Trouble in the Courthouse: Sewell, Cottrell and Galea – A Commentary

The recent trials of Kyle Rittenhouse and the Nationalists at Charlottesville in the United States have promptly refreshed our memories of recent (and ongoing) cases of law in Australia which are pertinent for Nationalist-minded people to understand.

Firstly and most briefly to touch on Tom Sewell’s case in Victoria. There’s no published court documents on this case yet, only the reports coming from viewers and media direct from the courtroom. You would be hesitant to speculate on the facts or mix words which may be used against Tom’s case but suffice to say there’s allegations of an unreasonable escalation of force perhaps a battery against a few alleged agitators out in the bush somewhere in Victoria. There has been some highly suspect facts in the prosecutions case which at face-value would make you think it was a setup.

The alleged victims of the affray were too afraid to make formal police statements. The DNA found on the vehicle was not conclusively Sewells’. The Victorian Police’s sequence of events appears to be full of holes about identifying who did what exactly. Some commentators closer to the Victorian case have alleged that the police were monitoring the NSN activists before and after the event and that if there can be sufficient substantiation of this state of affairs would it beyond the realm of possibility it was entrapment? That the two people who were allegedly at the receiving end of a battery were in-fact planted there and have not made statements as this may implicate them in some kind of conspiracy? Or at minimum show they are politically motivated provocateurs.

In any case, you might distill from the portrayal of the case that a couple ratbags decided to film NSN members and this was allegedly taken to be sufficient grounds for a big staunching and engagement of force. Strategically a good decision? Probably not. Inside the context of the battery at Nine Network in March earlier in the year which Hersant and Sewell allege is self-defence – it doesn’t paint a good picture. To briefly touch on that one, it was alleged the security guard took to Hersant’s wind-pipe and Toms action was in his defence. If this fact can be established by the security footage that has still not been released by Nine the case will still assess the reasonable escalation of force. The Judge under the common law will need to assess if the grabbing of the back of the neck of Hersant merited multiple closed-fist punches to the face.  

A few lessons of note to be learned from these series of events:

  1. If you are afraid to be photographed or filmed by ‘antifa’ or anyone else, do not join a real life organisation.
  2. Police services given a mandate to disrupt political dissidents will be actively seeking opportunities to entrap their opponents, provoke them to break the law – this should be a permanent fixture of your strategic decisionmaking.
  3. Be aware of the lawful escalation of force in self defense situations. ‘The Use of Force Continuum’ – if you escalate from a Soft Control ‘Pressure Point Tactic’ to a Hard Control technique, you will possibly be the one penalised even though the other person made first contact. The law only permits you to use as much force as is reasonably sufficient to prevent further harm to yourself. Ie (push the guy away, or restraint him. Punches to the face are likely not going to weigh well in the courtroom.)

Blair Cottrell’s 2019 appeal before Judge Kidd in the Victorian County Court was not a victor. Following the almost infamous beheading of a dummy in protest for the construction of the Mosque in Bendigo – Blair was charged with a breach of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (2001) and was fined $2000.

The interesting thing about Blairs’ case was that the prosecution was brought upon him by Victoria Police’s former constable Erin Ross. No Muslim (which was the alleged vilified class of persons) actually brought up the case against Blair. The esteemed barrister John W. Bolton (who presented a speech against Islamic migration in Australia in 2015 alongside myself at Parliament House )  made a strong case that Blair’s activist activity was protected under the Constitution as the implied right to political free speech and that the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerant act was thereby invalid in prosecuting the case.

The Chief Judge Kidd did not find in favor of this argument but did all us some very important work in now setting in place some legal precedent for testing speech against these kinds of ‘tolerance’ acts.

Kidd engaged in important reflection on what the implied right to political free speech means in alignment with the constitution. He references the 2019 case Clubb v Edwards in which it was established “The question of whether a law [In this case the Victorian RRT] imposes a burden on the implied freedom is thus to be determined according to the law’s effect on political communication as a whole rather than on an individual or group’s preferred mode of communication.  Where a restriction is limited to a preferred mode of communication, it will not infringe the implied freedom unless it significantly compromises the ability of affected persons to engage in political communication and, even then, only if and because it has a significant effect on political communication as a whole.”

Kidd argued then that the Victorian legislation “Leaves people free to express their views about the religious beliefs or activities of others in any way whatsoever (provided they do so in a manner that is not intended to incite serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule)” and that The parts of the video dealing with political matters and the call to arms to join the political protest against a decision of the local government are not of themselves prohibited by s 25(2)[The legislation]. The appellant and the others on the video were free to communicate about the local government proposal concerning the Bendigo mosque. What is prescribed is the extent to which the conduct in the video seriously vilifies people based upon their religion. Only those communications are burdened.

A law only burdens the implied freedom if it imposes a ‘meaningful restriction’ on political communication. I accept the arguments advanced by the respondent and the Attorney that if s 25(2) does operate to capture communication which can be described as political, the effect on political communication is incidental, insubstantial and not meaningful.

The summary finding of the court was that the arguments against the mosque were legally permissible, but the mock beheading was not a meaningful form of political communication and thereby was not protected by the constitutional implied right to political free speech. The key lesson here for Nationalists is that the vilification laws as they stand in court will not necessarily suppress nationalist political opinion or advocacy which is interpreted as sincere political speech. Emotionally charged behavior filled with contempt for other races or religions that is un-necessary to construct a political argument will not be protected by the law.

The last case for review is the 2020 case of the Commonwealth DPP vs Phillip Galea. If you don’t know who Mr Galea is, neither did I until he hit the headlines as an alleged far-right extremist terrorist. The case should be read in full for most people with an activist mindset. Two charges were laid against Galea

  1. Doing acts in preparation for, or planning a terrorist act (contrary to Section 101.6 of the Criminal Code “the Code”)
  2. Attempting to make a document likely to facilitate a terrorist act (contrary to S 11.1 and 101.5 of the code.)

The court had demonstrable proof that Galea had conducted preliminary research into the Melbourne Anarchists Club, Trades Hall and the Resistance Centre (which houses the Socialist Alliance) in Victoria. He had gone and visited the buildings in person to investigate their layout and security, taking photos and video whilst being there.

The police intercepted phone calls of Galea talking to his friends about his intent to Molotov one of these buildings, most likely the Socialist Alliance building. Judge Hollingworth noted “You spoke to several people of your desire to have the occupants of the buildings come out “like burning rats”. One significant feature of this case was that 4 months transpired after these events and he did not manage to recruit anyone into the attempt or conduct it himself. Galea tried to pursue in court that the whole plot was a “fake plan” designed to try and flush out a police informer within his friend circle. The Jury didn’t buy it. And in any case, what a stupid thing to do – to make such a credible series of actions leading to a potential terror attack, it goes beyond the realm of dark humour when you actually attend a site, study it, gloat about the fantasy of bombing it and actively trying to recruit people to commit the act at a particular time of night.

This contextually got worse when paired with the second charge laid against Galea. ‘The Patriots Cookbook’ was the name of a series of documents he was collating, with the intention of distributing it to people who shared his views to allegedly arm themselves for the upcoming societal collapse. Taking serious material from the “anarchists cookbook” which is known to contain explosives recipes. Galea’s defense in court was that he was going to complete his anarchist cookbook then seek legal advice to see if he could legally publish it. Probably on par with the “It was just a prank bro” argument for his previous charge. The worst part is, after his initial arrest he continued to work on the patriots cookbook to which the Judge found out and leveraged this against him in the courtroom.

The court took into account his personal circumstances, in his defence he forwarded he had neglectful parents, his father was violent, he struggled in school, had no friends, was fried on Alcohol, LSD, MDMA, Ice and Cannabis. He maintained no relationships out of school, had been homeless and had been in and out of court on multiple occasions for minor theft and property damage. He was placed on a community order in 2009 for threatening to kill someone.

Galea was successfully prosecuted and is not expected to be out of goal for another 8 years. It’s almost self-evident the issues with his case but to save everyone any level of thought:

  • Do not plot terrorist actions, the “It was just a fake plot to flush out police informants” defense does not work. Fedposting for ironic or dark humour can become a credible charge against you if the court finds you made legitimate inquiry into targets, considered and advanced towards options to acting upon a plot.
  • Do not possess or produce literature that could be interpreted as to facilitate a terrorist act.

The legal system is pretty clear in this country, though with a well-resourced and dedicated counter-terrorism apparatus run by our political opponents: nationalists must be very mindful of their conduct and must consider always how they might be assessed. The Galea case referenced a few “Risk Assessment tools” used by terrorism experts to assess the likelihood of certain people to commit a terror act. If your character is not beyond reproof, if you have a history of violence, crime and are isolated, socially retarded and have a passion for fantasizing about violence you should keep a close watch over your shoulder for the law.

There is a time and a place for rightful self-defence. It must be reasonable however, and proportionate to the risk you are faced with to pursue it by the law. There is strong grounds to act as a dissident to the international financial system which has pillaged our country. There is a political argument to be pursued in good faith for the benefit of our people.  Be serious, be less autistic and you might come out the other end of it without wasting a fair period of your life in prison or financially ruined by the courthouse.

M. K. Grant