The Sonia Kruger case shows that Australians need a guarantee for freedom of speech

For those who have forgotten what the Sonia Kruger case was about, on the 18th of July 2016 on the Today show (channel 9), Kruger made some common sense remarks about Islamic immigration, following on from an article by Andrew Bolt on the subject.

Kruger made the point that a country with a low Muslim population would be less likely to suffer from Islamic extremists. [Her words are reprinted at the end of this article, along with a video from the TV show].

Sonia Kruger was subsequently taken to court in New South Wales, under that state’s political-multiculturalist laws. That class of law has been established in several states (and at the federal level) by the Liberal and Labor parties, in a blatant attempt to stifle criticism of Multiculturalism, Third World immigration, and the street-level realities of those two horns of the strategy designed to destroy Western Civilisation and the Western peoples. The creeping Islamification of our society is another of the realities that Multiculturalism and “diversity” has bestowed upon us.

Something that we didn’t see much of in the mainstream media’s reporting of the case was that it had been instigated by a serial litigant by the name of Sam Ekermawi, who “has been involved in 32 hearings before courts and tribunals, 22 of them related to vilification complaints, according to evidence heard by the tribunal” (reports The New Daily).

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided to dismiss the charges, because Sonia Kruger’s words were not considered to be racial vilification, as “the evidence does not support a finding that Muslims living in Australia are a ‘race’ by reason of a common ethnic or ethno-religious origin” (Section 102). However, it appears that Ekermawi’s case was poorly prepared, and so the Tribunal left the matter open for other litigants to make the same claim in other cases (the judges said “The result on this point, however, might have been different had there been different or additional, objective evidence.”)

Although Kruger only made some common sense remarks about Muslim immigration, with which most Australian would agree, the Tribunal portrayed her comments as encouraging hatred, rather than being a common sense solution to the high-risk problem of Islamic terrorism. The fact that the Tribunal deemed that her comments were not “reasonable” says a lot more about them, the fascist-like Nanny State, and Political Correctness gone mad, than it says about Sonia Kruger.

It is chilling to read the commentary found in various sections of the Tribunal’s decision. Their mindset would be more at home in Stalinist Russia, than they would be in a democratic Australia — in that they are breathtakingly undemocratic, showing an enormous lack of regard for the rights of Australians to freedom of speech:

Section 128) “In our view, such remarks would likely encourage hatred towards, or serious contempt for, Australian Muslims”.
Section 136) “She provided her own views and commentary on the issues and these additions were not just opinion, they were vilifying remarks in their own right.”
Section 148) “we cannot accept that the remarks of Ms Kruger were “reasonable”.”
Section 152) “Ms Kruger could have expressed her comments in a more measured manner to avoid a finding of vilification”.
Section 153) “Ms Kruger’s public remarks were still preserved and amounted to a stereotypical attack on all Muslims in Australia.”
Section 157) “However, we need not consider this question further in light of our conclusion as to whether the evidence establishes that Muslims living in Australia have a common ethno-religious origin. Apart from that issue, we would have found that both of the Respondents engaged in racial vilification of the Australian Muslim community, being Muslims living in Australia, in breach of s.20C of the ADA.”

The judges’ words in Section 157 appear to be saying (when read in conjunction with Section 102) that if the case had been prepared in a better manner, so as to convince the judges that “Muslims living in Australia are a ‘race’ by reason of a common ethnic or ethno-religious origin”, then Sonia Kruger and Channel Nine would have been found guilty of “racial vilification” (i.e. “we would have found that both of the Respondents engaged in racial vilification of the Australian Muslim community”).

What the Tribunal’s ruling means is that, if someone were to make the exact same comments in the state of Victoria, or in any other state with a similar brand of political-multiculturalist laws, that they could be found guilty by the state apparatus. The exact style of the political laws vary from state to state. Unlike New South Wales, Victoria has laws against both so-called racial and religious vilification — “offences” which are so vaguely defined that, were they to be enforced in full, half of the country could be fined or jailed under them.

There are several factors which are particularly concerning about the political-multiculturalist laws.

1) They are totally against the Western tradition of having freedom of speech on social issues.

2) The laws themselves are bogus. They are political laws designed to silence criticism of the ideological objectives of the big political parties.

3) The laws are part of a concerted effort by Multiculturalists, Cultural Marxists, and their fellow travellers to undermine the nations of the West.

4) Juries are not present at, or a part of, these political trials. The victims of these anti-freedom laws have no right to a trial by jury.

5) The process is the punishment.

The last-mentioned phrase bears repeating: “The process is the punishment”. Even if a victim wins against the Multiculturalists, the trial process can end up costing thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars (such as the Two Dannys case in Victoria, with the legal work carried out for the victims of the Multiculturalists being estimated at $500,000). Even if the victim wins, having to pay the resulting legal costs can be the same as receiving a fine of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The fact is that these political-multiculturalist laws are an anathema to our Western democratic society; they are just another part of a slowly emerging police state mindset encouraged by the neo-fascists of Political Correctness and the Nanny State.

It is time that Australians have their right to freedom of speech enshrined in a very concrete manner, so as to protect our democracy from those jack-booted Multiculturalists who would like to throw people in jail for disagreeing with them.

What we need is a referendum to insert into the Australian Constitution a guarantee that it shall be legal and proper for all citizens to be able to voice their opinions on any subjects, whether cultural, economic, historical, political, or social.

The Multiculturalists have clearly shown that they cannot be trusted with our freedom of speech, that they cannot be trusted to be guardians of our democratic rights, and therefore our inalienable rights must be embedded in our country’s Constitution — to protect our people from those who would slowly but surely destroy our nation, our freedoms, and our democracy, all in the name of “Multiculturalism”, “Tolerance”, and “Diversity”.

Heaven help us from those who seek to pave over our freedoms with their steamroller of “good intentions”. Our people and our freedoms needs protection from those politicians who were supposed to protect them in the first place.

* * * * * * * * * *

For those who are interested in the details of Sonia Kruger’s original comments, here are the relevant parts from the show:

Kruger: “Personally, I think Andrew Bolt has a point here, that there is a correlation between the number of people who, you know, are Muslim in a country and the number of terrorist attacks.
Now, I have a lot of very good friends who are Muslim, who are peace-loving, who are beautiful people, but there are fanatics.
And does the population, and the correlation between those two things, is it having an impact?
I mean, if you look at Japan, Japan has a population of 174 million, it has a hundred thousand people in that country who are Muslim. We never hear of terrorist attacks in Japan.
Personally, I would like to see it stopped now for Australia. Because I want to feel safe, as all of our citizens do, when they go out to celebrate Australia Day.
And I’d like to see freedom of speech and, Lisa I think, you know we’re seeing journalists threatened. . .”

[At this point David Campbell, a pro-Muslim panelist on the show, interrupts Kruger with his Leftist nonsense about Andrew Bolt’s article, saying “This breeds hate. This sort of article breeds hate.”]

… [Lisa Wilkinson asks: “But just, just to clarify, Sonia, are you saying that you would like our borders closed to Muslims at this point?”]

Kruger: “Yes, I would. I would. Because I think at this point…”

[Wilkinson interrupts with a snide little comment: “Which is the Donald Trump approach.”
Note: This sort of thing is a typical Leftist tactic, whereby they try to blur the issue by painting their opponent as being the same as someone who they regard as very negative (Leftists and Multiculturalists hate Donald Trump, so painting Kruger as being like Trump is a real slander in their eyes).]

[But Kruger doesn’t back down:]
“I think we have something like 500,000 now in our country and I … [then, in answer to Wilkinson’s interruption] … well, perhaps it is, but for the safely of the citizens here, I think it’s important.”

References:
“Sonia Kruger vilified Muslim people in Australia but her comments were not racist”, ABC News, 15 February 2019
“Sonia Kruger ‘vilified’ Muslims in Today show segment”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 February 2019 (Michaela Whitbourn)
“Racial vilification complaining against Nine dismissed but Sonia Kruger criticised”, News.com.au, 15 February 2019 (Benedict Brook)
“Tribunal finds Today host Sonia Kruger ‘vilified’ Muslims”, Perth Now (Seven West Media), 15 February 2019 (Perry Duffin)
“Sonia Kruger ‘vilified’ Muslims on Today show, tribunal rules”, The Guardian, 15 February 2019 (Amanda Meade)
“NSW tribunal finds Sonia Kruger vilified Muslims on Today Show segment”, Mumbrella, 15 February 2019 (Josie Tutty)
“Today’s Sonia Kruger fails to have racism complaint dismissed two years after she said Muslims should be banned from Australia”, Daily Mail, 29 May 2018 (Ben Hill)
“ Sonia Kruger to face tribunal over Muslims stance”, The New Daily, 29 May 2018 (Kate Halfpenny)
“Poll claims half of Australians support ban on Muslim immigration”, The New Daily, 21 September 2016
“Ban on Muslim immigration”, Essential Report, 21 September 2016
“Ekermawi v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2019] NSWCATAD 29”, Civil and Administrative Tribunal (New South Wales)

Further reading:
“Ismail al Wahwah demands Muslims murder Jews. Then does it again. Yet Sonia Kruger is the one in trouble?”, Michael Smith News, 25 July 2016
“Serial pest’s courtroom showdown with Sonia Kruger will further fuel white resentment”, XYZ, 1 June 2018 (David Hiscox)