the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has a different understanding of the word ‘victimisation’ than the rest of the English speaking world.

Well, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has done it again.

It’s referred another complaint from the world’s most offended man to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Actually, it’s referred eight more complaints from Garry Burns against me to the Tribunal.

You can see Garry’s website and the nice pictures he puts up of me here.

For those who don’t know, Garry Burns is the man who offered to provide my address to Islamic organisations, forcing me to move my family for their safety. That’s how ‘anti-discrimination activists’ roll.

By the way, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board thinks I’ve ‘victimised’ poor Garry by pointing these facts out. That’s how anti-discrimination boards roll. As a result, I face another costly legal proceeding and the prospect of a fine of up to $100,000. And if any fine is awarded, it’ll line Garry’s pockets.

It seems that the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board has a different understanding of the word ‘victimisation’ than the rest of the English speaking world.

As they say in the business, threatening the lives of conservatives can be rather lucrative, especially if they dare to talk about it. I know. Garry copied me in on an email he sent a while back to other homosexuals encouraging them to lodge complaints against me so that they could seize my house.

However, we’ll look at this whole ‘victimisation’ caper another time.

Today I want to focus on one complaint. The one about me linking to an Andrew Bolt article on Facebook.

You can see that Facebook post below:

Bernard Gaynor

I disagree with Andrew Bolt. The battle for homosexual marriage is not over.

But I do agree with these points that he raises today:

“But what will they now say to three adults wanting that right? To four?

Samuel Alito, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, asked just that last month, asking us to imagine “four people … all consenting adults, highly educated … What would be the logic of denying them the same right?”.

Let’s get specific. What would same-sex marriage advocates say to Sheik Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre, or Keysar Trad of the Islamic Friendship Association, who want polygamy allowed for Muslims.

Saying yes to same-sex marriage does not mean ending an argument.

It means opening new ones, with the survival of marriage at stake.

Are the new inheritors of the marriage tradition up to the awesome responsibility of defending the institution they are about to change?”

You can see that Facebook post below:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBernardGaynorBlog%2Fposts%2F691061477704987&width=500

You can read the complaint here.

You can read the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board’s initial letter notifying me of the complaint here.

You can read the Board’s letter notifying me that it had referred this complaint to the Tribunal here.

It states that the matter is being referred to the Tribunal because the President thinks it can’t be conciliated. It also states that the relevant section of the legislation was attached. But it wasn’t.

For the record, the President asked me if I would be willing to enter into conciliation this many times:

So I’m not sure how he arrived at his conclusion. Maybe Hey Hey It’s Saturday’s Plucka Duck machine has found a home in the black hole that lives in the basement of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.

At this point, I would like to bring in S.90C of the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977. It states:

90C Progress reports

The President must, as frequently as is reasonably convenient and, in any event, at periods not exceeding 90 days, give notice to the parties to the complaint of the steps taken for the purpose of the investigation.

The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that the Board’s initial letter was dated 6 August 2015 and the referral letter was dated 25 July 2016.

By my calculation, there are 354 days between those two dates.

The President’s progress reports about his ‘investigation’ are linked here.

You’ll notice that there is no link. That’s because the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board seemingly does not obey the statutory regulations he administers. Again, that’s how anti-discrimination boards roll.

They don’t follow their own laws, but they insist on applying them to citizens living in other states who are not subject to them.

I’m sure it makes sense to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, even if I can’t follow it.

Anyway, I rang the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board to ask them about this little oversight last week. A lovely lady named Ms Connie Santiago answered the phone. I believe her title could well be ‘Official Grand High Commissar of Bureaucratic Excuses, Soulless Destroyer of Common Sense and Chief Advisor to the Committee Entrusted with Undermining Legal Processes’.

She told me that the Board did not believe it necessary or reasonable to provide me with a progress report blah, blah, blah. Then she said I would need to put my query in writing if I wanted more detail.

At that point, I was filled with indignation of the righteous variety. I may have even lost my temper.

Just so you know, I have already asked the President numerous times in writing why he fails to provide progress reports about his alleged investigations. He has not responded once. I believe it’s because he doesn’t ‘do’ investigations at all. He, and the entire NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, simply exists to destroy respondent’s lives.

That’s how anti-discrimination boards roll.

I also informed Ms Santiago – again – that the Tribunal ruled last year that there was no jurisdiction to hear complaints under the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977 against people living outside New South Wales. You can read this ruling for yourself here.

I was told that that this ruling made the matter complicated. I’m still not sure how. In my mind it makes the matter very simple for the President to decline. And just so you know, the President has the power to decline complaints under the Act for this very reason. Or even for any other reason for that matter.

True, good ol’ Garry is appealing this decision. It may be overturned. But for the sake of all Australians, I hope not. Garry’s conduct should be confined to the state of New South Wales and the poor sods who voted in the government that funds the bureaucracy that exists only to process his never-ending complaint-a-thon (in fact, Gazza is responsible for almost all homosexual vilification complaints in the entire history of New South Wales).

This appeal now sits somewhere between the NSW Court of Appeal and my diminishing bank account. I understand that both the state of New South Wales and the Commonwealth are set to intervene. Who knows where it will end up?

But we do know where the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board wants it to end up.

It wants to be able to prosecute any Australian – indeed any citizen in the world – for the most mundane opposition to homosexual political activism.

It wants to be able to prosecute people like Andrew Bolt by proxy and without even notifying them that their words are about to be investigated in a legal proceeding.

Finally, it wants to be able to hold one person responsible for the actions of another.

This is totalitarianism, bureaucratic abuse and oppression straight out of 1984.

We can see this when we look at the complaint in detail. And we must remember that it is a complaint that I haveincited hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of homosexuals. Yet the complaint focuses almost entirely on the words of other people published under license with Facebook.

I did not publish these words. I did not author them. Other people did.

Yet the Anti-Discrimination Board, with all its secret investigatory powers, seems to be unable to comprehend this. Again, it seems suspiciously like the Board just doesn’t ‘do’ investigations and instead works as a rubber stamp for Garry Burns who, unfortunately for many reasons, has admitted many times that he is obsessed with me.

Thank you, Lord, for providing my purgatory here on earth.

So the Board is pushing ahead with the case against me, even as it fails to include Facebook, Andrew Bolt or anyone else who was actually responsible for writing or publishing the words that offended poor Garry so greatly in the complaint.

The entirety of my own words in this complaint are these:

I disagree with Andrew Bolt. The battle for homosexual marriage is not over.

But I do agree with these points that he raises today:

There is simply no way that any reasonable person could find that these words have incited anything, least of all hatred. As such, it’s probably proof that no one reasonable works at the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.

These words are clearly about homosexual marriage. So the Board is attempting to silence political opposition to homosexual marriage at a time when we are supposed to be having a national ‘debate’ and a plebiscite to legalise it.

And they clearly refer to an Andrew Bolt article, which I linked to. In order to demonstrate that I have not incited anything, I’ll now need to demonstrate that Andrew Bolt’s article has not incited anything either. That’s because this complaint is also about my link to that article.

It’s an artful way of putting Andrew Bolt on trial. And it’s deceptive too. The Board has decided that Andrew Bolt does not even need to be made aware of this complaint. As such, he is not able to defend his own words. However, I have notified Andrew Bolt of this situation.

At this point, I hope that all journalists and publishers are filled with the greatest concern. And they should be: the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has already set a precedent that it can make findings that internet publications breach the Act, even though the actual author is not a party to the complaint or able to defend his writing. Instead, the publications came before the Tribunal via prosecutions of third parties that had linked to them.

It’s trial by stealth where the defendant is not able to defend himself at all. And it’s conducted in a division headed by a magistrate who helps to fundraise for homosexual legal organisations, even while she’s sitting in on matters where those outfits are representing complainants. That’s a clear breach of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal’sCode of Conduct.

I write about that here.

And this same magistrate was also recused from a matter involving Mr Burns because evidence was presented that she held private conversations with him. You can read that ruling here.

In Andrew Bolt’s article he resigns himself to accepting that homosexual marriage will be legalised.

I disagree with him on that score.

But I do agree with him on his reflection that legalising homosexual marriage will result in calls for polygamy, especially from the Islamic community. Apparently, the Board wants debate about this issue silenced too.

It’s time for the New South Wales Attorney General to intervene and end this entire farce.

When the Parliament of New South Wales passed the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1977, it wanted people to be able to express opinions. That’s why it legislated that the Act would not make unlawful:

a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

However, Garry Burns, the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board and the old NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal teamed up to decide that basically nothing was reasonable or in the public interest. The Tribunal found that Victorian political candidate, Tess Corbett, was not entitled to this defence, even when she was asked on the campaign trail in 2013 about her views on proposed changes to anti-discrimination laws.

If a political candidate, presumably letting voters know what they think, is not able to express views as part of a debate or discussion about any act or matter in another state altogether, then no one is.

By the way, Garry Burns is pursuing Tess Corbett for contempt because she has not apologised in the Sydney Morning Herald to him. If he is successful, Tess could even end up in jail.

Some might say that this latest complaint won’t be successful; that the Tribunal will find in my favour again on jurisdiction and also fair public comment. Given the way things have gone in the past, that is some assumption to make.

Furthermore, it misses the point. This entire process is the punishment. Even if I win, it comes at my financial detriment. And it is a no cost tribunal, meaning Burns is unlikely to ever pay. In fact, the Tribunal has even ruled that I must pay his costs in an earlier appeal, even though I won it. That matter is now in the NSW Court of Appeal as well.

And if you are wondering how this has all come about, ponder this fact: the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board proudly reports to the NSW parliament that it consults with the Sydney Beat Project. This organisation exists to lodge complaints against police when they arrest homosexual men for engaging in acts of public indecency and it wants sex in public decriminalised.

Someone’s perverting justice in New South Wales and it’s not me. And if you’re expecting a response from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, don’t hold your breath. They’re protected by statutory secrecy provisions that mean they never have to be publicly accountable for their abuse of process and power.

Like I said, someone’s perverting justice in New South Wales.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s