KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

OBJECTIONS TO 23 COMPLAINTS DEEMED VILIFICATION

Summary
Grounds of objec on Number Specifics
Inadmissible due passage of me. 8 DT35.001;
DT35.002;
YouTube clips.1 DT35.003;
DT35.006;
The Discrimina on Act 1991 states that: "A complaint must be made DT35.007;
within 2 years a er the day the alleged contraven on happened."
C.001;
C.051;
C.056
Errors of fact/law/judgement. 8 DT35.011;
DT35.012;
Tweets from account @sunoljohnc except for DT35.018;
DT35.011 that is from account @SunolJohn C.006;
C.007;
C.069;
C.079;
C.080.
Voided by non-existent Twi er account at me of 3 DT35.025;
decision. DT35.038;
DT35.039.
Tweets from shut-down account @sunol_john

Redundant complaint due to duplica on. 3 DT35.014;

DT35.019;
C.095
Total 23 23

P a g e 1 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

OBJECTIONS TO 23 COMPLAINTS DEEMED VILIFICATION

DETAILS
No. Ref. Paragraph Objec on grounds
1 DT35.001 [161] Inadmissible complaint (statute of limita ons) – error in
judgement – video is not vilifica on of applicant on the grounds
of his sexuality.

This complaint relates to the first URL in a batch of 41 URLs that

Mr Kerslake lodged with the Australian Capital Territory Human
Rights Commission on 15 January 2020, claiming that it vilified
him on the grounds of his sexuality.

Among these 41 URLs - lumped together as a single complaint

DT35 - were 9 very short and very amateur YouTube video
“podcasts” uploaded by Mr. Sunol between 26 December 2016 to
16 October 2017. Mr Sunol abandoned his YouTube channel on
26 October 2017. There has been no ac vity on the channel
since that date. 1

The Discrimina on Act 1991 states that: "A complaint must be

made within 2 years a er the day the alleged contraven on
happened."

This 2-minute YouTube clip was uploaded on 27 December 2016.

Mr Kerslake lodged his complaint more than 3 years a er the
alleged contraven on. This complaint therefore is unacceptable
under the provisions of The Discrimina on Act 1991.

Error in judgement.

A contribu ng factor in this error of judgement was the tribunal’s

cancella on, at some me during the suppressed hearing on May

1
Note re YouTube clips (general). Mr. Sunol started his YouTube channel on 31 May 2015. On 26 October 2017
he abandoned it, on advice. During that 879-day period, Mr Sunol uploaded 2,100 short video clips of dura on
of 1-2 minutes each. The quality of the clips was similar to what one would expect from a 5-year-old
experimen ng with the internet. That is due, more likely than not, to the remnants of the respondent’s frontal
lobe brain damage as discussed in Dr. Parmigianni’s medical report. Further, all these video clips have gained
zero trac on on the internet with insignificant views by “the general public”. Based on the above data. Mr
Sunol uploaded an average of 2.4 trivial and inconsequen al video clips per day about his life. Mr Sunol
dreamed of becoming a radio operator when he was in the Australian Navy as a young 16-year-old recruit. This
compulsive pos ng to the internet may have been the next best thing to ac ng in that role. Mr Tim Kerslake
could only find 9 out of 2,100 video clips that he believed he could use to manufacture a complaint 3 or so
years a er they were uploaded. He made an "audio grab" of barely audible u erances taken out of context
from these 9 YouTube clips that had been si ng idle on the abandoned channel with close to zero public
interest. Such u erances were deliberately searched for by Mr Kerslake for the express purpose of genera ng
vexa ous li ga on against Mr Sunol who he has been stalking for over 20 years. Refer the respondent's
affidavit Annexure ‘E’ Preamble 2 (a) (ii) sworn by Mr Sunol on 27 January 2021, submi ed as evidence.

P a g e 2 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

11, 2021, of the following 3 days of hearings already scheduled

for 12, 13 & 14 May 2021. 2

Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of this complaint due to

statute of limita ons, it is submi ed that the complaint would not
have been categorized as vilifica on if the tribunal paid a en on
to the context. The video context was in rela on to public
discussion and controversy about the same-sex marriage between
“gay dads” Mark Newton & Peter Truong. The tribunal failed to
understand or know this fact. 3

Mr Kerslake is not in any way iden fied or named in the video

clip. Therefore, the tribunal erred in deeming this to be
vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on the grounds of his sexuality. The
tribunal’s subsequent ordering of Mr Sunol to pay the
complainant money as personal compensa on, is unjus fiable
under the circumstances. Addi onally, the tribunal has failed to
take into account the mi ga ng factors iden fied in the
respondent’s medical report by Dr Parmigianni, as submi ed to
the tribunal as evidence that the respondent is a vulnerable
person.4

2
Cancella on of the cross-examina ons (general). As a result of the unexpected cancella on by the tribunal
of 3 hearings days set aside for the 12, 13 and 14 May 2021, the par es had to return home early with the
purpose of their trip from interstate to Canberra unaccomplished. This meant that these issues, such as the
ming & purpose of the complaints, and the respondent’s case in general, could not be properly exposed to
the tribunal through the planned cross-examina ons of Messrs. Kerslake & Swi . This is an issue of procedural
fairness that favours the applicant and has caused serious detriment to the respondent in the form of his being
ordered by the tribunal to pay compensa on to the applicant based on only 23 of the 219 social media
complaints being deemed to contravene sec on 67A of the Discrimina on Act 1991. Refer [3] in the 16 May
2022 decision to confirm these numbers.
3
Re same-sex marriage/Mark Newton & Peter Truong. The context of incest referred to in DT35.001 and some
of the Tweets, the tribunal failed to know that these references were made in rela on to the public controversy
in Australia surrounding the “gay dads” Mark Newton & Peter Truong. This issue was of considerable public
interest in Australia the me, following an ABC TV 4-Corners television program that went to air on 10 March
2014. This airing na on-wide of this TV program was a consequence of the 2010 ABC Radio Na onal program
that interviewed these two “gay dads” as heroes of the same-sex marriage movement. The words of Mr Sunol
were no more inciteful of hatred etc of the so-called “homosexual community” than was that na onal TV
program. The case of “gay dads” Mark Newton and Peter Truong was influen al in persuading the Russian
Federa on to prohibit adop on of Russian infants by male homosexual couples from Australia and from any
country that permi ed same-sex marriage.

4
The medical report (general). Any ordinary reasonable person who reads the respondent’s medical report by
Dr Parmigianni, submi ed to the tribunal, would conclude the respondent is a vulnerable person as defined in
the Australian Capital Territory Human Rights Commission Act 2005, sec on 41B. This sec on defines a
vulnerable person as an adult who (a) has a disability within the meaning of the Disability Services Act 1991; or
(b) is at least 60 years old and (i) has a disorder, illness or disease that affects the person’s thought processes,
percep on of reality, emo ons or judgement or otherwise results in disturbed behaviour; or (ii) has an
impairment that (A) is intellectual, psychiatric, sensory or physical in nature; and (B) results in a substan ally
reduced capacity of the person for communica on, learning or mobility; or (iii) for any other reason is socially
isolated or unable to par cipate in the life of the person’s community. By ignoring the evidence that Mr Sunol
was a vulnerable person, in the interests of pursuing the case as if the respondent was the perpetrator and not
P a g e 3 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

These conclusions are underscored by other contribu ng factors

namely (i) Messrs. Kerslake’s & Swi ’s known animus towards Mr
Sunol, (ii) Mr Kerslake’s deliberate efforts in searching for and
seeking out this material on the internet for the express purpose
of genera ng a complaint to the Human Rights Commission for
collateral purpose, that is, “punishment by process”. 5

2 DT35.002 [164] Inadmissible complaint (statute of limita ons) – error in

judgement – video is not vilifica on of the applicant on the
grounds of his sexuality.

This 2-minute YouTube “podcast” was uploaded on 24 January

2017. Mr Kerslake lodged his complaint over 3 years a er the
alleged contraven on. This complaint therefore should not have
been accepted by the HRC to comply with the Act. The
Discrimina on Act 1991 states that: "A complaint must be made
within 2 years a er the day the alleged contraven on happened."

The video clip expresses Mr Sunol’s informed opinion3 about

Australian “gay pride” marches.

Error in judgement. See above, as for DT35.001. The same

arguments and observa ons apply.

3 DT35.003 [166] Inadmissible complaint (statute of limita ons) – error in law -

error in judgement - video is not vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on
the grounds of his sexuality.

This 2-minute YouTube clip was uploaded on 24 January 2017. Mr

Kerslake lodged the complaint 3 years a er the alleged
contraven on. This complaint therefore should not have been
accepted by the HRC. The Discrimina on Act 1991 states that: "A
complaint must be made within 2 years a er the day the alleged
contraven on happened."

the vic m, the tribunal erred in understanding the reality of the situa on.

5
Punishment by process (general). Considerable punishment has already been inflicted on Mr Sunol by the
cost of his legal defence and his travel from Newcastle in the state of New South Wales to a end hearings in
the Australian Capital Territory where Mr Kerslake resides. It has been a no-cost opera on for Mr Kerslake,
who claims to be unrepresented. An unnecessarily puni ve decision was made by the tribunal in ordering Mr
Sunol to pay Mr Kerslake $8,000 as some kind of compensa on for non-existent damages claimed by Mr
Kerslake. The decision to award these puni ve damages suggests mercilessness, as opposed to leniency that
would be reasonably expected given Mr Sunol’s medical report and his history. In addi on, leniency would be
expected in considera on of the fact that the tribunal believed only 23 out of 219 URLs submi ed to the
Human Rights Commission by Mr Kerslake breached the constraint on free speech under the terms of sec on
67A Discrimina on Act 1991. The respondent is dispu ng, by means of this document, the tribunal’s decision
rela ng to those 23 social media u erances. The tribunal’s interpreta on of sec on 67A, as applied to these
23 complaints, has not considered all relevant factors, including context, ambiguity of words, actual intended
meaning of statements and personal & past circumstances of the respondent.
P a g e 4 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

This video is part B of the video referenced in D35.002. It should

not have been lodged as a separate complaint. It expresses Mr
Sunol’s informed opinion3 about Australian gay pride marches.

Error in judgement. See above, as for DT35.001.

4 DT35.006 [175] Inadmissible complaint - error of law - statute of limita ons –
video is not vilifica on of applicant on the grounds of his
sexuality.

This 1-minute video clip was uploaded on 12 March 2017. Mr

Kerslake lodged the complaint 2 years and 10 months a er the
alleged contraven on. This complaint therefore should not have
been accepted by the HRC and ACAT in compliance with the Act.
The Discrimina on Act 1991 states that: "A complaint must be
made within 2 years a er the day the alleged contraven on
happened."

This clip simply quotes “Luke McKee’s sta s cs” on the rela ve
incidence of same-sex child abuse compared to opposite-sex child
abuse. There is no vilifica on in this clip. It is known that “Luke
McKee’s sta s cs” were drawn from a PUBMED paper he
downloaded from the internet. This paper was published in the
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1992 and
en tled "The Propor ons of Heterosexual and Homosexual
Podophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory
Study" by Kurt Fruend and Robin J Watson.

Evidence that Mr Sunol’s opinion is based on that scien fic paper

is seen in the text of his Tweet posted 29 September 2019 and
listed in the 16 May 2022 decision as C.029 at [342] to which he
a ached a URL so that viewers could read the abovemen oned
scien fic paper.

Text of C.029 [342]

#homosexual SJW ac vists & #NAMBLA tell schoolboys that male-
male sex is normal & natural. Some evolu onary psychologists say
#homophobia is nature's protec on against this predatory
homosexual ins nct. See h ps://t.co/nwGq9CRf8m

We agree that this tweet is not and cannot be vilifica on of Mr

Kerslake of the grounds of his sexuality.

This video clip has nothing to do with Mr Kerslake. He is not in

any way iden fied in the clip. Therefore, the tribunal erred in
deeming this to be vilifica on of Mr Tim Kerslake on the grounds
of his sexuality and subsequently ordering Mr Sunol to pay the
complainant money as some kind of compensa on or reward.

5 DT35.007 [175] Inadmissible complaint (statute of limita ons) - error of

principle or law – video not vilifica on of applicant on the

P a g e 5 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

grounds of his sexuality

This video clip is virtually iden cal to the above DT35.006 clip and
talks about “Luke McKee’s sta s cs” referred above. It is
uploaded on the same day 12 March 2017. It should not be a
separate complaint for this reason.

Addi onally, Mr Kerslake lodged the complaint 2 years and 10

months a er the alleged contraven on. This complaint therefore
should not have been accepted by the HRC and ACAT in
compliance with the Act. The Discrimina on Act 1991 states that:
"A complaint must be made within 2 years a er the day the
alleged contraven on happened."

The same objec ons as noted for DT35.006 are made to the
decision that deemed this video to be vilifica on of Mr Kerslake
on the grounds of his sexuality.

6 DT35.011 [190] Error of law & error of fact/judgement.

Mr Sunol’s 6-Mar-2019 tweet is informed opinion6 albeit

expressed poorly, due to Mr Sunol’s medical condi on as
discussed in Dr Parmegiani’s report and on page 180 of Mr Sunol’s
affidavit sworn 27 January 2021. The respondent could have
been having a “bad day” when posted the tweet. This is due to
the physical symptoms of frontal lobe damage affec ng motor
coordina on when typing into a smartphone with fat fingers
opera ng at high speed, causing typographical errors. It is these
typographical errors that create the percep on in the mind of
Messrs Kerslake & Swi that Mr Sunol is a brain-damaged
imbecile as evidenced by their insul ng comments shown on
pages 153–158 Mr Sunol’s affidavit sworn on 27 January 2021. In
reality Mr Sunol is a brain-damaged man who is capable of

6
History (general). Mr Sunol’s opinions are based on his knowledge acquired whilst comple ng in 1998 his
final-year university project about the Australian homosexual rights lobby. This project qualified him for his
Bachelor of Social Science at the University of Newcastle. During this assignment Mr Sunol interviewed
homosexual lobby groups and learnt directly by word-of-mouth from homosexual persons in his class who
were a part of his study group. His knowledge comes from his “lived experience” and therefore it is his truth,
even though it might not be the truth in the mind of the tribunal. At the same me Mr Sunol was an ac ve
member of The Rev Fred Nile’s Chris an Democrat Party. That caused the young Tim Kerslake to crusade
against and publicly a ack Mr Sunol at the me, for poli cal reasons. We have seen the internet archives of
the website that Mr Kerslake owned and operated at that me and can confirm that it was targeted at
underage male children and quite sexually explicit. Note that the Child Protec on (Working with Children) Act
2012 of New South Wales defines a child as being under the age of 18. We believe that if Mr Kerslake applied
for a Working with Children Clearance he would be refused based on his crea on of this website. At [149] in
the 16 May 2022 decision the tribunal alleged “Mr Sunol in 1999 repeatedly made insul ng, derogatory and
harassing comments on a site he [Mr Kerslake] was running”. This statement is false. No evidence was
provided to support this defama on. The site (now archived) appeared to target underage boys confused
about their sexuality. The site, owned and operated by Mr. Kerslake, offered sex-educa on to underage boys.
The site appeared to be engaged in grooming of underage boys by older homosexual males.
P a g e 6 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

gaining ter ary academic qualifica ons.

Mr Sunol’s tweet is prefaced with the words “I believe”. The

tribunal erred by overlooking this fact. Thus, Mr Sunol is sta ng
his belief, not asser ons of bald fact. The tweet qualifies for
exemp on under sec on 67A (2) (c) of the Act because it is a fair
comment done reasonably and honestly in Mr Sunol’s mind on
ma er of academic, scien fic & public interest. It is an expression
of genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

The tribunal argued that the acronym “LGBTQI+” used by Mr

Sunol is equivalent to “homosexual” and, from there, alluded to
the no on that it referred to Mr Kerslake. This is factually
incorrect. The “+” sign denotes many other sexuali es7 that are
presumably covered by sec on 67A of the Act.

The tribunal stated that the tweet incites hatred against all
homosexual people. This is factually incorrect. It only incites
disapproval of a minority of homosexual males who engage in
pederasty. Mr Sunol is not inci ng disapproval of pederasts per
se, but rather disapproval of the act of pederasty. There is a
difference in accordance with Chris an teachings espoused by the
saying “love the sinner, hate the sin”.

Even though Mr Kerslake may disagree with the comment, Mr

Sunol has every right to express himself on the internet and make
comments that a person without his medical condi on might
consider be er le unsaid or said be er. The punishment
metered out to Mr Sunol by the tribunal is dispropor onate to his
ac ons. It is unreasonable considering the evidence of this
medical report.

Conclusion: the tweet has nothing to do with Mr Kerslake. He is

not in any way iden fied in the tweet. Therefore, the tribunal
erred in deeming this to be vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on the
grounds of his sexuality and subsequently ordering Mr Sunol to
pay the complainant money as some kind of compensa on.

7 DT35.012 [86] Error of fact - error of law – error of logic – reduc onist
[192] defini on of homophobia – not vilifica on of applicant on the
grounds of his sexuality.

This complaint by Mr Kerslake was about a Tweet posted by Mr

7
LGBTQIA+ defini on. According to various sources, there is an official meaning for the “+” sign in rela on to
the acronym “LGBTQI+”. The “+” sign refers to the many other self-iden fica ons covered under the term
‘sexuality’ as used in sec on 67A of the Act (Australian Capital Territory Discrimina on Act 1991 (Discrimina on
Amendment Act 2016). The “+” term is inten onally vague as some inferred sexual behaviours may be
unlawful in some countries. It is not known how sexuali es implied by the “+” sign are dealt with under
sec on 67A of the Act. It is known some of these addi onal sexuali es include pansexual, agender,
demisexual, genderfluid, graysexual, non-binary, polyamorous, sapiosexual, and more. The “+” sign seeks to
reflect the “full diversity and perversity of all sexual orienta ons and fe shes”.
P a g e 7 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

Sunol on 11 March 2019. 8 In this tweet Mr Sunol embraced the

characteris c homophobic for the same psychological purpose as
some homosexual persons embrace the label queer. It is a
defence mechanism and an effec ve means of neutralizing the
power of a label to insult and humiliate.9

The tribunal’s decision to declare this tweet as inciteful of hatred

etc. towards Mr Kerslake on the grounds of his sexuality is illogical
and unreasonable. It is not vilifica on of Mr Kerslake. Mr
Kerslake was not men oned or iden fied in the tweet.

The tribunal’s decision in rela on to this tweet arises from a lack

of understanding that this tweet had elements of self-parody and
should not be taken seriously. It is a rhetorical Tweet10. It
incorporates the literary device of hyperbole.11 The tribunal
failed to recognize: (i) the psychologically defensive nature of Mr
Sunol's tweet in reac on to his public vilifica on & vic misa on
by Messrs. Kerslake & Swi over a 20-year period on the grounds
of his perceived homophobia,12 (ii) the impact on Mr Sunol of this
vilifica on & vic misa on considering that Mr Sunol is a
vulnerable person (ii) the nature of homophobia in the view of Mr

8
The D35.012 tweet that Mr Kerslake complained said this: If you want to stop homophobia you probably want
to stop me as well because: "I am the happy li le homophobe living in my joy". I'm proud to be called
homophobic and I'll encourage others to do the same.
9
A self-depreca ng defensive tweet misinterpreted as vilifica on of another person. The defence mechanism
against being labelled as homophobic, discussed above under complaint DT35.012, is analogous to a similar
defence mechanism – in response to a person being shamed as an idiot for belief in God – their riposte “If only
idiots believe in God, then I am an idiot”. Mr Sunol is saying, in effect, “If you call my religious convic on
homophobic, then I am a homophobe.” Or “If you call my sexual orienta on queer, then I am queer”. The
tribunal failed to appreciate the jus fied psychological factors that lead to these sorts of statements.

10
Rhetorical Tweets. A tweet can be rhetorical if it uses rhetorical ques ons or devices to communicate a
message or influence an audience. For instance, a tweet that asks, "Do you really think he cares about you?" is
using a rhetorical ques on to imply that he does not care. A tweet that says "She is the epitome of grace and
elegance" is using hyperbole, a rhetorical device that exaggerates for emphasis. Rhetoric can be used for
various purposes, such as informing, persuading, entertaining, or provoking. A rhetorical tweet may s ll
express a sincere opinion, belief, or emo on, or it may have an impact on the readers or the situa on.
Therefore, it is important to analyse the context, tone, and inten on of a rhetorical tweet condemning it as
inappropriate or offensive.

11
Hyperbole in Tweets is a way of using language that exaggerates something for effect. A tweet can contain
hyperbole to express various purposes or emo ons. However, hyperbole does not necessarily mean that the
tweet is false or trivial. It may s ll have a serious or significant message behind it. Therefore, one should not
judge a tweet based on hyperbole alone.
12
Vilifica on of the respondent by Mr Swi . Regarding the public vilifica on of Mr Sunol on the grounds that
he has been deemed by tribunals to be a vilifier of homosexual persons, Mr Kerslake's accomplice - Mr Swi -
referred to Mr Sunol as "this homophobic vilifying bigot" in his public @RodSwi SJW Twi er post on 3 May
2020. Mr Sunol has always denied that he vilifies homosexual persons. Mr Sunol accepts that he opposes the
homosexual agenda on the grounds of his religious convic ons. In other words, he accepts that he is an "an -
gay ac vist" which is not unlawful, in the same sense that it is not unlawful to be a "gay ac vist". Mr Sunol
decided to embrace the label homophobic to rob that label of its vilifying power when thrown at him. The
tribunal has not taken into account the impact Mr Kerslake & Mr Swi has had on the respondent’s tweets.

P a g e 8 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

Sunol as evidenced by (a) his tweets discussed under C.029, C.030

and C.031 at paragraph [342] of the 16 May 2022 published
decision, and (b) his opinion as supported by influen al
evolu onary psychologists13 referred to in D35.006 above. The
tribunal’s reduc onist defini on of homophobia as noted in
paragraph [86] is inconsistent with Mr Sunol’s understanding of
the term. This tweet does not express hate for any person.

The tweet by Mr Sunol, about himself. It is about his acceptance

that homophobia – as defined by him and not as defined
simplis cally in the dic onary - is in his DNA as an inherent
a ribute formed by nature5 and, further, this a ribute is
reinforced by his fundamentalist Chris an bible-based values.

8 DT35.014 [196] Error of law – duplicate complaint. This complaint is a duplicate

of DT35-012 and so should not have been submi ed by Mr
Kerslake as a separate complaint. It should not be listed by ACAT
as a separate complaint.
9 DT35.018 [203] Error of fact/judgement – irra onal decision - apprehended bias.
[204]
This complaint by Mr Kerslake was in rela on to a tweet posted
by Mr Sunol on 28 September 2019.

The tribunal ruled, in effect, that it is unlawful to express one’s

broard conclusions arising from the Royal Commission into
Ins tu onal Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It is common
knowledge that the overwhelming propor on of abuse vic ms
are boys and not girls. 14

13
Homophobia. Regarding the nature of homophobia, please refer to the paper Natural homophobes?
Evolu onary psychology and an gay a tudes by Jesse Bering, March 9, 2011 - an ar cle in the Scien fic
American published on March 9, 2011. It summarises the four-paper exchange published in the journal
Ethology and Sociobiology between influen al evolu onary psychologists Gordon Gallup and John Archer. Mr
Sunol agrees with this view of homophobia as evidenced by the text of complaint DT35.015 paragraph [197],
DT35.016 paragraph [199], C.029, C.030, C.031 paragraph [342].
14
DT35.018 & DT35.019 Data from the Royal Commission. According to the Annual Progress Report
2020 by the Catholic Church in Australia, the Royal Commission received 8,013 allega ons of child sexual abuse
in rela on to male Catholic clergy in ins tu ons between January 1980 and February 2015. Of these, 6,041
(75.4 per cent) were male vic ms and 1,972 (24.6 per cent) were female vic ms. There is considerable public
informa on available on the internet in rela on to the propor on of boys and girls abused by Catholic priests
and/or brothers. Examples: (1) A 2004 report by the John Jay College of Criminal Jus ce, commissioned by the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, analysed allega ons of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy in the
U.S. from 1950 to 2002. It found that 81% of the vic ms were male and 19% were female. (2) A 2018 report by
the German Bishops' Conference, based on a study by three German universi es, examined cases of sexual
abuse by Catholic clergy in Germany from 1946 to 2014. It found that 63% of the vic ms were male and 35%
were female. (3) A 2021 report by an independent commission, appointed by the French Bishops' Conference
and religious orders, inves gated cases of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in France from 1950 to 2020. It found
that 75% of the vic ms were male and 25% were female. These reports suggest that boys are more likely than
girls to be abused by Catholic priests and/or brothers. Male-male sexual interac on is homosexual interac on
P a g e 9 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

Mr Sunol tweeted, in rela on to this issue of public interest:

"Data from the Royal Commission shows pederasty is the
overwhelming cause of abuse". Mr Sunol is correct. This is a true
and verifiable statement. It is a long stretch of the tribunal’s
imagina on to declare this tweet as inci ng hatred etc. against
Mr Kerslake on the grounds of his sexuality. To add to the
injus ce, the tribunal subsequently ordered Mr Sunol to pay Mr
Kerslake money as some kind of compensa on when the tweet
had nothing to do with Mr Kerslake who was not named or
iden fied in the tweet.
10 DT35.019 [206] Error of law.
[207] This complaint by Mr Kerslake was about a tweet posted by Mr
Sunol 6 hours a er his tweet men oned above for DT35.018. The
subject of both tweets ae the same. This should not be a
separate complaint. It is an example of the Human Rights
Commission forwarding Mr Kerslake’s internet harvest of 219
URLs on to the tribunal for external judgement without doing any
homework to inves gate these URLs.15

The comments about the nature of homosexuality rest on the

premise enunciated by Mr Sunol in the post. He said, “Catholic
religious doctrine is clear: homosexuality is declared to be
inherently disordered.”

The ques on raised by this ruling is whether public statements in

support of Catholic religious doctrine, as in this case, can be
declared as vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on the grounds of his
sexuality. Mr Sunol agreed with the Catholic religious doctrine
but went on to express his opinion as to why he agreed with it.
This appears to be the problem in the view of the tribunal.16

in the belief, opinion, or perspec ve of Mr Sunol. The tribunal failed to recognize this as a jus fied belief, and
instead judged it to be vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on the grounds of his sexuality.
15
Improper/lack of inves ga on by the Human Rights Commission (general). There were several submissions
and affidavits by Mr Sunol's legal representa ves in rela on to this issue. There is also Mr Sunol's le er to the
tribunal dated 18 August 2020, submi ed before he was legally represented. In this le er Mr Sunol stated on
page 5 of 76: I suggest the Human Rights Commission has not performed its statutory obliga ons to provide
me with the opportunity to respond. For example, when they referred the complaint no. 1 to ACAT, they did not
include my lengthy wri en response in their brief of evidence [accompanying the referral]. This unfortunately
creates a percep on of apprehended bias. Therefore, I have a ached my lengthy wri en response to complaint
no. 1 (D35) to be added to the ACAT file on this ma er. Addi onally, the Human Right Commission’s inunda on
of the tribunal with, in effect, 196 misconceived complaints (out of a total of 219) indicates, at minimum, poor
judgement, and at worst a disregard for taxpayer’s money expended in the analysis of all 219 complaints, many
of which were beyond interpreta on by the tribunal.
16
Re DT35.019 – lawful and unlawful opinions. This is analogous to a comparable situa on in rela on to
same-sex marriage. Under an -discrimina on (49ZT) case-law in New South Wales, it could be argued that it
is lawful to state publicly that one opposes the concept of same-sex marriage (as did almost 5 million
Australians in the plebiscite), but unlawful state publicly one’s reasons. Refer e.g., Burns v McKee [2017]
NSWCATAD 66 (6 March 2017)

P a g e 10 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

This post is in the vein of academic inquiry. It is arguable that it

comes under the exemp on of sec on 67A (2) (c). In view of the
mi ga ng factors as discussed in respondent’s medical report,
the tribunal erred by not giving Mr Sunol the benefit of the doubt
due to the intersec on of his medical condi on with his
fundamentalist religious convic ons. 17
11 DT35.025 [101] Error in law. This complaint is void. The Twi er account
[219] @sunol_john did not exist at the me of decision. This can be
verified by going to h ps://twi er.com/sunol_john/

This situa on of void Twi er complaints was communicated to

the tribunal by the respondent’s solicitor on 1 December 2022. 18
12 DT35.032 [233] Error in law. This complaint is void as the tweet does not exist.
The Twi er account @sunol_john did not exist at the me of
decision. This can be verified by going to
h ps://twi er.com/sunol_john/

Error of principle. This complaint is redundant. It is a repeat of

DT35.025
13 DT35.038 [242] Error in law. This complaint is void as the tweet does not exist.
The Twi er account @sunol_john did not exist at the me of
decision. This can be verified by going to
h ps://twi er.com/sunol_john/

Error of principle. This complaint is redundant. It is a repeat of

DT35.018
14 DT35.039 [245] Error in law. This complaint is void as the tweet does not exist.
The Twi er account @sunol_john did not exist at the me of
decision. This can be verified by going to
h ps://twi er.com/sunol_john/

Error of fact. The tribunal was projec ng its own meaning on

what Mr Sunol said. The tribunal said, “It is not completely clear

17
Poli cal and religious opinions. It is argued that, in view of the medical report by Dr Parmegiani, this
decision has erred on the side of mercilessness towards a brain-damaged man, as evidenced by the tribunal
ordering this respondent to pay Mr Kerslake $8.000. It is suggested that to use a person in the judicial system
purely as “a means to an end”, is always unethical even though the tribunal may jus fy the enormous effort
and me spent on this case as being for “the common good”. The 2021-2022 annual report of the Australian
Capital Territory Human Rights Commission contained a 3-paragraph statement on KERSLAKE v SUNOL
(Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT40. This suggests that this case is of special interest. The annual report suggested
that this case is being used to determine the boundary between poli cal and religious arguments and or
opinions, and vilifica on. In the words of the Human Rights Commission report, Kerslake v Sunol determines
"that the use of poli cal or religious language does not prevent a statement from inci ng etc.". Mr Kerslake is
not named or iden fied in any of these 23 posts that the tribunal deemed vilified Mr Kerslake on the grounds
of his sexuality.

18
Redundant/void complaints. The situa on in rela on to DT35.025, DT35.032, DT35.038 and DT35.039 was
advised to the tribunal in the affidavit accompanying the respondent’s medical report, sworn 1 December
2022.

P a g e 11 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

what is being said”. 19 In these circumstances it is prudent to

withhold judgement or solicit more informa on rather than
jumping to false conclusions. Mr Sunol has always believed since
9/11 that a terrorist threat could happen to the Mardis Gras
caused by Islamic terrorists, not homosexuals. The interpreta on
of the tribunal is therefore false, indeed absurd. The decision to
declare this tweet as vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on the ground of
his sexuality, and subsequently order Mr Sunol to pay damages to
Mr Kerslake, is patently wrong.
15 C.001 [297] Inadmissible complaint (statute of limita ons) – error in
[298] judgement

This complaint is about a 1-and-a-half-minute video clip that Mr

Sunol uploaded on 14 January 2016.

This video clip was sent to the Human Rights Commission on 17

June 2020 along with another 104 URLs to Mr Sunol’s Twi er
account posted by Mr Sunol between 11 March 2019 and 21 May
2020.

Of the 105 complaints in this series, the tribunal, a er two years

of analysis, dismissed 96 of these complaints.

Mr Kerslake lodged this complaint (C.001) 4 years and 5 months

a er the alleged contraven on.

This complaint therefore should have been rejected by the HRC in

compliance with the Act (refer discussion under DT35.001 above).
The Discrimina on Act 1991 states that: "A complaint must be
made within 2 years a er the day the alleged contraven on
happened."

In this video Mr Sunol describes himself as a homophobic bigot

etc. Refer to discussion in DT35.012 above regarding Error of fact
- error of law – error of logic – reduc onist defini on of
homophobia. The same arguments9 apply to this video as for the
video of DT35.012.

Addi onally, the decision to declare this video vilifica on of Mr

Kerslake is based on a false premise. The tribunal say “Mr Sunol is
using homophobe to mean someone who hates homosexuals”.
This statement is false.

19
Interpreta on, misinterpreta on, and over-interpreta on. “It is not completely clear what is being said”.
This statement by the tribunal at [245] of the 16 May 2022 decision would apply to most of the 145 Tweets
that Mr Kerslake lodged with the Human Rights Commission. The tribunal’s own meaning was projected on to
the u erances in most cases. The tribunal has expended 4 years involving thousands of pages of
documenta on in a emp ng to interpret what a vulnerable person was saying. Mr Sunol's words are now
a rac ng a en on from legal scholars, rather than being ignored, as they would be by ordinary reasonable
people who have be er things to do with their lives than to devote their waking hours to Mr Sunol and his
opinions.
P a g e 12 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

16 C.006 [306] Error in judgement. This was a Tweet Mr Sunol posted on 16 April
[307] 2019. There is nothing in this tweet that vilifies homosexual
persons. Mr Sunol said, “Child molesta on [is] right across the
board of humanity not just [in] the Catholic church.” For the
tribunal to rule that this Tweet vilifies Mr Kerslake on the grounds
of his sexuality must be a mistake.
17 C.007 [306] Error in judgement. This was a Tweet Mr Sunol posted on 16
[307] April 2019. This Tweet is a li le more problema c than C.006
above. It is a 1-sentence Tweet that says “"Sydney Mardi Gras is
full of perverts who wish to do this kind of acts". It is
unfortunate that Mr Sunol did not preface this asser on with the
words “I believe” in which case the comment would be an
expression of genuine belief derived from his lived experience.4
Mr Sunol did not specify what “kind of acts” he was referring to.
It is well known that the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras involves
licen ous public exhibi onism that is offensive to many people
and a bad influence on children viewing it. The tribunal cannot
jump to conclusion about this Tweet, yet it has and deemed that
it has vilified Mr Kerslake on the grounds of his sexuality. That is
drawing a long bow indeed. The decision appears to be a
mistake, innocent or deliberate.
18 C.051 [363] Error in law – tweet non-exis ng at me of decision - error of
judgement – goal seeking by tribunal. This complaint is void as
the tweet does not exist. The Twi er account @sunol_john did
not exist at the me of decision. This can be verified by going to
h ps://twi er.com/sunol_john/

Note: On 17 June 2020 Mr Kerslake submi ed to the Human

Rights Commission a printout of an Excell spreadsheet that was
prepared on Mr Swi ’s computer on 14 June 2020. It listed all the
104 Tweets associated with this D45 batch of complaints.

The tribunal has selected another tweet (taken from the now
non-existent Twi er account @sunol_john) that was not listed on
the abovemen oned spreadsheet. The tribunal as then ruled
that this unauthorized Tweet is vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on the
grounds of his sexuality but called it C.051 that, absent the
addi onal Tweet, could not be ruled as vilifica on of any sort.
This goal-seeking behaviour of the tribunal is concerning. It
suggests apprehended bias.

The wording of this Tweet added by the tribunal to complaint

C.051 was given at [363] of the 16 May 2022 decision as follows: -
The only way you can fight the Sydney ‘gay mafia’ is with lawyers,
guns and money. The LGBT judicial authori es have all 3 of these
resources at taxpayer expense (GLLO police have guns), Send me
lawyers and money, I’m down on my luck”.

The tribunal proceeded to declare this rogue Tweet - that Mr

Kerslake did not complain about – as vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on
the grounds of his sexuality. It appears the word ‘guns’ was the

P a g e 13 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

pretext for saying Mr Sunol was inci ng violence. This is false. 20

Conclusion: the tribunal is guilty of goal-seeking by adding a

tweet that Mr Kerslake did not complain about, probably because
Mr Kerslake understood it be er than the tribunal and could
recognize it was not vilifica on of himself on the grounds of his
sexuality.

19 C.056 [368] Error in law. This complaint is void as the specified Tweet did not
exist at the me of decision. The Twi er account @sunol_john
did not exist at the me of decision. This can be verified by going
to h ps://twi er.com/sunol_john/

20 C.069 [92] Error of judgement – error of fact.

This was a Tweet Mr Sunol posted on 12 April 2020, 3 months

a er Mr Kerslake lodged his ini al batch of 41 social media
u erances to the Human Rights Commission on 15 January 2020.

The tribunal has succumbed to a flight of ideas based on other

related Tweets that Mr Keslake did not complaint about. As a
result the tribunal came to a conclusion that was factually
incorrect, when applied to the actual wording of the C.069 Tweet.

The tribunal should have judged the wording of the Tweet on its
own, as it was presented on Mr Swi ’s spreadsheet under
complaint C.069. Had this been done, then there is no way Tweet
C.069 could be interpreted as vilifica on of Mr Kerslake of the
grounds of his sexuality and then order Mr Sunol to pay
compensa on to Mr Kerslake.

21 C.079 Error of judgement – error of fact.

This is a Tweet posted Mr Sunol on 13 April 2020. The tribunal

has failed to understand that Mr Sunol’s use of the word “war”
and “crusade” has nothing to do with violence. There is such a
thing as a “war of ideas” or an intellectual/ideological crusade.
This is clearly the sense in which Mr Sunol used these words. The
tribunal ruled that the use of these two words promoted
violence. This is a highly reduc onist and, in this case, a biased
interpreta on.

It is akin to concluding that a government’s “war on poverty” or

20
Goal-seeking interpreta on & misinforma on. Re C.051. Mr Sunol specifically le out his need for guns.
He said, “send me lawyers and money”. This is a crea ve Tweet and expresses a sardonic humour and
acceptance of his (Mr Sunol’s) predicament over the past 20 years, as a vulnerable person at the hands of the
‘gay mafia’. The words in the Tweet are taken from the lyrics of a ballad that can be found on YouTube by
searching ‘warren zevon lawyer’s guns and money’. Mr Sunol could relate to that ballad and saw himself in the
same predicament as that gambler in pre-revolu onary Havana who was “down on his luck” and facing dire
consequences from the local mafioso who ran the gambling halls in the days of the corrupt Ba sta regime
(1952-1959)
P a g e 14 | 15
 KERSLAKE v SUNOL (Discrimina on) [2022] ACAT 40

“war on drugs” is inci ng violence by use of the word “war”.

Mr Swi calls himself on Twi er a “social jus ce warrior”. The

word “warrior” comes from the Middle English word meaning “to
make war”. Mr Swi ’s involvement in this case, using the
tribunal’s logic, would suggest he is “making war” against Mr
Sunol.

Conclusion: the tribunal has grossly over-interpreted Mr Sunol’s

Tweet, to his detriment.
22 C.080 [406] This Tweet posted by Mr Sunol on 29 April 2020 is declared as
vilifica on of Mr Kerslake on the ground of his sexuality, only
because of the word “war”. The same arguments as stated in
C.079 above, in rela on to the word “war”, apply to this Tweet.

To make the judgement more problema c, Mr Kerslake was not

named or iden fied in the Tweet.

Here is the wording of the subject Tweet:

I do not declare war on all homosexual people at all, I declare war

on members of the Gay lobby which is a specific ac vist group of
poli cal lobbyist and less that 5% of homosexual people.
This group is the LGBT SWJ poli cal ac vist lobby only, or "Social
Jus ce Warriors"

Conclusion: as for C.079 above.

23 C.095 This Tweet is a repeat and a replica of the C.080 Tweet above,
posted on 6 May 2020, one week later. It should not be
considered by the Tribunal and listed as a separate complaint to
ar ficially increase the number of alleged make Mr Sunol appear

--ooOoo--

P a g e 15 | 15