Senator Slayer

The Government and media claim to be worried about “Right Wing Extremists” recruiting people, but the Government and Media need to understand that treating the common man like a subhuman for holding political/religious beliefs is the biggest recruiting tool the right have. This movement was created by you, thank you.

Guilty - Magistrate seems highly likely to impose imprisonment. Sentencing 10am Tuesday, let it be known that saying “Mahamood is a false prophet” in public is illegal

If the Australian Government wish to have a law as Disturbing Religious Worship they need to define what exactly religious worship is and not allow subjective opinions and feelings to dictate Law.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Neil Erikson

I haven’t been charged with attempted Disturbing Religious Worship. I haven’t been charged with Offensive behavour or been charged for resisting arrest. The Prosecution are trying to prove disturbing religious worship without having a disturbed worshipper complainant.
The prosecution can’t convict somebody on behalf of nobody. My question to the prosecution is where is the disturbed party? Who is the complainant?
The incident occurred prior to the event, the incident lasted for 30 seconds and my alleged attempts to return to the area were prevented by Officer Kelly’s good policing. Kelly claimed he was worried that the Muslims would lynch me. Kelly also made a claim that I had been using the megaphone while climbing back up the stairs but I believe according to the clear video and audio evidence I did not. I believe Mr Kelly may have been mistaken as it has been 2 years since the incident.
Under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights section 14
It states: Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief
(1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including—
(a) the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice; and
(b) the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.
(2) A person must not be coerced or restrained in a way that limits his or her freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.

I am a Christian and I am protected by the Charter, This is not something I prepared recently I brought this section up to Prosecutor Ms Reid back in February 2020 at the first hearing where she claimed demonstration wasn’t part of this section. I corrected her. Since then the current prosecutor has submitted a cited case that covers political expression but doesn’t cover section 14.
Federation Square according to Pedro Gallo’s testimony is a public space. I have every right to demonstrate my religious beliefs through teaching the public that Mohamood was a false prophet.
This charge is being used in a bad way and bad cases lead to bad laws.
If I was to be found guilty under this evidence it would set a bad precedent as everyone could claim protection of their group of religious protestors or religious groups to dominate the public space, they would be free from criticism, from objections or countering religions. God help us if two different religious groups meet in the same place.
It’s my argument that prior to 1pm on the 12th of April, 2019 it was not a group of persons worshipping as a congregation but an individual prayer which was not disturbed according to the evidence.
So where can these people worship religiously without being disturbed in a public space as a public space is, public. I have an interesting idea which I believe a lot of religious organisations would support - we should build something for these religious organisations to protect their worship from criticism. I don’t know if it’s been invented yet but build a space for them, like a building or closed area. We could call it a house of worship even. To avoid issues such as this case in the future somebody should really look into this.
In closing,
There would be another issue I believe as the Disturbing Religious worship Charge is very simplistic and divine worship hasn’t been legally defined to my reading.
It needs to be mentioned that the Charge of Disturbing Religious Worship of CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 207 was derived from the Tolerance Act of 1688.
The arguments related to the originality of the charge and the intended purpose of Disturbing Religious Worship and the Toleration act need to be argued in a higher court as Islam was not intended to be protected under this law as it offends the Christian Religion.

Your Honour,

The event was organised to start at 1pm according to the witnesses.
The event was set for 1pm for call to prayer, which was to last 3 minutes and the sermon would start at 1:03pm and last for 15 – 20 minutes until the Jummar Prayer was to begin which Mr El Sayed admitted and Ms Bux Confirmed. There was no advertisement for a Sunna Prayer that day at all according to the evidence supplied by the prosecution.
The incident occurred before 1pm according to the 2 Police statements .
Ayesha Bux claims in her statement the incident started at 12:40pm but was a little unsure under cross examination. Ramzi Elsayed claimed in his statement it was 1pm but under cross examination he was unsure; he said it could have been 3 minutes before or 3 minutes after.
We know the incident occurred before 1pm as the call to prayer had not started.
The only person the prosecution produced who alleges they were praying at the time was Ramzi Elsayed. Ramszi Elsayed claimed the Sunna Prayer was an individual prayer and was different to a congregational prayer. Elsayed also stated under cross examination he was offended but not disturbed. Elsayaed also claimed under cross examination the sunna prayer was an Optional Individual prayer which I believe does not constitute group of persons or congregation. Elsayed also stated a congregational prayer has to be lead by an imam which Mr Elsayed said he was not. From memory in Mr Elsayed’s Testimony he stated that the Sunna doesn’t have a congregation and is done multiple times a day and is separate from the Jummah Prayer.
Mr Elsayed also claimed that the call to prayer is the commencement of the religious event. Mr Elsayed admitted there was no call to prayer before the Sunna Prayer.
Ayesha Bux stated under cross examination she was waiting for the prayer to start at the time of the incident. She also contradicted Elsayed statements by falsely claiming he was an imam at the time.
Ayesha Bux further states that she does something in her mind all day (forgive me your honour as I don’t recall the word exactly but I believe it was chanting) Ayesha goes on to state that nothing disturbs her when doing the chant. Ms Ayesha also claimed I didn’t disturb her at the time of the incident as she was doing that same chant. Ms Bux was pressed on her inconsistent statements concerning what she was doing at the time of the incident. In her statement she claimed to be placing mats and getting the area ready but under cross examination she claims she was chanting in her mind which is rather odd and also in my opinion doesn’t constitute group of persons worshiping as a congregation.
The Jumma Prayer which was the congregational prayer started when it should have, so did the Call to prayer and sermon which all occurred when I wasn’t present according to Mr Elsayed. This demonstrates that my actions had no affect on the Jumma Worship. It also demonstrates that the alleged disturbance didn’t disturb the attendees as the show went on immediately after as you could hear the loud call to prayer while I was at the bottom of the stairs.
It’s also important to note after the incident if you compare the video of the Jummar prayer to the alleged Sunna prayer the contrast is obvious. There were hundreds of more people at the Jummar Prayer and everybody is involved, hence congregation. Contrast that with the alleged individual Sunna prayer prior to 1pm.
The prosecution haven’t produced any complainants of Disturbing Religious Worship. If Disturbing Religious Worship occurred like the Prosecution claim there should be dozens of witnesses who have complained. The prosecution only produced 2 witnesses who ultimately failed to make an admission of being disturbed, offended maybe - but not disturbed. The evidence produced shows that at the time of the incident it was a situation where there was an individual prayer which is the opposite meaning of congregation.

This was my closing argument today, verdict 10am Tomorrow

OMFG THIS IS BASED

So the Government are using Australian tax money to subvert political ideologies which was banned years ago. The reason behind this is not “Terrorism” they write as one reason is “Psychological Harm”

THE GOVERNMENT HATES YOU