Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Saturday, December 7, 2024
    Most popular

    Australia

    Home Australia

    It’s Free Speech, stupid!

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    It has been just over thirty years since the term, “It’s the economy, stupid” was coined by political strategist, James Carville, during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential election campaign.

    While that maxim remains central to the prosperity of any nation, there is a new kid in town and the world has just witnessed its great rebirth in the United States.

    I say “rebirth” because the fight for freedom has never ended. 

    Australia seems intent on launching straight into the depths of its hell!

    America has returned the right to true liberty to the table, and with it put other nations on notice if they want to participate in a relationship.

    Vice President elect, J D Vance, recently raised the issue of free speech during an interview on discussions around NATO:

    “It’s insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isn’t going to be pro-free speech. I think we can do both. But we’ve got to say American power comes with certain strings attached. One of those is respect free speech, especially in our European allies.”

    It is not just the magnitude of Trump’s victory that is stunning, but the highlighting of the age-old rule that freedom is fragile and must be guarded around the clock if we are to preserve and pass it on to the next generation.

    When ancient Republican Rome was on the cusp of civil war, and prior to its great fall with the ushering in of the Empire, Cicero continued to warn his fellow senators and the people that tyranny must always be defeated.

    Cicero said in a fiery speech in 43 BC: 

    “No calamity could befall the Republic without it being the fault of the   Senate.” 

    He was right in the sense that those who are given the honour to guard their nations fail when they preside over its fall. But so, too, the responsibility must rest with the people, particularly in our modern era when we all have access to what is happening around us. 

    America has returned the right to true liberty to the table

    If we claim to not know, then we are admitting to ignorance and worse, wilful ignorance.

    Cicero campaigned against the tyranny of Marcus Antonius following the assassination of Julius Caesar. He saw Antony as a worse tyrant than Caesar himself. He knew the consequences of speaking out, but he went on the offensive anyway. 

    One of his most poignant warnings was when he told a fractious and divided Senate that Antony would stop at nothing to enslave them all:

    For if he found slavery bearable for himself, why foist a master on us? If in his boyhood days he endured the lusts of those who tyrannised over him, was he also to produce a master and tyrant over our children? And so, when Caesar was killed, Antonius became to the rest of the community what he wanted Caesar to be to us.

    Join Mailing List

    Oh, what words that ring so close to home!

    While America embarks on unshackling itself from the reign of tyranny, Australia seems intent on launching straight into the depths of its hell!

    It honestly beggars belief that Australian leaders, left and right alike, cannot understand that if we are to continue to enjoy a close relationship with the largest democracy in the world, and our most important ally, we must obliterate these heinous censorship laws and sack any public servants who continue to push for them.

    It really is about Free Speech, stupid!

    Identity Politics vs Individual Liberty – A Personal Reckoning

    By
    Scott Harrison
    -
    0

    Few political affiliations draw more stigma and ostracism than white nationalism and neo-Nazism. The fear and disdain these ideologies provoke make them a potent weapon to wield against political opponents. The Victorian Liberal Party’s 18-month internal conflict, centred on allegations of links to neo-Nazis, illustrates how damaging such accusations can be. 

    No one wants to be branded a Nazi, yet both sides of politics continue to flirt with the rhetoric of ‘identity politics’ that fuels such extreme manifestations. As they see it, you are defined by the group, or identity, to which you belong, in particular your gender, race, or sexual preference.  Each side typically targets constituencies based on such identities. 

    Distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked

    I know this personally because for six years of my teenage life, I embodied the most extreme version of the ‘identitarian right.’ My personal experience with racist nationalism positions me to argue that both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence. Moreover, libertarianism was not only the antidote to my own toxic beliefs, but is essential to countering the divisive nature of identity politics.

    For most, being an ‘actual Nazi’ is unimaginable. This extremist, violent ideology requires more than mere exposure to certain ideas — it involves a process of radicalisation shaped by psychology, peer groups, and the surrounding culture. Here, I will focus on how culture and ideas drove my radicalisation, and how they continue to pose a risk to vulnerable young people. It is less autobiography and more cautionary tale.

    The 9/11 attacks were a defining moment in my life. At 12 years old, I became captivated by history and politics, realising that events and ideas shaped the present and were in constant competition. This set me on a path of seeking where I fit in this world.

    At school, teachers often portrayed Australia as a colonial oppressor, its culture irredeemably marred by the sins of white settlement and the White Australia Policy. Multiculturalism, they implied, was both penance and salvation. According to this narrative, Australia had no intrinsic culture, and what existed was enriched only by others. Progressives cast Australians – particularly white males like me – as oppressors. I was the villain in the story of my own country.

    Meanwhile, the Howard government promoted multiculturalism and nationalism, tinged with anti-Islamic sentiment. Events like 9/11 and the Tampa crisis linked immigration to terrorism. John Howard’s refrain – “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” – fuelled public fears. To my 12 year old self, growing up in Melbourne’s working-class northern suburbs with large Lebanese and Turkish populations, these narratives resonated. The progressive view vilified me for my identity, while the conservative view glorified an Australian identity under threat.

    I naturally leaned toward conservatism but carried an anti-authoritarian streak, fuelled by the Iraq War’s WMDs deception. Together, these narratives primed me to adopt an ideology offering both belonging and an outlet for my growing xenophobia and distrust of the establishment.

    In 2005, the Cronulla riots became the spark. At 14 I was seeking answers, and the media’s portrayal of Australia as inherently racist clashed with my own experiences. Conservative leaders, meanwhile, distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked. Disillusioned, I turned to the internet, where white nationalist forums offered an alternative worldview. Here, my conservative leanings devolved into outright racism. By embracing conspiracy theories, including a Jewish global agenda, my transformation into a neo-Nazi was complete.

    For six years, I was deeply involved in this violent subculture, promoting its ideas online and on the streets. This period profoundly shaped me, for better and worse. 

    Both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence.

    Thankfully, I began to change. Exposure to libertarian ideas during Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign planted the seeds of a new worldview. Libertarian principles of non-aggression and individual liberty stood in stark contrast to my authoritarian beliefs, offering a path forward based on individualism, voluntary cooperation and mutual respect. It took two years to fully disentangle myself from neo-Nazism, but by 2010 I was free.

    Determined to promote liberty I joined the Liberal Party, hoping to steer it away from identity politics and back toward classical liberalism. This hope was short-lived. After my past was exposed, I resigned – a blessing in disguise, given the party’s continued departure from principles of individual freedom.

    Join Mailing List

    Ten years later, I remain a libertarian, advocating for an ideology that values individuals as unique and capable of forging their own paths. Unlike progressivism and conservatism, which exploit fears and biases to create division, libertarianism fosters cooperation and mutual understanding. It champions less government interference, trusting that most people will live peacefully when left to their own devices.

    Today’s political landscape is more polarised than it was in 2001. Identity politics, central to both the progressive left and conservative right, is the most dangerous driver of radicalisation. By creating ‘us vs them’ mentalities, it breeds resentment and hatred, ultimately leading to violence. The antidote is to focus on individuals, not groups. Libertarianism, which prioritises individual freedom and responsibility, is the ideological counterweight we desperately need. It is an idea whose time has come.

    Know Thy Enemy

    By
    James Hol
    -
    1

    We all love to hate politicians, understandably so, and the last thing I want to do is advocate that we start treating politicians nicer. But it is important to identify the true threat to liberty.

    STARRY-EYED BEGINNINGS

    Whether we agree with them ideologically or not, it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community. While there certainly are some that are drawn to the power and prestige that politics can bring, these are a minority.

    Most politicians fall into one of two camps: fed-up professionals or lifelong activists who perceive an issue they genuinely feel needs redress. While we may disagree with the catalyst that ignited their passion or the solutions they prescribe, it is difficult to disagree with the sincerity of their conviction. Most of us who are politically active have felt this way before.

    Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

    THE DEEP STATE

    The biggest threat to liberty is something that has existed as long as government, but has grown exponentially over the last half century. It has gone by many names, recently portrayed in shadowy terms with conspiratorial overtones. 

    While the preferred modern verbiage is “the deep state”, it is nothing more than the faceless bureaucrats who comprise the ever-expanding three- and four-letter agencies of the executive government.

    Western democracies, particularly those with Anglophonic origins, typically separate government into three arms: the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. The legislature, or parliament in Australia, is the part of government most of us think of whenever that unfortunate thought enters our mind – the part that democracy makes accountable to the people. The judiciary consists of judges and courts – the determiners of fault. While the executive government is far more nebulous and ambiguously defined – often referred to as “the enforcer”.

    THE EXECUTIVES

    The most obvious example of the executive government is the police: they enforce the laws that parliament creates, purportedly regardless of their view on such laws, and bring alleged offenders before the courts where fault is determined. Or at least, this is how it is supposed to operate. While I am sure there are still plenty of police officers enforcing laws they don’t agree with, police departments have included the additional function of political lobbying in the last few decades – and this is only increasing.

    It wasn’t that long ago that most police departments were made of willing and capable men who were simply looking out for their community – much like the starry-eyed politicians mentioned earlier – often on a voluntary or part-time basis. 

     it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community. 

    Now all police departments are highly formalised, employing many thousands of full-time officers, that regularly pressure the government to introduce ill-conceived laws for the primary purpose of making their jobs easier and safer. And while I wish no harm on our police, separating powers means the enforcement arm should not influence the law-making arm.

    BLURRED LINES

    Police are not even the most egregious offender. How about the Commonwealth Department of Education? It employed nearly 125,000 people in 2022, not one of whom taught a single student; all of them effectively lobbyists or busybodies; all of them pressuring the government to implement their agenda or enforcing compliance against teachers – you know, the ones who actually teach students – who dared not adopt their curriculum, whether deliberate or inadvertent.

    The executive comprises the vast majority of the totality of government: the few hundred people we elect and their staff are effectively a rounding error. And as government grows, it is entirely within the executive government. Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

    Join Mailing List

    TYRANNICAL ENDINGS

    And it is this growth that makes our starry-eyed politician almost doomed to fail.

    Government is so big it is near impossible for politicians to have sufficient knowledge, no matter how well intentioned. So they turn to the bureaucrats, who face no public accountability and often spend decades in their cushy jobs, who spoon feed them their agenda.
    Even if our starry-eyed politician has some hesitation, he shrugs his shoulders and tells himself: well, I guess he’s the expert.

    Faulty Towers

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    0

    NIMBYism, building costs, consumer tastes, regulation and taxation will keep Victoria’s housing supply low, despite efforts from the Allan Government to power ahead with new developments. 

    Despite the best efforts of the Victorian Liberal Party, the political winds are indeed changing in Victoria, and Jacinta Allan has laid out her plan to rise from the ashes of a heavily indebted and incompetent government. The plan is currently three-fold:

    • Release new land for greenfield development 
    • Adopt an Auckland-style relaxation of restrictions on subdivisions or development on existing blocks to encourage a proliferation of townhouses and granny flats
    • Most controversial – to develop various ‘activity centres’ within suburban Melbourne, including affordable high-density housing. 

    Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers.

    We aren’t talking about large-scale social housing construction by government. The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria. However, those key groups are not really interested in building or buying affordable, high-density housing, no matter how good the location. 

    The Covid 19 pandemic, along with the work from home arrangements prompted by it, created a wave of demand for housing in regional/rural areas with larger blocks and dwellings, given the reduced value of city amenity while locked at home. As both the public and private sector attempt to re-establish on-site work, Allan hopes to revitalise Melbourne by concentrating new housing around transportation and employment hubs. 

    But the fact is, Australians don’t really like living in apartments or units. Indeed, if recent demonstrations in Brighton are anything to go by, we don’t like living anywhere near them! For years now, unit prices in cities such as Melbourne have virtually flatlined as supply has increased but demand has tapered off. The price of free-standing houses, on the other hand, has skyrocketed. 

    The cultural attitude towards apartments in general is one of suspicion. While houses and residential land are revered as sound investments, apartments are known to attract less capital growth, are expensive to own (strata fees, etc), and prone to defects. No matter how many trains go past a day, Australians will happily pay a premium for a detached house.

    The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria.

    But what really brings Labor’s proposal to its knees is the economics of building high density housing. Developers are facing increased material and labour costs due to inflation and competition from major government infrastructure projects, while also navigating a myriad of regulations and taxes. As a result, apartment blocks are typically developed for the boutique and high-end market. Affordable high-density housing simply isn’t worth it in the current economic environment. 

    As for greenfield sites, they have issues of their own – not least that Allan’s proposal will see many future sites not delivered for another decade. Basic road, water and sewerage infrastructure costs are higher, and increasingly Melbourne is eating into its nearby food bowl and placing new residents at the mercy of increased fire and flood risk at the urban fringe. 

    Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers. This approach will allow for controlled infill – not flooding existing suburbs with hordes of new residents but still making better use of existing infrastructure and space. 

    Join Mailing List

    Allan’s government and other Labor divisions have sensed the need to differentiate themselves as the party which will genuinely increase housing supply, whilst labelling any opposition from the Greens and Liberals as ‘blocking’. If the recent Queensland election results are anything to go by, the strategy might be a cunning one in metropolitan seats.  

    However, if Allan is serious about adding new supply to Melbourne’s housing stock, she ought to ask herself why she has made Victoria the most unattractive state for housing and business investment in the country. Only by removing onerous property, land, and windfall gains taxes, easing the regulatory burden on new builds and slowing their bungled infrastructure program, could she hope to actually stimulate new home building.

    Use a VPN, but don’t stop there

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    1

    The socialist government of Anthony Albanese is, once again, proposing legislation to de-anonymise, monitor and censor the Internet. From across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand I can smell the American eKaren Julie Inman Grant’s enthusiasm for this sort of authoritarian crackdown.

    As always the justification amounts to “Please! Won’t Someone Think of The Children!”, along with misdirections concerning child safety and insulating young minds from dangerous misinformation and disinformation. Coded language that really means truths that are inconvenient obstacles for leftist narratives.

    Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new. Leftists in Western democracies have been endeavouring to implement them for decades. The problem has been public resistance, with opponents able to point to China and its Great Firewall as a handy example of how such initiatives enable totalitarianism.

    There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught

    A massive public relations campaign has been underway across the West for many years, conducted by western governments, aligned NGOs and supra-national organisations such as the WEF, attempting to sway public opinion against the maintenance of civil liberties across the Internet. A recent example is the coordinated attacks upon Elon Musk’s 𝕏 platform, which has largely refused to comply with government demands for censorship and state surveillance of 𝕏 users: censorship and surveillance to which other social media platforms such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook have been only too willing to comply.

    Musk’s intransigence has attracted the ire of the authoritarian elites across the world, and not just Australia’s petulant eKaren Julie Inman Grant. From European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton’s jackboot demands for 𝕏 to comply with oppressive provisions of the bloc’s Digital Service (DSA) Act through Brazil’s Justice Alexandre de Moraes banning 𝕏 altogether in the country at the behest of the ruling leftist regime, to French president Emmanuel Macron luring Telegram CEO Pavel Durov to France so he could be arrested, the social media platforms allowing resistance to state censorship and surveillance have been put on notice.

    Nonetheless, the attacks on the social media giants are a sideshow. The leftist elites are well aware that compliance by the social media companies does not solve the underlying issue of users themselves circumventing surveillance and censorship on platforms simply by moving to alternative platforms that refuse to comply. 

    We’re seeing this already as frustrated users flee Facebook en masse for platforms that don’t block their content and suspend their accounts when they post about Hunter Biden’s transgressions. The more adventurous migrate to decentralised platforms (or federated as the terminology goes) that don’t even have a corporation behind them for governments to bully. Remember MySpace? When one social media platform loses prominence, another rises to take its place.

    The solution is to impose surveillance and censorship at the source rather than the destination: the users themselves. The preferred approach of the leftist elites is to impose technological restrictions and then to enact punitive punishments against those who circumvent them. Brazil has implemented this, with users caught using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to access banned sites such as 𝕏 facing fines of up to $US9,800 per infraction. China employs a similar technology/legislation regime though the punishments meted out to transgressors are considerably worse.

    What is a citizen opposed to this totalitarian crackdown on basic civil liberties to do? In a democracy the true solution lies at source: cease voting for leftwing political parties that promulgate and promote this hateful ideology. But if you happen to live under such a government such as Australia, there are technical mitigations available too. In recent days I’ve heard chatter similar to “just use a VPN. Everyone will have a VPN app installed on their device in two minutes” to bypass restrictions. It’s not that simple.

    Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new.

    VPNs are great and everyone should use one. They are a trivially easy method of routing your traffic through another country, one with a better commitment to fundamental human rights. The problem is that VPNs are also trivially easy to detect. Detection by the state -such as in Brazil and China- is rapidly followed by state enforcement. I have heard sotto voce that the Australian Labor party intends such a ban on VPNs. Bring on the organ harvesting. 

    Fortunately for Aussies, people living under other repressive regimes have developed solutions. Technical advances from those on the side of freedom against the enforcement mechanisms of the leftists are in the ascendency, though it must be said there is no such thing as perfect security. The technique with the most value is obfuscation, a method of giving VPN traffic the appearance of being a different type of traffic, making it far more difficult to detect. The most mature and readily-available suite of sophisticated tools to obfuscate Internet traffic is the Tor network, a component of which the leftist elites endeavour to scare you about by using the bogeyman term Dark Net.

    Tor works by bouncing traffic from ingress nodes through intermediary nodes to exits nodes back onto the Surface Internet in order to obfuscate the origin, meaning the user. This comes at the cost of additional latency but Tor has an equally valuable feature: the facility to obfuscate the type of traffic with pluggable transports, better known as bridges. Two of the most popular are OBFS4 bridges running on Tor relays and Snowflake, which operates as a simple peer-to-peer browser extension. Alongside VPNs, both of these are technologies Australians would be well advised to utilise.

    Join Mailing List

    In the escalating technology war against Internet civil liberties, advances in AI analysis of obfuscated traffic poses the most critical risk. A simple VPN may suffice for Australian Internet users and I recommend using one. Tor is the next step up and you should start using that too. It’s available for all platforms and devices. 

    There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught: following in the footsteps of other oppressive regimes the Australian Labor government is likely to discourage circumvention through VPNs and Tor with punitive penalties.

    And as I alluded earlier, technology is merely mitigation. The solution is to vote the nasty bastards enacting these attacks upon civil liberties out of office.

    The Problems with Property Taxes

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    Property taxes are imposed on people who own property, the amount typically based on what the government deems the property to be worth. 

    Many states in Australia have property taxes (typically known as land tax). Local government also charges property taxes, generally known as council rates.

    Property taxes are one of many taxes that affect everyday life and increase the cost of living. In this article, I will explain why I believe property taxes should be abolished. 

    Local governments are also financially incentivised to drive lower income people out of the area

    Firstly, and most obvious, if people supposedly own their property, why should they have to keep paying for it? If you are paying to live on your own property, you don’t really own it at all. Especially given that the government has the authority to evict you and sell it off if you fail to pay the property taxes. I firmly believe that ownership of property should not be subject to the vagaries of government. 

    Secondly, as property taxes are calculated based on apparent property value, an increase in value brings an increase in taxes. The result is some low-income people cannot afford to pay and are driven out of their own home. Given significant inflation over the last few years and cost of living pressures, this is likely to become more common in the near future. 

    Thirdly, property taxes create a range of perverse government incentives, particularly at the local government level. For example, since some people pay more property taxes than other people, this can encourage local governments to create policies that favour people who pay more, which erodes equality under the law. 

    Property taxes are one of many taxes that affect everyday life and increase the cost of living.

    Both state and local governments have the power to compulsorily acquire property for development in hopes of being able to benefit from higher property taxes compared to what the current owner is expected to pay. 

    Known as eminent domain, this is a process in which the government takes someone’s property from them against their will for what is meant to be a ‘public purpose’, though the government may choose to obtain the land for use by a private entity under the guise of ‘promotion of economic development’. 

    Join Mailing List

    Although the government is meant to provide someone with ‘fair compensation’, there is no legal obligation at the state and local government level, and in practice is not common. They often ironically claim the property is worth less than the value used to calculate the property taxes during the process of acquisition. 

    Local governments are also financially incentivised to drive lower income people out of the area to attract higher income people who build higher value properties that result in higher property taxes. In a quest to increase property values and property taxes, there is an incentive to regulate what people do on their properties which has impact on personal freedom and property rights.

    I believe that property taxes, along with many other taxes such as sin taxes, inheritance taxes and GST, should be abolished, leaving us with a simple flat tax for all money earned over a certain threshold paid by both individuals and businesses.

    Breaking the Adoption Taboo

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    Over 40,000 Australian children are currently in government-sponsored care. Approximately 30,000 have been there for more than 2 years. Less than 200 were adopted.

    The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

    Compared with similar countries Australia has very low rates of adoption.

    It seems the chief barrier to increasing the rate of adoptions in Australia are state and territory government child protection authorities. In South Australia, for example, the inquest into the death of toddler Chloe Valentine revealed the abject squalor of the environment the child was forced to endure – an environment authorities were well aware of. 

    The best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems

    An anti-adoption culture appears to be ingrained in state and territory child protection authorities.

    Jeremy Sammut, from the Centre for Independent Studies, has written extensively on this issue*. He summarises the situation as follows: 

    “Australia’s child-protection system keeps applying the same, flawed strategies which basically means children are harmed by the very system that’s meant to protect them. It puts an over-emphasis on family preservation prolonging the time children are kept with highly dysfunctional families. When, as a last resort, they are finally removed they are churned through unstable foster care and returned to their families where the reunification is likely to break down. For many children, they spend almost all of their childhood and adolescence in care and never get a permanent and safe family for life. Many of these children could have, should have, been adopted.”  

    19th Century English philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill was one of the first to declare that “Children have independent rights as future citizens. If parents fail in their obligations to fulfil those rights, then the State should step in.”

    Regrettably, the rights of abusive parents seem to outweigh the rights of abused children.

    It has been 50 years since the introduction of the single mother’s pension by the Whitlam Government. This policy helped end the practice of forced adoption as the provision of taxpayer-funded income support gave women who became pregnant out of wedlock the option of keeping their children. 

    The unintended consequence, however, is that welfare for single mothers has led to the very social problems forced adoptions were designed to prevent – the inability of many single mothers to properly care for their children. 

    The right to welfare became a pathway to welfare dependency which has contributed significantly to the scale of the child protection crisis confronting Australia today.

    In South Australia last month, a bill was introduced into the parliament requiring that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy after 28 weeks not euthanize the child and induce it stillborn, but deliver it alive. 

    After 28 weeks, with proper care, babies are viable outside the womb.

    The bill did not prevent women from terminating their pregnancies, it only insisted that if a woman decided to terminate her pregnancy after 28 weeks, the baby must be born alive, not euthanized and be born dead.

    The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

    Presumably, as the woman was planning to abort the child, giving the child to a loving couple to adopt would not be opposed. This would have given rise to a significant number of new adoptions.

    The bill was defeated 10 votes to 9 in South Australia’s Upper House.

    As a woman’s ‘right to choose’ a termination was not being compromised, why anyone would oppose saving the life of the child when it was going to be aborted anyway is beyond me. 

    In 2019, the Federal Government’s House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Report, ‘Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children’, stated that the best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems.

    Five years later, little has changed.

    Join Mailing List

    For children who are unable to live with their biological parents, adoption has been internationally proven as the best way to provide a safe, stable and loving family life.

    While it has been argued that adoption robs children of their identity, modern ‘open adoption’ models which are specifically designed to maintain children’s connections to their cultural heritage and birth families disprove such claims.

    It has also been claimed that adoption will steal children all over again. Again, NSW adoption reforms disprove such claims.

    The perception that adoption is a socially unacceptable and illegitimate practice based on past practices such as forced adoptions and indigenous experiences must end. There can be no meaningful change or end to the cycle of intergenerational dysfunction until that taboo is broken.

    *Dr Jeremy Sammut is the author of several research papers and the book, ‘The Madness of Australian Child Protection: Why Adoption will Rescue Australia’s Underclass Children’. His research influenced reforms which were passed in 2018 by the NSW Parliament.

    I’ve got a little list

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    In Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera The Mikado, the character Ko-Ko is appointed to the position of Lord High Executioner. He prepares a list of people to be executed, singing: “I’ve got a little list. They’d really not be missed.”

    I’ve often thought this should be the way we deal with those responsible for Australia’s tragic response to the Covid hysteria. I have a list, and I really don’t believe those on it would be missed. The question is, is it more than a fantasy? 

    A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account. Royal Commissions certainly have broad investigative powers, but they cannot decide guilt or innocence. They can only make recommendations. 

    A Royal Commission is only as good as its terms of reference, which are written by the government. There is an unwritten rule on that – only establish an inquiry when the outcome is either already known or won’t do great harm to the government.  

    There is also a problem with jurisdiction. A Commission established by the Commonwealth is limited to investigating federal issues. That would include international border closures, repatriating Australians, vaccine ordering, the vaccine rollout, use of troops, and the advice of the Commonwealth Health Officer and health agencies. It could also look at what the federal government failed to do, such as follow its own pandemic plan or challenge the states’ border closures. 

    Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity?

    It would require a state-initiated Royal Commission to investigate the policies and actions of state governments. That includes the medical advice to justify state border closures, compulsory masks, curfews, lockdowns, other movement restrictions, the Covid zero fantasy, the separation of families, business closures, mandatory vaccination, and of course vaccine certificates. 

    Only a state Royal Commission could consider whether the loss of basic rights such as free speech, freedom of religion and the right to peaceful protest, or the suspension of parliament, were reasonable and proportionate. And unless the terms of reference were specific, the behaviour of state police would not be considered. 

    There is also a question of competence. Commissioners are generally retired judges; that is, elderly lawyers. A career as a barrister and judge is not necessarily a sound qualification for investigating complex non-legal issues. From my observation such people mostly don’t understand business or economics, and expecting them to come to grips with epidemiology and immunology might be optimistic. Add the possibility that they will overestimate the risk given their personal vulnerability to Covid, and an objective review is far from certain.  

    But let’s assume, for the sake of the fantasy, that a Royal Commission with broad terms of reference was established that is brave, competent, and thorough. Let’s even assume it is a joint federal-state commission. What might it achieve? 

    In my fantasy, it would name those responsible for doing so much damage to our liberal democracy, and spell out the crimes they committed. The patronising, sanctimonious, unscientific Chief Health Officers. The cynical, manipulative political leaders. The lying propagandists and political boosters. The cowardly, craven media. The senior police who sanctioned brutal repression of protests.  

    It would also offer a strong reminder of the fundamentals of a free society: that freedom and safety are not interchangeable; that personal responsibility should always trump government control; that avoiding deaths at any cost is not the role of the government; that executive government must be accountable to parliament.  And perhaps most importantly, that those who violate these principles must pay a price. 

    A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account.

    Notwithstanding some indications to the contrary, particularly in Victoria, Australia is still subject to the rule of law.  An adverse mention by a Royal Commission might end a political or bureaucratic career, but it is not a conviction. And the reality is that virtually everything inflicted on Australians in the name of controlling Covid occurred within the law. Other than a few Victorian police perhaps, none of those named would be at risk of going to jail.

    Some say this calls for a special tribunal, like that used to try senior Nazis at Nuremburg. This applied the principle that some things can never be legal or right, whether or not they were within the law at the time. That same concept underpins the International Criminal Court. 

    Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity? No doubt they inflicted needless suffering and misery on millions of their fellow Australians, imposing irrational and arbitrary rules with heartless brutality. And while they claim to have saved deaths from Covid, they contributed to others from suicide and untreated conditions, and caused profound harm to countless careers, businesses, marriages, and childhoods. 

    The crimes that the International Criminal Court may consider are genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. The world’s longest lockdown certainly felt like a crime against humanity to Victorians, and it would be satisfying to hear the former Premier and Chief Health Officer argue, in their defence, why family visits were prohibited but not visiting brothels; why council gardeners could work but not private gardeners; and why the Black Lives Matter protest was not a superspreader event unlike anti-lockdown protests and watching a sunset from the beach. 

    Join Mailing List

    But that’s where the fantasy ends. A Nuremburg-style trial, even if it is warranted, would require special legislation. And a Royal Commission, even if established, is not likely to do no more than offer half-baked recommendations about preparing for the next pandemic. 

    Perhaps even worse, the pandemic showed that the commitment of Australians to democracy and freedom is wafer thin. They readily relinquished their rights and freedoms based on fear of a disease with a survival rate of 98 per cent, in the belief that the government would keep them safe.  

    This is a problem that will not be solved by a Royal Commission or Nuremburg type tribunal. Indeed, it would not be solved by making me Lord High Executioner and allowing me to deal with those on my list. It is a reflection of who we are as a nation.

    Bacon Sandwiches, Sausage Sizzles and Red Tape

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    On Saturday the 5th of October 2024, a friend and I were visiting Melbourne when we decided to attend an anti ACMA bill protest being held on that day. Upon arrival, I noticed a sausage sizzle but was disappointed to find there were no bacon sandwiches, just sausages in bread.

    Later I went up to the stall to suggest they add bacon sandwiches to their next sausage sizzle. I was informed that bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events, with the bacon sandwich permit being more difficult to obtain.

    I walked away feeling slightly annoyed that I could not buy a bacon sandwich because of some stupid government rule. It may not be the worst of government transgressions, but it is certainly a great example of regulations and red tape having an inconvenient effect on everyday life. 

    Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question

    Upon returning to my home city of Adelaide, I decided to contact a range of councils in South Australia and the rest of Australia to see how common it is to require separate permits to sell sausages and bacon sandwiches. I contacted all the councils below on the 8th of October 2024.

    Below is the following enquiry I sent them: 

    “Hello,

    I was just wondering, if I were to organise a community event or help organise a community event such as a community footy game or even a protest, would I require separate permits to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches at a stand or would I be able to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches on the same permit? 

    Thank you  

    Jessica Colby.”

    Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question, some did not, and some were even unsure whether bacon or sausage sandwiches could be sold under the same permit as if this was an extremely difficult question.

    Many responded mentioning event permits. I would reply to these emails asking whether I would be able to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread under the same permit or would I require separate permits. Some did eventually answer my question although that wasn’t always the case. 

    Some gave answers that were confusing and even contradictory. A few would direct me to other people or tell me to contact some government health organisation and say they were unsure. A few insisted on speaking on the phone rather than email and one even told me to contact some other authority about getting other permits before they would further discuss my question.

    I believe that this example illustrates how red tape unnecessarily restricts our everyday lives and makes things that should be simple more complicated than they need to be. Explaining how government overreach affects our lives at the daily level is a great way to mobilise the community against government overreach. 

    Below I have created a chart of council areas in South Australia and around Australia showing my attempts to interpret the responses I received from council bureaucrats as of the 18th of October 2024. 

    Yes: Separate permits required to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread.

    Bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events

    No: Bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread can be sold under the same permit.

    Inc: This covers a range of responses including an unclear answer, or I found confusing, no clear response or I was directed to someone else. This also includes responses where I asked them to clarify their response, and was still waiting on a further response as of the 18th of October 2024.

    NR: No response as of the 18th of October 2024 other than automated replies and updates that my enquiry was being transferred to some other council representative to answer it.

    N/A: Turns out Sydney does not permit food to be sold at community events or protests. 

    Council AreaStateSeparate permit required to serve bacon sandwiches and sausages in breadNotes
    City of Adelaide SAInc
    City of BurnsideSANoMust be under same marque or kitchen to use same permit to be covered under same notification
    City of CampbeltownSAIncTold to contact Eastern Health Authority
    City of Charles SturtSAIncLikely yes
    Town of GawlerSANo
    Town of WalkervilleSANR
    Adelaide Hills CouncilSAIncGiven a list of people to contact
    City of MarionSANo
    City of MitchamSAIncLikely yes but not 100% sure
    City of Norwood, Payneham & St PetersSANR
    City of OnkaparingaSANo
    City of PlayfordSAInc
    City of ProspectSAInc
    City of SalisburySANo
    City of Tea Tree GullySANo
    City of UnleySANo
    City of West TorrensSANo
    Mid Murrey CouncilSANo
    City of Port AugustaSANo
    City of Port LincolnSANo
    Flinders Ranges CouncilSANo
    District Council of Mount BarkerSANoAs long as all the food sold at the stall is listed on the one application form, only one permit will be required for all.
    Berri Barmera CouncilSANR
    District Council of Loxton WaikerieSANR
    District Council of GrantSANR
    Roxby CouncilSANoNeed FBN number
    City of HobartTASNo
    Tasman CouncilTASNo
    North Canberra Community CouncilACTIncTold to contact Access Canberra
    City of DarwinNTIncTold to contact Northern Territory Health Department
    Alice Springs Town CouncilNTIncWas told to contact NTG Health as the council officer was unsure on the specifics of whether both can be cooked under the same permit.
    City of PerthWANR
    City of BunburyWANo
    City of Greater GeraldtonWANo
    City of RockinghamWANoSausage sizzles need one permit that includes both bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread
    Shire of BroomeWANo
    Brisbane City CouncilQLDNo
    Sunshine Coast CouncilQLDNR
    Cairnes Regional CouncilQLDNR
    City of TownsvilleQLDNoNeed a separate permit for every separate food stand
    City of MelbourneVICYes
    Yarra City CouncilVICNo
    Maribyrnong City CouncilVICYes
    Whitehorse City CouncilVICNR
    City of Greater GeelongVICNR
    City of Greater BendigoVICNo
    West Wimmera Shire CouncilVICYes

    Join Mailing List

    Mildura Rural City CouncilVICNR
    City of SydneyNSWN/AFood cannot be sold be sold at community events or protests in Sydney
    Georges River CouncilNSWInc
    Waverly CouncilNSWInc
    City of Wagga WaggaNSWNo
    Broken Hill City CouncilNSWNo
    City of WollongongNSWNo
    Dubbo Regional CouncilNSWIncWas told in the final email that ‘there is no such thing as a permit’ ???

    Freedom, Moral Norms and the State

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

    Are moral norms compatible with individual freedoms? The answer should be an obvious “yes”, yet in Western liberal democracies like Australia there appears to be growing doubt, confusion and uncertainty. A society that permits individual freedoms necessarily results in moral pluralism. Moral pluralism, in turn, manifests in the existence of diverse moral norms, which is to say moral speech and practices that not only diverge, but conflict. Add migration and a policy of multiculturalism to individual freedoms, and a society characterised by a high degree of normative moral pluralism is assured. This is precisely what has occurred in Australia. 

    Until recently, this kind of moral diversity (cloaked in the language of cultural diversity) was a cause for celebration, at least by Australia’s urbane, educated elite. Today, that same elite increasingly regards moral diversity as something threatening and harmful. Individuals and groups that find moral criticism, which is to say moral diversity, confronting, challenging and offensive, now demand protection from the “harmful” moral speech and practices of others. That is, they demand the state involve itself in matters of moral conflict amongst citizens. 

    The clamour for state intervention in the arbitration, policing and implementation of moral norms is particularly evident in the culture war. Progressive and conservative protagonists in this putative “war” appear to agree on at least one thing: moral differences are political problems that ultimately can only be resolved via the “social apparatus of coercion and compulsion,” to use Ludwig von Mises’s description of the state. 

    To treat the state as the arbiter of the conflicting moral beliefs found amongst its citizens is to turn moral difference into political conflict. 

    Once the state is deemed to be the appropriate apparatus for arbitrating moral disputes between citizens, it becomes a political prize worth fighting for among those engaged in moral dispute precisely for the fact that it promises to place immense coercive powers in the hands of its victor. In this way the state becomes a tool for implementing a unitary moral vision through the prohibition and suppression of alternative moral norms deemed unpalatable. 

    If gaining control of the social apparatus that is the state proves unattainable, its organs can always be lobbied and pressured to further the culture warrior’s moral agenda through legislation, litigation, appointments and funding decisions. Failing that, those seeking to vanquish their moral enemies can employ what John Stuart Mill termed “social tyranny” to hound, harass, troll and ultimately cancel moral heretics. 

    The tragedy of the culture wars is how little is at stake in the issues at the centre of the conflict versus how much is at stake in the statist aims and ambitions of the warring parties. Instead of enlisting the state and its courts to sue a Christian baker who refuses to bake an LGBTQ-themed cake for a same-sex couple, the couple could simply procure their desired cake from another business and move on with their lives. 

    Similarly, instead of hyperventilating about drag queen story hour in cities thousands of miles away from their home and clamouring for the state to intervene to ban them, offended conservatives could simply exercise their freedom to not attend such events and, again, move on with their lives. In fact, there is nothing to prevent either party from publicly expressing their respective displeasure at the other with as much vim and vigour as they see fit. There is wide scope for spleens to be vented in a free society.

    But increasingly, people seem to be incapable of living comfortably in a society containing individuals who adhere to moral norms that clash or conflict with their own, particularly the young people we have managed to transform into nervous wrecks, in no small part because we do not instil in them the resilience that is required to live in the midst of pluralism, along with the inevitable conflict and criticism that comes with the territory. What’s worse, growing numbers seem to be affronted by the very idea that society would even permit individuals the freedom to articulate and practice moral norms they deem to be objectionable. 

    The problem, of course, as stated earlier, is that individual freedom unavoidably leads to moral pluralism, which guarantees that free citizens will have to tolerate moral difference, divergence and sometimes offense if they genuinely want to live in a free world. The alternative is moral authoritarianism, cloaked in the language of social justice, natural law or Biblical virtue. 

    This brings us to libertarianism. Libertarianism has its own normative moral vision just like any other ideology. What distinguishes it, however, is that its moral vision is limited and aims specifically at fostering pluralism, not mitigating or eliminating it. “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom,” Murray Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty, “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” 

    Moral pluralism, in turn, manifests in the existence of diverse moral norms, which is to say moral speech and practices that not only diverge, but conflict.

    While more can be, and has been, said (and debated) about this central axiom, one encounters consensus among libertarians that the nonaggression principle is at the epicentre of libertarian moral norms. The limiting principle of nonaggression does two things in relation to morality. Firstly, it limits moral freedom to acts and practices that do not constitute aggression against other individuals. Secondly, it rules out any effort to impose, prohibit or suppress moral speech, acts or practices by using either violence or coercion, provided the speech, act or practice in question itself observes the nonaggression principle. 

    Note that the libertarian nonaggression principle does not necessitate moral neutrality, agnosticism or relativism on the part of citizens. Well-defined and articulate moral norms—entire moral codes, for that matter—can be held and adhered to with as much passion and dogmatism as each citizen feels compelled to. They must simply respect the right of others to dissent, and then commit to not using violence or coercion to impose their moral dogma on others. Advocating, propagating, arguing, debating, persuading, cajoling, urging, pleading: none of these activities constitute violations of the nonaggression principle. 

    Moral relativism is possible within a libertarian moral order. However, it is not demanded by it. Moral norms are compatible with the exercise of individual freedoms within the governing principle of nonaggression. The state, on the other hand, ought to adopt a disposition of neutrality and agnosticism in relation to moral questions and disputes that do not involve violations of the nonaggression principle. The moral role of the state is to protect citizens from aggression (this function is performed by protective associations in the private law society of anarcho-capitalism). The definition and boundaries of nonaggression are necessarily questions that the state must form a view about, for obvious reasons. What pronouns someone uses, what books children can read at school and what people are allowed to say publicly about the institution of marriage are not.

    Join Mailing List

    To treat the state as the arbiter of the conflicting moral beliefs found amongst its citizens is to turn moral difference into political conflict. This is both unnecessary and undesirable. And it is libertarians who should be sounding the alarm. All other political ideologies operate according to normative moral systems that are to be implemented for the common good, for the sake of divine injunction, to comply with the natural law or to bring into being some promised utopia. The liberation moral vision, in contrast, is designed to foster a free society that respects and protects moral diversity. A society that can tolerate diverse and even conflicting moral norms can afford to limit the scope of the state. A society that cannot tolerate moral diversity needs a large, powerful, interventionist state to sort out all its moral differences.

    123...6Page 1 of 6
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv