“Human Rights” Nazis are jailing citizens without trial by jury

In a case that did not hit the big-time in the news, two people living in New South Wales were jailed under a Victorian law for publishing something on the internet in the United States. Under the auspices of the controversial Religious and Racial Tolerance Act the couple were tried by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, human rights division – without a jury to hear the merits of the case.

The fact is that so-called “Human Rights” officials are Nazis, petty beauracrats and state-paid legalistic activists who use communist-inspired laws to oppress those who hold views different to their own. As a prime example, this Multiculturalism law (the Religious and Racial Tolerance Act) is designed to

  • Stop criticism of Third World immigration, Islamification, and Asianisation.
  • Create a climate of fear in the Australian community, to make people keep their mouths shut (if they are not Politically Correct, that is).
  • Enable state-run court cases where there shall be no trial by jury.
  • Create a “legal” situation whereby telling the truth is irrelevant.

Vivienne Legg and Dyson Devine alleged that the secretive international society Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) was a paedophile ring. OTO then issued a complaint of racial vilification under the Religious and Racial Tolerance Act, 2001 (Vic.). Judge Harbison ordered that the couple be jailed for nine months, although the couple’s application for a judicial review was heard in the Supreme Court and they are now out after serving two months. However, their lawyer stated that they are now financially ruined.[1] It may well be that Legg and Devine are an unusual couple who slandered the good name of some people (which is what defamation laws are for, not “thought crime” laws). The point to be considered here is not the merits of this particular case, but what it shows about Australia’s system of so-called “justice”.

Multiculturalism laws are designed to destroy those legal rights which all Australians expect to have. The OTO case is reminscent of the trial of two pastors of Catch the Fire Ministries (“the two Dannys”) who were also brought up before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (again, no trial by jury) for speaking out against Islam.[2] In that case, the two Asian-born Christian pastors spoke the truth about Islam (which “offended” Muslims in their audience, who had been deliberately sent there by “Human Rights” activists to enable a legal case). The Islamic Council of Victoria mounted a legal case against them and the two Dannys very bravely and intelligently defended their rights to free speech. It was somewhat ironic that anti-freedom laws targeted against the white Australian majority were used by Muslims against Asians. During their trial the nastiness of the anti-truth provisions in the Multiculturalism law were revealed when the judge stated that telling the truth was no defence.

There we have it, the real purpose of Multiculturalism laws – to deny freedom of speech against those who would “dare” criticise Islam, Multiculturalism, Asianisation, etc.; to jail, bankrupt, or otherwise silence anyone who speaks out against the Globalists, the Politically Correct, and the other nation-killers who want to destroy Australia.

Various aspects of Australia’s legal system are long overdue for an overhaul, including the odious practice of judges being able to accuse citizens of “contempt of court” and to then judge their own case, wherein they become, in effect, both opponent and referee. Disturbing trends that are taking away our right to trial by a jury of fellow citizens are occurring not only in Australia but also across the world.[3] All citizens should have the right to trial by jury in all legal cases, whether in criminal or civil cases, including contempt of court matters and appeals; for it to be otherwise is anti-democratic and a denial of our rights as free people.

Having all legal cases heard before a jury of one’s fellow citizens helps to ensure our fundamental rights. Trials without jury seem to be occurring more frequently. Trials without jury are outrageous denials of justice, which should be opposed by all fair-minded Australians.

The right to trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Like so many other of our freedoms, this right is being eroded, bit by bit, so slowly that many citizens are unaware of it happening. It is time for Australians to reclaim their democracy by constitutionally instituting safeguards such as Citizens Initiated Referenda and Trial By Jury. We should settle for nothing less.


[1] Off To Jail – Under The Racial And Religious Tolerance Act!, Catch The Fire Ministries, 22 February 2008
Protest website lands two in jail [republished], Daily Examiner, 19 February 2008
Couple jailed for contempt in vilification case, The Age, 21 February 2008
Critics of occult group freed, Herald Sun, 21 February 2008
Apology frees jailed couple, The Age, 29 February 2008
Pro bono effort muzzles religion slur, Lawyers Weekly
Press releases, Ordo Templi Orientis Australia
Making internet legal history
Religious tolerance? Or corruption tolerance?, Why Democracy

[2] VCAT case – ‘The Two Dannys’: Update: 22 June 2007 – Religious Vilification complaint – finally resolved, Salt Shakers, 28 March 2007

[3] Cases Keep Flowing In, but the Jury Pool Is Idle [republished], New York Times, 30 April 2007
Times: Trial by jury on verge of extinction, democracy at risk, Raw Story, 29 April 2007
Ex-Wildcat Stoudamire won’t get a trial by jury, Tucson Citizen, 19 April 2007

See also:

  • Rights and Wrong [Australian site researched and written by John Wilson]
  • Fully Informed Jury Association, USA
  • Why Juries Matter, Consumer Rights Law Blog, 14 May 2007
  • Making Up Our Minds About Juries, Management Project, 2006
  • Democracy Defined Campaign
  • Trial by jury
  • Jurors’ Handbook: A Citizens Guide to Jury Duty, Caught.net
  • Jury, Wikipedia
  • Jury nullification, Wikipedia
  • Leave a Reply