15. This matter is to be re-listed on 21 February 2014 at 9.30am to determine whether Mr Sunol has complied with these Orders. Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - racial vilification and victimisation - meaning of incite Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) Cases Cited: Bogie v The University of Western Sydney (1990) EOC 92-313 Borg v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2002] NSWADT 42 Burns v Laws (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 47 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Garry Burns (Applicant) John Sunol (Respondent) Representation: In person (Applicant) In person (Respondent) File Number(s): 131012 REASONS FOR DECISION INTRODUCTION 1 Mr Burns complains that Mr Sunol has vilified him and other homosexual men in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act). Most of the allegedly vilifying publications were on Mr Sunol's blog www.johnsunol.blogspot.com.au. Mr Burns also complains that Mr Sunol has victimised him in breach of the AD Act for complaining about him. The alleged victimisation is derogatory comments about Mr Burns on Mr Sunol's website and in letters and emails. 2 Mr Burns has made numerous complaints of vilification and victimisation against Mr Sunol. In 2012 the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT), as it then was, determined eight complaints in two decisions: Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246 and Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 247. We will call the first of these decisions "the Tribunal's 2012 decision". In both those cases the ADT found parts of Mr Burns' complaints to have been substantiated. Orders were made for Mr Sunol to apologise, remove the offending material from his website, refrain from publishing the same or similar material and to pay