Liebler's Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill


The B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC), the prime mover behind the Victorian Bracks’ government’s so-called "Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill", in its statement to the Victorian government about the alleged "need" for the bill ( which we "need" like a"hole in the head"), has listed 14 alleged Victorian "racist" sites as needing attention (and, of course, suppression):

In its order of precedence, the ADC lists:-
(1) the Australian League of Rights;
(2) Citizens’ Electoral Council;
(3) Australian Civil Liberties Union;
(4) New Dawn;
(5) The Strategy;
(6) David Syme Institute;
(7) British Israel World Federation;
(8) World Church of the Creator;
(9) Associates Reform Movement,Inc;
(10) AUSI Freedom Scouts;
(11) The National Republicans;
(12) National Action;
(13) Adelaide Institute;
(14) Ku Klux Klan.

None of these organizations have attempted to suppress the ADC because they believe in freedom of speech, but the ADC, which does not, unless it is its right to "free speech" and is quite ready to try and suppress them. And this would not, of course, be "discrimination".

On 15th January, 2001, the Melbourne newspaper, "Herald Sun" article titled "Racial laws protest" by John Masanaukas, gave an account of the reaction of some of the targeted groups to the proposed legislation.

On 15th January, 2001, one of the targeted groups, the Citizens’ Electoral Council (CEC) held a protest meeting in Melbourne and issued a sheet titled "Racial vilification laws set to go", in which they traced the parentage of this legislation to Mark Leibler and his influence on the ADC.

They made a mistake, in my opinion, in averring that the central purpose of the legislation was to crush the CEC. That is, no doubt, one of the goals, but they would be just as eager to target others on the list, including The Adelaide Institute, which is a revisionist organization; or the League of Rights, or many others.

The CEC sheet, "Racial vilification laws set to go" nevertheless provides what is, in general, a good summary of why this "catchall" legislation is so tyrannical and dictatorial:


On Dec. 14 (2000) State of Victoria Steve Bracks released a document outlining his government’s intent to introduce draconian new laws, under which individuals could be jailed for six months and/or fined $6,000, and organizations fined $30,000, for "vilifying individuals on the basis of race or religion."

"The extraordinary broad law would allow for the prosecution of virtually anything, including name-calling, verbal or written statements, gestures, the wearing of symbols or uniforms,or anything else which a "reasonable observer" could interpret as an offense to a "racial or religious group". It would cover statements or activities even in private homes, and the burden of proof would be on the accused, to prove that he or she was innocent. And, accusations could be made by a "third party", not even the person who was "offended.""

In general, that is right, but they have, officially at least, made an exception for statements made in private homes. On page 14 of the draft ("daft?") Bill we are told that "if two people have a conversation in a private home and make derogatory comments about a particular race of people, it will not be captured by the proposed legislation." This may serve to allay the concern I mentioned that snooping on private conversations in home would lay the basis for an "informer society", the kind of network of spying in Communist countries.

But don’t be too thrilled. In the next paragraph we are assured that "if those two people have the same conversation in a cafe and are surrounded by people who hear the conversation, the legislation may capture their conversation." (p. 14) So, it may pay to keep your trap shut in public.

It then asks the question: what do you think? Well, I think it’s execrable, the entire heap of garbage. It takes the Western tradition of free speech and throws it in the trash can. It is still a disgrace to Bracks, and it is yet to be seen if Denis Napthine, the Leader of the Opposition, will jump into bed with this or will do anything effective about it, like throwing it in the garbage can where it belongs. It even adds to existing "race hate" Law


The hypocrisy of this bill is amptly demonstrated by the way it chooses to ignore the fact that "anti-racist" groups are contravening this law already and some of us can see no indication that they would stop doing so even if this trash became law.

I am talking here about something the draft document doesn’t mention in its examples of racist vilification: the way the white race is selectively targeted for "racism" in the mass media, including such gimmicks as national "Sorry Day", "Reconciliation" etc., in which the whites are supposed to grovel at the feet of the Aborigines for alleged wrongs. No credit is to be given to the white race for benefits such as the Flying Doctor; improved sanitation, roads, bridges, highways,etc. Or the fact that it was mostly the whites who fought during WWII to save Darwin from invasion.

Nor do we mention the fact that few blacks want to go back to tribal ways. How many want to throw out cars and mobile phones and fish in a muddy creek with a spear for their meals? Not very many, especially in ATSIC.

I’ll spell it out: the whites are hypocritically and selectively targeted for racial vilification, and if they complain about it are called "racists!" The fact that they are themselves the victims of racial vilification and discrimination by this continual denigration will continue to be ignored. There is no sign whatever that this legislation will address this problem and will permit it to continue.

Part 2, p. 4 tells us that the motive for vilification is "irrelevant". The hell it is. Circumstances play a big part in determining how a person acts and should be taken into account. But, if it is nevertheless insisted on, that the motive is irrelevant, then the first to be targeted by this legislation should be the anti-white racists. They say they do it because they are horrified by the "sins" of the white race, but if "motive" is irrelevant, their own vilification of whites is without any excuse and they are guilty without further ado. So let them be brought up on a charge immediately they suggest anything like "Reconciliation" or any such anti-white racism. Why? Because their motive for doing so is irrelevant: they are hoist by their own petard.


We are also told that " the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 does not require intention to discriminate as a prerequisite to finding that discrimination has occurred...intention should be irrelevant in determining whether or not a person vilifies." (p. 11 draft document)

AGAIN, they are hoist by their own petard. If motive and intention is irrelevant, then the anti-white racists are without excuse under legislation which they would theoretically endorse and they are already in breach of it before they start. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit liability or for the government to prosecute the anti-white racists.


Now there used to be a Christian-based convention in law called "innocent until proven guilty" in which it was the role of the accusers to prove that the accused was guilty. Under this anti-Christian legislation, it is not just "guilty until proven innocent" but "guilty unless the accused can prove himself innocent."

The burden is not placed on the accuser to show that his accusations are correct.

The burden is placed on the accused to show that he is not guilty.

If you think I exaggerate, see page 18 of the draft ("daft"?) Document, which says: "If a complaint is made it would then be up to the person or group of people who are complained about to establish that their words or actions are covered by an exemption. The onus would be on the person complained about to establish that a relevant exemption applied."

Could anything be more dictatorial or anti-democratic? There is no burden of proof on the accuser to show that what he accuses someone of is correct, which lays the basis for any number of false accusations. Instead, the accused must demonstrate himself that what is said is false!

This would be great for Stalinist Show Trials, but no good in a so-called democracy. This is why this trash is unconscionable and a disgrace.


They appeal to a mythical "reasonable observer" for an "objective test", (p. 11, draft document) who is apparently endowed with some kind of Socratic powers of reasoning, a masterpiece of rationality and calm judgement.

I would suggest if such a person exists, he most likely wouldn’t make accusations of "racist prejudice" at all, being aware of what a flimsy premise such accusations rest on. If he was a reasonable observer he wouldn’t want any truck with this legislation at all, being aware that it is a gimmick to suppress free speech.

But, again, if the notion of a "reasonable observer" was retained, ironclad proof of his accusations should be required to establish that he WAS a reasonable observer: in other words, burden of proof of his accusations, which is not required under this "law"

What is of great concern is the misuse of such a law by an UNREASONABLE OBSERVER, who makes accusations that he is not required to back up. No penalties are mentioned in this legislation for any such unreasonable observer.


The history of dealing with organizations such as Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), in the case of Adelaide Institute, a revisionist historical institute, has been that "truth is no defence"!

Once again, the idea that proof of accusations should be establish to prevent unjust charges is thrown out the window.

When the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), complained that Adelaide Institute defamed Jews, the Director of Adelaide Institute, Dr Fredrick Toben, tried to produce documentary proof to HREOC that its comments were based on hard factual evidence, not some kind of bigotry and prejudice. Thus, that the accusations of "racism" were non-factual.

He found that, for HREOC, "truth is no defence" which of course means that lies must flourish. The whole thing is a travesty of the Christian-based tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" and attempting to prevent false arrest or imprisonment on unjust charges.

The nature of the bill outlined here, and the fact that Adelaide Institute is listed as a targeted organization, leads one to believe that similar tactics will be used in their case to suppress freedom of speech.


Oh, to be sure, one of the exemptions is "any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose of any other genuine purpose in the public interest", just as it says in Part 2, page 4.

Well, then, that would include, would it not, any revisionist work that discusses an historical issue, including the Holocaust, WWII or any other issue, for an academic purpose, namely to discover the truth about what really happened?

One Jewish writer, Norman Finkelstein, published "The Holocaust Industry" "in which he suggested that the Holocaust had become a financial racket - that was his conclusion, not mine - and he did so "in the public interest", which is to reveal the truth and seek reform, one reason being that he felt that money was being wasted, some of it being blocked from reaching Holocaust victims. But there has been an uproar about it! Why? It should be exempted from any criticism under the terms of this legislation! And then there’s another book, Dissecting The Holocaust, which does not express any hatred of the Jews, but subjects the Holocaust to critical analysis. That has a genuine academic purpose in seeking the truth and it is in the public interest to know the truth. Why? Because "the truth will make you free". (But lies will enslave you).

Why am I cynical enough to doubt that the proposers of this legislation would not want to accept this as an exemption? Could it be that they will attribute a hostile motive to the writers, whether they have it or not? Is this what we expect of a "reasonable observer"?


Here is a request for a "reasonable observer": that, we expect both proponents of the Exterminationist thesis and the revisionist thesis to have a debate, in which the truth of their propositions could be judged? We then apply this test of reasonableness to revisionism. Alas, I am cynical enough to doubt that it will be like that, even though it is consistent with the legislation to require a "reasonable observer". One reason is that there is no mention in the legislation of the need to seek the truth. As Milton said, "let truth and falsehood grapple", so we may know the truth.


Jesus Christ would be liable for "racist defamation" on the strength of His comments in Matthew 23, showing that He was not a fan of the Pharisees. It may soon become an issue for Christians, to what extent they are "permitted by law" to practice their faith when a State-devised "authority" is imposed on them.

Instead of giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God, this legislation requires Caesar to be the arbiter of what can be said.

Even in the definition of "religious belief or activity" a State-imposed definition is mentioned. We are told (Part I, p.2, ) "religious belief or activity" means:
(a) holding or not holding a lawful religious belief or view;
(b) engaging in, not engaging in or refusing to engage in a lawful religious activity."

My question is: who decides what is "Lawful"? In this context it implies that the State decides. The State giveth, the State taketh away.


Some of the exemptions allow vilification as part of an "artistic work." (*page 17)

This could cover such instances as "Piss Christ" some years ago, in which an image of Christ was shown soaked in urine, in which Christians are apparently not allowed to be offended, but some of us wonder how long a urine-soaked object with a Star of David in urine labelled "Piss Jew" would be appreciated as a wonderful example of artistic "freedom" or a depiction of Mohammed soaked in urine.

Then there’s Melbourne’s planned "Midsumma* Nights’ Festival" which depicts Christ as a homosexual, having homosexual relationships with His disciples.

Once again, we have to appreciate the wonderful "artistic sensitivity" of such constructions, but again I wonder if the same appreciation would be shown to a defamation of Jews, Moslems, Buddhists etc.

Might there be some kind of inconsistency here? (* Incidentally "Midsumma" is the spelling they use)


One of the organizations condemned by the ADC in its push for the "Racial and Religious Tolerance" (which is really very intolerant) Bill, is "Scott Balsom’s ‘Australian National News of the Day’." It quotes him disparagingly as having the temerity to say that "freedom of speech on the Internet will be the great new social battlefield in this new age of enlightenment."

Certain people don’t like that. If you give people free speech you can’t control what they think, and that will never do. But maybe that kind of philosophy is not to the liking of people who value freedom of discussion rather than wearing a muzzle?

Consequently, the Racial and Religious "Tolerance" Bill draft document page 15, enthusiastically recommends Internet censorship:

"The proposed Victorian legislation could be drafted to include specific provisions dealing with websites. It would be possible to make unlawful the creation of a website devoted to race hate or posting vilification information on a site, and email transmissions conveying vilifying communications which are created or transmitted from within Victoria. Such websites and communications have the potential to be directed to persons and groups with the intent of causing distress and injury." Note that it includes emails as well as websites.

But as we know from overseas experience, especially Canada, this idea of "race hate" is a propaganda term which consists of labelling free discussion on racial, political, historical or religious viewpoints "hateful". This "intent", however bogus, is foisted on the participants, whether they have it or not.

The phrase "hate websites" is a propaganda term. Does anyone out there value free speech on the Internet? You won’t find it in this Bill!


There is much more that could be said, and I’d be interested to learn what my readers think. But surely it is clear enough that the whole legislation is aimed as a State-imposed totalitarian Thought Crime dictatorship and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Let me again urge readers to study this proposed legislation for themselves and reach their own conclusions and if they agree that this kind of legislation is unconscionable, are urged to make a submission to the Bracks government.

They can download the draft ("daft?") Document from or fax (03) 9651 5944 or request copies of the draft document from 1300 366 356.

Submissions must be received by" Victorian Office of Multicutural Affairs, Dept. Of Premier and Cabinet, 1 Treasury Place, East Melbourne, Vic. 3002, no later than 28 February, 2001.

Geoff Muirden