After being arrested for assembling in public with other nationalists in Adelaide on Australia Day, The XYZ’s Stephen Wells remains in legal limbo. During a bail application last week it was pointed out that his proposed bail conditions are unconstitutional.
From their ABC:
Stephen Wells, 55, of Broadwater in Western Australia, made an application for bail in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on Friday after he was arrested on January 26.
Mr Wells was subsequently charged with one count of loitering and one count of using a Nazi symbol or salute.
On Friday, Magistrate Benjamin Sale asked for the hearing to be adjourned until next week, saying he would only grant Mr Wells bail if he could provide a cash surety to the court before returning to Western Australia.
“I think I’m going to require more than just his say-so,” he said.
In response, Mr Wells told the court that if they wanted “a monetary guarantee”, to tell him how much and he would “guarantee it”.
“I was the only person who decided to stay [in prison and not apply for bail] on principle, I could’ve been home three weeks ago,” he said.
“I chose to stay here because it is a matter of principle for me. I chose to stay here because I do wish to fight this to the end, sir.”
Magistrate Sale responded: “Sometimes, sticking up for a principle does come at a cost.”
Correct. During his arrest Stephen Wells was left in severe pain in the back of the police van due to cramping, and in prison he was denied food and even toilet paper for several days.
Mr Wells continued to tell the court he has the “presumption of innocence” and that he should not be punished before going to trial.
“But sir, I say to you … I’m supposed to have the presumption of innocence,” he said.
“My punishment shouldn’t happen until after the trial, my punishment instead is happening before the trial and the initial conditions that the prosecution wants to put on my bail are bound to be punishment much greater than the punishment available to the court to give me if I was found guilty, which is why I refused them in the first place.
“Just keep on punishing me before the trial, go ahead — presumption of innocence is dead.”
Importantly, Wells’ lawyer pointed out that the proposed bail conditions are unconstitutional:
On Friday, defence lawyer Travis Moran, for Mr Wells, told the court “one of the reasons for refusing to sign the bail agreement” was that he did not agree with the proposed conditions.
“He considered one of the conditions proposed, that he not contact or communicate with people who are members of a certain movement, infringed his implied right of the freedom of political communication protected by the constitution,” he said.
“That’s no small matter, your Honour.”
Indeed.
Naturally, state governments are aware that the Australian Constitution does indeed guarantee the freedom of political speech, thus they are passing unconstitutional laws in an attempt to subvert it.
From Yahoo News:
Two states are moving to strengthen racial vilification laws after a spate of anti-Semitic incidents, despite vehement protests the changes will criminalise free speech.
People making racist remarks publicly could spend up to two years in prison, with a fine of more than $10,000 under tough proposed laws as NSW deals with escalating graffiti and vandalism incidents.
Victoria will also debate two new offences making it easier to prove serious vilification in public, private or online.
The offences cover inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against another person or group based on a protected attribute, as well as threatening physical harm or property damage for the same reason.
Maximum penalties include five years in prison for those convicted on the threat charge and three years for the incitement offence.
Jewish community groups and the Victorian opposition railed against an exemption for genuine political use over fears it could offer a loophole for vilification under the guise of politics.
The state Labor government will remove that defence to the criminal incitement offence.
I keep pointing this out and it bears repeating. If our rulers really want to they can dispense with the rule of law and just do whatever they want to dissidents. They did it before Covid, they did it during Covid and they are doing it now. However, they can only get away with it for so long. Governments worldwide coordinated the end of lockdowns and vaccine mandates because they knew revolution was at hand.
Similarly, Australian governments can attempt to suppress the speech of Aussies who object to our own replacement via mass immigration and multiculturalism, but our rulers know this is illegal. If we had no power and our Constitution did not protect us, they would not be scrambling to pass these laws and we’d already be in gulags.
This means that political activism still matters and it still works. Thus Joel Davis is urging Aussies to write in to Victorian Upper House MP’s to oppose this bill.
From Telegram:
ANTI-HATE SPEECH BILL TEMPLATE (Victoria 2025)
Dear Honourable [name of MP],
The decision by the Allan government to remove protections for political speech from the Justice Legislation Amendment (Anti-vilification and Social Cohesion) Bill 2024 deeply offends and concerns me as an Australian citizen under the impression I lived in a liberal democracy, with a constitutional right to political communication.
Freedom of political thought and speech is the foundation of a free society. I implore you to side with the Australian people (the majority of whom passionately support liberal democratic principles, particularly freedom of speech) against this deeply misguided agenda to legislate the most extreme criminal restrictions on political speech ever proposed in our nation’s history.
This is particularly egregious in the state of Victoria, which houses Melbourne – the cultural heartland of our nation. Criminal prosecution of political dissidents under unpopular anti-democratic laws will not improve social cohesion, but only exacerbate the social tensions this bill purportedly seeks to repair.
The answer to social issues is more political speech, not less. In a liberal democracy it is the role of government to listen to the concerns of the people. No government that imprisons its own citizens for peacefully expressing political concerns which influential and powerful groups don’t like can continue to call itself a liberal democracy in good faith.
I hope and trust you will safeguard our democracy,
Yours Faithfuly
[your name]
List of MPs to email (all the Liberals, Nationals and Greens MPs in the Victorian Legislative Council):
Aiv Puglielli – aiv.puglielli@parliament.vic.gov.au
Sarah Mansfield – sarah.mansfield@parliament.vic.gov.au
Katherine Copsey – katherine.copsey@parliament.vic.gov.au
Anasina Gray-Barberio – anasina.gray-barberio@parliament.vic.gov.au
Trung Luu – trung.luu@parliament.vic.gov.au
David Davis – david.davis@parliament.vic.gov.au
Evan Mulholland – evan.mulholland@parliament.vic.gov.au
Ann-Marie Hermans – ann-marie.hermans@parliament.vic.gov.au
Richard Welch – richard.welch@parliament.vic.gov.au
Nick McGowan – nick.mcgowan@parliament.vic.gov.au
Moira Deeming – moira.deeming@parliament.vic.gov.au
Joe McCracken – joe.mccracken@parliament.vic.gov.au
Wendy Lovell – wendy.lovell@parliament.vic.gov.au
Beverley McArthur – beverley.mcarthur@parliament.vic.gov.au
Renee Heath – renee.heath@parliament.vic.gov.au
Georgie Crozier – georgie.crozier@parliament.vic.gov.au
Gaelle Broad – gaelle.broad@parliament.vic.gov.au
Melina Bath – melina.bath@parliament.vic.gov.au
As for Stephen, his contact details are below:
Stephen Wells #194270 Adelaide Remand Centre 208 Currie Street, Adelaide, SA 5000
If you want to send any money, it just be needs to be less than $200 in the form of a money express order from the Post Office with his full name of Stephen Wells. You must also put your full name and postal address on the back of your letter.
