INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FOR WAKEFIELD.
The Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner (South Australia) is conducting an investigation into a complaint that:
“I would like Mr.Bolton to be removed from the roll.[of legal practitioners] In lieu of that, he should at least be disciplined for lending his name and role as a lawyer publicly to such vile statements”
The Commissioner’s office wrote to Mr. Bolton that: “ The complainant appears to allege that: Comments purportedly made by you ... amount to professional misconduct...”
The complainant refers to Mr.Bolton’s warnings of the risks of Islamic Barbarity. Calling for a Ban on Islamic Face Masks. Stating that Mosques are a threat to national security and calling for an Islamic Schools watchdog and highlighting the political right to insult and vilify ideology of Islam. While he was speaking at a Rally on the lawns in front of the Parliament House in Canberra in support of PEGIDA in February of this year.
As reported in the Canberra Times.
Watch the speech and judge it for yourself The speech can be found at
Mr.Bolton has objected to the commission continuing to investigate. Asserting that there is no foundation and in any case such an investigation is out of power and in breach of the Constitutionally implied political discourse safeguards.
In Particular he referred to the recent Federal Court case of Gaynor v Chief of the Defence Force (No 3)  FCA 1370
247 Within the ADF, and publically, the applicant’s published statements were described as “inappropriate”, “offensive”, “unacceptable”, “disrespectful”, “intemperate”, “anti‑transgender”, “anti‑women”, “homophobic”, “inflammatory”, “intolerant”, “divisive” and “demeaning”. However, as was pointed out in Coleman, the fact that statements are offensive or insulting does not take them outside the field of political discourse, which is frequently marked by offence or insult (see e.g. per McHugh J at ‑, per Gummow and Hayne JJ at , per Kirby J at ).
237 Another important statement was made in Lange which was referred to recently by the High Court. In Lange, the High Court said (at 571):
… this Court should now declare that each member of the Australian community has an interest in disseminating and receiving information, opinions and arguments concerning government and political matters that affect the people of Australia. …
When a law of a State or federal Parliament or a Territory legislature is alleged to infringe the requirement of freedom of communication imposed by ss 7, 24, 64 or 128 of the Constitution, two questions must be answered before the validity of the law can be determined.
First, does the law effectively burden freedom of communication about government or political matters either in its terms, operation or effect?
Second, if the law effectively burdens that freedom, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end the fulfilment of which is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government and the procedure prescribed by s 128 for submitting a proposed amendment of the Constitution to the informed decision of the people (hereafter collectively “the system of government prescribed by the Constitution”). If the first question is answered “yes” and the second is answered “no”, the law is invalid. …
229 The Constitution does not state any protection for political, or any other, communication. Freedom of political communication is an implication which the High Court has drawn from the terms and structure of the Constitution.
Mr Bolton objects to some political opponent attempting to use the legal Profession Conduct Commissioner as a Political Arena.
Written and Authorised by John Bolton, Independent Candidate for Wakefield. 12 Union Street, Gawler. 0417 862201