Jacob Hersant: So this is a video where I’m going to explain this new Bill that the Australian government is bringing out in the wake of the Bondi shooting where two Islamists went and shot a bunch of jewish people. And the jewish lobby has pressured the government to bring out these really extreme laws which practically nobody is happy about, really. Only the jews are really happy. Labor Party obviously draughted these laws on behalf of the jewish lobby. But everyone else seems pretty annoyed about it, so I’ll go through it. I haven’t seen any videos that comprehensively go through what the Bill says and what is so egregious and why it’s problematic. So I’ll do that in this video.

 

First I’ll give a disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer. No lawyer has gone through and talked about all of this stuff. So unfortunately I’m the best that you have. The only reason I’m interested in it is because it’s going to be affecting me and my organisation, the National Socialist Network. So that’s why I’m making this video.

 

I’ll be providing photos of the Exposure draught as I read it. I’ll also show the link so you can go read it yourself to make sure that I’m not misinterpreting it or I’m not making any mistakes. If I’m making a mistake, please message me, tell me how I’m wrong in my interpretation, and I’ll be happy to retract what I said and correct it for people, because I just want to try to give an honest assessment of what this law is and the effects it will have on society.

 

So this is a massive bill, they call it an Omnibus Bill. It is going to change a lot of things.

 

So a lot of its about to do with criminal law and hate speech. But it also does have some gun stuff. Not going to talk about the gun stuff because I don’t know much about guns. And this video is just going to be too long. I’m more interested and know more about the politics aspect of it and the hate crimes and hate speech and that aspect of it.

 

So that’s what I’m going to be talking about. I’m sure there’s someone that can talk about the gun aspect of it and in all likelihood the two are going to be split. The gun stuff will probably be chucked into its own Bill and the hate stuff will be bundled in its own bill.

 

I’m going to start off by talking about what this law does regarding hate and what they call “violent extremism, hate speech, hate crimes” and all the like. It’s all doublespeak. The bill’s called “Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026”. So in the title, they don’t even hide who it’s for. Obviously, on behalf of the jewish lobby, they’re the only ones that support this law currently. And because they have an outsized influence over Australia’s politics, that’s why this egregious Bill has even been introduced.

 

Part One is “Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders”.

 

So this just goes into the Criminal Code and it makes it so that there’s a bunch of laws where if a person is a religious official, or a spiritual leader, while they commit the offence, they can be imprisoned for longer. So it aggravates it makes the judge give them a more severe sentence. And the charges specifically are to do with encouraging violence and encouraging terrorism and all these kind of charges.

 

So when you look at the Bill here, it doesn’t specify what the crimes are, but those crimes are basically advocacy of violence and advocacy of terrorism. If this Bill passes, if you are an imam, or a priest [or rabbi?] or some other spiritual leader of a religion, you can be punished more because you advocate violence. So that’s part one.

 

And then I’ll move down to Part Six, bundled part six with part one, because it’s the same kind of thing, the same kind of change there. And it’s just for when these spiritual leaders, the charges are when you’re trying to get a young person, someone under 18, to commit violence as well. And more or less the same thing, though it is in a different section of the bill. They have changed the penalty to a person might commit an aggravated offence if the person is a religious official or other spiritual leader.

 

So in terms of grooming children for violence or for advocating terrorism or inciting violence against a particular group, if you are some sort of spiritual leader, religious official, you can be punished more severely. This is obviously going after Muslims. This is to punish Muslims more severely if they’re caught saying stuff about Israel and Palestinian resistance against Israel. This is pretty obviously what this is directed towards.

 

So Part Two is there’s increased penalty for using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence. And that’s been increased to five years in jail. So that’s what Joel Davis has been charged with and he’s still being remanded now. I think it’s been two months or maybe even more.

 

[06:09]

 

So Part Three is “Aggravated sentencing factor”. And this affects the Crimes Act 1914. And it basically makes it so all criminal offences can be aggravated by being racist. So if you commit a crime because you’re racist, you can be punished more severely by the judge.

 

Read out the specific part:

 

“The person’s conduct constituting the offence was motivated, whether wholly or in part, by hatred of another person, or a group of persons, and that hatred was because of the person’s belief that the target person or persons in the target group are distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin.”

 

So theoretically, if somebody raped a woman because he hated that woman’s race or nation or ethnicity, he can be punished more severely than somebody who rapes a woman for choice and noble reasons, like lust or hatred of some other kind.

 

Every single crime now, if you can be proven to be a racist, you get punished more severely. That’s basically what this aggravated sentencing factor is if the crime you commit is motivated by hate, well, racism or nationalism, then you can be punished more severely. That’s what this change means.

 

But basically every crime can be turned into a hate crime, essentially. So if you assault or rape or murder, then it can aggravate it if it’s proven that you’re a racist.

 

So Part Four is “Prohibited hate group”. And a prohibited hate group is a designation that the Home Affairs Minister can give out. So the current Home Affairs Minister right now is Tony Burke, for the Labor Party. This legislation allows the government to ban particular organisations. It can ban organisations, it can unban them as well, and they can add multiple names to a ban.

 

So if you ban an organisation, you can’t just rename it because that’s going to be banned as well. They’re just going to add it as an alias. So you can’t just get around the ban by rebranding.

 

So to be designated a prohibited hate group, that group has to have committed a “hate crime”. And they define what a hate crime is so here it is. 1 14. A. So definition of a hate crime:

 

“A hate crime is conduct that would constitute any of the following offences. Urging or threatening violence and offences against groups or members of groups to the extent that the targeted group is distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin.”

 

So either:

 

“Publicly displaying prohibited symbols or giving a Nazi salute.”

 

So a hate crime can either be threatening violence or it can be publicly displaying prohibited symbols, like the swastika or giving the Nazi salute. And then here it says:

 

“A hate crime is also conduct that was engaged in at a time before a provision referred to in subsection (1) commenced and would constitute an offence against the provision had the provision been in force at that time.”

 

What this means is that you don’t have to have committed a hate crime after this legislation passed. If you’ve given the Roman salute or you’ve displayed a swastika, as your group, then you’ve committed a hate crime and you can be listed as a hate organisation. So you can be punished retroactively. I will further explain this, but make no mistake, being listed as a hate organisation is a punishment in itself. So the process is the punishment!

 

And you got to remember, a hate crime can be just political expression, like flying the swastika or moving your arm in a gesture in a Nazi salute. That is political expression. And if you just do that, you can be banned for being an organisation that gives the Roman salute. So you can be banned for retroactive conduct.

 

This is insane, because laws aren’t supposed to be retroactive. Non-retroactivity is a fundamental legal principle. That law should only apply to actions occurring after the law was enacted, not before, preventing new laws from punishing past behaviour.

 

Everyone just takes that for granted. But when you have the jewish lobby demanding laws, they really don’t care about what we take for granted, obviously.

 

For banning an organisation, a conviction is not required. So:

 

“A person does not need to have been convicted of a hate crime in order for the AFP minister (which is the Home affairs guy, so Tony Burke) to be satisfied, an organisation has engaged in conduct of a kind mentioned in paragraph one.”

 

And then there is:

 

“No procedural fairness required. The AFP minister (so Tony Burke) is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP Minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.”

 

So basically that means the people that are affected by the banning, so say the National Socialist Network was banned, we get no hearing, no say, no chance to respond, no recourse, no explanation about what’s happening. You’re just basically told:

 

“Tough luck! Like, enjoy being banned!”

 

So yeah, you get no hearing, you get no way to explain yourself or try to defend yourself in front of a judge or anything like that. And that’s what they’ve written right here, “no procedural fairness required”. Which is another legal principle that the jewish lobby don’t care about. They don’t care about what’s called natural justice or procedural fairness.

 

So:

 

“Director-General of Security advice to be provided before specifying an organisation as a prohibited hate group.”

 

So Mike Burgess has to give advice to Tony Burke or the Director General of Security has to give advice to the AFP minister and he has to be satisfied that:

 

“The organisation has engaged in activities, and that the activities or the like, the continued engagement in the activities would or are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or of the promotion of communal violence.”

 

You have to use your intelligence here and think about what they’re saying. Obviously the logic that people like Mark Burgess are going to say is that because you’re engaging activities like giving the Roman salute that those activities are going to make it more likely that people go do terrorism.

 

[14:04]

 

So that’s what it’s saying and that’s what’s going to be argued. So if this Bill passes, Mike Burgess is gonna go tell Tony Burke:

 

“Well, yeah, giving the Roman salute makes it more likely that terrorism is going to happen in the future. They need to be banned!”

 

If Mike Burgess thinks that giving the Roman salute, giving the Hitler salute and saying “Heil Hitler” and wearing black clothes makes it more likely that someone is going to go out and blow up something or kill a bunch of people, well then your organisation gets banned.

 

So that’s what happens. So they can list an organisation. And when an organisation gets listed, then it opens up people to be charged with a number of offences that relate to that prohibited hate group.

 

Those offences are:

 

“Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group.”

 

Which can get you 15 years in jail.

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group.”

 

And you have to keep in mind that being a member of an organisation you can be an informal member of the organisation and you can be charged with this because they define member of a prohibited hate group as:

 

“A member of an organisation includes a person who is an informal member of the organisation and a person who has taken steps to become a member of the organisation. And in the case of an organisation that is a body corporate, a director or an officer of the body corporate.”

 

So if you’re in so-called informal member of an organisation, you can be charged. So:

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group”, 7 years.

 

“Recruiting for a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Training involving a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Getting funds to, from or for a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Providing support to a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

And most of these offences have a lower offence if you’re convicted for one of them while being reckless rather than, I guess knowingly doing it. So being reckless means that you’re aware of a substantial risk that you’re doing the crime, and it changes like the imprisonment from like 15 years to 10 years if you’re only proven to have recklessly done it.

 

And the only defenses that you have are either you didn’t do the crime or you were a government agent when you were doing the crime. So if you’re some sort of informant or secret agent infiltrating a hate organisation then you have a defence, but otherwise you have no defence.

 

This legislation is obviously directed towards having a chilling effect on advocacy and activism of organisations outside of the mainstream. That’s obvious.

 

And you gotta remember that there is no procedural fairness. The fact that your organisation gets banned and then you have 15 years hanging over your head, that’s the punishment!

 

And obviously having your rights taken away that you can’t politically associate or politically express yourself in that particular way, that’s the punishment!

 

And I’ll go off on a little bit of a tangent here. In my case, the Roman salute case that was brought against me in the Magistrates Court for which I was convicted and then I appealed. Went to the county court and was had had the conviction against me upheld. They argued that the Roman salute offences are very narrow and hence it could be justified taking away that form of political expression. They did admit it was political expression but they said they could take it away because it was relatively narrow what it was.

 

Well you know, now it’s having very serious consequences because that offence, giving a slew has been recategorized as a “hate crime” and it can be used to retroactively ban a organisation like a 300 man organisation and threaten its leaders with 15 year sentences if they continue. A lot of the judiciary get too focused. They get narrow minded, they don’t understand like how dangerous these laws you give them an inch, they’re going to take a mile. And this legislation is taking a mile. It is insanity! Also vindictiveness! Like I don’t know how it could occur to you to have a maximum of 15 years for some of these charges when you can be prohibited as a hate group because you moved your arm in a particular way that offends the jews!

 

And another case that I saw on the news today actually funnily enough was someone who’s been charged with threatening to kill the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. And the charge for which he’s been charged, threatening to kill an MP is a maximum of five years.

 

So you get a maximum of five years for threatening to kill an MP. If you direct the activities of a prohibited hate group. A prohibited hate group that gave the Roman salute. You can be in prison for 15 years. That sounds perfectly reasonable!

 

So Part Five is “Racial vilification offence”. And this offence is:

 

“Publicly promoting or inciting hatred. A person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct in a public place.”

 

And to be clear, the Internet includes a public place.

 

Basically everywhere is a public place except for inside your own home where it can’t be seen by the public. But the Internet counts, as is sending it through the mail, some sort of business, or out on the street or something like that. All counts as a public place.

 

So the conduct is:

 

“Promote or incite hatred of another person, or a group of persons because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, or disseminate ideas of superiority over or hatred of another person, or a group of persons because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the target or target group. And the conduct would, in all the circumstances, cause a reasonable person who is the target, a member, or a member of the target group to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”

 

And they call the “reasonable person test” as an objective test, but really it just comes down to the judge to decide who a reasonable person is, to describe who the reasonable person is so really, it isn’t actually a objective test. It’s just a subjective test. Like, it comes down to what the judge thinks. It’s not like there’s any empirical data about who this average person is based on polling or anything. It just comes down to the judge, who he thinks, he or she thinks this reasonable person of the group of a particular ethnic or racial group is.

 

[21:42]

 

And obviously you can be charged here with a criminal offence if you:

 

“Disseminate ideas of superiority over a group of persons because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin.”

 

So you can’t say that particular nations are better than other nations. So if you say “Australia is better than China”, well, you could be charged. You could be charged with this. I’m not saying that that’s likely to happen, but with what this law says, I’m somebody who is disliked by the government. If I said that “Australia is a better society, Australia is a better nation than China”, well, that’s disseminating an idea of superiority over a group of persons because of their national origin. Maybe I could say that and someone feels intimidated or they feel fearful. And the issue is, there’s so many people in this society that feel intimidated or fear from the littlest things. We’ve become a very soft society. And judges love to rule based on sentimentality when it comes to these things! And you can be imprisoned up to five years for publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred. Yeah!

 

So:

 

“For the purposes of subsection 1, it is immaterial whether the target or members of the target group actually are distinguished by the particular race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, or the conduct actually results in hatred of another person or group of persons, or the conduct actually results in any person feeling intimidated, feeling harassment or violence, or feeling fearing for their safety.”

 

So what that says is that they don’t have to prove that any person of that particular race or nation or ethnicity was present and kind of a target of it. They don’t have to prove that hatred was actually kind of incited in somebody. They don’t need to prove that anyone was intimidated, felt harassed, or feared for their safety. None of that actually has to be proven because a judge can come up with this magical, reasonable person of that group, this imaginary person, and say:

 

“This person has been targeted. This imaginary person has been targeted. It could potentially have led to hatred being incited in other people and it could have potentially intimidated or made someone, this imaginary person, fear for their life.”

 

At least you have a defense here for religious teaching or discussion:

 

“Subsection (1) does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from or otherwise referencing a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”

 

So this is lucky for our Muslim friends who can quote directly from that Hadith saying that the stones and the trees are going to tell them where the so the Muslims are safe in that regard, and so they should be.

 

“Part 7. Hate symbols – Reversing the burden of proof for public interest elements of prohibited symbols offences.”

 

So it means that there’s already these hate symbol laws. So if you display a hate symbol or you display the swastika or give the Roman salute, there were defenses saying that you could do these things as long as there was a public interest like a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose that isn’t contrary to the public interest.

 

And previously the prosecution would have to prove themselves that this hate symbol or the salute wasn’t given for one of those legitimate purposes. So it’s been flipped now, that if you display this a symbol or give the salute or anything like that, then you can be charged. And then you have to prove that you did it for a legitimate purpose, like a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose.

 

And so basically this gets rid of the presumption of innocence, and so it makes it easier for the prosecution to charge people and drag them through the courts. Because if you post a picture of Hitler with the swastika, you can be charged. They don’t need to prove that you did it for hateful reasons. Actually you need to prove that you didn’t do it for hateful reasons.

 

So that’s what it literally does. It reverses the burden of proof. An example would be if I posted a photo of Hitler next to the swastika. I can be charged easier because the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that I posted it for a hateful purpose. I have to defend myself in court and say, perhaps I posted it for an academic purpose or to teach or something like that.

 

[27:15]

 

The other thing is the prohibited hate group symbols are added to the criminal offences. So it’s not only just terrorist symbols and the swastika and the Roman salute. So if NSN got banned, the converging arrows, for example, the converging arrows, flag or the patch, you’d be able to be charged with displaying that.

 

These laws also have a minimum one year in jail. So a judge has to give you a year in jail if you’re convicted of this.

 

I’ve went through all the hate speech stuff in this Bill with you. I think it’s clear that the people that wrote this Bill don’t care about the basic legal principles that are supposed to underpin the whole of our judicial system, like natural justice, presumption of innocence, freedom of speech, freedom of association, proportionality. Non-retroactivity.

 

So what has been the response? One Nation has come out opposing it, which is good for them. The Liberal Party have come out opposing it as well, but they’ve said that they want to come up with their own version of it, which I suggest would be far more watered down than this, which would be good.

 

But these laws don’t need to be passed. There are laws that stop people. Well, that criminalises terrorism. It’s not like the person who went and shot those people in Bondi is at liberty because there’s a fault in the laws. He’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail. Changing the laws isn’t going to fix any of this. It’s going to make it worse!

 

The real danger isn’t what we have to do to apparently solve “hate”. The problem is what are we going to do to solve the fact that we have a government that wants to destroy all the principles that are supposed to underpin our judicial system because they don’t like particular groups, opposition groups in society, whether they be National Socialist or Islamist.

 

The response from the entire online Right has been very positive. Like everyone is raging about this, like it’s all that anyone is talking about in the Australian Right-wing now. Everyone has come out against it.

 

We have the Home Affairs Shadow Minister, this guy, the dishonourable Jonathan Duniam, some total nobody no one’s ever heard of or cares about. And he was mocking the National Socialist Network for us, saying that this Bill is draconian.

 

Jonathan Duniam:

 

“Of course they cite in that statement that these laws ‘most draconian in the universe, making freedom of speech impossible, etc, etc’. Clearly they’ve seen this identification of formal groupings and hate group listing etc., as something to try and avoid, which is good in one sense.”

 

And then I think he went and checked the Internet and saw that everyone else was saying it as well and then he changed his positions.

 

What’s the response been from the Muslims? The Muslim response has been good. They’ve been coming out against it and you know, they shouldn’t be banned. There’s been like arguments that the problem with these laws is it doesn’t come out hard enough against Islam. These laws shouldn’t be passed at all! Even if they were going to be just confined to Muslims. These laws need to be opposed. We don’t need to ban any of these Muslims organisations. Now just because two Muslims went and killed 15 people, it doesn’t mean that we have to destroy the judicial system that governs 27 million people. Like the threat is not these two Muslim terrorists killing 15 people, it’s the Commonwealth that is unnecessarily going to destroy all of our freedoms. Proposing this supposed solution that’s not even going to do anything. It’s not going to do anything to stop terrorism.

 

And then we saw fat Ross who runs the White Rose Society, she’s an anti-fascist. She described it as “state oppression”. I think you’re right there for once. And then Socialist Alternative came out against it. Their front group for Palestine. So they’ve got a group they use to organise Palestinian activists. They came out against it, so good on them.

 

Jews say it doesn’t go far enough. To be expected. I don’t think I need to comment much more on that.

 

Mainstream media has largely came out against it as well. They’ve been publishing voices that come out against it. They haven’t really been publishing any voices that go for it other than the jews. And everyone, when it comes down to it, everyone hates this Bill other than the jews. And luckily I don’t think it’s gonna pass.

 

And the Greens have come out against it. But they said they might be open to just amending it. But I’m not sure how likely that actually is. But wouldn’t it be just a perfect summation of how stupid and disgusting this country is, if after a Muslim terrorist attack in Bondi they draughted these laws which go to severely persecute and oppress National Socialists and Islamists, if the Greens amended it so that it didn’t go after Islamists and then it only affected National Socialists! So White Australians and National Socialists would be the only ones who get punished for an Islamist terrorist attack. Stranger things have happened. That sounds like something the Commonwealth would do. And that just tells you how reprehensible it is.

 

But in the first place, the fact that we are under threat, the National Socialist Network is under threat from laws that are draughted up from a Muslim terrorist attack says all that it needs to. Why are we getting banned from for an attack that has nothing to do with us? I could at least understand the rationale, even though I’d disagree with it, if some sort of Right-wing or nationalist person went out and shot people, or shot an MP or something like that, I could understand the rationale. But for us to be banned for Muslim terrorism?

 

Yeah, with the Greens and the Coalition coming out against its looking more and more like it’s not going to pass, which is a good thing.

 

Nonetheless, the National Socials Network is disbanding. Some people are disappointed by that. I saw someone on Twitter, or X as it’s now called, said that:

 

“We should be martyrs and that we should continue operations until we get charged with these 15 year offences.”

 

He said:

 

“Just be the martyrs, bro!”

 

Well, perhaps you should do that in my stead. Maybe put on a converging arrows patch, make your own one, dress up in black and go out there, get arrested on our behalf. Just be a martyr, bro!

 

And there’s not going to be any way to get around this. Like they’re not going to be charitable, they’re not going to help you out. If you even slightly do something that could be perceived as continuing the organisation after it gets banned, you’re going to be arrested, charged, remanded and facing serious jail time.

 

[35:20]

 

There’s no oversight in terms of whether or not the listing is correct. Like you get listed, it’s a done deal! You go before a judge, if you are genuinely continuing or doing any of those offences, there’s nothing he can do. He has to find you guilty or you go before a jury. And if they find you guilty, then you’re getting punished severely. You’re getting probably half a decade in jail at the very least.

 

And there’s been people on the far-Right who love to engage in victim blaming. So they say:

 

“The only reason this is happening is because the National Socialist Network engages in street activism, dresses up in black, praises Adolf Hitler, gave the Roman salutes in the past.”

 

All of that kind of hard hitting, confronting street activism. But we’re not the ones that pass these laws. Like agency obviously belongs to the legislature and the people who control the people who run the legislature, so obviously the jewish lobby.

 

So if anyone is to blame for these laws, it’s not the groups that are being banned. And it’s being done in response to these two Muslim shooters in Bondi. But it’s not even their fault. It’s not the fault of Muslim preachers, it’s not the fault of National Socialist activists. And this is the thing. It’s taking the blame away from the actual agent that has perpetrated this, who has created this, and it’s pushing it on the people who are getting targeted and who are going to suffer the most from these laws.

 

The real blame is the jewish lobby and the Australian government. That is why these laws are coming through. The people that push for them, the people who wrote them up and the people that passed them. But the issue is even if we had better optics, these laws would still be being brought through and we would still be under threat of getting banned. And this has been proven by other countries where you have groups like Generation Identity in France that got banned by the French state. I don’t think anyone’s gonna argue that their optics were an issue. Their optics were pretty tame, yet they got banned.

 

So whatever represents the strongest force of nationalism in a particular country, the jewish lobby and the government is going to try to legislate them out of existence. That’s what’s going to happen. And if we were the Nationalist Network and we didn’t wear black clothes and we just wore regular clothes, I guess regular bourgeois clothes, maybe suits and ties and had said “Australia for the Australians”, if we were the biggest group, we would still be getting banned. That’s the truth!

 

In this regard, all roads lead to Rome, as I’m sure some of you have seen in the memes recently with the rabbit with its clock. You know, it doesn’t matter which road you go down, you’re eventually going to go to Rome and it doesn’t matter what road you go down when you have an unjust system, you’re eventually going to be banned by it if you’re a big enough threat to its agenda. So you need to stop bargaining with the system when it’s fundamentally unjust.

 

And the optics people, the only thing that would be different in this situation is these optics people, because of their particular ideas of activism, they would just be a bit more sympathetic.

 

But people should stand for principles and ideas and for an actual fair legal system more than just perception and optics, in my opinion.

 

We really don’t need to total our legal system. What angers the government and the jewish lobby is that we have deeply felt political conviction and that we want to do whatever we can to further our political agenda while staying on the right side of the law. So we’re trying to stay within the legal framework while pushing forward our political agenda, what we deeply, deeply believe in. And that is what angers them the most. And it angers them so much that they don’t care about their own rules, they don’t care about their own judicial system, they don’t care about any of this.

 

Of course, the jewish lobby never really cared. It shows you that the people that profess to be liberal Democrats in this government and one of their claims for legitimacy, how little they care about it. They don’t care about their own rules, they don’t care about their own system anymore.

 

And it’s pretty obvious that these people have no respect for the system of government that our ancestors erected at the beginning of the last century. I might have a so-called “violent extremist” opinion here, but I don’t think we should total our legal system. The legal system and the principles underpinning the judicial system of yesteryear, it’s actually one of the things I do like about this country. And they accused me of hating Australia. You know, I don’t hate Australia. I don’t hate the nation, I don’t hate the continent.

 

I do certainly hate the Commonwealth, because a government that cooks up legislation like this is reprehensible!

 

[41:19]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Gab Comments

top

(Comments as of = )

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript