Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

Statement in response to a letter

from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales


*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
1
Complaint under the NSWAnti-Discrimination Act 1997,
received from Mr Garry Burns on June 17, 2014.
Complaint reference number: C2014/0503
1. This statement is made as requested by the Anti-Discrimination Board of NewSouth Wales ("the Board") in
their letter dated June 23, 2014.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
2. Beloware listed our broad conclusions. These conclusions represent personal judgements. They are based on
extensive documentary evidence, available on request.
3. The Boards role is to investigate complaints. Our conclusions have arisen after an investigation of both the
complaint, and the complainant. Our investigation is aimed at assisting the Board with their independent
investigation.
4. The political aspects of this complaint, and other complaints discussed in this report, that do interest me, are
the issues of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience. These are the values I cherish.
Their presence in Australian society has enabled me to lead a fulfilling life up until now, experiencing the
existential pleasure of intellectual freedom. I am being sent the message nowthat my thoughts are unlawful.
5. It is hoped that a scientific approach can prevail in the mind of the reader. That approach will endeavour to
avoid emotionally-clouded value judgements in the field of gender politics. It is hoped each reader will treat
each conclusion as a valid and lawful scientific hypothesis. This is particularly important when discussing the
emotionally-charged issue of paedophilia that is in the public mind at the present time, due to the Royal
Commission.
6. In the scientific method, different hypotheses that attempt to explain a phenomena do compete with each
other. In the quest for truth, empirical evidence is required in order to either validate or falsify a hypothesis. I
am open to learning of evidence that would change my conclusions. The opportunity for resolution and/or
agreement on facts would arise through the conciliation process, if this could be arranged by the Board.
7. Our broad conclusions are as follows.
Legal
1) Section 497ZT clause (2) (c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act NSW (1977) makes it clear to ordinary
reasonable people, that my single Facebook comment (the substance of the complaint by the
complainant), when properly understood, is exempt from the Act.
2) Therefore the allegation by the complainant that my comment is unlawful, is misconceived. It is based
on a self-serving denial that scientific discussion of a particularly sensitive subject can be in the public
interest. It is based on the bad habits of a person who seems to have no useful occupation in life,
apart from running hate campaigns against targeted individuals wrongly perceived to be mentally ill,
suffering fromhomophobia. The political tactics of the complainants side in the culture war include:
Vilification complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
2
cyber-bullying on the complainants website and Facebook page;
attacking diversity of opinion in society through demonization of critics;
personal revenge stalking (as in the ongoing Burns v Sunol saga);
public acts spreading harmful disinformation about a respondent;
public stereotyping and inviting others to gang-stalk a declared ideological opponent;
letters to government ministers aimed at threatening a targets livelihood;
offering services to assist others prepare vilification cases against a named target;
provoking anger in a respondent so that a victimisation complaint can be made in response.
3) The complainant, due to his long track-record of bombarding the Board with homosexual vilification
complaints (and one of the fewpersons in NewSouth Wales in recent years to do so) can no longer be
considered to have standing under the Act to make complaints of homosexual vilification. The
complainant is in a different category to an ordinary homosexual persons who have standing under
the Act to make a complaint.
4) The complainant is not an ordinary homosexual person, but a homosexual activist. Such a person does
not represent the homosexual community, but only a very small minority within that community.
Indeed, based on public evidence seen on the internet, there appears to be much animosity between
the complainant and ordinary homosexual persons, many of whom are embarrassed to be
represented by the complainant.
5) The anti-discrimination legislators in the neighbouring state of Victoria, Australia, have wisely
refrained from trying to write the concept of homosexual vilification into their laws. The uselessness of
these type of thought-control laws in creating harmony, tolerance and respect for diversity of opinion
in our society is demonstrated by examination of the complainants relationship with the Anti-
Discrimination Board of New South Wales in recent years.
6) The hijacking of the vilification provisions in New South Wales by one individual for the purpose of a
personal vendetta is of concern to taxpayers. This vendetta, fighting his demons as well as his
enemies, indicates that the Anti-Discrimination Board lacks the legal power to judiciously and wisely
discriminate in its acceptance and rejection of complaints about which the complainant has no
intention to settle by conciliation.
7) Settlement of complaints by conciliation runs counter to the political aims of the complainant and his
associates. The Boards aim is to promote conciliation. Therefore the complainant abuses the spirit of
the Boards stated aim. This aim is the avoidance of litigation, where possible, by settling vilification
complaints through conciliation. The Boards letter mentions compulsory conciliation in some
circumstances. If the complainant does not withdrawhis complaint after reconsideration, then I ask
the Board to offer the complainant a choice. That choice should be either compulsory conciliation or
rejection of the complaint.
8) Litigation (as a first resort) to settle complaints of this type is a fools game. This complaint is best
settled by alternative dispute resolution techniques that the Board supports and that I request.
9) The complainant has no qualms about tying up hapless respondents in long, drawn out Tribunal
hearings that are punishment in themselves. In these hearings, the complainant is centre-stage and
powerful. His victim is guilty until proven innocent; disempowered; ritualistically humiliated through
disinformation, exaggeration, and disingenuous claims of victimhood.
10) During a Tribunal hearing the magistrate deems any matter not related to the actual written complaint
to be irrelevant. This means the vexatious motives of the complainant are not considered. Whereas if
the complaint was handled by conciliation, then a broader truth would need to be addressed. The
complainants aim is to take cases directly to a Tribunal where the respondent is assumed to be guilty
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
3
until proven otherwise and maximumpublicity is gained for his website.
11) A parallel aim of the complainant arises from his self-appointed role as homosexual activist. This aim
is to force expensive Tribunal hearings for the purpose of strengthening and deepening NewSouth
Wales homosexual vilification and victimisation law. This expansion of the lawis done not through a
democratic process of Parliamentary legislative changes, but through case law creation. The example
in point is the ongoing Burns v Sunol hearings which are designed to introduce newcase lawleading to
the holding of a blogger liable for the content of hyperlinks on his website. This case lawwill
exponentially increase the dragnet for capturing and entrapping perceived homophobes in society.
The definition of homophobia will change from a fear of homosexualism (akin to the Cold War fear of
communism) to a fear of being sued for vilification by homosexual activists. This would have the effect
of significantly dampening permitted public discussion of controversial subjects such as gay marriage
and paedophilia.
12) Since 1977, the Act has been amended at least 53 times. Grounds such as age discrimination,
transgender status and carer's responsibilities have been added. The Act has been expanded to cover
vilification and harassment on some grounds. . . . In 30 years, the Act has been regularly improved and
expanded." This comment is taken from a speech by Magistrate Nancy Hennessy of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, at the celebration of 30 years of the Anti-Discrimination Act held at
Parliament House on 25 October 2007. The point taken is that expansion of anti-discrimination law
appears to be an institutional objective. This is understandable, for all bureaucracies tend to act to
expand their power. This results in periodic cut-backs by incoming governments intent on improving
efficiency and reducing bloated budgets. My concern in this respect is whether or not the Anti-
Discrimination Board is using the complainant, Mr Burns, as a useful tool to expand vilification lawin
line with institutional objectives. The jury is still out on this hypothesis, based as it is only on
circumstantial evidence. An official inquiry by the Attorney Generals department and perhaps the
Ombudsman would be required to resolve this particular question of public interest.
13) The above hypothesis is based on a situation whereby there is an unspoken conjunction of interests
between those of the serial complainant and those of the institution. This serves both the expansion
of vilification law, and also the business of vilification law. If vilification lawexists in New South Wales,
yet it remains dormant and inactive, then it stands a risk of being repealed by new governments. It
would perhaps be viewed as cumbersome and unnecessary. Therefore to mitigate this perceived risk,
there needs to be a constant flowof homosexual vilification complaints to the Board.
14) From a corporate business perspective, generation of homosexual vilification complaints makes sense.
The soliciting of complaints by the Board does seem to be carried out for this purpose. For example, an
advertising card issued by the Board to the public contains the lines Dont put up with it. Dont let
them get away with it. Make a complaint Get confidential advice. Contact the Anti-Discrimination
Board.
15) The problem with the homosexual vilification law in New South Wales is that no useful vilification
complaints appear to be coming in to the Board from ordinary homosexual persons. This is quite
understandable, for in 2014 most Gen-Y and younger people do not have an issue with ordinary non-
political homosexuality. Vilification of homosexuals is a thing of the past, as evidenced by the
increasingly far-fetched complaints being manufactured by New South Wales only homosexual
vilification complainant.
16) The recent coming out of our swimming champion Ian Thorpe attests to this fact. Mr Thorpe
mentioned he wants to settle down and have children. The majority of people can identify with that
instinct. It sends all the right messages that homosexuals are part of the Australian family and have
the same dreams and aspirations as opposite-sex Australians (sic). It shows why there is an urgent
objective by the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby to change baby-making laws (surrogacy).
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
4
17) We are lobbying NSW Parliament to introduce a mechanism to allow a consenting surrogate mother
the ability to transfer her parental rights to the intended parent(s) following a surrogacy arrangement.
- Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW), Fact Sheet, 15 October, 2009.
It is difficult for an old-timer, such as myself, to imagine what it would be like for a mother to give up
her baby daughter to a life with two fathers, one of whom I presume would be more of a step-father.
As a father of a daughter, I observe howspecial and unique a daughters relationship is with her
mother. Also, a mother is important for a son, in different ways. Once one has experienced this
special relationship first hand, it does seem to me sad to deprive a daughter of her real mother, when
not absolutely necessary. If the above lawpasses in NSW, it will, more likely than not, lead to many a
heartbroken daughter in the future searching for her real mother. By promoting commercial
surrogacy as Brave NewWorld business enterprises in Australia, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby,
representing a small minority of Australians, is, in my opinion, not representing the natural right of a
child to have a mother.
18) There is much more compassion and tolerance around these days compared to the days when it was
illegal for men to engage in sodomy. Such outdated laws created the social conditions whereby
violently psychopathic or disturbed persons could revel in their cruelty by attacking those perceived to
be homosexual. A remnant of this psychopathology can be read in the sad case that affected the
complainant so badly over a decade ago (Burns v. Dye [2002] NSW ADT 32). The complainant must
understand that there is sympathy for his past suffering, but that is no excuse for a transition from a
victim of bullying to a perpetrator of bullying. Psychologists and social workers have written on this
cycle of violence. In my opinion we are observing a pernicious form of state-sanctioned bullying in
the ongoing Burns v Sunol saga.
19) Today, in 2014, it appears that no ordinary homosexual person in his or her right mind would want to
file a homosexual vilification complaint with the Board. It would be considered so uncool and
unnecessary. This is borne out with empirical evidence. Due to the shrinkage in supply of normal
material from which the complainant can manufacture complaints for his business, the complainant
must create newsources of supply to both keep up his revenue source and to expand the anti-
discrimination lawinto fertile new areas for exploitation.
20) Incredible as it may sound to the average observer, it is understood that the complainant has recently
sued one conservative Catholic social critic for $100,000 based on holding him responsible for 3
rd
party
comments placed on his website in the discussion area. This potential revenue would go into the
pocket of the complainant. That does seem odd, considering that if in the unlikely case that vilification
was substantiated by a Tribunal, there would be more than one person vilified. Others would step up
to claim their $100,000. The social critic would be bankrupted and out of business very quickly.
21) The complainants strategy appears to involve
Developing case lawto make an internet blogger residing in New South Wales liable for
perceived homophobic comments made on overseas or national web-sites over which he has
no control. Recent examples are Mr Burns homosexual vilification complaints to the Anti-
Discrimination Board C2013/0900; C2014/0181; C2014/0224; C2014/0332; C2014/0371;
C2014/0372; and C2014/0376.
Developing homosexual vilification case-lawthat is aimed at silencing recognised and
influential social commentators who speak publicly on the subject of traditional Christian
sexual morality. Recent examples are Mr Burns homosexual vilification complaints to the
Anti-Discrimination Board, reference numbers C2014/0339; C2014/0373; C2014/0374;
C2014/0302.
Suing respondents for money determined by a Tribunal based on the complainants special
sensitivity to vilification due to past suffering at the hands of homophobes.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
5
22) Returning to the complainants allegation of homosexual vilification in my case, it is seen to be
meaningless from the logical positivist school of philosophical thought. As a long time professional
engineer, that system of epistemology has assisted my career greatly, in the area of problem solving
and troubleshooting at large complex gas processing facilities. Opinion engineering is an
occupational hazard for engineers. It can be dangerous, leading to loss of life. If the complainant has
ever travelled in an aeroplane, he will understand that he puts his life in the hands of engineers.
Likewise, in the professional occupation of vilification assessment, verification is very important.
23) It is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively verify Mr Burns complaint in my case, without
commissioning a statistical survey to confirm whether or not a significant proportion of the Australian
population saw my Facebook comment as one that would vilify ordinary homosexual persons.
Ultimately, whether or not my comment is vilification only rests on the subjective opinion of either the
complainant or a magistrate.
24) A part of the problem, identified above, is that a feeling of being vilified by somebodys single
comment on a Facebook site, can be, and undoubtedly is in this case, a subjective choice in the mind
of the reader.
25) No other reader who commented on my published paragraph suggested that I was in any way vilifying
homosexual persons. My comment was discussing the nature and risk of paedophilia in relation to
the purchase of surrogate babies by male homosexual couples. As an engineer, I am accustomed to
dealing in risk, and attempts to quantify risk. I was not in any way disparaging homosexual persons.
The complainant has totally misunderstood what I was trying to say, due to his ignorance of myself as
a human being, and due to his alleged special sensitivity to homosexual vilification not experienced by
normal homosexuals.
26) The word vilification can mean different things to different people. It is difficult to verify whether or
not the person who claims to be vilified was actually vilified. The complainant lacks credibility when
claiming that he was vilified by my lawful, scientific Facebook comment, supported as it was by
evidence in the form of a YouTube clip, and thumbnail calculations. Refer Attachment 1 to see the
entire page that is accessed by the offending internet hyperlink.
27) The appropriate response by a reasonable person upon reading my Facebook comment would be to
point out where my thoughts were believed to be incorrect. This is called dialog. It is reasonable to
assume the complainant may have been a little annoyed or slightly offended by my comment, but to
be vilified is stretching the meaning of the word to absurdity.
28) If the complainant was in fact vilified by my comment, it could be evidence of a psychiatric condition,
which is not the fault of the author.
29) Another part of the problem is that the Act does not define what a homosexual person is, and is not.
30) The lack of clarity in defining homosexuality in the Act creates unsolvable technical difficulties when
contemplating whether or not the Act covers subsidiary categories of persons who can be considered
(rightly or wrongly) as sub-groups of the broader category homosexual.
31) My comment, that apparently offended the complainant, was based on the categorisation of sex
offenders into various groups, the primary scientific divisions for medical and social research purposes
being heterosexual paedophile and homosexual paedophile. The complainant appears to have a phobia
(or emotional objection) to the second category - which he equates to homosexual vilification - but
does not have the same objection to the first category.
32) The medical research category of homosexual paedophile is no more or less offensive to homosexuals
than is the category of heterosexual paedophile to heterosexuals. It is difficult to understand howthe
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
6
complainant can be offended by the concept of a homosexual paedophile when this is a category used
by medical and social researchers.
33) The semantic question that appears to bother the complainant is whether or not a homosexual
paedophile is in fact a homosexual, or a paedophile, or what exactly? He sees these two categories as
mutually exclusive. As the complainant explained to Magistrate Nancy Hennessy on July 9, 2014 in an
NCAT hearing: A paedophile is a criminal, a homosexual is not.
34) This illustrates the complainants confused thinking on the subject of paedophilia in relation to
definitions. A homosexual paedophile who may feel inclined to sexually molest young boys is not
automatically a criminal, by definition. That is the compassionate Christian view. Aperson who may
feel inclined to steal is not a thief unless he thieves. A homosexual paedophile is a person born with a
psychosexual disorder that gives him same-sex attraction to young pre-pubescent boys. It is not a
crime to inherit a psychosexual disorder at birth. We know as parents, nature can be cruel. Disorders
are the human predicament, and sometimes a human tragedy. It is only a crime to act on that
psychosexual disorder, and to groom or corrupt young boys for the purpose of sexual abuse. This
crime would extend to creating or possessing images of child pornography.
35) Without a code of sexual morality, there is no cognitive restraint applied to the inclination
(temptation) to engage in criminal and immoral sexual conduct. The traditional Christian approach to
sexual morality is based on the idea that sin is not the temptation, but sin is the giving in to
temptation. Therefore, my studies indicate that Christian virtue in relation to sexual conduct is based
on self-mastery. It is said that this cannot happen without the aid of divine grace obtained through
prayer. Homosexuals would have no problem with this Christian pragmatic strategy for self-mastery in
the case of born paedophiles finding a way to abstain from crime. The problem for born homosexuals
is that the traditional Christian code of sexual morality (and indeed Islamic code) applies the same
prohibition on homosexual acts as it does on child sexual molestation. By reporting that unpalatable
fact, one should not be condemned as a homophobe and charged with homosexual vilification. Having
studied Religious Studies 1 and university many years ago, I am aware that describing different
religious beliefs is an academic pursuit, not designed to offend any person.
36) For the information of the complainant, a link to the medical reference on which my Facebook
thumbnail calculations were based was provided in the ensuing web page discussion (Attachment 1).
This reference is:-
Freund K and Watson RJ. "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles among sex
offenders against children: an exploratory study", Journal Sex Marital Ther. 1992, Spring; 18(1):34-43.
It is not my problem nor responsibility that researchers use the term homosexual paedophile. The
complainant needs to develop a thicker skin so he can cope with scientific research and empirical
reality.
Mr Burns stated on his webpage on July 11, 2011
Mr Geoff McKee uploaded a statement on Causes stating homosexuals were 3 times more likely to
rape children. I lodged a vilification complaint against him with the President of the NSW Anti-
Discrimination Board of NSW (sic)
Firstly, in response, I could say I do not use guttural words like rape. Misrepresentation of my language
is an example of political spin. Secondly, Mr Burns statement is factually incorrect. If he read and
comprehended the medical research paper I quoted on the Causes page he would not have made such
an assertion. Additionally, my thumbnail calculations led me to conclude in my follow-up comment:
10% of all sex crimes against children are done by gay men. The other 90% of sex crimes against
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
7
children are done by heterosexual men
I would like to ask the complainant whether this can be seen as a homophobic comment worthy of a
homosexual vilification complaint. The statement must be interpreted in relation to the medical paper
I quoted. Gay men of course in this context refers to homosexual paedophiles and heterosexual men
refers to the heterosexual paedophiles. The complainants action appears to be an extreme over-
reaction to the meaning of words in this context.
For the benefit of readers, copied belowis the abstract of the paper from which I drewmy
conclusions. If I have misinterpreted the data in any way, then this could be pointed out to me, rather
than a knee-jerk reaction to file a homosexual vilification complaint.
The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual paedophiles among sex offenders against children: an
exploratory study
Abstract
Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs.
offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles
among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the
etiology of preferred partner sex among paedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex
among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion
of true paedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into
consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of
heterosexual to homosexual paedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that
the resulting proportion of true paedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is
greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.
37) The complainant appears to have a particular problem with the linkage to, or the conflating of,
paedophilia in relation to homosexuality. This became apparent in Burns v. Corbett [2013] NSW ADT
227. Yet there are numerous examples taken from the complainants public comments on social
media where he engages in disinformation and calumny as an evil political tactic, accusing his enemies
of being kiddie fiddlers and child molesters. Mr Burns did this on April 29, 2013, by accusing patrons
of Gloria Jeans coffee houses of being mostly paedophiles. This was on a Facebook site named Boycott
Gloria Jeans for funding homophobia. Apparently the coffee house was owned by a fundamentalist
Christian denomination called Hillsong Church.
38) This above disinformation and stereotyping tactic employed by the complainant makes sense if we see
it in terms of a culture war. Soldiers in war must demonise the enemy in order to do them harm.
Empathy in the heart of soldiers is an unacceptable constraint for a military commander whose goal is
to destroy the enemy. Additionally, psychological warfare (PsyOps) is used by military commanders to
divide and confuse the enemy. In fact, I have noticed this is standard operating practice for
homosexual activists (shock troops) on social media to suggest their critics are either paedophiles or
covert homosexuals. Mr. Burns publicly suggest on his website that one of his primary targets is a
covert homosexual. This is very clever psychological warfare, but since I have met the man I can see it
for what it is: cyber bullying. When the poor target gets really angry at this bullying, and directs this
anger against the bully on his blog, he gets hit with a victimisation complaint. A respondent is always in
a no-win situation due to the way the vilification laws have been drafted.
39) To illustrate the above point, in my case, a homosexual activist in the UK, who I had never heard of,
stole my photograph from a Linkedin profile, defaced it with large letters warning people I was a
paedophile, circulating it on his large Facebook site and asking others to circulate it. This was done
only to emotionally abuse my eldest son, who aspires to become a famous anti-paedophile activist for
reasons about which he splashes all over the internet (and over which I have no control). My son sees
the homosexual agenda as being inspired by the spirituality of Aleister Crowley. Perhaps this is the
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
8
same type of wartime disinformation tactics as employed by the complainant, only in reverse? Or is
there a kernel of truth in what my son has to say? I do not know, but I am not afraid to think about it,
and ask about it.
40) Paedophiles are a minority group of persons in our society, just like homosexuals, and therefore the
question arises, is it lawful to vilify paedophiles? The YouTube clip of the Truth News Radio Australia
podcast, to which my Facebook comment referred, could be interpreted as an exercise in vilifying
named paedophiles. This is the anti-paedophile podcast that offended Mr Burns. I did not interpret
the presenter, Hereward Fenton, as vilifying the gad dads for their paedophilia. On the contrary, I
believe the presenter is able to separate a persons actions from the person himself. This follows the
Christian concept that each person is capable of being redeemed through the grace of God, for want
of a better concept. That philosophy and ethical code enables its owner to hate the sin but at the same
time be compassionate towards the sinner.
Complainants motivation and purpose.
41) Motivation is an important consideration when trying to make sense of this complaint. The
complainant is motivated, in part, by a flaming hate-war between two ideological internet foes. On
one side we have an anti-paedophile activist (my eldest son). On the other side, we have an anti-
homophobia activist (the complainant). The use of homosexual vilification laws by the complainant is
simply a weapon of war made available to one side and not the other.
42) Anti-paedophile activism is similar to anti-homophobia activism in that it can be, and in most cases is
believed to be, a neurotic obsession. For those readers who are unfamiliar with the phenomena of
anti-paedophile activism, refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-paedophile_activism.
43) Psychologists write that the root cause of the personal revenge-type of activism, implied above, as
opposed to truth and justice-inspired activism, is complex post-traumatic stress syndrome caused by
the traumatic experience of being persecuted and bullied in the past. The public activism presents as a
socially acceptable face to actions that are in fact motivated by repressed anger and hate. Never the
less, the personal revenge type of social activism itself aids in recovery from post-traumatic stress
syndrome, which is a positive and healthy thing for the individual.
44) The complainant uses his past persecution and suffering as evidence of victimisation when arguing for
receipt of financial damages in NCAT hearings. His past persecution and subsequent psychiatric
damage is documented in item 58 of the Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246 case study. Receipt of
damages rests on convincing the magistrate that the complainant has a special sensitivity to
vilification. This is achieve by submitting to the Tribunal reports prepared by paid psychologists.
45) As mentioned elsewhere in this report, my son is the true target of Mr Burns complaint against
myself. The problem for the complainant is that my son is in self-imposed exile and not accessible in
New South Wales and available for the Anti-Discrimination Board to serve notice of a complaint.
Further, my son is also the true target for most of Mr Burns complaints against Mr John Christopher
Sunol. It offends my sense of justice that an innocent party must take the rap for linking to my sons
writing that is stored on servers in the USA. I also feel a sense of obligation to help the person who has
been caused so much grief by my sons behaviour. The complainant is using surrogates in order to
highlight my sons perceived homophobic writings on the internet.
46) My sons past suffering due to bullying at school (necessitating four changes of school until he finally
refused to attend school mid-way through Year 10, at the age of 15), and later traumatic experiences
at the hands of a couple of young female New South Wales police Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officers, has
transformed him in a way that has got him into a lot of trouble due to his voluminous writings on the
internet. This is a result of repressed anger and an inflexible and unrealistic sense of justice clouding
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
9
common sense.
47) Likewise, the complainant, Mr Burns, has got himself into worse legal trouble for the same reason. A
malicious AVObased on paranoid thinking sawMr Burns ordered by a magistrate on August 5, 2011,
to pay $4,500 in damages to his targeted victim (Mr. Sunol) who later became a respondent to his
complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board. Mr Burns admitted to his victims solicitor afterwards
that his case was trumped up. Mr Burns 2012 criminal conviction for defamation of a police officer
sawhim ordered to pay the victim $7,500. If the Board was more aware of the complainants public
behaviour recorded on the internet, they would treat his complaints differently. That is, unless his
complaints were seen as a useful means of expanding or clarifying homosexual vilification case law.
48) The bullying mentioned above is seen to be an attack on the victims person for nothing other than
being who they are. Through my eyes, as a father with many years of life experience, I see the
complainant as having similar characteristics in many respects to my son, the true target of his
complaint. I could explain this better if I was permitted to have conciliation discussions with the
complainant.
49) The subject complaint is disingenuous. It is motivated, in part, by the complainants fear and anxiety
in relation to being discredited in the future.
50) Mr Burns complaint, against the father of his prime target, is also a tactic on the part of the
complainant to silence a perceived critic who might be learning too much about the Burns v Sunol
saga. The silencing is achieved by contingency planning to exploit section 50 of the Act in the future.
Once a written complaint is made to the Anti-Discrimination Board (no matter how cynical or
frivolous), then the respondent risks being the target of a future victimisation complaint should he
speak publicly about the complainant. The complainant would argue that the public comments cause
himdetriment. One can admire the genius of those legal academics who formulated the homosexual
vilification and victimisation provisions of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1997. Never has there
been a lawin Australia that empowers so much the complainant, and disempowers so much the
respondent. The worst aspects are:
The power to decide on conciliation appears to be taken away from the President and
handed to the complainant.
The respondent is legally prevented from publicly commenting on his victimisation by the
complainant
The complainant is financially incentivised to exaggerate, spin, and twist, in the hope of
receiving a larger pay-out.
51) The subject Facebook comment was not directed at homosexuals as persons but was directed in part
at the concept of same-sex marriage.
52) In a free society, persons are entitled to express arguments both for and against the concept of same-
sex marriage. Arguments that count against same-sex marriage cannot be interpreted as vilification of
homosexual persons, especially in a country like Australia where federal law (at the time of writing)
bans the recognition of same-sex marriages.
53) The subject Facebook comment was not directed at ordinary homosexual persons but was motivated
in part by an attempt to understand the social phenomena of paedophilia. In Australia, at a time when
a Royal Commission exists to investigate institutional paedophilia, it should not be considered
vilification of homosexual persons to discuss this subject in relation to the idea of same-sex marriage.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
10
ABOUT THE RESPONDENT
8. Particulars are as follows.
Son of Tasman Joseph McKee O.B. E. (1911-1973) and his wife Freda Mary McKee (1914-1969) who
raised a family of 6 children in NewZealand.
Student of philosophy at university; graduated B.E (Chemical) in 1969.
Married for 35 years (1979 to present); raised a family of 3 children.
Long career in the Australian oil & gas exploration and production industry, 1969 present.
Currently work as an engineering consultant, approaching retirement age (www.gamckee.com).
ABOUT THE COMPLAINANT
9. The complainant runs a website named Gary Burns Anti-Discrimination Campaigner
(http://garyburnsdiscriminationactivist.wordpress.com/) A significant part of the content of this website (at
the time of writing) can be described as vilification of named persons. This vilification is done with a sense of
impunity, derived in the knowledge that the named targets have no standing under the NSW Anti-
Discrimination Act to make a complaint to the Board about vilification and victimisation (ref. section 88of the
Act).
The website relies on calumny, denigration, mockery and insults to hurt those who blog as ideological
proponents of family values and as Christian opponents of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. For post
graduate students doing a Ph.D in the sociology of the modern culture war, this website would make excellent
research material. Both sides of the war have rights to express their opinions, and agitate either for change or
to resist change.
10. Since 1999 there have been fourteen homosexual vilification cases heard by the NSW Civil and Administrative
Tribunal (formerly Administrative Decisions Tribunal) as shown in the list below. These hearings have been well
documented in the form of case studies, available on the internet. Eleven of these fourteen cases were bought
on by a single individual, namely the person who has nowdecided to target myself.
1) Burns v. Dye [2002] NSW ADT 32
2) Margan v. University of Technology [2003] NSW ADT 133
3) Burns v. Radio 2UE [2004] NSW ADT 267
4) Collier v. Sunol [2005] NSW ADT 261
5) Burns v. Laws (No. 2) [2007] NSW ADT 47
6) Burns v. Nine Network [2010] NSW ADT 267
7) Burns v. Cunningham [2011] NSW ADT 240
8) Burns v. Sunol [2012] NSW ADT 246
9) Burns v. Sunol (No. 2) NSW ADT 247
10) Margan v. Manias [2013] NSW ADT 177
11) Burns v. Corbett [2013] NSW ADT 227
12) Burns v. Sunol [2014] NCAT 2
13) Burns v. Sunol [2014] NCAT 61
14) Burns v. Sunol [2014] NCAT 62
11. Mr Burns appears to have an obsession with a man by the name of Mr John Christopher Sunol. Mr Sunol is an
easy target to use for the production of complaints to the Board. This is due to his lack of financial, political and
legal resources with which to defend himself. It is also due to his stubborn refusal to change his dogged belief
system that sawhim in 2001 collect over 5,000 signatures for a petition that was presented to the NSW
Parliament on March 19, 2002. It was described as a petition praying that legislation be introduced to allow
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
11
ethnic groups to take over the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras to produce a multicultural ethnic parade.
12. Mr Collier, a lecturer at the University of Wollongong where Mr Sunol completed his Master of Commerce
degree, was on the organising committee of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Mr Collier never forgave Mr
Sunol for that 2002 petition. This led Mr Collier to sue Mr Sunol for homosexual vilification, as documented in
Collier v. Sunol [2005] NSW ADT 261. Mr Sunol took this case to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He
was told by his pro-bono barrister that, had he won the case, it would have threatened the existence of the
vilification laws in the NSW anti-discrimination legislation. Even though Mr Sunol is stereotyped and a nut-case
and ignorant bigot by the homosexual lobby, my belief is that they see him as potentially dangerous due to
what he knows. The complainant, Mr Burns, was seen at Supreme Court case, taking notes.
13. Written complaints made by Mr Burns against this one individual (Mr Sunol) are on an industrial scale. These
written complaints, listed below, have been reviewed in order to understand the behaviour and motivation of
the complainant.
1) Complaint reference C2011/0844, December, 2011. Vilification.
2) Complaint C2011/1146, December, 2011. Vilification
3) Complaint C2011/1147, December, 2011. Vilification.
4) Complaint C2012/061, January 30, 2012. Vilification.
5) Complaint C2012/062, January 30, 2012. Vilification.
6) Complaint C2012/063, January 30, 2012. Vilification.
7) Complaint C2012/064, January 30, 2012. Vilification.
8) Complaint C2012/092, February 8, 2012. Victimisation.
9) Complaint C2012/0116, February 16, 2012. Victimisation.
10) Complaint C2012/0117, February 17, 2012. Vilification.
11) Complaint C2012/0900, February 17, 2012. Vilification.
12) Complaint C2012/0901, February 2012. Vilification.
13) Complaint C2012/0902, February 2012. Vilification.
14) Complaint C2012/0904, February 2012. Victimisation.
15) Complaint C2012/0905, February 2012. Victimisation.
16) Complaint C2012/0164, March 5, 2012. Vilification.
17) Complaint C2012/0165, March 12, 2012. Vilification.
18) Complaint C2012/0166, March 12, 2012. Vilification.
19) Complaint C2012/0194, March 12, 2012. Vilification.
20) Complaint C2012/0312, April 16, 2012. Vilification.
21) Complaint C2012/0324, May 1, 2012. Victimisation.
22) Complaint C2013/0900, May 24, 2013. Serious vilification. Rejected by Attorney General, Greg Smith.
23) Complaint C2013/0392, May 1, 2013. Vilification.
24) Complaint C2013/0386, May 29, 2013. Victimisation.
25) Complaint C2014/0181, March 7, 2014. Serious vilification. For hyperlinked 3rd party comments.
26) Complaint C2014/0224, March 19, 2014. Serious vilification. 3rd party comments.
27) Complaint C2014/0332, July 17, 2014. Vilification.
28) Complaint C2014/0371, July 17. 2014. Vilification.
29) Complaint C2014/0372, July 17. 2014. Vilification.
30) Complaint C2014/0376, July 17. 2014. Vilification.
14. Additionally, due an orchestrated public social and printed media campaign of demonization, denigration,
insults, mockery, lies and abuse from Mr Burns and his associates, including an aspiring politician Mr Rod Swift,
the target is stereotyped and marginalised, thereby becoming disempowered and isolated from society.
Attachment 4 is an example of the political lobbying by the activist to destroy the targets livelihood, which is
another act of vindictiveness. Having met the man, I can attest his mental health appears robust and resilient. I
put this down to, firstly, his Christian faith, and secondly to his study in social activism and social sciences, when
his classes were populated with homosexual activists. The letter sent to the Transport Minister by Mr Burns, in
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
12
my opinion, tells us little about the target, but it does shine some light on the complainant.
15. The Anti-Discrimination Board is unwittingly becoming a party to a hate campaign. It seems powerless to filter
out vexatious complaints done for political-ideological purposes. It hands over to the complainant the power to
refuse conciliation. The complainants political objective in getting the matter before the Tribunal is to create
publicity and case law. The personal objective is to gain gratification through the experience of power and being
centre stage in front of an audience. Truth and justice is sacrificed in this pursuit.
16. One goal of Mr Burns is to make history by being the first person in New South Wales to secure a criminal
conviction of a person for serious homosexual vilification. The pawn in the political game is Mr Sunol since he is
the convenient and expendable target. The holy grail of the movement is the criminalisation of a newthought
crime called homophobia. On June 4, 2014, the complainant spoke to the magistrate in a case conference,
barely audible to the respondent Mr Sunol and his wife, that he had referred his complaint to the Attorney
General for this purpose. On July 9, 2014 the complainant walked into the NCAT foyer where Mr Sunol was
seated with his wife, and said loudly and inappropriately John, has the letter come back to you yet from the
Attorney General? You should hear very soon If Mr Burns achieves his goal of putting Mr Sunol in jail for
linking to my sons writings, then this would be a monumental travesty of justice.
17. Evidence suggests the obsessive aspect of the persecution of Mr Sunol can be understood in terms of the
psychopathology of resentful stalking. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking to understand more about
this phenomenon.
18. The production of complaints against this one target are becoming increasingly bizarre, far-fetched and
desperate. A recent complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board sues Mr Sunol for 3
rd
party comments put on
the ABC website discussion area. Howcan a blogger be made liable for some strangers stupid comment posted
on the website or our national broadcaster, when all the blogger did was to direct his readers to the ABC
website by means of a hyperlink?
19. As a rationalisation of this predatory behaviour, Mr. Burns has stated that complaining to the Anti-
Discrimination Board is his full-time work as a political activist. This appears to be typical dissembling and self-
deception by a person who is justifying his compulsive neurotic and anti-social behaviour in terms of fighting
the good fight against injustice.
20. A reviewof Mr Burns public internet footprint shows the profile of an anti-social personality-type who, when
not preparing written homosexual vilification complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board, spends his time
publishing vilifying comments against named persons who he perceives adopt a conservative intellectual
position in relation to his own mind-set (whatever that might be).
WHAT IS THE BOARDS ROLE IN RELATIONTO THIS COMPLAINT?
21. As stated in the letter from the Board:
Our role is to investigate complaints and then, if [I am] satisfied that there are grounds for proceeding further,
to help you and the complainant discuss the complaint and reach a settlement that you both agree on, if this is
possible.
22. My contention is that if the Board did have the resources to make a proper investigation of this particular
complaint against myself, then such an investigation would result in the complaint being declined in accordance
with section 89Bof the Act. Absent an understanding of motive, the complaint makes little sense.
23. It appears that the Board will consider the motive of the complainant to be irrelevant. If this is correct, then the
complaint may not be declined by the Board. In that circumstance, the best I can expect is to receive some help
from the Board to discuss this complaint with Mr Burns. That would result in conciliation and resolution, and
avoid litigation.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
13
CONCILIATION
24. I respectfully request that the Board to use their best endeavours, in accordance with their stated role, to have
this matter resolved by conciliation.
25. As a result of conciliation, Mr Burns, assuming he had some semblance of a conscience, would reconsider and
withdrawhis consent in relation to this complaint, under section 88C of the Act.
26. It is not acceptable under the circumstances that Mr Burns refuse to conciliate. As far as I can tell, in all the
dozens of homosexual vilification complaints made by Mr Burns to the Board, he has not once agreed to
conciliate. His pattern of disrespect for the Boards role to encourage conciliation should be grounds for the
Board to disqualify him from making complaints that lack good faith.
CONFIDENTIALITY
27. The letter stated that The Board will deal with this complaint confidentially. We ask that both you and the
complainant also treat this complaint as confidential.
28. The complainant has wilfully ignored this request from the Board, and advertised on his website that he has
filed a complaint against myself, and others, for homosexual vilification. His publishing on his website details of
his complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board against respondents, before the complaints have been
investigated or substantiated, is considered unethical and defamatory. It is only done to damage and provoke
his targets into responding, so he can then file a further victimisation complaint.
29. Therefore, under the circumstances, it makes little sense for this document to remain confidential and hidden
from the general public or the Attorney General. As far as I am concerned, any reader of an electronic copy of
this document is free to forward it to 3
rd
parties without my permission.
30. I am concerned that Mr Burns has obtained private and confidential information about myself through
unethical means or abuse of power by officials who support his political agenda. The letter from the Anti-
Discrimination board arrived at my home address in country New South Wales. My home address is
confidential. Not even my clients knowor need to knowmy home address, the way my business is structured.
An official at the Anti-Discrimination Board confirmed that the complainant provided them with my private
home address. My wife and I are not happy about this breach of confidentiality and privacy by Mr Burns.
It is noticed however that the complainant goes to great pains to conceal his own private address. It is reported
that he told a process server, about to issue him with a Court summons that "[name redacted] is a criminal. I'm
not going to give you my address; you can go and serve Santa Clause." Footnote: Mr Burns was later convicted
in the Supreme Court of NewSouth Wales, for criminal defamation, in relation to his statement and ordered to
pay the victim $7,500 in damages (reference: Gazette of Lawand Journalism (http://www.glj.com.au ).
31. I am also concerned about the complainants publishing on his website damaging and confidential information
about my son, alleging that there were arrest warrants out for him should he ever return to Australia. Mr Burns
will be obliged in due course to provide evidence for his allegations and also provide the source of confidential
police information that has been obtained unethically. Mr Burns does not accept the principle that a person is
innocent until proven guilty.
DEFINING THE ALLEGEDCONTRAVENTION
32. The above comments include peripheral matters dealing with the background and context of the complaint, and
the motives of the complainant. These would generally be irrelevant in any Tribunal hearing. This suggests a
reason why the complainant never agrees to conciliation. What follows focuses on the written complaint itself,
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
14
as this would be the only relevant section of interest to a Tribunal magistrate?
33. The substance of Mr Burns allegation is summarised in the first paragraph of the letter received from the
Board, as follows.
On 17 June 2014 the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board received a complaint from Mr Garry Burns (the
complainant). He alleges that you have vilified homosexual persons in your comments published on
http://www.causes.com/posts/89106. A copy of the complaint is attached.
34. The complaint therefore relates to the contents of single internet hyperlink. I am grateful to the Board for
clearly defining the complaint and separating it from the complainants convoluted projections and inferences.
35. Mr Burns written complaint referred to a single paragraph within the offending link. That paragraph was
posted by myself to a Facebook site some six months prior to Mr Burns making the complaint. He expresses a
personal opinion that this paragraph vilifies homosexual persons. What we have here is a difference in opinion
that is best resolved by means other than expensive litigation.
36. Mr Burns must accept that there is a difference between the issue of public discussion on social issues related
to homosexuality, and the issue of vilification of homosexual persons. Vilification of any human being, including
those in categories not covered by the Act, is inherently wrong in my opinion.
37. Fortunately for myself, and other social commentators Mr Burns has attacked recently, protection of the right
of public and academic discourse on social issues relating to homosexuality, affecting us all, does appear to be
written in to the Act in Section 497ZT clause (2) (c). This makes it clear that my comment, which has been made
reasonably and in good faith, for academic and scientific or research purposes in the public interest, and for the
purpose of normal discussion or debate about an issue, is exempt from the Act. This exemption means that the
complainants allegations in this instance do not fall within the Act. For this reason, it would be inappropriate
for the Board to send the complaint to the Tribunal without resolving it by other means.
38. The exemption referred to above has the same legal force as the complainants own exemption under the Act.
Without contravening the Act, the complainant is free to lawfully vilify other persons with whom he disagrees,
provided those he vilifies do not have a certain characteristic that is deemed to be the ground for the conduct
that constitutes the alleged contravention. This is the language of Section 88 of the Act. For ordinary readers,
what this means is that, if one is a homosexual, it is not unlawful to seriously vilify and seriously victimise other
persons. This provides a certain learned impunity to the complainant and allows him to engage in serious
vilification and victimisation of those with whom he disagrees or who threaten his political objectives. (A good
example is his public acts of denigration towards Mr. Bernard Gaynor, an Australian army major who opposes
uniformed Army personnel marching in political events such as Sydneys Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.)
39. The assertion that the single paragraph vilifies homosexual persons requires an impartial examination taking in
to account the context in which it was made. To defend myself, it falls on me to assist the Board with that
examination.
40. As the author of the comment, I can be expected to understand what I wrote. I will try to explain. My internet
comment, made in response to a news item originally reported on ABC Radio National and then on ABC TV Four
Corners program, seeks to understand what is very difficult to understand: the cause of sexual crimes against
children. That is a matter of public interest at the current time, with a Royal Commission in Canberra grappling
with the reservoir of human suffering in our society caused by this evil.
41. The nature of evil is the common intellectual preoccupation of moral philosophers, religious people, historians,
legislators and indeed, most thinking people including myself. The issue of sexual crimes against children goes
to the heart of that philosophical puzzle. It must be understood that the offending paragraph was based, in
good faith, on intellectual inquiry, not on crude, bigoted hatred of any kind, as the complainant is trying to
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
15
portray.
42. Over the years, a thinking person deepens his or her notions of evil. As a young child, it was instilled in some of
us that evil was an outside force tempting us to sin. This force was personified by Satan or the Devil. We were
taught to pray and one important prayer ends with the words Lead us not into temptation. Deliver us from evil.
Amen. I nowhave a settled viewand full acceptance of evil as defined by a lack of empathy. Professor Simon
Baron-Cohens insights, based on his research into the brains of autistic persons, explains much. The brain
theory of evil is convincing and explains much in individual human behaviour and in behaviour of ruling elites
who start wars causing much destruction and suffering, as seen in Gaza today, as we speak. It explains all
cruelty ranging from hate crimes of an individual, to attacks by one nation on another. Under this this model of
evil, no man escapes, including myself and the complainant. My attitude, for the benefit of the reader, must be
interpreted in the light of my acceptance of this brain theory of evil, as appended in Attachment 3.
43. It is factually incorrect, and offensive, for any person to assert that my comment was based on hatred of
homosexual persons (homophobia). I knowmyself and I knowthat is nonsense. Whether or not my single-
paragraph comment can be deemed to incite hatred in others is at best described as an ambit claim by the
complainant. He knows that my comment, in itself, is moderate, measured, and in the public interest. The
complainant cannot argue that my comment, in itself, vilifies homosexual persons. Therefore he will resort to
complex case law that he himself had a hand in creating, to argue that my comment was picked up by
homophobes and exaggerated for their nefarious purposes in order to vilify homosexual persons.
Consequently, he will argue, I am the cause of these perceived homophobes using my public comment.
Therefore I am guilty of an offense as charged. In the Australian vernacular: give me a break!
44. The cause of hatred (including revenge) is something that has for a long time occupied my thoughts. I would
like to discuss this subject with the complainant, as a starting point for possible conciliation, and to discover his
views.
45. I hope the complainant has sufficient good faith to at least talk to me before wishing to put me in the dock to
answer his charge of a hate crime.
46. My Facebook comment warned of a hitherto unforeseen risk factor arising when a couple of male paedophiles,
under the cloak of a gay marriage, adopt babies, or acquire them through surrogacy. There is nothing hateful
about this concern. On the contrary, as a father of three children, I can say that it is based on a heightened
awareness of the powerless and vulnerability of young children, and the tragic affliction innocent children can
inherit through no fault of their own.
47. The Board must accept on good faith I that I have no problem or phobia in relation to ordinary homosexuality
any more than I do with any other human characteristic inherited by nature. Nature is indifferent and not
always kind. It has no compassion or conscience. How we initially emerge from the womb is the luck of the
draw. I speak as a parent who knows this only too well. Compassion is the enlightened human response towards
those who suffer as a result of natural characteristics, or a mental or physical condition acquired at birth
through no fault of their own. This is summed up by the old saying that my father would tell his six children
from time to time, when he caught one of them sniggering at some unfortunate person with a disability, as seen
in the street from the car window. Remember, he would always say, but for the grace of God, there go I.
48. This compassionate attitude in relation to, for example, brain damage at birth would, I feel, be seen
sympathetically by Magistrate Nancy Hennessy, who presides over hearings of the New South Wales Civil and
Administrative Tribunal. Special treatment and understanding is needed to deal with such persons who have
been handed out a difficult card by nature. I was impressed with Her Honours insightful comments reported in
relation to a 2003 High Court case, involving Daniel, a high school student, from New South Wales, with
intellectual and other disabilities caused by brain damage. He exhibited some difficult behaviours at school. The
magistrate said Despite the fact that Daniels behaviour arose from his disability, the High Court found that
there was no positive obligation on the school to accommodate him. This case highlights the inadequacy of the
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
16
current definition of discrimination
49. The viewof homosexuality as a disability is a matter of definitions. As an engineer, I am free to see reality in a
different way than politicians. This is how I am and howI have been trained in technical problem solving. I
see homosexuality as a disorder, but that is only a matter of scientific categorisation based on a numbers game.
The fact remains that homosexuals have been born with a different psychosexual brain make-up compared to
heterosexuals. Homosexuals are incompetent in some areas, one of which, in the case of male homosexuals, is
keeping a marriage together with a woman. This is not intended to be a value judgement, but simple scientific
statement of fact. If certain academic homosexual activists had a little more introspection and humility, they
would not be driven to spread the newdoctrine that homosexuality is typical or normal human behaviour. It
may be normal for a small minority of the population, but for the total population, it is atypical. No amount of
spin and marketing can change that fact.
50. The problem with the normalisation of homosexuality in society is that it runs counter to all Christian teachings
on sexual morality and sexual conduct. Most ordinary homosexuals, I feel, recognise this and try to adjust to
living alongside a majority Christian culture. This can be done without sacrificing their own homosexual culture.
The same attitude would apply to, for example, a migrant community in Australia who adhere to the Islamic
culture. Australia can be a multicultural society. The strident attempts by the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby to
change the fundamental definition of marriage and family the fundamental strength of our society is
anathema to our multicultural society and will be met with strong opposition. Attempts to change laws in
Australia to normalise homosexuality in line with a small minoritys culture are considered, qualitatively
speaking, no different to a small minority of Islamic fundamentalists attempts to introduce Sharia Lawinto
Australia. Both indicate fascism. The complainants behaviour in spending the bulk of his time running around
spying on his fellowcitizens and telling tales to the authorities about their thought-crimes is more suited to the
life of a secret police informer in past East Germany, but not suited to a free country like Australia.
51. As the recent saturation media coverage of the coming out of our Australian swimming champion illustrated,
there cannot be said to be a major problem with ordinary homosexuality in our society in 2014. Homosexual
vilification laws are therefore becoming an anachronism. They are perhaps more needed to protect other
vulnerable groups of persons, such as asylum seekers or those on the autistic spectrum. The lack of utility of
the NSW homosexual vilification provisions of the Act is evidenced by the increasingly far-fetched complaints
that a full-time activist is forced to submit to the Board in order to sustain his work and income.
52. In my personal experience, I have seen homosexuality touch families of close friends. An old friends son
unexpectedly turns out to be homosexual after puberty. Other parents have felt for a long time their young
child was born homosexual, and have been proven correct over time. In two cases, one a friend and one a
relative, the daughter has married and had children, only to have the marriage end when the husband decides
he is homosexual, and leaves the wife and mother for a boyfriend. A son of my cousin is homosexual. He and
his boyfriend flewto NewZealand last January to get same-sex married.
53. My comments were of an academic nature and moderate. They were based on reading a scientific medical
research paper that I quoted. Unlike ordinary reasonable people who contributed to the free discussion,
whether for or against my paragraph, Mr Burns reaction was to use the paragraph only to attack the messenger
as a defensive tactic in his political game plan.
WHO IS A HOMOSEXUAL?
54. I cannot find a definition of a homosexual person in the Act, other than the tautology in Part 1 Section 4 that
informs us that homosexual means male or female homosexual. A definition by its nature might create more
legal problems that it solves. Notwithstanding, a legal definition is required before one can be accused of
vilifying homosexual persons.
The DEFGLIS website defines homosexual as a person with a sexual, emotional, and/or romantic attraction for
a person of the same sex. This definition is designed to normalise homosexuality by the inclusion of emotional
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
17
same-sex attraction as a criteria. This definition would theoretically render same-sex sibling emotional
relationships and same-sex parent-child emotional relationships as homosexual, thus expanding the percentage
of homosexuals in the community to that of a majority. That is the subliminal message in the definition.
The same website defines heterosexual as a person who has a sexual, emotional, and/or romantic attraction to
a person of a sex different from their own. This language elevates political correctness above simple truth. It
would be reasonable to wonder why a definition of heterosexuality could not simply state that it involves sexual
attraction to the opposite sex. The political problem with that statement is that it subliminally normalises
heterosexuality. The normalisation of heterosexuality would tend to imply that homosexuality is not normal.
That meme is not compatible with the political mind-control agenda of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, the
fundamental premise of which is that homosexuality is normal and homosexual acts are normal and acceptable.
The suggestion that a person is sexually attracted to a person of a sex different to their own subliminally
suggests that this attraction is a rather curious aberration.
The point of my discussing the definition of homosexual is a technical one. Before we can decide whether or
not a statement vilified homosexual persons, we need to know what homosexual means. We need a legal
definition.
MORE ABOUT THE COMPLAINANT
55. The cases created by Mr Burns since 2004 are all of an intricate nature and appear borderline with respect to
vilification. Accordingly, the majority of the time and money consumed by the Tribunals staff in the past decade
are a direct result of Mr Burns political activism. This is why Mr Burns is tagged in the press as a serial
litigant. The hearings involving complex legal argumentation and preparation of written case studies that are
available to the public on the internet. Because Mr. Burns is a self-proclaimed homosexual activist, and wishes
to be seen as such, conciliation is counterproductive to his and his associates political objectives. Conciliation
also would remove the financial incentive to use vilification complaints as a means to derive personal income. In
short, conciliation would rob Mr. Burns of his purpose and direction in life, his livelihood, and content for his
website. We all need purpose and direction in life. I do understand the importance of this need to all humans.
56. It is hoped Mr Burns will support the Boards stated role to help the respondent and complainant discuss the
complaint and reach a settlement that both agree on. But to be realistic, I conclude that conciliation is
inconsistent with Mr. Burns political objectives. In this situation, The Board appears hamstrung and has no
option other than to refer the matter to the Tribunal to decide. In a Tribunal situation, case lawis created.
57. Mr Burns complaint against myself relies on the two newareas of homosexual vilification case lawin New
South Wales, as discussed elsewhere in this report. However there is another aspect to Mr Burns current
complaint of which readers should be aware. This involves Mr Burns exploitation of Section 50 of the Act, that
states:
It is unlawful for a person (the discriminator) to subject another person (the person victimised) to any detriment
in any circumstances on the ground that the person victimised has brought proceedings against the
discriminator or any other person under this Act
The complaint against myself, albeit a far-fetched complaint, is a tactical move, aimed to ensure I do not do or
say anything that might discredit Mr. Burns work. I will try to explain.
58. Mr Burns recently became aware that I had taken an interest in the story of Mr Sunol, his long-time target. Mr.
Burns has been working for two years on his project to put Mr Sunol into jail for serious homosexual vilification.
Australias first conviction for this crime is the holy grail of those who want to expand homosexual vilification
from that of a civil offence to that of a criminal offence. It follows moves by some like-minded lobbyists in some
European countries to criminalize a newcrime of homophobia, placing the mental condition in the same
category as holocaust denial and perhaps climate-change denial. .
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
18
Mr Burns saw me talking to Mr Sunol and his wife on June 4, 2014 outside a case conference involving himself
and Mr Sunol. My interest in Mr Sunols story is not so much to do with the issue of homosexuality, but more
about an interesting story from a literary perspective. It is the story of a powerless yet stubborn Aussie battler
caught up in a David and Goliath struggle against the powerful organs of state being used against him to enforce
thought-control and political correctness. It is a case study for civil libertarians looking at the health of freedom
of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech in the State of NewSouth Wales, Australia.
59. It is noticed that Mr Burns writings on his website are becoming increasingly coloured by what appears to be
anxiety. He is expressing a fear that there is a conspiracy afoot to discredit him. He blogs to his audience that
Mr Geoff McKee and Mr Bernard Gaynor are behind this conspiracy. As we read in psychology magazines, it is
possible for anxiety and fear to colour ones thought processes, and this can lead to paranoia.
60. Mr Burns is aware that he has both a public mainstream media profile and a private social media profile. These
profiles are at odds with each-other. The internet is a trap for unsuspecting users. It has trapped myself, by
making it possible for Mr Burns to attack me using the anti-discrimination laws. In fact, it has trapped most of
those about whom Mr Burns has complained to the Board in the past decade.
61. The internet has also trapped Mr Burns. This is apparently the source of his anxiety. Others do not need to
discredit Mr Burns. It is his own private internet footprint that discredits him. It contains vile language inciting
hatred and contempt against those with whomhe disagrees, including vulnerable and powerless persons. It
includes crude, rude and unattractive sexual fantasies involving killing his cyberspace enemies in horrible ways.
It involves calumny, criminal defamation, false accusations, insults and ridicule against his chief target, a real
person.
62. The complaint is defined as a single internet hyperlink. That hyperlink, when clicked, starts playing a YouTube
TNRA podcast clip. TNRA stands for Truth News Radio Australia. That is a world geopolitics commentary show
broadcast live over some FMstations in Texas, America. The shows are available to listeners in Australia and
elsewhere by downloading via the internet. It claims to go beyond the spin of mainstream media. My 1-
paragraph comment, the subject of the complaint by Mr Burns, is the opening comment on the content of the
video clip. Other internet users added their own comments. None of these readers interpreted my comment as
vilification of homosexual persons. On the contrary, they simply expressed their own opinion, either for or
against my hypothesis, in the spirit of dialog and the search for truth. The entire page to which the link points is
copied and shown in Attachment 1.
63. A full transcript of the associated Youtube video clip is provided in Attachment 2. The reader should interpret
my comments in relation to these podcast transcripts. Failure to do this will result in my comments being taken
out of context and wrong conclusions drawn. Therefore the reader should now take a coffee break and read the
attached transcripts before proceeding to the next point.
64. My comments in relation to the podcast consist of only a single paragraph. It draws attention to a possible
unforeseen risk factor associated with male same-sex marriage if ever the Family Law in Australia is amended to
accommodate such an arrangement that is one of the objectives of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby.
65. My comments and accompanying YouTube video clip were uploaded in response to an unsolicited Causes post
that appeared on by Facebook page on December 29, 2013, asking me to sign and comment.
66. The particular Cause that some internet user was promoting by this invitation was named Facebook Must Block
Illicit Images of Children
67. I cannot see how any officer of the Anti-Discrimination Board can make a judgement in relation to this particular
complaint against me without first talking to me and understanding the full historical and personal context. The
Board needs to understand why I am specifically targeted by Mr Burns. Without this broader knowledge, much
harm and damage to myself will result.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
19
68. The reputation of the Anti-Discrimination Board will be damaged if this complaint is not resolved amicably
through conciliation under the auspices of the Board. I am confident that, with the right conflict-resolution
attitude on the part of Mr Burns, this can happen.
-------------------------------------------
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
20
Attachment 1
Internet page displayed by the offending hyperlink.
June 17, 2014 complaint to NewSouth Wales Anti-Discrimination Board by Mr. Garry Burns.
Above: this YouTube video clip, made from an internet radio podcast,
is activated immediately upon an internet users access to the
offending link.
Seven additional comments are seen on the page displayed when the
offending link is accessed.
Therefore it is expected that these additional comments will be
considered by the relevant officials in the NSW Anti-Discrimination
Board when deciding whether or not my original offending comment
(shown above)is exempt from
Internet page displayed by the offending hyperlink.
June 17, 2014 complaint to NewSouth Wales Anti-Discrimination Board by Mr. Garry Burns.
Internet page displayed by the offending hyperlink.
June 17, 2014 complaint to NewSouth Wales Anti-Discrimination Board by Mr. Garry Burns.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
21
Attachment 2
TRANSCRIPTS OF YOUTUBE PODCAST ACTIVATED BY THE ALLEGED OFFENSIVE LINK
PODCAST FROMTRUTHNEWS RADIO AUSTRALIA
TRANSMITTEDLIVE OVER AMERICAN FREEDOM RADIO
YOUTUBE VIDEOCLIP 22 MINUTES
PRESENTER: HEREWOODFENTON
[PRESENTER] So I've got a clip here that does show some aspects of that. I've got this story here to show you that
comes from Australia, but it does have an American component - which is really an incredibly dire and disturbing
story about paedophilia and child trafficking.
It really beggars belief. I find it utterly incredible: the level of psychopathy involved with the individuals concerned,
the way the whole affair went on right under the nose of the police, and the mainstream media - which is
undeniable - where in this case we have a "gay couple" who allegedly adopted a child - where in fact they bought a
child.
And they were actually interviewed in an ABC Radio "puff piece" on the joys of "gay marriage" and how wonderful it
all is that in Australia we have "gay marriage". and portrayed this couple as if they were some wonderful example to
hold up to the world. And in the interviewthe couple actually talks about how they were actually screened by the
police prior, to the adoption. And it turns out, years later, that they were engaged in the most heinous crimes
imaginable and the worst things you can possibly imagine. It really is very, very disturbing ladies and gentlemen, very
disturbing.
And we need to reflect on it, we need to understand, and we need to think about what has happened in our society.
We need to think about the editorial integrity of the ABC - howis it that they could have done this story with so little
investigation? But it turned out that the child was not actually a surrogate, as the couple had described in the
interview. The couple described the child as actually being the result of a surrogacy that was paid for and managed
by them. In fact, the child was simply bought with 8,000 euros froma lady in Russia who forged the birth
certificate. That's howit was done.
(02:27 minutes - interlude)
OK I would like to return to the story I mentioned earlier - a very sad, very disturbing tale about the gay couple in
Australia - one American, one Australian, who adopted a child for the purpose of sex slavery and just most
horrifically abused this child. The child was just sent around the world to basically be abused by men, was filmed
doing various activities, and eventually the men were caught. But before they were caught - long before they were
caught - they had already been screened by police - according to an interview which was conducted by ABC Radio -
and this is an incredible aspect of the story - because the couple were interviewed years ago - long before the arrest
- the couple were interviewed as part of an ABC puff piece on the joys of gay marriage and they were talking about
howwonderful and they were basically celebrating this couple and subsequently the story of this couple went
around the world and was repeated on various gay activist sites and you can still find it there, and you can see the
photo of the couple with the little boy.
It turned out that the child was not a surrogate - the interview claimed that the man was actually the biological
father, that the man - his name was Mark - had actually paid a Russian surrogate to have the child. None of that was
true. The birth certificates were forged and the child was being used for acts of sexual perversion and was being
shared around - with a network of men.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
22
I am going to play for you some of this original ABC radio interviewand then I'm going to play for you some of
another interviewabout the story that popped up on Australian ABC television only in the last week. It's a really
shocking story but I think it illustrates something about the degree of narcissismor psychopathy in our society where
this sort of thing can go on - under the noses of the police - under the noses of the media - and even be elevated by
the media into some wonderful thing when in fact it is the most heinous, obnoxious, perverted, evil, satanic thing
you can imagine taking place.
So first we will just kick off with the interviewthat was broadcast on ABC Local Radio - I'm not quite sure of the exact
date - but it was several years ago.
(05:27 minutes - start of audio excerpt from the ABC Local Radio show. Characters in interviewas follows.
Interviewer: Ginger Gorman. Gay Dad 1: Peter. Gay Dad 2: Mark. Child: Stan.)
"Puting Gender on the Agenda. ABC Far North" to the sound of theme music.
<Listen to the audio program by clicking the offending link>
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
23
Attachment 3
Empathy makes the world go round
Simon Baron-Cohen
Published: June 26, 2011
Simon Baron-Cohen is professor of psychology and psychiatry at Cambridge University. This is an
edited extract from Zero Degrees of Empathy: A NewTheory of Human Cruelty, published on
Monday by Penguin Australia, $39.95.
This story was found at:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/empathy-makes-the-world-go-round-20110625-1gkst.html
WHENI was seven years old, my father told me the Nazis had turned Jews into lampshades. Just one of
those comments you hear once and the thought never goes away. I knewour family was Jewish, so this
image of turning people into objects felt a bit close to home.
Years later, I was teaching at St Mary's Hospital Medical School in London. I sat in on a lecture on
physiology. The professor was teaching about human adaptation to temperature. He told the students
the best data available on human adaptation to extreme cold had been collected by Nazi scientists
performing ''immersion experiments'' on Jews and other inmates of Dachau concentration camp who
they put into vats of freezing water. They collected systematic data on how heart rate correlated with
time at zero degrees.
Hearing about this unethical research retriggered that same question in my mind: howdo humans come
to switch off their natural feelings of sympathy for a fellowhuman being who is suffering?
The standard explanation is that the Holocaust is an example of the ''evil'' that humans are capable of
inflicting on one another. But when you hold up the concept of evil to examine it, that is no explanation
at all. For a scientist, this is wholly inadequate.
As a scientist, I want to understand the factors causing people to treat others as if they are mere objects.
So let's substitute the term ''empathy erosion'' for evil. Empathy erosion can arise because of corrosive
emotions, such as bitter resentment, or desire for revenge, or blind hatred, or desire to protect. In theory
these are transient emotions and the empathy erosion is reversible. But empathy erosion can be the
result of more permanent psychological characteristics.
Unempathic acts are simply the tail end of a bell curve found in every population on the planet. If we
want to replace the term evil with the term empathy erosion, we have to understand empathy closely.
The key idea is that we all lie somewhere on an empathy spectrum. People said to be evil or cruel are
simply at one extreme of the empathy spectrum. We can all be lined up along this spectrum of individual
differences, based on how much empathy we have. At one end of this spectrum we find ''zero degrees of
empathy''.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
24
Zero degrees of empathy means you have no awareness of how you come across to others, how to
interact with others, or how to anticipate their feelings or reactions. It leaves you feeling mystified by
why relationships don't work out, and it creates a deep-seated self-centredness. Other people's thoughts
and feelings are just off your radar. The consequence is that you believe 100 per cent in the rightness of
your own ideas and beliefs, and judge anyone who does not hold your beliefs as wrong or stupid.
Zero degrees of empathy does not strike at random in the population. There are at least two well-defined
routes to getting to this end-point: borderline and psychopathic disorders. I see these as zero-negative
because they have nothing positive to recommend them. They are unequivocally bad for the sufferer and
for those around them. Of course, these are not all the sub-types that exist. Indeed, alcohol, fatigue and
depression are just a fewexamples of states that can temporarily reduce one's empathy. Schizophrenia is
another example of a medical condition that can reduce one's empathy.
CAROL is 39 years old. I met her when she came to our diagnostic clinic in Cambridge. She has borderline
personality disorder. For as long as she can remember, and certainly going back into early childhood, she
has felt her life was ''cursed''. As she looks back on her stormy childhood, her unstable teens and her
crisis-ridden adulthood, she contemplates her lifetime of depression.
Her relationship with her parents has been punctuated by periods of years during which she did not
speak to them. However nice people are to her, she feels she can never quench this simmering rage,
which even today can come out as hatred towards anyone she feels is disrespecting her. Often people
she perceives as disrespecting her are simply people who disagree with her, and she senses that they are
doing this in a confrontational way.
People with borderline disorder cannot tolerate being alone. For them, aloneness feels like
abandonment, and to avoid that awful feeling the person will seek out other people, even relationships
with strangers. But whoever they are with, borderlines either feel suffocated (by someone getting close
to them) or abandoned (by someone being distant from them). They cannot find a calm middle ground in
which to enjoy a relationship comfortably. Instead they go through an unhealthy alternating sequence of
pushing others away (with angry hate) or clinging desperately to them (with extreme gratitude).
Remarkably, despite the unstable behaviour of borderlines, or Type Bs, scientists have managed to study
their brains, which are definitely different in much of the empathy circuit.
First, there is decreased binding of neurotransmitters to one of the serotonin receptors. Neuroimaging
also reveals underactivity in the orbital frontal cortex and in the temporal cortex - all parts of the
empathy circuit. A novel approach has been to follow up people who were abused as children and scan
their brains. It is novel because it is prospective rather than retrospective: the emotional damage was
done in childhood and the scientific question is: ''What happens to their brain?''
Not all of them will be Type Bs, but a significant proportion will be. Such people again have abnormalities
in the empathy circuit, such as having a smaller amygdala. This is also true of women who were sexually
abused, who later show less grey matter in their left medial temporal cortex compared to non-abused
women. Smaller hippocampal volume is also found in people who experienced a trauma and went on to
develop post-traumatic stress disorder.
One interpretation of this evidence is that the early negative experiences of abuse and neglect change
how the brain turns out. But the key point is that the zero degrees of empathy in people with borderline
disorder arises from abnormalities in the empathy circuit of the brain.
Paul (not his real name) is 28 and is in a prison after being found guilty of murder. He insisted he wasn't
guilty because the man he stabbed had provoked him by looking at him across a bar. Paul had gone over
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
25
and said, ''Why were you staring at me?'' The man had replied, I assume truthfully: ''I wasn't staring at
you. I was simply looking around the bar.'' Paul had felt incensed by the man's answer, believing it to be
disrespectful, and felt he needed to be taught a lesson. He picked up a beer bottle, smashed it and
plunged the jagged end into the man's face.
Paul is a psychopath - a Type P - though to give him the proper diagnostic label, he has antisocial
personality disorder. He earns this label because he shows ''a pervasive pattern of disregard for and
violation of the rights of others that begins in childhood or adolescence, and continues into adulthood''.
Clearly Type Ps differ in important ways to Type Bs, but they share the core feature of being zero-
negative: their zero degrees of empathy can result in them doing cruel things to others. The Type P brain,
too, shows lots of evidence of abnormalities in the empathy circuitry.
EMPATHY itself is one of the most valuable resources in our world. Given this, it is puzzling that in the
school curriculum empathy figures hardly at all, and in politics, business, the courts or policing, it is rarely
if ever on the agenda. We can see examples among our political leaders of the value of empathy, as when
Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk sought to understand each other, crossing the divide in apartheid
South Africa. But the same has not yet been achieved between Israel and Palestine, or between
Washington and Iraq or Afghanistan. And for every day that empathy is not employed in such corners of
the world, more lives are lost.
I think we have taken empathy for granted, and thus to some extent overlooked it. Psychology as a
science virtually ignored it for a century. Educators focusing on literacy and mathematics have also largely
ignored it. We just assume empathy will develop in every child, come what may. We put little time, effort
or money into nurturing it. Our politicians almost never mention it, despite the fact that they need it
more than anyone. Until recently, neuroscientists hardly questioned what empathy is.
I went to Alyth Gardens synagogue in north London last year. Two men went up on the stage. The first
one spoke. ''I am Ahmed, and I am a Palestinian. My son died in the intifada, killed by an Israeli bullet. I
come to wish you all Shabbat Shalom.''
Then the other man spoke. ''I am Moishe, and I am an Israeli. My son also died in the intifada, killed by a
homemade petrol bomb thrown by a Palestinian teenager. I come to wish you all Salaam Alaikum.''
Here were two fathers, from different sides of the political divide, united by their grief and now
embracing each other's language. Howhad they met? Moishe had taken the opportunity offered by a
charity called the Parents Circle for Israelis and Palestinians to make free phone calls into each other's
homes, to express their empathy to bereaved parents on the other side of the barbed-wire fence.
Ahmed described how he had been at home in Gaza one day when the phone rang. It was Moishe, at that
time a stranger in Jerusalem, who had taken that brave first step. They both openly wept down the
phone. Neither had ever met or even spoken to someone from the other community, but both told the
other they knew what the other was going through.
Empathy is like a universal solvent. Any problem immersed in empathy becomes soluble. It is effective as
a way of anticipating and resolving interpersonal problems, whether this is a marital conflict, an
international conflict, a problem at work, difficulties in a friendship, political deadlocks, a family dispute,
or a problem with the neighbour.
Unlike the arms industry that costs trillions of dollars, or the prison service and legal system that cost
millions to keep oiled, empathy is free. And, unlike religion, empathy cannot, by definition, oppress
anyone.
Statement in response to a letter
from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
26
Attachment 4
From : Garry Burns (Gary@bigpond.net.au)
Sent: Saturday 7 January 2012 7;58 AM
To: Public B|erjeiklan's office Email
Subject: "WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE"
Dear Minister Berejiklian,
I write in reference to Newcastle Taxi driver John Christopher Sunol. Mr Sunol's licensed Taxi Operator Registration
number is GPO922. Mr Sunol lives at 18 Queen Street, Waratah, West Newcastle, NSW, 2298
I am an Anti Discrimination Campaigner who has 5 vilification and 4 victimization complaints lodged against Mr
Sunol yet to be heard in the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). Mr Sunol is a defendant of unlawful
vilification. Mr Sunol was found guilty in 2004 under Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) (1977) of vilifying homosexual
people. Mr Sunol believes homosexuals in Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi-Gras are paedophiles, drug dealers, drug
users and a national security risk in Australia where suicide bomber should deal with them and their kind of activity.
Mr Sunol also said "the Poofs groom young boys for S.E.X. in the Gay and Lesbian Mardi-Gras and they need to be
shut down as well." Mr Sunol runs a blog http://Johnsunol.blogspot.com. In my opinion Mr Sunol's blog is the
pernicious ramblings of a very disturbed individual.
I received a SMS from David Copeland after inquiring if he was known to him or Reverend Fred Nile's MLC office, Mr
Copeland said this, "I knowof him (referring to Mr Sunol). He has major mental health issues; he has no involvement
with Fred or the CDP". Mr Sunol also vilifies Muslim people and says God speaks to him. If wonder if ASIOalso
speaks through his false teeth?"
Minister you should viewhis blog and make up your own mind on Mr Sunol's mental health condition. Minister I am
not a forensic psychiatrist or a Dr of medicine but I submit Mr Sunol may be unwell and should be assessed for his
suitability to drive a Taxi in NSW. His public blog is assessable to and by the public which presents a very disturbed
person suffering from a psychosis. I allege Mr Sunol is a psychotic and unwell and should not be driving a Taxi in
NSW. We all saw recently howmental illness can impact on an individual with the absconding of S.E.X. killer Trent
Jennings. Mr Jennings stabbed to death in 2003 while suffering from a psychosis. Mr Jennings heard voices in his
head telling him to kill. The NSW public should be kept safe from people who are sick. The Australians should treat
"sick" people kindly and compassionately but most of all if these people (Mr Jennings) are considered a potential
danger to the wider community they should be kept away from it.
Mr Sunol's statements on the internet are violent t via their nature towards me, homosexuals and Muslim people. I
personally fear Mr Sunol because he has made threats against me on the internet. Mr Sunol calls me a thief, and
extortionist, and a number of other derogative names via his public statement on the internet. Mr Sunol has
damaged my public profile and I will be seeking "punative" damages against Mrs Sunol alleging homosexual
vilification with the president of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB)
My intention here is to inform you of Mr Sunol's behavior and is not borne of malice but one of protecting members
of the public because Mr Sunol drives a Taxi. If Mr Sunol is unwell this could put passengers safety at risk
What action, if any would you initiate as NSW Minister for Transport to ensure the good folk of Newcastle are safe
to ride in Mr Sunol's Taxi?
Yours Faithfully
Gary BURNS
PO BOX 77
PADDINGTON