Drop The Charges Against Brendon O’Connell

A Perth man, Brendon O’Connell was raided yesterday (again!) by the Western Australian police ‘State Security Investigation Group’. He has been charged again under Western Australia’s odious racial vilification laws. He now faces two lots of 14 years imprisonment.

Why? Because he has criticised Israel and its Zionist ideology. This has been falsely labelled as vilification of Jews.

When Brendon O'Connell, 38, was charged last May for the thought crime offence of condemning Israel, its false and brutal terror against the Palestinians and the ideology that encourages all this (Zionism), Australia First Party condemned the arrest as the very model of a KGB/Gestapo operation, that sort of political arrest liberal-democratic free speech advocates would once criticise. Because Mr. O'Connell was a fearless campaigner for truth, his ‘crime’ is to be punished as a warning. Given that the so-called democratic Australian government supports Israeli state crime and offers up the lives of Australian soldiers, not even to strike at Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to defend the big-picture Zionist interest in the Middle East, we interpreted this arrest as one of the most significant political free speech challenges of modern times in Australia. It struck at the right of the Australian people to work out their own independent line on the Middle East and Islamic extremism, free of the lie that Israel is any sort of friend of Australia.

And now, Mr. O’Connell finds himself charged yet again.

As on the first occasion, the State Security Investigation Group arrested Mr. O'Connell and charged him with "conduct with intent to incite racial animosity or racist harassment". In other words, a political police agency has direct powers of arrest against a citizen for the exercise of his free speech. Mr. O'Connell now faces 14 years imprisonment. Certainly, this time around, the political police and the Director of Public Prosecutions were concerned that Mr. O’Connell worked in a very public way to expose the false nature of the charge. Crooks never like exposure!

How did this affair come into being?

Mr. O'Connell had published some videos on U-Tube. He is seen on film in front of Perth's Bell Tower and at a South Perth supermarket. The political police accuse him of making anti-Semitic comments to a couple of Jewish men. The allegation of anti semitism is one big furphy. Mr. O'Connell is a Christian and he is entitled to criticise Judaism, just as followers of that religion may - and do - criticise Christianity or Islam in the most strident terms. At the level of religious debate, strong language is to be expected and allowed. Indeed, it is constitutionally protected. What is really at issue is Mr. O’Connell’s criticism of the Zionist ideology and the state crime of Israel.

All Australians observe today the false and hopeless war in Afghanistan and whilst maintaining their awareness of the serious question of Islamic extremism internationally and locally, are beginning to see Israeli state crime and the Zionist ideology as prime causes of this very problem. In the midst of this, a political police agency harasses a critic of Zionist policy

Last May, it was Western Australian Opposition Multicultural Interests spokesman Labor MP John Hyde, who served as the fingerman, alerting police, Jewish community leaders and the Ethnic Communities Council of WA about the videos. He had praised WA Police for using the anti-vilification laws to lay the charges. He was quoted as saying: "Members of the multicultural community can take comfort in the knowledge that this alleged race hate crime will now go before the courts.'' Indeed, and the multicultural industry may well now look for more targets!

Mr. Hyde has undoubtedly allowed himself to be used by Zionists and other so-called 'anti-racists' who front for them. There is no race hate crime in this affair. But there is an implied attack upon religious freedom and an attack upon political freedom. The Australia First Party will now campaign directly against Mr. Hyde. The party will campaign to expose Mr. Hyde before his electorate as a snivelling opponent of genuine free speech.

Now that Mr. O’Connell, who has campaigned publically since his arrest against the first charge, has been charged again, his right to any sort of fair process is even further undermined. Mr. O’Connell sent out an urgent plea of his own today. We publish an edited version of it:

“Hello. Brendon O'Connell here. I was raided by the state security unit led by detective timothy Richard Paini. He was IN THE HOUSE before the other police came through the side gate. I confronted him - he stated he had come through the side gate also - that is a lie. He was in the house "DOING" something. I went OFF. I stated he was attempting to frame me and plant something. Their behaviour was DESPERATE!I have been charged AGAIN with "Conduct Intended To Incite Racial Vilification". I was also charged with "obstructing police". I refused to acknowledge THEM or their BULLSHIT warrant. Paini is CORRUPT. He is NOT acting as he should. He appears desperate. The D.P.P is desperate…... I RANG Paini at 10 am Monday morning to complain important files (including raw video footage of the I.G.A confrontation) were missing. 7 hours later I was RAIDED! Please get the word out. ALL my communications … cut. Computers gone. Mobile gone. Passport taken. COURT DOCUMENTS taken. UNBELIEVABLE! I am scared because they appear absolutely DESPERATE. ……. contact me on...brendonoconnellencrypted2@gmail.com I screamed at Paini that he and his friends had deleted e-mails that morning and been hacking my computer. He SMIRKED! I said I'd wipe the smirk OFF HIS FACE. I will ALWAYS have time for the Uniformed coppers, but my days of co-operating with detectives are O-V-E-R.I will represent myself. It was said to me by Rod Keely (Barrister) that they had NO CASE from the beginning. Regards, Brendon O'Connell”

This is the cry of a true advocate of democratic liberty and it must not go unheeded.

The Australia First Party calls on all patriots and advocates of freedom of speech to support Mr. O'Connell as best they can and in accordance with his wishes. Mr. O’Connell has created a blogsite:

http://brendonoconnell.blogspot.com



Donations can be made.
PO Box 5188, Central Queensland Mail Centre, Queensland 4702.


Australia First Party demands the repeal of the 'anti vilification' laws in Western Australia as falsely crafted thought crime legislation whose real nature is finally revealed

Australia First Party demands that the charges against Brendon O’Connell be dropped.

Australia First Party demands an open commission of inquiry into treatment meted out to Brendon O’Connell and to establish who initiated these charges and why.

Queensland not for sale campaign!

What you can do? We urge all Queensland members of Australia First and our friends to support the Queensland Not For Sale Campaign. We urge you all to visit the site and have your say against the QLD Labor Government's Fire Sale of the PEOPLES ASSETS.

Sign up to stay informed on upcoming demonstrations and join them if you can. If you are prepared to make a stand organize at a local level with other Australia First members and colleagues and take part. Join the campaign. Its our state lets keep it that way.

No Government has the right to sell off our children s future!

Queensland not for sale web site HERE

Contact your local MP HERE

also visit the ETU web site HERE

Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot

Source

SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?

With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come.

Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.

Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the draft Copenhagen treaty.

Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.

So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”

Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN website and hacked his way through several layers of complications before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft treaty. It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it, he went public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.”

Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded.

Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,” he says.

The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.

How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.

Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.

Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.

Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago, Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable?

And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy?

At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread the word.”

Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about.

Australia First Registration Applicants Uphold The Ideals Of Australianism

Australia First Party has applied for registration as a party with the Australian Electoral Commission. The application was made on October 2 and will take some months to be processed.

Our party aims to consolidate those Australians who are prepared – right now – to stand up in the cause of Australian Identity, Independence and Freedom.

Some eleven members were obliged by law to co-sign the party registration application.

We are pleased to provide political biography on these members precisely because our party certainly aims to consolidate into one party those activists and shapers from earlier movements of nationalist resistance to the globalisation of our country. Our party has drawn together those who wish to pursue the struggle in an activist way. We have united people with long experience and we want other activists still involved elsewhere to appreciate that fact. In simple truth, Australia First Party represents a veritable tradition in Australian political life stretching back over decades. We aim to become the common vehicle that will achieve success.

1. Tony Pettitt

Tony will serve as Registered Officer. He entered nationalist politics in the late 1980’s as an independent candidate and then worked through Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation when he was a candidate several times and worked in an organizational capacity. He joined the new Australia First in 2008.

2. Jim Saleam

Jim participated in the rebirth of the new Australian Nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action which he led until 1991. He has written extensively on Australian identity. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2001 and the new Australia First in 2007. He will serve as National Secretary.

3. Nick Maine

As an ‘old warrior’ in the patriotic struggle, Nick is 87 years and served in the Australian Army in New Guinea. He both founded, and was a member of, several organisations, which arose after the betrayal of the White Australia Policy in 1966, to warn Australians of the dangers of liberal immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 1996 and the new Australia First in 2007.

4. Brendan Gidley

Brendan entered the nationalist struggle in 1984 as a member of National Action until 1991 and was involved thereafter in Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation as an organizer He has co-operated some nationalist websites and publishing services. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new party in 2007.

5. Neil Baird

Neil entered the nationalist struggle in 1992 as a member of Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined One Nation in 1997 and served the party as a candidate and in several administrative functions. He is a regular speaker for nationalist forums and joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new party in 2007.

6. Alex Norwick

Alex participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action; he also worked in the 1980’s with other patriotic groups. In the 1990’s he worked with Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He has written on Australian labour history. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.

7. Perry Jewell

Perry migrated to Australia from South Africa in 1972 and in 1990 co-founded Australia’s first mass nationalist-minded party – Confederate Action Party. He worked subsequently through other groups in Queensland and founded in 2007 a movement to combat drug addiction in Australia. As a man of considerable political and other talent, he joined the new Australia First in 2009.

8. Rob Fraser

Rob entered the nationalist arena in 1988, being an editor of the magazine, Bunyip Bulletin. He later participated in Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.

9. Nathan Clarke

Nathan is a younger nationalist activist who entered the movement in 2005. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new Australia First in 2007. He was a lead Council candidate for the new Australia First in Newcastle in 2008.

10. Terry Cooksley

Terry joined Australian National Alliance (1979-80) and was a co-founder of National Action with which he remained until 1991. He was candidate in the 1990’s for Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.

11. Darrell Wallbridge

Darrell founded a local nationalist party in his native Coffs Harbour (1981) and passed into National Action (1982-91) and was a candidate for Confederate Action Party. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.

The Greater Significance Of The Australian Light Horse Charge at Beersheba

A photograph of the charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade at Beersheba.

The following is a speech given by Jim Saleam to a special commemorative meeting for the 92nd anniversary of the great Light Horse Charge at Beersheba.

The meeting, hosted by the Friends Of Henry Lawson, featured speakers from cultural groups and readings from Australian military history.

The speech has been very slightly edited.

I am not talking of the history of the event we are here to honour. Rather, I am talking about impressions of that event. I suppose that's about building culture myths. Mythology doesn't just mean those wild Greek tales - or fairy-stories peoples sometimes tell. I can tell you as a student of Australian culture history that the Myth is actually about the setting of images in people's minds, an idea, a standard, a set of moral ideals and so a collective unconscious emerges that unites a people together. We go on to fashion ourselves and our lives around it. Myth is a powerful thing. And to use the Greek sounding term palingenesis - rebirth - we could say that the eternal return of the central Myths of a people presses people into its service in a new time.Weighty stuff. So, now you get it. What did Beersheba mean for Australians? Then? Later? Now?

Let's Make It Personal

The first thing I ever heard about the charge at Beersheba was a little bit of adult chatter, somewhere, sometime. Maybe I was 6 years of age. It became real a few years after that, when our primary school was blessed with an elderly gent who was brought along one day about 1965 to tell the tale.

Let's be honest. Some bloke about 70 looked like a bloke about 100 when you're ten. So, he was revered on that account alone.

But he told a bloody good story. The only bit I remember was something about the Turks being bad shots 'cos they hadn't adjusted their gun sights. He was here and that was the proof of that.

That's the Myth in action folks. The storyteller from the golden age, telling you a great tale from when he was young, when he could have died, but for luck. Something that did all proud. It was your history. No one else's. The truth belonged to you if you too dared to live it. And there was the promise that if ever you were tested you could do just as well.

Our school was blessed by such a speaker. Indeed, we often had speakers about important events in the national history or we saw great icons of that history like the Eureka Flag.

The day our Beersheba veteran spoke, the school showed the classic film, Forty Thousand Horsemen.

Forty Thousand Horsemen

Released in 1940, the film's nationalistic sentiment and dramatisation of Australian success in battle touched a strong chord with a new generation then at war. The story follows three larrikin Light Horsemen and their role in the desert campaigns. The three leads, played by Grant Taylor, Chips Rafferty and Pat Toohill, are introduced to us playing two-up in a market place and indulging in tom foolery, including taking a wild donkey ride through town and into a cabaret club
(the same themes used in Mel Gibson's Gallipoli). The celebrated climax of the story plays out the famous charge at Beersheba. The film broke national box office records and also had considerable success on the international market.

We all loved it as 1960's kids.For one, I have shown the film at various meetings since in my adult life.

This film renders sacred too the sand dunes at Kurnell, but a few kilometres from where Captain Cook proclaimed that modern civilisation had come to the oldest Continent. White fellas history all that, but just as meaningful to us as black fellas' Dreamings.

In other words, in fact, film about the charge at Beersheba sanctified our native ground in the reliving of it.

A Legend Born

The charge at Beersheba soon entered the Australian consciousness. The realist paintings of Lambert, the exhibitions collected for the National War Museum, the ANZAC Day commemerations that began in the 1920's, at the RSSAILA Clubs and so on - were all signs of that. Side by side with ANZAC Cove, it illustrated the right of the new nation to be taken seriously by others. At the Versailles Treaty conference in 1919, Australia spoke for herself. One could say that the desert war gave more of a right to this than the meat-grinder trench warfare in France. It is proper to
remember.

And Today?

Of late, as part of our own Culture Wars in Australia, publicity has been given to an incident where some Light Horse committed what was, in modern politically-correct-speak, a war crime in shooting some people in a local village.

It is one thing to record the truth, whatever it might be. I wonder whether the publicity given to this minor affair serves a darker purpose? To undermine the national myth perhaps?

Interesting too that we can also draw a point about Australian service in war. Some people say that this service has always been at the behest of big players who misused our manhood. Sad to say, but there is truth in that. A young country can be swallowed up in the misdeeds of others. But the Australians in Palestine had another side too. We know that the British and the French betrayed the Arabs who rose against the Turks. Yet, young Australia believed as Colonel Lawrence believed, that a free Arab world was in the interest of the Allied Powers and that the Ottomon Empire be consigned to history.

It is sad that some people get that wrong today. I saw a newspaper last year issued by some Christian folks around Fred Nile - and they say that the Charge at Beersheba was all about making Israel and they praised up the Israeli government for allowing certain remembrance ceremonies on the site. Bad religion and bad history. If the Aussie charge had anything to do with the birth of that state, it was because of the betrayal of the Arab Rising by the British and the French - and not of an action born of our will.

Yet, history plays tricks on that - and the Australians are still recalled in Palestine and Syria as men who came to set those countries free to make a better world. The Arabs might rail against the others, but not against the Australians.

If it had been up to the Australians alone, I can see that this would have been precisely what they would have done.

We may say that freedom, the freedom for all peoples, rode with the Light Horse. Let us remember that as we try to set our own country free.


The Legend of the Light Horse lives in all of us. Celebrate it.

Bob Hawke Grubs Up To China Free Trade Pact

There is something miserable about Bob Hawke, former Prime Minister and Labor Party wise-man. Complete with his $190,000,000 nest egg all 'made' after he left office, this solid member of the traitor class long abandoned the working Australian to his fate. So it was demonstrated (again) this week.

On October 29, after hearing a Sydney speech on free trade by Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang , Hawke was in rapture and ready to attack the ordinary working Australian who is aware he is going to be out of a job under the new free trade arrangements.

Hawke said: .."Stupid unintelligent rednecks who play the racist card .." "don't' represent ""... "Australian thinking" on free trade!

Indeed, we don't represent official 'Australian thinking'. It is the traitor class which likes to believe it is intelligent and rational and can do our thinking for us. As 'rednecks' we aren't meant to make it in the new economic rationalist utopia.

We are hated for our presumption that we mean anything at all other than as labour for those who know better! Hawke's utter contempt for the working person may show his role in the trade union movement and the so-called Labor Party was a cover for the real agenda.

Interesting too, how Hawke's brain works. In June 1989, he wept on national television over Chinese tanks running over protesting students in Beijing. That was a convenient excuse to allow 40,000 Chinese students to stay in Australia. That grand exercise in culture busting the Australian community and establishing on our own soil a new investment and trading group, was just a prelude to closer integration with China's economy thereafter. Step by step, China has taken control over vast tracts of Australian land and Australian resources.

The new Free Trade agreement between China and Australia will be opposed by hundreds of thousands of Australian workers in their unions. That means nothing to the Labor Party other than a problem to be managed while they get on with the job of enmeshing our country in China's rise to superpower status. This betrayal presents Australian nationalists with an opportunity to reach out to wider sections of Australia's working people.

Australia First Party intends to take up that opportunity.