Well, dear listener.

Welcome.

This is the iron fist and the velvet glove podcast.

It's a podcast where we talk about news and politics and sex and religion.

Normally there's a panel there's normally at least more than just me.

Actually.

I've got Joe, the tech guy he's there in the background.

So Joe will help out if need vain.

Well, today was the big day , we had our cold case now application

for religious instruction lessons.

And so that was today.

And look, if I seem a bit fuzzy and hazy, it's been a big day

and I've been talking nonstop.

So, you know, the court case started at 10 and finished around two.

We had media outside, lots of interviews with ABC compass.

Then we had lunch.

Then it came back here.

There was more of the ABC compass program here in the studio wanting

to talk about it, doing an interview.

And they literally left about five minutes ago.

And now I'm doing the podcast and tell them all the same stories again.

But the listening would have been with me on this journey.

So you need to know what the story is and how it all went.

. So.

Short answer is we don't know the decision as yet.

So the judge has reserved his decision and basically that means he's taken all

of the submissions and he will take a transcript of what happened and we'll

go away and have a think about it, read about it, and then come back in a couple

of weeks or whatever with a decision.

So short answer is we don't know the, a long answer is how did it go?

And what do you think?

It was tough.

It was tough.

And then I thought, I have to say, I didn't, I did not.

It wasn't what I expected.

So I was hoping to have more, yeah.

You'll argument where I could get some ideas out, but I'll run you

through how it sort of panned out and you can get a feel for it.

So if you're in the chat room, say, hello, that'd be nice to know that

there are some people there and if you've got questions, throw them in

there cause I'm happy to deal with them.

So.

Really the case kicked off with basically Robin and his cross-examination.

So I was off to a shaky start cause I just wasn't aware of how documents

get admitted or read into court.

So that was an uneasy start for Shula.

And so Robin was cross-examined and basically a lot of the

concentration on Robbins affidavit was about what does Robin believe?

When did he, he said all these comments about not believing in Satan and

all the places he said it and all the rest of it, which really doesn't

matter because this is acknowledged.

So that was, you know, fine.

But then it got on to comments about Robin's opinion of the temple and

what the temple actually stood for.

And so really a lot of the argument.

I felt were to do with the the other side, the respondent, the government,

basically trying to paint a picture that our community of members did not have

a common faith and a common belief and nothing common about them that would

make them a religious denomination.

And so that was kind of the thrust of it.

And, you know, dear listener because of my inexperience, or just a lack

of knowledge in terms of evidence and court procedure, I was certainly a

babe in the woods in terms of trying to help Robin out in reexamination.

I didn't do what a half decent barrister could have done on his ear, probably.

So that was disappointing, but it is what it is.

And you can only work with what you've got.

So.

After that, it, it then moved into arguments over.

Essentially what we've got to remember with this case is there's

essentially two parts to it.

So we applied for a religious instruction lessons, and the government

wrote a letter saying, you can't come in and there's not enough of you.

Some of you don't believe in Satan and Robin started it for political purposes.

And so there's two parts.

One is to have that letter overturned, rejected on the basis that there's

just poor reasons and they need to go back and give us a better letter.

The second part was just a declaration to say that we are a

religious denominational society.

That's entitled to go into the title, go into the schools.

So the declaration is the key part.

And so in my verbal submissions at the end of the day, We'd

lodged written submissions.

And I was quite happy with our written submissions.

They sort of cover everything that I wanted to say.

Yeah.

And the the verbal, you're just trying to, I guess, well, what I was trying to

do don't know if you're supposed to be doing this was really try and concentrate

on things that had been raised and address those because the written arguments

already there anyway, that was, you know, okay-ish certainly he pulled up a lot.

I couldn't get into a free flow and say things because I was told what I was

trying to say was trying to introduce evidence or, or other things like that.

So I definitely have been through the grinder and got a hard time,

but let me tell you, and so.

The second part after that was then the the respondent, the

government's sort of verbal argument.

And and, and really their concentration was on trying to show that we had

not met the criteria of a religion in my argument all along is we

don't have to be a religion because this particular section says it's

only necessary to be a, a society.

You don't have to be a religion.

I've always maintained that all we need to be is a loose association of

people with an interest in religion, and that's enough to get us in to schools.

So so really.

They they had livable argument and I then get a chance to reply

to what they've said verbally.

And that was probably at that point, the only time where I actually managed

to land a few punches and actually felt, I was able to say some things

where the judge kind of stopped.

And maybe obviously, no, I didn't nod and go, I get it.

Or what, but it was the first sort of first sort of it's a recognition

that, okay, you've got something there.

Okay.

What you've just said, that's that's worth listing up until then.

I don't think he wanted to listen to anything I had to say, but he kind of

started to pay attention rod at the death so I can only hang my hat on hoping that.

Like some Punchdrunk puncher in a boxing match, I've managed to drag

myself off the canvas and some, I land a miracle punch rod at the end.

I don't know if that's the case.

I wouldn't be putting money on it.

I don't know what's going to happen.

I really, you know, because of my lack of skill as a, in that sort of advocacy

as a barrister, wasn't able to get in the evidence that I would like to have.

But in any event just to give you a sort of an example of how I, my really ah, I

don't know whether to get into the dry legal argument with you about, about it.

Do you, are you in the chat room?

Do you want the sort of, bit of the legal Lees involved in all

this or not like, tell me because I'm starting to get delirious.

Like I have literally been talking nonstop all day and

haven't been sleeping well, so.

Running on fumes here, but Jerry you're in the tech room, Joe.

Are you wanting to hear some of, do you want to hear my best punch?

I'll tell you, I'll tell you my best punch.

Okay.

So the, the overwhelming argument or the overwhelming responses?

Yes, please.

Okay.

All right.

So that's good.

So I had, I had in my submissions basically said, stop talking

about the Scientology case and all of its requirements.

We're not trying to prove we're a religion.

We're just a religious society.

So all those tests are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what Robyn believes.

It doesn't matter what the adherence or the members of the temple belief and a

member of a society can be a corporate body who is incapable of having a belief.

So so really it's a mistake to keep talking about religious belief.

And in fact, the Scientology case itself was a mistake about religion

in the sense the payroll commissioner objected and the particular section

talked about a religious institution would be exempt from payroll tax.

And so the keywords were religious institution and in Scientology case, the.

Barristers and lawyers for the relevant parties had made this side agreement that

if Scientology is a religion, then they accept it is a religious institution.

And the, the the high court in Scientology said, look, we're not

really that happy with that argument.

That just because it's a religion, it's a religious institution.

They're different things, but we've come this far.

And we really want to tell people what we think of religion is

that we'll just do it anyway.

So, so the Scientology case gets bogged down in, in the whole

concept of what is a religion.

When the actual question should have been, what's a religious institution.

And I got to make the point that what the counsel for the government was

doing and what had been happening in the case all along was that.

Though, arguing over matters that went to whether the temple was a religion,

not whether it was a religious society.

So like finally sort of managed to Dodge enough rules of evidence

that I could get that in.

And so that was good.

I was able to say it.

And then in mice admissions, I had said, look, what does a religious society mean?

And I had said, well, let's look at what religious means and

let's look at what society means and let's put the two together.

And, and what I had said was that a something that is religious just

has to be let me just find it here.

Relating to, or concerned with religion imbued with, or exhibiting religion

as a definition of religious from the Macquarie dictionary, which

is commonly used in core rings.

And in terms of society, I had said that society means that organization of

persons associated together for religious or other purposes, a body of persons

associated by their calling or interests.

So I said, if he put the two of them together, you basically get

a religious society is meaning a group of people with a common

interest that relates to religion.

So that was how I was describing.

And I was saying, well, look all these hurdles that you want the

temple to jump through to be yet chip or a religion dine apply.

All we have to do is say that we are.

Group of people with a common interest that relates to religion.

And the opposing counsel said, well, there's rules of construction.

That mean you're not really allowed to take separate words rather than

meaning joined them back up again.

You've got to look at words as they are together and derive a meaning

from that rather than splitting them up and then joining them up again.

So but what I was able to then say was there was a case the theosophy

foundation case, which was one of the few cases that actually looked

at what is a religious society.

And I was able to draw the court's attention to where it says a society

in the relevant sense is a number of persons associated together by

some common interest or purpose.

Society, as that's described in which the common element pertains to, or is

concerned with religion may actually be described as a religious society.

So I said, you might've liked how I did it with a dictionary definition, but I

essentially arrived at the same definition that they got to in the theosophy case.

And that sort of landed a blind.

That was good.

That's the first shot that got really in there somewhere.

And then there was problems of whether we had the evidence to demonstrate this,

but we had the application that said we wanted to go in and teach religion.

And we had three families who said they wanted to receive religion.

So right at the death, there was a, quite a few good points and, and

who knows what the decision will be.

It's interesting because well, I'll tell you one other thing that

happened, which was quite interesting and you'll, you will find this funny

and I'm not allowed to find it funny.

I don't think, but during the proceeding, the barrister for the government was

talking to Robin and about when Robin was wearing his robes and standing outside

of school, trying to drum up business for the religious instruction lessons, he

would have seen the photographs of it, and it might be apparent on the transcript,

but there was kind of a time to it.

That was a little, just a little bit disparaging in terms

of Robin and his black robes.

I felt that maybe he didn't intend that maybe he didn't think that at all.

And, and And, you know, I don't want to insult him in any way in suggesting that

he was doing that when he wasn't, but it was something that it was possible to take

a little bit of that meaning a little bit of that vibe Promet so he said to Robin

and you were there, you know, in your black robes and, and Robin said yes, much

like the ones you're wearing right now.

And at that point, the judge said Mr.

Bristow, we will not have that sort of behavior in this courtroom and,

and reprimanded him for that comment.

So that was an interesting moment in the proceedings.

And were there any other highlights or other arguments?

Yeah, it's pretty rough.

I don't don't know it's I wouldn't be putting any money on us.

I really don't know.

It was hard to read the judge from my point of view.

He didn't St petite, particularly happy with us until, as I said, rod at the

end, where there was a glimmer of light.

So anyway, it's up to him and he'll make his decision and we'll have to accept it.

And so, I don't know, week, two weeks, I don't know how long it normally takes.

You'll be the first to know when we've got the answer.

It was quite an adventure.

It's been a, I'm glad that it's over and done with, I could not have

mentally handled an, a German or anything cause I needed to get this

case done and out of my hand, so I can sleep at night and not wake up at

two in the morning, thinking arguments about religion and society over that.

So so the, actually the the barista for the government made an interesting

allegation at one point, he, he said to He, he said to Robin, that Robin's

purpose by conducting satanic instruction lessons was to, he had a purpose

of disrupting classrooms around it.

Yes, he had.

And he was really doing it in a manner that was disapproving,

that, that Robin was by his actions seeking to disrupt classrooms.

And they conduct by having the satanic lessons that would then

disrupt the rest of the class.

And, you know, it's, it's so ironic if that's the word, but what we're

actually trying to do is prevent that happening in thousands of instances

that is already happening in the state every week to be accused of.

Of disrupting classes.

When in fact, what Robin is trying to do is reduce exactly that disruption, but

in thousands of cases, so he's willing to cause two or three instances offered

in the event that it might actually stop it happening thousands of times.

And so that was an interesting admission by the government's barrister that the

religious instruction classes are actually disruptive to the rest of the class.

So that can come out.

And the idea out in, in different venues at are at light Aton

that even the government thinks religious instruction is disruptive.

So so that was one of the few highlights in a pretty dark day.

At times it really was rough.

It was quite grueling.

I ah, at this stage, sometimes you might see in the chat.

Yeah.

Tom, the warehouse guy, and Tom is a young lawyer who's currently completing,

or he's done his degree and there's some sort of professional graduate

be that you study that you do before you can actually fully practice.

And Tom, the warehouse guy sat by my side of the bar table and

he was of great help and comfort.

So he was helping me and he goes, we'll say this, you end up getting

inundated with 70 Pipers thrown at you and all the rest of it.

So really appreciate what you had there in helping me, Tom.

And that was good.

And, and I said to Tom, well, he hopes to become a criminal law.

And I said, great, because we really need a local barrister in the secular movement.

He does he's on hand.

And you know, next time we run a case, I'll sit at the back and Tom can run it.

So that's my aim at the moment.

We've got to keep Tom the warehouse guy happy.

Okay.

If you ever see him in the chat room, Because he, he, he could be a

great asset for us, the other track.

So that was that Queensland parents for secular state schools was

down in the back taking nights.

Alison was there what else were the highlights, Alison, that

you can think of from there?

Plenty of low lights, but if you could concentrate on a

highlight, that would be good.

Your knives at the end of the day.

You'd never know.

I haven't been involved in other cases, particularly with my wife's

family, where it seemed really bad at first, but actually in the cold

light of day, it wasn't so bad.

So we will, we will see fingers crossed hello in the chat room to

everybody Julia's commenting lots.

Allison's they?

Matthew, thank you.

You're welcomed.

Provide some questions because I can deal with those.

All right.

What else can I talk about that happened?

Oh, well, other things that have happened.

So the ABC news crew was out the front afterwards.

So, and I had some messages from some people saying that we

appeared on the ABC news tonight.

So check out the ABC catch-up Eyeview if you want to see us on

that, hopefully we came across it.

Okay.

Has anyone seen it?

Can you tell me if it seemed okay.

Basically did extended interview with them with the compass program had

been following us for quite a while.

I mean, the word journey gets overused a little bit, but they've

been with us for over a year now.

So they did another extended interview there, and then they came

to my house and interviewed me here.

So so yeah, so that was that.

Where did we go to from here?

What's going to happen down the track.

Let me take a sip of beer.

Yeah.

Let's assume we lose then what happens?

Well what happens if we lose the government?

I think knows that has a problem with that section.

We flagged in our interviews.

Hopefully the ABC shouted.

I'm not sure, but we've tried to flag in the interviews that if we do lose.

We will come back again in a couple years time.

So whatever it is, you know, our members weren't faithful enough.

We didn't have evidence of some commitment or ritual or enough of them

or whatever shortcomings we might've had.

We can address over the next couple of years.

And let's one of the things we're going to do is at some stage

tomorrow is I'm just going to sit down and write a list of everything.

I would have liked to have been able to hand up as evidence.

And we'll just get that evidence over the next couple of years.

So we're sort of letting the government know that that's what

we're going to do if we lose.

So you ma you might as well not relax if you happen to win.

The other things that came out of it were that there were real problems

with the section in the way that.

Authority was delegated to the principals and the why that the policy statement

and the regulations had been, I don't know, fashioned out of this act.

And I didn't understand fully the argument, Alison ye might.

And you're welcome to chime in here.

I can give you a link and you can join me if you're interested, if you're able to.

I don't know, but the certainly seem to be technical difficulties with the section.

There are things about it that people found quite unusual, and

this whole idea that you just, as a variety can enter school without

really an application as such.

It doesn't require a dis it's sort of obscure in the

way of requiring a decision.

It's not the way that these sections are commonly done.

So it seems like.

There's some legally technical problems with the section that

would motivate a well-meaning legislature to fix it up anyway.

So there is that issue there that is ticking away.

So our continued presence, the problem with the section and its end

its problems with its delegation of authority fact that these might be

challenged again by somebody else.

So these are things that might cause them to actually do something.

We'll see.

So government Alison made the point that the, the government

did not object to Satanism.

It just said about the Noosa temple of seitan as a religious

denomination or society.

So so it doesn't mean there can be no, the satanic RI it's just finding a group who.

Meets the section in order to deliver it.

So so yeah, and Alison, who was in the back watching she says that she'd like

to see a transcript to look at the issues of delegation and, and certainly Alison,

we need to, or, well, we're going to on, and I know you have in the past, look

at the section, says the whole point is let's, we're going to allow ministers of

religion or societies to come in and teach religion to members of their denomination.

It's quite specific in that yet in the regulations and in the policy

statement, they've created this system of multi-faith delivery, where one

minister or accredited representative can teach to multiple kids of different

faiths because it's easier for them.

So.

That that's that that's really, it should be not possible under the section.

So Hey, and a whole bunch of problems with that section beyond just

the fact that sigmas can use it.

So that's, if we lose, there'll be a motivation to fix it anyway.

Maybe not super quick, but on the agenda, if we win, what will the government do?

You're all wondering aren't you?

And we know that the government has considered several several scenarios.

So in our right to information documents that we gathered from the government, it

actually said three different scenarios.

There actually four, I can't remember the fourth on what to do

in the event that the template, the Nissen of site, and actually we.

And one of the scenarios was just tell principals not to let them

in any way seriously, one of the scenarios, and then beneath that it

was the problems with that are it's illegal and other things like that.

So that was one of the possible scenarios that they were con they were war gaming.

Another one was changed the act to exclude just a small number

of specific pariah religions.

So you say like, right, the act and say, all religions can come in except

for Satanists and Wiccans and a couple of others perhaps, but yeah, as a sort

of a specific exclusion of unsavory religions was one of the other options.

So so yeah, that's, that's, you know, in one of the options of course was we'll

just let him in, but I can't remember what the fourth one was, but anyway,

quite extraordinary, really that you would consider one of your options is

just tell principals not to let them in.

Anyway, oh, dear.

In the chat room Alison says that Queensland pants for secular state

schools have legal advice from a QC, that there was a big problem with how

students are allocated to religious instruction under these agreements.

So there we go.

It just doesn't make sense when you've gone to the effort of saying kids

can't be taught by other denominations because look, let's go back in history.

It was all about Catholics, not wanting Protestant teachers to be teaching

to Catholics and, and vice versa.

There was this intense rivalry between Protestants and Catholics

in our early days as a colony.

And so they're very keen to make sure that there would be no cross-contamination.

And the ag sections really quite plain about that.

And at the end of the day they've got this regulation and this policy that

says they land multi-faith agreements because it was easy for the providers

to love a whole bunch of kids together.

Teach 10 kids, not just two, I would think.

Right.

So so that was what would happen there?

And Joe, can you think of any questions or things that you're

interested in that I haven't covered?

Because on starting to Rob, we likely to find a helpful barrister,

a friendly barrister, given that we've made an attempt now.

Look, we were offered help by barristers.

So this is a good point to rise, Joe, because as I said, there were

two parts to this application.

One was the, the rejection of the letter, basically saying things

like they had no evidence about belief in seitan had no evidence

of our numbers, of our membership.

They, the, the political origins of the group are irrelevant.

So these are all as a matter of administrative law, invalid

reasons to make a decision.

So what normally happens is you in that situation, if you're successful, if the

court says, yes, the decision was flawed in its reasoning, the decision goes back

to the department and they told them.

Make the decision again.

So they obviously can't make the same mistakes, but they might make some other

ones, but all the court does is basically send it back to the original decision

maker and say, we'll let it didn't work.

Try again.

The other part of the application was a declaration that the new set template site

design religious denominational society.

And, and for me, the key to that was this whole religious society argument as our

best shot and spent a lot of time on it.

So we did get some help from some barristers and I'm really grateful for

it, but they concentrated on the th the letter and, and rejecting the letter.

And I felt I didn't concentrate enough on the declaration.

And if I had just relied on their submissions, I feel there wasn't nearly

enough commentary about the declaration.

Now they disagreed with me and said they thought they had.

And, and what it came down to though was in terms of

availability, they the particular barrister could not do it today.

He's for start down south and they were in lockdown and, but he's also busy,

so it would have required getting into Jim and, and then doing stuff by remote

distance, zoom phone call, basically.

And I just say, I consulted with people about this.

I consulted with barista and legal friends about this conundrum about do I.

It was more about if we were to go back to court, you said you felt that you under

pressure and with the rules of evidence.

Yes.

Particularly Abel absolutely having someone on the side, not necessarily

to put the case together, but to be there to argue absolutely.

On the spot.

Absolutely.

Definitely.

Somebody yes, in two years time when we go back absolutely going to have

a barista there, not me, for sure.

But in the current circumstances, the, the ideal barrister for me

would have been local, who was able to do it to die and not adjourn it.

And who really liked the society, declaration argument.

Because that's the important part to me and I, I the virus has

suggested I get an adjournment so that they could be involved.

It was going to be really light in proceedings to ask for an adjournment.

I'd received advice from other barristers to say, if you asked for an, a Jim and

Dow, that's going to be a really bad look and you might not even get it.

This is a really light request.

So so yeah, it, it, while I appreciated their advice and the Digicel review

questions, I just wasn't in sync with them on the declaration.

And I know they feel a different opinion.

They are a bit of fronted the front and I just disagreed that.

I'd sort of said, no on I'm going to do it myself.

If I have to get this thing done, Yeah.

The ideal thing would have been a barrister who had a love for the

declaration and my society argument that would have been really, really handy.

So these are all things that we can work on.

And maybe next time we have a crack at something you can't be perfect.

Can you?

And now I actually consult with people, several people to say, look, I don't

want to be egotistical about this.

I don't recognize that this is done on behalf of the secular community.

This is the battle we've all been fighting and I'm just the lightest,

a warrior in a long line of people.

Who've had a crack at this.

So I recognize it's just not me.

And I didn't specifically ask them, am I being egotistical or whatever?

What are you.

Shall I do this myself on the die and just go for it.

And I all said, yes.

So, and that's what I felt comfortable with.

And you know, it mentally, I don't think I'm up for, I would have been up for the

gentlemen, like I'm my mind is frazzled.

Now I've been at this for too long.

And if I had to have gone from the gym and put off for another month or two or

three or whatever not good, say whole host of reasons that interplay into things.

And that's where we've ended up where we've ended up.

So, yeah.

So can handle, so in terms of media interest, obviously the

RTI has revealed some interest.

Discussions internally.

Yeah.

Did that go up on Facebook today or something, or is that what I didn't

even, I haven't even seen the Temple's face besides today, so I shouldn't.

So there was a post about the hypocrisy of the ACL.

Yes.

Allegedly asking for religious freedom and then writing to the minister, demanding

that certain religions not be allowed.

Okay.

And I took a screenshot from the RTI, which is available

on the department's website.

Yes.

So it's public information.

And it has been redacted because it's public information

and Facebook took that down.

What had been reported to them as spam, both the link and the screenshot of

the ACL letter had been taken down.

I think it was maliciously reported.

I posted as a reply to the post on the Facebook page on who's on the news.

Yep.

So I've got a Facebook strike.

You're kidding.

Because I posted the link to the RTI document.

That is a public because it's a public document, but somebody

maliciously reported it, I believe.

Wow.

I think there are certain groups who don't want the hypocrisy shown.

Wow.

Is that right?

Yes.

And do you put that link in the messages?

Did you in the chat?

Yeah.

So I have a look for the product.

Again, Jeff people who've sort of might've scrolled past the screen or whatever.

Put up again as a link to the yeah, so, wow.

Otherwise, if you just Google Queensland education RTI you'll find the very

first hit is the disclosure logs.

You go into 2021, just search for Satan.

And it's on that page.

Well, you might, you can see the link there.

Wow.

I'll I'll turn it into a QR code and we'll have it up on the next podcast.

Okay.

Aura.

Wow.

There we go.

So, so that's a link to a document we retrieved under right.

To information.

It's a public document and you put a simple link to

that without any commentary.

Was there a comment or I posted, I posted no, no.

I posted the screenshot that was referred to in the temple post.

So it was, here's a letter from the ACL.

It shows what hypocrites they are.

So I took a screenshot of that, posted the photograph and then put a link to

the document and said, it's publicly.

Wow.

And God damn Facebook, just, just, here's a message.

And then just clearly didn't look at it.

If, if enough people reported bots will take it down.

So Christian,

right?

So I've appealed it, but they say we're, we're flooded at the moment

with all the COVID fake news.

There's very little chance.

We'll actually get to look at your wow.

Wow.

Okay.

I'm just trying to see if I can get, I'm just trying to

get a copy of the link myself.

Can you email, you were sharing on the screen.

Can you share your screen or and we can put up on the screen.

So what the ACR letter?

No, the right to information document the document, the flow

chart, sort of one, is it that one?

It is, yes.

I'm hitting security permissions on the macula.

It doesn't matter.

Okay.

Well, that's interesting.

Isn't it?

So a publicly available, available document and enough, presumably

Christians can complain about it.

It's a QE D dot Queensland, qed.qld.gov dot are you like it's a government.

God damn.

Ah, okay.

All right.

The website, qed.qld.gov dot R use slash about us slash slash disclosure

logs slash 2 1 1 9 5 or seven dot PDF.

That will get you there.

Have a look.

Wow.

Ah, Jody, that's amazing.

Just so enough.

Enough people object to the bots, take it down and it's not back up.

Is that yeah.

You're still in a, you in a purgatory still.

W no, because strike rock I've been told effectively for the

post is not visible to anybody.

Wow.

Wow.

You rascal, Joe, you subversive rebellious as a role in Satanism for you.

Wow.

I'm flabbergasted by that.

And what's good.

Shout is that they worried Jay's thing change.

We are a thorn in their side, much like Satan placed a thorn in the

side of Paul keeping me in line.

Actually I read a really do I want to get into the same?

What other things have I, can I tell you about the case?

Ah, there's a QR code right up there on the screen.

Is that only a screen on that?

Is that, oh yeah, you put that.

That should be good.

That should be shared on the live stream.

There you are.

Everyone knows how to use a QR code now.

So now that's up there.

You can go with that way.

That's easy.

What else do people want to know about is what happened?

Zachary, are you going to do, let me just get rid of that.

You're going to do another, if I request to see any further discussion

about in Ts by the government possible, not just at the moment.

I don't think Julia in response to what you said, Joe, she says that sounds

like a rallying call for everyone to post it in as many places as they can.

Yeah, that everybody, I agree with that one.

J Y V I think is some sort of crazy person who we've probably blocked by now.

Is that right?

I don't know.

He's gone quiet, so, okay.

And let's see, what else is in there?

Yeah.

Message from Tom, right?

Oh, is this guy okay?

Yep.

Tom's message.

Let me get to it.

Well done on a tough day in court have sent you an email with my

thoughts on today in detail.

Yes, I did actually talk about the theosophy case and the

Scientology case earlier, Tom.

So considering that was the only one of the few blows I landed, Tom.

I did actually tell him about that one as, as a highlight.

So good to see that you agree on that.

It's funny.

Yeah, Tom, the warehouse guy full marks.

Let me see, what else can we talk about while we're on this topic?

I actually been reading a lot about Satan lately.

Let me find, let me grab these nighttime sink.

Got a really good book about Satan in the Bible, and it's quite fascinating

how the site and in the Bible.

Is so much on the side of God and he's not an anti-Christ at all.

And the way this guy describes the site in the Bible, he's fascinating.

So interrupt me with any other thoughts that you might have,

what else we got in there?

So Craig, the answer is we haven't got a decision yet we're

Whiting, but it was a tough die.

And some blows landed at the end that were favorable, but he had died and I,

that, I, it wouldn't, didn't go as well as I hoped, let me put it that way.

So it's a really good book.

Like I have a cross site and in the Bible God's minister of justice supply Henry

Kelly, and this guy has gone through the Bible and in its original Hebrew

and then the translations to Greek.

Yeah.

I basically his, his premise is that there is no difference between the presentations

of Satan in the old and new testaments.

He appears as an adversary to humans, but not to God.

Rather he functions on behalf of God in various areas of law enforcement,

including investigation, intervention, accusation, prosecution, and punishment.

According to this author, seitan, as I see him is working for the celestial

government and perhaps the closest analog to his position in the American

system is the post of attorney general.

His ultimate goal is on the side of angels to weed out all unworthy

persons from God's favor, he's deeply suspicious of mortals and

resorts to tricks to smoke out there.

Tree characters, the scriptural seitan that you can see in the

Bible wants to keep bad people out.

The Satan that we all are familiar with, wants to make good people bad.

And essentially how it works is that the word seitan in Hebrew is a common

noun, meaning adversary or opponent.

So in the book in Hebrew is often references to an adversary, stopped

this person, or an adversary did this, or an adversary or opponent did that.

And when it was translated, it became the adversaries.

So the one person was deemed to be this opponent who on other ratings

is just multiple different people who takes an opponent of view.

So the say I seitan became the seitan and still lie when you read it, the role

of seitan, we've already mentioned the book of job before, but at numerous times

he's his role is to test people's faith.

And so he, he tested Joe, he tested the apostles.

He tested Jesus when Jesus was doing his 40 days fast and he offered him kingdom.

Cause cause Satan was say suspicious that he didn't even trust Jesus.

They go, he was just trying to keep the unworthy out.

And there are a whole range of instances where his role was to tempt people

and people were really worried about the sight eyesight and tempting them.

And in fact it all makes sense when you hear the alpha, the prayer.

And if you read it in the original, it's basically the conclusion

is, and do not draw us into testing, but deliver us from harm.

So, what people are really doing is they're praying to God saying,

stop sending this guy in testing us.

It's really hard.

Please don't test us anymore.

It's that prayer makes sense to me now.

So so that's a fascinating book, more about that lighter.

Where are we in terms of the chat room?

Is there anything that I need to know?

In the chat room, Craig says Satan is portrayed as an he's portrayed in

an interesting way in the TV series, Lucifer, as a Punisher of the guilty

forced to, by God, he specifically doesn't hurt innocence or lie.

There we go.

I have to watch that.

And it seems that Satan is particularly keen on those who seem overtly righteous.

So Joe was overtly righteous and, and Jesus was suspiciously righteous.

So they read.

Rice Satan's suspicion levels, fascinating stuff.

Ah, I think I'm nearly no, nothing.

So he drove these, the messages.

You don't know what that means.

It's a, it's a joke from star was was it?

No, no.

Are not the choice you're looking for real are these are not

the droids you're looking for.

Right.

Okay.

Why drive in my head on this late time?

So Lisa for TV series is worth watching.

Yeah, it's a little simplistic, but it's fun.

Okay.

There you go.

Thanks.

Just shows, shows Lucifer as a poor misunderstood person

misrepresented by the Bible.

It's exactly the case.

And this is actually, I'm actually starting to get quite keen on giving a

satanic religious instruction lesson.

I think it's such a great platform for describing a lot of things.

So just to kick off with the book of Jonah is, is interesting in terms of

who is the good guy or the bad guy.

Oh God.

Yes.

Who is the most?

Assholery in this God with ultimate authority or his henchman Satan,

who's actually trying to do the right thing or God who is so weak

that he doesn't actually stand up to Satan and say, Hey, that's too much.

Let's not go that far.

And then really you could then look at it in terms of, well, what is good

and evil and is it independent of God?

Does it exist?

It's the whole youth, youth road dilemma you could throw in there.

And then just the whole, you know, by the time you've explained Satan's role.

As God's henchman and enforcer and prosecutor and questionnaire and

opposer he's tough guy is his hired gun.

It's entirely possible that somebody could be polytheistic and be both Christian

and satanic, like entirely possible.

And and really what we've got is the Bible is quite consistent on this end.

It's only in revelation where it all goes to shit and like what,

doesn't get a shit in revelation.

So but I'm till lane, it's all good and drugs.

Yeah.

There's something taken there.

So, so what people have done is they've looked at, you know, revelation,

for example, had this serpent re Tilian dragon type beast in there,

and which was declared as a seitan.

And then people looked at the garden of Eden and saw the snake, right.

Well, that's just the same thing.

Isn't it must've been Satan as well.

Like there's nothing in the book story of the garden of Eden to suggest

that it's anything other than just a snake and talking snake mind.

But, but no no, there's nothing there that you could read in isolation and go, aha.

It is it is obviously a reference to site and it's not at all.

It's just, that's really long connection has been made between

this repeal or reptilian, dragon sip and creature in, in revelation.

And they've gone on, it's just obviously this snake in the Genesis story at right.

Just so what you've really though, the end God is just a series of,

of clerics in lighter years who lived on the dirty on seitan.

And then.

Red things that weren't there and, and created a picture.

So it's just an interesting, see, in explaining this in a satanic religious

education, religious education class, you could really get into some

interesting topics where you would say well, this is akin to the need

to look at the source documents.

And so the fake news.

Yeah.

And COVID, and all that we're seeing with reports about, you know, medical

tests that suggest all sorts of things.

And if you read a newspaper report about what a medical report says,

you're applying with fire quite often.

And if you go to the original source document and read it for

yourself, then you get the picture.

And it's a really good.

Lesson in life, just in the treatment of Satan in the Bible some part

of a satanic instruction calls.

I'd love to be able to explain that.

Yeah, so there's lots of interesting life lessons can all

be weaved in and around the holes.

Tenix story far more interesting than anything.

They'd be getting the current religious instruction classes.

I can assure you all burned forever, but the less, you know, in this whole

process, I never got to tell anybody and nobody ever asked, what exactly

are you going to teach in this class?

It doesn't matter.

It's not relevant.

Exactly.

Nobody asked nobody was interested in.

Yeah, Nope.

And the department have got no control over it.

And that's the important point.

Yeah.

They they, in fact I think just provide, you're not doing anything

illegal, like recommending people consume illegal drugs or something.

Yeah, no, you're not allowed to go against education department guidelines.

So I believe you can't disparage certain groups.

Yeah.

But aside from that, so so we're going to take a breath for a

while and and you know, might be shocked and might have a win.

I was kind of happy to have my section 49 order by the wine.

Cause at one point there, I thought the judge was going to say, I really don't

like you guys and you seem like a sham to me and I'm going to order costs against

you, but that was never on the table.

So it's an enormous relief right at this moment, actually to

know that there's a section 49.

That means that I'm not going to be worried about a costs of water.

So was that a different judge that gave you the section 49?

Yeah, but that was all done on the papers that was just papers were lodged.

I never even saw the judge.

And that was a case where the crown actually consented that in fighting.

They said, yeah, let him have you section 49 order.

We don't.

That's fine.

So so that was a different judge, but it also had no argument at all in it.

So it was just done by consent.

So, so okay.

Let's see that.

So, so it was comforting to have that second 49 costs order than have to

worry about an adverse costs order.

Oh, anything else people want to know?

Craig says in the battle between God and sight and history was written by

the winner and I change and it is true.

And Jack says may have missed this, but what will be taught during the class?

I just wonder if it will feed in to invalidate Christian teachings

that we'll likely see justification validation of their views.

Well, at this time, Jack, there won't be any class we have yet

to win and decision reserved.

Not sure a lot of it didn't go well, so not confident, but kind

of land a few punches at the end.

So dire straights asked, how am I?

And the answer is on frazzled and exhausted.

And I have been talking nonstop to people all day.

And yeah, so I've already said I'm happy to look at the compass program

is actually going to do a very good thing on us when it eventually happens

next year, they interviewed me.

When I was in Sydney in the days when you could go to Sydney, remember that

Jay used to be able to go places like Sydney, I've heard Televista things.

Right.

I think it's just ancient legend.

Yeah.

So that was back in February.

I think it was, I was sat down stone work.

Yes.

But so it was before we actually had the adverse decision at that point we had

applied, but they hadn't responded to us.

So that was a way back then that we first spoke with compass and

they've done different interviews and they've built up quite a a file, a

video, and they kind of onboard and understand fully what we're doing.

So when the compass program eventually comes out, then I

think that will be an interesting.

Full expos.

I have what we've been up to.

Yeah.

It's not going to be the same as the Moonlight state, the exposure

of the BLP Peterson corruption.

Hopefully not.

I meant more about the department of education.

Oh, right.

No, it's more about us, Sally.

Yeah.

It's about us, I think.

And our journey and depends what happens as that journey unfolds as to whether

we are part of a larger story about religious freedom and discrimination

next year, when the, when the religious discrimination bill comes up.

So we might be just a small part of a program or there might be something

a bit longer, certainly given them enough material, they can do something.

I mean the religious freedom doesn't just mean religious

freedom for a particular group.

It means religious freedom for everybody.

Yes, that's right.

Yes.

Yep.

That's the one.

So yeah.

Well there we go.

Any other thoughts Alison on it that you can think of?

I can't really think of much else to add.

I think I should probably sign off and be with you guys, the normal panel next week.

Any favorite topics come up in the last week, Joe, that you're keen to explore?

Not off the top of my head.

I'm sure there will be.

I saw I saw this thing, which was a mashup of, of statements by Gladys

Berejiklian and Scott Morrison.

You know, all of her original statements where she said, oh,

we get by without lockdowns.

Cause we know what we're doing.

And, and then as it all progressed and turned to attending to

the mess that it is now.

So so the, the juice media podcast about COVID.

The last one was really interesting.

They were interviewing a doctor who was part of the BMJ

panel, British medical journal.

Right.

And I think has done quite a lot in remote parts in infectious diseases and

was talking about hotel quarantine and how hotels with a shared air conditioning

system is probably the worst place that you can put people who have COVID

or sorry, who potentially have COVID.

Yes.

And then there was a really interesting BBC world service, 45 minute podcast,

which was where three epidemiologists doing a, where did we screw up?

You know, what did we get?

Right.

And where did we screw up?

And where did these outbreaks come from?

Yep.

So possibly.

Was covering off on and linking to, okay.

Sounds, sounds like a plane.

So, all right.

Alison in the chat room says my brain is mush and I was just

sitting in the pub, the gallery.

Yeah.

It's a bit like that.

All right.

Rambling.

Now I'm just rambling.

I better, I better sign off and yeah, we'll be back next week to talk about

news and politics and sex and religion.

And we will talk to you then.

Bye.

For now.