Sonia Kruger fails to have racial vilification complaint thrown out

Politically correct terror against the truth.

Litgation Jihad by a serial grievance monger

This is the terrifying result of Australia’s revolting ‘hate-speech’ laws, designed to turn our free society into a dhimmified, complicit herd of cowards, who will not defend what must be defended at all costs.

Today’s Sonia Kruger fails to have racism complaint dismissed two years after she said Muslims should be banned from Australia

Note how the horrible Daily Mail keeps conflating Islam with race!

For any of us naive enough to think the racial vilification case against Sonia Kruger had gone away – no it hasn’t.

“…Andrew Bolt has a point here,  there is a correlation between the number of people who are Muslim in a country and the number of terrorist attacks,’ she said.

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal deputy president Nancy Hennessy refused the application by Channel 9 to have the complaint dismissed. The matter is listed for directions on June 19.

Sam Ekermawi, a serial complainant and Australian Muslim said the Nine Network had vilified “ethnic Muslim Australians”.

Ekermawi’s track record:

32 complaints, 22 of them about “racial vilification.” He doesn’t seem to be doing anything else. Litigation jihad is his purpose in life. No mug-shot available. Nancy Hennessy is complicit in this conspiracy against the Australian people.

Sonia Kruger fails to have racial vilification complaint thrown out –
ASHLEIGH GLEESON, Court Reporter, The Daily Telegraph
May 29, 2018

.
TODAY Extra and The Voice host Sonia Kruger has failed to have a racial vilification complaint made against her dismissed nearly two years after she sparked a social media storm for agreeing Australian borders should be closed to Muslims.

The matter will now proceed for directions next month after the Civil and Administrative Tribunal today refused the Nine Network’s application to have the complaint dismissed without hearing.

The complaint has been made by Sam Ekermawi, a Muslim living in Australia, who said the Nine Network had vilified “ethnic Muslim Australians”.

The tribunal heard evidence he has been involved in 32 hearings before courts and tribunals — 22 them related to vilification complaints.

In July 2016 Kruger said she agreed with the proposition Australian borders should be closed to Muslims while discussing a newspaper article written by News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt on a “Mixed Grill” segment of The Today Show.

“I mean, personally, I think Andrew Bolt has a point here, that there is a correlation between the number of people who, you know, are Muslim in a country and the number of terrorist attacks,” she said on the show.

Sonia Kruger said, “I want to feel safe, as all of our citizens do, when they go out to celebrate Australia Day.”
“Now I have a lot of very good friends who are Muslim, who are peace-loving who are beautiful people, but there are fanatics.

“…. Personally I would like to see it stopped now for Australia. Because I want to feel safe, as all of our citizens do, when they go out to celebrate Australia Day.”

In an email to the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW in March last year Ekermawi wrote: “Kruger wants borders closed to Muslims, in that she’s implying that they are terrorists (sic) to dehumanise them.”

“Why not worried about other Nations children, who’s daily, been exposed to crimes of war and crimes against humanities? (sic).”

Under the Anti-Discrimination Act it is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or people on the ground of race.

The Nine Network had applied to have Ekermawi’s complaint dismissed by submitting the broadcast was a discussion about Muslim religion and migration, not about “race”.

It was also submitted he hadn’t identified critical elements of his own case such as how the broadcaster incites hatred, serious ridicule or serious contempt.

Channel 9 and Kruger also submitted that given Ekermawi’s “track record” with vilification complaints it would be an abuse of the tribunal’s processes to allow the complaint to proceed.

However NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal deputy president Nancy Hennessy refused the application.

“A complaint should not be summarily dismissed except in a very clear case,” she said.

The matter is listed for directions on June 19.

7 thoughts on “Sonia Kruger fails to have racial vilification complaint thrown out”

  1. Sonia Kruger fails to have racial vilification complaint thrown out
    Yep …
    Verifies what Sonia Kruger said and what the majority of non-islam Australians know …
    Australia’s borders should be closed to islams.”
    (and the ones already resident here – expelled) !!!

    And …
    Under the Treasonous/Seditious/Subversive Anti-Discrimination Act it is [falsely] unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or people on the ground of race.
    • islam is not a race !
    • islam is a vicious criminal cult !
    (who riot (or threaten to riot) is one method the invader islams use to control their “being invaded countries populations Treasonous/Seditious/Subversive politicians + judiciary+ bureaucrats+(w)academics”

    And just to be certain …
    • Remove marxist islamophile “authorities” be they politicians judiciary bureaucrats (w)academics who are aiding assisiting and abetting islams immigrate and reside in Australia and Permanently “incarcerate these Traitors/Seditioners/Subversives
    • STOP invader islams immigration into Australia !
    • REVERSE invader islam residency in Australia !

    How can anyone vilify “ethnic Muslim Australians”.
    There is no such identity as an “ethnic Muslim Australian”.
    islam is a criminal category – NOT a race …

    No islam can be an Australian !!
    An islam is only ever an islam !!
    An islam has only loyalty to islam !!

    The ongoing behaviour of Sam Ekermawi, a serial complainant and Australian repugnant Muslim displays exactly why …
    Australia’s borders should be closed to islams.”
    (and the ones already resident here – expelled) !!!

  2. And guess what …
    NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Traitor/Seditioner/Subversive deputy president Nancy Hennessy [who] refused Channel Nine’s application is STILL free and actively aiding assisting and abetting the islam invasion of Australia.

    Remove islamophile “authorities” and Permanently “incarcerate these Treasonous/Seditious/Subversive aiders and abetters of the invader islams and the diversifier criminal African tribals !!

  3. ISLAM itself is what dehumanizes muslims.
    Why is it illegal to point out this truth?!

    ALL liberal “hate-speech laws” ARE crimes!!!

    “The whole concept of “hate speech” (laws against hurt feelings) is political correctness run amok, a leftist anti-free-speech tool that provides an unlimited excuse to shut down and punish anyone who openly disagrees with establishment dicta. Every totalitarian state has similar laws designed to protect the rulers. Such laws have no place in a free society.”

    – Patrick1984 –

    But Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Virginia v. Black (2003), Snyder v. Phelps (2011) These SCOTUS cases show that unpopular speech is still protected speech.

    SO: What is “hate-speech” and why should it be considered a crime if it’s NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?

    If it’s not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech – or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one’s life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating – then it’s THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of ‘hurt feelings!’ So it isn’t objectively “offensive,” but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively “offended” by their victims being notified about THEIR offenses!

    Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive ‘arguments’ to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (i.e: the criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!

    ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES!

    “Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).

    So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!

    Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?

    NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.

    Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.

    Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!

    Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!

  4. ALL liberal “hate-speech laws” ARE crimes!!!

    “The whole concept of “hate speech” (laws against hurt feelings) is political correctness run amok, a leftist anti-free-speech tool that provides an unlimited excuse to shut down and punish anyone who openly disagrees with establishment dicta. Every totalitarian state has similar laws designed to protect the rulers. Such laws have no place in a free society.”

    – Patrick1984 –

    But Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Virginia v. Black (2003), Snyder v. Phelps (2011) These SCOTUS cases show that unpopular speech is still protected speech.

    SO: What is “hate-speech” and why should it be considered a crime if it’s NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)?

    If it’s not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech – or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one’s life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating – then it’s THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of ‘hurt feelings!’ So it isn’t objectively “offensive,” but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively “offended” by their victims being notified about THEIR offenses!

    Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, all criminals will resort to using emotive ‘arguments’ to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) can be relied on to try to criminalize hurt feelings and to make offending people, (i.e: the criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal, too!

    ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES!

    “Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes).

    So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!

    Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?

    NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.

    Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.

    Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!

    Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!

  5. Sonia had an opinion about followers of an ideology – with which most sane , logical people would agree:

    higher numbers of muslims in a society make it more likely that crimes motivated by muslim ideology will be committed.

    There is nothing ‘racist’ about her comment. It is the same as her saying that ‘Australia’s borders should be closed to communists’ – ‘

    It is an opinion only.

      1. It is a fact that she said what she said – but what she said was her opinion. I wholeheartedly agree with that opinion and wish that it becomes a fact at some time in the future. But because it is a possible future event – it is not actually a fact.

Comments are closed.