Brendon Lee O’Connell found guilty of racial hatred

    Update, January 31, 2011. Brendon O’Connell has been sentenced to three years jail for his crimes. O’Connell has the distinction of being the first person to be successfully prosecuted under WA’s laws against racial and religious vilification, legislation introduced following the racist violence of the neo-Nazi ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’ under Jack Van Tongeren. Van Tongeren’s former arch-nemesis is Dr James Saleam, leader of the Australia First Party. AF has urged its followers to support O’Connell, whom the party denies is anti-Semitic and argues is instead merely a good Christian.

Israeli oranges + Jewish yoof + Labor Party + Multicultural Industry + the very model of a KGB/Gestapo operation + a treasonous judge + a kangaroo court + King James Bible + the Constitution = Jews did WTC! guilty verdict on six counts of racial hatred + remand + court on Monday.

Brendon Lee O’Connell found guilty of racial hatred
AAP
January 28, 2011

A PERTH man who posted a video online showing him arguing with a Jewish man and calling him a “racist, homicidal maniac” has been found guilty of racial hatred.

Brendan [sic] Lee O’Connell, 38, represented himself before a jury in the Perth District Court after firing the lawyer who had been defending him against an accusation that he posted an anti-[S]emitic video online.

O’Connell faced seven charges related to the posting of a verbal altercation he had with Stanley Keyser and Timothy Peach, who are Jewish, and was found guilty on six.

An argument broke out between the three men at an IGA supermarket in South Perth on May 2, 2009, where a Friends of Palestine group was holding a protest against Israeli oranges.

Mr Peach, 19, told the court during the trial that he was a member of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students at the time and had attended the rally to “observe” and hand out flyers to educate the protesters about Israel.

He said he was “angry”, “confused” and “offended” by O’Connell when he started to film the two Jewish men and argue with them about their religion.

During the trial, O’Connell refused to acknowledge Judge Henry Wisbey when he entered the court and, instead, rose to bow to the jury.

About a dozen supporters in the court cheered when O’Connell labelled the proceedings “a kangaroo court” and gave a long, repetitive rant about the King James Bible and the Constitution.

The video that O’Connell posted online was shown on the first day of the trial.

“You have a religion of racism, hate, homicide and ethnic cleansing,” O’Connell says to the men on the video.

“You are a racist, homicidal maniac.”

When the jury found O’Connell guilty on Friday, he shouted: “Free Palestine! Free Iraq!” before being taken away.

Outside court, Mr Keyser’s mother Shelley said it was “a big relief” for the “terrible” ordeal to be over.

O’Connell was remanded in custody and is due to reappear in court on Monday.

See also : Man found guilty over race hate video, Belle Taylor, The West Australian, January 28, 2011.

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2020 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in !nataS, State / Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Brendon Lee O’Connell found guilty of racial hatred

  1. James D. says:

    He might be a idiot. But still. A Youtube video?

    By the sounds of it, this was the type of thing you see in the streets any day.

    It’s hard to read through the [article] with[out] saying “is that all?”

  2. @ndy says:

    Kinda sorta. The story is a bit more involved I think. So for example, as I understand it, the fact that Brendon published a video online is crucial, not incidental, to the prosecution. I dunno about it being an everyday occurrence… I dunno too many people who film these kinds of things in the same way Brendon has (nor for that matter, how the six charges specifically relate to this behaviour).

  3. @ndy says:

    Three years eh? Uncle Adolph got five and did eight months for the putsch, so maybe Brendon could do like five months and come away from the experience with a short but nonetheless inspirational biography?

  4. Stu says:

    Bloody disgusting 3 years!!! i wonder if he had any prior convictions? i know blokes that have done less time for attempted murder and that is as true as im sittin here, it goes to show how pathetic this country is that sort of sentence is what could of been expected in the U.S a country run by jews not here but that ever frightening word “antisemitic” that was invented by the jew to use against the goy is so effective it is taking off here now by the sheep who follow the headquarters of cool the USA.

    What do you think the outcome would of been if it was the jew mouthin off anti Australian slurs? absolutely nothin that’s what, that’s another thing with this “N word” rubbish while i am at it what the hell is that all about the word “nigger” would have to be the most taboo word you could use in the US and they are all dead frightened of usin it.

    This country has become a laughin stock im sure of it with all this political correctness BS did O’Connell assault the jew? he just ribbed him and paid out on him about his religion so f what what we will see now is Keyser and peach will suddenly become traumatized by the event over night and claim under the victims of crime compensation act.

    sht i better shut up eh after what i have just written i would be eligible for the death sentence how dare i speak out and sound “antisemitic” shut up boy and do as the jews tell ya.

    Just before i post this another thing has come to mind … picture this ok, the scenario is exactly the same but it was done to an indigenous Australian and he was called a boong and told his dream time stories are a load of rot? what do ya think would be the eventual outcome there? … exactly bugger all, tell ya what i would believe in dream time stories well before i believed anything written in the “flame alphabet” but thats my opinion apparently i am NOT entitled to.

    Poor old Australia, where have ya gone? it’s a cryin shame it really is.

    Mel gibson

  5. sflyons says:

    3 years for a race-hate video sounds pretty hardcore. I’m suspecting the descriptions in the media didn’t do it justice. I guess his complete lack of remorse and artful courtroom tactics played a part as well.

  6. @ndy says:

    I ain’t a law-talkin’ guy but yeah. As I understand it, he was found guilty of six charges each of which has a max of two years and/or a fine the exact punishment for which depends upon the exact nature of the charges (which hasn’t been made clear at this stage).

    In terms of his courtroom behaviour; again, maybe: I dunno.

    During the trial, O’Connell refused to acknowledge Judge Wisbey when he entered the court and, instead, rose to bow to the jury…

    On Monday, Judge Wisbey said O’Connell had shown no remorse for his offences and his behaviour “was that of a bully”.

    As he was led out of court, O’Connell shouted: “Don’t forget about the Gazans!”

    Chapter XI of the Criminal Code (WA)

    7. Conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassment

    Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

    Alternative offence: s. 78, 80A or 80B.
    [Section 77 inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(3).]

    78. Conduct likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment

    Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

    Alternative offence: s. 80A or 80B.

    Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.
    [Section 78 inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(1) and (3).]

    79. Possession of material for dissemination with intent to incite racial animosity or racist harassment

    Any person who —

    (a) possesses written or pictorial material that is threatening or abusive intending the material to be published, distributed or displayed whether by that person or another person; and

    (b) intends the publication, distribution or display of the material to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group,

    is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

    Alternative offence: s. 80, 80C or 80D.
    [Section 79 inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(3).]

    80. Possession of material for dissemination if material likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment

    If —

    (a) any person possesses written or pictorial material that is threatening or abusive intending the material to be published, distributed or displayed whether by that person or another person; and

    (b) the publication, distribution or display of the material would be likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group,

    the person possessing the material is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

    Alternative offence: s. 80C or 80D.

    Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.
    [Section 80 inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(1) and (3).]

    80A. Conduct intended to racially harass

    Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to harass a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

    Alternative offence: s. 78 or 80B.

    Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.
    [Section 80A inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(1) and (3).]

    80B. Conduct likely to racially harass

    Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to harass a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

    Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of $12 000.
    [Section 80B inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(2).]

    80C. Possession of material for display with intent to racially harass

    Any person who —

    (a) possesses written or pictorial material that is threatening or abusive intending the material to be displayed whether by that person or another person; and

    (b) intends the display of the material to harass a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group,

    is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.

    Alternative offence: s. 80 or 80D.

    Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of $24 000.
    [Section 80C inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(1) and (3).]

    80D. Possession of material for display if material likely to racially harass

    If —

    (a) any person possesses written or pictorial material that is threatening or abusive intending the material to be displayed whether by that person or another person; and

    (b) the display of the material would be likely to harass a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group,

    the person possessing the material is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

    Summary conviction penalty: imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of $12 000.
    [Section 80D inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6; amended by No. 70 of 2004 s. 38(2).]

    80E. Conduct and private conduct

    (1) A reference in section 77, 78, 80A or 80B to conduct includes a reference to conduct occurring on a number of occasions over a period of time.

    (2) For the purposes of sections 77, 78, 80A and 80B conduct is taken not to occur in private if it —

    (a) consists of any form of communication with the public or a section of the public; or

    (b) occurs in a public place or in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
    [Section 80E inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6.]

    80F. Belief as to existence or membership of racial group

    For the purposes of proceedings for an offence under section 77, 79, 80A, 80C, 313, 317, 317A, 338B or 444 it does not matter whether a group of persons was a racial group or whether a person was a member of a racial group as long as the accused person believed at the time of the alleged offence that the group was a racial group or that the person was a member of a racial group, as the case may be.
    [Section 80F inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6.]

    80G. Defences

    (1) It is a defence to a charge under section 78 or 80B to prove that the accused person’s conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith —

    (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

    (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for —

    (i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

    (ii) any purpose that is in the public interest;

    or

    (c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report or analysis of any event or matter of public interest.

    (2) It is a defence to a charge under section 80 or 80D to prove that the accused person intended the material to be published, distributed or displayed (as the case may be) reasonably and in good faith —

    (a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

    (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for —

    (i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

    (ii) any purpose that is in the public interest;

    or

    (c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report or analysis of any event or matter of public interest.
    [Section 80G inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6.]

    80H. Consent to prosecutions

    A prosecution under section 77, 78, 79 or 80 must not be commenced without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    [Section 80H inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6.]

    80I. Term used: circumstances of racial aggravation

    In sections 313, 317, 317A, 338B and 444 —

    circumstances of racial aggravation means circumstances in which —

    (a) immediately before or during or immediately after the commission of the offence, the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based, in whole or part, on the victim being a member of a racial group; or

    (b) the offence is motivated, in whole or part, by hostility towards persons as members of a racial group.
    [Section 80I inserted by No. 80 of 2004 s. 6.]

    80J. Forfeiture of unlawful material

    A court that convicts a person of an offence under section 79, 80, 80C or 80D may make an order for the forfeiture to the State, or the destruction or disposal, of any written or pictorial material in respect of which the offence was committed.
    [Section 80J inserted by No. 59 of 2006 s. 19.]

  7. Cosmic says:

    Go to the ABC’s Drum site and you will find that any article that is vaguely or slightly critical of Israel is followed by comments that are clearly designed to incite hatred of Palestinians. Michael Brull’s current article is a perfect example.

    What’s the difference?

    Aside from the fact that O’Connell acted alone and the comments at the Drum are part of an orchestrated campaign.

    Will we see these comment posters charged? Not fucking likely!

    C’mon slackarse, tell me there’s a difference between these events.

    Three years jail is a fucking disgrace.

  8. @ndy says:

    Maybe. But I’d rather not second-guess, as Michael has written two recent articles–What Westerners should learn from the Egyptian uprising/Israel rejects Palestinian capitulation–both of which have attracted a large number of comments, only some of which presumably qualify for consideration (in your opinion). That said, I would guess that there are a number of differences, legally speaking, between what O’Connell got done for and what legal attention certain comments on ‘The Drum’ might attract, but it’s very difficult to say without knowing the details in either case. It seems to me that what makes O’Connell’s case different is that it’s based upon actions he himself filmed and which were published online (YouTube and elsewhere I think). Further, that this footage was of an actual physical confrontation, not simply an exchange that took place via a medium such as the ah, Interwebs. Beyond this, there’s the question of the law and its previous excursions, and the possibility of the DPP being presented with a fairly good case on which to obtain a successful prosecution, there being no question inre O’Connell’s identity (unlike, say, those which may be difficult to ascertain on a site such as The Drum).

    I imagine that the case will attract a good deal of legal commentary in the near future, so we’ll see.

  9. Cosmic says:

    No, I don’t buy that rationale.

    If you’re anonymous you can get away with it? And essentially, that’s the only difference between what he did and the vilification of Arabs and Islam that goes on every day of the week at News Ltd sites. He’s exposed merely because he put his name to his thoughts?

    We’re seeing one standard for one group who have real or perceived power and another for everyone else. I can only assume he got a severe penalty like three years because the judge wanted to be seen to be an arse licker to a certain clique. We know how they operate.

    What he did was intemperate and quite possibly racist but he’s being made an example of for the benefit of a particular interest group. We had people out serially “Curry Bashing” who received lesser sentences for serious violent crime.

    That’s not just, it’s corrupt.

    Even worse, he goes to jail for three years for merely verbalising his thoughts and ideas on the same day as a guy who systematically raped his under-age sister over seven years walks free. If a correction order is good enough for that sick fuck it’s good enough for O’Connell.

    Who’s next? Fuck the thought police!

  10. @ndy says:

    If you’re anonymous you can get away with it?

    Kinda sorta, yeah. I mean, all kindsa people post all kindsa crazy shit anonymously online. This is both good and bad (but also another topic). Point being, in answer to the question ‘Why Brendon O’Connell?’, the answer, partly, lies in the fact that he made public commentary. Secondly, this made him easy to identify, and therefore easy–or easier–to prosecute. I don’t know what other differences, both legal and extra-legal, there may be between his prosecution and that of our putative commentator on some forum, partly because I don’t know the details of the case (for example, there were seven charges, six of which he has been found guilty of). Thirdly, there have been only a handful of attempts to charge someone with these kinds of offences: one example I’m aware of concerned an Aboriginal teenager (who I think was the first person to be charged with such crimes) and took place in 2006; other charges were brought against some bloke called Simon Charles Barker in 2009. Neither prosecution was successful. In other words…

    In order to establish systematic bias in these cases a survey of the charges so far brought is required. Secondly, these laws only operate in WA; other states have similar but different laws. In Victoria and elsewhere, I think the same outcome generally obtains: few charges, and even fewer successful prosecutions.

    Will the fact that O’Connell has been successfully prosecuted mean more such trials? Maybe, I dunno. A suitably-qualified person from WA’s legal fraternity would know a good deal more than I.

    Finally, leaving aside the question of whether or not O’Connell should have been prosecuted under these laws–and the justness of the laws themselves–the other question is punishment. That is, is three years in prison too harsh? (I dunno about the other case you refer to.)

  11. Lumpen says:

    I’m surprised at the length of the sentence. I don’t expect that it will serve as a deterrent. I suspect the Gazans could do without Mr O’Connell’s brand of support, though. My impression from the press reports is that O’Connell was different because of his confrontation and discriminatory statements and actions based on race/religion yadda yadda, likely to incite hatred. Telling Jews that their days “were numbered” is pretty whacky. Not the kind of thing that should be taken lightly, but maybe too serious to rely on courts to resolve.

    He should have tried his luck in Canberra. I hear they pass out gun licenses with that sort of thing.

  12. Pam Ellis says:

    This is actually scary to me. The U.S.A. for all its faults takes freedom of speech pretty seriously (although the gov’t has a history of trying to block some, there are many groups that fight against governmental restrictions). With that, you get people able to say what they feel about the government, and you also get people like Fred Phelps. People have the right to say insulting, stupid, moronic things. And other people have the right to call them stupid and moronic.
    Protecting freedom of speech doesn’t mean much when it only protects speech YOU like…it has to protect all speech.

    Exceptions are incitement to violence, yelling fire in a theatre, etc. Is there no group analogous to the ACLU that fought against this new law?

  13. Cosmic says:

    Having looked for references to BLO’C on the web, and judging by his associates (positive and negative), I’m convinced he has serious psychological issues. Belief in just about any of the crazy conspiracy theories he subscribes to ought to get the alarm bells ringing. Lizard people?

    Interesting that the judge didn’t pick this up and instead actually took a combative stance against his courtroom antics. He should have at least been referred for assessment.

    He won’t be alone in prison. From what I understand, the majority of inmates have diagnosable, but undiagnosed, mental illness.

    If we’re locking up crazies there’s at least one member of the WA judiciary who should be joining him for a “little break”.

    It’s a disgrace.

  14. Daryl says:

    The legislation above is a [horrific] attack on whatever small rights we did have to express ourselves freely.

    I find the practice of child brides, forced marriage and forcing women to live their lives in cloth bags to be an abhorrence. Practices worthy of contempt, scorn, abuse and whatever else I can muster to ensure these things do not become a part of the great Australian fair go.

    It appears I can now go to prison for that…

    Very sad guys, we have to do something about this.

  15. @ndy says:

    ‘Freedom of speech’ is bandied around a lot, but its meaning is often pretty unclear. For the record, Australian citizens have only implied rights to such freedoms (it’s not encoded in Australian law as per the US Constitution yadda yadda yadda). Secondly, there are, by both custom and law, all sorts of restrictions on speech. What is generally meant by the term then, especially in these kinds of contexts, is the right of citizens to voice their opinion about some public matter–to engage in ‘political communication’–without then being punished for it by the state. (Such as, for example, being arrested, tried and sentenced: in this case, to jail. ) “Issues arising from [court] decisions include defining when communication is ‘political’ and when the freedom should prevail over competing public interests.” For some, perhaps most, the ‘exceptions’ to this rule are fairly limited: urging others to violence, say, or calling for the overthrow (violent or otherwise) of the government, or yelling theatre in a crowded fire, and so on.

    The WA Criminal Code adds a further exception to this rule, one relating to ‘Conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassment’. Of this crime, O’Connell has been found guilty. So, without having any particular legal expertise ITA, it seems to me his crime consists not merely of having, say, published an opinion piece denouncing particular religious practices, but rather as having been judged to have actively harassed two Jewish kids on account of their racial affiliation.

    As for O’Connell having psych issues: yeah maybe, dunno. It’s an interesting question. He certainly has an obsessive preoccupation with The Jew, one which seems not to have been life-long but of more recent origin. Perhaps, like other recent converts to a cause, his passion is partly driven by a sense of guilt or shame at having been In the Dark for so long…

    *shrugs*

    Whatevs. In any case, I’m not convinced that the mad bastard belongs in jail.

  16. Scott says:

    It’s shocking that Australia has been deliberately flooded with foreign races – to the point at which Australians are being made a minority in our own country, which of course is not seen as being racist – by the social engineers, and that Australians that speak up and out against this are now being convicted of “racial discrimination”!?
    In their own country? Against people that should not be here?!
    All Australians should get back to being more healthily racially discriminating, for the sake of our own and our future!

  17. @ndy says:

    Scott: the charges against Brendon relate to specific behaviour on his part, not that he urges an end to immigration.

  18. Doug says:

    Brendon O’Connell is just the latest “Soft Target” to be “taken out” by the State, whatever you think of his views he’s been made an example of, like the “Terror Cells” composed of mentally ill and generally screwball Muslims, or that Indigenous kid who stole a packet of Textas or whatever.
    By some accounts he’s just a messed up, lonely guy who craves attention, maybe if he’d had better people around him and fewer anonymous fruitcakes egging him on he wouldn’t have created so much of a hubbub and upset so many people.
    These Paranoid conspiracies only lead in one direction, a downward spiral into madness, like some H.P. Lovecraft horror story.

  19. inglourious_basterd says:

    Hey Snotty @ 5:03 p.m. did you get tired of The Antibogan?

    Expect the same profound lack of interest from people here.

  20. Three Years says:

    It seems to have gone unnoticed that the two Jews involved in this provoked the incident. They were at a pro-Palestinian protest taking photos of people attending, presumably to add them to some sort of “enemies of Israel” database. O’Connell started filming them after they had photographed him and others. This makes their self-pitying whining a bit hard to stomach, and Keyser saying that the sentence should have been longer shows a pretty low character in my opinion.

    Jews of the “Israel first” variety ARE often combative and obnoxious. If racism and chauvinism are at issue then perhaps we should consider the THOUSANDS, yes thousands, of Palestinian children that have been killed by the Israeli military over the years. Children have often been shot by Israeli snipers while walking to school, and the killers don’t serve a day in prison, let alone 3 years.

    Israel Shahak’s book ‘Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel,’ shows the nastier aspects of Israeli society which our media rarely discuss. For example, Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 worshippers, including children, at a Muslim prayer hall, is regarded as a hero by many ultra-religious Jews in Israel. Goldstein had previously been a doctor in the Israeli Army. He refused, on religious grounds, to treat a number of Palestinians who had been wounded by Israeli soldiers. He wasn’t discharged, or punished, for this though he was moved to another unit, at one stage, because some Druze soldiers, serving in the IDF, complained that they didn’t believe Goldstein would treat them if they were wounded. He received a promotion even after these incidents. Shahak wrote his first book, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion,’ after an incident where he saw an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his telephone to be used to call an ambulance for a non-Jewish man who collapsed in his Jerusalem neighborhood.

    This is a people who always consider themselves victims, never perpetrators and, though O’Connell may have made mistakes, I think his concern for the Palestinian people is genuine and I don’t believe he deserves a prison sentence.

  21. Victor Whitelaw says:

    C’mon @ndy. Quit tapdancing and at least be honest FOR ONCE, ferchrissakes! If you persist in keeping this arrogance up you’ll have no friends AT ALL and, let’s face it, they’re thin on the ground now.

    Regardless of all our intense political differences do you really, truly, madly, deeply believe this sort of thing is good for ANYONE?

    Although we suspect (okay, we’re almost convinced) you are a state asset, can you really sleep soundly at night in the knowledge you will never share a similar fate?

    The trouble with flirting with authoritarianism of any type or degree is it’s a double edged weapon. You or me? Who is next? Will you put up real money on that bet?

    BTW. Congratulations on your ‘mirror’ ‘towers site. It’s farkin’ hilarious. Good reading. Well done.

  22. @ndy says:

    @Three Years: The issues you raise with regards Israeli state crimes are often, in fact routinely, used by anti-Semites to justify their phobias. Be that as it may, O’Connell’s sentencing would seem to reflect not only his bizarre behaviour in court, but the fact that he did actually vilify, under the terms of the WA Criminal Code, the two kids in question (although I remain ignorant of the exact content of the seven charges brought against him). Presumably, O’Connell will appeal his sentence. In which context, perhaps O’Connell could, as you suggest, have justified his behaviour by reference to their alleged provocations: I dunno, I’m not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with the legal grounds upon which someone in his position might defend themselves from this kind of prosecution. It seems unlikely but. As it stands, it appears that O’Connell did pretty much everything he could to bring about his own demise–not least of which was to fire his lawyer and to attack the authority of the court on the grounds of his interpretation of the contents of the King James version of the Bible. Finally, there is, in reality, diversity of opinion within Israel and among Jewish populations elsewhere about, inter alia, Zionism, Israel, occupation, and law–both secular and religious. As an anarchist, my political sympathies naturally lie with anarchists within Israel, many of whom have displayed great courage in resisting racism and militarism in that part of the world and as their circumstances allow: I’m not interested in exploring such issues from within or in reference to the paranoid world vision embodied by creeps like O’Connell.

    @Victor: Oh hai. In answer to your questions:

    Regardless of all our intense political differences do you really, truly, madly, deeply believe this sort of thing is good for ANYONE?

    If you mean O’Connell being sentenced to three years jail, it makes little difference to me personally. So it’s neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ news. I don’t know the guy and find his views bizarre (to put it mildly). From what I can gather, he wanted to use the opportunity of his trial to raise a whole host of questions regarding Jews, Zionism, Israel, plots by Jews, Zionist agents, Israeli intelligence services, Christian teachings and constitutional law. He succeeded, on some level, but doing so would appear to have jeopardised his chances of successfully defending himself, or receiving a lesser sentence. So: maybe this ‘thing’ granted O’Connell his apparent desire to become a martyr in exposing The Shocking Truth About The Jews? In which case, yeah, maybe, it was a GOOD thing for O’Connell?

    If you mean those sections of the WA Criminal Code relating to racial harassment and so on, sure, it might be good for some, in particular those with the ability and willingness to appeal to such laws to address the racism to which they’ve been subjected. Beyond this, the jury is out on the effectiveness of such laws with regards combating racism more generally: I tend to lean towards the negative. That is, even supposing such laws are necessary and justified, I’m unconvinced of their ability to combat racism as such. On the other hand, a) they’re not necessarily meant to (or not exclusively) and b) they were introduced partly as a way of addressing the activities of groups such as the ANM (existing laws being presumed to be inadequate). In either case, it’s a complex debate, and if such legislation makes you worry a li’l, so be it.

    Although we suspect (okay, we’re almost convinced) you are a state asset, can you really sleep soundly at night in the knowledge you will never share a similar fate?

    If you mean does it trouble me that I can sleep soundly at night without having to worry about being prosecuted under the WA Criminal Code for racial harassment, the answer is no: I don’t live in WA, and I don’t engage in such behaviour. As to my fate, nobody knows much beyond the fact that one day, we’re all gonna die, and meditations on my own mortality tend to keep me awake more than legislative provisions such as these.

    The trouble with flirting with authoritarianism of any type or degree is it’s a double edged weapon. You or me? Who is next? Will you put up real money on that bet?

    Leaving aside the question of “authoritarianism”, how it relates to O’Connell’s case, and the laws in question, neither of us is going to be charged under WA’s Criminal Code, given that you live in Sydney and I in Melbourne. Given also that laws in NSW and Victoria have never been used successfully, that I’m aware of, in the same or similar circumstances. As to when next such charges might be brought, I dunno. O’Connell’s case is exceptional in many respects, and follows several failures on the part of the DPP.

  23. Sharky says:

    O’Connell has received a justified 3 year sentence considering he will only do 3 months in minimum security. Then monitored whilst on parole.
    O’Connell’s mistake is to make his message a racial attack (Judaic death cult, yr time is numbered etc) rather than a political statement against Israel.
    The common view of many is that all Jews worldwide are responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
    If Israel didn’t exist then O’Connell & people like him would still hate Jews or another minority that is an easy target.
    You got a prob with Israel then don’t blame all Jews. You got a prob with Jews – just come out & say it …

  24. Victor Whitelaw says:

    “If you mean those sections of the WA Criminal Code relating to racial harassment and so on, sure, it might be good for some, in particular those with the ability and willingness to appeal to such laws to address the racism to which they’ve been subjected.”

    Yes, well you see, young @ndy, that’s one of the most contentious points in this type of case. What actually constitutes so-called ‘Racism’? Several studies have been done on ‘Racism’ that at least attempted to approach the subject as neutrally and objectively as is Humanly possible and the results were, I believe, surprising for those on both sides of the fence.

    These studies often find that the anecdotal stories in particular simply do not stand up to even the most moderate scrutiny and find that, just as beauty lies in the mind of the beholder, so too it is largely down to the PERCEPTION of the alleged ‘victim’ of the unfair ‘discrimination’ etc.

    This leads (or should) the honest observer and rigorous investigator to the logical conclusion that so-called ‘Racism’ is as much determined by the education, miseducation, information, misinformation, social conditioning of the alleged ‘victim’ as it is by the intentional insults/disrespect of the alleged perpetrator.

    But ultimately, what should really count in all of our endeavours, regardless of the socio-political gulf that separates us, is the pursuit of and the respect for truth. A fact is a fact is a fact, end of section.

    One can begrudgingly give credit where credit is due, even to one’s most bitter enemy, provided it can be ascertained one’s enemy is simply ‘misguided’ and not consciously and deliberately, and therefore hypocritically, misleading and mendacious.

  25. @ndy says:

    The law is subject to interpretation, yes. And was, in O’Connell’s case. And a jury found him guilty of six charges. But you would seem to be denying the basis of the law. That is, that racism exists. I dunno what studies you’re referring to, but there have been vast amounts written on the subject, certainly; the fact that individuals have diverse experiences and opinions is kinda unremarkable, I think, and of itself does little to illuminate your apparent claim that racism doesn’t, therefore, exist.

  26. Lumpen says:

    C’mon @ndy. Quit tapdancing and at least be honest FOR ONCE, ferchrissakes! If you persist in keeping this arrogance up you’ll have no friends AT ALL and, let’s face it, they’re thin on the ground now.

    Has Whitelaw Towers discovered @ndy’s secret identity… again? A rich art dealer who divides his time between being a “state asset”, anarchist-cum-parliamentarian wannabe, Mossad agent, communist philatelist and sound man at a community radio station who has managed to WRECK THE LIVES and befuddle otherwise sane and law-abiding racists… they cannot confirm this 100% but it could be true. Say what you like about the investigative powers of the Australian far right, they certainly seem to find comedy wherever they go.

    What actually constitutes so-called ‘Racism’?

    I actually LOL’d at this triple whammy.

    Several studies have been done on ‘Racism’ that at least attempted to approach the subject as neutrally and objectively as is Humanly possible and the results were, I believe, surprising for those on both sides of the fence…

    Studies so scientific, important and well-known that you didn’t need to cite them? You, sir, just blew my mind with an in-my-face FACT.

    I look forward to seeing more of your mental breakdown rendered in hypertext.

    And then…

    It seems to have gone unnoticed that the two Jews involved in this provoked the incident.

    Provokation, in this case and as far as I know, doesn’t justify O’Connell’s actions. Even if you accept the premise, one doesn’t have anything to do with the other. It’s safe to say the Jews didn’t use magic cameras to force O’Connell to vilify them.

    Jews of the “Israel first” variety ARE often combative and obnoxious.

    They are not substantially different to nationalists and chauvinists of other stripes, with the possible exception of the means and ability to act it out in Zion itself. Obviously, as you acknowledge, this does not apply to all Jews. This is what made (and makes) antisemitism spewed by O’Connell irrational and worth deriding. I think the relative criminality of what he did is a separate issue and like @ndy (whoever he is) said, I don’t know what exactly the judge used to justify the sentence. I suspect it was more to do with the threats than the vilification, but the latter was the novel and therefore newsworthy aspect. That is just a guess though. It could be possible that the judge was seeking to use the sentence as deterrent.

  27. The Truth Faerie says:

    I think it is worth noting that Brendon is a Jewhiss plant. He yelled at a few people and he went to jail for three years? Give me a break, give me a KitKat. Myopic Frederick could see that the State/Controlled Media have conspired with MOSSAD/Shin Bet (there are apparently photos of Brendon training with the latter) to set Brendon up as a false martyr, giving him oodles of noodles of manure-factured credibility.

  28. @ndy says:

    That’s not what Honesty Pixie says Truth Faerie. According to her, several studies have been done on ‘O’Connell’ that at least attempted to approach the subject as neutrally and objectively as is Humanly possible and the results were, I believe, surprising for those on both sides of the fence: he’s a fully-paid plant working for The Bilderberg Group, determined to protect the Tempelhofgesellschaft from prying eyes.

  29. Mary says:

    how come you never show my comments?

  30. Sharky says:

    @threeyears, distorted facts are for white power groups. I hear ‘the skull’ is always supporting St George at their home games. Why don’t u catch up with an old mate …

  31. Pingback: Brendon O’Connell and The Campaign to Free Martin Bryant | slackbastard

  32. What O’Connell has done is EXACTLY what he wanted and set out to do. THAT’S why he was grinning and laughing upon sentence. That’s also why a lot of local 9-11 truthers and researchers REFUSED to support Brendon, because he was GOING OUT TO ACTUALLY LOSE THE CASE that was obvious last year. In FACT NONE of the local crew wanted to know about him.

    Now that he has lost it.. HE HAS NOW SET in STONE A LEGAL PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE CASES involving psychotic lying israelis..

    What should have been thrown out and dismissed on the contention of not being about race at all, (And all about political stalkers stalking a protest) has now made EVERYTHING said about Israel or Jews NOW ALL about racial vilification.

    Nice one Brendon you major league fuckwit.

    I really just hope they paid you enough to sabotage the truth movement, now you have single handedly given the Govt. the laws they need to silence criticism. Because with that money, you will hopefully drown in 50 dollar bills.

    When its against the law to say ANYTHING about Israel in the future, it should be referred to ask the: “O’Connell (Oh-Conman) Amendment” to remind everyone about a fuckwit that wanted to grandstand himself in Court and blow away ANY chance to repeal stupid vilification laws that would never have normally had a chance in hell of sticking in the first place.

    Nice one Fuckwit Fugazi + company. I hope the world now sees Brendon the saboteur of SPEECH FREEDOMS for what he really is. You people have to now take the blame.

  33. Doug says:

    @ Steve Johnson.
    If ‘The Zionists” are resorting to something as desperate as you describe then they must be on their last legs.
    Is it possible that Brendon is just a sad, attention seeking misfit?
    After all, people have done far worse things “Just to get a rep”.

  34. Sharky says:

    @steve johnson, O’Connell, the mug, was made an example of to help stem racial hatred.
    People in the Western world are feeling duped about a ‘retaliatory’ war waged on 2 different countries as a result of a single (combined) attack on America – 9/11.
    At the beginning of the Afghan/Iraq campaigns the silent majority of the Western world was thinking – ‘Great ! Get those bastards !’ Everyone thought that it would be a quick & painless (for the West) display of brute force.
    As time dragged on & the situation swelled into a massive show of cocks- ‘mine’s bigger’ vs ‘it’s what u believe u can do with it that wins’, the Western audience felt conned.
    Now it’s time to blame someone ! Its uncool to knock dem A-rabs now … I know- let’s use the old European default- ‘dem Jew rats!’
    We will say Zionists influenced America to create 9/11 so they could gain political & financial gain. The fear campaigns that they used on us made us compliant, so they could execute their plan. ‘Cause rmemba dat they is resposable for da WW1 & 2’ as well.
    ‘We, the Caucasian race are always blameless! We were taken advantage of! The witch hunts were not us! The Holocaust didn’t happen! We may taken thousands of Aboriginal babies from their parents but we where trying to mould them into a compliant workforce for menial jobs like housemaids- good for dem people.’
    It’s too easy to point the finger at others & claim that they are the cause for all our faults.
    Every time I read some doctored facts about Zionists the generalisation of all Jews is either stated or implied.
    If racial hatred is allowed to run riot then sh*t has a way of floating to the top & white nationalist groups or Asian power groups (for example, no offence intended) would gain political leverage.
    The hypocrisy of those that blame Israel for their woes and ‘genocide’ (as I heard it described) against Palestinians is a sad distortion of the truth.
    You hate groups need to look at our own country & recognise the ghetto style conditions that some outback Aboriginal communities have to live in. What would u really think if an Aboriginal family moved in next door to u in your nice suburban neighbourhood? What role does Australia play in the armed forces in the Middle East under Big Bro USA ? What do most Aussies watch on prime time TV every evening- good ol USA programing. Everyone is being bent over & rogered by any groups that want to launch a fear campaign- Liberals- ‘we will stop the boats’, Today Tonight ‘what are they hiding under burkas’, world press ‘bird flu will kill 70% of the world’, everyone ‘GFC will plunge Western world into 3rd world living standards’.
    It’s the idiot that believes the fear & finds another to wear the dissatisfaction of their ordinary lives…

  35. aussie says:

    How can anyone here know the truth, when all there is to look at, is possibilities and opinions. Andy doesn’t seem to like taking a guess that the legal system is insanely corrupt, and others seem to be [positive] it is corrupt. Someone needs to prove this to get the right answer.

    The only way to be right is with facts, my opinion, facts are too hard to get a hold of, especially when dealing with the legal system.So in other words the facts have [probably] been corrupted and cleverly twisted before you can even get your hands on them. Even if the facts were right, they are not good enough unless they prove intention. I don’t think you can prove it without some very specific details.

    Here are some facts.

    The definition of addiction … something you no longer have control over.

    If people can’t control [their] thoughts, they are addicted to it (this also means his past, his upbringing and lots of tiny events in his life created his thoughts, not by choice). The complicated part is that everyone does it, so how can anyone be right?

    Question is: Can someone go to jail for thinking?

  36. aussie says:

    I mean, expressing their thoughts.

  37. Sharky says:

    @the person called ‘Aussie’ (I’m a proud Aussie, so I will call u ‘Numbskull’).
    Numbskull, some things are too dangerous to say in a public forum, like ‘judaic death cult’ & telling Jews ‘your days are numbered’.
    It’s about inciting hatred, which may result in acts violence by single brain cell people like yourself. Because it’s aimed at Jews, u may think it’s Ok but what if it was directed at your racial type…
    Listen carefully – 2 + 2 does not equal 22.
    God love ’em.

  38. @ndy says:

    @aussie:

    The truth is that Brendon O’Connell was put on trial, found guilty, and sentenced to jail. And by truth I mean fact — as opposed to opinion, and despite the existence of numerous other possibilities (the name of the man who went on trial was not Brendon O’Connell / Perth is a fictitious city / “jail” is a term used to describe a small dog with only one eye and three legs). That the legal system, like other social systems, is corrupt is a commonplace. How this fact relates to O’Connell’s case is, like the meaning of your commentary, rather unclear.

    Here are some facts.

    Nobody goes to jail for their thoughts.
    People routinely go to jail as a result of the things they’ve said.

  39. aussies new name is kiwi says:

    Sharky, at which point was it exactly, that you decided you knew what I care about and what i don’t. thanks for your “opinion” tho.

    yeh, understand that your story has facts andy, I was talking about the opinions about the facts. I think what I have a hard time understanding is, what are we trying to achieve here, whats the purpose of the blog? im not saying it doesn’t have one, I just don’t know what it is.

    I just like to put a different perspective on things, and taking my perspective into account, i’d say three years is a bit harsh. I can think of worse things in the world that are legal.

    It’s very complicated what im trying say + i failled engwish reawy bad, so can’t explain it much better.

  40. @ndy says:

    @aussie:

    OK. You wonder what the point of this blog is and you think that three years jail is too harsh a penalty for O’Connell’s actions.

    That’s not that complicated.

  41. @ndy says:

    I think what I have a hard time understanding is, what are we trying to achieve here, what[‘]s the purpose of the blog? [I’m] not saying it doesn’t have one, I just don’t know what it is.

    So what we can do? First, we might ask who we are. As I use the term here, “we” are those who believe that it is completely intolerable to live in a world of material abundance in which a billion people nevertheless live in absolute poverty. “We” are those who believe that it is intolerable to live in a world with abundant potential for freedom, justice and peace, while that same world is fraught with oppression, exploitation, and aggression. “We” are those who believe that it is intolerable to live in a world capable of providing for all while living in harmony with nature, but which nevertheless continues on a path to global ecological catastrophe.

    What we can do is to become educated and to act. It is important that we find dependable sources of information and that we avoid dependable sources of indoctrination. Look to the alternatives to the dominant corporate media. As we come to understand the dominant political system, we begin to see how it is designed precisely to reproduce all those injustices and irrationalities that have been mentioned. More specifically, we begin to see how it is designed to support dictatorship and oppose struggles for liberation.

  42. kiwi says:

    Yep, but why I think he shouldn’t go, or why it might not be the [appropriate] action, is complicated. I am suggesting that what [B]rendon did could not be helped, sounds crazy [I] know. One [involuntary] thought led to one [involuntary] emotion, now he is in jail.

    Going back to your previous comment.

    “people don’t go to jail for [their] thoughts”.

    True, well not directly they don’t, but it is the root of the problem, and he didn’t have a choice. If you wanted to [I] suppose you could go back to which vagina he fell out of. [A]nd blame his mother for wanting children.

    Anyway I suppose what I might be suggesting is that, maybe the legal [system] should learn these facts, and try a different [approach], (we need some big changes). I think it is pretty clear that the legal system even without the corruption, [doesn’t] work.

    Is the definition of insanity trying the same mistakes over and over?

    What is the [purpose] of the blog, [I] was asking for you to help me or anyone else who wants to know. What is your [intention?]

  43. kiwi says:

    I missed your second comment sorry, yeh ok that makes sense. It’s a big task tho, lately i have realised it is almost impossible to change people[‘]s opinions/outlook on life. It will happen, but it takes a long time. If that is your intention andy, you are a good man. You are also a smart arse, it[‘]s funny, but I don’t know if it helps.

  44. Joe Dibaggio says:

    Stop accepting the sh*t and use your brain for a minute people.
    Why isn’t anybody asking serious questions?

    Could it be Brendon is in ONLY [sic] jail for basically showing contempt of Court[?]
    Could it be Brendon has ONLY himself to blame for sacking his lawyer?
    Could it be Brendon WANTED to get into jail?

    Is this his big plan all along? To play self martyr? To set an example so his bald headed buddies can post “AN OPEN CHALLENGE” to Everyman and and his dog to behave like a total DONUTBRAIN like Brendon did?

    I think we’re missing the point. All Brendon ever did was set out to lose. And lose spectacularly for the fan base.
    Here[‘]s a few points you probably never knew about Brendon from HIS OWN POST:

    “…I believe in the Tanakh (O.T)…”
    Really Brendon?

    “…I would personally be proud to be called “Jewish”…”
    Oh REALLY Brendon??? Any more interesting exposing comments…?

    “…My friends have lived and worked in Israel for years…”
    Hmmmmmm now this IS getting Interesting.
    Could it be Brendon is trying to EMPOWER Jewish people or expose them? Let[‘]s read on…

    “…The onus is on the jewish communities around the world to speak out LOUDLY about jewish racism…”
    AHHH I see. So you people who think you know Brendon you clowns all [m]ight want to dig a little deeper than his boneheaded buddies[‘] ramblings. Stop accepting the sh*t you are fed and think for yourself.

    Here’s the screencapture…
    http://i4.ytimg.com/bg/3FQvhpcCmNlCwnkUW0Z2CA/101.jpg

    Here’s the link…
    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=17272&postcount=5
    Go read for yourself how Brendon wants to:

    “…wipe the floor with anyone who disagrees with him…”
    Maybe THIS is the kinda nutbag threats and delusional behaviours like him and Kerr does all the time that got his sorry punk ass thrown in jail, not “Standing Up like a BIG DOODLE MAN” against the evil zionists… GOOD RIDDANCE.

    Idiots like him and Cyberstalker fraudster and conman Jim Kerr deserve to thrown in jail. They dish out the disinfo with every posting they make, and the sheeple with blinkers at the feeding lots called blogs have no idea. Wake up and smell the lies about Brendon. There[‘]s rather a lot of them actually he has left behind online before he took a state holiday at the Queen[‘]s expense with 3 square meals and an internet connection, if you care to look yourself and stop being led.

  45. @ndy says:

    That’s a lotta questions Joe Dibaggio (any relation to Joe DiMaggio?!?).

    Could it be Brendon is in ONLY [sic] jail for basically showing contempt of Court[?]

    No. Not really. At least, not as I understand the situation. That is, ‘contempt of court’ is a specific charge of which O’Connell has not been convicted. Rather, his sentence is the result of being found guilty of six charges under WA laws relating to racial vilification.

    Could it be Brendon has ONLY himself to blame for sacking his lawyer?

    Yeah, pretty much. He had the opportunity to do so, and did. Not a smart move, but whatevah.

    Could it be Brendon WANTED to get into jail?

    It’s possible, sure. But I doubt it was his ideal outcome, which appears to have been to have had the Judge in his case placed on trial for treason. Or something.

    Beyond this…

    O’Connell’s ‘fans’ are a mixed, rather fractious bunch, united only by their anti-Semitism. Their arguments are all rather Byzantine in nature.

  46. Joe Dibaggio says:

    @ndy:

    By anti-Semitism, I am sure you are actually referring to anti-Zionism.

    The true Semitic peoples are the Palestinians and original Arabs of the region. In fact there are very few to zero actual Semitic Jews left in the world (less than 100).

    I certainly would never be anti-Palestinian myself, or anti-Semitic in any way shape or form, and the occupiers of Palestine certainly don’t qualify even closely to be Semitic given their European and Khazarian (Ashkenar) heritage.

    Oh and my specific meaning in my first post was not to suggest Brendon was charged with Contempt of Court. Merely given a penalty lashing for being contemptuous IN Court (ie: slapped on the scrotum for being a real numpty.)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.