Anti-Neocons

Monday, December 28, 2009The Brendon O'Connell Case Concerns Us AllChristopher Jon Bjerknes http://www.jewishracism.com http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

Having watched the following statement by Fredrick Toeben, I would like to make a few observations and comments: Playing the Race Card in Australia during May-June 2009 - Part I Though there are certainly weighty historically important questions which will be judged in the case of Brendon O'Connell, his first concern should be to preserve his liberty and win his case. Any defendant should be raising legal issues in his defense and not simply hope to win because he is morally and factually correct. If convicted, a defendant may have waived those rights he did not assert prior to and during trial, and the appeals courts may refuse to consider any issues raised for the first time in post-conviction process. It is important, therefore, for any defendant to vigorously defend himself at the pretrail and trial stage of the prosecution, and throughout the process and assert all of his rights, and not get caught up in the drama and emotion which may blind him to the legal issues which can free him and which can help preserve all of our fundamental rights as human beings against the encroachments of the State. If the information Toeben presents is correct, then the law which the State seeks to enforce against Brendon O'Connell is fatally defective on its face.

If the determination of whether or not the Jews constitute a race is made after the alleged act of vilifying the Jews occurs, then such a determination, however made, and whether made by a judge or a jury, or some other form of hearing, is made ex post facto and therefore is unenforceable against a defendant who had no prior notice of what conduct is proscribed by law. The very act of conducting a hearing to determine whether or not Jews are a race demonstrates that the Statute failed to provide sufficient notice to the public of what conduct is proscribed by law, and therefore the Statute is unenforceable and must be struck down. Since the Statute provides no legal definition of whether or not Jews are a race, the question is an issue of fact, not law, and therefore a defendant so charged ought to be entitled to have the issue of fact determined by a jury, if that is his choice, and not a judge or other non-jury form of hearing.

I know nothing about Australian law. It might be that a defendant will have waived his right to have the issue determined by the jury at trial if he fails to assert that right pretrial and instead agrees to have the issue determined by a judge without objecting and taking exception to the violation of his fundamental due process rights. I do not know if the Australian courts honor a defendant's fundamental right to have issues of fact determined by a jury of his peers, as opposed to by a judge who in America is only entitled to determine issues of the law if that is the defendant's choice. This is a very important point to consider and one which the appeals courts may refuse to consider if it is not raised at the pretrial stage. (1) There is a substantial argument to be made that there are no distinct human races, and therefore any accusation of racial vilification does not, and cannot state an offense and can therefore be dismissed pretrial. (2) This argument can be made in addition to the argument that the Jews are so genetically diverse that they cannot constitute any homogenous and unique biological category, much less constitute a specific race. (3) Beyond this is the argument that the Jews are followers of the Jewish religion, not an homogenous and unique racial biological category. A Jew may become a non-Jew by changing his religion without changing his genes.

A non-Jew may become a Jew by conversion and belief. Though such a convert may believe that he is racially superior based on his incorporation through his beliefs into the "chosen people", science provides no evidence that his genes have changed, much less blended with those of a mythological homogenous and unique Jewish genotype which nowhere exists. These are three separate issues and should be heard separately at different hearings or by a jury. Once again, since the law has not made any such definitions, these are questions of fact best left to the determination of a jury which is more likely to be sympathetic to the defendant's position than the State's by virtue of the fact that a judge is a member of the State.

Any defendant should consider whether or not it is in his best interests to raise issues of: fact versus law, jury versus judge; and raise objections and take exceptions should the courts deny his right to have these issues of fact determined by a jury of his peers. I once again caution O'Connell to use his head, not his heart, to defend his liberty, and his backside, and not martyr himself out of emotion and knowledge that he is in the right. He needs proper legal counsel who defend all of his rights and he needs to assert those rights and make proper and effective legal arguments as well as historical, religious and political arguments. The press, the public and the courts will take a strong interest in well stated legal arguments.

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... s-all.html

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... st-be.html

Monday, December 28, 2009
The Charges Against O'Connell Must Be Dismissed Immediately, Because They Fail to Allege an Offense
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

A statement that the Jews are racist cannot be a reference to race, because racism is not a racial characteristic, but rather a trait of a belief system. Therefore, any statement that the Jews are racist must of necessity have been referring to beliefs and not racial traits. An element of the offense of "racial vilification" must be that a race has been vilified, and it is the State, not O'Connell, which is arbitrarily and with malicious intent falsely designating the Jews as if a race in order to silence O'Connell's accurate depiction of the Jewish religion. In America, the normal procedure would be for the defendant to file a pretrial motion to dismiss for the failure of the indictment to allege an offense.

The defendant would also file motions to dismiss due to the unconstitutional vagueness of the Statute which fails to notify the defendant of what conduct is proscribed by law; a pretrial motion to dismiss due to discriminatory violations of the equal protection clause of the constitution; a pretrial motion to dismiss for constitutional violations of the defendant's fundamental rights to free speech; a pretrial motion to dismiss for constitutional violations of the defendant's right to engage in normal human conduct; pretrial motions to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct; pretrial motions to dismiss for violations of the defendant's due process rights to preserve evidence; a pretrial motion for a bill of particulars; pretrial motions to suppress any evidence obtained illegally; a pretrial demand for a speedy trial if such is applicable in the jurisdiction of the court; a pretrial motion for discovery of exculpatory evidence and all other matter which the prosecution will or may wish to present at trial; etc. etc. etc.

At trial, the defendant must raise the absolute defenses provided by Statute as well as those secured as his fundamental rights to free speech, political freedom, self defense, defense of country, freedom of religious beliefs and expression, etc. etc. etc. All this must be done to not only win the case in the pretrial or trial phase, but also to preserve the right to raise the same issues in any potential appeal.

If it is an issue of first impression, if this is the first time the courts will address the question, then O'Connell stands a good chance of being able to appeal to the highest courts any violations of his rights or misconduct by the courts and/or prosecution. Have the courts established the elements of "racial vilification"? If not, then O'Connell has not received sufficient notice of what conduct is proscribed by law. If so, then the indictment against O'Connell must claim each element of the offense, which it cannot do, because the allegation necessitates that O'Connell referred to beliefs, not racial traits. Therefore, the prosecution must end at the earliest possible date so as to prevent further harm to the defendant by the unlawful prosecution currently being pursued by the State.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... l-are.html

Monday, December 28, 2009
The Charges Against Brendon O'Connell Are Themselves Violations of the Statute Under Which They Are Made
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

When the State asserts without proof that the Jews are a race and not a religion, the assertion itself proves that the State and the Jews are racist; in that they seek to prevent and bar by law and common understanding the admission of any Gentile into the class of person identified as the "Jews", or the "chosen people", or as members of the Jewish religion. These facts place the prosecution on the twin horns of a dilemma, because the charges themselves prove the correctness of O'Connell's alleged statements and should the State abandon its racist position and admit that the Jews are not a race, then there is no possibility of an offense of "racial vilification" of Jews ever having occurred.

Therefore, O'Connell is of necessity innocent and it is the prosecution and its Jewish supporters who are guilty of "racial vilification" of both Gentiles and Jews. Anyone, including but not limited to the Jews, the prosecution or any judge who determines that the Jews are a race and not a religion echoes the racist beliefs and racist laws of the Nazi regime. The racially discriminatory determination that the Jews are a race and not a religion prevents Gentiles from becoming Jews and a member of the "chosen people" and is therefore an act of racist discrimination against Gentiles which bars them from the free exercise of their religious right to become religious Jews. This also violates the equal protection clause, in that it arbitrarily creates two classes of persons based upon presumed and false racial distinctions, one class of which enjoys the right to practice the Jewish faith and one of which is barred by the State from entering that faith and people. Said racist determination also subjects any, including former Gentiles, to the determination that their entrance into a religious belief system has rendered them racially distinct from other human beings, a determination which is false and discriminatory in that it, among other things, denies their human right to their heritage and artificially and arbitrarily categorizes such persons as different from other human beings on a genetic level when such distinction does NOT exist in scientific or actual fact, but rather is made as part of a racist and discriminatory policy to separate and segregate Jews and non-Jews.

O'Connell is innocent, but those who accuse him are themselves guilty of the very offense they level at O'Connell by virtue of their accusations which dub the Jews a race.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... t-and.html

Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" Laws Violate Several Fundamental Human Rights and Due Process of Law
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law is so vague as to fail to notify a citizen of what conduct is proscribed by law. The Australian statute proscribes conduct intended to create animosity towards any "racial group" and vaguely defines "racial group" as follows:


"racial group means any group of persons defined by reference to race, colour or ethnic or national origins"

No set of unambiguous definitions inform the public as to what are the "races", "colours", "ethnic origins" or "national origins" intended by this law. Since the citizen has no standard by which to judge his or her conduct, no proscribed conduct in this law is sufficiently defined as to enable the citizen to know which conduct is criminalized. In addition, the police and courts may arbitrarily define that which is left undefined by the statute, inevitably and necessarily resulting in discriminatory and abusive selective enforcement of the law.

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law criminalizes normal conduct. It is human nature to vilify villains. Nothing prevents any group of human beings from being villainous, and therefore no group of human beings may be made immune by law to vilification. Human beings have always engaged in criticism of ethnicities, races, colors, and nationalities, and doing so is normal human conduct throughout all of recorded history. The entirely selective and arbitrary ex post facto determination of which human groups constitute "races", "colours", "ethnic origins" or "national origins" by the police and prosecuting officials and the courts taking place in Australia has, and is intended to have, a chilling effect on the healthy and entirely normal conduct of political, religious and public discourse. Such a chilling effect on free speech and public discourse is detrimental to the public good, and is abusive of individual rights.

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law violates the right of self defense. When a group of persons holds to a belief system, and/or engages in conduct, which harms, degrades and/or discriminates against any individual or other group, all members of society have not only the right, but also the duty to protect themselves from said villainous group. One means of self defense is to vilify the villainous group. The law not only violates an individual's right of self defense, it works against the public's general best interests by muzzling watchdogs and granting immunity to villains.

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law violates all citizens' fundamental rights to equal protection under the law, for where a "racial group" by its creed, its conduct, and/or its self description commits "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" towards others, this group is granted immunity for its offensive conduct, while those who would criticize it for its offensive conduct are barred from doing so by law. In this manner a privileged class and a subservient class are arbitrarily and for the first time established by law and only by law, which is illegal. The criminal is immune to criticism and the watchdog is muzzled and imprisoned for sounding an alarm. While the law establishes several absolute defenses, those defenses depend on subjective mental states and arbitrary definitions left undefined by law, which unlikely sanctuary under the law encourages those who would otherwise speak out in defense of themselves and the nation to remain silent or leave their fate uncertain and in the hands of the State to arbitrarily determine and with bias that cannot be exposed or criticized for fear of additional prosecutions.

The violations of freedom of speech and political freedom will be addressed in additional articles as time permits.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... nd_26.html

Thursday, November 26, 2009
Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" Laws Establish an Authoritarian and Anti-Democratic Government
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" laws invite the State to become the arbiter of what a citizen may, or may not, claim is in the public interest. This is having, and will continue to have, disastrous consequences for the citizens of Australia.

By providing the absolute defense of acting in the public interest, the State is establishing its own authority to dictate to the public what it may, or may not, consider to be in the public interest; because it is the State which decides whom to prosecute and for what alleged offenses, and it is the State which has granted itself the authority to determine for the public what it may, or may not, discuss as being in the public interest. The State has also created its own authority to quash dissent against the State's mandated views by harassing citizens with prosecutions and subjecting citizens to the State's determinations of what the citizen may, or may not, express in public. Even if a defendant is successful in his her defense against a prosecution under these laws, the State merely by means of bringing charges against an individual has caused the individual harm and has intimidated others from following in the defendant's footsteps for fear of inviting a similar attack by the State.

The existence of these laws serves as a deterrent to open and uninhibited public discourse and affords the State, not the public, the means to suppress any and all dissent against those groups whom the State would arbitrarily and with its bias shield from criticism and thereby privilege and protect. History affords us many examples of the dangers of these Australian laws. For example, the Roman Catholic Church once held both clerical and profane powers and used those powers to mandate views and censor public discourse. The Nazis immediately enacted such authoritarian and totalitarian laws under the titles of Ermächtigungsgesetz and Gleichschaltung by means of which the State exercised complete control over the public debate. The Bolsheviks practiced Lenin's "Democratic centralism" as a means to suppress dissent not only over the public, but also among State officials. These authoritarian laws have contributed to the mass murder of tens of millions of human beings by the State, and have shackled the citizenry and inhibited its means of self defense and means to safeguard the public interest from the arbitrary and biased interests of the State.

The Australian government has invited itself to become the judge of what a citizen may, or may not, think and say as being in his or her own interest and in the public interest. The mere existence of this law overreaches the constitutional authority of any democracy and makes the otherwise free citizen instead a subject of the authoritarian and totalitarian control of the State.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Australia's "Racist Hatred Act" Reductio ad Absurdum
Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

(1). Assume that the Jews state that, "We Jews are racists because we are the 'chosen people' and God made us better than everyone else so that we would rule over the other races [Cf. Deuteronomy 7:6]." Could the Jews be prosecuted for the racial vilification of Jews for having called Jews racists? Since it is within the realm of possibility for the Jews to declare that Jews are racist such a situation could arise, leading to a contradiction in the law and its enforcement which demonstrates the unenforceability of the Act against Brendon O'Connell.

If the government is capable of prosecuting the Jews for asserting that Jews are racist, then the government is capable of accusing Jews of racism and in such a situation would itself violate the law by enforcing it, because the government would be alleging that the Jews are racist while concurrently prosecuting the Jews for alleging that the Jews are racist. If the government would exempt Jews from the law but prosecute non-Jews for making the same claim as exempt Jews, then the government is illegally selectively enforcing the law and is denying non-Jews equal protection of the law from Jews and from the racist government.

(2). The Australian government is arbitrarily and without proof defining racism as a if it is a racial trait, while at the same time tacitly denying that Jews could be racist by virtue of their race and therefore asserting that Jews are a superior race to other races which are racist, while concurrently tacitly accusing every member of Brendon O'Connell's race of being racist; for if racism is a racial trait and not the characteristic of a belief system, then the government itself is condemning each race of any person the government accuses of racism, because such persons are by government definition members of a race and racism is by government definition a contemptible racial trait. Therefore, the government is itself guilty of the crime of the vilification of Brendon O'Connell's race by virtue of the act of accusing him and his race of racial vilification while defining the act of accusing a government defined "race" of racism as if racism itself.

The Statute is an illogical absurdity, and therefore unenforceable.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 2:46 PM

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.

nice one for the updates, Drew.

_________________
My Blog

Christopher Jon Bjerknes seems to be taking a lot upon himself since very few people are talking about it. Not even Hufschmid or Smith are talking about it. I think Hufschmid thought BOC may have been an agent or at least an idiot that wasn't worth associating with. However CBJ's legal points are well taken. The Jews are not a race, and BOC said to those two Chabad Lubavich Jews in that video that their religion is hateful. So he may have inadvertently saved himself without realizing what he said, when he said it. On page three, the 1980 Jewish Almanac's first chapter entitled “Identity Crisis” begins with the following admission: “Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew.'”


Alfred Lilienthal, a non Zionist Jew claims there is no Jewish race and that many Jews come from CONVERTED stock.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historica ... otrace.htm

Rabbi Harry Waton: The Jews are a People, not a Race.
http://mailstar.net/people.html

Elizabeth Dilling - Jews are not a race
http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt09.html

Shlomo Sand - Invention of the Jewish People.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived ... opic=22251

_________________
Buck the neocons. Fuck 'em too.