Censorship and democracy

'Landmark ruling against Tasmanian Holocaust denier'

This is how the Australian Jewish News, 6 September 2003,  trumpeted Jeremy Jones's victory in court where Mrs Olga Scully defended herself against a Senior Counsel. She presented a 111-page affidavit in the hope of addressing each item complained of. Bit Justice Hely brushes over this legal right of hers, and invites Counsel for the prosecution to directly begin cross-examination. Mrs Scully had no hope in winning this case.

The court hearing under the Racial Discrimination Act dispenses with the rigorous Evidence Act. Anything is accepted, or rejected, by the judge. Jeremy Jones does not have to prove that the material Mrs Scully distributes is hurtful to his being. He does not have to submit a psychiatrist's report testifying specifically how he has suffered. It is merely his word against Mrs Scully's defence that she is sincere in her beliefs, and that as a teacher, she is merely fulfilling an educative role that should have been done by our school system.

  Update, 30 April 2003
 

 

Top of Page | Home Page

© free 2002 Adelaide Institute