Response to a letter from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales

*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***

1
Complaint under the NSW Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill 1993,
received from serial complainant Mr G. Burns on August 11, 2014.
Complaint reference number: C2014/0649
This statement should be read in conjunction our 29-page August 18, 2014 statement (the earlier statement)
made to the Board in response to the original complaint C2014/053.
PREAMBLE / INTRODUCTION
On September 26, 2014 the serial complainant lodged a set of voluminous submissions about myself to NSW Civil &
Administrative Tribunal. It consists of a spider-web of conspiratorial thinking interspersed with complex case-law
that is very difficult for an ordinary person to understand.
I can only hope to rely on the following simple legal principles that appear to be ignored in the serial complainants
submissions.
a) I am responsible for my actions, but not responsible for the actions of others.
b) I am entitled to my opinion.
Additionally, the following statements made to the NSW Parliament by the sponsor of the Anti-Discrimination
(Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill 1993 should be kept in mind. These principles, used to get the legislation
over the line, after earlier failed attempts, have been systematically undermined by the serial complainant who has
brought on 14 of the 17 homosexual vilification hearings that have happened since 1999.
The Bill will not make it illegal for people to talk about homosexuality. It will not prevent people from
stating that they disagree with or disapprove of lesbian or gay lifestyles. The bill will not affect people who
state their belief that homosexuality is a sin or who quote from the Bible to support their argument.
The legislation seeks to change attitudes and will do this by emphasising conciliation rather than court
action as the means of resolving complaints. The process of conciliation is an effective means of addressing
ignorance and homophobia. The emphasis is on education rather than external judgement.
A public act does not include private communication or other conduct in private.
(Source: Hansard, second reading speech by Ms Clover Moore, Member for Bligh, March 11, 1993).
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT (053)
1. My comment, the subject of the original complaint, was made on social media, now deleted.
The comment was made in reaction to a news story of public interest. The news story was created originally by
our national broadcaster, ABC Radio and later ABC Television Four Corners program. Clearly the story was thrust
into public debate. The story was about a couple of Australian gay-dads who were later found to be
paedophiles. What was significant about the story was the difference between the theme of the initial ABC
Radio coverage (that was designed to advertise the beauty and normalcy of the relationship) and the later Four
Corners program (that was a shock-horror show made after the two gay dads were jailed for 40 years for
molesting and allowing others to molest their adopted child). The story shocked the world and, I believe, led to
a move in Russia to ban the adoption of Russian babies by any person or couple from any country whose
government recognised same-sex marriage.
My reaction to this news story would be no different to most ordinary reasonable persons reaction, with the
exception that I based my hypothesis on a quoted medical research paper. It did not vilify homosexual persons
as it did not mention any homosexual persons. It raised an academic question in relation to the proportion of
male paedophiles among the group of male persons who develop a male-male sexual orientation compared to
the proportion of male paedophiles among the group of male persons who develop a male-female sexual
orientation. The serial complainant twisted and spun my words when reporting them to the Anti-Discrimination
Board. Because my comment touched on the sensitive issue of paedophilia, and in particular paedophilia
involving males abusing males, and the scientific attempt understand this phenomena, in the public interest,
Response to a letter from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
2
the serial complainant has over-reacted. This is more likely than not as a result of his creation of the
controversial homosexual vilification case-law as documented in Burns v. Corbett [2013] NSW ADT 247.
2. My case (C2014/053), now referred to the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal for public hearing, is due for a
case conference at 3:30 PM on October 22, 2014 at Level 10, John Maddison Tower, 86 Goulburn Street,
Sydney.
From my perspective, the case is not about homosexual vilification, but about freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, and freedom of conscience.
The serial complainants case rests entirely on homosexual vilification. It is a very weak case. That might
explain the extraordinary lengths he and his associates have gone to, in order to construct complex and creative
legal argumentation. Their goal is to try to establish causal links between my moderate and reasonable
comment, with related internet pub-talk engaged in by individuals who are less moderate and reasonable than
myself. In this way the serial complainant is trying to convert my public act that was not intrinsically vilifying
homosexual persons, into a public act that can be deemed to be homosexual vilification under NSW case law
created by his and his associates political activism..
My case will rest on my right to express a reasonable opinion and specifically to engage in public debate about
the controversial and divisive move towards legalising same-sex marriage in Australia. There are many
arguments for and against this radical social change, and I am entitled to raise arguments that tend to support
the case for preserving the status quo. Others are free to disagree.
On a high meta level my case represents is nothing less that the everlasting contest between freedom and
tyranny.
The meanings of the word evil are discussed below and in our earlier submission. As a person who has
developed progressively stronger libertarian leanings over the years, I would like to provide my favourite
quotation that uses this word.
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men Plato.
3. It will be demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that the original complaint was vexatious and not made in
good faith.
4. Besides the political motivating factors mentioned above, two personal factors appear to have combined to
cause the serial complainant to instigate a disingenuous complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board as a
reprisal, specifically against myself. The first factor was his discovery that I had met his target Mr John
Christopher Sunol and his wife, and accepted their invitation to attend a case conference between themselves
and the serial complainant, held at the offices of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal on June 4, 2014. The
complaint 053 was received by the Board on June 17, 2014, as revenge.
5. The second factor is that the attack is made upon me because of who I am, the father of Luke McKee, his
primary target. My son is a fanatical anti-gay activist and the serial complainant is a fanatical gay activist. They
have many characteristic in common, with the exception of sexual orientation. They are different sides of the
same coin. They are mirror images of each other in certain respects. Both will hate me making that
observation. I could elaborate, but choose not to in this document.
THE CURRENT COMPLAINT (0649)
6. The letter from the Anti-Discrimination Board dated August 21, 2014 defines this new complaint as follows.
He alleges that you have victimised him due to a previous complaint Mr Burns made to the Board, which alleged
homosexual vilification, reference number C2014/0503.
Response to a letter from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
3
7. The alleged victimisation consists of a single private note I sent to the popular Sydney talk-back radio host Mr
John Laws on May 28, 2014, through his private contact page at http://2smsupernetwork.com/contact-laws/ .
That note, expressing my private and honest opinion, was not a public act. It was leaked on to the internet by
my son, Luke McKee, via a Twitter message, much to my annoyance. I did not publish this private note as
suggested by the complainant. I am not a lawyer, but I doubt whether a private note leaked to the internet by
a third party against my wishes constitutes a public act by myself or can be actionable.
8. I can assure the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that the note to Mr Laws had little to do with
victimising homosexual persons. Nor was the note primarily about the serial complainant. It was primarily
about his victim, Mr Sunol. The intent of the note was, in fact, the opposite of victimisation. It was an attempt
to assist a bankrupt and defenceless ex-taxi driver who has been subjected to harassment, stalking and unfair
treatment by the serial complainant for over three years. Once a full account of this behaviour by the serial
complainant is published, the public will hardly believe that homosexual vilification and victimisation laws in
NSW Australia could be used and abused on such an industrial scale on one poor individual. It will show that
truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction. In any case, it would make a great story from a public interest
perspective. Or it could be written up as a novel that would rival The Trial by Franz Kafka.
9. The serial complainant has an unhealthy obsession with Mr Sunol who he defames by calling him a covert
homosexual. He has the publicly stated goal of continuing to file complaints against him until a charge of
serious homosexual vilification can be made to stick. The ultimate goal is to have Mr Sunol locked up. That is
also the serial complainants goal in relation to my son, as evidenced by his writing to the NSW Police Minister
asking that my son be bought back to Australia in handcuffs.
10. My note to Mr Laws was not based on the emotion of hate or malevolence. On the contrary, the note was an
expression of empathy and concern. That feeling was acted upon. The serial complainant cannot understand
this, nor put himself in my shoes.
11. Mr Burns asserts that Mr. McKee refers to me in a derogatory manner because Im homosexual. With all due
respect, that statement is self-serving nonsense, and is rejected. I do not know anything about Mr Burns sexual
behaviour or lack of sexual behaviour, and I do not wish to know. It is his private and personal information. The
characteristic homosexual is not defined in the Act. I do not know whether or not the serial complainant is
homosexual. He says he is homosexual, but I have no evidence. As far as I am concerned he could be asexual
and living with his cats. A person is judged by their public behaviour and conduct towards others, and that
applies to all humans regardless of their unique or atypical characteristics created by nature or nurture.
12. Mr McKee refers to me as evil. It is not true that I referred to the serial complainant as evil in the sense of his
being an evil person. In the interests of accurate evidence, it is worth noting firstly, the context in which I
employed this adjective, and secondly, the meaning of the word as understood by myself. The meaning of the
word evil in my mind was explained in my earlier statement (refer paragraph 42 of my response to the first
complaint 053). What I actually said, was as follows. There is a court case going on tomorrow wherein a
Christian taxi driver from Newcastle faces the loss of his livelihood due to the evil work of one Mr Garry Burns.
There is a significant difference between doing evil work, and being an evil person. A prison guard at a Nazi
death camp can do evil work during business hours, then go home to his family and do good work as a loving
and kind father. Because my career has involved the development of coal seam gas infrastructure on prize
farmland in Queensland, I have been accused of doing evil work by some who are passionate about this issue. I
do not mind people saying this about me. It is a matter of personal opinion, and people should be free to
express their moral judgements.
13. I referred to Mr Burns disapprovingly only because of his behaviour towards Mr. Sunol (as summarised in
paragraphs 1120 of my response to the first complaint). This behaviour that I do personally define as evil, has
nothing to do with homosexuality. It relates more to zero degrees of empathy towards his victim, Mr Sunol.
There is a certain irony in the behaviour of a self-appointed anti-discrimination activist who engages in public
acts that vilify, defame and victimise Mr Sunol, a disadvantaged person who has suffered brain damage in his
youth, since healed, but leaving scars and idiosyncrasies that I find interesting. These public acts towards Mr
Response to a letter from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
4
Sunol come close to being unlawful under Part 4A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.
Mr Sunol is seen as a useful idiot by the serial complainant and his riends, but I, who know him better, see him
more as an idiot savant. I have learnt much from him. I admire his resilience in the face of the sustained attack
by the serial complainant. My concern is for Mr Sunols wife, an innocent party, who suffers much more as a
result of the discrimination for which the serial complainant, and his associated scapegoating hate-mob is guilty,
but cannot feel guilt.
14. On July 11, 2011, the serial complainant published my note to Mr Laws on his website in order to give it wider
publicity. It appears that one of the remedies that a Tribunal would be expected to order in such victimization
cases is for the offending document or words that causes detriment to a complainant to be taken down from
the internet. Therefore it is not credible that Mr Burns actually believes my note causes him real detriment. If
he did believe my note was seriously damaging, he would not increase the damage to himself by advertising the
content to a wider audience on his website. On the contrary, it appears Mr Burns actually revels in the content
of the note, and rather than cause him detriment, it causes him a certain measure of pride and what is called in
behavioural psychology narcissistic supply.
15. When I sent the note to Mr Laws on May 28, 2014, expressing my opinion, I had no idea that I would be
receiving a complaint from the Board (C2014/0503) almost a month later, in their letter dated June 23, 2014.
Therefore the allegation that I victimised Mr Burns as a result of his complaint C2014/0503, as stated in the
letter above received from the Board, is disproven.
It is not possible for a person to subject a complainant to any detriment, on the grounds that the complainant
has bought proceedings against the person, one month before the proceedings have been instigated.
16. The cause of my note to Mr Laws can be traced back to May 6, 2014, when, for the first time, I learnt of Mr John
Christopher Sunols harassment and obsessive intimidation by the serial complainant. On that day I was
travelling by road through his home town in my campervan. At the urging of my son, I accepted an invitation to
meet Mr Sunol and his wife. That has proven to be a fateful decision, with dire consequences. It has led to a
chain of events that has seen me dragged into the serial complainants monkey-grip of stalking and attempted
extortion of money from myself. A letter of demand for $10,000 was received on August 15, 2014, in exchange
for dropping all complaints. Prior to that there was menacing and threatening telephone call, on August 11,
2014 at 2:11PM, threatening twice, I am going to take your house. My wife was a witness to the call. She has
become anxious, believing a person who would make such a call may be either mentally unwell or may have
criminal intent, or both. She is angry with me for getting involved with such a person. But it was not my
choice.
17. On that day, May 6, 2014, I witnessed first-hand the piles of papers and reports, 2 meters high, all resulting
from litigation instigated against Mr Sunol by the complainant (refer paragraphs 11 to 20 of the earlier report
for further details). It struck me that this man, already bankrupted as a result of Mr Burnss campaign against
him (Attachment 1) was in a truly Kafkaesque situation. He had a child-like innocence about him. I put this
down to his earlier brain damage of which I learned. This was confirmed by his wife who tries to help him and
who is also being caused much detriment by Mr Burns for no fault of her own. That such a man should be the
target of an orchestrated campaign by Mr Burns, the goal of which is to have him incarcerated in prison,
offended my sense of justice. It also puzzled me why the Board would allow this campaign of vilification and
victimisation to continue. It is believed that when the full story of Mr Sunol is told, it will lead to a motion in
the NSW Parliament for the repeal of the homosexual vilification laws.
18. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS RE SECTION 50 VICTIMISATION
Subsection (2) states that Subsection (1) does not apply to the subjecting of a person to detriment by
reason of an allegation made by the person if the allegation was false and not made in good faith. My
arguments above demonstrate that the allegation (i.e., complaint 053) was false and not made in good
faith. This conclusion may be substantiated in a hearing, therefore it makes sense to put a HOLD on
Response to a letter from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
5
complaint 0649 until we know the outcome of the hearing in relation to complaint 053.
The victimisation complaint is defined by the Board as in paragraph item 6 above. It was impossible for my
private but leaked note to Mr Laws to have caused detriment to the serial complainant as a consequence of
his having bought proceedings against myself. This is because the note was written and posted before I
had received any complaint, or before I even knew the serial complainant was planning complain about
me, using something he dug up from the internet.
In any case, the claim by the serial complainant that he experienced detriment as a result of the leaked
note is not credible. All evidence suggests that he received the opposite of detriment, namely an
enhancement to notoriety. That serves to instil fear into the hearts and minds of all homophobes living in
New South Wales. This fear of discussing homosexuality or same-sex marriage in any disapproving way is
aided by a series of wins the serial complainant has enjoyed in the recent past.
Due to the above technical legal errors, it does not appear as though complaint 0649 is covered by the Act.
We therefore we ask the President to take this into consideration and either decline the complaint or put it
on HOLD pending substantiation by the Tribunal that the original complaint 053 is not covered by the act
on account of it (i) not being made in good faith, and (ii) being exempted by the public interest clause.
Response to a letter from the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales
*** WITHOUT PREJUDICE ***
6
ATTACHMENT 1
Above: Destruction of a mans livelihood through politics, not law.