0/5

Tribunal to hear complaint on racial vilification comments made by Sonia Kruger

Civil & Administrative Tribunal refuses bid by Nine to have complaint dismissed without a hearing.

Sonia Kruger will face a directions hearing next month over 2016 comments surrounding Muslims after failing to have a racial vilification complaint made against her dismissed.

Yesterday, the Civil and Administrative Tribunal refused an application by Nine to have the complaint dismissed without a hearing.

While discussing a newspaper article written by Andrew Bolt, Kruger said she agreed that the columnist “has a point here, that there is a correlation between the number of people who, you know, are Muslim in a country and the number of terrorist attacks.

“Now, I have a lot of very good friends who are Muslims, who are peace-loving, who are beautiful people, but there are fanatics.

“Personally, I would like to see [Muslim immigration] stopped now for Australia.

“Because I want to feel safe, as all of our citizens do, when they go out to celebrate Australia Day.”

Kruger called attention to Japan, which she claimed has 100,000 Muslims in a population of 174 million: “We never hear of terrorist attacks in Japan.”

At the time Nine said the network believed in “freedom of speech and the Mixed Grill segment on the Today show is a place where that happens”.

A complaint against her July 18 comments was made by Sam Ekermawi, a Muslim living in Australia who has been involved in 32 hearings before courts and tribunals.

Nine and Kruger submitted that Mr Ekermawi’s “track record” with vilification complaints meant it would be an abuse of the tribunal’s processes to allow them to proceed.

The network argued the broadcast in question was a discussion about Muslim religion and migration, not “race”.

The matter is listed for a directions hearing on June 19.

Source: New Daily

6 Responses

  1. In today’s PC environment the left and SJWs are very adept at meeting out their own special brand of vilification against those that don’t agree with them.

    1. You are aware that the so-called “racial vilification” laws in Australia cover more than race, aren’t you? And that the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 uses as its definition “‘race’ includes colour, nationality, descent and ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin”? And that it was specifically the application of the “ethno-religious” definition to this case that was challenged, and failed?

      Few things are as simple as you think…

Leave a Reply