It was not expected that the Council would rule against the offending magazine. Of course not. The information here demonstrates the disinformation peddled as reporting of Australian neo-nazism, masks a hidden agenda. For the Australian Press Council to have examined the evidence and ruled against the magazine would have implied that it was willing to 'find the truth'. For liberals, that is always too painful. This is a complaint against an article which appeared in New Idea magazine, in the edition for March 23 2002. A copy of the article, "Internet Evil", by Debi Marshall, is appended herewith. It is my complaint that this article breaches the code in four places: in principles one, two, three and five, as hereunder described. It is further my position that the breaches of the principles go further than the obvious, and step over into the practise of disinformation. Disinformation is a serious matter and it is only when the article is taken as a totality and key questions asked, that this becomes the over-riding offence. Similar Complaints
This is a complaint against an article which appeared in New Idea magazine, in the edition for March 23 2002.
A copy of the article, "Internet Evil", by Debi Marshall, is appended herewith.
It is my complaint that this article breaches the code in four places: in principles one, two, three and five, as hereunder described.
It is further my position that the breaches of the principles go further than the obvious, and step over into the practise of disinformation. Disinformation is a serious matter and it is only when the article is taken as a totality and key questions asked, that this becomes the over-riding offence.
It is a matter of record that I have made a number of complaints to the Australian Press Council against other newspapers and magazines in the past, regarding the reportage of the (alleged) activities of Australian neo-nazis. I have made these complaints periodically since 1981. It is poignant that the person who centres in the article "Internet Evil" (David Palmer) operates a group which lineally descends from the group reported in the other articles against which I have complained.
The Press Council has dismissed my previous complaints.
Essentially, my complaints in the past centred around a few postulates: that the neo-nazis at issue did not enjoy any organizational substance, that their sensational claims were false, and that the journalist reporting on the ‘activities’ of these persons could not have actually believed the detail which was on offer. I complained that editors seemed curiously willing to report on something which did not exist, or at least did not operate even in remote proximity to the extent claimed. Of course, there were other areas of complaint usually grounded in the context of the article.
It was sometimes suggested by the Australian Press Council in its adjudications that it was not its function to prove or disprove the content of the article, that editors were publishing in good faith and occasionally – that my claims should not carry any particular weight.
While the present complaint is singular, I alert the Press Council to the previous complaints. At the very least it should be clear that the claims made by the neo-nazis in the past bore no fruit, a suggestive fact in weighing up the credibility of the current "evil" paraded by David Palmer. Palmer has himself, made various assertions in the media as to his activities and direction. Nothing has occurred of these announcements. It is reasonable to believe that any journalist doing research into Palmer’s activities should have been aware of earlier journalism. It would be incumbent upon any publication to have access to records that could assist in determining whether anything told to its agent by a person of supposed ‘extremist’ pedigree was accurate.
I note however, that the first ground of complaint in the present code sets a certain standard where the question of truth may be ventilated.
My Dealings With New Idea: Correct Course Followed.
On the day after the article appeared I contacted New Idea magazine and conversed with a Linda Franks.
I informed Ms. Franks that the article was a "hoax" against the public. I made certain explanations. I told her that David Palmer represented no actual organization, but merely a tiny circle of persons; I told her that the Anti-Defamation Commission which appeared in the article must also know this fact. It was requested by Ms. Franks I forward documents that may substantiate my assertions and further, direct a letter to the editor of the magazine. I did both. A copy of the letter (sent by e-mail) is included with this complaint.
New Idea did not publish the letter nor did it correct the article. I was not contacted again for any purpose of clarification. It can only be assumed that New Idea stands by the article.
I have therefore done what would normally be demanded and I have brought my complaint here.
A Matter Of Expertise.
The activities of the Australian neo-nazis are within my purview as a researcher.
My Doctor of Philosophy thesis (degree awarded University of Sydney 2001) has a chapter (Chapter Six) devoted to Australian neo-nazism since 1975. Palmer is discussed therein at various points in a two-page section.
My Master of Arts (Hons) thesis (degree awarded 1986) was composed upon the subject of American neo-nazism during the years 1960 – 1978.
Both of these documents are on the Internet at: www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat
The same Internet Site carries a polemical item: Inside The Kangaroo Reich: Australia’s Neo-Nazis Under The Microscope 1985-2000. This work contains substantial data regarding the true strength and purpose of the neo-nazis, including Palmer’s group.
In 2002, a book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism And The Politics Of Identity, was published. I append certain pages. Goodrick-Clarke is a British university-based expert on the subject of neo-nazism. He quoted from my Master’s thesis. He and I discussed neo-nazism in certain telephone and other communications to which he gave acknowledgment in his book.
It is the position that I maintain extensive files on the activities of Australian neo-nazis going back over decades and that this is a publicly known fact. Some of this includes ASIO and NSW Police Special Branch files which I am presently using to construct an article that will, in part, deal with an earlier phase of neo-nazism.
I consider that I should be regarded as someone who is ‘expert’ generally, upon the subjects of neo-nazi ideology, politics and organization.
A Personal Interest.
Due to certain factors I am familiar with the subject of the Australian neo-nazis in a way which is neither detached nor academic.
I have met Palmer, have had my life threatened by him, and on August 28 2001 was assaulted by him in circumstances where the result was not to his advantage.
I have had the opportunity to study Palmer and his activities.
In recent times, this situation has led to my rendering assistance to a ‘faction’ within the Christian publishing group, the British-Israel World Federation in New South Wales. This association, which had received a $500,000 bequest, was targeted by Palmer and his neo-nazis for takeover. A court action concerning this affair is awaiting judgment in the Supreme Court.
Due to my intervention in this affair, documents which set out the effective ‘membership’ of Palmer’s neo-nazi group came into my hands. A copy of a document which sets out certain names/addresses was provided to New Idea and is now provided to the Australian Press Council. Another British-Israel internal circular is also included for the information of the Council.
As the complainant, I am aware therefore that in this area, I am partisan. Nonetheless, the complaint speaks for itself.
Information On Neo-Nazism In The Public Arena.
It may be considered that any individual journalist might not necessarily know of my academic and polemical material on the subject of Australian neo-nazism. Similarly, the British-Israel case might be considered arcane knowledge. The documents relating to it might not readily come to light.
However, these days, an Internet search is a common place act by any researcher and it may therefore be thought that any journalist investigating this subject would turn up the material. New Idea magazine could certainly have done this. Of course, it would be open for anyone to reject any conclusion or challenge any fact. However, it would be material which would excite doubts and demand attention.
I can say that in 1999, during the Palmer-Coleman KKK provocation directed at the One Nation party, I was contacted by a journalist from The Australian and asked questions about the informer status of Coleman. It is clear that some facts launched by me into the discussion of this group – have travelled. There is no substantive reason why Debi Marshall could not have known of these issues. There is no substantive reason why New Idea could not have known. The Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC), whose representative is quoted in the article, would have known. I am a person of interest to the ADC and have been monitored by them – and smeared by them too.
Bluntly, the material on the Internet could not be ignored by any journalist.
It is my contention:
that the Australian neo-nazis grouped around Palmer number no more than about 15 persons. Many of them have histories of mental illness. Palmer has no real organizational resources. His so-called ‘KKK’ is not affiliated to any of the US groups. There is no real evidence that Palmer engages in any ‘political’ action (even criminal action) in pursuit of his supposed goals. The only evidence of his function as a director of supposedly-existent racist groups is – other journalism. Palmer’s closest associate of 12 years, Peter John Coleman, was undoubtedly an informant for the former NSW Police Special Branch. Palmer tells people he has had a security services’ connection. On balance, Palmer is a wildly eccentric person, probably manipulated in some manner by an outside force for some purpose.
It has long been my concern that Palmer will make the most extreme statements to media, threatening death or violence and that ‘anti-racists’ will then make inevitable rational sounding replies about the need to censor certain political opinion. The two seem to exist in symbiosis. Whether certain editors desire that outcome, I cannot say – but it is the outcome of most of Palmer’s appearances. It is dramatically demonstrated in the "Internet Evil" text.
This type of behaviour is usually classified as provocation.
How Did The Article Come Into Being?
It is appropriate that the Australian Press Council establishes how it was the Marshall article actually came into being. This exercise will show the agenda of the writer and illustrate why the publication failed to exercise proper diligence.
Ms. Franks advised me that Debi Marshall is not a New Idea employee, but a "freelance" writer.
It beggars belief that Debi Marshall was not referred onto Palmer by someone who told her of his ‘activism’. Did anyone suggest to her a piece be done on Internet racism? How did Marshall locate Palmer? Why Palmer? The answers to these questions set the parameters of the fraud. If Marshall has any connection to the Anti-Defamation Commission, an anti-Arab Zionist group which claims it is an ‘anti-racist’ group, then the article because it reported on this body as the ‘balance’ to Palmer, would be worse than bogus, but disinformation pure and simple.
The Specifics Of The Complaint Against New Idea.
In the third column, Marshall recounts a tale concerning one of Palmer’s daughters living in a building with people of "mixed backgrounds" and that "Palmer’s KKK henchmen stormed the building" and "threw" the "coffee coloured people" "out of a first floor window".
This was an admission on Palmer’s part to knowledge of a serious crime – if the crime had occurred. We may rest assured neither Marshall nor New Idea reported the admission to police. It is my submission there was never any such incident anywhere. Neither Marshall nor New Idea can prove that there was any such incident. If they could, the racist and extremist, leader would be open to prosecution and imprisonment.
For the record, I can tell the Australian Press Council that this is yet another variation on a story Palmer habitually tells all who meet him.
The section is written matter-of-factly as if it has occurred and any reader could assume that it had.
The admission should have also alerted Marshall to be cautious about what she was being told. New Idea should have involved their solicitors upon receiving Marshall’s article and sought verification.
I say this section breached Principle One (accuracy was not checked) and Three (the unconfirmed report was not identified as such).
In column four Marshall quotes Mr. Beneson Apple of the Anti-Defamation Commission who says: "the numbers of the KKK and NSDAP are low – less than a 1000 for each, their very existence in Australia is enough to instil fear in minority groups.."
Most certainly the memberships are "less than a 1000 for each", because the membership which is shared between each of Palmer’s political mutations - is about 15.
The figure provided by Mr. Apple was misleading, and the numbers implied would most certainly instil the fear that Mr. Apple decries. In this way, the article could have committed an offence against the Racial Discrimination Act.
I cannot believe that Mr. Apple does not know the truth. Mr. Apple’s agenda is to further the cause of Internet censorship as the section "Hate Groups On The Internet" makes clear. He cannot have Internet censorship unless the KKK/NSDAP is made to appear more prominent than it is and that the groups operate with the utilisation of the Internet.
Marshall did not check Mr. Apple’s information, The New Idea did not test Mr. Apple’s information.
I say this section breached Principle One (would reasonable know the information to be false and accuracy was not checked) and Principle Two (the information was "harmfully inaccurate" and might be an offence against the Racial Discrimination Act and it has not been the subject of correction).
In column one, Marshall refers to Palmer as the "appointed Imperial Wizard of an Australian Ku Klux Klan chapter". This statement, in accompaniment with the large photograph of five robed Klansmen, would lead the reader to conclude that Palmer is connected to the American Ku Klux Klan. That could indeed "instil fear" and would render him with some ‘credibility’ as a spokesman for racism.
While there are innumerable groups in America which call themselves ‘KKK’, there could be no evidence that any one of those groups has "appointed" Palmer the "Imperial Wizard" of any "chapter". Yet Palmer is misrepresented as being associated with the US ‘KKK’.
(It is true that Palmer’s associate Coleman was recognized as a representative of the Imperial Klans of America in 1999, but it is my information (and their website shows no reference) that Palmer is not recognized by this group.)
For Palmer to represent some US group, he would require some accreditation. None was cited in the article. It is a certainty that Palmer has no such accreditation. It is not good enough to say that Palmer said he was appointed as a representative of the American Klan. If he is not an appointed representative (let alone ‘Imperial Wizard’), then the article is false in its representation of detail. The Press Council is entitled to ask the journalist for whatever notes of Palmer’s conversation as are available and to ask whether any check was ever made. If Palmer provided any reference to an American connection, and given the Internet-focus of the article, a check of the American website would have provided even more salacious reportage if Palmer had appeared thereon.
I say this section breaches Principle One (accuracy was not checked) and Principle Five (facts misrepresented).
In column one, Palmer is referred to as the "Fuhrer" of the NSDAP group.
Obviously the use of this remarkable title by Palmer did not incite a suspicion in Marshall that the man was some sort of play-actor. Reasonably, New Idea did not question Marshall further. And not just a "Fuhrer" but an "Imperial Wizard" too!
The relevant facts must be that Palmer should not to be taken seriously without verification or clarification. New Idea reported Palmer as if he were a credible person, entitled to use the description of himself as "Fuhrer".
Credibility can also of course, be assessed on the basis of activism. New Idea would have to show that the KKK/NSDAP actually exists at some level where the article justifies itself. The ADC has referred to "less than a 1000 members" in each group. Such groups would leave evidence of their existence, or, if we are to pretend they are underground groups, evidence of crime or some function of activity. New Idea cannot do this. If it could, the ridiculous nomenclature adopted by Palmer would be irrelevant.
Rather New Idea represented Palmer as a "Fuhrer" as if that was a credible reality.
I say the section breaches Principle Five (misrepresenting relevant facts).
In column 2 and five, it is reported that Palmer "recruits converts" on the Internet and says he tries to do his work "effectively" through "the net".
There cannot be any evidence in the possession of Marshall (thence New Idea) that Palmer does this. Palmer says this is what he does. This is not proof. How could Marshall have established that Palmer’s claim was accurate? She could have asked to sight a collection of e-mails. I would predict she did not do this.
It is reasonable to report his statement as a ‘claim’, but not as a fact. The article says that Palmer uses the "modern technology" of the Internet, rather than "political rallies" to recruit. It begs the question: have there been any "political rallies"? I would challenge New Idea to show that there have been any such rallies. The article has misrepresented the nature of Palmer’s activity.
To say that Palmer uses the Internet, covers over the fact that he does not hold public meetings.
New Idea has not established any of the facts it asserts and misleads its readers.I say the section breaches Principle One (accuracy not checked), Principle Three (unconfirmed report) and Principle Five (misrepresenting of facts).
In column two it is reported that Palmer claims that "attention from government authorities has forced the KKK and NSDAP underground."
This is a remarkable claim, offered in tandem with Palmer’s statement that the groups now rely on the Internet. It suggests that the "authorities" have acted against the KKK/NSDAP.This is an unverified report. The article purports to be a serious look at the racist views and violent predisposition of existent organizations that use the Internet. The New Idea published this comment, which, if true, would provide some credibility for Palmer; but that at the same time it would provide an explanation for a lack of visible substance on the part of the KKK/NSDAP.
(Now that I have provided New Idea with the neo-nazi membership list, it would be relatively simple to verify the report. I would predict nonetheless that New Idea has no intention of going beyond the surface statements of Palmer and into investigative journalism. Why should it? It is easier to ignore the truth.)
The report at first hand confuses a "claim" with possible truth. In the context of the article the claim is believable. The reader could easily assume it was true.
The section breaches Principle One (accuracy not checked).
In column four, the article says that "Palmer started the Australian chapters of the far-right groups after the 1987 census…"
That statement is factually incorrect. This was not the course of action Palmer followed at all.
The NSDAP group was not ‘founded’ until April 1990 and the KKK was ‘launched’ in 1999.I could offer any number of reasons as to why Palmer told this story, but it would confuse the present issue.
An Internet search or even a newspaper file search would have established that the group NSDAP was unheard of in the media until 1990.
I say that the section breaches Principle One (reasonably be expected to know if false and fail to check accuracy).
It is my complaint that the breaches of the Australian Press Council principles should be summed together and viewed as a special breach of standards.
Given that there is no Palmer organization, given that the Anti-Defamation Commission reasonably knows this, and given that Internet censorship is the sub-text of the article, the Australian Press Council should view this article as - disinformation.
It is in my view the intention of the journalist was to present distorted muck as fact and to pass it off to New Idea magazine as worthy journalism, as no less than a "Special Report".
Marshall could have acquired relevant information by an Internet search and could have investigated the claims made by Palmer, with genuine rigour. After this, the article could not have been composed in the manner it has been. New Idea however is remiss for publishing the piece.
The article was a falsity. New Idea could reasonably have established the article was a crafted falsity and there were signs in the article that an investigation by New Idea editors was called for (ie. Palmer’s nomenclature, his confession to violence). However, it will be found that New Idea never checked the accuracy of the article just as Linda Franks intimated to me.
The article has misrepresented the extent of KKK/NSDAP activism to argue for Internet censorship. It has done this by promoting the ADC line in the two sub-sections: Can The KKK Be Stopped?" and "Hate Groups On The Internet" in response to Palmer’s assertions of use of the Internet.
The article is a dangerous piece which abuses press freedom to plant a story upon the reading public. That is disinformation and it should be repudiated.
I am prepared to assist the Press Council in the settlement of this complaint. I look forward to an early resolution.
July 12 2002
Mr. Jack Herman Executive Secretary Australian Press Council
Re: your letter of July 5 2002 / New Idea's Response etc.
Even I was taken back a step by the reply by New Idea. I was always of the view that solid research should lie at the basis of an article of this sort. However, as you are aware, I allege something else, not only against New Idea, but against others. The idea that the magazine played a neutral role in reporting something about which readers could make an informed opinion - is humbug. The tone of the magazine article was one where the reader was likely to accept that the material was in some way 'true': that there was a KKK, with a hundreds-membership, active, organised and recruiting over the Internet in some meaningful way, and serious enough to be monitored by the good-guy Zionists.
To say that I have validated the idea that this KKK exists by providing material about it, is to fraudulently misrepresent what I said. I said that the KKK is not an organization as New Idea presented it, but a bizarre circle of people grouped around Palmer (of no more than possibly 15 persons). Sadly for New Idea, I had a 'membership' list and data about the people (the list also included non neo-nazis and some who dropped out long before the story appeared). It would be easy for Debi Marshall to look into the 'KKK' further to prove its diabolical conspiracy against liberal goodness and niceness, but I would doubt New Idea would commission a further 'dig'. If it did, the Klan would be revealed for what it is: a hoax, albeit of a special sort. Or if one went even deeper, the journalist and the magazine would discover that layer of truth which explains the actual nature of the Palmer circle. There is no interest in that. The membership list is there. Research is easy.
I note New Idea describes Palmer as "ordinary". Palmer is not - ordinary. There is extensive material on that point for any magazine to discover - if it wanted to.
The bottom line is New Idea accepts there is a KKK and an "Imperial Wizard" because Palmer says it's real - and because I accept he sometimes calls himself a KKK activist and a "fuhrer", and an "Imperial Wizard". I have heard better bullshit from Crown Prosecutors.
You have listed to me three options in dealing with the New Idea response. I cannot accept the first. The second is agreeable to me, if the publication accepts it and if it is possible for me to advance new material. The third may be the only option, if I can advance new material.
This new material may include statutory declarations from persons once involved in the Palmer circle. I will also refer to comparative material that shows a curious congruity between the Debi Marshall article and other material written about Palmer. Either Marshall plagiarised at a certain level of preparation, or the material was provided from some central script.
I feel too that New Idea must be compelled to answer certain questions about how this article came into being in the first instance. It has not addressed this issue. I must press it.
I look forward to further correspondence from you.
September 15 2002
Mr. Jack Herman Executive Secretary Australian Press Council
Re: my complaint against New Idea.
It is my considered opinion that a conference between myself and New Idea would be the best way to resolve this matter. Despite the tone of New Idea's reply, I do not consider that that the magazine's editor is necessarily blind to the evidence.
I must at this point place further material before you.
(i) I refer to the article "Little Hitler's" (Australian Penthouse, as appended).
First: I draw the your attention to the opening section (page 75) of this item and would have you compare it to the two opening paragraphs of the Debi Marshall piece.
It is my submission that there are certain direct style similarities.
These similarities can be listed as: his "benign" appearance (Marshall) / "possible to like him" (Penthouse) ; the descriptions of his clothing, different but recorded nonetheless in both articles ; "image of a scout leader" (Marshall) / "Doesn't exactly look like a threat" (Penthouse)
I suppose it is possible to take both introductory sections as similar in effect: they paint a word-picture of a non-threatening man with bizarre views whose dress sense belies the terror he invokes and whose true life is in the shadow of his public demeanour.
The use of this mode of creative writing suggests strongly a similar frame of mind. However, it is my argument that Marshall plagiarised Penthouse and merely re-crafted the words. Or in the alternate, as I verily believe, scripts are available from certain sources (but I will not labour that). Whatever the case, the style similarity indicates worthless journalism.
Second: It is clear as I have alleged that Palmer gives different versions of his history and activities. On page 76 of Penthouse Palmer "has been at it for 15 years" ; obviously this version given to Penthouse (published 1996) means he began about 1981 - 82. This conflicts with Debi Marshall's "1987" - and the evidence provided by me which dates his appearance and explains it in other terms. This is not an irrelevant issue as New Idea would have it. If Palmer is truthful as to his activities, and if the public is to be free to choose what part of the article is simply just the reporting of Palmer's words, then the public has to be aware that Palmer lies.
Third: both articles (like another against which I complained to the Australian Press Council, Jacqueline Lunn, "Loose Cannons", Daily Telegraph, November 11 1995), contain Palmer's admissions of violence. I have already raised in the present complaint the matter of Palmer's claim to have had "coffee coloured" people thrown out of the first floor window of a building. I now raise the matter again in the context of comparing the New Idea and Penthouse texts.
Palmer builds hate, openly using words like "niggers" and "Jews", denies the Holocaust ("Hoax"). He talks of "shooting" people. (New Idea) The same words generally appear in the Penthouse text. In Penthouse he admits knowledge that his "people" attack up to fifty people a week (page 78).
Two things have not occurred. Neither writer has officially reported these admissions. There is no public complaint from a Jewish organisation, strange conduct given the recent complaint of the Exceutive Council of Australian Jewry against an 'anti-semitic' pamphleteer as finalised in the Federal Court. One thing is also clear: both articles trade on lurid inferences about violence. This can confuse and beguile readers. Unless readers know more about the speaker and the quality of the threats, they cannot exercise their judgment as to the article's validity.
I have already addressed Debi Marshall's failure to report Palmer's admission. I may be obliged to report Marshall's oversight. But there is a pattern of failure to report. I note Lunn also failed to report Palmer's admissions of crime. However, there is no information in the Marshall piece that Palmer regularly makes these admissions and New Idea readers were not told this salient fact. They could conclude Palmer is truly a threat to public order because of his boasts and their connections to the KKK. Rather, Palmer's statements are obvious lies. If they were not, police surely could have tied him to the offences. New Idea's readers were entitled to be told of this.
It is the failure however of Jewish organisations to complain to the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) under the antiracial vilification sections of the Act which creates a suspicion about the Marshall piece. I have already said the Anti-Defamation Commission knows that the KKK/neo-nazi membership claims are false. If this Jewish organisation has not complained about Palmer's intimidatory statements and threats, we are entitled to ask 'why?' As a proof of the fraudulent nature of the New Idea text, this is a crucial one.
The Anti-Defamation Commission wants to censor the Internet. What better way than to complain to the HREOC against Palmer's statements, whilst throwing in his comment that he uses the Internet to recruit? However, this body knows that Palmer's lack of organisational substance and other peculiar facts as I have asserted elsewhere, would all creep into the proceedings. It would prefer to stay silent. This silence damns the New Idea text - as a hoax.
(ii) I refer you to Mr. Robert McCranor. This man's name appears on the list of neo-nazis/KKK provided by me. I invite New Idea to speak with Mr. McCranor.
I have spoken at length with Mr. McCranor. Essentially, he told me how he had joined the Palmer/Coleman KKK in late 1999. This occurred after he wrote to the American group (Imperial Klans of America) in Kentucky to place himself in contact with local Klansmen. He was "sworn in" as a Klansman at the offices of the British-Israel World Federation which Palmer/Coleman were then trying to 'take over' in order to secure the $500,000 bequest and to which I have referred elsewhere. That event took place in April 2000. He was also asked to "join" the Federation as a free member and was invited to be a "director" of that company - which he declined.
His reasons for joining "the KKK" were singular and do not concern me. He said he remained a member until around August of 2000. He then resigned from this fraternity and he ensured Coleman was expelled from the American group (as further on) and that Palmer could not obtain any charter. He told me that Palmer admitted deceiving the American group, by copying names from a telephone book and presenting them as members of his local chapter.
He said Coleman sold him at one point the "official KKK flag" and other items and seemed more interested in operating a group to make money.
Mr. McCranor's resignation brought a visit from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He said they asked questions about the Sydney Olympics, but at all points seemed more concerned about his independent activities outside of the Palmer/Coleman circle. He formed a certain conspiratorial view of that.
Mr. McCranor says there is no connection between Palmer and any group in the United States of America that uses the 'KKK' title.
Mr. McCranor says he never met more than a few persons in the so-called KKK in Sydney. He was aware of a few other and possibly independent people who used the title of Klansman in other areas. He never became aware of any pattern of political or political-violence activity engaged in by the group collectively or by its members.
It is the ultimate and summed opinion of this insider that in reality there was no Australian KKK as an organisation. There was a loose fraternity of a few people who ran the group for ulterior reasons.
If New Idea confirms Mr. McCranor's story, then the Debi Marshall article, although published some 18 months after the events described by the witness, has further credibility questions against it.
I would strongly encourage New Idea to look again at what it has allowed to be published. There is no reason not to do so and there is much to gain in public credibility.
I also freely advise New Idea that I recently filed a Submission with the Western Australian Police Royal Commission concerning a matter connected to the Palmer/Coleman group. There is no worth in asserting that this group exists as some sort of entity engaged in political racist conduct or that their words are their words and the public can judge the worth and relevance of what they say. I counsel that the truth will come out and even (as I believe is the case of New Idea's position) manning the anti-racist barricades as a justification for falsity will rebound badly.
New Idea's representative(s) should come to a conference on this matter with a/an open mind (s).
Attn: Deborah Kirkman / your letter of October 30
I agree with New Idea (letter October 29) that the matter go to hearing. I wish to attend.
I have read the reply of New Idea to my letter of September 15. To the specifics of this reply I would advise:
While New Idea rejects that Debi Marshall plagiarised from Penthouse magazine, I leave my submission to stand.
It is my submission that the article is cunningly constructed and uses the cover of a Jewish anti-racist organisation ('anti-racist' except where Palestinians are concerned, of course) which would cause the reasonable reader to assume that the article was reporting facts.
New Idea should have been candid at the time. If it can say what it now says, why no disclaimer at the time of publication? Why should New Idea not question the assertions of Palmer? If they knew at the time he was a liar and without substance, would they have done the article? Now that they are reasonably aware Palmer is a fraud, what will they now do? That they may do nothing would be the circular proof they never had faith in his nonsense in the first instance. But time will tell on that. A magazine should have not advance assertions if the readers could assume they are facts.
New Idea says: "Neither the magazine nor journalist are under any obligation to report Palmer's admissions, particularly in circumstances where they are, according to Saleam, "obvious lies".
Palmer's admission to a crime is in my view - a lie. But New Idea refers to "assertions" and reasons upon a surface plausibility for Palmer. If so: how does the magazine know Palmer lies? Or does New Idea now believe - me? If the magazine believes me in this matter, why not other things? If the magazine does not believe Palmer, why would it report his other statements?
The journalist could not be certain, nor could the magazine, that Palmer's admission is not true. Any admission to a crime must be reported. It was not.
In the public interest, I intend to report Debi Marshall for concealment of information relevant to a felony. I cannot be sure in this case - absolutely - that Palmer is lying, although I suspect it strongly. My problem is with Debi Marshall. She failed in her legal duty. This failure exposes the article as disinformation.
I look forward to the hearing in this case.