Political Trials In Australia: Pauline Hanson Is Only The Latest Victim.

(Based On The Speech One Nation Banned.)

Jim Saleam October 2003.




Update: On November 6, Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge were acquitted by the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal. The system is already congratulating itself about 'the rule of law being upheld'. It was not so much legal principles which acquitted Hanson - as popular contempt for the law and its servants. We stand by the following comments. The Editor, for Australia First.

I had been scheduled to deliver a speech to a protest meeting in Sydney on September 11. The meeting had been called by the One Nation party to protest the imprisonment of Pauline Hanson. Two days out from the meeting, my invitation was withdrawn and the petty treachery behind that decision is now a small part of the story of political imprisonment in Australia.

Why? The story begins elsewhere, with the redoubtable Mr. Tony Pitt of Queensland who has recently issued a news-paper document which attacks the Hanson imprisonment. That is to the good. He has distributed tens of thousands of copies of it. Even better. He did it with no assistance from One Nation and with their 'warning' not to solicit money from any of their members in its support. Even so, Mr. Pitt persisted. Yet, there was one negative, which under other circumstances could pass, but must now be tackled head-on. Mr. Pitt has - unfortunately - stated a historical error. He said that Mrs. Hanson and David Ettridge were "Australia's first political prisoners". No, they are not Australia's first political prisoners, but only the latest of Australia's political prisoners. Then, too, I observed that Mr. Pitt was not alone in asserting this error. The patriotic paper, The Strategy (September 2003), said of political prisoners that: "this is something Australia has not had up to this time, to our knowledge.." "To our knowledge": a phrase which must now be conditioned by information.

The fact is that Australia's history is replete with political prisoners. Many patriotic people, and I cast no aspersion at Mr. Pitt or anyone else who has risen to protest the Hanson outrage, often state that the 'attack' on democracy and freedom in this country really began but a few decades ago, at some arbitrary point (perhaps the Whitlam period) and before this arbitrary point we had something approaching 'freedom'. We are often told our 'inherited laws' worked and parliament was 'sovereign' and so on, and hence - logically - outrages like the Hanson imprisonment could not have occurred. It follows that we should use the Hanson case to persuade people to fight to turn the clock back. I regret to say that the history is faulted; our country has always been 'unfree' because it has often had political trials and prisoners, and because these things existed, we could not have been free. Full circle.

The One Nation organisers who banned a speech which would explain the idea of political imprisonment, took Mr. Pitt's slip further - right into the netherworld. The principal organiser of the gag-order, and those who went along with it, did not want the issue raised into a higher political question. If it became a political question, it would require a political reply. The One Nation party has no particular theory of Australian history to argue. If it was forced to confront the question of Australian unfreedom, it would be obliged to ask: how did this situation emerge? what is the nature of the state power? who rules Australia? Because the condition of unfreedom existed, more or less constantly, from the time of Federation (if not long before), there is no 'magic age of freedom' to return to. There would only be a new nation to win. That is not the psychology of One Nation. By banning me from raising this broad question, it was not the case that they withdrew (rightly or wrongly) the invitation made to an individual, rather they silenced an argument - precisely the very thing they protested about, the very thing implicit in the Hanson imprisonment in the first instance. Why do this unless it is in the 'too hard' basket? Because One Nation refuses to confront these questions, there can be no freedom and ultimate justice for Hanson - because no proper defence can be mounted for her. And more seriously, if all patriotic people do not address these questions, ultimately, there can be no advance for the cause of Australia's identity, independence and freedom.

What Is A Political Trial?: Basic Facts

The defining thing about the imprisonment of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge is that their trial was a political trial and their imprisonment is a political imprisonment. The establishment media has fought to resist that notion.

Bronwyn Bishop used that term. Of course, she meant specifically someone imprisoned on an essentially non-criminal statute that carries no real penalty. Like in the case of Albert Langer in 1995 when he told people to not preference vote and vote 1,2,2,2,2,2. Langer was imprisoned for the advocacy of informal voting, despite the fact he insisted the vote was legal and valid. Bishop was somewhat corrected by others of the Lib/Lab persuasion who said: "No, Pauline was convicted on criminal charges so she's just a criminal; there's no politics in this, it was a straight criminal matter".

While the truth is that Aussie history is riddled with political prisoners (as I shall show) , most were actually convicted, or accused, of so-called criminal offences on fabricated or twisted evidence. They were not 'convicted' of minor technical breaches of rules (which Hanson really was) but of serious crimes.

Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge should never have been prosecuted. Sure. Their offence, if there was one, was a minor electoral error for which no one was hurt. They certainly obtained no advantage. They repaid the money they supposedly 'stole'. But, they were prosecuted by the not-so-impartial Director of Public Prosecutions. They could have been charged under the Electoral Act, but were cunningly charged under the Queennsland criminal code where the penalties are heavier. They are now held out of hate and for the advantage of others. That, of itself, shows the political quality of the trial and the convictions.

So what is a political trial? Yes, it can be a trial on 'technicalities' . But forget the idea that it must only be a trial over some technical breach of rules or regulations. Look deeper!

A political trial is a trial organized to achieve an extra-legal result. It is one where the charges before the court are only an indication of the truth behind the charges, where the prosecution is super-streamlined, where even the normal rules of justice (sic) are disregarded, where evidence is withheld, distorted and suppressed, where other 'criminals' (who could also be brought to book) are excluded from the scope of the charges since they are not the targets, where attempts by the defence to subpoena state documents are held to be "fishing trips" for information. The charges must relate to securing an advantage (new legislation, new powers, the defeat of a 'dangerous' ideology or person or principle) for a particular part of the state apparatus, be it the big-parties, the intelligence machinery or a special administrative department of the state. One objective invariably is to 'discredit' the accused in the eyes of the public.

There can be no doubt the Hanson/Ettridge trial fits the mould.


Trial And Appeal.

Many people are worried about Pauline Hanson's legal situation. She was convicted. The conviction is the beginning of the fighting saga which must now unfold to undo the injustice. Now the legal-babble really starts.

When the Court of Criminal Appeal sits on the case, they ask three very simple questions:

1. Was the evidence so bad that no one could believe any of it? Well, there are doubts about it, but some facts were there. Sorry to say, the evidence wasn't cuckoo stuff. There is some argument about the absolute legality itself of the evidence, of whether the charges should have been brought under the statute and so forth, but we can't be sure the Court will allow that. We hope that the Court will allow that, but it might not. Almost certainly, it's - Strike One.

2. Did the judge mis-instruct the jury in some way that the trial really miscarried? He's allowed a few mistakes, so in the event there's no major foul up, and I haven't heard of any, it's - Strike Two.

3. Was there evidence that a reasonable jury could act on to convict the accused? If there was - Strike Three.

Now at this point you'll say, that can't be right!

I know that Pauline's solicitors have talked about 'fresh evidence'. That's a last chance. But the Court asks:

4. "Does this evidence reasonably mean that another result could have been arrived at if it had been at the trial? Is it "cogent" and not merely argumentative?" If the overall answer does not meet the tests - Strike Four!

Well by now you're wondering: what the hell is this? This can't be right. However it is right. Let me quote to you from a case in the High Court of Australia, the case of Ratten, a man convicted of murder. Justice Barwick said:

"The aim of a trial in a country with the British system of justice is not to find the truth but to weigh the evidence."

Think about it: "not to find the truth but to weigh the evidence".

It gets better (or worse). In the case of a man appropriately called Lawless (1979), the High Court said:

"..there is no rule of law requiring a Crown prosecutor to call particular witnesses, so it must be acknowledged there is no rule of law which compels the Crown to provide the defence with statements made by persons whom it does not propose to call as witnesses."

That fine principle has been relaxed a little over time. But I'll bet you that the internal police documents that set out what they were doing, other statements and notes, have never been properly accounted for. The details of the investigation remain in the shadows. I am sure Pauline's lawyers haven't gone down the road of Freedom of Information with the Police to flush everything out; or in the failure of that, to end up before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a Freedom of Information appeal against the Police Service of Queensland for non-production - with the effect they can argue many of the criminal things afresh. If they think like lawyers think, the system of organised deceit has them cold.

This system is humbug. The lawyers called it the adversary system. Every time an injustice is produced in our system (on either political or criminal matters), it is precisely because the truth is not brought out, is not allowed to come out, is deliberately concealed or called 'collateral' and ignored. Witnesses aren't called. Questions are 'irrelevant to the charges' and ruled out of order by the judges who invariably uphold prosecution objections. Witnesses whose statements could get you off are denied to the defence. Witnesses are insane. Police collude. Documents are concealed. Scientific evidence is distorted. Like in the Lindy Chamberlain case, the Neil Chidiac case, the Macleod case. The prosecution sometimes has informers inside your case-organization (ie. they bug your telephone and your lawyer's phone) and tailors facts to suit their secret knowledge. And juries are always loath to acquit the accused in the face of well schooled hordes of professional - and sometimes scripted - perjurers. And no 'Perry Mason' can get the liar to admit he lies! The adversary system is about 'two sides', 'two arguments'; it is a sort of trial by combat. This is the great 'British legal system', too many patriots talk about, but know nothing about - until it clobbers them.

You see: there may be a case against Hanson and Ettridge, but what about Abbott, and Oldfield, and the rest? Well, they're just not part of - "the case". They might be part of the truth, but they're not part of "the case". Contrary to the bleating of One Nation and a few misguided patriots, it's not a matter of 'unaccountable judges' or 'stacked courts' or 'pressure' - although all of these things exist and may have operated in the Hanson case - rather it is the very system itself. A system not empowered to find the truth must produce perverse results.

There is only one way the truth can be produced. Not by Appeal, but by Royal Commission, by a Commission of Inquiry with strong points of reference.

More people are saying that must be true because of David Oldfield. If Pauline and Ettridge are guilty, where's our Harry Lime - the Third Man? And I'll go further: I co-convened a speaking event the Sydney Forum where another man, Lex Stewart took the mike in the free speech section, and on video made serious admissions which make him possibly - the Fourth Man. We could have a Gang Of Four. Can we go British spy-saga-style and say there's a Fifth Man? Possibly one who controlled Three and Four? We won't know, can't know, til we get a Commission of Inquiry. And that's the problem with this case. Even if the Appeal is successful on some point of law, and Hanson and Ettridge walk from court, the questions will remain. Of course, that judgment would be used by the system too. "Look see", the Premier of Queensland and Tony Abbot would say, "the law was upheld". Then they and the media would try to sweep it all under the proverbial carpet as yesterday's news. No, the matter must not go away and only an Inquiry will solve the riddles.

Political Trials: A Long List

You folks have heard of some of them. It is because the pattern of political trials exists, that we must seek the truth about our Australian state.

We tend to forget that our country was initiated as a prison, with many of our 'convicts' the products of political justice in Britain. The great Tolpuddle Martyrs (transported for founding trades unions) and some of the noble Chartists come to mind. I need not labour the convict period.. Let's sum up the subsequent history.

The men of Eureka Stockade were tried in Melbourne in 1855 and acquitted by radical-democrat juries. Their grievances were found justified by a Royal Commission and many of their demands were met. Their trial was meant to serve as justification for the government's use of murderous force and to cover over the injustices on Australian goldfields. In this case, it didn't work.

The trial in Rockhampton in 1891-2 of several leaders of the great Shearers' Strike was a blatant political act. These men were charged with sedition, armed assembly, the use of force against lawful authority and sundry criminal acts. Some served long prison sentences and much of it in chains. Their trial, no less than the suppression of the strike, was meant to serve the interests of the great pastoralists who sought the use of cheap (usually Chinese) labour, who opposed unionism as subversion and who wanted an end to the 'closed shop' of the shearing shed. For a time, in Queensland, their tactics were successful and only reversed in the clamour which preceded Federation and which brought on the 'White Australia Policy' and the wages system.

In 1917, a group of 'anarchists' were put on trial in Sydney for arson offences. In the climate of the Great War their industrial struggles were viewed more seriously. Some of the evidence against them for some of the offences, was shaky. Their sentences expired with the end of the Roaring Twenties. The government needed an internal security scare to justify the demands for more trrops to the front and the powers of new investigative agencies. Whatever morality there was in that was lost in the trial perjury.

In 1942, there was the frame-up of members and friends of the Australia First Movement (AFM) in Perth, with four people imprisoned as supposed agents of the Japanese. Through the shock-publicity of their arrests came the internment of many other AFM members including the famous Percy Stephensen. These are events regarded by some historians today as a cover-up for the odious 'Brisbane Line' conspiracy (the intention to effectively surrender half of Australia to Japanese Occupation). Caught out in a defeatist plot, sections of the military and intelligence apparatus cast around for some 'Jap agents'. The hyper-nationalists of Australia First became convenient. All were ultimately exonerated and compensated, except Stephensen. Hated to the last, he received no compensation, not a red penny!

In 1969, the Industrial Court jailed Clarrie O'Shea for contempt when he defied the penal powers of the Arbitration Act. O'Shea was a communist and he defied the law for political purposes, but his gaoling was designed to retain the powers of regimentation over Australian labour. We know now that regimentation has, with 'work-place reform', returned to haunt us.

In 1971, Albert Langer, as a communist activist, was imprisoned for contempt of court. Langer was banned from La Trobe campus because of the politics he pursued. He broke the order and served thirty days. The aim was not to restrict the movement which opposed the Vietnam War (Langer was prominent in these protests at La Trobe), but to nobble a particular group of communists who, accidently or otherwise, hit upon the key question of the Australian state power - its enmeshment with the American system - and who struck out at its agents.

In 1978, the Ananda Marga Three were framed by the New South Wales Police Special Branch essentially to cover over the truth about the Hilton Hotel Bombing - namely that it was performed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The trial of these men was peppered with thuggery, perjury and falsification of evidence. They were ultimately compensated. Their trial for the attempted murder of a neo-nazi 'racist' had two aims: to make them look like they were the people who bombed the Hilton and then to create a strawman who would be their 'face of racist extremism in Australia'. These broader questions of their trial have never been resolved publicly - and never will

In 1979, the New South Wales Police Special Branch framed the Croatian Six for a bomb conspiracy in Sydney. In 1991, it was revealed that much of the evidence used to convict the men was fabricated. The plot also involved ASIO. It is possible the plot was designed to justify ASIO's new powers in the aftermath of the Hilton Bombing and to curry some favour with the Yugoslav government. The evidence consisted of an 'informer' and police perjury of 'confessions' - the notorious 'verbals'. Some of the accused claimed they had never even met each other. The principal state witness has confessed to perjury. No inquiry has ever been held. It never will.

In 1981-2, a Royal Commission was orchestrated into the notorious Painters' And Dockers' Union. This effort was the first round of 1980's 'structural reform', 'work-place reform' and deregulation. The target was a trade union noted for criminal connections and was therefore a soft target. The Inquiry located evidence for criminal prosecutions. The union was broken.

In 1983-6, a series of commissions and trials were used against Builders' Labourers' Federation boss, Norm Gallagher. Gallagher was not a loveable character, nor was he a honest representative of the workers. However, this was round two in the pace of industrial deregulation. At one point, after Gallagher won an appeal against one decision, he told a demonstration outside the court that he was "not in there" (the Mebourne gaol) "because you're out here". The court, offended that its impartial dignity was traduced, then gaoled Gallagher for contempt. Because Gallagher was a figure of public disdain, he received no real public support and the government won what it secretly wanted - a more compliant trades union movement.

In 1991, Tim Anderson (one of the Ananda Marga Three), who had been on bail for two years on the charge, was falsely convicted of the Hilton Hotel Bombing. The evidence consisted of a lunatic (who the state still officially insists was the Hilton Bomber but who now says he doesn't know if he did it or not!!!), Anderson's 'confession' to a notorious criminal - and a bit of police perjury. Although in the wake of Anderson's acquittal the New South Wales Parliament voted for the formation of a joint State-Federal Inquiry into the Hilton Bombing, nothing eventuated. It never will. The prosecution came at a time where pressure was building for a full inquiry. To protect ASIO, this farce was initiated.

In 1990, in Western Australia, neo-nazi Jack van Tongeren and some members of his 'Australian Nationalists Movement' and other persons, were the victims of a 'terrorism trial'. Although van Tongeren was certainly guilty of various offences, it is legally and academically contentious to the extreme to say his crimes were 'terrorism'. However, the politically-charged process (informers, tape-recorded evidence, massive court-room security, men in chains) was designed to foment a scare - that led directly to the passage by parliament of the anti free speech 'anti-racial-vilification legislation' in Western Australia. The odour of neo-nazism, violence and even murder, was to envelop other patriotic groups opposed to Australia's economic Asianisation. The trial was itself a product of a loss of Asian investment in the State occasioned by van Tongeren's violence campaign. The super-harsh sentences on van Tongeren and another man demonstrated the political character of the trial. Although evidence now exists that the intelligence agencies were aware of van Tongeren's guilt in the offences long before an official reason was available to 'know' it, the violence campaign was allowed to continue. Other evidence also points to some police perjury. These broader issues will never be resolved by the system.

In 1991, I was also put to trial. The case drags on slowly even now -towards a judicial inquiry. The New South Wales Police Special Branch used two witnesses to say I had given them a gun to shoot-up the home of an African National Congress terrorist. The evidence of these witnesses was a contradictory mess. However, the political police ensured the conviction in other illicit ways. The motive: to run a 'racist violence trial' and cripple a nationalist political organization. I was also punished for fighting tooth and nail the Special Branch perjurers and criminals in a public way damaging to that organization.

In 2003 in Victoria, anti-corruption fighter, Ray Hoser, was charged with contempt of court for the same matter for which he had already been dealt. This overturns the so-called 'double-jeopardy rule' in law, an old principle that says a man cannot be tried for the same crime - twice. Where this case finally leads - who knows? It is possible Ray Hoser will serve a sentence because he has annoyed powerful figures in the Victorian judiciary and political Establishment.

In these trials there were serious criminal allegations. The accused group or person were not usually the flavour of the month so usually evoked lesser public sympathy. And there was always a point to why they were prosecuted. They were taken on and beaten in the dark so the state power could obtain certain political results. Freedom? What freedom?

The Ugly Truth.

In the present matter against Hanson and Ettridge, there is the spectre of a political conspiracy.

We know there was a slush fund which financed a civil case against One Nation (the Terry Sharples case) that led to its deregistration as a party in Queensland - and finally to the criminal charges. We know of Peter Coleman, former Leader of the NSW Liberal Party, businessman Clough and other shadowy operators. We know the same gang nobbled the Western Australian Democrats after 1992 with court cases. We know top Liberal, Tony Abbott, became involved with them, and that he used this group to raise money etc. to finance the civil action against One Nation.

But it goes deeper, much deeper.

Is there a network somewhere, a shadow structure that keeps political dissent under control? Many patriotic people have long-suspected this. It is the contention here that this network does exist.

Terry Sharples: the name is enough to make you vomit. The look of the man! Why did he do it? This 'thing' joined the ON for a bizarre personal reason: he just wanted to harm a sitting politician. He ran a campaign. He became unhappy. He turned on the party that endorsed him - like a rabid dog.

Yet, this dissenter was found. How was he found? I say that the Abbott group, just the tip of an iceberg of dirty-tricks structures, was able to find him because intelligence was provided that led hem to him.

A few years back, when I was at university researching my doctorate, I was in the Australian Electoral Commission in Brisbane reading the files on a group deregistered as a party and which fought to get re-registered - the Confederate Action Party. I then interviewed innumerable people. They all said their party was disrupted. They said meetings ended in chaos, false documents appeared, fractious stupid people smashed branches, plots were overheard at gatherings. Someone was to blame - they just didn't know who. Some blamed ASIO, some the Liberal and National parties and some thought it was more 'informal', a network with occasional direct links to state parties and agencies.

Bluntly, Sharples was found because there was someone talent-scouting. I would say that the idea of a less formal network appears in the Hanson case, although obviously, it is linked very much to state interests.

For the first time anywhere, I would give the reader a very special run-down on another line of curiosity descending in (as yet) unclear lines from Sharples. I give this because it shows the breadth of the political conspiracy with which we are dealing. I do not say all of these men have broken the criminal law, rather some only exercise an influence against the realisation of particular political ideals. It is the pattern with which we are concerned, the linkages that form networks.

Peter Coleman: the main Abbot fund raiser. He wrote in The Australian that he fixed Hanson and is proud of it. No holds barred. Okay. Does anyone remember that on February 9 1978, Premier Neville Wran announced a judicial inquiry into Coleman? It seems he had ASIO files and SB files and was using the info for the Liberal Party. The inquiry would begin on February 14. In the early hours of February 13, the Hilton Hotel blew up. We're still waiting to know the truth and we're still waiting to know about Coleman. This Coleman tolerated certain 'conservatives' in the Liberal Party who we shall meet below.

Victor Shen: In the 2003 New South Wales State election, Terry Sharples was a candidate for the Outdoor Recreation Party. He was involved with Victor Shen. Shen is Chinese. In 1998, he offered help to Graeme Campbell's Australia First Party on the basis that he wanted immigration restricted and said he'd get the Chinese off AFP's back. Foolishly, they accepted. He caused no end of trouble. He then simply decamped and moved on.

In 1999, he turned up in the monarchist campaign against the republican referendum. This time he was close to also someone well-known.

Lyenko Urbanchich: Urbanchich is an old Cold War warrior and Liberal Party 'conservative' faction leader. He is no friend of One Nation, Hanson, or other groups of patriots and nationalists. His group had connections in the 1960's to overseas groups connected to the CIA and in Australia his close allies pimped for ASIO in the commo can kicking days. Urbanchich has opposed any group with criticisms of Australia's immigration policy. He has been on that line for over thirty years.

David Clarke: Clarke is a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, and for 35 years has been on the closest terms with Urbanchich in this pseudo-conservative Liberal fraction. This man is an inveterate enemy of groups he defines as 'extreme-right', and that don't melt into the Liberal Party as good (pseudo) conservatives. He has intervened several times to stymie certain groups and individuals.

John Boyle: a Liberal Party lawyer, a friend of Clarke. Right now, Boyle's office at Eastwood is the legal "home" to a funny sounding group, a dummy version of an old Christian group. Mr. Boyle calls his clients the British-Israelite World Federation Ltd. The real group (British-Israel World Federation Ltd.) inherited $500,000 a few years back.

The dummy group from hell decided to steal it: do you remember the so-called KKK that was infiltrating One Nation back in 1999?? The Imperial Wizard, David Palmer, and a Cyclops also called Peter Coleman (no relation to the former Liberal leader), were hard at it in One Nation, they said. They claimed they were political cousins of Hanson and wanted her to tolerate their infiltration. She didn't and they were expelled amidst media smears. So what is a Liberal Party solicitor doing helping these people, the same people who smeared Hanson? And this same gang turned up just a few months back at a time ASIO is happily screaming about its totalitarian powers, damaging Jewish property in Liverpool - just as provocateurs would.

Another Peter Coleman. The line ends with Cyclops Coleman, codenamed "Cabbie" in the Special Branch files, code-named CC18 in the 1990's the Police Royal Commission files, an informant who played a role in the ANM case in Western Australia, inciting neo-nazi race violence while informing on their guilt. Interestingly, disturbingly, in 2002 this creature was chatting privately with the very One Nation official who urged that I not be allowed to speak!

This other broken line off Sharples is just another factor in the equation which runs to security agencies, dirty tricks, the Liberal Party. It's time the truth came out. If some inside the square are blameless of anything, then let the matter be brought out into the light and the truth be told.

It is the argument that the Hanson party, like other parties and individuals of a patriotic persausion, have been targetted by dirty tricks operators - who have operated in the half-light for decades. These forces have been succesful to a greater or lesser extent. It is also likely that similar forces have dealt with other types of dissent in a similar way. Behind the informal networks of course, lies the state machine - which condones and abets these groups. On occasion it intervenes more directly to get results. This certainly occurs when serious criminal charges are brought against their targets. This has the makings of not just a major political scandal, but a tool to heighten public consciousness of the actual nature of Australian unfreedom - of our Australian state.

People's Action Must Win Through

The fact is that no injustice in our country has ever been undone without people power.

The hour is late for even formal freedom in our country. The ASIO legislation, the attempt to ban named persons from having phones and Internet access, the security mania: all this is related to the Hanson case. Political imprisonment in this climate sets new - and very dangerous - precedents.

All things need to be done. Petitions, Vigils, letter campaigns, talk-back radio, select demonstrations, posters, stickers and leaflets are all parts of people's action.

Abbott intended (before he was 'reshuffled' in a Ministry change) to try to smash up unions on the building sites, to get the free market place for GATS. Isn't it time the ON MP's used their offices correctly and offered to help these unions against the Liberal Party? It must be time for all patriotic groups to start building an across the board campaign against the Liberals - to make them squeal?

With respect to the One Nation people, the protest movement needs to be far wider than ON. The Australia First Party has raised its voice. The Patriotic Youth League has published against the Hanson outrage. Other publications (as above: Mr. Pitt's paper, The Strategy) and hosts of people have spoken up. By all means let the ON get the venues, but let's get all groups to join - and most of all we must get ordinary people to protest.

Mrs. Hanson once spoke of herself as the spokesperson, the incarnation, of many Australian virtues. Well, many might argue about that self-characterisation. Right now, it is actually true at one level because Mrs. Hanson is imprisoned for you and for Australia.

Join together! Free Pauline Hanson Now! Freedom Now!



The Library Of Articles On Australian Nationalism