Hersantite

How the Commonwealth’s barristers will be explaining their constitutional arguments to the High Court justices in person.

Why are they a perpetually abused minority?

Why is the only country wherein they are a majority a world pariah?

Obviously, it’s because every country and people that has ever had the immense pleasure of being around them is simply jealous – jealous of not being born into the chosen club of the one and only God.

This woman is married to a Jew in case you were wondering whence these opinions come.

Conquering and settling territory is normal and we should stop pretending it isn’t

How it feels waiting for the High Court judgement

“Drive-thru needs to hurry up now
A chud can’t wait much longer”

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Censorship is free speech.

Even under some obscure politician's Facebook post, random right-wing normies are raging about the destruction of Australia’s political freedoms.

Commonwealth prosecutors are quoting a Stalinist secret police functionary as an authority for why the Australian Constitution doesn’t apply to racists.

During the period wherein he was working for the secret police, called the Great Purge by historians, 800,000 people were executed or worked to death in harsh labour camps called Gulags.

https://t.me/TheAustralianVanguard/625

How they were writing "History has shown us why", and saying "space shouldn't be made for Neo-Nazis"

Will the Commonwealth be bringing Mr. History onto the stand to testify?

Why does the Commonwealth have leftist Twitch streamers writing their constitutional arguments?

Heres another insane point made by the Commonwealth.

Apparently Nazi Ideology isn't legitimate political speech to them.

Their reasoning? History has shown us why.

"Just be a hecking good person", "haven't you heard of the HOLOCAUST" soyjak defence.

Incredible how they can continue just propagandising in our favour, that the system doesn't care about free speech for certain ideologies or individuals that the system hates.

The Commonwealth posted their final defence document yesterday, and its just more of what I already wrote about in my article on the topic.

Invocations of the "evils of Nazi Germany" in the first pages, attempts to influence the atmosphere of the court and emotionalise the case.

And some assertions that Nazis dont deserve free speech and the right to political communication.

Then more weak engagement on Constitutionality of their legislating (because there is none), they attempt to rely on the CERD treaties, which obviously some UN treaties don't overrule our Constitution.

Plus, they already conceded in the Special Case agreed facts, that the party is a legitimate party under the law, and planned to contest elections, so their attempted framing it as an illegitimate party is already defunct by their own agreement.

You can read it yourself on the DLS
https://dls.hcourt.gov.au/static/PublicSearch

Fascists should fight for their respective nations rather than fleeing to the first Fascist state that arises in the 21st century

Some nationalists falsely believe Hitler planned a holocaust of Slavs

New Zealand is a strange country — where barristers are comedians and foreigners who butcher toddlers with a meat cleaver are eligible for parole in less than two years.

An Indian woman who tried to hack a toddler to death with a meat cleaver in New Zealand has been jailed for just five years thanks to a mental health sentencing discount.

She claimed she carried out the attack because of the "stresses and strains" of leaving her home country.

https://www.noticer.news/hamilton-new-zealand-woman-jailed-meat-cleaver-attack/

Follow: @NoticerNews

“IT’S A TRANNY”

This is so funny. South Australian parliamentarian says what we’re all thinking.

Least disingenuous leftist

Retroactive law is the new norm for Australia

I am glad Pauline is repeating the talking points that I said in a previous video. What is being done to Ben Roberts-Smith is a disgrace.

But there is something that Pauline has left out of this. One Nation voted for this amendment. They should not have.

Labor didn’t make a retrospective change to the law; more accurately, the amended law is being applied to conduct that took place before the amendment was enacted, that is to say, the amended law is being used retrospectively.

Pauline cannot foist the blame onto Labor for changing the law considering One Nation voted for it as well. She can blame Labor for using the amended law retrospectively though. She needs to be more precise in her speech.

“We will not allow hate to be dressed up as political debate.”

I think the High Court will most likely rule that these laws are constitutionally invalid. But that doesn’t change the fact that liberal democracy is dead because the majority of parliamentarians agree with disenfranchising those whom they consider haters and believe it is somehow consistent with liberal democracy.

Disenfranchising movements on the pretext of a universal human emotion means that anybody can be disenfranchised. It’s arbitrary. The politicians are either too stupid to see that or they are so vicious that they just pretend not to.