Sydney’s Fake Antisemitic Terror Plot: How a Criminal Scam Led to Sweeping Censorship Laws
For a brief moment, Sydney teetered on the edge of full-blown panic. The headlines screamed of a terror plot — an explosives-laden caravan lurking in the city’s semi-rural outskirts, an arson attack on a childcare center near a synagogue. The #Jewish community was shaken and, in response, Premier Chris Minns’ government did what governments do best: moved quickly, passed sweeping draconian hate crime laws, and basked in the glow of their own decisiveness.
Then March arrived and with it an inconvenient fact. The #Australia Federal Police (AFP) and New South Wales Police admitted that the so-called terrorist conspiracy was, in reality, a “criminal con job.” No sleeper cell. No ticking time bomb of extremist violence. Just a group of enterprising criminals staging a threat for their own benefit. The explosives? Staged for maximum impact — but, crucially, without a detonator.
#Ozz #BigBrother #Zog #Censorship #falseflag
For a brief moment, Sydney teetered on the edge of full-blown panic. The headlines screamed of a terror plot — an explosives-laden caravan lurking in the city’s semi-rural outskirts, an arson attack on a childcare center near a synagogue. The #Jewish community was shaken and, in response, Premier Chris Minns’ government did what governments do best: moved quickly, passed sweeping draconian hate crime laws, and basked in the glow of their own decisiveness.
Then March arrived and with it an inconvenient fact. The #Australia Federal Police (AFP) and New South Wales Police admitted that the so-called terrorist conspiracy was, in reality, a “criminal con job.” No sleeper cell. No ticking time bomb of extremist violence. Just a group of enterprising criminals staging a threat for their own benefit. The explosives? Staged for maximum impact — but, crucially, without a detonator.
#Ozz #BigBrother #Zog #Censorship #falseflag
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Review of the events at a Christian rally in Melbourne, #Australia and how it was hijacked by #Avi #Yemini and a local #zionist group.
https://rumble.com/v6wwztu-avi-hijacks-christian-event.html
Avi hired the nazi negro to provoke:
https://t.me/NoGoolag/41103
@realblaircottrell
#falseflag
https://rumble.com/v6wwztu-avi-hijacks-christian-event.html
Avi hired the nazi negro to provoke:
https://t.me/NoGoolag/41103
@realblaircottrell
#falseflag
This misleading #Australia Labor Government ‘survey’ is designed to show that you WANT a digital #ID and broad social media #surveillance
If you tick ANYTHING except NONE OF THE ABOVE – you are in fact ASKING the Australian Government to IMPOSE a DIGITAL ID on you and you family.
From George Christensen
There is a LABOR GOV 'survey' circulating that is designed to manipulate you into agreeing to the DIGITAL ID.
The URL for the survey is https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/digital-duty-care and here GREAT CARE is SUGGESTED in selecting the responses you give to that survey:
Q1: What kinds of harmful experiences or content should platforms prevent for Australians UNDER 18?
• Bullying and harassment, including volumetric attacks (‘pile ons’)
• Online hate speech against individuals or groups
• Pornography
• Content that promotes harmful behaviour (e.g. self-harm, suicide, extreme dieting)
• Online dares and challenges that could cause injury
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q2: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for UNDER 18s?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive features (autoplay, notifications)
• AI companions that behave inappropriately
• Ephemeral content (e.g. disappearing messages)
• Quantifiable social metrics (e.g. likes)
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q3: What harmful content should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Bullying and harassment
• Hate speech
• Violent pornography
• Content that promotes self-harm or drug use
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q4: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive design
• AI chatbots
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q5: What should platforms include in their dispute systems?
• Reports about harmful content
• Disputes over removed material
• Disputes about banned accounts
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q6: What types of platforms should the duty of care apply to?
• Social media
• Dating apps
• Messaging apps
• Gaming platforms
• App stores
• Search engines
• AI tools like ChatGPT
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q7: Do you have other comments?
Paste this or write something like it in your own words:
I do not support any Digital Duty of Care. This appears to be an attempt to revive the rejected “misinformation and disinformation” agenda, which would give the government indirect control over what adults may read, watch, or say online. Adults should be free to access lawful material without state permission. Protecting children from pornography and other harms can be achieved through existing laws, enforcement, and parental tools, not a new censorship regime.
If you tick ANYTHING except NONE OF THE ABOVE – you are in fact ASKING the Australian Government to IMPOSE a DIGITAL ID on you and you family.
From George Christensen
There is a LABOR GOV 'survey' circulating that is designed to manipulate you into agreeing to the DIGITAL ID.
The URL for the survey is https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/digital-duty-care and here GREAT CARE is SUGGESTED in selecting the responses you give to that survey:
Q1: What kinds of harmful experiences or content should platforms prevent for Australians UNDER 18?
• Bullying and harassment, including volumetric attacks (‘pile ons’)
• Online hate speech against individuals or groups
• Pornography
• Content that promotes harmful behaviour (e.g. self-harm, suicide, extreme dieting)
• Online dares and challenges that could cause injury
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q2: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for UNDER 18s?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive features (autoplay, notifications)
• AI companions that behave inappropriately
• Ephemeral content (e.g. disappearing messages)
• Quantifiable social metrics (e.g. likes)
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q3: What harmful content should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Bullying and harassment
• Hate speech
• Violent pornography
• Content that promotes self-harm or drug use
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q4: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive design
• AI chatbots
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q5: What should platforms include in their dispute systems?
• Reports about harmful content
• Disputes over removed material
• Disputes about banned accounts
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q6: What types of platforms should the duty of care apply to?
• Social media
• Dating apps
• Messaging apps
• Gaming platforms
• App stores
• Search engines
• AI tools like ChatGPT
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q7: Do you have other comments?
Paste this or write something like it in your own words:
I do not support any Digital Duty of Care. This appears to be an attempt to revive the rejected “misinformation and disinformation” agenda, which would give the government indirect control over what adults may read, watch, or say online. Adults should be free to access lawful material without state permission. Protecting children from pornography and other harms can be achieved through existing laws, enforcement, and parental tools, not a new censorship regime.
Forwarded from Telegram Info English (Sominemo)
Telegram Sues Australia Over Age Verification Law
Telegram has initiated a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against the local regulator, eSafety. The messenger is challenging the legality of the "Online Safety Act 2021" and a significant fine imposed on it.
As a reminder, in February 2025, the Australian regulator fined Telegram over $600,000 for delaying the provision of information on its measures to combat terrorism and materials related to child exploitation.
Telegram's arguments in court:
• The company argues that under Australian law, it is not defined as a "provider of social media services" and is therefore not subject to the regulator's demands.
• Telegram states it never received the initial notification for the fine, claiming it was sent to an incorrect address.
• The company asserts that once it became aware of the request, it voluntarily provided the required information. The @tginfo team previously analyzed the details of that response.
Context of the dispute: The lawsuit comes as Australia prepares to introduce some of the world's strictest age verification rules, effective December 10, 2025.
• The new rules will require tech platforms (including Reddit, Facebook, and TikTok) to prevent users under 16 from accessing their services.
• Fines for non-compliance can reach A$50 million (~$33 million USD).
• Privacy advocates are concerned that to comply with these requirements, companies will have to collect sensitive biometric data or identity documents, jeopardizing the privacy of all users.
Similar age verification measures are being introduced in other countries. For example, earlier this year, Telegram launched facial age verification for users in the United Kingdom due to a new local "online safety" law.
This move is notable amid the numerous restrictions Telegram has faced this year. Unlike the situations in Vietnam, Nepal, Russia, or the UK, where the messenger has largely played a passive role, the company is now taking an active legal stance by challenging the regulator's actions in court.
#Australia #courts #fines
Telegram has initiated a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against the local regulator, eSafety. The messenger is challenging the legality of the "Online Safety Act 2021" and a significant fine imposed on it.
As a reminder, in February 2025, the Australian regulator fined Telegram over $600,000 for delaying the provision of information on its measures to combat terrorism and materials related to child exploitation.
Telegram's arguments in court:
• The company argues that under Australian law, it is not defined as a "provider of social media services" and is therefore not subject to the regulator's demands.
• Telegram states it never received the initial notification for the fine, claiming it was sent to an incorrect address.
• The company asserts that once it became aware of the request, it voluntarily provided the required information. The @tginfo team previously analyzed the details of that response.
Context of the dispute: The lawsuit comes as Australia prepares to introduce some of the world's strictest age verification rules, effective December 10, 2025.
• The new rules will require tech platforms (including Reddit, Facebook, and TikTok) to prevent users under 16 from accessing their services.
• Fines for non-compliance can reach A$50 million (~$33 million USD).
• Privacy advocates are concerned that to comply with these requirements, companies will have to collect sensitive biometric data or identity documents, jeopardizing the privacy of all users.
Similar age verification measures are being introduced in other countries. For example, earlier this year, Telegram launched facial age verification for users in the United Kingdom due to a new local "online safety" law.
This move is notable amid the numerous restrictions Telegram has faced this year. Unlike the situations in Vietnam, Nepal, Russia, or the UK, where the messenger has largely played a passive role, the company is now taking an active legal stance by challenging the regulator's actions in court.
#Australia #courts #fines
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
#Australia senator: Former PM on pedophile list
Bill Heffernan has presented police documents naming 28 prominent people as alleged pedophiles, a list signed off by a senior counsel.
He stated that "every attorney-general" has for years seen these "very disturbing" documents, but failed to act.
Most shockingly, he revealed: "There is a former prime minister on this list."
👍 @geopolitics_prime | Follow us on X
Bill Heffernan has presented police documents naming 28 prominent people as alleged pedophiles, a list signed off by a senior counsel.
He stated that "every attorney-general" has for years seen these "very disturbing" documents, but failed to act.
Most shockingly, he revealed: "There is a former prime minister on this list."
👍 @geopolitics_prime | Follow us on X
#Australia Expands Online Censorship and Antisemitism Controls After Bondi Beach Psyop
https://reclaimthenet.org/australia-tightens-online-speech-laws-after-bondi-attack
https://reclaimthenet.org/australia-tightens-online-speech-laws-after-bondi-attack
Reclaim The Net
Australia Expands Online Censorship and Antisemitism Controls After Bondi Beach Terror Attack
After the Bondi Beach attack, Canberra’s push for tighter online controls is colliding with growing legal resistance over who decides what newsworthy content and Australians are allowed to watch.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
#Australia is getting meme police like the UK.
#Australia gave itself power to literally EDIT your social media posts. They can make you say things you didn't say, then charge you for it lmfao.
They have given themselves the power to "disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying, or deleting data" in order to "frustrate the commission of serious offences online AND MAKE MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS".
literally edit your anti vax post to be pro vax, edit your crime stat 13/50 post to an anti racist post
https://x.com/RealLTCRicBosi/status/2004453630813130817
They have given themselves the power to "disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying, or deleting data" in order to "frustrate the commission of serious offences online AND MAKE MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS".
literally edit your anti vax post to be pro vax, edit your crime stat 13/50 post to an anti racist post
https://x.com/RealLTCRicBosi/status/2004453630813130817
#Australia's proposed new Prohibited Hate Groups laws will allow the government to ban organisations for "hate crimes" that were committed before they were illegal.
No "hate crime" needs to have actually been committed, and no conviction is required.
Follow: @NoticerNews
No "hate crime" needs to have actually been committed, and no conviction is required.
Follow: @NoticerNews
NoGoolag
Photo
#Australia Under the “Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill,” anticipated to pass Parliament this week, Australia will introduce draconian new federal hate-speech and hate-association offenses.
It includes some of the most punitive and extreme anti-free speech provisions ever passed in the Western world.
The bill introduces new crimes for publicly promoting or inciting hatred against protected groups where a “reasonable” person could “feel” intimidated, harassed, or fear violence, with even harsher penalties imposed for religious or organisational leaders who do so.
It establishes racial vilification as an independent criminal offense, adds to Australia’s list of banned hate symbols, and permits the government to formally list “hate groups,” making membership in or support for groups the government deems unacceptable a severe criminal offense.
Under the bill, hatred may be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing for unrelated offenses, and the Home Affairs Minister is granted broad powers to cancel or refuse visas based on hateful speech or association, with only a narrow exemption for quoting religious texts in specific teaching contexts — such as a muslim preacher reading from the quran.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026.pdf
It includes some of the most punitive and extreme anti-free speech provisions ever passed in the Western world.
The bill introduces new crimes for publicly promoting or inciting hatred against protected groups where a “reasonable” person could “feel” intimidated, harassed, or fear violence, with even harsher penalties imposed for religious or organisational leaders who do so.
It establishes racial vilification as an independent criminal offense, adds to Australia’s list of banned hate symbols, and permits the government to formally list “hate groups,” making membership in or support for groups the government deems unacceptable a severe criminal offense.
Under the bill, hatred may be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing for unrelated offenses, and the Home Affairs Minister is granted broad powers to cancel or refuse visas based on hateful speech or association, with only a narrow exemption for quoting religious texts in specific teaching contexts — such as a muslim preacher reading from the quran.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026.pdf
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
#Australia “hate speech bill” appears to protect jews & sikhs — but not NoGoolagians, catholics or christians as an 'ethno-religious group'
This could be the most extreme hate speech law in Western history...
The new 2026 “Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill” punishes speech that causes fear— even if no harm occurs— with up to 5 years in prison.
It gets worse.
The law applies to nearly everything: tweets, blogs, memes, even quoting scripture online. It explicitly states that it doesn’t matter if anyone actually felt hatred or fear.
And it allows the government to go back in time and charge people for things they said before the law existed.
The bill also gives police power to ban groups without due process —including groups outside Australia—and to imprison citizens for up to 15 years for “supporting” them.
This could be the most extreme hate speech law in Western history...
The new 2026 “Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill” punishes speech that causes fear— even if no harm occurs— with up to 5 years in prison.
It gets worse.
The law applies to nearly everything: tweets, blogs, memes, even quoting scripture online. It explicitly states that it doesn’t matter if anyone actually felt hatred or fear.
And it allows the government to go back in time and charge people for things they said before the law existed.
The bill also gives police power to ban groups without due process —including groups outside Australia—and to imprison citizens for up to 15 years for “supporting” them.