Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Australia

    Home Australia Page 4

    Slaying the dragon of censorship.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

    This is the question the ancient Greek historian, Plutarch, asked in relation to the actions of the newly formed triumvirate of Octavian (soon to be Rome’s first emperor, Augustus), Antony, and Lepidus as they turned on their Roman countrymen in their quest for power in the final stages of the fall of the Roman Republic in 43 BC.

    It is a reasonable question to be asked of anyone aiming to assume leadership over their fellow citizens, no matter the period in history. That we have enough warnings of the traps which men fall into, should be uppermost in our minds when it comes to seeing our democracies as fair and reasonable.

    At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

    The most prescient warning, articulated in what I consider the best advice when setting up government, was penned by the Roman historian, Livy.

    “The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

    To the question of power, I argue that it is even more pertinent today in our modern liberal democracy, because we were led to believe that modernity has ushered in a more humane, decent, and enlightened way to conduct our lives. 

    Recent events, however, prove otherwise. 

    Much has been written about the powers sought by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, to silence Australians as if we were kindergarten children who cry out for guidance at every turn in the playground. 

    By now we ought to be used to unfettered power being sought and wielded by senior bureaucrats; the recent four years of mandates and scare tactics being a prime example. But we should never get used to our political representatives further bolstering those powers without consulting the people first. 

    It is frightening to consider what might lay before us here in Australia, with the recent announcement by opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Liberal Party in government would introduce a ban on social media for children under 16 years of age. 

    This is the mainstream party that apparently espouses the values of individual liberty.

    Dutton says that facial recognition to determine somebody’s age is “appropriate.” That, therefore, would leave anyone over 16 needing to comply with this ultimatum if they want to have a social media presence.

    No doubt the government will call it “choice.” We will be told it is all in the name of safety; in this case, keeping children safe online. Nobody disputes the gold standard of being able to keep children safe from harm, but to punish law-abiding citizens by extinguishing their individual right to express themselves and associate with others in a peaceful way, is wrong. 

    Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

    I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate compared to the punishment dished out in the ancient world. 

    As the Roman Republic lay dying in the late first century BC, Cicero offended Marc Antony in several of his speeches, declaring Antony an enemy of the state. 

    For his efforts of expressing views to save his beloved Republic from a would-be tyrant in Antony, Cicero had his head and hands cut off, the latter pinned to the rostra in the forum. It was said to be a reminder of what happens to those who disagree with the ruling elite of the day but it was, for Antony, a statement of revenge upon the man who consistently delivered powerful invectives against his character.

    At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

    But the words of Cicero are still as meaningful today as they were when he warned his fellow senators that “servitude is the worst of all evils.” 

    Join Mailing List

    It is with a degree of risk that we stand up publicly and declare his warnings today, but to do so with the eloquence of a man who is considered by many to have been Rome’s greatest politician, would be sweet indeed:

    “To be slaves to libertines, bullies, foul profligates, gamblers, and drunkards, that is the ultimate in misery joined with the ultimate in dishonour.”

    UAE Facilitating Australian Crime?

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    0

    A recent article in the Age (https://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-drug-smuggling-suspects-right-at-home-as-dubai-makes-world-s-worst-welcome-20240514-p5jdg7.html) argues that authorities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are immoral for not preventing Australia’s most revered mega criminals from visiting and buying property there. According to the Age, we should all be outraged that the UAE is not doing the job Australian law enforcement is failing to do. 

    But apparently it is no failure of Australian law enforcement that they knew Australian gangsters were trafficking huge quantities of illegal narcotics into Australia (not from the UAE). The Australian authorities were able to quantify and track it all, but they did not care to stop it. 

    It is also no failure of Australian law enforcement that all those illicit drugs were trafficked throughout the country and distributed to, ultimately, tens of thousands of Australian customers in hundreds of thousands of illegal transactions, all of which were able to be quantified, but not stopped. Australian law enforcement apparently knew all about the millions of dollars collected inside Australia, who collected it and where it was kept, and were able to document it all in great detail and share it with journalists. 

    Everybody knows what is going on, including Australian law enforcement. And that’s just fine.

    But apparently it is UAE law enforcement that failed to…?

    Apparently it is also no failure of Australian law enforcement that they knew the names and faces of these gangsters, knew the “outlaw bikie gangs” to which they belonged, knew where they were, knew what they did, and knew they were all engaged in “organised crime”. But apparently it is UAE law enforcement that needs to answer for not…?

    Apparently, the UAE is outrageously immoral because it welcomes valid Australian-passport-holders to meet and talk with one another. It is inferred that, without the UAE, these gangsters would have nowhere to plan their nefarious activities. The article does not explain exactly how members of Australian crime gangs can form gangs, or engage in organised crime, in Australia, without ever meeting inside Australia. Nor does it explain how or why Australian border force lets known drug-smuggling, outlaw bikie gang members jump on planes and leave Australia for the UAE, with an Australian-government issued passport? Presumably, that’s the fault of the UAE too?

    All of this does beg the question: if the UAE is full of despicable, violent, armed robbers from Australia, why is the UAE so safe? Why are there so few armed robberies in the UAE? Why are there so few outlaw bikie gangs in the UAE? Is it too hot to ride bikes or handle guns? Or is Australian law enforcement missing a step or two from the ‘Idiots Guide to Law Enforcement’ handbook?

    It also seems strange how, in Melbourne, for example, regular people often talk about a night club or restaurant as being owned by a particular well-known criminal in a similar manner to Californians discussing which movie star owns which Hollywood Hills mansion. Somehow, in Australia, it is not just acceptable to buy luxury property with the proceeds of crime, there is also a celebrity status attached. On the other hand, buying property in Dubai is crossing a line.

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are immoral for not preventing Australia’s most revered mega criminals from visiting and buying property there.

    Similarly, massive money laundering takes place in plain sight in Australia. Customers of beauty salons and fitness centres, for example, often know the criminal bikie gang that funded the multi-million dollar fit-out of their salon or gym. Everybody knows what is going on, including Australian law enforcement. And that’s just fine.

    Strangely, in Dubai you will never hear of a building or restaurant being owned by a drug dealing, outlaw bikie criminal. A Sheik perhaps, or a politician or oligarch. But even someone who made their fortune as a violent criminal in Australia is not referred to as the “criminal bikie who owns (X) Restaurant” in Dubai. That’s mostly because, if that armed-robbing, criminal bikie from Australia tried any of their violent thuggery in Dubai, they know it would not end as positively or comfortably as it seems to in Australia.

    Join Mailing List

    Which all begs the question: is it really fair for Australia to accuse the UAE of facilitating criminality, when all of that criminality is actually taking place in Australia, in full knowledge and view of Australian law enforcement, which does nothing to stop the criminals doing the crimes or leaving with all their proceeds of crime? 

    Should the UAE automatically treat all Australians like violent criminals, seeing as the UAE cannot trust the Australian authorities to do anything about criminality inside Australia? Or at some point is someone going to ask what the hell the Australian authorities are doing that they treat all of us like criminals, except the people who actually are?

    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.

    The New Coalition?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    While falling well short on some key issues, it’s been heartening at least to see the Federal Coalition leading the discourse and taking some risks on genuine reform. 

    Left in ruins after being swept from office in 2022, many commentators questioned the viability of the Liberal party.  But within two years they have surged back into relevance, and with a flavour less antithetical to libertarians.  

    It began early in 2023 when the National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum, and Dutton duly followed, despite some resistance within the Liberals. This crucial first step allowed Australians to see that Dutton’s Liberals were delineated from Labor, and despite healthy early polling for the ‘yes’ case, Dutton’s gamble paid off handsomely and the Albanese honeymoon ended abruptly. 

    The Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal.

    Then, whispers on vaping prohibition, super for housing, an overhaul of immigration, and of course the big one: nuclear power. Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey was even floating the idea of income splitting between household partners!  Recognising his lack of personability and charisma, Dutton has opted to take a series of policy reforms to the next election with an eye to vastly expanding the Coalition’s electoral map as its traditional base shrinks.  

    Lo and behold, they have already taken the lead in several recent national polls and, incredibly, Dutton overtook Albanese as preferred PM in the latest Resolve poll – something I thought I would never see. It may be that in time Dutton will again lose control of the narrative; Australians are typically sceptical of reform agendas from opposition (see Bill Shorten, 2019), but there’s some encouragement for libertarians here.

    It appears the unfolding political realignment is presenting the Liberals with an opportunity to reinvent themselves as the party of working Australians. The ‘teal wave’ of 2022, that also saw blue ribbon seats such as Higgins and Ryan fall to Labor and the Greens, was a blessing in disguise. Many of the nagging progressive moderates of the party were flushed out of metropolitan strongholds, leaving Dutton with no choice but to devise a new path to victory. Thus, faced with poor prospects with young voters and the opportunity to re-home the politically jaded working class, Dutton is unveiling his new coalition. 

    As libertarians, we still have important work to do. Firstly, the Coalition maintains terrible policy in areas such as online safety, while their shadow cabinet currently boasts the leftovers of a government that completely failed to effectively manage the budget for a decade. 

    The National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum

    Secondly, the Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal. Metropolitan centres still dominate their electoral prospects and the old risk averse attitude still prevails: in Queensland for example, LNP leader David Crisafulli is paralysed, terrified of losing an unlosable state election, while in Victoria John Pesutto and his inner city moderates still control the party. 

    Undoubtably, libertarians still have a major opportunity to shape public policy. While it’s encouraging to see the Coalition adopt a reform agenda with some sensible policy that promotes free choice and prosperity, they are still a long way from their classical liberal roots. At the state level, libertarians have a unique opportunity to help set the agenda and give voice to the aspirational working class. Imagine, for a moment, if the Liberal Party had spoken up on behalf of those campaigning against the excesses of Covid mania and mandates. Imagine also if they had meekly embraced bipartisanship on the Voice.

    Join Mailing List

    It is worth reflecting on the positive change we see in the Liberal Party. They are perhaps the most powerful vessel for libertarian policies, having proven under Dutton that they can take on the left and win. It’s indicative of our political influence in action. However, we must be merciless when they stray back towards populist authoritarianism.

    Facing China with a Third Path: The Libertarian Road

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    Chinese Premier Li Qiang has just concluded a four-day visit to Australia, marking the highest-level visit in seven years and widely seen as a full restoration of Sino-Australian relations. Over the past few decades, Sino-Australian relations have experienced ups and downs, primarily reflecting two distinct paths: the friendly approach of the Labor Party and the adversarial stance of the Liberal Party.

    The Labor Party’s Friendly Approach

    The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China, often fostering closer ties and cooperation. This affinity can be attributed to ideological and historical reasons. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, for instance, is infamously known for his pro-China stance, often criticising Western countries for their adversarial policies towards China. Kevin Rudd, another former Labor Prime Minister, who can speak Mandarin, worked tirelessly to strengthen Sino-Australian ties during his tenure and beyond. Additionally, Victoria’s ex-Premier Dan Andrews bypassed the federal government to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative at the state level, highlighting the depth of this alignment.

    China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports

    This historical closeness is not just about political manoeuvring but is rooted in ideological similarities. Both parties emphasise social welfare, state intervention in the economy, and a collectivist approach to governance. These shared values have facilitated a more collaborative relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the Chinese Communist Party. Notably, several former Labor politicians have been implicated in scandals involving Chinese influence, reinforcing the perception of an inherent closeness between the two.

    The Liberal Party’s Adversarial Stance

    In contrast, the Liberal Party has often taken a more adversarial stance towards China. Under the leadership of Scott Morrison, Sino-Australian relations reached their lowest point, characterised by trade sanctions and diplomatic tensions. The Liberal government’s pushback against Chinese influence in Australian politics, its criticism of China’s human rights record, and its calls for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19 exacerbated tensions.

    The economic consequences of this adversarial stance were significant. China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports, including wine, coal, and barley, causing substantial economic harm, while Australia imposed anti-dumping duties. This “enemy road” approach could be described as “killing a thousand enemies at the cost of eight hundred of our own.” While it aimed to curb Chinese influence, it also inflicted self-damage, undermining Australia’s economic interests and causing strain on key industries.

    The Third Path: A Principle-Based Approach

    While the first path seems shameless, the second path is also mindless. A third path, rooted in libertarian principles, might be more sensible and offer a principled and pragmatic alternative. This path advocates for free trade as an essential component of a free economy, emphasising mutual benefit rather than using trade as a political weapon.

    The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China

    Libertarianism, influenced by the Austrian School of Economics, champions free markets, minimal government intervention, and individual liberty. As Mises put it, “The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war,” while free trade, on the other hand, makes for peace. Rothbard argued in his Ethics of Liberty, “Economic sanctions are coercive measures that violate the principles of a free society. They harm innocent people and are ineffective in bringing about political change.” 

    What’s more effective, in my opinion, is those unfree countries’ own policies. Authoritarian countries have often died because of themselves rather than external sanctions.

    Recent years, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted the vulnerabilities of non-free economies, China in particular, which suffered due to restrictive economic and political policies. China’s growing centralised economic policies, ridiculously restrictive lockdown policies, anti-capitalism attitude, especially in the real estate market, and growing hostile international policies against a variety of countries, including Australia, have brought huge miseries which haven’t been seen for over three decades to the Chinese people.

    Join Mailing List

    In conclusion, while the Labor Party’s approach may appear overly accommodating and the Liberal Party’s stance overly confrontational, a libertarian path offers a balanced and principled alternative, which advocates for maintaining principled economic policies that prioritise free trade, not as a means of leverage but as a foundation for mutual benefit and economic growth. By embracing and always standing firmly on free trade, Australia can foster a relationship with China that is in the best interest of Australian businesses and the Australian people, while not compromising our independent sovereignty, democratic liberty, and economic freedom.

    The Best Lack All Conviction

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Anti-Semitism is on the march because no-one in authority will stand up to it.

    It’s common for historians to portray the Sturmabteilung, the SA or “Brownshirts” as they were known, as a motley crew of rowdy young thugs looking to brawl. The reality, as detailed in Daniel Siemens’ Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler’s Brownshirts, was far more concerning. In fact, the paramilitaries who propelled the fledgling Nazi party to absolute power were a million-member organization whose ranks included a disproportionately large group of university students and middle-class professionals (doctors, for example, were grossly over-represented in the Nazi membership).

    In fact, the Nazis own propaganda lauded the “Workers of the Head and the Fist”. To that end, in 1926 the Nazis founded the National Socialist German Student League. The league was to foster ideological training at universities and to implement paramilitary training, and the ideal Nazi student was intended to be a man or woman of action, not an idle thinker.

    The passage of the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” on April 7, 1933, was the student Brownshirts’ license to put their training into action. Jews were quickly and violently driven from German universities, whether as students or academics. “Paramilitary student groups often interrupted lectures, provoked skirmishes, and physically intimidated Jewish students.” [W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”]

    Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism.

    In 1934, the Nazi Student League took over the Student Union.

    Is all of this sounding grimly familiar yet?

    Highly organised, ideologically-motivated and, above all, viciously anti-Semitic student organisations are taking over university campuses once again. Jewish students and professors are verbally and physically assaulted. And campus authorities are either openly complicit, or spinelessly hopeless.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    If anyone is in doubt about the absolute moral swamp that Australia’s universities have become, as the vicious herd mentality of student activism reaches a dangerous pitch not seen in the West since the 1930s, consider what our million-dollar-a-year vice-chancellors are doing.

    Worse than nothing.

    Consider the “brave”, “forthright”, “line in the sand” statement by Western Sydney University chancellor Jennifer Westacott. In just 844 words, Westacott mentioned “anti-Semitism” five times and “Islamophobia/Islam” three times. The same double act runs through her anecdotes: 58 words, two sentences about visiting the Holocaust Museum; 67 words, three sentences dedicated to lauding Muslim “asylum seekers”.

    Remember, this was supposed to be a forthright condemnation of campus anti-Semitism.

    Instead, every time, it was “anti-Semitism and…” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any form of abhorrent discrimination.” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, hate speech or intimidation.” “growing division and creeping anti-Semitism.” “hate speech and anti-Semitism.” “anti-Semitism and hate speech.”

    One is left with the overwhelming impression that the crisis on university isn’t about anti-Semitism at all.

    Why does an opinion piece posing as a beacon of moral clarity on campus anti-Semitism need to repeatedly add, “…and Islamophobia”? Is there an anti-Muslim camp on a single university in Australia, let alone the world? Are campuses hosting activists celebrating the murder of Muslims, and promising to visit future terror attacks on Muslims? Are Muslim students being attacked daily, physically and verbally?

    We know perfectly well that the answer to all of those is, “no”.

    So why the moral equivalence? 

    And this is the best statement that any chancellor or vice-chancellor has yet made.

    Everywhere we look to campus authorities for moral clarity, there is, at best, mealy-mouthed moral equivalence.

    Jane Hansen, the chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Australia’s highest-ranked university, refuses to even acknowledge an anti-Semitism crisis. Instead, it’s the same gutless waffle about “many different forms of racism”. Worse, Hansen claims that even questioning supine university leaders is merely “looking for division”.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    Ditto University of Sydney chancellor, Belinda Hutchinson.

    This isn’t a “line in the sand”, it’s dragging a rotting jellyfish along the low-tide line, hoping the sharks won’t bite too hard.

    I’ve often wondered what it must have been like for the average German, seeing your country slide, inch by inexorable inch, into anti-Semitic tyranny. I’m finding out in the worst possible way.

    After all, even at its peak (curiously, perhaps, in the last year of WWII), only 12% of Germans were Nazi Party members. In the crucial years of the early 1930s, only 1% of Germans were members. Even among card-carrying Nazis, anti-Semitism was of little to no concern.

    Academic Peter Merkl wrote an exhaustive study of the history of hundreds of foundational Nazis. He found that 33.3 per cent of them showed no interest in anti-Semitism, 14.3 per cent expressed “mild verbal clichés” regarding Jews, 19.1 per cent displayed “moderate” disdain for Jewish cultural influence in Germany, while only 12.9 per cent advocated “violent countermeasures” against Jews.

    Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism. In the years leading up to the crucial elections that finally propelled the Nazis to the point where they could seize power (even in 1932, the Nazis never won a majority; Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933, not democratically elected), even Hitler toned down the anti-Semitic rhetoric. By 1930, he “seldom spoke explicitly of Jews,” says historian Ian Kershaw.

    The gambit, tragically, worked: of the thousands of Jews who fled Germany in 1933, 16,000 returned in 1934.

    Join Mailing List

    That’s how nations slide into murderous tyranny: one step at a time. Every outrage becomes anodyne, and the outrages escalate. One year, student activists are driving Jews from campus; four years later, Jewish businesses, synagogues and houses are trashed in an orgy of violence.

    And it’s far from over. We all know what happened over the next decade.

    Right now, we’re just at the “students trying to kick Jews off campus” stage. Where we go next depends in large part on the nation’s leadership.

    Which, from academia to the floors of parliaments, is almost completely missing in action — or worse.

    None So Intolerant as the Tolerant

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    The Victorian Bar – you remember them – was a big advocate for the Yes side in the referendum. Fifty-seven per cent of the Victorian Bar considered the constitutional amendment ‘sound, appropriate, and compatible with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government’. Such ignorance could only come from a highly woke and politicised Bar. Fortunately, Victorians voted 54 per cent the other way.

    The Victorian Bar is also a big advocate of human rights, but not so much against the former premier Victorian Dan Andrew’s world-record lockdown sans medical advice. Then there is their championing of social justice, a term that should never pass the lips of any self-respecting lawyer. There is no law in social justice.

    The Victorian Bar is also big into diversity. Indeed, no less than the Equality and Diversity Committee of the Victorian Bar held a panel discussion on 30 May 2024 titled ‘Cultural Diversity in the Profession: Where to from Here?’

    The event was to ‘revolve around a panel discussion between Victorian barristers and judicial officers from diverse backgrounds, reflecting on the need for the legal profession to reflect the cultural diversity of the broader Victorian community, as well as celebrating the achievements of solicitors, barristers and judicial officers in Victoria’.

    Walking out on a person who holds a different view is not big or clever. It’s just highly intolerant and disrespectful behaviour.

    The fact that the Bar feels the need to reflect cultural diversity was their first mistake. The second, evidently, was to invite a Zionist. The Honourable Andrew Strum, of Egyptian and Belgian heritage, was born in Melbourne. Did I mention he is also a devout Jew? During the discussion, he said he was a privileged and proud Zionist. He was privileged to have parents who supported him and is proud to support Israel as the homeland of Jews.

    The remarks, may I remind the readers, were made during a discussion of cultural diversity but were too much for at least three attendees who walked out. More than that, one of the walkouts, ‘Melanie’, posted the following on LinkedIn: ‘I walked out of this event after panellist Justice Strum declared himself a proud and privileged Zionist and then unabashedly began vomiting the false narrative that Judaism and Zionism are inextricably linked.’

    Melanie declared that she was not alone in her walkout. ‘All I can say is, shame on the Victorian Bar for this disgraceful, underhanded attack on those of us in the profession who are on the right side of history.’ Mmmm, where have I heard the right-side-of-history argument before? I remember! The claptrap was fed to the electors at the Voice referendum by no less than the Prime Minister.

    Ah, the certainty of youth (judging from her photo on LinkedIn). Indeed, ‘Kali’, similarly youthful, posted, ‘I couldn’t agree more. It was shocking to have a proud racist [at] such an event’ and young ‘Asif’ chipped in, ‘Well done… very disappointing and ironic considering the nature of the “intended” topics of discussion.’

    What irony, Melanie, Kali and Asif, do you understand what Zionism is? It’s not the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the invention of the Russian Tsar’s secret police; all-powerful Jewish tentacles do not entangle the world. A Jewish homeland has a proud history; perhaps Palestinians one day may be able to achieve the same.

    Fifty-seven per cent of the Victorian Bar considered the constitutional amendment ‘sound, appropriate, and compatible with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government’.

    More mature voices also posted. Daniel Myers wrote, ‘I recommend that you learn some more history about this complex topic. If (as is your right) you continue to disagree or hold strong views, at least have the courtesy and understanding to accept that your perspective is not the only such perspective. Many, many people hold opposite beliefs just as sincerely as you. Walking out on a person who holds a different view is not big or clever. It’s just highly intolerant and disrespectful behaviour.’

    This reminds me of an excellent recent explanation of Zionism by the young actor Noah Tishby. Her book, Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth, is so well written and accessible that our young intolerants may be able to cope. Tishby was born in Israel, and her grandmother was a Russian Jew who escaped the Bolsheviks, landing in Jaffa in 1925. Her grandmother was an avid Zionist. From her grandmother, she gleaned this understanding: ‘Zionism is a merging of liberal values and cultural Jewishness; in simple words, it is a national liberation movement. Zionism was never about having an exclusively Jewish state.’

    She writes, ‘I thought Zionism was pretty self-evident, and I had no idea that anti-Zionism had become a thing. I didn’t even realise that antisemitism was still a thing!’ Indeed it is, Noah, right there in the heart of the Victorian Bar, or, at least, some of its attendees.

    Tishby recalls a time in her youth, not so long ago, when she was holidaying in Greece and met a young German. All went well until she remarked that she was Israeli. She described a ‘cold, indecipherable look appeared on his face’. Assuming he was uncomfortable with their nation’s and people’s history, she indicated, as the young do, that it all happened long ago.

    Join Mailing List

    ‘The young German said, “Well, we actually don’t know if it really happened. There are a lot of books that say that it didn’t.” To be clear, the “it” he was talking about was the Holocaust. But that wasn’t all! As my jaw dropped open, he continued, “and even if it did happen, your country took all the money we gave you and used it for your wars”.’

    I am not suggesting that our young attendees at the Victorian Bar event are so ignorant, and bravo to the Bar for inviting Strum, but that such hatred and ignorance, nay intolerance, exists among the profession is a reminder that the fight for tolerance is never over.

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    The Myth of Speed

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    8

    We are constantly told that Australia has a huge road toll. Every holiday break and long weekend there are reports of how many people were killed, amid inferences that this is a major and growing tragedy.  

    Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding. There is a never-ending campaign, complete with gory advertisements warning of lifelong injuries, telling us to slow down. The message never varies – below the speed limit is safe, above the limit is not. Indeed, we are told that even 1km/hr above the speed limit increases the likelihood of serious injury and death. Vacuous journalists blame speed for almost every accident they cover. 

    And should we fail to heed the message there are speed cameras, aerial monitoring, highway patrols and double demerit periods to remind us.  

    In reality, driving on Australian roads is safer than it has been for over fifty years. Road fatalities, both absolute and relative to the population, have been steadily falling.  Whereas in 1970 there were 3,798 road fatalities, equal to 30.4 fatalities per 100,000 people, in 2022 there were just 1,194 fatalities, a rate of 4.6 per 100,000. 

    Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads

    Most of the decline occurred prior to 2000 following the introduction of seat belts, improved road design, vehicle safety upgrades such as disc brakes and impact resistance, and limits on drink-driving. 

    But it has continued up to the present time: in the decade to 2012 the rate of deaths relative to population decreased by an annual average of 4.2%. In the ten years to 2022 it fell by an annual average of 1.9%. 

    The bottom line is, Australia’s road toll is a fraction of what it once was and continues to fall. Fewer people die in road accidents than from the flu or Covid. And yet, rather than celebrate this success, government perpetuates the fiction that things are bad and getting worse. Moreover, despite quite minor changes to speed limits over the period (slight increase on highways and slight reduction in the suburbs), it insists that excessive speed is the primary culprit.   

    All this while most of Europe, which has overall higher speed limits than Australia, has lower road death rates. That includes Germany, where there are no speed limits on major autobahns. 

    Responsibility for this myth lies with the National Road Safety Strategy, prepared every few years by transport and infrastructure bureaucrats from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. For many years it has led a crusade with the broad aim of significantly reducing road trauma, resulting ultimately in zero deaths and serious injuries (which it defines as anyone admitted to hospital, irrespective of seriousness or the length of stay), by 2050. 

    It argues speed is a key element in all crashes, and that this necessitates lower speed limits and additional enforcement. State governments, which collect tens of millions in speeding fines, dutifully go along with it. 

    Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding.

    While very high speeds can obviously lead to more serious accidents, the data shows that deaths occur at any speed. Indeed, achieving zero deaths and injuries from road accidents is only feasible if everyone walks (even then, some would die of heart attacks). That would clearly be unacceptable to the community, which implicitly accepts a certain level of deaths and injuries as the price of convenient travel.

    The elevation of speed limits to icon status is both dishonest and absurd. Those responsible for setting limits, road safety experts and traffic engineers in the public service, are determining the trade-off between convenient travel times and the road toll for the entire community. If speed is truly the demon we are led to believe, they are essentially deciding how many people should die.  

    If this all sounds familiar, with memories of recent events during the Covid epidemic, that is not surprising. The gross overstating of a public health risk; a determination to mitigate that risk without regard for economic or social consequences; an assumption that the public are not competent to make their own decisions about bearing that risk. It’s all the same. 

    Join Mailing List

    As with Covid, it amounts to a classic case of gross bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who ought to determine the trade-off between travel convenience and the road toll. (There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula.) It is the public, not public health bureaucrats, who should decide whether the road toll warrants greater priority than other causes of death and disease. 

    Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads, but a risk-free society is not a rational public health objective. Road users are not sinful children and should not be viewed as a source of government revenue, and public health bureaucrats should not be allowed to play God.

    What “Decolonisation” Really Looks Like

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    “Decolonisation” is the left’s One Big Idea. Hamas is showing us what it looks like in practice.

    Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi issued a rather telling tweet in response to the October 7 pogrom. When PM Anthony Albanese finally stirred himself to respond with a declaration of sympathy for Israel, Faruqi responded, “One colonial government supporting another, what a disgrace”.

    Faruqi clearly regards both Australia and Israel as “colonisers”, confirming yet again Natasha Hausdorff’s observation that “pro-Palestine” idiots are too often “desperately ignorant, yet highly opinionated”. After all, how does the Pakistani-born Muslim Faruqi imagine that the Jews, whose indigenous heritage in Israel stretches back at least 7,000 years, are “colonisers”? And what does she have to say about the Palestinian Arabs whose ancestors violently displaced the Jewish indigenes after the Islamic empire conquered the region?

    Well, no-one ever said that the green-left is the world’s brain’s trust. 

    But the second, and more alarming, implication of Faruqi’s gibbering is shown by her incessant screeching of “Free Palestine”. Free from what? Her Twitter feed makes clear she means “colonisers”. 

    “De-colonisation” has become one of the great monomanias of the Western left. Much of it fuelled, of course, by the descendants of the formerly colonised who’ve had unrestricted admission to the great institutions of the West, but can’t help but notice that even after more than half a century of being freed of the colonisers, their homelands are still mostly kleptocratic shitholes run by brutal nepotistic thugs. 

    Far from being inspired by the dreaming spires to reach for similar greatness, the third world troglodytes’ only impulse is to smash it all. All in the name of “decolonising”, of course.

    If you really want to get a glimpse of “de-colonisation” in full swing, take a look at the smoking, blood-spattered ruins of Kfar Aza, and the piles of corpses at the Supernova festival grounds.

    Jews cannot suffer racism, the narrative goes, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”.

    Don’t believe me? Ask the leftist supporters of Hamas’ atrocities.

    Somali-American “writer” Najma Sharif, who hooted in response to the beheaded babies and burned-alive grandmothers of Kfar Aza, “What did y’all think decolonization meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Losers. ‘Not like this’ Then like what. Show us LOL.” 

    Sharif is no fringe nutcase — she’s right at the epicentre of cultural clout in racially-reckoned America. She writes for TeenVogue and Instyle. Her tweet garnered 100,000 Likes, including from Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah.

    The Democratic Socialists of America cheered Hamas’ slaughter at a New York rally. Leftism-central Jacobin lauded Hamas as “the violent face of Palestinian resistance” — with heavy approval loaded on the “violent part”.

    Because violence is part and parcel of the “decolonisation” narrative.

    It began with the “intellectual”, Frantz Fanon. Given the very best educational opportunities in France by the “colonisers”, Fanon chose to return their generosity with undying hate. In particular, he celebrated and endorsed anti-white violence, coining the favourite leftist phrase “by any means necessary”.

    Today’s “de-colonisers” share Fanon’s taste for anti-white violence. A TV “documentary” on Toussaint’s slave rebellion in Haiti re-enacts the rape and brutal murders of white women with the sort of relish that D. W. Griffith exploited in The Birth of a Nation. Quentin Tarantino cucks himself shamelessly with an orgy of white slaughter in Django Unchained, like Homer Simpson hooting that his fellow whites are “so lame”.

    The toxicity of the “de-colonisation” ideology is now clear, following October 7. An inverted version of the Nazis’ racial hierarchy collides with a historically nonsensical mix of Marxist theory, Soviet propaganda, and traditional anti-Semitism, thrown into the hateful blender of identity politics. What emerges is a dull-witted, violent leftist dogma of “oppressed” and “oppressors”. The argument is that it is almost impossible for the “oppressed” to be themselves racist, just as it is impossible for an “oppressor” to be the subject of racism.

    This leftist analysis, with its hierarchy of oppressed identities and intimidating jargon, a clue to its lack of factual rigor, has in many parts of the academy and media replaced traditional leftist values, including internationalist standards of decency and respect for human life and the safety of innocent civilians. When this clumsy analysis collides with the realities of the Middle East, it loses all touch with historical facts.

    Jews cannot suffer racism, the narrative goes, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”. They cannot be victims, no matter how many and how brutally they are actually victimised. In a modern version of Himmler’s “filing card” mentality, where Jews enroute to mass slaughter were reduced to mere numbers tattooed on arms, left-wing intellectuals have shamelessly debated whether 40 babies were dismembered or some smaller number merely had their throats cut or were burned alive. The same people who refuse to drink cow’s milk because of animal cruelty regard a baby’s murder and mutilation as somehow an acceptable act of “by any means necessary” revolution — just so long as they weren’t beheaded. Or at least, not too many.

    “De-colonisation” has become one of the great monomanias of the Western left. Much of it fuelled, of course, by the descendants of the formerly colonised

    I mean, it’s not as if the left don’t have standards.

    The irony is that Israel was once the poster-child of the left. The worst atrocities were committed at Kibbutz Kfar Aza; the hundreds of concert-goers were massacred near Kibbutz Be’eri. These are communes that once represented an ideal for many Western progressives, a victory for communalism over capitalism, miniature socialised, green utopias. It was as much a received orthodoxy for the Left in the 1950s and 60s as “de-colonisation” is today.

    What went wrong for the Jews, vis-a-vis the left?

    Quite simply, the Jews won. Nothing gets a “de-colonisation” fanatic’s back up quite like somebody else’s success. Frantz Fanon ignored the long history of Africans conquering and enslaving each other, if not wiping each other out enmasse. It was when white folks did it that he got resentful. Edward Said, another “de-colonisation” intellectual poster-boy, studiously ignored Islam’s brutal record of genocidal conquest and enslavement, but the British empire really got his nose out of joint.

    When Israel proved Adolf Hitler so wrong and became a testament to Jewish ability, as far as the left were concerned, it had joined the ranks of “oppressors”.

    The left who endlessly squawk about “oppression of Palestinians” are as choosy as ever. They say nothing, for instance, about the brutal persecution of Palestinian refugees by their “brother” Arabs in Syria or Lebanon. They ignore the fact that Muslim Egypt has, and still does, steadfastly locked out neighbouring Palestinians.

    The left said nothing when more than a million Muslims were slaughtered on the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. There were no open letters from lecturers about the half a ­million Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein in the decade after. On the contrary, left-wing “progressives” staged some of the largest marches in history, determined to keep him in power.

    But all that was, after all, a series of dog-fights between tribes of mutual brown losers. Without a handy skin-colour chart to tell them who the oppressed and oppressors were, the left simply dumped it all into the too-hard basket.

    Join Mailing List

    The Jews, though? Oh, that’s easy for a leftist. They’re oppressors, all the way. No wonder pumpkin-headed leftist poison-pinup Greta Thunberg strategically positioned a toy octopus in her “pro-Palestine” photo-op. The octopus is the age-old anti-Semitic metaphor: the Joos, with their tentacles controlling the world.

    The Joos run everything, after all. So they’re the ultimate “oppressors”. Now, they’re being decolonised as bloodily as a leftist could ever hope for.

    So, take note of the piles of corpses in Kfar Azar and Be’eri. That’s what’s coming for the rest of the West — just ask Hamas, who are adamant that eradicating the Jews is just the start of the “global intifada”.

    What did y’all think “decolonisation” really meant, anyway?

    Reassessing Australian Judges’ Role in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (Part 2)

    By
    Ted Hui
    -
    0

    Introduction
    In the previous part, I discussed the historical background and recent political developments in Hong Kong that have raised concerns about the role of Australian judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. This part will examine specific cases involving Australian judges to assess their contributions and the extent to which they have challenged the infringement of human rights in their judgments.

    Judgments by Australian Justices
    In the case of HKSAR v. Chow Hang Tung [2024] HKCFA 2, the appellant, Chow Hang Tung, a human rights lawyer, was convicted for inciting others to participate in an unauthorised assembly. This charge stemmed from her attempt to challenge the legality of a police prohibition on a public assembly intended to commemorate the anniversary of the June 4th massacre. 

    Despite her efforts to appeal the prohibition, her conviction represents a significant setback for freedom of assembly in Hong Kong. Justice Gleeson’s role in this case was minimal yet consequential. He concurred with the judgment that upheld Chow’s conviction, rejecting Chow’s point of view, and agreeing with the majority’s decision that found Chow’s collateral and constitutional challenges to be without merit. Notably, Justice Gleeson did not offer any commentary, not even as obiter dictum, in support of Hong Kong’s freedom of assembly. This contributed to the affirmation of her conviction, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals seeking to exercise their right to assembly in Hong Kong’s increasingly constrained legal landscape.

    The continued service of Australian judges in a Hong Kong court system increasingly manipulated to repress dissent under authoritarian rules

    In the case of HKSAR v. Choy Yuk Ling [2023] HKCFA 12, the appellant, Choy Yuk Ling, a journalist, sought to uncover collusion between the Hong Kong police and criminal mobs in suppressing the civil rights of Hong Kongers through her investigative journalism. Despite the noble intentions behind her news report, she was punished with a minor offence by the police for allegedly making false statements in her application for vehicle registration details, leading to a costly 30-month legal battle that escalated from the lowest courts to the Court of Final Appeal. Ultimately, Choy achieved a rare victory in court, with her convictions being quashed. However, Justice Gummow’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, merely uttering seven words, “I agree with the judgment of J. Fok.” His lack of criticism, among other judges, towards the prosecution’s approach or the retaliatory actions of the Hong Kong Police is notable, as it suggests a silent endorsement of the status quo, leaving the broader implications of Choy’s case and the state of press freedom in Hong Kong unaddressed.

    In the case of HKSAR v. Mak Wing Wa [2023] HKCFA 19, Mak Wing Wa was convicted of taking part in an unlawful assembly during a massive protest by Hong Kongers for freedom in 2019. The incident involved a large crowd gathering at Wong Tai Sin Square, with some individuals, including Mak, shining torches and laser pointers at police officers. The Court of Final Appeal held that Mak had participated in the unlawful assembly with intent, as he was aware of the prohibited conduct of others and joined in by using a torch against the police. 

    The conviction and sentence were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. In this case, Justice Keane’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, as he simply concurred with the judgment of Mr. Justice Lam PJ. Furthermore, he chose to endorse the conviction without addressing the broader context of the peaceful protests or offering any sympathy towards the powerless protesters, who wielded nothing more than torches and laser pens against a violent crackdown by the police.

    A journalist, sought to uncover collusion between the Hong Kong police and criminal mobs in suppressing the civil rights of Hong Kongers

    In the case HKSAR v. Chan Chun Kit [2022] HKCFA 15, also known as the Zip Ties case, the appellant, Chan Chun Kit, was initially convicted for possessing 48 pieces of 6-inch plastic cable ties, deemed to be an instrument fit for unlawful purposes under section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance. This case is emblematic of the police crackdown on the 2019 mass protests for freedom in Hong Kong, where many young protesters commonly carried plastic cable ties to construct barricades as a defence against police tear gas and rubber bullets. 

    Unexpectedly, The Court of Final Appeal overturned the conviction, ruling that the plastic cable ties did not fall within the scope of section 17. In this case, Justice Gleeson’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, as he merely concurred with other judges who focused on the technicalities of the law, without addressing the broader issue of the police’s abuse of power and arbitrary arrests of peaceful protesters. Furthermore, he did not challenge the prosecution’s reasoning, failing to question why plastic cable ties could be considered unlawful in the first place.

    Conclusion
    The approach of the three Australian judges in the above cases has been minimalist, focusing primarily on technicalities without addressing the broader context of the law being used as a tool for political repression. There has been no demonstration that their presence has helped maintain the independence of Hong Kong’s courts from political interference by the regime. Consequently, their involvement has failed to show any meaningful infusion of Western liberal or democratic values into the increasingly authoritarian environment in Hong Kong. It is important to note that these cases represent only minor political offences; more serious charges under the NSL, such as conspiracy to subvert state power and collusion with foreign elements, are entirely beyond the purview of Australian judges.

    Join Mailing List

    The continued service of Australian judges in a Hong Kong court system increasingly manipulated to repress dissent under authoritarian rules not only threatens the integrity of the Australian legal profession but also risks diminishing Australia’s standing within the international common law community. The departure of British judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, due to their stance against endorsing an administration that strays from core values of political freedom and freedom of expression, underscores the growing international unease with the judicial environment in the region. 

    This stark contrast between the British judges’ principled exit and the ongoing presence of Australian judges in the same system could significantly erode trust in the Australian judiciary, potentially transforming these distinguished legal figures into a source of national embarrassment. Given these circumstances, it is crucial for the Australian legal community to critically reassess its involvement

    1...3456Page 4 of 6
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv