This Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 allows Australians to be investigated and jailed for speech that causes no harm and threatens no one.It punishes beliefs and motives, not just actions, and treats religious and community leaders as inherently dangerous speakers.
It removes the need for real victims by criminalising hypothetical fear judged through historical grievance. It turns ordinary political and online speech on immigration, culture, and religion into legal risk. It replaces free expression with opaque censorship that scares people into silence.
The Government says this Bill is a necessary response to rising hatred and extremism following the Bondi Beach terror attack of 14 December 2025. That attack was real. The suffering was real. But the legal justification collapses the moment you read the Bill itself.
Australia already had extensive criminal laws covering terrorism, threats, violence, harassment, intimidation, and incitement. This legislation does not fill a gap. It builds a new structure, one that reaches far beyond violence and directly into lawful speech, belief, and political expression.
This is not a single bad clause that can be fixed with a tweak. It is a cumulative legal architecture. Expanded hate offences. Motive-based punishment. Speaker-based penalty escalation. Strict liability fear standards. Heightened penalties for offensive communications.
Risk-based enforcement replacing harm-based law. Together, they create a system where speaking plainly about religion, culture, immigration, or national identity becomes legally hazardous.
One of the most dangerous features is the creation of aggravated offences targeting religious and spiritual leaders. Schedule 1 amends the Criminal Code so that multiple hate-related offences are aggravated where the conduct is engaged in by a religious official or spiritual leader (however described).
That phrase matters. “However described” is not narrow. It does not limit itself to radical Imams and crazy Sheiks. It can capture pastors, priests, rabbis, monks, nuns, church elders, lay preachers, chaplains, and informal community leaders who provide moral or spiritual guidance.
Religious leadership itself becomes an aggravating factor. The Explanatory Memorandum justifies this on the basis that leaders have influence. Influence is treated as inherently dangerous. The result is that the same words spoken by an ordinary citizen carry one level of risk, while the same words spoken from a pulpit can carry penalties of up to twelve years’ imprisonment.
This is not about coercion. It is not about violence. It is about controlling influential speech. Layered on top of this is the Bill’s reliance on hate motivation as a punishment multiplier. Courts are instructed to treat motive as an aggravating feature across multiple offences. This shifts criminal law away from what a person did and toward why they believe what they believe.
Motive is inferred from expression, sermons, articles, social media posts, speeches, associations, and prior statements. Speech becomes evidence not just of opinion, but of a criminal mindset. Two people can engage in identical conduct, yet the one whose views are characterised as hostile faces harsher punishment.In practice, this opens the door to belief-based punishment.
Mainstream right-wing positions on immigration levels, multiculturalism, cultural compatibility, religious doctrine, gender ideology, or national identity can be reframed as hateful when assessed through a politicised lens. Once motive aggravation exists, punishment is no longer neutral between ideas.
The most liberty-destroying element of the Bill is that it abandons any requirement to prove actual harm. Proposed section 80.2BF establishes criminal liability where conduct would cause a reasonable person who is the target, or a member of the target group, to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.
Strict liability applies.The Explanatory Memorandum is explicit. The prosecution does not need to prove that anyone actually felt fear. There does not need to be an identified victim. It is immaterial whether the conduct resulted in any person being intimidated at all.Liability is triggered by speculation.
Worse still, the reasonable person is not an ordinary objective standard. Courts are directed to assess fear through the perspective of a person with the lived experience of the target group, including historical oppression and marginalisation. Judges must also consider the cumulative effect of conduct by others, not just the accused.
Your words are judged against historical grievance and third-party behaviour you did not commit and do not control. Individual responsibility is diluted. Context becomes elastic. Lawful speech can be reinterpreted as threatening simply because of who is discussed and what history is invoked.
The Bill also creates unequal speech protections. Quoting religious texts is categorically exempt if done for religious teaching or discussion. There is no equivalent exemption for secular critique, political commentary, policy analysis, or journalistic examination of the same texts.Identical words can be lawful or criminal depending on who says them and why.
That is not content neutrality. It is the state privileging certain forms of expression and punishing others based on framing. Online speech is almost entirely captured. Penalties for using a carriage service to cause offence are increased from two years to five years’ imprisonment.
Public conduct is defined broadly to include social media, blogs, videos, and online platforms. In modern Australia, this means virtually all political debate.The situation can be aggravated if a court believes that the offence also threatened the “peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth” (whatever that means). The penalty could then by 10 years’ imprisonment.
Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education@craigkellyAFEE🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I’m just reading through Albanese‘s proposed “Hate Speech Legislation” (144 pages of legislation and a 319 page Explanatory Memorandum). It seems that under this legislation an Australian risks being jailed for up 10 years if they argue against excessive rates of migration, but Islamist hate-preachers are given a free pass to say, “Wherever you find them, besiege them, capture them, kill them use every stratagem, lie in wait for them on every way” See : Part 5, Section 80.2(BF)(4) https://ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/explanatory-memorandum.pdf
The wording of the legislation will have the exact opposite effect of what Albanese is claiming – it will put in legislation protection for Islamic hate preachers, but but place anyone arguing that hate preachers should not be allowed to migrate to Australia at risk of being arrested and jailed. This is very dangerous legislation that should be opposed.
Harm is the basis of all of this, but offence is not harm. Offence is an unavoidable feature of democratic life. This Bill converts that reality into criminal exposure. The Government frames all of this as prevention, stopping risk, radicalisation, and future harm.
This replaces harm-based criminal law with risk-based enforcement. Speech becomes punishable not for what it does, but for what authorities believe it might lead to. There is no meaningful protection for political communication in the Bill. No explicit safeguard. No proportionality analysis. No serious engagement with the implied freedom of political communication recognised by the High Court.
The burden is shifted onto individuals to become constitutional test cases after enforcement has already occurred. Even without convictions, the process itself is punitive. Investigations, complaints, platform moderation, employment consequences, reputational damage, and institutional over-compliance occur long before any court rules. Churches pull sermon recordings. Publishers decline controversial pieces. Platforms over-moderate.
Ordinary Australians choose silence over risk. That is how free speech dies in a country like ours. With opaque censorship of certain undefined discourse, and breaches of that censorship regime punishable with severe jail sentences. That inspires fear, which leads people to remain silent instead of saying what they want to say.
To understand how far this Bill reaches, consider six illustrative hypotheticals that expose its outer limits. A Christian pastor delivers a sermon stating, “Islam is an ideology that is destructive, incompatible with Western civilisation, and must be resisted if Australia is to survive.” There are no threats and no incitement. Because the speech is delivered by a religious leader, aggravated provisions apply.
Prosecutors could argue the language is hostile, infer hate motivation from theology, and rely on hypothetical fear. Twelve-year penalties become possible. A political activist posts online, “Mass immigration has destroyed social trust. Non-European cultures are fundamentally incompatible with ours, and continuing the policy of mass migration from the Middle East, Africa and China will fracture the nation.” This is classic political communication. No violence. No threats. Yet it can be reframed as hostility toward groups defined by ethnicity or national origin, triggering online communications offences.
A journalist writes an opinion piece stating, “This Islamic religious worldview produces intolerance, misogyny, and social division. Australia must stop accommodating it.” This is opinion journalism. Under the Bill, hostile framing combined with historical grievance analysis could justify investigation and prosecution, chilling public debate.
An activist at a rally says, “The wearing of full-face coverings like the burqa and niqab should be banned in Australia because they undermine our values and social order.” This is advocacy for law reform. Yet it may be reframed as targeting people rather than conduct, particularly if the speaker is an organiser or community figure.
A social media user posts crime statistics showing that crime in Melbourne comes from the African community is wildly disproportionate compared to other ethnic groups and adds, “Ignoring who is responsible for this crime wave is destroying our country.” The post relies on data and interpretation. Prosecutors could infer hate motivation and argue the post creates fear, despite no threats and no actual harm.
A policy paper by a think tank argues, “Australia should prioritise migrants from culturally compatible nations such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Europe to preserve social cohesion.” This is immigration policy debate at the core of political communication. And yet distinctions by national origin could be characterised as discriminatory hostility under this proposed law. None of these scenarios involve violence, threats, or conduct criminal under existing law. Yet all could plausibly trigger enforcement under this Bill.
From a constitutional perspective, the problems compound. The Bill burdens political communication in its terms and effect. It criminalises speech without proof of harm, applies strict liability to fear, replaces objective standards with historically weighted ones, attributes third-party conduct to individual speakers, escalates penalties based on status, and expands offence-based online crimes.
Preventing violence is a legitimate aim. But criminalising hypothetical fear, belief, and offence fails necessity and proportionality. Less restrictive alternatives already exist. The balance struck is constitutionally fragile.
Individually, several provisions raise serious constitutional questions. Cumulatively, they present a profound threat to free political discourse.The most bizarre and perverse thing about this proposed law, which has been crafted supposedly in response to the Bondi Beach terror attack, is that it will undoubtedly be used to clamp down on those who are critical of Islam and its anti-semitic and anti-Christian tendencies.
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 does not abolish free speech outright. But it renders it conditional, unstable, and punishable by interpretation. Once that framework exists, the decisive question is no longer who uses those laws today, but whether any future government can resist using it against their political opponents.
If you value the right to speak openly about faith, culture, identity, and politics in Australia, this Bill must be confronted now. Read it. Share it. Challenge it. Because once speech is criminalised by perception rather than harm, reclaiming that freedom becomes extraordinarily difficult.
Thanks for reading Nation First, by George Christensen! This post is public so feel free to share it. Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.
Nation First, by George Christensen is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid,
George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.
George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”— George Christensen.
Find more about George at www.georgechristensen.com.au
Re: “Yeah nearly all the ambo pics we saw had nobody on their stretchers. Ed”
Somebody will need to leak the drone footage so we can get a more complete picture of what actually went on. Staged MSM graphics of selfies don’t do it for me.
They ceaselessly chant and cry about the HOLOHOAX. Why?
To cover up the real crimes against humanity they have done, whenever and wherever they are in a position to perpetrate them.
The maker of this documentary was obligated to say some derogatory things about “the Nazis” by the ZOG WORLD INC.
But they don’t ring true by the behaviors of the people that are documented.
If the Germans were so “brutal” and the people didn’t like them, why would they volunteer to join them, why when the Red Army was advancing would they want to flee with the Germans, why would the Germans offer them transport to escape?
And then look what the “good-guy” winners did to those people who escaped the Bolshevik Anti-Christ—they sent them back to be tortured, killed, and/or sent to the gulag.
The synagogues were operating in Bolshevik occupied territory. The churches were looted, defiled, or destroyed.
“The Baltic Tragedy”(1985)
https://old.bitchute.com/video/gcA9jIL8yTe3/
It’s disgusting.
They have profited and continue to profit from their lies and crimes.
INVERSION ARTISTS EXTRAORDINAIRE.
“They are of their father the devil, a liar and a murderer from the beginning”.
HOLOHOAX.
COVIDHOAX.
BIG LIES!
(that’s why they need laws against “anti-semitism” and the people disarmed)
It is THEM responsible for the chaos and destruction.
ORDO-AB-CHAO.
PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION.
CHAOS MAGIC.
Elbow’s team has introduced one useless unwanted Globalist horror legislation after another, most of what he has done has failed, now most agree this recent flourish, led in by a cunning stunt, was stunningly audacious but totally lacking in authenticity. What will the bovine do about this, are they ready to stampede anytime soon ? I doubt it because the picnic was by calculation devised as an ethnic minority. The herd does not object too much to a bit of attrition, and this is the principle the Globalists work with.
The “Torah” is bullshit. A curse upon the world. Big deal someone burned it up.
The ‘history” they wrote and write is bullshit.
“The Anti-Defamation League Co-Writing Sunday school Curriculum for Hispanic Evangelical Churches”
https://www.bitchute.com/video/o3vzzDO3bwZT
Deprogram.
“THE GREAT JEWISH MASQUE”
“OR THE ASS IN THE LION’S SKIN”
“ Good woods burn silently, but thorns crackle loudly, crying out all the time ‘We are wood ! We are wood ! ° —Old Persian Saying.”
“THE Jews, like other childish people, enjoy pretending, and when pretending brings them the tribute due to the character assumed, they revel in it.
In this way they have obtained much credit which should not have been given to them.
They first were tricked out in borrowed traditions and supplied with an entirely false idea of themselves about 430 B.c,
Then commenced the Great Jewish Masque, a pretence which has been maintained to the present day.
In recent times it has never lacked support. Indeed, Jewish propaganda has been so insidious and persistent that voluntary aid, in addition to other kinds, has always been available. At a mere hint, troupes of highly placed carpet-baggers don ass’s ears, or a long nose, and vie with each other, and with the kosher mummers, in endeavours to lead the rout.”
(written 1920s, still available online).
The “God” of the Torah is the devil.
Only a mind-controlled drone can’t see that (it’s not your fault). The whole purpose of the Jesus character was to refute them and call out their lies and warn the people against them.
“Messiah”, bla,bla, bla…
AVATAR OF TRUTH. Not a “Jew”.
“they see and hear, but do not understand…”.
I disbelieve their fantasies and bald-faced lies.
“Deceit and Plausible deniability” is their LIFE BLOOD.
I thought Minority Report was a movie…not an Instruction manual?
My copy of the Australian Constitution is 29 pages (A1) long. It was drafted over a period of seven years, and was intended to benefit the people or Commonwealth of Australia. By contrast, Albanese’s ‘Combatting antisemitism, hate and extremism bill’ is 500 pages long, and was put together in one month, a month that included the Christmas and New Year breaks, and if true, would have to have included time to think out the details before drafting. Additionally, as it is only intended to benefit a few – certain ethnic groups and the government – it cannot be considered as valid legislation, merely rules cobbled together by a gang that has wormed its way into control in parliament. It does not benefit the majority of Australians, like the Constitution. Rather, it penalises Australians for being Australians.
Anyone, with more than two brain cells to rub together, can see that the speed with which this so-called ‘legislation’ has been put together, is not practicably possible or believable. In other words, it was all ready, waiting to go, and only needed the Bondi ‘trigger’ to activate it. It is now obvious, as if anybody needed convincing, that the so-called Australian government is neither Australian nor works for the people of Australia, and all those who work for, support, or are part of it, must be considered traitors.
JURIES NULLIFY BAD LAWS!
Yeah nearly all the ambo pics we saw had nobody on their stretchers. Ed
I have little faith in the Labor Govt. They promised transparency, whistle blower protections, to make society fairer. They haven’t & it’s not. As with various state governments, the federal mob are pro Israel, after 2 years of genocide. The Zionists have them tied up in knots. AUKUS is heading for disaster but they keep telling us..”nothing to see here”.If only there was a credible opposition to keep them in check. More draconian laws about anti-semitism are not needed. Education might be the answer.
Albo’s accommodation of Islam sure goes a long way toward explaining his nervousness about the idiocy of “antisemitism” being flaunted. Idiocy such as is show-cased in this account:
“The largest synagogue in Mississippi, a historic building, was torched down by an individual reciting antisemitic slogans. As a Jewish believer in Jesus, this is something I need to respond to because the prevalence of idiocy within people who imagine anti-semitism and yet claim
to be Christians is increasing exponentially. And we need to be very clear about the satanic nature of that. We need to be very clear that it is not biblical and it is being used by Satan to keep the Jewish people away from their Messiah. And so this this is a subject that is sensitive to a lot of people. It is
easy for people to imagine all the Jewish people are always shouting “antisemitism”.
But what happened in this attack was that the young man went into the synagogue, spread accelerant, some sort of gasoline all over the holy books all over the Bible.
For those who don’t know, and apparently there are many, who do not know that the Bible that will be found in Jewish synagogues – two thirds of your Christian Bible – the entire Old Testament the Hebrew scriptures……………accelerant was poured on the holy books on the Bible by a person who claimed to be doing it for Christianity. The idiocy, the irrationality of that nonsensical position. I mean, there there’s not enough we can say about it. And worst of all, he torched two Torah scrolls, the handwritten five books of Moses that would be found in any synagogue. Messiah Jesus
worshipped in a synagogue that had Torah scrolls. Messiah Jesus read from Torah scrolls. Messiah Jesus is the author of the Torah. And they were burnt by a person who who falsely claims to be a Christian.
When he was caught and interviewed by the police, he admitted to the crime and said, “I had to do it because they are the synagogue of Satan.”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhSbKWp1y_A
“Anti-semitism” means anti-Jewish. That means against/opposed to “Judaism”, and consequently; the “Jewish” identity and practices sourced from that IDEOLOGICAL Cult.
Without “Judaism” there are no “Jews”.
Without “The Torah” and “The Talmud” there is no “Judaism”.
Without “Judaism” and “Jews” there was no Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Empire that murdered or enslaved 100 millions of Russians and their neighbors. And exported the ideas and slaughter to China.
Or a fraudulent “Israel”.
Anyone that is not a Jew, dupe, or sellout, and is of sound mind, and knows what “Judaism” is, must then be “anti-Jewish” (a so-called “anti-semite”). The same could be said about “Islam/muslim”. Freemasonry is Jewish too.
Without “Judaism” there is no ZOG WORLD INC.
And there definitely is a ZOG WORLD INC.
They are taking away our choice of what to think and believe and who to associate with at the societal level…they are thus destroying the nation and remaking it and the people in it…in the image they choose=inferior, using diabolical means. While preserving and strengthening their own to achieve “superiority”.
What they’ve been doing for 100s of years, maybe 1000s.
They are a child-abusing Cult.
Do a search for the drone images from Bondi, there’s not a body or an injured person anywhere and the four ambos were parked up empty at a Crepery that’s 236m from the alleged scene, they claimed that 40 ambos went down to Bondi and transported the dead and injured to hospitals but there’s not a single image of that happening, a good way to check if something is a hoax is to look for the ambos, at the CHCH mosque hoax there were two people wearing hi-vis with observer written on the back and one ambo.
To commenter Arthur.. The term “Semite” is not a current legal classification. There’s no specific legal definition of “Semite” that grants a distinct status or legal protection to people identified by this term alone. The term was first used in the 1770s by historians who spoke or whose ancestors spoke a group of related LANGUAGES, known as Semitic languages… including Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic & a few others. It was derived from the biblical figure Shem, a son of Noah who is traditionally considered the ancestor of these peoples. “Semite” has no basis in genetics when used as an ethnic or racial designation. “Antisemitism” was coined in the late 19th century to give a ‘scientific’ facade to the hatred of Jews as a ‘race’, not all Semitic-speaking peoples. Another commenter here thinks the original Jews were Arabic which is incorrect.. they were Hebrews from across the Levant. As far as the WWlll being between Muslims & Christians.. Muslims hate both Jews & Christians but there has never been any specific indication that these two groups (Muslims $ Christians) will be the instigation for any WWlll as it has been with both previous world wars. Christians are a peace-loving people not warmongers.
No, the Bondi attack was not “real”, it was a false-flagged HOAX staged by ZOG of Australia and Mossad-CHABAD-LUBAVITCH just for these purposes…to shut the people up, to further disarm them, and criminalize SELF-DEFENSE (of any kind).
And these operations have been carried out in all the Western countries with the same purpose.
“Synagogues are Mossad offices, rabbis are agents.” (this is what they want you to shut up about!)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ixVS6mxsSXu3
WHO ARE THEY KIDDING? We saw the “SHOOTING” AT THE 2 GUYS WITHOUT ANY EFFECT…EXCEPT SMOKE!
FeCK OFF! NOBODY DIED.
The on-scene interviewed CLOWN…”shot in the head”…yeah, sure, sure he was….liar. He’s actually a part of a “bloodthirsty” cult…they always use INVERSIONAL ACCUSATIONS= they accuse their enemies (any and all non-Jews who refuse to submit to them) of what they(the Jews) have done or intend to do.
Can you guess what they are doing and intend to do?
Just read their “holy books”, and read the forbidden and hidden history and documentation (not written by them) of their behaviors in Christian lands while it’s still available.
COVIDHOAX. DEPOPULATION.
“In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”
— J.V. Stalin, “Anti-Semitism: Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States” January 12, 1931, Works, Vol. 13, July 1930-January 1934, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955, p. 30
“Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you snakes, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are!”. Matthew 23:15
ZOG WORLD INC.
“Courts are instructed to treat motive as an aggravating feature across multiple offences. This shifts criminal law away from what a person did and toward why they believe what they believe.”
Which has been a burgeoning issue for decades, an issue that, inasmuch as there’s only ONE Authority that’s fit to “sift out the hearts of men before His judgment seat” amounts to playing God
Antichrist indeed – “anti” meaning “in place of”
THE ORIGINAL JEWS ARE ARABIC BUT I GUESS THEY DON’T ASSOCIATE WITH THAT FACT OF THEIRE HISTORY.
WHERE ARE OUR CHRISTIAN LEADERS IN ALL OF THIS, OR ARE THEY PART OF THE GLOBAL PLAN.
Good points Arthur. That makes sense, although I doubt if the all the kow-towers (Libs & Fabians) understand clearly what they are being asked or bribed or coerced or blackmailed to do? Anyone ever notice how close the pronounciation of semite and smite are? And I wonder if ‘semantics’ (‘semite antics’) was a label given to cunning originators who cast their legalese spells of usury for the last 4000 years?
Their main aims of the so-called ‘hate speech’ bill is all about control + to protect certain special interests.
It’s to protect & maintain/ keep certain narratives, which will of course continue to benefit those higher up etc.
❞𝓣𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓻𝓷 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓻𝓾𝓵𝓮𝓼 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝔂𝓸𝓾, 𝓼𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓵𝔂 𝓯𝓲𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓽 𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓲𝔃𝓮❞
The bill targets conservatives and fundamentalist Christians. Mullahs and leftists will continue to say what they always have without prosecution.
George is another Shabbos goy political grifter posing as a saviour to milk you of your shekels and your time. He is using the correct words: patriots, freedom, Sovereignity and way of life. These words appeal to the brain-dead, vaccinated, mask wearing cattle that form Australia’s population.
Don’t like the current situation? Well you deserve it as you voted for it.
If you seriously believe voting for him will change anything you’re an idiot. The only solution is to vote with rope.
Aussies = bovine.
Chaos rules at the moment.
The PTB in Australia at the moment are pumping out legal and verbal dribble.
It doesn’t make any sense.
They can’t be that stupid.
So maybe we had better look more closely at their proposed legalese mush.
So the supposed ‘Bondi Massacre’ kicked this latest parliamentary and Jewish community vomit into our laps.
The word ‘Antisemitism’ seems to be the main lumps in the vomit.
‘Antisemitism’ ‘Antisemitism’ ‘Antisemitism’.
As usual I suspect trickery.
Who are the Semites in a legal sense ?
They are the Arabic peoples.
In a court of law that would include the Muslims but NOT the Jewish people.
So it looks like this charade is in fact a legal protective coating for the ‘Muslim invasion’.
Wasn’t it written somewhere in the not so distant past that the 3rd World War was going to be between the Christians and the Muslims. ?
I used to wonder how that could pan out considering that there didn’t seem to be any sizable Christian country next to a Muslim country that could provide the spark that would start a 3rd World War.
The closest to that scenario I could pick 35 years ago was Indonesia and Australia.
But that didn’t seem likely because how would that involve the US and Europe ganging up on Muslims that were spread out all over the place ?
It would be logistically impossible.
BUT.
If you place the Muslims into the Christian countries then you get a worldwide internal war in each country.
And if you protect the Muslims in those countries by using some kind of law, then they are protected to do whatever the ‘Controllers’ desire.
And as far as I know the controllers are the Juice.
So getting down to the nitty gritty of the 3rd World War . Its the Juice against the rest of the world. (but don’t talk about that because that would be discrimination)
Just shut up and cop it sweet.
On a side note.
Apparently religion is above the law.
And so is soap for some strange reason.
So I was thinking of changing my name to Christian Mohammed Soapbar.
What would be the legal clarification under the new rules if applied for someone to say on social media or in public that they wish that a politician or a public servant or banker or anyone for that matter who has caused that person grief ; would drop dead for the harm they are doing to them or their country without meaning that any physical harm coming to those people who have harmed them ?
Many times I have said in frustration and heard other people say such words in public and on social media describing our dissatisfaction of many different people for their sadistic behaviour , so are we all legally guilty of feeling despair we are put in by these people that have put us in that mindset that we would convey such words or thoughts ?
How workable is this legislation? For example, if a Jewish or Zionist rabbi claims the genocide in Gaza is a proportional response or speaks against a person who defines themselves as a Palesitinian semite, is that anti-semitic?
[…] Source link […]