Direct Link to Latest News


Brendon O'Connell - Jailed Four Years for "Anti Semitism"

April 22, 2014


Australian activist Brendon O'Connell, 42, was arrested
and jailed in 2009 for making "anti-Semitic" statements.
He was released last January. Brendon reveals exactly what he said
and how an apology would have spared him
a four-year prison term. 

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."- Voltaire

by Brendon O'Connell

I was arrested by 7 members of the State Security Investigation group on May the 12th 2009 for calling Stanley Elliot Keyser a "racist Jew" and "racially vilifying him" in the process. Section 80B. That was one year jail time.

I then used words such as, "your days are numbered" talking about Rabbinic Pharisaic Judaism etc. This came under a different part of the legislation, Section 77, the most serious in that I was "inciting others" to go and kill Jews.

These are comments from my Blog at the time - after I was arrested - that got me more charges under Section 77 -

"1,500 Gazan's are dead, one million plus Iraqi's. We can only hope and pray that the international community strikes hard and makes sure that gaggle of Satan's children in occupied Palestine are brought to justice."
Transcript Page 626 - 2 years jail.

"Fairly soon Jews will realize that people are thoroughly sick of them, their whining, their perpetual victimhood and their demands for people to bow down and worship their dodgy religion of Holocaustianity."
Transcript Page 630 - 2 years jail

"The Jew community could of at least made their lies and slander half-believable, but I guess after years of inventive and over the top Holocaust memoirs they've gotten lazy."
Transcript Page 632- 2 years jail

"Former Ku Klux Clown lectures Aussies to stamp out racism. Unfortunately our former clown has never read the Talmud, so he forgot to mention Jews as the biggest racists of all."
Transcript p.633 - 2 years jail

Then 2 years jail for saying "your days are numbered in the video.

All up I was given 11 years jail which was then made "concurrent" which mean it all ran together as one charge. If they really don't like you, they run the charges "consecutive" and you do all 11 years. They were trying to scare me. I made sure I said, "Jail here is a holiday camp compared to Gaza!" which the media reported. I wanted to be as defiant as possible.

This Blog links to two video's I did explaining things

Here Justice Buss at my appeal indicates that if I would just say sorry they would let me out of jail. This was in December of 2011:

JA BUSS: One can readily understand that a suspended sentence would have been appropriate had someone in your client's position pleaded guilty even if not at the first opportunity, had expressed some remorse at some stage or even given an apology. If these had been the facts, then it is very difficult to see how a term of immediate imprisonment could possibly have been justified, but those are not the facts.
Transcript 13/12/2011 Page 18 WASCA

Below is a section from a synopsis I prepared for the High Court. It explains a lot. I have also included pictures taken from the raid video's. I don't think anyone has published these before.

[G] Hansard of Debate - Criticism of West Australian  Racial Vilification Legislation by Hon John Fischer Nov.. 2004
"This legislation is atrociously drawn up. It will not achieve what it is intended to achieve, although I am not sure what the intent is. The Government has introduced the legislation and I do not believe there has been any consultation with the general public. I believe this legislation has been brought on as a red herring. From the people I have spoken to, I believe that this legislation will do the Government a great deal of harm. It represents without doubt, a loss of freedom of speech and a loss of freedom of knowledge.
I believe these laws will increase problems. The whole of the legislation will be thrown out. It is absolutely pathetic. I cannot emphasize enough that this is probably some of the worst legislation I have read."

Criticism by Greg Craven,
'Conversations With The Constitution: Not Just A Piece Of Paper'. UNSW PRESS.

"The most obvious feature of this rights discourse is its unremitting focus on the rights of minorities. New constitutionalists are relatively uninterested in the rights of common or garden Australians to live dull, secure lives in dull, secure suburbs, unmolested alike by burglars and intrusive governmental gate crashers. They are transfixed, however, by the rights of minority groups: indigenous people, ethnic minorities, sexual and gender groupings though not (of course) by the rights of unfashionable minorities such as conservative religious groups or right wing nutters. New constitutionalists argue, with obvious force, that it is the rights of minorities that most need protection. But there is more than necessity at work here."

Related- Jailed Christian Activist on Hunger Strike
---------- Australia plans to amend racial discrimination act:"People have a right to be bigots"
--------- Oz Foreign Minister Lifts Veil on Jewish Control

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Brendon O'Connell - Jailed Four Years for "Anti Semitism""

Tom said (April 24, 2014):

The saddest truth about this case, and what has been taking place globally forever is, absolutely none of this can take place without the brainwashed cowards doing the physical dirty work of these worthless devils!

WK said (April 22, 2014):

My comment re the above story in response to comment (below) by Robert K.

Great comment, Robert! I believe that it is much easier for someone, upon hearing about someone saying something allegedly “offensive” to or about other persons, to accept that he or she must have done something improper and so perhaps deserves censoring or even punishment. But when someone is told that THEY cannot hear something the issue is brought clearly to “home base” and is much more likely to cause that person to “get their hackles up.” E.g., “You can’t dictate to ME what, or what not, I am going to listen to!" In other words if the situation is reversed so that the imposition is shown to bear directly upon the rights of the individual listener, it is going to be taken more personally and seriously than are more removed or distant rumours or reports of someone else’s rights being abused. Surely, this "reverse strategy" is a potent force to be exploited in the struggle for the preservation of freedom of speech and enquiry—without which intellectual freedom, life can have no meaning.

JG said (April 22, 2014):

The anti-semitism canard was basically designed to outlaw exposure and criticism of Jewish crimes against humanity. It has been a highly effective defense mechanism for the protection of the "perpetual victimhood" aspect of Jewish Identity.
This canard really should not be labelled anti-semitism because Arab Semites and Christian Semites are not protected under these laws.

Robert K said (April 22, 2014):

This business of abjectly apologizing is straight out of the communist rulebook. It is public acknowledgment, under coercion, that one is wrong in one's views, and thereby in fact a public nullification of one's self.

This is reminiscent of the congratulations to the court that apparently are de rigueur for convicted persons to express at the time of sentencing in, for example, China--a public profession of faith that the "authorities" are invariably on the side of the angels.

A proof of evil (i.e., alignment with the will of Satan), Jesus said, is hypocrisy. The world control system being installed ravenously craves evidence of your capacity for hypocrisy. Apparently, despite the penalty he risked, this man couldn't stomach the induction efforts of the kangaroo court that sentenced him to such a preposterous punishment for speaking his mind.

Maybe it's time to stop talking about the right to freedom of speech, which usually involves consideration for others--about whose character,sadly, it seems quite easy to insinuate doubt--and instead view the matter from the other end, i.e. from the standpoint of the individual's right to hear. What information or point of view do you believe you personally should not be entitled to hear? If your answer is "I should be able to hear anything I bloody well want", then you have clarified in your mind the "issue" of freedom of speech.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at