A Tribunal is where the Game of 'Let's You and Them fight' occurs and where, win or lose, the process is enough of a punishment for most and all but the very few very tough folk who stand and defend to the bitter and expensive end.
The 'You' is whoever is picked upon by some nasty wormlike creature from the dregs of society, and the 'Them' is the army of lawyers, courts, judges, sitting members, clerks and of course, ultimately the Police, all on the taxpayer dollar, who are ranged against you, the poor accused sap paying for your own defense.
We had word from one such 'you' the other day.
In Australia, the term tribunal generally implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, with a simplified legal procedure, often presided over by a lawyer (solicitor or barrister) who is not a judge or magistrate (often referred to as a member of the tribunal). In many cases the lawyers who function as tribunal members do so only on a part time basis, and spend the greater part of their time carrying out other aspects of legal practice, such as representing clients.
In many cases, the formal rules of evidence which apply in courts do not apply in tribunals, which enables tribunals to hear forms of evidence which courts may not be allowed to consider.
The scales of justice are loaded unevenly.
Tribunals generally deal with simpler matters; while legal representation is permitted and not uncommon, self-representation is much more common in tribunals than in courts, and tribunal members and registry staff are generally more accustomed to dealing with self-represented parties than courts are.
Appeal from a tribunal is to a court.
Tribunals in the Australian judicial system include:
• Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
• Migration Review Tribunal (MRT)
• New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT)
• Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)
• State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (SAT)
• Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)
• South Australian Civil and Administration Tribunal (SACAT)
In several Australian states, tribunals function as the equivalent of a small claims court.
In the context of sport, "tribunal" frequently refers to the AFL Tribunal, the disciplinary body of the Australian Football League.
In the context of our rapidly descending social manners and mores, we have various Yuman Roits Tribunals and 'Anti-Discriminayshun' Tribunals. The sexual deviants first and cheapest call.
Bernard Gaynor, a decorated Soldier has been Front and Centre at attention, with his hat on, before such travesty courts for several years, and pretty well all because of one - a vexatious, nasty, malicious litigant in some eyes - man.
A man lawyers love. He puts claret in their cups.
Bernard dropped by for a well deserved pint or two and encouragement from the Taveners. He thanked folk for their support and gave an update and a warning of possible futures.
Thank you so much for your many kind Christmas messages and best wishes for 2019. I have emerged fresh from the break, ready to face another year of legal attack. This is now the seventh year I've had to answer for my beliefs to the state and I think I'm finally getting used to it!NSW government seeking to expand anti-free speech lawsOn 30 January the NSW Supreme Court will set down a date to hear my case seeking a writ of prohibition against the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal and NSW Local Court from continuing to process any further complaints against me from the homosexual activist, Gary Burns.
As a reminder, Burns has lodged 36 complaints against me for my views on marriage, family & morality, resulting in about 70 separate legal investigations and court cases.
The Tribunal, NSW Court of Appeal and High Court of Australia have all ruled in the past that I had no case to answer and that the anti-discrimination process was itself unconstitutional.Unfortunately, that has not stopped the anti-discrimination industry from grinding on.
And now the NSW Attorney General is opposing my application, arguing that NSW anti-discrimination law should apply outside NSW.In submissions he lodged with the NSW Supreme Court just before Christmas, the NSW Attorney General argued:52. The power of state legislatures to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of their State extends to laws having extra-territorial operation. So much was confirmed by S.2(1) of the Australia Acts of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Parliaments. Those subsections provide that:It is hereby declared and enacted that the legislative powers of the Parliament of each State include full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of that State that have extra-territorial operation.53. Thus, absent an express or implied limitation in the Commonwealth Constitution, a State law which has extraterritorial operation may be valid even if there is only a “remote and general connexion between the subject-matter of the legislation the State”…If the NSW Attorney General's argument succeeds, it will mean that every time an Australian speaks out against 'Safe Schools' or 'homosexual marriage' they could find themselves dragged before the anti-discrimination 'Thought Police' in every state.
It will even open up the possibility that Australians could find their speech policed by foreign governments.I'm sure Islamic nations will be very happy to hear that the NSW Attorney General is arguing that borders should be no barrier against anti-free speech laws.Obviously I am strongly opposing these submissions and my legal time is finalising our response over the coming days.On Sunday, Miranda Devine published an article outlining the brutal nature of anti-discrimination law and highlighted my case in The Sunday Telegraph.I am very grateful to her for her courage and interest in this case. She is one of the very few mainstream media voices who has even been prepared to mention the full-scale assault on me by various governments.
Indeed Miranda has spoken out. She came by for a ladylike drink and gave us her take on the matter too.I estimate that this has now involved the expenditure of more than $5 million - all of it raised from taxpayers.
Here’s an idea for a flagging government to win over a sullen electorate — a Minister for Common Sense.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/…/69ea870ba9bf7e2097ccd7a…
This minister’s sole role would be to abolish red tape and kill off the quangos that erode our freedoms and sap our initiative.
First job would be to get rid of the plethora of anti-discrimination bodies around the country, from the Human Rights Commission to various state anti-discrimination boards.
Instead of slicing us up into ever more victim groups whose feelings need to be protected, let us resolve our conflicts ourselves in the usual way of civilised societies — by forgiving each other, evolving social norms and gaining understanding in the process, without the heavy hand of the legislative thought police reducing us to hopeless ciphers of the state.
We have now reached the absurd point where a drag queen who called his transgender neighbour in a Sydney public housing block a “fat man in a dress” was dragged before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal and found guilty of “transgender vilification” under anti-discrimination legislation.
This trivial neighbourhood squabble required the tribunal to hold a hearing and a case conference in 2015, with voluminous documents filed by both parties. Finally, after much deliberation, the 6000-word decision was handed down by three members of the tribunal, who found the drag queen guilty as charged and commanded he publish a retraction within 21 days or pay a $2000 fine.
Monty Python could not have scripted it better.
Then there was the case of the thug convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for bashing another man in a Sydney nightclub. He was fined $1100 for the assault.
But when the victim complained to the Anti-Discrimination Board that the assailant also had called him a “faggot”, the fine levied was far greater — $10,000 for homosexual vilification.
How did offensive speech become a worse crime than physical violence?
Whatever the well-meaning reasons for establishing anti-discrimination bodies in the first place, they infantilise the populace and render them incapable of resolving simple interpersonal disputes.
But even worse, they have become an ideological bludgeon to criminalise speech and repress certain ideas.Not to mention handing a ready-made club to some pansy snowflake to do the bludgeoning. The 'Tribunal' does the snowflake's fighting.
No one demonstrates the case better than Bernard Gaynor, the decorated former Iraq war veteran and Queensland father of eight who is quietly being martyred by LGBTIQ activists on the altar of anti-discrimination legislation.
So far, this six-year saga has involved more than 80 separate legal actions, and has wended its way through the High Court, anti-discrimination tribunals, local courts and the Federal Court, with yet another decision looming next month.
It all began with Gaynor tweeting in 2013 that: “I wouldn’t let a gay person teach my children and I am not afraid to say it.”
The consequences of that tweet and Gaynor’s refusal to back down have been dire.
He was sacked by the Army and has been hit with 36 discrimination complaints by gay activist Gary Burns, who is backed by pro-bono legal teams.
Where are you ?
Beam down, dammit.
Bring a legal phraser.
Take out some shonks.
So far it has cost Gaynor his house and almost $400,000 in legal fees,
......with crowdsourced donations to his blog the only way that he has stayed solvent.
He faces hefty fines and he even fears jail, although he has prevailed in almost every action so far.
You can disapprove of Gaynor’s orthodox Catholic line on sexual matters but, if the state can facilitate this legal action against one man’s free speech, no one is safe.
At no stage has any of the public servants administering this circus called time on it.
The brutal anti-discrimination machinery grinds on, regardless of common sense.
“The reason anti-discrimination laws exist is conservative politicians are too afraid to say ‘No’ and the Left want them because it gives them power over society,” Gaynor says.
Burns, who says he has suffered homosexual vilification in his past, deserves sympathy.No he does not. He has given up all right to any. He is vindictive. Gaynor has not villified him.
But Gaynor should be allowed to defend his beliefs without being persecuted by the state.
This is not the way to resolve his hurt, for government-funded quangos to waste valuable court time dragging an Army veteran through the wringer because of some unpleasant words he has uttered.Not that they were unpleasant.
Whatever happened to the old adage “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me”?
That’s common sense worth protecting.There are so many regulations and rules already cluttering up our society, 'infantalising' as Miranda says, and they increase by the tweet and gay-feminist-trans lobby day, but we forget some older ones.
Rule 303 for example.
It is far less costly than a house and $400,000 to apply. It would save a lot of time and angst too.
Not that I would suggest its use, of course.
The last time it was deployed, it was returned with interest.
Drink to Bernard and to Miranda.
They are fighting so that you will not have to.