From June 2014 (Leaksource)
There were some 350 objections to the development and more than 40 submissions of support.
“If you’re Muslim and you want a mosque, go back to the Middle East. This is Australia,” < (link to FaceBook group)
“Bendigo people own Bendigo, it’s their town, they have the right to say mosque or no mosque,”
“We’re not racists.” were common threads heard at the meeting.
The International students which come to Bendigo to study at the near by La Trobe Uni make up a large part of the Muslim Population in Bendigo.
A Mosque in Bendigo would be an asset for council revenues..and lets face it, Bendigo needs all it can get. Australian Defence Industries and the AGO are in Junortoun, Bendigo.
UPDATE 28 June 2014
Restore Australia has paid for a Sydney lawyer often used in anti-mosque hearings, Robert Balzola, to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on planning grounds.
Update 20 October 2014
Recent article from September from The Castlemanian should be noted.
Update September 2015
Anti-mosque protesters hijack meeting as Bendigo councillors get police escort (here)
Update September 23rd 2015
Failed injunction bid lets Bendigo mosque plans proceed. (here)
Was this more about the safety of the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, which is also in Bendigo?
A cleverly disguised attempt by Oz spooks to keep Bendigo free from some unseen danger associated with Islam? Why is it so important to have a such a big Mosque in Bendigo for such a small population? (Seems a bit odd, however this is not the only battle of this sort, see ‘notes’ below.)
Update October 12th, 2015 – United Patriots Front – ABC Report
UPDATE March 2017
Mosque plan goes ahead (here)
September 2016 – UPF – charges over fake beheading video (here) (court appearance 6 March 2017 (here) – appears next 23rd May 2017
- Image from the video which is used by media outlets and still exists on the internet in its un-edited format. So much for people’s sensitivities…
Further to this
April 2017 Fundraiser (BendigoAdvirtiser)
23rd May 2017 Court Appearance
With no less then thirty Police, not counting the Tactical Element who stood like store front dummies at the Magistrates court as three men appeared for a contest mention. The degree of overkill was spectacular as the State Government tries to bully and depress free speech and original thought. The proceeding prior to the trios entering consisted of blue hair, nose rings yelling and screaming at people who were just trying to get to work. The Police in their genius has caused a bottleneck for pedestrians who then came under a tirade of ad hominen abuse. It was pathetic.
After the court proceedings, Cottrell and his co-accused were marched in a “wedge” around the corner surrounded by a media scrum that was agitated by Channel Seven muppet who was clearly seen trying in an aggressive manner to break through the police to thrust a microphone at Cottrell. A most unprofessional action which led to a scuffle and the police reading some words of a piece of paper at one agitator, I assume that was either a move on order or breach of the peace order. Some of the police stood around yawning.
UPDATE – September 4th and 5th 2017
The September 4th appearance of the “Bendigo 3” became a two day affair, the first which had all the signals of protestors and police prescence, much the same as the previous two mentions.
However the second day was just like any other day at the Magistrates Court in Melbourne. There was seating for anyone who provided photo identification, scanned by PSO’s searching people going into Court 19 on the 5th floor, a 3D image scan of thier face digitally recorded. The court room had as many reporters for wire services and the Alphabet Fake News as there were supporters and interested parties.
The proceedings started off with Judge Hardy making a fairly stern warning that anyone recording or photographing inside the court would be removed. Judge Hardy was also as firm with mobile phones being “switched off” or “silenced”. The well bearded Judge was very fair with the three defendants, allowing them to settle nerves, explaining that as they were not giving evidence they would be unable to submit anything further to thier defence. If you have never stood before a Judge in a room full of strangers to explain yourself, it is quiet unnerving as the sound of your own voice resounds through the room, you realise everyone is listening to you.
Shortis spoke very well and had some interesting things to say. Cottrell although nervous soon settled into a polite and quiet reserved statement. Erikson was also quiet capable. All three showed respect and looked Judge Hardy directly in the eye when speaking, showing respect and conviction in thier resolutions.
However the day was to drag on. The hearing had a 2 hour break and then a further hour was sought by the magistrate making it about 3 o’clock before things were to start back up. I must add at this point that the PSO’s who worked on Court 19 that day were professional and polite to everyone who had to endure a second wand search and pat down. Judge Hardy had requested the PSO’s not be present inside the court during the proceedings showing an equal respect in return for the decorum shown by those in attendance.
The last hour had a couple of moments which broke the stale chill in the air conditioning. At one point the Magistrate was calling for charges to be struck off and almost got the incorrect charges brushed away until the prosecutor jumped up correcting him, to some members of the public galleries audible sniggers. The second was when the Magistrate admonished one of the ABC reporters for “pressuring” the prosecutorial and court staff for documents. This was quiet evident during the breaks as the reporters badgered the prosecutors as if they were looking for a scoop on what the possible outcomes were. And of course not to forget the reporter who tried to get copies of the defendants submissions and was told by Judge Hardy that “this is not how things work.” Of course there are details such as the missing jeans and t-shirts, the plastic sword that vanished which collectively showed the sloppy work surrounding some aspects of the States case.
It is not a difficult thing to work out or guess that the charges against the defendants equaled (in Justice Department pounds of flesh) about 60 units or $9000 in a fine. Neither of the charges together or separately would bring a custodial sentence and at this point I suspect that Judge Hardy had an inkling that what was going to happen, was going to happen.
Fines were placed at $2000 for all three with court costs added, some $78, again for all three. Shortis and Cottrell seemed quiet relieved with this outcome, Erikson who explained how the case had caused him hardship over the past months was also agreeable to a pay the fine, or, transferring his fine to community work. Judge Hardy then went into details of how the three could appeal the case and the outcomes if they failed to appear. He also explained how the chairs at the table were now facing the the other way in an appeal and that further conduct of this nature would be unadvisable and only end in further legal problems.
It is important to remember in this case that Judge Hardy made his determination from 39 seconds of the video in which a dummy, made from pillows, is mock beheaded with a plastic sword. One element in this process was the “275 Likes” which appeared as a lower third title in that 39 seconds. This element alone was enough to prove that the video “has an audience”. This was the factor that was used to show that the intent of the video was the cause revulsion and therefore be in breach of the Act. The time of the video was also used as a lead up for further protests that were planned. The fact however, which was not contested, is that 275 likes could be contrived through the use of ‘bots’ which could portray 275 individual “likes” but in fact could have come from a quarter or less of repeated affirmative “likes” through ‘bots’ or robot accounts set up to inflate “likes” or “views”. This would be backed up by the process on YouTube where monetisation is often removed from videos where uploaders do just this practise to make the video reach a wider or higher ranking. The over used and misleading use of the term “viral video” is another example of this type of digital calibration in playlists or ‘recommended’ viewing by automated collating services or content aggregators who use the view or “like” count as a means of grading videos or content uploads. One example of such a service is Storify who scour the internet for the next breaking event through citizens uploading images or videos of natural disasters or industrial accidents.
With the court room slowly emptying out at about 4pm the gaggle of phone recorders and news cameras appeared as if from under rocks or via theatrical trap doors. Shortis was the first out, Cottrell and Erikson had moved to the second floor and immediately placed their appeals. I did n’t catch Shortis’ court steps address but it did not deviate much from his co-defendants.
Cottrell and Erikson appear at the County Court Melbourne on October 2nd and October 3rd respectively.
At one point Cottrell refers to Danny Nalliah, reference (wiki), who had a similar case in the not so distant past.
The next day at Yarra Council
August 7th 2017
Local News media “Channel 10” whipping up a frenzy with thier morning Nazi rant mud slinging and polarising with a four minute “don’t give it air” virtue signalling session.
October 2nd 2017 – Erikson did not appear
October 3rd 2017 – (wake up to news of Vegas Shooting – NYT)
The County Court in Victoria is a big building, cloaks float about, suitcases on wheels, big strides, hardened criminals and distraught families all in one zinc walled box.
The court moves through the listings, Cottrell isn’t in the court and the Court Clerk is sent out to call him in..nup. Hang on, ear peices buzz…”he’s here”. The court keeps moving, another case is heard. Next, Cottrell appears without representation explaining that at the Magistrates Court “legal advisers” were present. Not appearing with representation spreads the appeal out to April 4th 2018, Judge Cotterell noteing that Cottrell is to contact the prosecution when he is ready at which time a mention will be set. This is the time when details of submissions, witnesses and all relevancy behind the case, (which did not happen in the magistrates court) are put togehter so the appeal can proceed. Not adding anythig new to submissions or calling witnesses meant that Judge Hardy based his determination on one element, 39 seconds of the video. It was in this 39 seconds that the “275 LIKES” titles appears which Judge Hardy said, “showed there was an audience” for the video and that it was made in an attempt to capture that audience.
Another interesting angle is the video is still up on social media sites. The Terms of Service (TOS) of upload services such as YouTube and FaceBook specifically set out what is acceptable on thier services and yet, the video still remains, a mock beheading at a council office. This is a question raised by any reasonable person, “who did it offend?”. Why did it take the state Government over a year to put the charges against the three men? What is the real intent of the charges? Was it a determined State Government’s way of punishing a few to discipline the majority?
The media reporting was poor as expected, images below show correction from Herald Sun (article).
The trio was charge in September 2016…not 2015
Below is another example of Fake News.
One of the hearings which proceeded Cottrell’s appeal was also incorrectly reported, coincidentally by the same reporter. The story titled “Weird court case in Melbourne:Man Living in Body” mocked with similar disdain, the freedom of the individual which it seems is an idea to be sneered at by media. MLIB was cool, and insisted that his documents be given to the Judge. MLIB did this twice until Judge Cotterell finally accepted, then finding out that MLIB was correct, proceeded to remedy this error by haveing the name, Man Living in Body, added to the indictment. The Herald Sun report is almost completely full of errors aside from the ones pointed out below. Man Living in Body is his legal name, the indictment did not have Man Living in Body’s name, which, as MLIB pointed out, would be a fraud to pursue a case against the incorrect person. When asked what his ethos or beliefs were, MLIB replied “Do no Harm”. What the Herald Sun focused on was a cheap shot. Another erroneous article from Daily Mail (here)
April 4th Appeal.
This is the list for April 4 and you will notice next to Cottrell’s listing is (reserve). This basically means there is no verdict at this point as neither the defendant or the Prosecution have nutted out any agreed path for the case. Cottrell did not have a mention for this appeal which is generally customary.
Judge Dean (above) is presiding over the appeal who is known for calling a defence lawyer “stupid” not once but three times. (here) Judge Dean may be the key out for Cottrell who stated that media misrepresenting him has impeded his ability to prepare for the case.
Cottrell is represented on FaceBook by an imposter, who seems to enjoy all of the social media privileges of the real person. This FaceBook is listed under Google searches as being the legitimate account, but it is not.
Two examples of this type of media misrepresentation can be seen below.
It is interesting to note the Vatican celebrated Hitler’s birthday long after he was dead.
notes – Australia Terror Laws – 14 days detention in secret. (archive dot org) and (here)
2010, six men were arrested in Gateshead, (UK) after a phone camera video buring a Quran September 11th, was placed onto internets.(here)
This video calling for book burning (July-2017 Vimeo)
Danish man arrested for burning Quran (here)
Swan Hill, (Victoria) woman arrested for threats on FaceBook from 2015 (The Age – 2015)
Padstow Community Board (FaceBook) and Revesby Sydney – No to Mosque
Planning alert (here)