Tasmanian man James Durston fined $2000 for refusing to apologise for homophobic flyers
Tasmanian man James Durston has been fined $2000 for failing to apologise for anti-gay flyers he distributed in Hobart in 2013.
Durston took an anti-discrimination claim lodged against him over the flyers to Tasmania’s Supreme Court, with Justice Michael Brett refusing Durston’s request to have the complaint dismissed on the grounds of religious freedom in October 2018.
Brett ruled that the sections of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act prohibiting incitement to hatred and offensive language do not limit religious freedom or free speech.
The state’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal ordered Durston to publish an apology for the flyers, which featured absurd “homosexuality statistics” in Sandy Bay, a suburb of Hobart.
“It is warned that homosexuality should not be tolerated, and therefore this will benefit both the individual and society,” the flyers began.
The flyers also claimed that lesbians were 307 times more likely to die in accidents than white women aged 25-44, and that gay men were 10 times more likely to die as the result of an accident.
They also suggested that just eight per cent of gay men live to old age, compared to just a quarter of lesbians.
Robert Williams, who lodged the complaint against Durston, said it was never his “intention that Mr Durston be punished financially.”
“I wanted a public apology because that would have undone some of the damage caused by the flyer, particularly to young, vulnerable LGBTI people,” he said.
“The damage done to young and vulnerable people through vilification based on their personal characteristics is immeasurable, whether this is about their faith, disability, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
“I want all Australians to reach their full potential and make the best contributions they can, but they can’t if other people’s hateful words damage them, especially as they develop into adults.
“I am surprised that Mr Durston doesn’t seem to understand that Tasmania’s laws protect everyone equally, including people of faith, and that what he did was both wrong and illegal regardless of how often he invokes God,” said Williams.
Equality Tasmania spokesperson Rodney Croome said the case shows why Tasmania’s lack of an exemption regarding hate speech in the name of a religion should be protected in the religious freedom debate.
“The Durston case shows the value of Tasmania’s strong hate speech laws for promoting a more inclusive society, and why these laws should not be watered down in the name of ‘religious freedom’,” Croome said.
“The message to federal and state governments is to bring Australia’s hate speech laws up to the standard set in Tasmania, rather than taking a step backwards by allowing hate speech in the name of religion.
“Robert Williams deserves the gratitude of LGBTI people around the nation for his calm, patient and resolute action against hate.
“The more often hate speech is called out, the fewer LGBTI Australians will suffer its adverse impacts.”
Well, a lesson for all of us in this article.
Personally, I will never again suggest that homophobes are 78.2 percent more likely than salamanders to be diagnosed with macular degeneration. Or that Izzy Folau is 208 times more likely than Liberace to fail an advanced calculus exam.
But I think I can stand by my claim that James Durston is even stupider than Rev Margaret “gay marriage means no more Christmas or Mothers Day” Court and Senator Cory “marriage equality in 2017 was directly responsible for Peter Singer’s justifications of bestiality in 2001” Bernardi combined. I’m not exactly sure how to measure combined stupidity but when they work it out I’m comfortable I’ll be found to be right.
If you would like to see how ridiculous and dangerous the arguments can get, please read Mr Durston’s submission to Prime Minister and Cabinet. I’ve copied the first part of text below but it goes on and on….
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review/submissions/james-durston
Testimony of James Durston
10/02/2018
In response to the concern over religious freedoms and the Prime Ministers Review Panel, I have this to say over the matter.
First just let me say that on Monday 5th February this year I sat in front of chief Justice Brett in the Supreme court addressing this matter in a hearing. As usual I self-represented and there is very good reason for this. Also present where representatives of the Honourable Will Hodgman who has intervened in this matter and we shall see just how helpful this will or will not be. Essentially the matter at hand is religious freedom.
Three years back the insanely immoral and unjust DPP (Department Public Prosecution) in Hobart charged me with unlawfully disseminating so called offensive literature through the Australian Post where I faced a 2-year prison sentence. I filed into the High court and upon its acceptance the DPP immediately dropped charges because essentially there were no lawful charges as they well knew. However, the infamous Anti-Discrimination-Board continued the charges at the request of a sodomite complainant. You have to also understand that the ADB consists of LGBTIQ Personnel.
On Monday I reminded Chief Justice Bret off a couple facts when I stood before him a year ago in the Supreme Court over the same unresolved issue. This was the first hearing (Incidentally this is a first for me where there has been two hearings over one matter) where I stood for considerable time and gave him oh so many lawful and I mean strictly legal reasons as to why The Anti-Discrimination Board came to the incorrect decision in ruling against me for speaking out against same sex marriage and the factual consequence of living that lifestyle.
I also reminded Justice Brett that the Amicus Curie, (Another God hater and an individual who effectively was my opponent or for better words my enemy), had eventually conceded by making mention that the Tribunal Member, Professor Otlowinski had sat unlawfully (that is to say she was not legally entitled to hold the tribunal let alone judge it) and eluded to the fact that the decision was therefore null and void. So, I took this advice or bait whatever it was and filed under the constitution that the ruling had to be overturned because retrospective law is obviously not legal. Some weeks latter the Amicus Curie said that this was not the case anymore. Incidentally this was a deliberate ploy on her behalf which should not surprise anyone. At this recent hearing I informed Justice Brett that under all levels of law or/and most definitely the constitution you can not have retrospective law.
It was when I stood before him a year ago that when it was all said and done Justice Brett asked (not that he needed to, and this is key in understanding how they operate) the Amicus Curiae, did I have the right as a Christian to do what I did. Of course, she said no. He then asked me the same question, my reply was a definite yes. At that moment I held up the bible to his face and said this is the highest authority. Brett grimaced and so did I. The court ended abruptly.
Justice Brett has had so many opportunities to dismiss my case but has continually and deliberately ignored the evidence. Now there are reasons for this and I will explain them. You have to understand on multiple levels that we have been overrun with corrupt and evil rulers and I include Police, DPP and Media. Masonic handshakes, corruption, and the paedophilia party.
If you even knew the amount of very credible people who have told me their own accounts your hearts could fail you. But my personal interaction with the law courts, DPP and police here in Tasmania agree with legitimate governing bodies that Tasmania has a real corruption problem not to mention the testimonies of countless people. To understand more about this I suggest going to my website and listening to my Corruption podcast on cloud. (watchmansvoice.net)
When we have Justices and magistrates who are homosexuals, or/and live immoral lives, take drugs and use their position to flout the law, the question has to be asked, “what does that mean for righteous lawful standards?”. These people laugh and joke as they for example write off all their parking tickets with their peers and this is just the oh so very beginning. These people despise Christian living. You have to understand this. They are wilfully compromised through their underhand deeds and they know it. Its not about what is right but about them getting the upper hand over you and extorting your wealth into their hands.