Hoax Confirmed: Josh Burns is Bummed (2024)
According to ‘The Jewish Independent’ writing about a recent so-called ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ in the Melbourne suburb of St. Kilda in Australia yet another so-called ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ has been discerned by the police to be a jewish misrepresentation.
They write how:
‘A 17-year-old alleged vandal charged over a pro-Palestinian attack that caused more than $100,000 worth of damage to Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns’ electorate office, during which he allegedly hit the glass facade 14 times with a sledgehammer, is on track to avoid a criminal conviction.
The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and an 18-year-old woman were charged over the vandalism attack in which windows were smashed and slogans, including “Zionism is fascism”, were spray-painted on the St Kilda electorate office of Mr Burns on June 19. Police allege the boy caused $55,000 worth of damage in the alleged vandalism spree that left taxpayers with a total estimated bill of $101,417.
According to a police summary of the offending, an unknown suspect was also captured on CCTV carrying a petrol jerry can.
Police also charged the boy and the woman in connection with a second vandalism incident at the Honorary Consulate General of France on St Kilda Rd on July 17.
There are six other suspects in the two vandalism incidents who are yet to be identified, according to the police summary.
In court, magistrate Elizabeth Langdon heard the boy had been found suitable for diversion, which was supported by the prosecution.
Ms Langdon gave the boy until February 10, the day before he turns 18, to successfully complete four required diversion activities to avoid a conviction.
Ms Langdon said she had read the boy’s report and was “particularly impressed” by his “really insightful reflections”, the impacts on the victims and words to the effect that “it isn’t going to change anything in Gaza right now”.’ (1)
Put another way: the 17-year-old boy concerned engaged in the vandalism as a form of political protest and it wasn’t ‘anti-Semitic’ nor a ‘hate crime’ – hence his similar vandalism of the Honorary Consulate General of France – but rather a legitimate political protest carried out in a criminal way. Hence the focus of magistrate Elizabeth Langdon on the criminal element (i.e., the vandalism) not the motivation (i.e., the alleged ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’) which is a polite way of saying ‘this is not an anti-Semitic hate crime so please stop calling it that jews.’
The point is very simple in that so-called ‘hate crime’ legislation requires motivation to be shown and opposition to Israel and/or anti-Zionism is not ipso facto ‘anti-Semitism’ no matter how much jews and their paid collaborators want to shriek that it is.
So thus, this was merely vandalism and not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’.
References
(1) https://thejewishindependent.com.au/antisemitic-vandal-likely-to-avoid-criminal-conviction