Andrew L. Urban
A Melbourne magistrate has ruled prosecutors must prove former Burgertory boss Hash Tayeh had intent to “insult or offend” when he chanted “all Zionists are terrorists” in public. Well, blow me down, Magistrate Malcolm Thomas, obviously wanted to prove the substance of my recent post about common sense (Dec 10, 2025) … So I guess I could get away with yelling “All Magistrates are fools…” as long as I claimed it wasn’t meant to be insulting?
As I wrote in that post, “Perhaps we need Common Sense Ombudsmen/women in our courts. As someone once said, knowledge counts but common sense matters.”
Common sense tells us that uttering that phrase – ‘all Zionists are terrorists’ – is in itself proof of intent to insult or offend. Can anyone offer an interpretation that contradicts that? I will refrain from (sarcastic) criticism of the Magistrate’s decision.
Tayeh faces five charges under section 17(1)(c) of the Summary Offences Act over chants allegedly made at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in 2024.
As if it helped, Magistrate Thomas went on to dig a deeper hole: “A general intent to use the words as insulting words may be inferred from the words spoken and the context (including whether they are spoken as a form of political communication) in which those words are uttered,” the ruling states.
The court found that words must go beyond a mere difference of opinion on controversial political issues and be “contrary to contemporary standards of public good order” to fall foul of the law. A difference of opinion?
Magistrate Thomas held that while the offence does not require proof that anyone was actually insulted, it does require proof the accused intended to use the words in an insulting way.
This is a good example of the many steps that led to the Bondi massacre; step by step, paver by paver, Western tolerance, in a court of law no less, that emboldens radical Islamists.
Andrew . I walked into court ..all those people staring at me. I keep my gaze mostly to the floor..Some are clothed in black with mops on their scones …one sits on an alter..the high priest ?
Twelve others of mixed haute couture – track suites- pyjamas almost and all with that look of disdain – clutching cheap note pads and pencils..
There he is – the one in the shabby suit -questioned me for 2 days of 15 hour sessions
Described the crime scene for my confession..
Commissioner material -turns out…
One of the mop heads shouts at me.. Shabby suit nods vigorously ..some of the twelve scribble on their government note pads..others appear to be dozing ?
Contempt of court has lead to this..common sense regulated out of existence.?..Gaza is lost..
Definitely muddy waters there, Michael.
Andrew. If I was from Palestine as is Hash Tayer – I would be terrified for my innocent relatives in the hands of the Zionists..
Good advice from the Magistrate (fountain of wisdom) would be – Many Zionists are beyond reasonable doubt- terrorists – and many Australians are in sympathy with the loss of your relatives- The court recognises your understandable anguish.
However – while the Zionists have now recently killed 50,000 Palestinian Children- please for the sake of my career- Mr Tayer reword your protest- SOME ZIONISTS.
Andrew.
Some Zionists have murdered innocent children of the
Waters family diaspora -British Army Officer serving in Palestine..as far back as 1944.
One uncles body somewhere in Syria.. Poor innocent bastard- he did his duty -resting in peace ? Only one of the many victims of the proud courageous Zionists…Some of them terrorists..?
HAPPY CHRISTMAS
Andrew. For Heavens Sake..!
Some Zionists ARE terrorists..
Some Magistrates ARE fools..
Some Zionists are not Jewish (or Semite)
Some Israelites are not of the Jewish faith or Semites- some thankfully are atheists – some in fact are Palestinian and are 2+++ thousand years Semite. Did you know that some Popes were not Catholic..? History is one hell of a can of worms..!
Some Palestinian Arab Semites are Zionists and equally believe in the common sense need for an inevitable 2 state solution. Some Zionists and some Palestinians want the whole bloody lot..and some are prepared to kill for it.. Some Zionists have killed other Zionists. Some Palestinian Semites have killed other Palestinians..!
Some cheeky bastards might suggest a few years of Biblical and pre Biblical studies at Heidelberg.
Probably best to preface every slur with “Some” then get on with a prologue —
slightly disguised insults…
It’s the way of the world, Michael…
Sometimes
Intelligent people do stupid things
Clever people make mistakes
Good people do bad things
A Helpful Direction, Or The Art Of Not Investigating.
When Common Sense Is Put on Trial
In support of Andrew L. Urban, with illustrative assistance from one wrongful conviction file (Steven Fennell)
1. Andrew’s point and why it matters
Andrew L. Urban’s argument is not complicated, which is precisely why it is so uncomfortable for institutions. His position, distilled, is this: when words, conduct, or outcomes are obvious to any reasonable person, insisting on elaborate proof of the obvious is not fairness, it is evasion.
Andrew’s critique is not about politics or personalities. It is about the collapse of common sense inside formal decision‑making. When decision‑makers pretend that intent, meaning, or consequence can be endlessly abstracted away from reality, the system stops protecting rights and starts protecting itself.
That is the proposition this piece supports.
2. A real‑world illustration (not the main act)
What follows is not offered as a competing narrative, nor as a plea for sympathy. It is included solely as an illustrative footnote. A practical example of the type of bureaucratic reasoning Andrew is describing.
In correspondence from the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) dated 15 December 2025, to Steven Fennell the Commission acknowledged that allegations concerning a police investigation “could, if proven, amount to corrupt conduct or police misconduct.” That acknowledgment aligns perfectly with Andrew’s premise: sometimes the seriousness of a matter is self‑evident.
Yet having recognised that seriousness, the CCC then declined to investigate, invoking internal process and referring the matter back to the originating institution. This is not raised here as a personal grievance, but as a textbook example of common sense being displaced by procedural comfort.
3. The comedy of “helpful direction”.
Andrew’s critique finds its natural comic relief in language like this. The CCC described its response as helpful, explaining that it was appropriate to “encourage” concerns to be raised elsewhere. In plain English, this meant: yes, this looks serious please take it back to the people you say caused the problem.
The humour lies in the straight face.
No one disputes that direction has a place. But when direction replaces judgment, and referral replaces investigation, the exercise becomes theatrical. The audience is reassured, the script is followed, and nothing of substance occurs.
Andrew’s point is precisely this: form is being mistaken for function.
4. When process pretends to be wisdom.
Earlier CCC correspondence explained that it was “not resourced” to consider extensive material at the “assessment stage,” despite summaries and navigation guides being provided within the 720 page complaint. This is not unique behaviour; it is emblematic.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed, “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” Andrew’s argument is that institutions increasingly do the opposite elevating internal logic over lived reality.
There is even an old legal quip, iudex non calculat (“the judge does not calculate”), used to describe moments when reasoning is politely avoided. Bureaucracy has perfected the modern variant: the assessor does not assess.
5. Why Andrew is right to be concerned
Andrew is not arguing for rough justice. He is arguing against artificial blindness the cultivated refusal to acknowledge what ordinary people immediately grasp.
When courts or oversight bodies insist that meaning, intent, or consequence must be proven in a vacuum, detached from context, they create exactly the environment Andrew warns about: one where extreme statements become “mere opinion,” serious allegations become “process issues,” and accountability dissolves into paperwork.
The CCC correspondence quoted here is not exceptional. It is merely convenient evidence.
6. Closing: the joke that isn’t funny
This piece is not specifically about me, and it is not about the CCC. It is about Andrew’s larger point; that common sense is being regulated out of existence, and that institutions increasingly confuse procedural motion with moral or intellectual effort.
If there is comedy here, it is unintentional and dark: watching serious matters solemnly redirected, reassessed, reframed, and politely neutralised.
Andrew is right to call it out. Someone has to.
Thank you, a discerning conscious mind. Common sense and human rights including the right to a fair trial.