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.

Muslims demand polygamy after Italy allows same-sex unions

Polygamy must become a civil right in Italy similar to same-sex civil unions, which the country allowed earlier this year, a prominent Muslim representative has said.

“There’s no reason for Italy not to accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons,” Hamza Piccardo, founder of the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations (UCOII), wrote in a controversial Facebook post last week.

“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims don’t agree with homosexual partnership and still they have to accept a system that allows it,” he stressed.

Piccardo’s statements caused uproar in Italy, a mainly Catholic country which still remains divided on the issue of civil unions.

“Centuries of fighting for women’s rights can’t simply be brushed aside,” Debora Serracchiani, deputy head of the ruling Democratic Party (PD), told Corriere della Sera paper.

Having several wives “has nothing to do with civil rights,” she added.

European MP for the Northern League, Paolo Grimoldi, pointed out:“This is the moderate Islam with which the Italian government intends to keep the dialogue open.”

Milan Mayor Giuseppe Sala also had to respond to the UCOII representative’s comments, as Piccardo used his photo with two gay men to illustrate his post.

“Piccardo said crazy things. Not only did I have no closeness with him, but I think his positions do much damage to the Islamic world,” Sala said, as cited by Askanews.

The UCOII founder then continued the debate on his Facebook page, saying that “a simple consideration of legal philosophy has sparked a backlash so grotesque as to be even funny.”

He reiterated his stance that polygamy is a civil right and a matter of “equality of citizens before the law.”

“Don’t underestimate the demographic effect of polygamy. It would rebalance population decline and the consequent need for foreign labor,” Piccardo stressed.

In May, the Italian parliament voted in favor of allowing civil unions between people of the same sex, despite strong pressure from the Catholic Church.

 

 

Source

If we can’t ban halal meat, we should at least let people know when they’re buying it

The UK now carries out more halal slaughter than the rest of Europe. Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such

The EU’s 2009 Slaughter Regulation requires all animals, including poultry, to be stunned before slaughter. Stunning is defined as any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instant death.

President Sarkozy says that halal is the 'issue which most preoccupies the French' AFP
President Sarkozy says that halal is the ‘issue which most preoccupies the French’ AFP

The UK has invoked the “religious exemption” from the EU’s “slaughter directive” and in practice now carries out more halal slaughter than the rest of Europe.  Traditional halal meat is expected to be killed by hand and must be blessed by the slaughterman. The exception allows for animals to be slaughtered without being stunned first.

The halal market is worth £2.6bn in Britain alone, and the export market is also growing particularly in the Middle East.  Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such.

No one knows at present what form Brexit will take.  Will we still be part of the “single market” and therefore bound by common rules?  Will we, on the contrary, be free to develop our own set of rules and standards, even if these go beyond EU requirements?

Personally, I much regret that the UK invoked the “religious exemption” in the first place.  I don’t believe that religious convictions, however deeply held, justify unnecessary cruelty to animals – a position which, I am glad to say, has been vigorously maintained for some time by organisations such as the British Veterinary Association, the Humane Slaughter Association and the RSPCA.  I would be happy to see specific UK legislation, drafted to replace the EU slaughter directive, explicitly preclude the “religious exemption” from pre-stunning requirements.

I recognise, however, given the strength of feeling in some quarters (and given the explicit commitments in the Conservative 2015 Manifesto to “protect methods of religious slaughter”), that “dropping the religious exemption” may be difficult to achieve in the present context, however desirable in the long term.

But there is, happily, another way of rapidly achieving an important step forward as far as the halal issue is concerned and that is to introduce in the UK a mandatory labelling scheme whereby any and all halal meat offered for sale (including for exports) would be clearly labelled as such.

The EU Commission at present is investigating just such an option but it’s likely to be a long time coming. Nor do individual EU member states have much freedom in this area to take unilateral action. Mandatory labelling schemes devised by individual EU member states for application in their own territory are almost always struck down by the EU authorities as being contrary to the principles of the Common Market. And, of course, EU-wide labelling schemes may no longer affect us at all.

But as far as the halal issue is concerned, Brexit might allow us to devise and implement precisely such a national labelling scheme.  The key building block here is of course the operation of informed consumer choice. If the consumer actually knows what he or she is buying, we would – I believe – in very short order see in a major reduction of halal products without at the same time offending the sensibilities of religious groups.

More generally, well-judged “post-Brexit” action by the UK in the field of animal welfare and the environment may act as a spur and a stimulus to our continental, but no longer-EU, partners to up their own game.

Many years ago, the UK banned the rearing of veal calves in crates.  The EU eventually followed suit. UK rules on animal experimentation were eventually followed by EU directives. We may no longer be able to throw our weight around in the EU, but there is a wider world out there – UN specialised agencies, for example – dealing with international animal welfare and environmental matters where we should be proud to take a lead.

Stanley Johnson is a former Conservative MEP, author and journalist. He was the Founder-Chairman of the European Parliament’s Intergroup Group on Animal Welfare and holder of the RSPCA’s Richard Martin Award for Outstanding Services to Animal Welfare

 

 

 

Source

Sell alcohol and pork or we will shut you down, French town tells halal supermarket

PA halal supermarket in a Paris suburb has been told by local authorities it must start selling alcohol and pork or else it will be shut down.

Halal france supermarket

Good Price discount mini-market in Colombes has been told by the local housing authority, from which it rents its premises, that it has not followed the conditions on the lease that stipulate that the shop must act as a “general food store.”

The authority argues that all members of the local community are not being served properly if there are no alcohol or pork products in the Good Price store, which is run as a franchise and which last year replaced another small supermarket.

“The mayor of Colombes, Nicole Goueta, went there herself and asked the owner to diversify the range of products by adding alcohol and non-halal meats,” the mayor’s chief of staff, Jérôme Besnard, told The Telegraph.

He said locals, particularly older residents, had complained that they could no longer get the full range of products at Good Price, which replaced a regular supermarket, and had to travel some distance now to do their shopping.

“We want a social mix. We don’t want any area that is only Muslim or any area where there are no Muslims,” Mr Besnard said, adding that the town’s reaction would have been the same had a kosher shop opened on that spot.

The Colombes housing authority argues that the store breaches French republican principles by prioritising a certain group within society rather than catering to all categories.

It has taken legal action to bring an end to the lease which would normally run until 2019. The case goes to court in October.

Soulemane Yalcin, who runs the shop under franchise, said he was merely catering to the demands of his customers in this area of large public housing estates.

“It’s business,” said Mr Yalcin.

“I look around me and I target what I see. The lease states ‘general food store and related activities’ – but it all depends on how you interpret ‘related activities’,” he told Le Parisien newspaper.

He has hired a lawyer to fight the housing authority’s bid to get him evicted.

The row in Colombes came as another town – this time in the south of France – decided to take action to stop another perceived breach of republican principles.

The mayor of Pennes-Mirabeau, near Marseille, is seeking to ban an event at a water park that is open only to burkini-clad women and children.

The event organised by a local community group said the need for modest swimwear was because there would be male lifeguards on duty at the Speedwater Park venue.

Burkinis are banned at municipal pools in France, as are women-only events, but private venues are in theory allowed to host them.

But the mayor of Pennes-Mirabeau said he was outraged by this “provocation” and that he would use a bylaw to ban it on the grounds that it is likely to cause public disorder.

Who is the enemy? Take a look at the OIC

Organisation of Islamic Cooperation- OIC

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is an international organization founded in 1969 consisting of 57 member states. The organisation states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony”.

The OIC has permanent delegations to the United Nations and the European Union. The official languages of the OIC are Arabic, English, and French.

Founded in Saudi Arabia, its HQ is in Saudi Arabia and largly funded by Saudi Arabia In 2008 Saudi Arabia contributed $30 million and the next contributor was Kwait at $3 million

It brought its collective view to influenece the United Nations and the EU.

Late 1990’s it  lobbied on banning defamation against Islam. It established a 10 year action plan aimed at establishing criminal laws that would unish  blasheming against Islam around the world.

 

2008

Muslims make up only 1% of the population, but file 40% of workplace discrimination complaints.

We would re-title this, Corporate America – Led by Big Media – is Ushering in Sharia. And Obama is enforcing it. Just another form of jihad.

The authors in the Bloomberg article reveal information that shows the strength of Muslim activism in trying to transform America through litigation – especially that of the workplace to become more sharia compliant.  The Bloomberg articlestates:

While people who practice Islam make up only about 1 percent of the U.S. population, some 40 percent of religion-based workplace complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission last year were related to Muslims. The agency has pursued a wide range of disputes, including whether Muslims can be fired for refusing to handle pork or alcohol at work. In many instances, the courts have said they cannot.

It’s shocking that such a small fraction of the U.S. population are exerting so outsized an influence.  What should businesses do – cater to Muslim religious demands in order to avoid complaints?  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states, “An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.”  Furthermore, trying to pacify sharia compliant Muslims is useless, since sharia is an all-encompassing ideology that dictates not just clothing and diet but includes rules for speech, prayer, banking, commerce, etc. The Bloomberg article gives a short list of how some companies are furthering this gradual sharia agenda:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. provides transportation to mosques, and other places of worship, for employees in offices not big enough to have prayer rooms. Alcohol wasn’t served at a recent party at a New York architecture firm because a new staff member who’s [sic] Muslim wouldn’t feel comfortable attending if it were, according to the office manager, asking not to be named because he’s not authorized to speak publicly about the firm. At Accenture Plc, the corporate calendar is organized to prevent events from conflicting with Muslim holidays, as well as those of other faiths.

In addition, “[o]ne goal of the Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield Q&A session in Newark last year was to dispel concerns that Islam is a dangerous faith[.]” Since, when did it become the job of a health insurance network to advocate for Islamic apologetics?  Is that not the job of clerics and believers of the faith?  For that matter, when did employers become a free taxi service to the local “place of worship”?

We have seen accommodations for Muslim employees played out in businesses such as prayer rooms, prayer breaks, reassignments when faced with pork and alcohol products, permitting Islamic clothing and facial hair, and in many other areas. Some U.S. companies are willing to go to outstanding lengths to appease one percent of the U.S. population because some Muslim activists shout the loudest. Corporate America needs to say “No!” to more sharia.

I took on Hizb ut-Tahrir. And I won

In a separate event at the University of Western Sydney in May last year, organised by the Muslim Students’ Association, women were consigned to the back of the room.
In a separate event at the University of Western Sydney in May last year, organised by the Muslim Students’ Association, women were consigned to the back of the room.

Without a hint of irony the next 10 tweets called me a racist. An Islamophobic bigot, a liar and a whore.

It was a swarm.

Hizb ut-Tahrir fans were enraged over an opinion piece I wrote for The Daily Telegraph in 2014 that shamed the Islamist group for sending women to the back of the room at their public lecture on the war in Syria.

I wrote that it was as terrible as Mississippi blacks being sent to the back of the bus in segregated America. And it is.

People should be judged for their character, intelligence, ideas and abilities — not their skin colour or gender.

On Friday, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled the event’s organisers broke the law when they gave me no choice but to sit at the back section of the room or leave.

The Tribunal has ordered them to make sure that everyone in their organisation understands that gender segregation is not compulsory.

They have to put up signs at their venues and in all published promotional material to make this clear.

Islamists argue that gender segregation is “separate but equal”, and voluntary — a free religious choice.

But secular Muslims exposed this idea as false. Lejla Kuric, a former Bosnian refugee, is among those who have pointed out that women are subject to social coercion if they step out of line in the West — and has written about how in countries where gender segregation is enforced women are severely held back in every aspect of life.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS OVERLOOKED IN THE NAME OF RACIAL ‘TOLERANCE’

Alison Bevege was determined that Hizb ut-Tahrir
Alison Bevege was determined that Hizb ut-Tahrir would not get away with discrimination. (Pic: News Corp)

In their Draft Constitution of the Khilafa State, Hizb ut-Tahrir state that they want full Sharia, including gender segregation under a Caliphate. By imposing it at their events they are normalising it.

But the Tribunal drew a line on Friday: the rule of secular law trumps the demands of the religious in the public square.

It was a long road from October 2014 when I was first directed to the back of the room.

After filing the original complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board there was a long stretch of email mediation with Ismail al-Wahwah on behalf of the group.

I wanted a public apology, a guarantee they would not impose it on the unwilling and for them to donate to charity.

But the dispute dragged on.

In May 2015 it landed before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and I asked for the maximum compensation for charity — $100,000.

I obtained an immensely helpful hour of free legal advice at Kings Cross’s Inner City Legal Centre, plus another two at Kingsford Legal Centre, and researched the law online at the Austlii website.

But disaster struck.

 Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a registered organisation. They keep their leadership secret. The public face of Hizb ut-Tahrir is only “media spokesmen”. There is no legal entity to sue.

After much effort, the Tribunal gave leave to join the five “media spokesmen” to the complaint along with the association that rents the rooms they use, Public Forums Incorporated.

There were then seven respondents — and I had no addresses to send notification of the case to.

Without successfully serving documents on at least one of them, every time, it would die.

After discovering Seven News reporter Bryan Seymour had previously written about Hizb ut-Tahrir I asked him if he had any addresses. He did not — but he covered my story and stood by me every step of the way. He was always fair, even when I was called a bigot by my detractors.

The Tribunal summonsed the addresses of the top five leaders from NSW Police and the Roads and Maritime Service so I could serve papers, and the photocopying began.

Submissions of more than a hundred pages had to be copied four times for the Tribunal, one for each of the seven respondents, one for me, plus a couple of spares. It took hours — days, every time.

I posted them and they all came back: “Return to sender”.

I had to hire process servers to chase them around town.

Bankstown Sheriffs Office served Ismail al-Wahwah a couple of times. Another process server managed to find Wassim Doureihi and Ismail al-Wahwah at the KCA Centre with a group.

At one point, I posted a notification in the comments section of the Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia Facebook page. It was deleted and they fixed it so I could never do that again.

I scanned the documents and emailed, Facebooked and tweeted notifications. I stuck letters to the door of their room at the KCA Centre and on the Public Forums Incorporated mailbox.

I tried to serve directly to Uthman Badar’s address once but his mother said he had gone to Pakistan indefinitely.

Hamza Qureshi indicated on Facebook that he would be at a university talk on Orientalism — so I took my paperwork there, only to be humiliated by the MC who pointed me out to the room and announced I was a racist while lecturer Yassir Morsi smirked beside him. I did not even get to serve the documents.

Their supporters taunted me on Twitter and on Facebook saying I had no legal entity to sue.

But the Tribunal ruled that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an unincorporated association that broke the law and Ismail al-Wahwah is legally responsible for their discrimination.

No money was awarded but I don’t care about that. It is the principle that counts. It might seem trivial to those of us living in a land used to freedom, but if we don’t defend the rule of secular law, it will be eroded.

The best part is that brave progressive and secular Muslims such as Maajid Nawaz and the Muslim Reform Movement tweeted their support and are celebrating the win. For that I am deeply grateful.

We stand together in this fight.