Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
Yeah their supercilious laughter enraged a few on the ground.
They look like window cleaners to me
They must be the rightwingerswringers then.... after all, only the left are capable of rage
Please Show your Support for SONIA KRUGER ...... She's Entitled to voice her opinion ...... OUR #FreedomOfSpeech is being replaced by Blasphemy Laws
Today's #SoniaKruger #fails to have #racism complaint dismissed two years after she said #Muslims should be #banned from Australia
TODAY Extra and The Voice host Sonia Kruger has failed to have a racial vilification complaint made against her dismissed nearly two years after she sparked a social media storm for agreeing Australian borders should be closed to Muslims.
The matter will now proceed for directions next month after the Civil and Administrative Tribunal today refused the Nine Network’s application to have the complaint dismissed without hearing.
The complaint has been made by Sam Ekermawi, a Muslim living in Australia, who said the Nine Network had vilified “ethnic Muslim Australians”.
The tribunal heard evidence he has been involved in 32 hearings before courts and tribunals — 22 them related to vilification complaints.
In July 2016 Kruger said she agreed with the proposition Australian borders should be closed to Muslims while discussing a newspaper article written by News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt on a “Mixed Grill” segment of The Today Show.
“I mean, 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,” she said on the show.
Sonia Kruger said, “I want to feel safe, as all of our citizens do, when they go out to celebrate Australia Day.”
“Now I have a lot of very good friends who are Muslim, who are peace-loving who are beautiful people, but there are fanatics.
“…. 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.”
In an email to the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW in March last year Ekermawi wrote: “Kruger wants borders closed to Muslims, in that she’s implying that they are terrorists (sic) to dehumanise them.”
“Why not worried about other Nations children, who’s daily, been exposed to crimes of war and crimes against humanities? (sic).”
Under the Anti-Discrimination Act it is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or people on the ground of race.
The Nine Network had applied to have Ekermawi’s complaint dismissed by submitting the broadcast was a discussion about Muslim religion and migration, not about “race”.
It was also submitted he hadn’t identified critical elements of his own case such as how the broadcaster incites hatred, serious ridicule or serious contempt.
Channel 9 and Kruger also submitted that given Ekermawi’s “track record” with vilification complaints it would be an abuse of the tribunal’s processes to allow the complaint to proceed.
However NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal deputy president Nancy Hennessy refused the application.
“A complaint should not be summarily dismissed except in a very clear case,” she said.
The matter is listed for directions on June 19.
I reckon there will be at least one member here who will be happy to lead Sonya to the gallows:
Where the True Trolls Troll... Lot's to learn in this interview.
Probably the most balanced and comprehensive report I have seen yet on the Tommy Robinson issue.
Tommy Robinson Drew Attention to ‘Grooming Gangs.’ Britain Has Persecuted Him.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/tommy-robinson-grooming-gangs-britain-persecutes-journalist
The problem — as I said in 2015 — is that any challenge Robinson presents is all a secondary issue. The primary issue is that for years the British state allowed gangs of men to rape thousands of young girls across Britain. For years the police, politicians, Crown Prosecution Service, and every other arm of the state ostensibly dedicated to protecting these girls failed them. As a number of government inquires have concluded, they turned their face away from these girls because they were terrified of the accusations of racism that would come their way if they did address them. They decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation.
By contrast, Tommy Robinson thought it was worth the aggravation, even if that meant having his whole life turned upside down. Some years ago, after crawling over all of his personal affairs and the affairs of all his immediate family, the police found an irregularity on a mortgage application, prosecuted Robinson, convicted him, and sent him to prison on that charge. In prison he was assaulted and almost killed by Muslim inmates.
Tommy Robinson will be in prison for another year. And all those people happy with the status quo will breathe a sigh of relief.
What can be said with absolute certainty is that Tommy Robinson has been treated with greater suspicion and a greater presumption of guilt by the United Kingdom than any Islamic extremist or mass rapist ever has been. That should be — yet is not — a national scandal. If even one mullah or sheikh had been treated with the presumption of guilt that Robinson has received, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the rest of them would be all over the U.K. authorities. But different standards apply to Robinson.
my bolds
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...tions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
All the laws and legal stuff here.
Good find. Worth a read.
It's quite clear that "Tommy" was aware that he shouldn't be attempting to "live broadcast" the trial while it was still running (and had been warned and convicted of a similar action earlier). Of course this won't make any difference to the mob baying "Freedom of Speech" and demanding his release.
Live broadcasting the trial?Good find. Worth a read.
It's quite clear that "Tommy" was aware that he shouldn't be attempting to "live broadcast" the trial while it was still running (and had been warned and convicted of a similar action earlier). Of course this won't make any difference to the mob baying "Freedom of Speech" and demanding his release.
I think I read that you can't film in any way to prejudice the case.Live broadcasting the trial?
You might want to revise as that is not accurate, notwithstanding other possible issues, not a foot was placed on court property.
I understand there is going to be some sort of "appeal" or challenge for want of a better word, so we will all need to stay tuned for that.
By the way, that "baying mob" are mostly moderate middle and working class people sick of what is happening to their country.
My barrister friend says it wasn't the filming so much as the live streaming that was the purported problem.I think I read that you can't film in any way to prejudice the case.
The other thing is the innocent till proven guilty.
If they had been found guilty he could release footage possibly(appeals)?
I don't like what they did to Tommy. But surely someone could have told him don't film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?