning:

Gay ‘Thought Police’ ignore the High Court

Today the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) and New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) will ignore the High Court and continue with unconstitutional lawfare against me as a result of my views on marriage, family and morality.

At 3pm today the NCAT will commence hearing two new proceedings brought against me by serial litigant and homosexual and anti-free speech activist, Garry Burns.

A further complaint has been referred to the NCAT by the President of the ADB.

Garry Burns has now lodged 36 complaints against me, resulting in 18 tribunal matters.

All up there have now been almost 70 separate legal actions, including before the High Court, costing me approximately $200,000. Not a single complaint has been upheld.

The New South Wales taxpayer will have paid far more, funding the ADB, NCAT hearings and failed proceedings in the courts to defend its unconstitutional anti-free speech laws in support of Garry Burns.

On 3 February 2017, the New South Wales Court of Appeal unanimously ruled:

…there is no operative power to refer such a complaint from the Anti-Discrimination Board to NCAT, nor for NCAT to determine a complaint which has been referred, nor for NCAT’s order purporting to determine such a complaint to be enforced.

This decision was upheld unanimously in a 7-0 judgment by the High Court of Australia on 18 April 2018.

By referring these complaints to the NCAT, the President of the ADB has shown complete contempt for the rule of law and the authority of the High Court. The NCAT has done the same by deciding to commence hearings in relation to the complaints, despite Court of Appeal and High Court rulings that it unlawfully breached the constitution by doing so.

This shows that the Gay ‘Thought Police’ believe that they are a law unto themselves. They represent a danger to our democracy and civil society.

I refuse to be part of this unlawful kangaroo court today and will not be attending the hearing. Nor will I agree to abide by any decision made.

The President of the ADB has broken the law again by referring these complaints to the NCAT. The NCAT has no power to accept or hear these complaints, nor does it have any power to make any decision in relation to them.

The complaints relate to my criticism of drag queen shows organised for children during the 2018 Mardi Gras and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia’s decision to support ‘homosexual marriage’ during the 2017 postal survey.

In 2014, Garry Burns obtained my address from the electoral roll and then proceeded to contact Islamic organisations regarding my family’s personal details. As a result, we had to move due to safety concerns.

He has also encouraged others to lodge as many complaints against me as possible in order to seize my assets, writing that it would be a lesson to me to throw my wife and eight children onto the streets.

Garry Burns has also sent hundreds of abusive and intimidating emails to me, including threatening me with assault on numerous occasions.

A Gay Liaison Officer from the New South Wales Police refused to investigate Garry Burns on the basis that his actions were ‘free speech’.

The President of the ADB has the power to dismiss vexatious complaints. However, instead the President of the ADB has consistently removed my evidence of Garry Burns’ vexatious conduct when referring matters to the NCAT on the basis that it is ‘irrelevant’.

Then I received notification that the complaints had suddenly been withdrawn.

So I issued this press release:

Hearing before gay ‘Thought Police’ cancelled

At 9:30 am today I was informed by the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) that Garry Burns has suddenly withdrawn both of his complaints against me.

The hearings set for today have now been cancelled.

This marks the sixth time Garry Burns has commenced proceedings against me, forcing me to incur costs and waste time, before deciding to withdraw his proceedings.

Each time he has been able to do so without suffering an adverse costs order.

The withdrawal of these complaints does not change the facts as detailed in my earlier statement today: the President of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) had no power to refer them to the NCAT; nor did the NCAT have any power to even list these matters in the first place.

The only thing that has prevented an unlawful ‘kangaroo court’ from sitting today is a serial litigant who cannot decide if he is serious about his complaints or not.

There is an urgent need for an inquiry into the conduct and culture of the ADB and NCAT.

I call upon the New South Wales Attorney General to address this farcical situation by holding a parliamentary inquiry into these matters.

You can help get that parliamentary inquiry going by signing and sharing this petition.

Tomorrow I will be in the New South Wales Local Court for three more complaints lodged by Garry Burns.

For those who may be interested, the matters are listed for 930am in court 7B, level 7 of the John Maddison Tower in Sydney.

I will be seeking that Garry Burns pay costs as ordered by the High Court before any further action is taken with respect to his complaints.

I have also instructed my legal team to prepare actions to force the ADB and NCAT to comply with the rulings of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and High Court of Australia. I will not go into the details of these actions here.

However, they must remain my focus and I will not recommence writing for my webpage until those preparations are complete.

I have been immensely frustrated in recent weeks and your kind words and generosity have been of enormous comfort. My wife and our children are also greatly appreciative.

I thank you once again for your support and encouragement.

Bernard Gaynor

Lawfare is silencing this webpage

Posted by on 1:44 pm in Featured, Values | 11 comments

Lawfare is silencing this webpage

This will be my last post for a while.

Over the last week, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that I simply cannot continue producing content for this website, even though this is how I feed my family.

Simply put, lawfare has forced me to take this decision.

I must focus my attention on:

  • three matters that have been unlawfully referred to by the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in violation of High Court and Court of Appeal rulings;
  • three matters that are unlawfully continuing in the New South Wales Local Court even though they were all stayed pending the High Court and Court of Appeal rulings which found they were referred to the NCAT in breach of the Constitution;
  • a further seven matters that are poised to be unlawfully continued in the Local Court;
  • a defamation matter based on comments that I did not write, publish or even know about;
  • bringing my own legal actions to enforce the rulings in the High Court and Court of Appeal on the anti-discrimination Thought Police.

When it comes to the anti-discrimination industry, the process is the punishment.

And because I am not a pathetic, cringing, apologetic white guy ready to embrace the rainbow, I simply must be punished.

That punishment must continue even though three rulings have now found that there is no legal power to bring complaints against me and that the entire process used against me has been in violation of our Constitution.

The cost of obtaining those wins was over $200,000 and my house.

Yet the only people who have broken the law in this four year scandal are the President of the ADB and NCAT officials who have unlawfully presided over the complaint processes. This has not cost them a cent. Instead, they have done all of this with the taxpayer’s dollar.

Obviously, I have not taken this decision lightly. But I must let you know that I do not have the time to continue writing and that I must seriously focus on defending the victories we have won and that must now be enforced. For the immediate future, I will be focused entirely on the litigation ahead.

I am proud of the work that this webpage has achieved.

Over the past four years we have forced the Defence imam to resign and dragged the politically-correct agenda within the Australian Defence Force into the light of day. The senior hierarchy in the military have hated every moment of this.

But doing so has forced some enormous admissions in the Senate. The incoming Chief of Defence Force has stated, on the public record, that females are prioritised by Defence recruiting and that there has been no research whatsoever to support insane decisions to feminise our combat fighting units.

This webpage has also been heavily involved in defending Australia’s Western Christian values. I do not overstate its importance but I think it has been a significant voice. Its article have been viewed well over a million times.

I thank all of you for reading these articles and donating to keep this webpage going, as well as for the legal fights that have ensued. The successes that have been achieved would not have been possible without that support.

My decision to cease writing for the immediate future should be rightfully seen as a consequence of the efforts underway to silence conservative Australians. These efforts are not just a threat to content producers like myself, but also to the freedom of those who are content consumers as well.

Every reader of this website has been targeted by this litigation. The anti-discrimination industry is desperate to ensure that you do not have access to this site. It wants to see this site disappear entirely.

This is a temporary defeat resulting from unconstitutional lawfare.

I have every intention of returning to public commentary. But I must focus my attention on defeating this ongoing unconstitutional litigation. The enemies of freedom will not take the defeats we have dished out lying down.

They are prepared to fight. And so must we.

That is what I will do.

If you can support with meeting the financial costs of this fight, please donate here.

If you would like to continue receiving my update emails, please register via the newsletter sign up form on the right column of this webpage.

And please sign this petition below to keep the pressure on the New South Wales Attorney General to hold the ADB to account.

Bernard Gaynor

Hold an inquiry into the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board

  

Dear Hon Mark Speakman SC MP

The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) is an out of control body of political activists that is a threat to free speech in Australia.

Over the past four years it has:

- unconstitutionally referred more than 24 complaints to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT),
- refused to accept evidence that serial complainants are lodging complaints to financially hurt those they oppose,
- refused to accept evidence that serial complainants are lodging complaints to harass and damage the reputation of those they oppose,
- failed to pass this evidence to the NCAT, instead labelling it irrelevant,
- accepted complaints from activists who have complained about their own comments on the Facebook pages of those they harass,
- accepted racial vilification complaints against those who express concern about Islamic immigration,
- accepted homosexual vilification complaints against those who condemn naked homosexual men who stand naked in front of children,
- claimed it is unbiased even though it marches in the Mardi Gras, has pledged allegiance to 'Wear it Purple Day' and campaigned for homosexual marriage,
- allowed a serial complainant to lodge hundreds of complaints against a brain-damaged man incapable of understanding the law, and
- met regularly with a group that seeks to decriminalise sex in public.

In the case of Bernard Gaynor, more than 60 legal matters have been commenced as a result of the ADB's failure to abide by the Constitution. This has clogged up the NCAT and court systems. It has cost Bernard more than $200,000 and forced him to sell his home even though none of the complaints against him have been substantiated. Nor did he act outside the Constitution, as the ADB did.

Now the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board refuses to accept the ruling made by the Court of Appeal, upheld by the High Court, that it is unconstitutional for the President of the ADB to refer matters to the NCAT.

All of this has occurred because one activist who dislikes Bernard's view about marriage expressed in Queensland has been aided and abetted by an out of control 'Thought Police'.

In the case of Sonia Kruger, the ADB has sent a message that anyone who criticises Islam could wind up in costly legal proceedings.

And in the case of John Sunol, a brain-damaged man, the ADB has allowed hundreds of complaints even though the defendant is entirely incapable of defending himself or even understanding the consequences of the situation he faces. He may well end up in jail as a result.

None of this is in the public interest. None of this benefits the people of New South Wales. None of this should continue.

But all of it should be exposed to scrutiny.

I petition you to hold an inquiry into the conduct of the ADB, its culture and its failure to act within the Constitution.

**your signature**

7,430 signatures

Share this with your friends:

   

Latest Signatures
7,430 Mrs Sharyn B. Holbrook Sep 21, 2018
7,429 Mr Fraser A. Brisbane Sep 21, 2018
7,428 Mrs Fiona A. Brisbane Sep 21, 2018
7,427 Mr Maurice M. Nth Rockhampton Sep 19, 2018
7,426 Mr Bill P. BRIDGEMAN DOWNS Sep 17, 2018
7,425 Mrs Elisabeth Karen B. Queanbeyan Sep 06, 2018
7,424 Mrs Caroline M. Gilston Aug 30, 2018
7,423 Mr Dennis W. Highett Aug 30, 2018
7,422 Ms Ian L. RIORDANVALE Aug 28, 2018
7,421 Mr Kieran R. Sydney Aug 27, 2018
7,420 Mrs Maree W. Malvern East Aug 26, 2018
7,419 Mr Glen W. Clarenza Aug 25, 2018
7,418 Mrs Crystal S. Melbourne Aug 21, 2018
7,417 Mr David M. Echuca Aug 21, 2018
7,416 Mr Simon L. Essendon Aug 20, 2018
7,415 Mr graham h. williamstown Aug 20, 2018
7,414 Mrs Meryl S. Rockhampton Aug 18, 2018
7,413 Ms Jaana P. Werribee Aug 17, 2018
7,412 Mrs Roma G. Shepparton Aug 17, 2018
7,411 Ms Emily W. Kingscote Aug 17, 2018
7,410 Ms Marie P. Robinvale Aug 16, 2018
7,409 Dr. Mark D. Hobart Aug 16, 2018
7,408 Mr Ian M. Charlestown Aug 16, 2018
7,407 Ms Vania C. Oatley Aug 16, 2018
7,406 Ms lynette g. Shenton Park Aug 16, 2018
7,405 Mr Alastair M. Ashford Aug 16, 2018
7,404 Mr Richard B. Merrimac Aug 16, 2018
7,403 Ms Linda F. Altona Meadows Aug 16, 2018
7,402 Mrs Aileen H. Tinonee Aug 16, 2018
7,401 Mr Peter B. Brisbane Aug 16, 2018
7,400 Mrs Jennifer G. Aug 16, 2018
7,399 Mr Victor S. Melbourne Aug 16, 2018
7,398 Mr Graham M. Menai Aug 16, 2018
7,397 Ms Judy S. Sunbury Aug 16, 2018
7,396 Mrs Alison W. Bridgewater Aug 16, 2018
7,395 Ms Joel v. Mount Waverley Aug 16, 2018
7,394 Mr Pieter D. FOSTER Aug 16, 2018
7,393 Mrs Fransiska S. Perth Aug 11, 2018
7,392 Mr Johan v. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,391 Mrs Santi v. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,390 Mrs Susan v. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,389 Mr Rory M. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,388 Mrs Lynette B. Ashby Aug 08, 2018
7,387 Ms Christa L. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,386 Mr Albert H. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,385 Ms Irene H. Madeley Aug 08, 2018
7,384 Ms Meg M. Coffs Harbour Aug 06, 2018
7,383 Mrs Jeannette R. Pakenham Aug 03, 2018
7,382 Mr wayne l. brisbane Aug 03, 2018
7,381 Mrs Jane M. Garfield Aug 02, 2018

Finally…

Posted by on 12:51 pm in Featured, Values | 1 comment

Finally…

Finally.

After more than four years of legal hell the New South Wales Attorney General, Mark Speakman, has admitted that there is a problem with the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB). From The Australian today:

NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman has said the “door is never closed to reform” of anti-discrimination laws after it emerged one person was responsible for lodging more than 100 complaints that were then referred to the state’s administrative tribunal.

Serial litigant Garry Burns pursues people who make homophobic comments in public, primarily by complaining to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.

The Australian revealed his one-man legal crusade has resulted in the bankrupting — and potential jailing — of a former cabbie whose family says is brain damaged, and taken up countless court hours at significant cost to taxpayers, prompting calls to overhaul the law.

Mr Burns has lodged 77 complaints about former Newcastle cab driver John Sunol, leading to about 24 tribunal or court matters and about 29 days of hearings.

Mr Sunol suffered a serious brain injury in 1978, and his family says he does not properly understand the consequences of his actions. He faces a federal criminal charge and a possible charge of contempt for failing to abide by tribunal rulings.

Mr Burns has also lodged 36 ADB complaints about conservative Christian blogger ­Bernard Gaynor, leading to 18 NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal cases, three NSW Local Court cases and litigation in the NSW Supreme Court, NSW Court of Appeal and High Court.

The litigation has cost Mr Gaynor, a former army officer and father of eight, more than $200,000 and forced him to sell his house.

This follows reporting on the front page of The Weekend Australian on Saturday:

Burns was back in court on Thursday, in a defamation matter involving one of his key targets: former army officer and conservative Christian blogger Bernard Gaynor, who lives in Brisbane. Gaynor, a father of eight, says Burns’s action has cost him “well over $200,000” in legal fees and forced him to sell his house.

It is hard to know how many complaints Burns has filed over the years, or how many have in turn been referred by the ADB to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Burns says he lodged his first complaint in 2002, but does not keep a record, while the ADB says it “cannot comment on any aspect of its statutory complaint-handling functions”.

Gaynor, however, has been keeping a tally. He says he has been the subject of 36 ADB complaints by Burns, leading to 18 NCAT cases and litigation in the NSW Supreme Court, NSW Court of Appeal and High Court — requiring about 26 trips to Sydney. He has also had three matters ­referred to the NSW Local Court and is expecting another seven — although Burns says he will discontinue some of these.

He has also now been sued by Burns for defamation over a Facebook comment posted by a third party, which the judge on Thursday warned was a “very difficult case” for Burns to win. But that is of little comfort to Gaynor. “I am sucked into this black hole at the moment,” Gaynor says. “It has had a terrible impact on our lives, it has destroyed us finan­cially and put enormous stress on our family. There is no escape, even when you win in the High Court.”

There is no cost to file a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board, and no cost to have a complaint referred to NCAT. There are also usually no costs awarded against complainants if they lose in the tribunal.

On the other hand, there is a potential upside for complainants, who can be awarded up to $100,000 in compensation — a situation Gaynor says creates a potential “gravy train”.

Gaynor points to figures from 2014-15, when he says he was the subject of about 26 Burns complaints. Analysis of NCAT decisions and Burns’s website reveals complaints against five other people, he says, meaning Burns was responsible for more than half the 48 homosexual vilification and victimisation complaints to the ADB that year. Burns has at least 12 court matters listed this month…

The ADB cannot be reformed. It is a parasitical organisation of activists that believes it is above and beyond the reach of law.

The fact that the ADB has referred further complaints to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal even after the High Court unanimously upheld a Court of Appeal ruling that it had no power to do so is proof of that.

This scandal was not an accident. It was always going to occur.

Please keep the pressure up and sign the petition below to the Attorney General calling for an inquiry into the conduct of the ADB.

It will be an important first step in a long process that we must undertake to restore freedom in Australia.

Hold an inquiry into the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board

  

Dear Hon Mark Speakman SC MP

The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) is an out of control body of political activists that is a threat to free speech in Australia.

Over the past four years it has:

- unconstitutionally referred more than 24 complaints to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT),
- refused to accept evidence that serial complainants are lodging complaints to financially hurt those they oppose,
- refused to accept evidence that serial complainants are lodging complaints to harass and damage the reputation of those they oppose,
- failed to pass this evidence to the NCAT, instead labelling it irrelevant,
- accepted complaints from activists who have complained about their own comments on the Facebook pages of those they harass,
- accepted racial vilification complaints against those who express concern about Islamic immigration,
- accepted homosexual vilification complaints against those who condemn naked homosexual men who stand naked in front of children,
- claimed it is unbiased even though it marches in the Mardi Gras, has pledged allegiance to 'Wear it Purple Day' and campaigned for homosexual marriage,
- allowed a serial complainant to lodge hundreds of complaints against a brain-damaged man incapable of understanding the law, and
- met regularly with a group that seeks to decriminalise sex in public.

In the case of Bernard Gaynor, more than 60 legal matters have been commenced as a result of the ADB's failure to abide by the Constitution. This has clogged up the NCAT and court systems. It has cost Bernard more than $200,000 and forced him to sell his home even though none of the complaints against him have been substantiated. Nor did he act outside the Constitution, as the ADB did.

Now the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board refuses to accept the ruling made by the Court of Appeal, upheld by the High Court, that it is unconstitutional for the President of the ADB to refer matters to the NCAT.

All of this has occurred because one activist who dislikes Bernard's view about marriage expressed in Queensland has been aided and abetted by an out of control 'Thought Police'.

In the case of Sonia Kruger, the ADB has sent a message that anyone who criticises Islam could wind up in costly legal proceedings.

And in the case of John Sunol, a brain-damaged man, the ADB has allowed hundreds of complaints even though the defendant is entirely incapable of defending himself or even understanding the consequences of the situation he faces. He may well end up in jail as a result.

None of this is in the public interest. None of this benefits the people of New South Wales. None of this should continue.

But all of it should be exposed to scrutiny.

I petition you to hold an inquiry into the conduct of the ADB, its culture and its failure to act within the Constitution.

**your signature**

7,430 signatures

Share this with your friends:

   

Latest Signatures
7,430 Mrs Sharyn B. Holbrook Sep 21, 2018
7,429 Mr Fraser A. Brisbane Sep 21, 2018
7,428 Mrs Fiona A. Brisbane Sep 21, 2018
7,427 Mr Maurice M. Nth Rockhampton Sep 19, 2018
7,426 Mr Bill P. BRIDGEMAN DOWNS Sep 17, 2018
7,425 Mrs Elisabeth Karen B. Queanbeyan Sep 06, 2018
7,424 Mrs Caroline M. Gilston Aug 30, 2018
7,423 Mr Dennis W. Highett Aug 30, 2018
7,422 Ms Ian L. RIORDANVALE Aug 28, 2018
7,421 Mr Kieran R. Sydney Aug 27, 2018
7,420 Mrs Maree W. Malvern East Aug 26, 2018
7,419 Mr Glen W. Clarenza Aug 25, 2018
7,418 Mrs Crystal S. Melbourne Aug 21, 2018
7,417 Mr David M. Echuca Aug 21, 2018
7,416 Mr Simon L. Essendon Aug 20, 2018
7,415 Mr graham h. williamstown Aug 20, 2018
7,414 Mrs Meryl S. Rockhampton Aug 18, 2018
7,413 Ms Jaana P. Werribee Aug 17, 2018
7,412 Mrs Roma G. Shepparton Aug 17, 2018
7,411 Ms Emily W. Kingscote Aug 17, 2018
7,410 Ms Marie P. Robinvale Aug 16, 2018
7,409 Dr. Mark D. Hobart Aug 16, 2018
7,408 Mr Ian M. Charlestown Aug 16, 2018
7,407 Ms Vania C. Oatley Aug 16, 2018
7,406 Ms lynette g. Shenton Park Aug 16, 2018
7,405 Mr Alastair M. Ashford Aug 16, 2018
7,404 Mr Richard B. Merrimac Aug 16, 2018
7,403 Ms Linda F. Altona Meadows Aug 16, 2018
7,402 Mrs Aileen H. Tinonee Aug 16, 2018
7,401 Mr Peter B. Brisbane Aug 16, 2018
7,400 Mrs Jennifer G. Aug 16, 2018
7,399 Mr Victor S. Melbourne Aug 16, 2018
7,398 Mr Graham M. Menai Aug 16, 2018
7,397 Ms Judy S. Sunbury Aug 16, 2018
7,396 Mrs Alison W. Bridgewater Aug 16, 2018
7,395 Ms Joel v. Mount Waverley Aug 16, 2018
7,394 Mr Pieter D. FOSTER Aug 16, 2018
7,393 Mrs Fransiska S. Perth Aug 11, 2018
7,392 Mr Johan v. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,391 Mrs Santi v. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,390 Mrs Susan v. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,389 Mr Rory M. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,388 Mrs Lynette B. Ashby Aug 08, 2018
7,387 Ms Christa L. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,386 Mr Albert H. Perth Aug 08, 2018
7,385 Ms Irene H. Madeley Aug 08, 2018
7,384 Ms Meg M. Coffs Harbour Aug 06, 2018
7,383 Mrs Jeannette R. Pakenham Aug 03, 2018
7,382 Mr wayne l. brisbane Aug 03, 2018
7,381 Mrs Jane M. Garfield Aug 02, 2018

The ADF’s ABC of LGBTI

Posted by on 10:58 am in Defence, Featured | 16 comments

The ADF’s ABC of LGBTI

The hierarchy of the ADF is up to its armpits in LGBTWHATEVER.

In answers given to Senator Fraser Anning at Senate Estimates, Defence has confirmed it has the following LGBT and gender diversity committees, boards, councils and advisors on the go as we speak:

  • Defence Gender Advisory Equality Board
  • Army Gender Diversity Executive Council
  • Navy Diversity Reference Groups
  • Defence Pride Network
  • Defence Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Employee Network
  • Defence LGBTI Ambassador Network
  • Single-service LGBI Strategic Advisors
  • LGBT champions within the Senior Leadership Group

Luckily Trump seems to be on top of the North Korea thing because our military is apparently more focused on fighting the Safe Schools war back here in Australia.

And, confusingly, there seems to be a problem with the Gender Advisory Equality Board (GEAB)

Defence says the GEAB is not focused on ‘LGBTI matters’ but concerns itself with ‘gender equality priorities’. This is so, even though non-cis popular opinion would have us believe that LGBTI matters do involve gender, or the bending of gender, or the transitioning of gender because gender is different than sex (or something like that). Just check out the ‘Gender Bread Person’ for details.

Fortunately, we’re only a transgender GEAB Chairhuman away from solving this issue, so we can all rest easy.

For those not aware, all of the head honchos in the military are members of the GEAB, including the Chief of Defence Force’s very own Gender Advisor and six hanger-onnerers from outside Defence.

That’s code for ‘let the Australian Human Rights Commission command the military’.

Unlike the GEAB, the Army Gender Diversity Executive Council (AGDEC) does focus on LGBTI matters and provides advice to the Chief of Army about cultural reform initiatives to broaden the culture, diversity and inclusion agenda ‘within Army’.

AGDEC proudly boasts that it is chaired by the Chief of Army, and includes the Chief of Army Senior Advisory Committee plus selected ‘invited members to ensure a diverse membership’.

The Navy has Diversity Reference Groups (DRGs). There’s one for women, another for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, an ‘Intercultural’ group plus the obligatory ‘Diverse sexuality and gender’ group.

No one else needs diversity so they don’t have a diversity reference group. Thanks for asking though.

Together, they support the Navy Diversity and Inclusion Council (NDIC)

And it’s obvious that the Royal Australian Navy takes diversity seriously, even though the NDIC is only chaired by the Deputy Chief of Navy (DCN), because it has a whole Directorate of Diversity and Inclusion (DDI).

The DDI, I think, sails around the South China Sea ensuring that rainbows are placed on every disputed atoll.

As the Navy’s ‘peak decision making body on diversity and inclusion’, the DDI:

ensures alignment of effort with critical workforce issues; agreement on priorities; resourcing; and accountability and sponsorship. It acts to remove barriers to cultural reform and be a forum for innovation.

Anyway, DCN heads the NDIC which is supported by DRGs and reports to the Chief of Navy Senior Advisory Committee through the Deputy Chief of Navy as Head Navy People, Training and Reputation. That chain of command looks something like this:

Scribble

Meanwhile, the Royal Australian Air Force just has a Chief of Air Force Diversity and Gender Advisor. This role was recently expanded to include broader diversity matters, including LGBTI.

On top of all of this, the Defence Pride Network was launched in 2015. It is a voluntary, informal employee network which is facilitated by the Defence People Group, Diversity Directorate but it does not yet have a formal arrangement.

That is still coming as it ‘re-establishes its governance and position structures’.

Defence has also appointed LGBTI champions within its senior leadership group. There are only two of them and I’m not sure which letter of the LGBTIWHATEVER they represent. They are the Vice Chief of the Defence Force and the First Assistance Secretary People Services.

The good news for taxpayers is that none of this costs any money according to Defence’s answer to Senate estimates. All of these people do all of this work as part of the normal course of their duties.

In other words, there is a cost to the taxpayer because it seems that an entire Army group, a couple of fleets and some chick from the RAAF are being paid full time to use the Australian Defence Force to promote LGBTIWHATEVER agendas. And in the process it is not clear at all that anyone in Russell Offices is doing anything that the Australian Defence Force used to do.

Given this, it should also be no surprise whatsoever that Defence has also sheepishly admitted that rogue LGBTI elements are operating in the military.

Someone, somewhere launched a program to place little ‘rainbows’ next to the names of LGBTI ‘allies’ on the Defence Corporate Directory. Emails were sent out to Defence members asking them to sign a form acknowledging that they were an ‘ally’ so they could get the rainbow tick of approval. The flip side, of course, is that it would have been immediately clear to the entire Defence Force which members of the military did not want to wear a rainbow.

Now Defence admits:

The initiative to identify Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) allies within the Defence corporate directory was not formally authorised or approved and was launched prematurely. The identifiers within the corporate directory have since been removed.

However, it seems that no action has been taken against those responsible for this attempt to ‘out’ non-LGBTI allies. And I’m pretty sure that if this webpage did not create a stir about this totalitarian attempt to force all Defence members to toe the rainbow line the initiative would still be going.

Well done to those Defence personnel who had the courage to raise this issue with me.

Defence has also admitted that orders were issued to Defence personnel under the title of ‘DEFGLIS’. That is, the Defence Gay and Lesbian Information Service, an organisation that has campaigned for ‘same-sex’ marriage and also seeks to remove freedoms from Christian schools, was named as the authority for orders relating to Defence personnel marching in the Mardi Gras in 2012.

However, Defence states that this was an ‘error’. That ‘error’ was identified by me back in 2012 and when I raised concerns about it, Defence decided that it should respond by booting me from service.

That sounds fair.

And since 2012 Defence has paid DEFGLIS almost $30,000, spent almost another $20,000 on the Mardi Gras and coughed up another $10,000 for rainbow pride pins (which, by a strange coincidence considering the taxpayer has already forked out for them, you can purchase from the DEFGLIS website).

Defence also admits that it consults with DEFGLIS in relation to media releases, allows DEFGLIS to place military ‘orders’ on its webpages, takes DEFGLIS’ complaints about non-LGBT ally Defence members ‘very seriously’, backs DEFGLIS’ calls to weed out ‘pockets of resistance’, supports DEFGLIS activities and is happy for DEFGLIS personnel to use Defence computer networks for DEFGLIS purposes.

Given all of this, I’m not really sure why Defence now admits that it was a ‘mistake’ to allow orders to be issued under the name of DEFGLIS in the first place. This organisation pretty much seems to be in charge.

Thanks to Senator Fraser Anning for asking the questions that elicited these astonishing answers.

You can read them all in full here and here.

Support laws ending the seal of the Catholic confessional? This is what you are asking for…

Posted by on 3:25 pm in Featured, Politics, Values | 6 comments

Support laws ending the seal of the Catholic confessional? This is what you are asking for…

So the South Australian government now requires priests to break the seal of confessional. The Australian Capital Territory is going to follow suit. And the other states and territories are being peer-group pressured to do so as well.

Let me be very clear: these laws will not stop child sexual abuse. They will only result in the framing of innocent priests.

There will only be two groups of informants when it comes to allegations that priests have not obeyed the law: convicted paedophiles who maliciously and cowardly seek to take others down with them for a reduced penalty and vexatious activists who simply hate the Catholic Church.

Let’s look at the first type: the convicted paedophile.

Brother Bloggs has been caught abusing children. During the investigations he realises that the gig is up and he is going to down. So he enters into a deal with prosecutors.

Bloggs will reveal all, plead guilty and in return the prosecutors will not seek the maximum sentence.

Bloggs decides that it will help him if he claims that he confessed to Father Smith that he was a paedophile. He gives a bogus statement that it was in the confessional at Our Lady’s Cathedral on 10 October during morning Mass.

Bloggs lies that Father Smith gave him three Hail Marys and sent him on his way. And then he sobs to prosecutors that he desperately wanted help and not only did Smith fail to inform the authorities, he failed to provide any to Bloggs either.

So Bloggs’ crimes continued. But this time it was not his fault but Father Smith who is to blame.

Bloggs goes on to tell the authorities that he confessed to Father Smith again on 17 November and 23 December.

The police call Father Smith in for questioning.

And Father Smith does what all good Catholic priests would: he refuses to make any comment about who confessed to him and what the confession entailed.

On the one hand, you have a paedophile with dates and times, albeit entirely fictional. And on the other hand you have a priest refusing to say anything at all.

It will be up to the courts to decide which witness is more reliable. So good luck to Father Smith who provides no evidence at all. He, almost certainly, will be hit with charges and found guilty.

In case one, the only effect of these laws will be to help actual child abusers receive lower sentences in return for their making false complaints against others who will refuse to contest the evidence.

Well done South Australia.

The second group of complainants will be vexatious activists.

Johnny Hates Catholics is a rainbow-waving homosexual. His mate, Liberty Lawfare, prides himself on hating Catholics more and waving his rainbows higher.

They come up with a plan to highlight how hateful Catholics are.

Johnny rocks up to the cathedral and takes a selfie outside the front door and another in the confessional line. Liberty does the same. Then, one after the other, the go in and confess. They confess in great detail.

Johnny gives a name. He gives an address. He gives an email account.

And he gives the names, dates, locations and times of ‘offences’ against his victims. And he goes on to state that he is planning to do it all again and is just letting Father Smith know because Father Smith won’t do anything about it.

Father Smith refuses absolution and tells Johnny to get the hell out of the confessional.

The confession of paedophilia, of course, is entirely fictional. But when it comes to South Australia’s new laws regulating the Catholic confessional that is also entirely irrelevant.

All that matters is that the priest, upon hearing this information, must report it to the authorities. It makes no difference whether the information is true or false. It will be up to the state to determine that in an investigation.

Johnny Hates Catholics leaves the confessional and is replaced by Liberty Lawfare. He goes on to provide exactly the same information.

They then wait a week before heading off to visit the local constabulary.

There they tell the coppers that Father Smith has not reported information relating to suspected child abuse.

How do they know?

Well, they’ve got two eye-witness accounts, along with photos of the exact time and location of the confessional.

The police immediately grasp that the actual confession was bogus. But they also grasp that, according to the law, this is not the point.

The point is that Father Smith was obligated to report the confession to the authorities and he did not. More importantly, when he is questioned (probably by a Gay Liaison Police Officer) he refuses to disclose the information that he was provided.

And that is a crime.

Now it is true that South Australia’s laws allow for vexatious complaints to be dismissed. But a lot hinges on the legal definition of ‘vexatious’. Both examples above are clearly vexatious but the first will never be dismissed as being vexatious.

The second example may seem vexatious to an ordinary person, but the law will look at whether there was any merit to the complaint. And, according to the law, there is merit: the law says information must be reported and it was not.

So the complaint might be vexatious in the sense that the whole thing was a set up. But it was not vexatious legally because there is clear evidence that a crime was committed.

And for those who think to themselves that surely our legal system would not allow such an abuse to occur, think again. I have ended up in the High Court for a homosexual vilification complaint that involved the complainer complaining about his own comment that he left on my Facebook page.

And the High Court did not dismiss the complaint because of that. It was dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, meaning that if I did live in New South Wales the complaint would go ahead.

So well done to South Australia again. In case two the only effect of these laws will be to provide a mechanism for priest haters to have them charged with criminal offences for doing what priests do: hearing confessions.

These laws are madness.

And to prove this point entirely, the same section that essentially requires priests to abuse religious sacraments so that they become a tool of Big Brother also allows for complaints to be made regarding potential physical harm of ‘unborn’ children.

Here is the section of this law:

(4) A person reports a suspicion under this section by doing 1 or more of the following:

(a) making a telephone notification to a telephone number determined by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection;

“Note—”

This telephone line is currently known as the Child Abuse Report Line or CARL .

(b) making an electronic notification on an electronic reporting system determined by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection;

(c) by reporting their suspicion to a person of a class, or occupying a position of a class, specified by the Minister by notice in the Gazette;

(d) reporting their suspicion in any other manner set out in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph,

and, in each case, providing—

(e) —

(i) in the case of an  unborn  child—the name and address (if known) of the mother of the  unborn  child; or

(ii) in any other case—the name and address (if known) of the child or young person; and

I’m not sure whether the South Australian government is aware of what happens during an abortion, but usually it involves ripping the limbs off an ‘unborn child’, then crushing its skull and vacuuming it into a medical waste bag. Or having the mother ingest a series of drugs that results in the delivery of a baby that is usually dead but not uncommonly is still alive and left to lie crying on a medical tray until it takes its last breath.

Either way, something that meets the definition of harm occurs to the unborn or even born child.

The bad news for those involved in the abortion industry, I guess, is that the South Australian government does not want them to find forgiveness in the confessional.

The good news for the abortion industry is that, unlike priests, there is no mandatory reporting requirement for medical practitioners who become aware that an unborn child is about to suffer harm. They ‘may’ report it. And then it ‘may’ be examined. Or not.

This is where insanity becomes reality.

Thousands of unborn children will continue to face the utmost terminal harm in South Australia under the protection of laws that allegedly exist to protect children, while those same laws will be used to frame Catholic priests as criminals by paedophiles and church-hating activists.

And in the process, the state will attempt to nationalise the Catholic Church with all the dreadful consequences that necessarily follow when states decide morality without reference to the natural law or any higher moral authority than themselves.

Authority becomes nothing more than might is right. Morality becomes nothing more than the whim of those in power. In those circumstances, revolution will become the norm and the guillotine (or the anti-discrimination star chamber merely capable of stripping assets) will be placed front and centre. That is where we are headed. It will be, all too sadly, a place where mankind has been before but Australia has not.

God doesn’t need to punish us. The dreadful impacts of these laws will cause our society enough misery all by themselves…

Dumping due process (or war crime trials by media)

Posted by on 7:14 pm in Defence, Featured | 12 comments

Dumping due process (or war crime trials by media)

One of the fundamental legal principles of our civilisation is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

This should be particularly so when it comes to allegations of war crimes levelled against our soldiers on operations. They put their lives on the line in the most dangerous of circumstances at the behest of our government. They deserve, at the very least, due process.

Unfortunately, this principle appears to have been thrown out the window in the modern Australian Defence Force.

Let’s not beat around the bush: since Friday allegations have been aired in Fairfax media and on the ABC that in 2012 members of the SAS engaged in murder and then a conspiracy to cover it up:

The SASR soldier, nicknamed “Leonidas” by a fellow soldier after a Spartan warrior, kicked the handcuffed detainee off the edge of a small cliff, badly injuring his face, according to claims of two defence force insiders who witnessed the event.

As the detainee lay injured, hands still bound, the two witnesses say Leonidas was party to the decision among soldiers to “get him out of his misery.”

The journalists who wrote this story, Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters, made it very clear that they believed that these allegations were more than mere rumours:

Now, five years after Ali Jan was walked towards the cliff edge, rumour has hardened into allegations, and then into evidence. Fairfax Media has spent months looking into Ali Jan’s fate as part of broader investigation into the behaviour of SASR forces in Afghanistan. The investigation involved interviews with dozens of current and former soldiers and senior officials, and unearthed highly confidential documents and briefings. Fairfax Media also hired an Afghan journalist to track down Darwan villagers and Ali Jan’s’s family to tell their story.

Among the special forces soldiers risking their careers to brief Fairfax reporters are those who have also been summoned to give evidence to a special inquiry now being held into the actions of Australians in Afghanistan. This inquiry is run by a Supreme Court judge with the backing of top military officials.

Behind closed doors, the words “war crimes” are being used. Not only specific incidents, but the entire culture and command structure of Australia’s most renowned and trusted fighting force is now under scrutiny in a manner unprecedented in Australian military history.

The ‘suspect’? According to Fairfax media, ‘Leonidas’ had completed multiple tours of Afghanistan before deploying again in 2012, has tattoos and was known for his courage.

That could be half the SAS who are now unjustly tarred with the brush of war crimes.

But given the details in the Fairfax reporting, it should come as no surprise that there are names being thrown around on the rumour mill. Reputations have already been tarnished, even though no charges have been laid and no findings have been made.

Unfortunately, it is highly likely that at some point one or more brave Australians will be fingered in the media as war criminals, even though they have faced no trial at all.

Rather ironic, isn’t it.

Allegations of murder are serious. And they should be taken seriously.

But here’s the rub: there is no proper investigation into these allegations. One can only wonder why.

Yes. There has been a 2016 ‘war crimes’ report from a feminist sociologist.

Yes. The Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) has been running a separate inquiry since 2016 to advise the chain of command on how to deal with the allegations.

Yes. We now have a third ‘inquiry’ being led by the former ASIO boss, David Irvine, examining undetailed ‘reforms’ within the SAS.

And yes, we now also have trial by media.

Unfortunately, none of these processes are the due process.

Feminist sociologists are not criminal prosecutors facing a burden of proof. And neither are journalists at Fairfax or the ABC. And with all due respect to the work being undertaken by Supreme Court judge Paul Brereton and David Irvine, neither of their ongoing investigations have the power to lay charges or make criminal findings.

All they can do is recommend what should have been done in the first place: hand the matter over to the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS) or the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

So in terms of dealing with the allegations, all these ‘inquiries’ are pointless.

We now have a bizarre situation where we are supposed to believe that two separate witnesses have made statements to the effect that they witnessed a murder and yet neither ADFIS nor the AFP have been called in.

Instead, a shadowy and self-appointed prosecution has been given free rein to air allegations in public via the media while the ‘defendant’ has had no fair chance to lay his side of the story at all.

Due process and natural justice have been jettisoned.

Furthermore, one could easily form the impression that the media trial has been given a green light by the chain of command.

Witnesses from the Brereton inquiry seem to be leaving its hearing rooms and heading straight over to the Sydney Morning Herald, almost as if they have been directed to do so as part of some media operations campaign to shape public opinion. Fairfax journalists claim they have spoken to dozens of SAS members and that they have managed to obtain a report from feminist sociologist, Samantha Crompvoets, that Defence has previously refused to release.

Newspaper journalists appear to have been given access to all the ‘evidence’ (or should that be rumours) while the criminal prosecutors have not.

Even if none of this is condoned by military commanders, they are still responsible for failing to follow due process and instead setting up a parallel system of pointless inquiries that were always likely to end up with trial by media.

Perhaps the best way of understanding this outrageous situation is by contemplating this: in the six years since Fairfax states the allegations were first made, Defence has deployed a feminist and banned images of the Grim Reaper. And launched an IGADF inquiry to provide recommendations to senior commanders about how to deal with ‘war crimes’ allegations.

What a joke.

The fact that our military leadership has to have an inquiry into what it should do with allegations of war crimes is far more concerning than the actual allegations themselves.

If the current Chief of Army and former Special Operations Commander truly don’t know what to do with these allegations then neither of them should have been placed into these positions of responsibility.

The correct response to these allegations is simple: spare the Army from feminist sociologists and if there is evidence of murder that could result in a conviction, lay charges under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. If not, the matter ends there. And ‘there’ should have been back in 2012.

All of this reminds me of David Morrison.

When he was Chief of Army the ‘Jedi Council’ scandal was beat up to the media and Morrison went on to become Australian of the Year and land a cushy job with the Diversity Council of Australia. Along the way, a lieutenant colonel was unjustly framed, leading him to attempt suicide.

A cynic might question whether something similar is happening again.

The Chief of Army, who after six years of serious allegations is yet to call in the criminal investigators, is being praised in the media for his handling of this affair:

The silver lining for the Australian Defence Force is that the alleged war crimes have been exposed by SASR whistleblowers who have been backed by certain high-ranking officers, including now former major-general Jeff Sengelman and incoming defence force chief Angus Campbell.

As I said at above, these allegations are serious and should be taken seriously.

Yet the ‘whistleblowers’, who Fairfax claims are backed by the Chief of Army, have not been directed to speak with police and have instead been briefing the media.

The whole process is wrong, leaving Defence likely to get the worst possible outcomes.

If there is no substance to the rumours (which was the outcome of other war crimes accusations), senior leadership have allowed Australia’s bravest soldiers to be unfairly tarnished with allegations of murder.

If there is something to this story, Army commanders have failed to launch any proper inquiry and allowed the creation of circumstances that may prejudice any future criminal trial.

And in both cases, instead of dealing with the causative problems that were always likely to lead to problems within the SAS (such as the unsustainable over-deployment of the SAS due to the political decision to avoid casualties in the Army’s combat units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan), the SAS is likely to succumb to the next round of feminist social engineering within the Australian Defence Force.

Either way, the greatest casualties in this scandal seem likely to be morale, capability and the rule of law…

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares

Share This

Share this post with your friends!