In my view, this is probably the funniest legal argument the Commonwealth deployed in the whole case.

You thought robbing Peter to pay Paul was bad: try disenfranchising Clancy to enfranchise Zhang, Mohammed and Arjun.

Non-Whites are such natural liberal-democrats that they need the host nation to be violently suppressed by the state in order to be able to participate. How would they survive another name on the ballot?

The widespread mongrelisation in Central and South America has ruined those parts of the world

The Australian seething that political communication exists.

https://archive.is/Tj1KJ

"Reform has finally arrived for one of the High Court’s worst ideas: 1992’s implied constitutional freedom of political communication. It is a judicial creation never approved by the Australian people."

"Legal Expert" shabbos goy Chris Merritt (half of whose articles are about jews and israel) really believes that political communication is one of the High Court's "worst ideas" and is not a right that Australians agree with or deserve.

Jews and their cuck supporters hate our Anglo concepts of freedom and free speech.

Not every boomer but always a boomer.

How many contradictions does Chris Merritt want to have in one opinion piece?

These traitors hate freedom (implied or otherwise) and they hate that the constitution outlines a system whereby Australians freely choose their representatives.

They believe in freedom only in the very basic and limited way that any despot does: freedom for me and tyranny for you.

I asked the speaker of the house for comment on White Australia Party’s high court challenge against his government’s laws which banned them. I think he forgot what democracy is..

From AUSPILL (x)

This is the bit where Gageler had identified that in essence, it was similar to the forced dissolution of the Communist party.

Whilst the language is different, "prohibited" vs "dissolved", in substance it is the same.

Seemed Sharifys arguments earlier of "you cannot run an organisation from jail" resonated.

Justice Beech-Jones also made an observation that members are forced to resign or be subject to punishment.

‘We didn’t dissolve the party. We just made being a member of it a crime punishable by 7 years in jail.’

I may have misspoken. This could be the funniest argument the Commonwealth made. They seem unfamiliar with the phrase ‘a distinction without a difference’.

Their logic is about as sound as saying ‘I wasn’t cheating on you. I was just exploring other options.’

Using offensive behaviour laws to police politics allows magistrates to decide which opinions are allowed

Hersant shorts if they were actually good

White authors are explicitly excluded from this bookstore in Australia, but how far does their ban go?

From AUSPILL (X)

James Mason reads and reacts to my article on the White Australia Party’s hearing in the High Court.

Multiculturalism is eroding the ethical system which underpins the legal systems of the West

Jack Eltis - White Australia High Court case - thoughts, assessment, and experience (feat. Thomas Sewell) | X space

@nationalistaudiochat

Brendan Lim SC returning on Day 2 to have to face the bench for another grilling.

There’s nothing wrong with so-called low IQ anti-Semitism

Social Cohesion status:

“Shut your bitch ass up.”

"Canberra is full of pedos"

"There is no stopping the masses from waking up, have a nice day you evil bitch!"

Lmao, online netizens putting in work

https://t.me/ausvstheagenda/3999

This is the scenario Thomas Sewell was talking about when he said “we have recruited hundreds of autistic teens, and none have gone on to do terror attacks”.

Victoria Police and the Australian Federal Police on the other hand were grooming and actively encouraging a 13yo to go and do ISIS terrorism, encouraging him to make a bomb or become a sniper.

Police were simultaneously buying him a birthday cake whilst plotting to arrest him.