Report from the Battlefront
The Appeal lodged with the Federal Court of Australia
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
On Appeal from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
No N1049 of 2002
B E T W E E N
NOTICE OF APPEAL
1 The appellant appeals from the whole of the Judgment of the Honourable Justice Branson given on 17 September 2002 at Sydney, New South Wales.
The learned judge erred in law:
3 In deciding as a matter of discretion to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to either Order 10, rule 7 or Order 11, rule 23 to entertain the application for summary judgment;
4 In failing to consider and determine the issue of the constitutional validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which issue the Appellant had in a Notice of Motion filed on or about 2 April 2002 sought to raise by way of answer to the application for summary judgment;
5 In giving summary judgment for the Applicant;
6 In deciding that the Applicant was a person aggrieved by the act the subject of the letter of complaint dated 28 May 1996 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;
7 In deciding that section 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 absolved the Applicant from proof of part of the circumstances said to be embodied in the act the subject of the letter of complaint dated 28 May 1996 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;
8 In deciding that the placing of text and graphic material on a website on the World Wide Web amounted, in the absence of proof that the material was capable of being located by a Web browser facility, to an act taken not to be done in private within the meaning of s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;
9 In deciding for the purposes of the possible application of s 24 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 that, properly interpreted, the letter of complaint dated 28 May 1996 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was to be understood as a complaint material that was found on the website referred to in the letter of complaint on or shortly before the complaint;
10 Having found that the appellant had published material, in then deciding:
(a) that the publication of the material was an act within the meaning of s 18C(1)(a) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;
that the publication was done because of the ethnic origin of some other person or of some or all of the people in a group within the meaning of s 18C(1)(b) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;
11 In deciding that s 18C(1)(a) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 set up an objective test or standard;
12 In deciding that, in the absence of any direct evidence that any person was offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the material that was the subject of the letter of complaint dated 28 May 1996 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the publication of such material was capable of contravening s 18C(1) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;
13 In deciding that, properly interpreted, the term “likely” in s 18C(1)(a) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 meant more probable than not;
14 In deciding that the proper interpretation of s 18C(1)(a) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 called for the application of the legal principles or standards applicable to the ascertainment of defamatory meaning;
15 In deciding that, properly interpreted, the prohibition contained in s 18C(1) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 extended to the expression of ideas or opinions that might be considered to:
(a) engender in a person a feeling that the expression of the ideas or opinions challenged or denigrated a central aspect of that person’s ethnic heritage or history, or
(b) engender in a person a sense of being treated contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively, or
(c) cause damage to the pride and self-respect of vulnerable or impressionable members of an ethnic group to whom the person belongs;
16 In deciding that none of the material before the Court established that the Appellant had relevantly acted in good faith within the meaning of s 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;
17 Having decided that the Appellant had engaged in conduct that was unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in then deciding that this was an appropriate case in which to make the orders appealed against;
In place of the judgment from which the appeal is brought, the Appellant seeks orders that:
1 This appeal be allowed;
2 The decision below be set aside and in lieu thereof there be orders –
A That the application for enforcement of determinations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission be dismissed;
B The Respondent pay the costs of the application below;
3 That the Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal;
4 Such further or other orders or relief as the Court considers appropriate.
(a) Before taking any step in the proceeding you must enter an appearance in the Registry, unless you have already entered an appearance pursuant to Order 52, rule 7.
(b) The papers in the appeal will be settled before the Registrar at
(c) _______________________________ on __________________________
The appellant’s address for service is ___________________________________
DATED: 2 October 2002
The Race Question – again!
Harvard professor argues for 'abolishing' white race
Joyce Howard Price
The Washington Times www.washtimes.com
Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that "abolishing the white race" is "so desirable that some may find it hard to believe" that anyone other than "committed white supremacists" would oppose it.
In excerpts appearing this week in newspapers nationwide, Mr. Ignatiev, who is white, writes that "every group within white America," including "labor unionists, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers and white women" has at one time or another "advanced its particular and narrowly defined interests at the expense of black people as a race."
Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed -- not 'deconstructed' but destroyed."
His colleagues at Harvard seem not to take his proposal entirely seriously. Others cite the article as an example of Harvard's institutional racism.
Sara Stillman, assistant to the publisher of Harvard Magazine, says there's clearly some "misunderstanding" about what Mr. Ignatiev means by the inflammatory language.
Asked in a 1997 interview with the New York Times if he hates his own white skin, Mr. Ignatiev said, "No, but I want to abolish the privileges."
"The white race is like a private club based on one huge assumption that all those who look
white, are, whatever their complaints or reservations, fundamentally loyal to the race. We want to dissolve that club, to explode it," he said.
Christopher Reed, executive editor of Harvard Magazine, defended what Mr. Ignatiev wrote in the September-October issue. "He's arguing against the mind-set and attitude that automatically grants privileges to white people he wants more fairness," Mr. Reed said in a statement.
The university's public affairs office said it had no comment.
The article already has stirred anger among some conservatives, who see the article as typical of the liberal climate in academia. "Suppose Frontpagemagazine.com ran a headline 'Abolish the Black Race'?" asks David Horowitz on his magazine's Web site. "What do you think the reaction would be? But at Harvard, where demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum, an article like this can appear in a glossy magazine whose cover story is 'Whither the Art Museum?'
"Race hatred, if directed against white people, is just part of the progressive culture," says Mr. Horowitz, a radical-turned-conservative and author of "Civil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery."
Mr. Ignatiev, a one-time steelworker and Marxist activist who earned a doctorate at Harvard, could not be reached for comment. But he writes about what he believes at the Web site of Race Traitor, whose motto is: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."
"The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society," the journal's statement of purpose says.
"The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse."
Among the "privileges" of being white, according to Race Traitor, are not being followed by security in stores, not being harassed by police, having easier access to better schools, jobs and housing, and not being asked whether skin color or affirmative action got you a job.
In the essay in Harvard Magazine, Mr. Ignatiev says he always expected "bewilderment" at his views from "people who still think of race as biology."
"We frequently get letters accusing us of being 'racists' just like the KKK, and have even been called a 'hate group.'" he wrote.
Mr. Ignatiev attempts to clarify how he could be seeking to abolish the white race without calling for genocide. "Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc."
Abolition of a monarchy has often been marked by killing the monarch and sometimes his family members; for example, England in 1649, France in 1792, Russia in 1917 and Iraq in 1958. Even those nations that have abolished kings or emperors without regicide generally have forced the monarch into exile.
Mr. Ignatiev grew up in a Philadelphia family that he says was devoid of racial bias. As a child, he swam at a free community pool, where he was the only white patron. He says his parents refused to pay a $1 fee that was designed to keep other public pools all-white.
Mr. Ignatiev's parents, Jewish immigrants from Russia, were not college educated, but he attended the University of Pennsylvania, dropping out after three years. He worked in a Chicago steel mill and in factories that made farm equipment and electrical parts for two decades. At the steel mill, he helped organize strikes and protests by the predominantly black work force.
He was laid off from the steel mill in 1984, a year after he was arrested on charges of throwing a paint bomb at a strike-breaker's car. He set up Marxist discussion groups in the early 1980s. In 1985, Mr. Ignatiev was accepted to the Harvard Graduate School of Education without an undergraduate degree. After earning his master's, he joined the Harvard faculty as a lecturer and worked toward a doctorate in U.S. history.
His dissertation was his book, How the Irish Became White, Mr. Ignatiev said the book told how Irish immigrants came to the United States and became ‘oppressors’ by emulating American whites
The growing consensus against circumcision
National Post, Friday, August 30, 2002
Just 30 years ago, male circumcision was all the rage; as many as 90% of boys in the United States, 70% of those in Australia, 48% in Canada and 24% in the United Kingdom were circumcised (often without any anesthesia).
I remember the war that waged in my own mind when my son was born in the 1980s.I had no religious reasons for choosing circumcision; I wasn't trying to guard against "unhealthy masturbation," as early proponents of circumcision were. I didn't care if he looked like dad, as some parents do. I wanted to know only one thing: What would be best for him -- medically. If he wasn't circumcised, would I be responsible for increasing his chances of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted disease, as some physicians had suggested? Would it mean he might need the operation later in life, when circumcision is more uncomfortable, not to mention unpleasant?
What if he had the operation and got an infection? What if the knife slipped? How would I live with myself?
More important, how would he live with himself?
It's the nature of parenting to always think, "What could I have done better?" So once I made a decision I worried over whether it was the right one. Like all parents, I tried to act in the best interests of my child.
When the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) reviewed the medical literature and came out against routine circumcision in 1996, I thought the matter was settled. The CPS looked at the effects of newborn circumcision on the rate of urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, cancer of the penis, penile problems, and decided the practice was inadvisable. This was in line with a recommendation made earlier by its Fetus and Newborn Committee and with 1971 and 1975 recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Nevertheless, debates about the ethics of circumcision remain unresolved because of its connection to religion and culture -- because medical studies sometimes turn up different results, and because parents do think their kids should look like dad.
Still, I believe a consensus against circumcision is steadily emerging. In this new era of patient rights, circumcision has come to seem like an anachronism. Among doctors, there is a greater emphasis on informed decision-making, the limits on parents' rights to make decisions about their kids' health and the rights of children to be protected from parents who make wrong decisions. Even some adult men who were unnecessarily circumcised as children are asserting their rights to restitution. And since the balance of medical evidence
suggests those who oppose circumcision have the facts on their side, doctors are increasingly refusing to perform circumcisions. Complications from bleeding, amputation, renal failure, sepsis and death are powerful incentives to stop.
With the death of an infant in B.C., possibly as a result of circumcision and currently under coroner's investigation, there will be more questions of circumcision's benefits and risks -- with a more pronounced focus on the latter.
Parents who opt for circumcision must, as a matter of both law and morals, make their decision based on the principle of respect for the rights and best interests of their child, according to the available information concerning risks and benefits. The death of the Kamloops baby may bring new awareness about the risks of circumcision (though the baby's death may ultimately turn out to have arisen from something far more complicated than a botched circumcision).
Indeed, the media coverage of the incident may speed circumcision for non-religious reasons into the dustbin of medical practice -- alongside many other once-popular procedures, such as the removal of the ovaries for hysteria, tonsillectomy for a sore throat, lobotomy for mental retardation, etc. In a few years, looking like dad or wanting to keep a boy "clean" may no longer be legally legitimate rationales for circumcision. It's about time they weren't. Parents who have had their kids circumcised can't be faulted for doing what they thought was right. But it is unethical to continue a practice that is no longer medically defensible and could harm our kids.
Guest Column, The Report email@example.com
September 2, 2002, p. 26
Imagine that you are a teenager in Afghanistan, under the Taliban regime. The Taliban needs fighters and comes to your village to coercively recruit you and your friends. You are forced to join. Fortunately, you do not serve in areas where atrocities are committed, After the Taliban is defeated and in disarray, you apply to immigrate to Canada. Here are two scenarios to consider:
Scenario 1: The immigration officer asks you whether you were a member of the Taliban. You have two choices. You can say that you were, which will likely terminate your immigration application. After all, who will believe that you were not part of atrocities, and who is going to be around to support your story in any event? Or you can lie and get into Canada based on your lie, and hopefully spend the rest of your life in peaceful and gainful employment.
Scenario 2: The immigration officer doesn't ask you about Tahban membership. For some reason, perhaps due to the number of people waiting behind you, this particular question doesn't get asked. You get into Canada based on an assessment of your overall circumstances, independent of your involvement with the Taliban. After all, you weren't asked and you didn't say.
A half a century later, when you are well into your retirement, you are suddenly identified as a member of the notorious Taliban that had committedevils long ago in Afghanistan. You have a hearing before a court and the judge is convinced that you did not participate in any atrocities. The judge, however, determines on a balance of probabilities (i.e., that it's "more likely than not") that you lied to get into the country, since normal immigration practice would have been to ask about Taliban membership. With no positive proof, the judge rejects the possibility that you were not asked the question.
In the case against 78-year-old Wasyl Odynsky, that's exactly what did happen. It was established to the satisfaction of a Canadian court that Mr. Odynsky, while stiff a teenager in Ukraine, was forced into service by, and attempted to escape from, a Nazi SS auxiliary unit during the Second World War, that furthermore he did not commit any war crimes. Mr. Odynsky has spent the past five years and virtually all of his savings trying to defend his name and avoid deportation. He even paid 50% of the costs of more than a dozen Canadian court personnel to travel to Ukraine to collect evidence about his wartime circumstances.
Every Canadian accused of being a war criminal should be brought to trial in a Canadian court of law to receive due process and be given the full benefit of reasonable doubt on all matters. The case against Mr. Odynsky found "on balance," but with no actual evidence, that he must have lied well over 50 years ago at the time of his immigration application. The finding is based on the judge's view that Mr. Odynsky must have been asked by an immigration officer about his wartime activities; however, no witnesses or records exist to substantiate such an accusation. While it's true that Mr. Odynsky's citizenship, livelihood and reputation are all at stake, giving him a mofive to lie, surprisingly little weight is given for the possibility that he is telling the truth. Under the Citizenship Act, Mr. Odynsky has no avenue of court-appeal rights, as would exist in a nomal independent judicial process.
The decision to implement the deportation order now rests with the Liberal federal cabinet, which, having spent over a million dollars on this case alone, has delayed any action to date, even though the judge's decision was made a year ago. In my opinion, since Mr. Odynsky has been exonerated in Canada of any involvement in war crimes, justice is not served by deporting a 78-year-old for unproven suspicions about what he told immigration 50 years ago.
As if revoking a Canadian's citizenship for a judge's guess half a century after the fact is not enough, the cabinet is now holding political court on the matter. The Liberals must recognize the potential ramifications. If cabinet allows Mr. Odynsky to be deported, what implications befall all more recent immigrants, along with their spouses and children? Could the latter be deported and lose their citizenships too?
While the Liberals unconscionably play cat's-paw with Mr. Odynsky's life, they threaten all immigrants who, rightly, never would have believed that they should keep all their official records, records to prove their original immigration statements in case the govenunent lost theirs. Meanwhile, the Liberals miss the most obvious known fact of all: that Mr. Odynsky has been a model Canadian citizen for all these years.
Does this not count for a lot? Has Mr. Odynsky not earned through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection from tormenting prosecution? Fifty years of hard honourable work should qualify him for full rights under the Constitution. All Canadians should receive a fair trial in court, with full equality in the appeal process. They should not have their citizenship subjected to closed-door political decisions of the Liberal cabinet.
What do you think? if you'd like to help, contact the office of Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. You can call him at 613-995-7691, fax him at 613-995-0114, e-mail him at Cauchon.m@parl. gc.ca or write him at Rm. 312, West Block, House of Commons, Ottawa K IA OA6.
The Wheel of Justice is turning full circle
The Allies’ [all-lies] War Crimes slowly emerge, but the ‘Holocaust’ wedge still keeps the doors shut.
I was tortured by the British for questioning the orders of James Bond’s creator. War veteran fights for justice over claim Ian Fleming ordered him to kill in cold blood.
By Gordon Thomas, International Express, 17 September 2002; email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The mastermind behind James Bond may have had more in common with one of his criminal creations than with 007. Naval intelligence chief Ian Fleming, who is often likened to the famous spy, has been accused by war veteran Ivan Drake of ordering him to “commit cold-blooded murder”.
Drake broke his 60-year silence to reveal the explosive details of the incident which he says “broke the Geneva Convention and shows Fleming in his true light”. Drake questioned the orders of the late spy writer and high-flying military man —then, he says, he was incarcerated in a Scottish castle where he was brainwashed and tortured in scenes that could bizarrely mirror the latest Bond movie, Die Another Day, starring Halle Berry and Rick Yune. In it, Yune is left scar-faced after a failed bid to change his identity.
Mr Drake has spent more than £100,000 of his savings to support his allegations which have now been taken up by the Prime Minister. Tony Blair has asked Minister of Defence historians to examine the files to reveal the truth of what happened on that November night in 1942. Mr Drake recalled that as a 21-year-old sapper with the Royal Canadian Engineers he was ordered to join the mission to sabotage an oil refinery on the French coast on November 4/5 1942.
Dressed as French fishermen, they were ordered by Fleming to cut the throat of every German they came across.Mr Drake said: “I was horrified, but it was made clear that to disobey could lead to a court-martial and being shot. The sentry I killed was about 16. The memory of his crying our for his mother still haunts me.”
The sabotage mission successful, Drake and the others were picked up by a submarine which took them to Rosyth in Scotland.
“By then I had begun to express my doubts about what Fleming had ordered,” he recalled. He says he was separated from the others and brought to Inveraliot Castle in the Highlands where he was incarcerated.
“There I was subjected to a prolonged period of brainwashing. This included being given drugs and electro-shock. I was hooded for lengthy periods. I was also severely beaten to make /me forget what Fleming had ordered,” Drake insisted. “I was being brainwashed.”
Ministry of Defence historian Martin Sawyer confirmed that detailed examination of the files was now under way and that during the Second World War the castle had been part of a restricted military area. Mr Sawyer added: “I cannot comment on what Mr Drake says happened to him there. The whole matter is still under investigation.”
Drake’s medical records — which have been shown to the Express — describe injuries “from repeated kicking” and ‘needle-like objects forced beneath nails.”
As part of the investigation, Mr Drake and his wife Liz, 80, spent two days at the MoD earlier this year describing what had happened to him. “it was straight out of Bond. I was taken to a room and bound to a chair. I was given injections,” he said. “Earphones were taped to my head and through them I received repeated instructions to forget all I had been told by Fleming. I was then given drugs and kept hooded for long periods. There are still gaps in what happened to me. Only much later did I realize I was in the hands of brainwashers.”
In a letter, last March, a senior historian at the MoD, John Harding, wrote to the Drakes that he needed “the necessary time to draw the facts together into a form that can be studied by others in the MoD.”
Mr Harding’s office confirmed that six months later he had still not “drawn the facts together”. Mrs Drake traveled to the University of Indiana, where Fleming’s private papers are kept. “I was shocked to discover what had happened to my husband had been used by Fleming in his Bond books,” Mrs Drake said.
After his time in the castle, Drake was taken to a military camp in Sussex where he was then discharged as “unfit for military service”.
He said: “Gradually my memory returned and I began to gather evidence. I made five trips toScotland and collected affidavits. These are all now with the MoD.”
Last May he wrote to Mr Blair after he had read a report that the Prime Minister would not tolerate any cover-ups.
Downing Street passed the request on to the MoD. Last week, frustrated by “the failure to get results”, Mr Drake contacted the Express. Mr Drake believes the MoD is “dragging its heels in the hope I will die before they have to reveal the truth”. His physician, Dr David Malek, wrote in a report to the MoD in April 2000 that his patient had suffered “inoperable harm and torture during World War Two”.
Mr Drake has twice traveled from his home in Ottowa, Canada, to raise the matter with the Ministry. He has insisted that there must be “full disclosure not only about the murder but what happened to me afterwards”.
Lt-Col Uziel Gal get your Gun?!
By David Brockschmidt
3 October 2002
Uziel Gal, nee Guthard Glass, born on 15 December 1923 in Weimar, Germany died at the age of 78 in Philadelphia, USA, in September 2002.
Uziel Gal is world-wide known as a designer inventor and developer of the Israeli-made Uzi 9-mm parabellum submachine gun.
A picture published in The Weekly Telegraph, No 583, UK, September 2002, shows an approximately 30-32-year-old Uziel Gal in Zahal-IDF uniform, posing Rambo-like with two submachine guns in his left and right hands.
Below the picture it says: ‘Gal: His weapons were simple, robust and inexpensive to make and also outperformed their rivals under desert conditions (emphasis added).
Now let’s have a closer look at these two submachine guns in Uziel’s hands here.
In his left hand is not one of Uziel’s designed and developed guns. The construction of this gun is neither simple nor inexpensive; it is a German-made MP 40 with a 32-round magazine, used by the German armed forces in World War Two from 1940 to 1945.
This German MP 40 has as much to do with Uziel Gal and/or Israel as ‘gefillte fisch has to do with Sauerkraut’.
But in Uziel Gal’s right hand, we have the famous Uzi submachine gun, invented, designed and developed by him alone.
This famous Uzi submachine gun used by the IDF and other armies world-wide, from 1955 on, is nothing else than a slightly changed version of the 9-mm parabellum MP 25 originating in Czechoslovakia before World War Two.
The Czech MP 25 was sold by Czechoslovakia during the 1950s to many countries, including Israel, Syria and Cuba.
So, sorry, Uzi-schmuzzzie.
The billions of US dollars the State of Israel made by selling this Czechoslovakian designed MP 25 Uzi should have partly gone to the Czechs. There is no doubt that this Czech Uzi is more ‘Prager Schinken’ than ‘matzot’.
While we are at it here, let’s finish off another legendary legend. The famous Russian AK 47 7.62-mm, 39 rounds machine pistol, designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov – so sorry, Comrade Kalashnikov, your AK 47 used by Soviet forces and other eastern European armies, from 1948 onwards, is nothing else but a copy of the German World War Two MP 44 7.9-mm used by German forces in World War Two, between 1942 and 1945.