Antifa Free Speech Canadian professor’s “idiotic” defence of Antifa


Fact check on Canadian professor’s “idiotic” defence of Antifa | David Menzies


Freedom of Speech – Antifa the Fascists, Vict Police the Conspirators – FREE SPEECH COALITION

“To pay these bills would incentivise violence” Dave Pellowe


My grandfather is a 96 yr old German. When seeing Antifa videos, he shakes his head and says; “We didnt think it could happen in Germany either. These people (Antifa) act and sound like the NAZI party’s Sturmabteilung. Stop them now or you’ll regret it.”

— Landon Simms (@simms_landon) August 13, 2018


I’m refusing to pay the Victoria Police bill for the riot at Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux


I’ve been interviewed on Outsiders (Sky News)

Refusing to pay police for protection – Dave Pellowe on 3AW Mornings with Neil Mitchell



Alan Jones discusses the Thugs’ Veto and the injustice of Victoria Police sending an invoice to targets of Antifa’s domestic terrorism.



David Pellow’s  press release : that I would be vigorously resisting the bill from Victoria Police for them keeping the peace outside the event I ran in Melbourne, I’ve been interviewed on Outsiders (Sky News), and by Neil Mitchell(3AW), Alan Jones (2GB) and Miranda Devine (Daily Telegraph podcast).

The other important announcement is your opportunity to nominate your favourite Australian Alt Media voice. No, this isn’t a gratuitous request for affirmation – as one of the organisers I’m ineligible to be nominated!

The Australian Free Speech Coalition’s Independent Media Award will be presented by me and another director of the AFSC at this year’s LibertyFest gala dinner. Please nominate your second favourite Alt Media voice now and share the opportunity on your social media.



Axiomatic Events Refuses to Pay Invoice for Police at Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux Tour Riots


Axiomatic Events director, Dave Pellowe, has sent Victoria Police a letter explaining why he is refusing to pay the invoice for $67,842.50 they sent Axiomatic for police services outside the Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux Live event in Melbourne on 20 July.

The letter from Axiomatic’s solicitor highlights concerns that, despite the skill and bravery of police on the ground in dealing with the violent behaviour of extremist individuals and organisations like Antifa, the government appears to blame the victim. Such a penalty gives the appearance of enabling the Thugs’ Veto, adding to the injuries extremists can inflict by inciting such protests.

Mr Pellowe is concerned that simply paying the crippling bill would create a precedent by which other event organisers around Australia will change or even cancel their plans to hold political events which might attract the unwanted attention of extremists, and subsequently an enormous bill from law enforcement.

“The Andrews government has the gall to call this ‘user pays’ policing, but the reality is that it’s victim-blaming. Our event was a normal sized crowd in a venue that routinely hosts such crowds. We broke no laws and went above and beyond to cooperate with police, and greatly appreciate the work they do. But if Police Minister Lisa Neville is looking for creative ways to fundraise for Victoria Police she can keep looking. The fair and just way to go about it would be to issue a $1,000 fine to every thug who blocked the highway, who abused & intimidated the mums, dads and kids who came along, who damaged private property and turned Melbourne into a Berkeley war zone. Sending us the bill for their lawlessness appears to be simply enabling the Thugs’ Veto.”

Axiomatic’s letter to Victoria Police further explains that their legal advice has been that if the Andrews government wanted to pursue the matter in Courts they would likely lose because the invoice radically undermines the practical exercise of common law rights and freedoms. The letter states, “The imposition of fees for the performance of essential police purposes is unlawful,” and quotes the Victoria Police Act (2013).

“The role of Victoria Police is to serve the Victorian Community and uphold the law so as to promote a safe, secure and orderly society.”

Mr Pellowe stated that not only is there at least one YouTube video of an extremist boasting of his contributions to the behaviour that saw Victoria Police invoice Axiomatic for keeping the peace and recruiting others to do the same in Brisbane, but that he’s already been informed of other political groups changing their plans to specifically avoid a “$68,000 police bill”.

“The effect this has on important public debates is devastating. We cannot let this stand. I implore Premier Daniel Andrews and Police Minister Lisa Neville to commit to upholding the peace at future political events without blaming the victims and to reconsider the comfort they’re inadvertently lending to the Thugs’ Veto.”



“I write in respect of issues arising from the proffering to Axiomatic Media Pty Ltd (“Axiomatic”) of a proposed costing for police services.

As you know, police officers were deployed on 20th July 2018 at Broadmeadows and at Somerton in response to the violent conduct of members of the CARF and YARD groups at each of those locations.  I understand that CARF and YARD are sub groups and/or affiliates of Antifa.  I am advised that these groups are well known to the North West Metro Specialist Operations and to Counter-Terrorism Command. The behaviour of members of the CARF and YARD groups at both locations on 20th July 2018 mirrored their behaviour at previous events in that they seek to prevent persons with whom they do not agree from speaking at public venues or from hearing other persons speak at such venues.

On the occasions in question on 20th July 2018, property damage was inflicted by CARF and YARD members.  I am told that CARF and YARD members spat, screamed and uttered abuse at the men and women boarding and alighting from the buses taking them to an event arranged by Axiomatic (“the event”).  I am informed that a number of male members of the CARF and YARD groups displayed their genitals to people boarding and alighting the buses.

The members of Victoria Police who were in attendance displayed great fortitude, skill and forbearance in dealing with the conduct of the members of the CARF and YARD groups at both locations. The representatives of Axiomatic and the members of the public who attended the event are sincerely grateful for the police presence on that day.  Axiomatic however, advise that they consider it very strange that only one arrest was made on the night and it is suspected that this particular outcome was a function of decisions made by persons other than those on site.

Your letter of 17th July 2018 enclosed an agreement that you wished Axiomatic to sign and information relating to the criteria that would enable Axiomatic to apply for a “fee waiver”.

The provision of police services were explicitly declined by Axiomatic upon the basis of the terms offered.  Subsequent police assistance therefore suggests a conclusion that any attempt on the part of the Victorian government through any of its instrumentalities to collect “fees” will not succeed.

If, however, there remains any intention on the part of Victoria Police to seek to recover from Axiomatic any “fees”, then please note that this attempt will be vigorously resisted.

Axiomatic is very concerned about the possibility of any future attempt by Victoria Police to utilise the power to levy fees purported to have been provided to it by the Regulations made under s277 of the Victoria Police Act. It is especially concerned about organised events whose viability may be threatened, as it was in this case, by the concurrence of two factors: first, the conduct of groups who publicly proclaim their intention to violently disrupt such events and to threaten and harm and terrify those attending them; and, second, the decision of the police, in response to such threat, to impose crippling financial penalties upon the promoters of such events merely because they have called upon the police to perform responsibilities which constitute the ordinary discharge of a core police responsibility.

That such events have commercial aspect, in no way deprives citizens attending them of an entitlement to have recourse to police protection if they are threatened. The victims of politically motivated violence and intimidatory conduct at public events are no less entitled to proper police protection merely because they purchased a ticket to participate in an event.

Axiomatic has understood during this experience that the police officers who are obliged to participate in this fee collection process in such circumstances are embarrassed and that they consider their integrity compromised.  It is suggested that many officers share the repugnance held by many members of the public to the idea of the State charging an impost for the carrying out of the most elemental of its obligations – protecting the lives and safety of its citizens.  The police officers with whom Axiomatic dealt were clearly discomfited by being perceived by the public as particeps criminis in the deliberate shutting down of public meetings promoting views that with which other groups disagree.

Axiomatic is of the view that members of Victorian police understand that such groups  follow the same the strategy each time political conservatives gather to listen to speeches by other conservatives.  That strategy is:

  1. To announce an intention to organise violent street opposition to the holding of a particular public event and enlist support for that opposition from the media.
  2. To elicit a fear on the part of those arranging the public event that the safety of participants and attendees may be at risk and cannot be guaranteed without police protection; then
  3. To rely upon the police to impose massive financial penalties upon those arranging such events so that those events that have been scheduled are cancelled and those that are in planning are abandoned.


If Victoria Police is obliged to be complicit in this strategy that is a matter of serious concern. It is subversive of public confidence in the rule of law.

Axiomatic has obtained advice from Counsel as to the remedies available to it or to any other promoter of a public speaking event in future who is threatened with the imposition of such levies when the event attracts the threat of violent closure from groups such as Antifa.  I now summarise that advice.

The use of a delegated regulatory power to impose fees for a purpose that radically undermines the practical exercise of common law rights and freedoms is highly likely, it has been  advised, to lead the Courts on judicial review to adopt a construction of the statutory provision which created the regulation-making power which is consistent with the purposes of the Act which brought Victoria Police in to being. The imposition of fees for the performance of essential police purposes is unlawful. Victoria Police may have been given various functions, but Section 8 of the Victoria Police Act (2013) strictly prescribes its purpose. It provides:

Role of Victoria Police

The role of Victoria Police is to serve the Victorian community and uphold the law so as to promote a safe, secure and orderly society.

Further, the exercise of the power to impose fees such as was threatened in this case may well provide occasion for the removal of any legal action arising therefrom to the High Court under section 39 of the Judiciary Act (1903) (Cwth). The High Court have long recognised an implied freedom of communication in relation to political matters as having its provenance in our Constitution, being one which conditions the exercise of the legislative power of the Commonwealth and States. There are a number of recent and important High Court decisions which contain dicta supportive of the exercise of the powers of the executive being similarly conditioned. The chilling effect upon political speech in Victoria of a situation where the lawless conduct of agitators can result in police imposition of massive financial penalties upon those whose free speech is attacked by them may well provide the ideal vehicle for the determination by the High Court of the question whether the implied freedom extends to executive action.

Whilst the advice given to Axiomatic is that the orthodox judicial review remedies would be successfully invoked without the need to resort to constitutional arguments, Axiomatic is cognisant of the importance of the freedoms that are at risk and of how significant a High Court clarification of this issue might be in protecting them. If necessary, Axiomatic will not hesitate to seek such a remedy or assist in others in doing so.

Axiomatic will be doing all that is possible, with the assistance of concerned members of the legal profession and of journalists and ordinary citizens, to disseminate publicly information about the availability of these remedies so that convenors or promoters of free speech events in Victoria will know how to respond effectively if Victoria Police attempt to impose such fees in such circumstances in the future.

That Victoria Police is now perceived as having accessorial responsibility for the violence perpetrated by agitators has disfigured its reputation. This is signally unfair to those officers, who, as noted above, assisted and protected members of the public on the 20th July 2018. Victoria Police will see their reputation restored as they return to a commitment to the core responsibilities of upholding the law and protecting the orderly exercise of free expression and free assembly.”

Campaign Against Racism and Fascism

The Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (CARF) is an anti-racist group based in London with a history going back to the mid-1970s. It was originally an anti-racist/anti-fascist paper published by Anti-Fascist Committees in Greater London, later it appeared as a section within the anti-Fascist Searchlight magazine, and later still it split with Searchlight to publish as an independent magazine for some years before closing down in 2003. The CARF editorial collective was always closely associated with the IRR (Institute of Race Relations) and the CARF group now operates as a support group for the IRR’s news output.

Muslim refugees to the British people “we do not accept British laws, you adopt our Sharia Laws”

Is Europe in Denial About the Islamist Threat?


They come as refugees and then want to live under Sharia law.
According to sharia laws:
– There is no freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
– There is no equality between people (the non-Muslim is not equal to the Muslim).
– There are no equal rights for men and women.
– There is no democracy or a separation between religion and state politics.
Sharia is incompatible with Western values.
The Western world must close its borders, deport illegal immigrants, and ban the Sharia laws.

Liberals and leftists in the West use the made up term “Islamophobia” to portray anyone who criticizes Islam as a “racist”.
Radical Muslim terrorists all over the world carry out terror attacks “in the name of Allah”.
They justify their violence by quoting verses from the Quran.
Islamophobia is a made up word created by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically to silence debate.
Liberals and leftists ignore the fact that Islam is an ideology that has nothing to do with race.
Islamophobia is a neologism created to silence any possible debate about the problems Islamic extremism has got with modernity, with the intention of using the collective post-colonial “guilt” to exempt a particular set of beliefs from scrutiny, analysis and criticism.
It’s a buzzword used in an attempt to silence anyone, whenever had legit questions or criticisms about the religion.

Islam is not a race. It’s a religion. There is an attempt in the West to impose a sharia-blasphemy law to criminalize criticism of Islam.
It started when Saudi Arabia and Muslim countries tried to pass a UN resolution to force Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam.
The Parliament in Canada passed “Motion M-103” to condemn the so-called “Islamophobia (Fear of Islam)” in a preparation for a blasphemy law in Canada.
According to the sharia blasphemy law anyone who criticizes Islam or the Prophet Muhammad should be killed.
Under Sharia blasphemy law in Saudi Arabia and Iran Muslims are executed if they are accused of blasphemy.
In Pakistan, the situation is even worse, radical Muslims use the blasphemy law to persecute the Christian minority.
Is this the law the liberals in the West want to adopt?

Tommy Robinson – if you want to know what the media doesn’t tell you

The Tommy Robinson Interview That Got Me Banned From The U.K. – Interview with Brittany Pettibone

42 minutes


And if you doubt Tommy’s version – Listen to this very sobering journalist report which includes some of the same stories Tommy told from Andrew Norfolk. Corruption across the board – Police, Politicians, Government services.

Published on 3 Jun 2018

31 March 2018

  • “The media want to write a story about me and basically for me to have no right to reply.”  !! How true has that statement proved to be
  • I think Muslims are victims of Islam and I would love to set them free
  • The media need the Boggy man
  • Free Speech
  • Antifa
  • Government funded campaign
  • I wasn’t allowed to spend more than $250 pounds a week
  • Tommy’s manifesto for political change
    • I would close down the 100’s of Sharia law courts we have .
    • I would outlaw Sharia law
    • I would stop accepting funding from “Qutar, Saudi Arabia & Iran
    • I would stop all Muslim immigration into our country
    • Temporarily I would stop the building of Mosques
    • Close down Midras ( Islamic schools that are bringing children up
    • Segregate our prison systems acknowledging that the ISIS terrorists are prisoners of war
    • Arm police officers
  • Grooming Gangs
    • Convictions- 90% are Muslim men 20% called Mohammed. Muslims only represent 4-5 % of population
    • this is not about rape or sexually satisfaction for the men who are doing it. It is about destroying those girls. To stop it we have to understand it. They are being taken as sexual slaves , all sanctioned by the Scripture
  • Immigration


Lord Pearson in Parliament “Can we talk about Islam?”

15 Mar 2018


Paul Weston – Tommy Robinson & The Traitor Class

Published on 8 Jun 2018

National Union of Journalists Guidelines here: Judicial Advisory Booklet here:



“Islamophobia” is a widely used yet vague and controversial term referring to anti-Muslim bigotry. In recent years, identifying, monitoring, reporting on, and working to ban Islamophobia worldwide has been a major focus of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
The OIC is an international body of 56 member states that is based in Saudi Arabia and active within the United Nations.

There has to be a will to bring us together – Andrew Bolt

THINK AGAIN – An Interview with Andrew Bolt. An agnostic who publically defends the Christian faith and believes Islam needs reform

Calvary Christian Church

  • Q & A bias against Christians
  • Media treats Christian church different to Muslims
  • excessive courtesy to Islam
  • 5 journalist subjected to threat to their lives here in Australia
  • I see the link between the chritian faith and the freedoms i enjoy, its no coincidence that the freer societies in the world are almost universally Christian.
  • I think Humility is what is missing
  • You are living on the fat of Christianity
  • Foreign Minister Julia Bishop described radical Islam as a greater threat to world peace than communism was during the height of cold war
  • as the twig is bent, so grows the tree. Jesus very different to Muhammod
  • Julia Bishop said to truly defeat Islamic state we need to challenge and repudiate its idealogy
  • Islam and Ideology –  an artificial distinction. need to say reform “What” The “What” is the Koran
  • The Church should be very explicit about its teachings.



Step 1: Shut down free Speech

An authoritarian ruler must get a grip.

The first policy that he imposes on his people shuts down free speech that expresses dissent and criticism, especially if the speech questions the leader. He takes any questioning of his opinions and decisions as a personal insult of him, the head of state, and therefore a threat to his society.

Muhammad laid down severe restrictions on such free speech. He assassinated many who insulted him. In the Quran, he promises death and eternal damnation if anyone deviates in words and action from Allah and his messenger. In the hadith (Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran), we read that he kills dissenters and insulters. Later legal rulings, rooted in the Quran and hadith, follow his lead and decree that hard-hitting speech must be stifled. Indeed, the dissenters must die, if they cross the line.

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2003, legendary American radio host Paul Harvey was asked by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to apologize for saying that Islam encourages killing. Dhimmi Watch provides the context of Harvey’s remarks. His comments have plenty of Quranic verses to back them up, but his free speech must be curtailed.

In 2004, Britain’s Robert Kilroy-Silk, presenter of a daytime TV show, wrote an article that used harsh language against Arabs. The Muslim Council of Britain denounced the rant and said that action should be taken against him. He has since resigned. The Muslim Council welcomed the news.

In 2005, Radical Muslims do not hesitate to riot if the Quran is desecrated. In honor of their holy book, they kill innocent people. This demonstrates how far radicals will go in responding to perceived insults of their religion.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on a vilification law in one of Australia’s states. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence, but the lawyer for the Muslim Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. However, Muslims may read passages from the Quran that call for harsh treatment of Jews and Christians. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed, either. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

[Editor’s and author’s update: The religious hate speech law has finally not succeeded. The bill, which “was aimed at extending the concept of the UK’s race hate laws to cover belief” lost by one vote. “[C]ritics said ministers’ proposals would have made it too wide-reaching.” (Sources: hereand here)]

In 2005, Radio host Michael Graham was fired for connecting Islam to terrorism. The Council on American Islamic Relations called this hate speech. The owner of the station demand that Graham apologized, but he refused. This is the article that started it all.

Why do these Muslims want to restrict unpleasant speech about their religion? Are they hiding anything? Are they embarrassed about something that sits at the core of their religion? These Muslims who would restrict free speech are following their prophet.

Here is how the story of repression of hard-hitting speech unfolds in early Islam. First, some verses in the Quran, analyzed in their literary and historical context, do not promise a happy life for dissenters and insulters. Second, the hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) records reliable traditions that spell out doom for dissenters and insulters. Third, later classical legal rulings, which are rooted in the Quran and hadith, do not promise tolerance for hard-hitting speech, to say the least. Next, we contrast the way of Jesus with the way of Muhammad. Needless to say, even though Jesus was often insulted, he did not order executions or lay down excessive rules against unpleasant speech.

Finally, we explore why the West must maintain its free speech, and we apply our findings to the world today.

read more