War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

— George Orwell, 1984

Yadda wrote on Nov 13^th, 2019 at 11:26pm:




dear Yadda,
thou speaketh in riddles.

namaste

Jasin wrote on Nov 14^th, 2019 at 7:11am:



Did you listen to the video?

It's illegal for you to write the above because
no message is permitted by law except

Diversity is strength.

Ozpolitic will have to change the rules
and delete about 10,000 posts.

Bias_2012 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2019 at 1:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2019 at 2:26pm:


It wasn't strength for the Aboriginals, there was hundreds of different tribes and whitie still managed to take them over

Blair Cottrell wrote this on another website:

Nov 14, 2019, 19:29


Quick update after today:

>No, I’m not in prison as some people are claiming.

>Today the final submissions on the potential invalidity of the law I’ve been charged with were made.

>The prosecution claimed that finding me guilty and the law valid would not burden the freedom of political communication but enhance it, because it would “ensure nobody was excluded from political communication on the basis of religious belief” –As though including Muslims who behead people based on religious belief is somehow beneficial to political communication in Australia.

>The Attorney General’s office backed up the prosecutor on everything and together with the state prosecution team took five hours to make their submissions against my arguments today.

>My barrister John Bolton argued that even if the law of “intent to incite severe ridicule” was found to be a valid one, it should be narrowly defined so that it cannot be used on people engaged in political activism and political communication. The prosecution team and the Attorney General’s office didn’t seem to be ready for that submission, had no answer but did not oppose my barrister on that one.

>The Judge indicated that It could be weeks before he makes his final decision.

I had a great and humbling amount of support during the trial this week, massive Thankyou to everybody who has and still supports me after all this time.
I intend to provide more information on the trial and explain everything in greater detail in a video I’ll make in the next couple of days.

Latest message from Blair Cottrell:


Nov 15, 2019, 15:57


Throughout my trial this week it was made clear that the government and some judges do not consider the Australian implied right to freedom of speech to be an individual right.
The implied right is according to judges such as Justice Coleman intended to protect “general political communication” by restricting legislation which might “generally burden” communication of a political nature.


The state prosecutor and the Attorney General’s office in my case has argued that convicting me as an individual with a criminal offence based on what they consider to be vilifying conduct, speech or intent does not conflict with the implied right to free speech in Australia, because it has no effect on political communication “generally”. They’ve argued that successfully convicting me may “enhance the implied right to freedom of speech” by reducing “offensive and intimidating” speech.


What this implies is any individual in Australia can legally be censored or charged with a criminal offence for something he or she has said, so long as political communication “as a whole” is proven not to be affected much.


The state is essentially arguing here that media corporations and “offical committees” ought to be protected with the implied right to free speech, but not individuals or regular people.


I was not permitted to present any evidence in this part of the trial so was not able to bring to the judge’s attention that I was censored for no clear reason, from all major social media platforms, losing the ability to communicate with hundreds of thousands of followers after having been charged with the offence of “intent to incite ridicule of Muslims”.
The reason I was not permitted to point this out is because it was decided by the court that evidence presented by individuals should not be considered, since individuals cannot speak or present any legitimate evidence for how political communication “as a whole” might have been effected by any law, they can only present their own individual experiences which were not considered relevant.


The Attorney General’s barrister actually likened hearing any evidence I would give as “being the same as taking some random person off of the street and asking him his opinion.”


I don’t think random people on the street have established platforms from which they’ve communicated political perspectives with hundreds of thousands of interested members of the public, then lost those platforms overnight as part of a censorship campaign like I did, but the judge ended up not allowing me to speak on that subject nonetheless, he instead decided to hear from a university social scientist on “why censorship of bigots is good.”


This is important information for people not just in Australia but all around the world to understand and share. Government and media bureaucrats connected to global networks of influence want free speech laws to apply to them but not to the public.


“Free speech for us but not for the people” is their attitude.