The Pickering Post
Thursday, 18th January 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BlogFacebook

HOW WE LOST THE CHANCE TO ABOLISH 18c


Senator Brandis QC, arose in the Senate and in his best Oxford vernacular explained that, “Everyone has a right to be bigoted”. It was grist for the Green mill and set alight the lunatic Left in a blizzard of PC bullshit. 

From that moment, Tony Abbott’s election promise to reform the Act hit the cutting room floor and joined the bundle of other broken promises.

Had our learned friend arose to say instead that, “Everyone has a right to free speech”, the Bill would have sailed through the Senate.

I don’t think I will give Senator Brandis a call next time I kill a radicalised Muslim.



More

The Green Empress Angela Merkel and friends have No Clothes


TRUMP CAUGHT TRUTHING AGAIN!


I'm being invaded... see ya in a few days

Comments

The corporation called the Commonwealth of Australia registered with the US Securities and Exchange commission became 'loco parentis' and your child a subject upon registration at birth. .............................................................................................. Federal Children Through Fraud


Because ALL law is contractual the 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) United States Corporation http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html must provide to the people "full disclosure" of the nature of that contract.

When you "applied" for your child's birth certificate, were you advised of the nature of this contract?

See also; http://nikihannevig.blogspot.com/2006/12/fraudulent-conveyances-letter-of-law.html and http://theultimateweapons.blogspot.com/2011/03/should-corporate-united-states-and.html

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES & THE LETTER OF THE LAW
On the reverse side of a Pennsylvania birth certificate, the perpetuation of a global business scheme that was in effect long before the colonies were chartered is apparent. It is an application to "correct the certified copy issued" whereby the father and mother swears by oath in the presence of a Notary that their child is a "SUBJECT"). If the corrections are not made by the parents, the "SUBJECT'S SIGNATURE" is required (also under oath).


Now, as all law abiding, good parents who love their children, know, the government mandates education, and they must provide a "birth certificate" to enroll their child in a public school. Also notice how Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads in Section 1:

Uniformity of Taxation:

"All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws."
If you have access to a Pennsylvania 'Certification of Birth' hold it up to the light and notice the 'chain link' watermark.


THE FEDERAL CORPORATION THINKS THEY OWN YOU
AND YOUR CHILDREN
(from http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/2008/09/federal-childrenthrough-fraud-and.html)

Who Can Access Your Metadata?
During recent hearings relating to metadata access, concerns were expressed that tens of agencies were able to access metadata without a warrant in connection with various investigations.

In order to shore up access regulations and to cut down on abuse of warrantless access to metadata, the Government has specified which agencies will be allowed warrantless access to metadata stores, and which will need to actually apply for permission (emphasis added):



While telecommunications data is less privacy intrusive than content, law enforcement and national security agencies can only access data where a case can be made that this information is reasonably necessary to an investigation. This Bill will further strengthen privacy protections in the TIA Act in relation to data by limiting the types of enforcement agencies that can access telecommunications data.

Currently any authority or body that enforces a criminal law, a law imposing a pecuniary penalty or a law that protects the public revenue is an ‘enforcement agency’ under the TIA Act and can seek telecommunications data where that access complies with the requirements set out in Chapter 4 of the TIA Act. In 2012-2013 data was accessed by around 80 Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies with criminal law or revenue protection functions.

The Bill will require that bodies who are not a ‘criminal law enforcement agency’ for the purposes of the TIA Act must be declared by the Minister to be an ‘enforcement agency’ before they can authorise the disclosure of telecommunications data. These amendments will ensure that only authorities and bodies with a demonstrated need to have telecommunications information can authorise the disclosure of this information. These amendments are consistent with Recommendation 5 of the PJCIS Report that the number of agencies able to access telecommunications data be reduced.

Does Anyone Care About Your Privacy?
The Government will also appoint several safeguards to make sure that metadata access isn’t being abused:



The Bill will further enhance privacy protections by introducing an independent oversight mechanism for access to data by law enforcement agencies. Under these provisions the Commonwealth Ombudsman will, for the first time, have the power to inspect the records of enforcement agencies to ensure that agencies are complying with their obligations under the TIA Act. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) currently oversights and will continue to oversight access to telecommunications data by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

Who Pays?
ISPs like iiNet have consistently warned that a massive cost would come with metadata storage. The government today has agreed with that assessment, but promised to contribute “substantially” to the creation and ongoing cost of the metadata retention program.

Turnbull said at this morning’s press conference:



There are some ballpark figures being thrown around but they are at this stage not of sufficient accuracy for me to be citing. We will work through that will the PCJIS and of course we have a working group…and the Secretaries of the Attorney’s department and my department. We don’t have a final figure at this point. The estimates are getting more accurate but it’s something that will be refined in the course of the consultation.


Whether or not you’ll pay more for metadata storage remains to be seen.
Is It Secure?
Various telcos, including Telstra <http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/09/telstra-concerned-about-honeypot-hackers-coming-after-customer-metadata/> , has expressed concern that the storage of large amounts of metadata at rest in a datacentre creates a “honeypot” for hackers. To address that concern, Malcolm Turnbull outlined plans to introduce new security regulations to protect Australia’s telephone networks.

Speaking at a press conference this morning, Turnbull said that ultimately, storage is up to the telcos:



“Securing data safely is the responsibility of the telcos. They’re very alert to data security already. We are presently preparing new legislation which will strengthen…the security of Australia’s telecommunications structure or system, and that would add to that security and we expect those new laws and amendments to be in place before the 18-month implementation period is complete. [Security] is clearly in the hands of the telcos.

Most of the categories that we’re talking about in terms of data – telephone metadata — are being kept by phone companies…for up to 7 years. This is anticipating a change in that. There are some ISPs that have been storing data that they have hitherto kept for long periods down to short periods or at all. In an IP world, there isn’t a business need for them to do so. We’re asking them to do something which they’re either doing or supremely capable of doing, or which they may not in the future have a business need to do so. We’re talking about the degradation of this resource for law enforcement. There’s nothing new about…[agencies] accessing metadata.

Will It Ever Be Repealed?
So how long will you have to live with a data retention scheme? Is there any chance of the Government changing its mind?

Well, it’s unlikely to be reversed if it actually gets passed through the House and the Senate, but the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security — the one that originally examined the usefulness of a metadata retention program — will re-examine the program after three years.

Depending on when the program is introduced (keeping in mind there is the provision for an 18-month implementation lead time), the players on that panel, as well as the government itself, could be very different. That’s very much a wait-and-see at this point, but it’s unlikely to be repealed if it passes given that law enforcement agencies have been pushing so hard for it over the last two governments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Zionist ruling clique of Canada, through their front-man Stephen Harper, is seeking to beef up the already-existing Orwellian “hate propaganda” law which has been primarily used to curtail criticism of Zionists and Israel.

The conspicuous change is buried in the Harper government’s proposed cyberbullying law, Bill C-13.

The existing law in Canada’s criminal code makes it illegal to “promote hatred” (whatever that means) of people “distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation,” explained The Chronicle Herald, but Bill C-13 intends to expand that category to include age, sex, mental or physical disability, and most disturbingly, “national origin.” In other words, you cannot criticize anyone for any reason at all!

This means, say, if you condemn Israelis for their inhumane treatment of Palestinians, you could find yourself in court facing down the self-appointed thought police and commissars of political correctness.

The law against “hate speech” is illegitimate and ridiculous to begin with. The idea of allowing a government to legislate against opinions and feelings is patently absurd – it is pulled right out of George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984.

British Columbia native Arthur Topham has felt the wrath of Canada’s censorious establishment. In November 2012, at the instigation of the Zionist society of B’nai B’rith, Topham was charged with a ‘hate crime’ for publishing anti-Zionist articles on his website Radical Press.

One of the items on Topham’s site that made the Zionists convulse and contort with unrestrained anger and rage was a satire called Israel Must Perish. The text was nothing more than a spoof of a 1941 book authored by a Zionist named Theodore Kaufman, entitled Germany Must Perish! In that text, Kaufman called for “a final solution” of German extinction. Topham merely substituted the words “German,” “Germany,” and “Nazi” with “Israel,” “Jew,” and “Zionist” throughout the text. Despite writing a clearly-worded preface explaining the satirical nature of the text, Topham was arrested by the RCMP and now faces the possibility of spending up to two years behind bars for violating Zionist sensibilities.

Many will recall the sad saga of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zundel. In the mid-1980s Zundel was charged with “spreading false news” after he published a book, Did Six Million Really Die?, which questioned some aspects of the official “holocaust” story. In the ensuing show trial, Zundel and his team of revisionist historians as well as his indefatigable defence lawyer Douglas Christie brought the holocaust lobby to its knees with facts and information refuting many claims made by Zionists about Germany’s WW2 concentration camps.
Over the span of three decades, Zundel was dragged from courtroom to courtroom, from jail cell to jail cell, merely for expressing a viewpoint deemed verboten by the Zionist establishment – the self-appointed architects of public discourse, the self-declared arbiters of truth and morality, the self-proclaimed “chosen people” whose faults are unseen and whose character is unimpeachable.

Zundel, a self-described pacifist with no criminal record, was physically assaulted on numerous occasions by Jewish Defence League thugs. His Toronto home, which also housed his publishing and graphic arts businesses, was bombed and torched by Zionist terrorists. He received death threats on a daily basis from members of the “chosen race of God,” but the Toronto Police did almost nothing to prevent any of it and was entirely uninterested in pursuing the criminals and thugs responsible for the campaign of terror against Zundel and his associates.

Zundel’s story is a testament to the power and control of Jewish extremists in Canada, whose agenda is anything but altruistic and whose disposition is more racist than the Klan.

In the “New World Order” being imposed on us by self-interested, ethnocentric megalomaniacs, no man has the right to explore, investigate, and come to his own conclusions about history – that is the sole responsibility of the tyrannical monarchs of the NWO, who tell us what and how to think; free thought be damned.

BM/AB
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/11/358120/zionists-to-boost-thought-crime-law/

To neutralise the threat of the anti-Communists in other countries, the Jewish Voice (U.S.A.) launched the following slogan in July 1941 (p. 23):

"Anti-Communism is anti-Semitism!" The infamous American Zionist organisation, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), has been of the same opinion since the beginning.

(Executive Intelligence Review, No. 39, 30th September 1988).

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2014/10/28/canada-criminalizes-criticism-of-israel-analyst/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed: pakalert (Pak Alert Press)

More like how we are losing Australia

So after what Rinaldo says it didnt have anything to do with Abbott maybe losing his one muslim voted seat? Who do you believe and what right did Abbott have in making an "executive decision" to not reform the act anyway?

I still love Peking Duck

We must treat all bigots equally.

It had to have been a planned "stuff up". Let's just ignore the wishes of the majority which voted for this gutless Coalition and go with the noisy minorities.

This was killed by the Jews, They appeared at every possible moment to tell us they were spearheading the drive against it. They have spearheaded these laws in most western countries

Give Brandis a punch in the mouth and claim it under Parliamentary Priviledge.

Leaders unite to save 18C December 9, 2013 ·



No comments National, News · Tagged: Alexandra Roach, George Brandis, Peter Wertheim, Racial Discrimination Act


SEVERAL roof bodies representing ethnic and religious minorities, including the Jewish community, have signed off on a statement urging Attorney-General George Brandis to drop his proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA), which they say would weaken racial vilification protections. The statement was signed last Wednesday and sent to all federal Senators and MPs, including Brandis.


“Without Section 18C, the Jewish community would lose a powerful weapon that has been used successfully many times to take action against anti-Semitism, including Holocaust denial, usually without having to go to court,” Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim, who is a signatory, told The AJN this week. The statement was also signed by leaders from the Arab Council Australia, the Australian Hellenic Council, the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, the Chinese Australian Forum, the Lebanese Muslim Association, the Vietnamese Community in Australia, the Armenian National Council of Australia, the United Muslim Women’s Association, and activist group All Together Now.


Brandis made an election promise to repeal Section 18C of the RDA, which renders illegal actions or speech that are “reasonably likely … to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate [people] … because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Brandis told The AJN last month the change would “strengthen free speech in Australia”, but it has caused deep concern among minority communities, including the Jewish community. “This issue has been falsely framed as one of freedom of expression,” Wertheim said. “To include racist name-calling within the rubric of freedom of expression is a debasement of ­freedom … and [people’s] human dignity.”


Wertheim said he and other leaders were disappointed and “felt let down” by the Abbott government’s lack of consultation about changes to the RDA. The statement asserts 18C’s repeal “would be a step backwards for Australia” as “racial vilification deprives its targets of equal treatment and a fair go”.


“The cultural diversity of Australia’s people is a great source of our nation’s strength … [and] imposes an obligation on government to protect and encourage social cohesion,” the statement reads. “Failure to do so can have very serious if not catastrophic consequences for our society.


A change to the RDA would send a signal that racism is acceptable.” ALEXANDRA ROACH Peter Wertheim (back centre) joined religious and ethnic leaders signing a statement against amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act.

Leaders unite to save 18C | The Australian Jewish News

http://www.jewishnews.net.au/leaders-unite-to-save-18c/33380

18c

Friday, October 24, 2014




European rabbis demand laws banning "anti-Semitic hate speech"




A group of rabbis is demanding that national governments across the European continent enact laws outlawing "anti-Semitic hate speech," which essentially amounts to any criticism, however mild, of Jews, the acknowledgement of Jewish power and influence in Western society, and/or challenging the officially sanctioned narrative of some of the most monumental events in history, including WWII and the events of 9/11. "Holocaust denial" is already illegal in numerous European countries, and a young man in the United Kingdom was recently sentenced to one month in prison for openly identifying a Jewish politician as a Jew and a Communist on Twitter.

The Jewish Telegraph Agency reports:




European rabbis called on governments throughout the continent to pass laws targeting hate speech against Jews.

The call was made in a resolution passed Thursday by the standing committee of the Conference of European Rabbis, or CER, which convened this week in Tbilisi, Georgia.

“We call on additional countries to follow the example set by France and Germany, and devise legislation that targets hate speech against Jews specifically,” CER President Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt told JTA Friday.

“It is something that few countries have but is necessary in light of the rise in anti-Semitic violence and hate speech, as we have witnessed this summer,” Goldschmidt said in reference to a surge in anti-Semitic expressions throughout Western Europe that coincided with Israel’s war in Gaza. [...]
Readers of The Realist Report understand that the organized Jewish community is the leading force advocating for tyrannical "hate speech" laws around the world, and for promoting and enforcing political correctness generally. The Jewish community is openly waging a war on all individuals' God-given right to freedom of expression and thought. The question is, will governments continue to give in to the tyrannical demands of the Jewish community, and adopt even more Orwellian "hate speech" and thought crimes laws?

According to the Anti-Defamation League, one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in the world, telling the truth about the nature of the Jewish people and the role they play in our world is fundamentally "anti-Semitic." The Jews are basically trying to criminalize telling the truth, particularly about them, their international agenda for world domination, and their fraudulent narrative of history and more current events.

There is nothing "hateful" with being honest about the nature of Jewish power and criminality. We have been so thoroughly conditioned to believe that any criticism or frank discussion of any issue relating to the organized international Jewish community or the state of Israel is somehow "hateful" or "bigoted" or "anti-Semitic." It's time we call a spade a spade, and recognize the true nature of Jewish power and the destructive and subversive role the organized international Jewish community plays in our world today.

http://www.therealistreport.com/2014/10/european-rabbis-demand-laws-banning.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed: JohnFriendsBlog (John Friend's Blog)

Shame, Abbott, Shame

The broken promise to fight for the repeal of this iniquitous law is far worse than a mere politician's imitation of a wind vane. Free speech is at the core of our democracy. If the Prime Minister doesn't recognise that simple and indisputable fact he is unfit to hold the office
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/08/shame-abbott-shame/

Re 18C is Mr Shh and their mob .. still ``reserving his view or stance on 18C?``..I don`t recall them ever advocating removing or amending it , during their 6 yr ..thing.. But more so they were all for reducing public communication, esp On line? So I wonder what their advocacy is if ... reserved?

the first intake of Lebanese Muslims was brought in by Malcolm Frazier

Larry i fully agree with you on this matter. I believe it was handled poorly, Unfortunately we seem to be run by a minority. EG: Poofters/Muslims/Coons/Coconuts only take up a faction of our population however (all this Political Correctness BS) it appears that they are the main source of this rubbish...

It appears to me that many on this site are advocating the previous labor strategy, let’s shaft Abbott and put in Morrison or Bishop.
That has been shown to be a very poor option for a government.

This government has made some major changes/improvements in the 12 months in office that don't need to listed here again, in spite of a hostile senate.

It appears if everything is not achieved now, even the impossible, we are not happy.
I thought that was one of the problems we have with the current generation, thought we were more capable of a bit of patience and steering the boat, in the right direction.

seems the only people they use laws for are the law abiding aussie...everyone else had a bad childhood or something just as silly.