Hi AC,

David Singer is correct about how the UN defined a "Palestinian". The title was given equally to those with a thousand year pedigree and Egyptian labourers.

There is a lot more these days about CCP influence in the west. Like the Russian dictatorship, they are A grade Jew haters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4LBCAzWmNw

Anyway, what is the point of all the hatred when humanity traces back to a few thousand people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgsv-PNfea8

Not only should AC and a couple of others be careful about their antisemitism when the Act gets into gear, he/they will also need to start distinguishing between opinions and and lies; the lies being accusations of "genocide" by Israel, that Israel was starving children, etcetera.

They Left, believing in free speech for themselves, not so much for others, as well as the uniparty which introduced the Act, also need to understand that it can and will be used against their smug little selves too.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has blocked another Jew from entering Australia.

This one was due to speak at synagogues, his theme being that it is “time to stop being tolerant of those that are not tolerant of us”.

Burke cancelled his visa 3 hours before he was due to board his flight to Australia.

3,500 Gazans come in plus the ISIS brides. Not to mention our already in-Australia hate preachers. Will they go under the new Act? Probably not. The use of the hate Act will be at the Minister's discretion.

It is clear who Minister Burke and, therefore, the Albanese regime, tolerates and doesn't tolerate.

It's strange how society is beaten into submission by claims of offending Jews, meanwhile everything Zionist do is meant to prevent anyone criticising or intervening in their century long slaughter of innocents.

Watch that video,
The Fourth Palestine Arab Congress was held on June 25 1921, in Jerusalem.

THEY proposed a democratic solution.
An independent Palestinian government responsible to a nationally elected representative assembly.
A constitution guaranteeing civil rights for all - Muslims, Christians and Jews - so long as Jewish immigration as halted and Zionism rescinded.
Rejection of both the Balfour Declaration and continued British rule.

Seems reasonable, Britains response -
High Commissioner Herbert Samuel stated that no constitutional path that contradicted Zionist objectives would ever be permitted.
Balfour stated that "The weak point in our position is of course that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self determination."
Then, the firearms ordinance of 1922 - Disarm them.
104 years later and history repeats with stage 2 of the Gaza peace plan, disarm them.
No commitment to allowing Palestinians the right to decide their own future, just more lies to get the hostages back.

Nothing changes, just endless wars, death and no compromise on their Zionist objectives, Eretz Israel.

Hi ttbn,
Yes the changing laws are a concern, especially in their intentional vagueness, they want the laws harsh and vague and to publicly vilify anyone breaking them.
They want to scare the shite out of people so that they're too frightened to say how they really think about things.

Why did Tucker Carlson win Anti-semite of the year?
Did he kill more Jews than Naveed and Sajid Akram in Bondi?
No, they can use this attack to further their aims.
It's influencers speaking the truth THEY HATE.
Tucker Carlson just cares about America's future, that's all.

But I can't say that Zionists have to much control over media, even though Netanyahu openly said his biggest problem was TikTok and X, and even Sarah Hurwitz openly stated that they are losing their own kids to online images of Israels atrocities. It's not the killing that is the problem, it's the news coverage she implies, and this aligns with Israel assassinations of journalists and their families.

Google AI -
International Criminal Court (ICC): In November 2024, the ICC prosecutor requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, with allegations including the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare.
International Bodies and Experts: The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory reported in September 2025 that Israel has committed acts of genocide, including using starvation as a tool. Furthermore, numerous UN Special Rapporteurs and human rights organizations have documented that Israel's blockade of aid into Gaza is a deliberate policy of starvation and a crime against humanity.

I think I'm pretty safe on that one.
It's just Pro-Israel Christian types who are too frightened to call out Israels behavior for what it is because the fear Genesis 12:3
When you drill it into young childs mind that if they don't love Jesus they will go to hell, it impacts their thinking all their lives.

Tell me what law have I broken now, I'm sure they'll make something up.
When do I ever say anything without a basis of merit?

ttbn,

Tony Burke hasn't been "blocking Jews". He's cancelled visas of specific individuals based on the character and social-cohesion criteria that have existed in migration law for years. Some of those individuals happen to be Jewish or Israeli, others are not.

That's not the same thing as targeting Jews, and conflating the two weakens your point.

Likewise, "3,500 Gazans" and "ISIS brides" are being waved around as if they entered under the same discretionary visa decisions. They didn't. Different cohorts, different legal frameworks, different ministers, different timeframes.

You might disagree with Burke's judgement, but claiming selective tolerance or antisemitic intent requires more than a list of unrelated cases stitched together after the fact.

If the concern is ministerial discretion being too broad, say that. If the concern is inconsistent application, show it. Right now this reads as inference piled on inference, not proof.

Antiseimitism isn't going to go away by pretending it's the other "team's" problem.

And you're still talking as though the hate speech laws will criminalise opinions. If you think they do, again, point to the provision that actually says so.