Editor: This article was originally published on May 14, 2021. Simon Hickey is again in police custody on a trumped up charge. He will remain in jail until the Queensland government can change the law and try him again, essentially for the same thing for which he was acquitted.
We will be publishing several pieces this week by Simon Hickey and about Simon Hickey.
The XYZ has reported on the story of Simon Hickey, owner of Smerff Electrical, over the course of several years. His business sponsored The Daily Stormer for a time, a form of peaceful nationalist activism which was clearly a red line for the Regime. Violent extremist far left proxies of the state receive unlimited funding. If White nationalist media and organisations were to gain access to a stream of reliable funding via the mass of ordinary working Aryans who don’t appreciate being replaced, we would soon have had the resources to tackle the jewish anti-White system head on.
So an example had to be made of Simon Hickey. The video below below and the summary which follows details the police harassment and vexatious state litigation he has been subject to for several years now.
Annoyingly for the Regime, Australia still has some semblance of law, which means the Regime cannot do whatever it wants just yet. It tried to manipulate a jury trial to get a conviction but failed. Unperturbed, the Queensland Regime has signalled its intent to change the law and try again. Again, the state has unlimited funds via its ability to steal our money or just straight out print it. Hickey has already spent $21,000 on lawyers and estimates it will cost him another $40K.
His next trial is due to start in September.
The video below details the Queensland government’s harassment of Simon Hickey and points the finger at individuals involved.
The latest development in the Smerff Electrical saga from Queensland may be of interest to our readers. The newest case against Simon Hickey is somewhat different than what’s being reported in the MSM, but who would have guessed? David Hiscox did write the most accurately of all Australian news outlets, but even that still needs some minor corrections. In fairness, David wasn’t at the trial and was only receiving his information in a rush from me. Some of the details may have been lost in translation, so here is a complete report, from Simon Hickey. I was present in the trial at all times.
Australia’s lying press intentionally misled the public in both the description of events, and the significance of the decision. Once you have read all the information below, I think you will agree that this was a dangerous moment in Australian law. We won on the day due to the courage and foresight of jurors. The details are as follows :
- Simon Hickey was on trial for something he said in private to his friends.
- The police allege that some of Simon Hickey’s texts contained ‘offensive content’.
- The conversation took place using a cellphone text application.
- All the people involved were consenting adult.Nothing illegal was discussed. There is no allegation of illegal activity.
- Nobody made any complaint about the content.
- When it was over we went our separate ways.
- Queensland Police came along months after the event, read the texts and charged Simon Hickey with ‘using a carriage service to menace harass or offend’ because they alleged what he said during that exchange was ‘offensive’.
Charges were laid, and Simon Hickey was refused bail by magistrate Anthony Gett for these offences. Yes, you read that right. Simon Hickey was jailed before any trial, because police allege that something ‘offensive’ was shared.
It doesn’t matter now whether the prosecution is successful or not, going to court to justify what was said in private – where no complaint had been made – was an infringement on Simon’s right to freedom of expression. As of 2019, that right is explicitly stated in section 21 of Queensland’s human rights legislation.
You may be aware of the background to this story, but for those who aren’t, Simon Hickey was a small business owner who didn’t hide his nationalist views. He went on to sponsor ‘The Daily Stormer’ in its early years, and as a result, was targeted by Queensland authorities. His home was raided five times in three years on the most ridiculous pretexts. Simon was jailed three times solely because of his political views and released in August of 2020 after serving more than eleven months for ‘scandalising the courts’. He was jailed for expressing his opinion that the behaviour of Queensland Courts was improper, bordering on corrupt. That last prison sentence was imposed after he had written (truthfully) about his previous court hearings – and ‘deprived the public of confidence in the court system’.
The lesson here is: Queensland courts can ignore the law, jail you for your beliefs, and then hide their records to conceal those events. But if you draw attention to it, then it’s you who’s in the wrong.
Hickey was supposed to be released in June 2020, but was refused bail until August because he had been further charged with ‘using a carriage service to menace harass or offend’. The charges outlined at the beginning. This offence carries only a fine for people who aren’t white men.
- Hickey shared a link to the Christchurch shooting on March 31 of 2019, to a handful of close friends.
- The law which criminalised sharing this footage, known as ‘violent abhorrent content’ wasn’t introduced until April 5 of 2019, meaning Simons act was not illegal when he did it. The link shared made some political commentary on those events at the beginning. Statements such as ‘Hey Mohammed – quick question – how much more of this shit did you think we would take?’ Referring to the dozens of Islamic terror attacks on European people in our own countries, at the hands of Muslim fanatics. Simon is not accused of making those statements, just sharing a video which had them embedded.
- Police came along and laid the charges in June. Until that point, nobody in the conversation knew they were offended, and no complaint had been made. All recipients were long term friends. Despite this, police went to their homes, and tried to pressure them into making statements that they were offended. One participant in the conversation, not living in Queensland, was intercepted at Brisbane airport nearly two years later, and taken to police headquarters to try and get such a statement.
Nice little holiday detour for that person, I am sure you can imagine.
It’s time we named the ‘men’ who stake out our airports, waiting for my friends to fly into Queensland jurisdiction in an attempt to convince them that they were offended by a two year old conversation they don’t remember.
The Queensland Police Counter Terrorism Goon Squad senior management has kept a low profile thus far but we know Michael Thiesfield is part of it. His superiors will be named in due course. The street level NKVD wrong-think enforcement crew are made up of Adam Gillespie, Marc Dunn, Ross Dobbie, Jayce Gilchrist and Clayton Honeywood. There are others but these are the main offenders. With state backing, they throw endless charges at any white taxpayer who dares make fun of their diversity fetish. They do so in the faint hope of jagging an uninformed jury and getting a conviction.
Dealing with criminal charges is stressful and expensive for all citizens, but police do it for a living. They use taxpayers funds to harass, intimidate, charge and prosecute taxpayers who object to the state diversity religion. When the target eventually gets acquitted or discharged, police have still won. People are now afraid to voice any opinion that Dobbie and Gillespie may not approve of, because a court appearance will surely follow. These two would have made the NKVD proud.
If the charges against you are heard by judge alone then you’re fucked. Queensland courts will convict white men on any made up allegation. Jail us on offences others would be fined for and refuse to accept any evidence that works in our favour. If you are white and male in Queensland, stay away from the courts. Do not go. Do not sign for any mail you didn’t know was coming. Do not respond, and do not participate. You cannot win. You will not be heard. These people hate you and want you dead. Read that again just to make it clear. The Jews who own our legal system hate you and want you dead. You cannot reason with them. Being not guilty means nothing.
If you doubt the statements above, here are just a few examples that occurred during this trial against Simon Hickey. Bear in mind that the allegedly offensive content of the conversation was of a political nature.
It’s long been established that any political expression, no matter how right, wrong, offensive or distasteful is the most protected area of free speech in Australia, with numerous high court decisions confirming that every Australian has that right.
It was also strange to learn that in a Queensland court of law, we weren’t allowed to read out Queensland state laws. The judge ruled them inadmissible because it was a commonwealth offence. Well, correct me if I am wrong, but we were still in Queensland, and a person could be forgiven for believing that Queensland laws applied in Queensland. At least a defendant should be able to say that he believed those laws applied as a mitigating factor, but our judge said nope. Not relevant.
We turned to the Commonwealth laws. The ones used to prosecute Hickey.
474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) The person uses a carriage service; and
(b) The person does so in a way (whether by the method of use orThe content of a communication, or both) that reasonable Persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
In each section and subsection of the criminal code there are particular unique defences to the charges as listed. I will post 474.38, which is the complete defence to any offence under section 474.
474.38 Implied freedom of political communication
(2) This Subdivision does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would Infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political Communication.
(2) Subsection (1) does not limit the application of section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to this Act.
This law is in the exact section that 474 is read from. It clearly states its purpose, and validity, and yet, our judge ruled that this law is also irrelevant and doesn’t apply. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Australian judges don’t make the laws, they interpret and enforce them.
How can our judge declare that a stated written legal defence is not relevant or lawful?
The people of Queensland could be forgiven for thinking that because our laws explicitly state every person has right to freedom of expression in numerous locations such as: section 21 of the human rights act which reads:
21 Freedom of expression
(1) Every person has the right to hold an opinion without Interference.
(2) Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Queensland and whether—
(a) orally; or
(b) in writing; or
(c) in print; or
(d) by way of art; or
(e) in another medium chosen by the person.
That we had that legal right. We don’t. The judge simply says that law isn’t relevant. Then we have the commonwealth federal legislation, or high court ruling which protects political expression as something that cannot be infringed.
In Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, the majority of the High Court held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an incident of the system of representative government established by the Constitution. This was reaffirmed in Unions NSW v New South Wales  HCA 58.
And on top of that, a specific section of law in the same subsection from which this offence was extracted, states that if it were to infringe on any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political expression then this entire subdivision of offences DOES NOT APPLY.
474.38 Implied freedom of political communication
(1) This Subdivision does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.
(2) Subsection (1) does not limit the application of section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to this Act.
Sorry for the repetition, but it needs to be made clear.
As an unlearned, dumbass, taxpaying, non-barrister, I would think that not just one, but all of those defences written in the law would apply to a political statement Hickey made in Queensland, but apparently not.
None of them apply.
Our judge ruled that we may not even quote these sections of law to the jury when mounting a defence. Yes that’s correct, in a Queensland court of law, you cannot quote the law. It makes their job of convicting you that much harder.
If you think that’s absurd, illegal and bias against the defendant in every way, then you’d be right, but it gets far worse.
When addressing the jury: Prosecution man doesn’t have to read out the entire law under which Hickey is charged, he can pick and choose the words. Let’s play spot the difference :
The allegations were that I had used a carriage service in a way that reasonable people would find offensive.
This is the complete 474.17: I will insert it here to save you going back :
474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence.
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person uses a carriage service; and
(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.
Mr Prosecutor has missed out the most important part. The title.
The title implies that someone has been menaced, harassed or offended. It is clear. To menace harass or cause offence. To cause offence is to make that particular feeling happen inside somebody else. To harass is to engage in that activity. By skipping this section, the prosecution can allege an offence occurred, despite none of these reactions taking place. Knowing full well that nobody was menaced, harassed or offended.
Using this model, he can press charges against anyone, even when there is no complainant.
But wait : You thought this hearing could not possibly get any more stacked against Hickey. You’d be wrong. The people who were involved in the conversation with Hickey were called as witnesses. The prosecution guessed that their evidence was going to be ‘yes I was talking to Simon that day and No I wasn’t offended’ – so he objected in advance to them giving this evidence. It wasn’t relevant he argued. Judge Tracy Fantin agreed and made the order. I had to tell my witnesses they couldn’t say that in the trial. If the jury heard that we could be in contempt.
The state obviously thought that we wouldn’t call them as witnesses now, but I refused to back down. They would be called anyway, and the jury might wonder why they weren’t being asked this important question. I know people aren’t as stupid as our courts think, I just hoped they could work it out.
So I called the witnesses, who were then kept waiting for five days before answering limited questions. We were able to get around part of the ruling by asking them whether or not they had made any police complaint about being offended. When the witness evidence was complete Judge Fantin told the jury they needed to decide whether or not ‘reasonable people would find the content offensive’, inferring that neither Hickey nor his friends were ‘reasonable people’. Hickey scored some points following that remark by pointing out that his friends were all reasonable people, and if success was any benchmark, then Hickey himself was a reasonable people. Fantin was not impressed.
We should dwell on this point a little further and remember this was a conversation that took place between friends, to which no person took offense or made any complaint to police. I would suggest that the only opinions that matter during a conversation held in private are the opinions of the participants. I don’t need laws to tell me that if two people talk among themselves, and I am not a part of it, then I have zero right to come along afterwards, and take offence to what was said. If I find it offensive then that’s my problem for sticking my nose into other people’s business.
Queensland police don’t see it that way. Nor do the judges. Not when they are taking orders from the ADL anyway. Once Queensland authorities decide you’re a person of interest, you have no rights.
Further to that we were ordered not to tell the jury about the long term implications of their decision. If the prosecution is successful, then any conversation you have ever had by text, email or written digital medium, can be inspected even years after the event. If the snooper decides that what you said was offensive, then you’ll be jailed for months before any trial , dragged through the courts for two years, and bankrupted with legal expenses even if you’re found not guilty. In that event there’s no recourse or compensation. You get a ‘thank you, come again’, said by someone who
knows you don’t have a choice. They can make you come again as many times as it takes to break you.
Worse still, the legal definition of ‘offensive’ is not clear. It is described as something that might arouse feelings of shock, fear, disgust or a number of other reactions people have to normal every day events. This means the offense is in the eye of the offendee. We know people don’t get offended very easily these days (rolls eyes). In that event then you’re pretty much toast.
If my guilt was being decided by Judge Tracy Fantin alone, then I would already be in prison. The working men of this country don’t have any rights in her court. I thank the stars that our noble ancestors fought so hard to give us the right to jury trial. I wonder how many of our jury members today have read between the lines and worked out what’s being said in their absence. Judge Fantin keeps ordering them out of the court if we get too close to any topics she doesn’t want them to hear.
Apart from that, Simon’s trial has been less of a circus that what we have come to expect in Queensland Courts. Today at least, there was no mention of Heather Heyer or holocausting. We did have some amusing moments early on. Marc Dunn of Queensland police, allegedly their ‘forensic computer expert’ charged with retrieving evidence found on people’s seized devices, cried when he gave evidence. A policeman who’s spent more than five years pulling all manner of disgusting things out of people’s digital records, broke down when watching the grainy, blurry footage of Tarrant’s shooting at the Mosque.
Remember this is a case where the jury have been instructed that they must decide only whether the material shared by Hickey is offensive. No other questions of law or privacy are relevant. We should give Marc Dunn an Oscar for best performance in the witness box.
Police who laid the charge, one Adam Trotsky Gillespie made an appearance. This time having borrowed his dad’s tuxedo. My barrister wasn’t allowed to ask this slimy, communist agitator whether he said things to his wife, in private, which he would like kept that way. Had I been self-represented, that’s the first thing I would have asked.
I was under pressure from the start not to give evidence or even a defence. I wanted both because my conscience is clear. I have done nothing wrong. The prosecutor cross examined me on whether or not reasonable people would find the political statements in the video offensive. I said that some may not agree but offensive they were not. I was then asked about whether I thought my views on immigration were held by the wider community, and whether or not reasonable people would find my political views offensive.
The judge allowed these questions to proceed, effectively making the trial not about ‘using a carriage service to offend, but whether or not Hickey should be allowed to hold and express racist opinions.
What was amusing about this aspect of the trial, is that these public figures who think they hold the only correct opinions; the Judges, prosecutors, police and senior bureaucrats. The self- important, over reaching, far left scumbags who launched this vexatious proceeding against me thought they could take a jury trial in this direction and win.
They actually believed that nobody on the jury would agree with Hickey’s views.
These allegedly intelligent people running our justice system and wider public service have no idea that at least half the Australian people support some aspects of the (extreme right wing extremist) position on immigration, Islamic terrorism and free speech.
They agree with us. They do so because we are right.
Simon Hickey’s beliefs are not extreme, irrational or unpopular. Quite the opposite. We were already aware of this fact, so clearly demonstrated when the Jewish media tried to drum up hysteria by labelling Simon the Nazi Sparky. The effort to shut down his business for publicly doubting their precious holocaust had the opposite effect. Our SEO rank went straight to page one, and customers who had never heard of Smerff were finding electrical work for us to do, just to express their support.
I honestly think that it was these sorts of underhanded judicial tactics which pushed the jury into my corner. Up until then they may have been undecided, but when it became evident that I wasn’t on trial for sending a video, I was on trial for expressing opinions the state doesn’t approve of, they smelled a rat.
When they went home and found out that we did have laws which clearly stated that every person has the right to free expression through any medium, they smelled a rat. When Judge Tracy Fantin deliberately omitted that aspect of law from her summary, they smelled a rat. When the witnesses weren’t asked if they were offended, they smelled more rats. After Simon had given evidence that the material was not being labelled offensive because it was violent, but because of its political undertones, they definitely smelled a rat. When Simon proved that statement by naming far more violent, graphic movies, video games and websites which weren’t the subject of prosecution, they smelled the biggest rat and realised it was the Jew all along. Despite not being present in this room, the Jewish source of funding and motivation for this whole circus was obvious to all. The case wasn’t about offensive texts in any way.
It was about silencing any white man opposed to his replacement in his own nation.
By the end of it I was surprised that any of the jurors were voting to convict, but there were some because the jury was hung. They could not agree. Even after the incredibly one sided, biased and unfair trial Simon was given, the state could not convince twelve citizens to convict Simon Hickey. To those jurors who stood firm for free speech I thank you. I am in your debt. Even if you don’t agree with us on political events, I will always respect your right to disagree, and say so without fear of repercussions. We can only find truth if every opinion is presented.
The only way the others who wanted to convict me will learn, is when the police are knocking on their door with a warrant for jokes they shared ten years ago. But by then it will be too late.
I will finish here with something I had planned to say on the witness stand, but didn’t or couldn’t because I kept getting stopped by Judge Fantin.
The reason I am so certain that I am entitled to freedom of speech, to hold my own opinions and expect privacy in regards to both : is that I respect that right in every other person.
In truth, it is not me who should have been on trial.
It is Adam Gillespie, Ross Dobbie, Daniel Whitmore, Sam Hill, and Tracy Fantin who must be put on trial at a later date for infringing on Simon Hickey’s right to free political expression. By doing so,
they were attempting to take that right from every Australian citizen. To deter this behaviour in future, an example must be made of every person involved in this prosecution.
Our list gets longer every day.