Translate

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Cronulla protests, the Supreme Court, and a dick called Nick


Nicholas is just about freedom of expression, not self-publicity or shit-stirring or nothing like that
 
The verdict by the NSW Supreme Court to disallow the commemorative rallies organised by Nick “the dick” Folkes has been resonating widely throughout patriot and nationalist circles. The UPF’s Blair Cottrell has taken it to be a challenge to the right of Australians to gather for lawful protest; the PFF are squealing like the incoherent inarticulate rabble they are; and nationalists (including initially this blog yesterday) were seeing this as the coming of the promised gulags.

But upon sober reflection a different picture emerges and one that squarely paints the villain of this piece out to be Nick Folkes.

But before we get down to brass tacks there, let’s quickly reappraise this “patriot” as some naïve sorts are still calling him – let us dip him in the solution and see if he undergoes the proper chemical reactions that determine once and for all whether or not he is truly in fact a blue blood like ourselves.

See, Nick is a self-confessed admirer of what the ABC described as “some factions of the Liberal party”, and in particular he says he has a “lot of respect” for Senator “Cory Bernadi”. Little wonder, as Nick’s acquaintances include Liberal party back room men Howard Crawford and Councillor Marcus Cornish from Penrith who presided over the wreckage of the local citizens’ action group against two proposed mosques in that suburb.

The point is that Nick brings with him all the things that spell the end of hopeful nationalist prospects and here he is trying to put his own party’s brand-stamp on the Cronulla civil uprisings.
 
Without getting into too much of that, let’s just say that Nick promoted the day as a commemoration of a “riot” all along. His fat little mate from Sydney’s western suburbs went around plastering up flyers on the windows of Socialist Alternative as a direct challenge to bring them down there on the day for a showdown (not that they would’ve needed much of a challenge, scum they are).
 
There's a boy who likes his tucker. A bit of a riot would help him trim down
 
Nick sold T-shirts bearing the legend “Sydney is fun, Cronulla is a riot”. Now, let’s stop being coy here — he wanted action, he was pushing for notoriety, he wanted publicity and he achieved his aims. But now we have a verdict from the Supreme Court, and not a well understood one, centring on NSW’s section 25c, which “does not prohibit the holding of a public assembly at all. Nor does the Act make it an offence to hold or participate in a public assembly or procession that has not been authorised. All the making of a prohibition order does is deprive the participants in the public assembly of the additional protection that is afforded by s 24 if the assembly is held substantially in accordance with the notice: Commissioner of Police v Rintoul at [6] per Simpson J; Commissioner of Police v Allen(1984) 14 A Crim R 244 at 244 – 245, per Hunt J.

So essentially, you can turn out, but the police won’t provide protection and if you do not move on when told to do so you may be arrested. In essence, it’s a statement that police would be stretched too thin to contain any outbreak and their officers may be placed in danger. Nick, on the other hand is subject to another order whereby he will forfeit property and freedom if he turns out to Cronulla (so our vague understanding has it) in the capacity of protesting. Instead, another mob he’s friends with are hosting a barbie and Nick, who had his car tyres slashed this morning, is heading along to that. Whether that is a breach and contempt of court, remains to be seen.

But now we have posted the definition of the 25c as per the case conclusion, we can better state that it’s probably unlikely to impact all future demonstrations, but in this instance, and reading through the judgement of the case here you will see that Nick’s presentation of the day pretty much encouraged all the ingredients for civil unrest.

More importantly, this great “patriot” had not – in his desire to reignite something he had no part of ten years ago – did not spare a thought who would, once him and his crew had packed up and left, have to deal with any retaliatory consequences like happened the first time around.

  1. On 6 November 2015 Superintendent O’Toole met with the General Manager of the Sutherland Shire Council (the Council), Scott Phillips; the defendant; his solicitor, Richard Black; and three community members: Brad Turner, who represented the local surf clubs, Ian Bourke (from the local RSL) and Annette Tasker (from the Chamber of Commerce). According to Superintendent O’Toole, the purpose of the meeting was to dissuade the defendant from holding the rally at Cronulla. The community representatives were particularly concerned that the rally could spark public unrest and damage local businesses. The meeting did not achieve this objective.
    21.              During the meeting, Superintendent O’Toole said words to the following effect: “The police and the community have concerns this rally will re-open old wounds and could result in violent clashes. As such, it would be best if it were held somewhere else. What about Kurnell, Captain Cook’s landing spot, or in a hall where it could take on a more of a ‘Q & A’ style where your views could be tested rather than just slogans shouted from a podium?”
    22.              According to Superintendent O’Toole, Mr Black apparently agreed to this proposal but the defendant said that he would have to “check” with his “people”. Mr Phillips said that he would be in touch with the defendant to discuss possible venues. During the course of the meeting, an exchange took place between Mr Turner and the defendant in which Mr Turner said: “There is fear amongst young members in the surf club and young members should not be scared to be on the beach. They should not have to be exposed to violence and this type of behaviour. You will fire this up and then leave and they will be targets for weeks to come.”
    23.              The defendant responded: “Well, that’s not our intention, we just want to celebrate that Aussies stood up for themselves 10 years ago.”
     
Nick was offered a hall to hold the rally, but turned this down. He was asked to start the rally earlier so that any booze-addled bruisers would not have had time to get on the turps, but he knocked that back. Nick wanted to go head-to-head with ‘the man’ and he did.

The result of Nick’s brinkmanship may possibly have ramifications for future demonstrations but it’s hard to tell. Not everyone is as stupid or self-seeking as Nick and they may well market the thing in a more tactful manner.

The patriot movement would be better served fucking Nick off altogether.
 
Maybe the Mardis Gras is more your thing, Nick
 

 

No comments: