This article is for all to veiw
Hi - It's Luke McKee. If I was John it'd be saying this :P
Put this on your blog: IT shows you the disaster that would happen if
Fred Niles got the law changed to re-define what a homosexual is to
not be inclusive of paedophilia, and why the gay's don't want it done!
If NSW Anti-Discrimination Act was modified to actually add a proper
definition for homosexuality all my problems would be solved.
The definition needs to be changed to: A homosexual is a person who
does sexual acts with the member of the same sex, and only ever those
people over the legal age of consent.
This is a thought experiment, because though it's medically proven
that paedophilia is more common among the gay demographic, lets pretend
we put this legal fiction that Gays can Never Be paedophiles into law
and enforce the legal fiction fairly considering the body of case law
paedophilia normalisation activist Garry Burns has created under the
gay rights banner.
1) Garry Burns would be ineligible to sue you me or anyone else,
because we are now in possession of evidence (leaked emails) he hires
underage Melbourne CraigsList Rent Boy Teen Prostitutes whilst visa
sponsoring Sri Lankan gay men to live in the country. Immigration
confirms there are gay partner visas, but no gay orgy partner visas
and by immigration law Garry Burns is ineligible to sponsor other men
to come into the country if he can't have an exclusive sexual
relationship with them. You can see more information on this if you
Google "Luke Ledgerd McKee". We are in posession of inside the email
pictures of Garry's penis he spammed us with as well as the teen
prostitute's ass spreadegles as Garry Burns was doing contact
negations with a boy 3 times younger than hive to have anal sex with.
2) All of his case law would be invalidated on appeal on that point,
he's NOT GAY! He's something else far more disgusting.
3) All the case law that said it's wrong to criticise people like Mark
Newton and Peter Truong who did rape babies wouldn't qualify as
homosexual vilification anymore - it would stop homosexual
vilification law being used to protect gay marriage activist who had
anal sex with children by their allies like Garry Burns. Garry Burns
own associate Rodney Chaing-Cruise who he meets on a regular basis
praised Mark Netwon and Peter Truong before their arrest and 40 years
jail for infant sodomy. Garry Burns says if you vilify gay Marriage
Activists who rape children you vilify all gays, because he has
successfully argued homosexuality is inclusive of paedophile activists
who must not be disrespected by law, himself included.
To link to a video that only vilifies Newton and Truong is just plain
old gay bashing, because Newton and Truong are homosexuals not
paedophiles, which is exactly what Peter Truong's lawyer said in an
email this year, he identifies as homosexual not paedophile. Angelyn
Gates his lawyer sent that email to the prosecutor that Put Peter
Truong in jail for 40 years who watched the Gay Dads "boycuddule2"
infant sex videos talked about here on the US Supreme Court Website:
Even the ABC says "boycuddle2" descriptive doing acts of sodomy with
infants above ^^^ is Peter Truong who Wakefield says must not be
vilified because he is a "homosexual" on this story produced by a
Lesbian Journalist Carol Melrum-Hanna.
4) Anyone who is gay could file a complaint against anyone who has
praised pedophiles as homosexuals, or said homosexuals are pedophiles,
knowingly OR UNKNOWINGLY (see below due to precedent and case law)
5) Ginger Goreman who praised Mark Newton and Peter Truong would be
guilty of Homosexual vilification. She said PAEDOPHILES CAN BE GAY
"People who abuse children come in all shapes and sizes. They are gay,
they are straight. They are everything in between. The only label you
can possibly categorise them with is 'evil'." BUT that's not the only
6) Ginger Gorman would also face extra charges of homosexual
vilification for her original story praising convicted pedophiles "Two
Dads Are Better Than One"
able to claim she was unaware that she was praising paedophiles (mens
rae) And become guilty of homosexual vilification herself with nop
Appeal against this was blocked by Anne Britton, because it's a just
judgement not to vilify those who have sex with children, because they
must be respected because before being caught for acts of child sexual
abuse the men in that video did the incatation "I AM GAY".
Why? - See above.
This is because the confirmed gay NCAT member adjudicating my case who
said it's a crime of homosexual vilification to link to
activist child abusers first made by the ABC with negative comments
not directed against homosexuals in general, but against the content
of the video they were commenting on, i.e. Mark Netwon and Peter
Truong, have sex with infants, ironically featuring Ginger Gorman
speaking about "Gay Dads". I truthfully claimed I didn't know or
didn't read the full YouTube description that includes a link to a
Child Safety Activist and former homosexual's of
Sex Marriage is Child Abuse"
Alexander Wakefield ruled, it's a crime of homosexual vilification to
link to a youtube channel that in it's description links to a website
made by a former gay man and child safety activist who was abused as a
child by lesbians - but that is wrong the judge said in his
decision, because he implies a gays rights must must always be above
the rights a child abuse victim to talk about their life experiences,
and child abuse victims of gay pedophiles even when they grow up and
become tenured professors at University
must not speak out against the perpetrators of their child abuse. In
simple terms, this decision proves the rights of the gay person must
be put above the rights of any child abuse victim to speak out against
their perpetrator. This makes a new subclass of child abuse victims,
as wards of the state, children of single parents and other children
of unfortunate circumstances relating to their upbringing have the
right to complain about their childhood, but children of gay parents
can never say anything was wrong for them as a child. Gay Judge
Wakefiled therefore ruled children of gay parents when they grow up
must "Everything is awesome" even when if it wasn't.
Wakefield said it is irrelevant if if I didn't know was linking to a
former gay child safety activist's website dreamed a hate of
homosexuals (definition inclusive of paedophiles). It was the
consequences of the action - can be interpreted by me the gay judge,
not any intent on your part.
So Ginger Gorman even though she had no intent to praise gay dads baby
rapists paedophiles, is guilty of associating homosexuality with
paedophilia after the fact. Unless leftist ABC journalists are not
going to be treated equally to me, someone who has diminished mental
capacity due to an injury and shouldn't be in court without legal
representation, as I'm just a patsie to easily get pushed through new
homosexual vilification law.
6) Because of this I believe the Greens David Shoebridge who goes into
court with Garry Burns November 10 2015 supporting him for prosecuting
me for linking to someone else's blog (Luke McKee) would OPPOSE
legislation that takes away the rights of convicted gay paedophiles to
have the same rights as regular homosexuals. Once it can be proven in
court Garry Burns is a paedophile, all the homosexual vilification case
law he has created has been invalidated. We have his emails. We have
the proof. It's in our interest to define homosexuality isn't
inclusive of pedophilia and then see people who unwillingly praise gay
pedophiles be prosecuted.
Gay judge Wakefield has recently removed this paper from his website
where he says he works with paedophiles representing them at the Royal
Comission into institutionalised responses to child sexual abuse, all
parents should pay more insurance money with their school fees, to pay
hush money to keep adult child abuse victims out of the criminal
justice system, instead going through the arbitration society which he
After a Wasington Times reporter Robert Stacy McCcain re-tweeted Luke
McKee talking about this paper he wrote, @NCATNSW who blocked Mr McKee
saw it, then called Wakefield who deleted the blog post he made from
his own law firm Holeman's web site
Fortunately the blog post of Wakefield's National Child Sex Lotery
Cover-up Program, where if your child is abused you with the hush
money was mirrored on another website.
Wakefield also sat on a panel as a judge where the debate was titled
"Is arbitration is a way to cover things up!" No wonder he want's
child sexual abuse cases going through there.
(removed after GLLO special gay Police informed him we have it along
with all their emails to the boylover Garry Burns)
@NCATNSW will have to try harder to destroy evidence of judical bias
next time, like they delete audio from the Court, and
then falsely attribute my comments in a judgement. Imagine if the
police deleted the audio or destroyed the statement of a confession
then got a conviction based on a confession. Only in Crooked corrupt
courts can these kind of things happen.
Just look at the NCAT Guardian Division - new cases every day of
convicted sex offenders arguing for the right to have a Working with
Children Clerance certificate. NCAT.nsw.gov.au is literally the court
of child sex normalization, staffed by gay judges, and it's not just
me saying it's the newspapers!
<insert dailyterror links>
Wakefield lives in Sylvia with his adult Gay Male partner. He is a
homophobe by the new definition of what is a homosexual if we can put
it through and can be prosecuted for saying paedophiles have the same
rights as gays. That's not bad, people who do incest will soon have
gay rights said another gay judge scoutmaster!
7) Another suggestion would be to completely remove the legislation to
ensure paedophiles never have special powers to do state sanctioned and
paid for prosecutions by the lesbian feminist paedophilia Normalisation
activists working at the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board. Australia
breaks it commitment to the United Nations that our tribunals must
treat ALL people equally regardless of sex, sexual preference race
etc. Only a "homosexual" whatever that means can claim homosexual
vilification. The hypothetical situation of a Gay Marriage activist
Burning down Fred Niles church couldn't be investigated as a hate
crime by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board. Before Luke McKee's father
was targeted by their ex-offico officer and Boylover Garry Richard
Burns (his online stalker since 2009)_ he had this to say about the
NSW Anti-Discrimination Board's extreme bigotry
IF YOU DON'T LIKE PAEDOPHILES HAVING THE SAME SPECIAL RIGHTS AS GAYS -
SHUT THEM DOWN - SHUT THEM DOWN NOW BY ANY MEANS!
How is the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex
Abuse Relevant to Health Care Providers?
Sep 4, 2015 11:37:00 AM / by John Wakefield
There has been recent media coverage in relation institutional
responses to child sexual abuse in schools, however, hospitals and
other health care providers who provide children’s health services
should also implement risk minimisation strategies.
Child safety strategies include:13
A statement of commitment to the safety and wellbeing of children and
the protection of children from harm;
A code of conduct for interacting with children and young people;
Recruitment, selection, training and management procedures for paid
employees and volunteers (including working with children checks);
Policies and procedures for handling disclosures and suspicions of
harm, including reporting guidelines;
A plan for managing breaches of the risk management strategy;
Risk management plans for high risk activities and special events;
Policies and procedures for compliance with legislation, including
regular reviews of the operation and effectiveness of the
organisation’s child safe policies and practices; and
Strategies for communication and support including:
1. written information for parents/carers, paid employees and
volunteers outlining the organisational child safe policies; and
2. training material for paid employees and volunteers to help them
identify risks of harm and handle disclosures.
The laws regarding working with children checks differ from state to
state. In some States, such as New South Wales, you are required to
have a working with children check if you have face to face contact
with children and work in children’s health services.14
However, this is not the case in all States, for example Victoria,
where, if you are supervised you do not need the working with children
The Royal Commission released its report on Working With Children
Checks on 17 August 2015, recommending a national approach. The Royal
Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
commenced its public hearings in Sydney on 6 May 2015 to inquire into
a number of matters including:
1) The experience of a number of people who were sexually abused as children in:
a. private medical practices; and
b. private hospitals;
2) The experience of a number of complainants who made complaints
against a medical practitioner to the New South Wales Health Care
Complaints Commission (HCCC) and the then New South Wales Medical
3) The systems, policies, practices and procedures for receiving,
investigating and responding to complaints against medical
practitioners of child sexual abuse of:
a. the HCCC;
b. the Medical Council of New South Wales; and
c. the Royal North Shore Hospital;
4) The experience of an out-patient who alleged child sexual abuse by
a psychologist at the Royal North Shore Hospital, in the late 1960s;
5) The systems, policies and procedures of the Northern Sydney Local
Health District and the NSW Ministry of Health for preventing,
detecting and responding to child sexual abuse;
6) The experience of an in-patient who was allegedly abused by a
volunteer at Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne in the early 1980s;
7) The response of the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, to an
allegation of child sexual abuse made against a hospital volunteer;
8) The systems, policies and procedures of the Royal Children’s
Hospital, Melbourne, for preventing, detecting and responding to child
Persons believing they have a direct or substantial interest in the
scope and purpose of the public hearing were invited to lodge written
applications for leave to appear at the public hearing by 22 April
2015. The hearings have for the moment concluded. One aspect of
institutional response is the way in which claims are dealt with by
the institutions. Many civil claims are being made well past the
limitation period for claims for damages for personal injury under
statute. Respondents are regularly requested not to rely on technical
defences and to agree on a process to allow such claims to be dealt
with on their merit. Claimants also regularly seek suspension of
limitation periods during the conduct of an agreed claims process.
Such process is aimed at resolving claims without recourse to
In appropriate circumstances, an agreed resolution process might
enable the parties to resolve abuse claims in ways which are
respectful and dignified and minimise the risk of re-traumatization
otherwise inherent in the adversarial process.
Insurance issues may also arise in respect of the acts of employees or
others for whom the principal might be vicariously liable by reason of
a non-delegable duty of care or otherwise or the costs involved in
directors and officers managing the claims process.
If a complaint or claim arises in relation to child sexual abuse,
consideration should be given to:
The question of any insurance cover and, if so, notification of the claim;
Consideration of liability as a principal, vicariously or otherwise;
Consideration of limitation or permanent stay issues; and
Subject to the above, consideration of a non-adversarial resolution of
Holman Webb Lawyers has recently acted for a number of religious
organisations and schools in relation to claims in connection with
child sexual abuse.
13 Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child
Guardian “Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional
Responses to Child Sexual Abuse”, October 2103.
14 Section 6 of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012
(NSW). 15 Section 9 of the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic).
15 Section 9 of the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic).
Another article from Luke McKee