29 Feb '20 00:03:578
This citizen journalist has been delving into this story. See for example our story of 2 weeks ago about a gentleman named Chris Puplick (The Daily Telegraph May 2, 2003 - Discrimination president accused of interference)
This spectacular speech by Mark Latham MLC has finally burst the festering boil of LGBT corruption within the Anti Discrimination Board of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
Respondents to vexatious homosexual litigation inflicted upon them by the NSW Anti Discrimination Board have been begging for a parliamentary inquiry into the corruption for many years.
And Mark Latham has finally delivered, much to his credit and much to the joy of the persecuted heterosexual "thought criminals".
What is section 49ZT of the NSW Anti Discrimination Act?
49ZT of the NSW Anti Discrimination Act (1977) was introduced in 1993 as a bill named the Anti Discrimination Act Amendment Bill (Homosexual Vilification).
One turncoat Liberal Party member crossed the floor to finally enable this "homosexual vilification" provision to be incorporated into the Act, after failed attempts by the gay rights lobby groups for many years.
This 1993 49ZT Liberal turncoat was the then NSW Police Minister, Ted Pickering.
When we delve into history to try to comprehend how all this homosexual political & judicial corruption started - by searching the name Chris Puplick on newspapers.com - we find a tantalising story published in the Sydney Morning Herald on September 10, 1991.
The story was entitled "The Liberals' Hidden Persuaders" and is subheaded "Factional politics is supposed to be the preserve of Labor. but as PILITA CLARK reports, a secret group in the NSW Liberals with some odd bedfellows has become a potent force in deciding who makes it in the party."
This 1991 story starts by pointing the reader to the association and friendship between Ted Pickering, Chris Puplick and "the proud producer of Australia's first homegrown gay porn video, Going Down Under".
Without going into the details, we can only imagine what Pilita Clark meant by "odd bedfellows".
For your information, here's the wording of the law passed in 1993, before the relevance of social media was able to be properly understood or considered:-
49ZT Homosexual vilification unlawful
(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.
(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful—
(a) a fair report of a public act referred to in subsection (1), or
(b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter on an occasion that would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege (whether under the Defamation Act 2005 or otherwise) in proceedings for defamation, or
(c) 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.
The word "homosexual" is not defined in the Act.
Mark Latham's 27 February 2020 speech
One victim of vexatious litigation mentioned in the speech was Bernard Gaynor, a Catholic father of 8, an ex Army intelligence officer, who resides in Brisbane.
So who better to comment on this speech? We have taken the liberty of going to his public Facebook page to cut & paste his response to the news:-
Yesterday Mark Latham introduced a bill into the NSW parliament to stop obsessed activists from abusing anti-discrimination laws to silence Christians and conservatives.
This should have happened long ago and I am extremely grateful to Mark Latham for his efforts to address this issue.
The bill, if passed, will:
- prevent NSW laws from being used to harass people who live elsewhere in Australia,
- prevent complaints against brain-damaged people, and
- force the President of the ADB to reject vexatious complaints.
All of these common sense changes are long overdue.
In particular, it is clear that LGBT activists and the anti-discrimination industry have abused these laws to destroy a poor Newcastle man who suffers from a brain injury following a motor vehicle accident.
Mark Latham's speech is linked here - I highly recommend that you read it.
This bill will be a turning point in this battle. I thank you for your ongoing support which has paved the way for this important development.
[comment posted by Bernard Gaynor on 28 February 2020]
This is how The Australian reported Mark Latham's speech the next day, on Friday 28 February, 2020.
Latham takes aim at discrimination 'picnic'
by YONI BASHAN
NSW POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
One Nation’s NSW leader, Mark Latham, is moving to significantly raise the bar for complaints being made to the Anti-Discrimination Board, saying the agency is being exploited by political activists and vexatious litigants whose goal is to financially ruin their opponents.
Mr Latham moved a private member’s bill in the NSW Legislative Council on Thursday seeking to end the “political persecution” and “lawyers’ picnic” incentivised by lax legal standards enshrined in the Anti-Discrimination Act.
At present, the law allows complaints to be lodged without any cost. The board’s president can choose to discontinue the matter if they are satisfied the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, but if that occurs, an appeal can be lodged with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where penalties of up to $100,000 can be awarded. If the board accepts the complaint, it is referred to the same tribunal.
Mr Latham told parliament the law had been passed in good faith before the advent of social media, and was now being abused by political activists and others to settle personal vendettas. “If the board, in a rare moment of common sense, decides to terminate an investigation into a frivolous and vexatious complaint, that is where the matter should end,” he said.
His amendments were brought on in part by a serial complainant named Garry Burns, a selfdescribed gay rights activist who has lodged hundreds of complaints that have been accepted by the board for further investigation.
Several dozen of these were aimed at Bernard Gaynor, a Catholic blogger and father of eight living in Queensland.
Mr Gaynor invoked the ire of Mr Burns after posting a statement online claiming he did not want his children taught by gay teachers. According to an email, read out by Mr Latham in parliament, Mr Burns said Mr Gaynor “has an asset, namely his house”, and that if enough complaints were substantiated at NCAT then “we can look at taking his house through bankruptcy”.
In a separate case, Mr Latham said a brain-damaged man named John Sunol, who was injured in an accident, had been pursued by Mr Burns for a “rant about gays in a random and incoherent fashion” on social media.
“He has few followers, no real impact and no political influence,” Mr Latham said. “The legal types are now circling the trust fund that controls Sunol’s $400,000 compensation payment.”
The amendments seek to stop NCAT from taking discontinued referrals from the board and stop complaints being accepted against people with a known brain injury, among other proposed changes.