Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Law

    Home Law Page 2

    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.

    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

    Reassessing Australian Judges’ Role in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (Part 1)

    By
    Ted Hui
    -
    0

    Historical Background
    As an Australian legal practitioner with Hong Kong roots, I am compelled to address a critical issue: the participation of retired Australian judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. 

    Historically, overseas judges were included in Hong Kong’s judiciary to uphold judicial independence under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle established during the 1997 handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty. This allowed non-permanent judges from common law jurisdictions, including Australia, to serve on Hong Kong’s highest judicial body.

    While some argue that the presence of overseas judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal could help curb the erosion of civil liberties

    Currently, four Australian judges serve in Hong Kong: The Honourable Justices Patrick Keane, Robert French, William Gummow, and James Allsop. They are invited to participate in hearings as needed, and their compensation is calculated on a pro-rata basis based on the monthly salary of a permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal, currently approximately AUD $68,473. In recent years, two Australian judges have left: The Honourable Justice Murray Gleeson retired citing age in 2024, and Justice James Spigelman resigned following the enactment of the controversial National Security Law in Hong Kong 2020.

    Recent developments in Hong Kong’s political landscape raise concerns about the continued viability and appropriateness of this arrangement. In this article, I argue that Australian judges should withdraw from serving in Hong Kong’s top court to preserve the integrity of the Australian legal profession and to avoid legitimising a system increasingly in direct conflict with judicial independence and human rights principles.

    The Authoritarian Rules
    The Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL) 2020 and the recently passed Article 23 legislation on national security (Art. 23) have significantly altered the landscape of human rights and the common law tradition in Hong Kong. The NSL empowers the Chief Executive of Hong Kong to handpick judges for political cases, undermining judicial independence, a cornerstone of the common law system. 

    Australian judges should withdraw from serving in Hong Kong’s top court to preserve the integrity of the Australian legal profession

    Additionally, the NSL reverses the presumption of innocence in political cases, requiring the accused to prove they will not endanger national security to obtain bail. This has led to years of prolonged pre-trial detention for many high-profile Hong Kong dissidents. The NSL also permits the prosecution to request, and the court to allow, the elimination of juries in political cases, even those with potential life sentences, deviating from another fundamental common law tradition.

    The draconian Art. 23 further erodes legal protections, allowing for detention of up to 16 days without access to a lawyer. It also grants the police authority to deny the use of specific lawyers or law firms for the accused. These developments represent a significant departure from established common law principles and raise serious concerns about the future of human rights and judicial independence in Hong Kong.

    Join Mailing List

    While some argue that the presence of overseas judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal could help curb the erosion of civil liberties, their role is quite inadequate, or even irrelevant. The main reason for concern is that the Chief Executive has the power to exclude overseas judges from hearing political cases in the first place. In non-NSL cases involving civil and political rights presided over by Australian judges, their role has not significantly challenged the status quo or made substantial contributions to upholding human rights.

    I will provide examples of these in the second part of this article.

    Why You Should Oppose the Government’s Attempt to Censor the Sydney Church Stabbing Video

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    If you have been following the issue of freedom of expression in Australia, you will be aware of the efforts of the government to censor the Sydney church stabbing video on X (but not mainstream media websites) via a court order. The court order has since been overturned although what will happen next is still uncertain.

    It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders.  X is currently willing to comply with that, but the Australian government also wants to restrict what the whole world can see. 

    Below I will offer some reasons why you should oppose the censorship efforts of the Australian government, including both within Australia and globally. 

    Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect

    One reason given by the Australian government for its current censorship efforts is that the video in question is considered to be indecent, confronting and violent. The problem with censoring videos on this basis is that it sets a dangerous precedent that would enable the government to censor a wide range of media; it is a slippery slope. Whether a video is considered indecent, confronting or violent is subjective and a matter of individual interpretation.

    Regardless, even if a video is ‘indecent’, ‘confronting’ or ‘violent’, that is not sufficient reason to tell someone they cannot watch it. That decision should be up to the individual, not the government. 

    In any case, contrary to what may be portrayed by the mainstream media and government, government censorship is not about protecting the public but instead gives the government cover to selectively censor things it finds embarrassing or doesn’t want the public to know about or talk about.

    Many confronting and violent videos are in fact matters of public interest; a prominent example being the Afghan Files, which were a collection of videos that depict war crimes committed by the Australian Army in Afghanistan. When these videos were publicly reported, the Australian government attempted to censor them and even raided Australian media organisations. The only difference was that they used the ‘justification’ of national security rather than public decency.

    When considering any sort of law or government policy, it is always important to consider how such a law or policy might be misused by a stupid person or weaponised by an evil person. From my perspective, I consider the government to be a rather stupid and evil organisation.

    It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders.

    An issue of major concern which is often subject to censorship is footage of police shootings. These videos often depict police brutality and misconduct and are an important matter of public interest. If the Australian government can establish that it is acceptable to censor videos on the basis of being confronting and depicting violence, footage of police shootings will be at high risk of government censorship.

    ‘Confronting’ and ‘violent’ videos can be a primary source of information. They allow people to know exactly what happened, as cameras don’t lie. Censoring such videos forces people to rely on secondary sources of information such as the mainstream media and government, both of which are often biased and leave out critical details without allowing the public to verify their information.

    Preventing the spread of extremism is also used to justify the censorship of the Sydney church stabbing. However, censoring the video does not address the root causes of Islamic extremism within segments of Muslim community, or prevent people from knowing about the incident. 

    Join Mailing List

    Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect and brought more attention than if it had just been allowed to fade into obscurity.

    As for wider implications, if the Australian government has the power to censor the internet globally, other governments around the world will inevitably seek to do the same. This includes repressive nations that already have a strong desire to censor the World Wide Web such as China, Russia and many more.

    Opposing the recent censorship efforts of the Australian government isn’t just important for protecting freedom of expression and information in Australia, but it is also important for the entire world.

    The Case for Wisdom, Temperance, and Common Sense.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    2

    With all the chaos occurring within western democracies right now, I thought it timely to focus on solutions rather than the troubles we face. 

    In the primer to this publication, it states that Liberty Itch will present ideas that will champion your rights as an individual, challenge concepts that threaten those freedoms, and warn you of impending coercion. 

    My contribution, as a historian of ancient history, is to sound the warning signals, of which there are many. In doing so, I stress the importance of visiting foundational values which paved the way for the freedoms and liberties we have today. 

    For example, why is it controversial to promote the idea of temperance within our families, communities, towns, and cities?

    Why can we not remain living free and still be virtuous people?

    Why is it that we cannot discuss ideas that make others feel uncomfortable because it challenges their own personal views yet does them no harm?

    I ask these questions because this is the premise upon which the Spartan ruler, Lycurgus, implemented an ingenious political system; one that the Romans subsequently adopted, and of which we moderns inherited the blueprint.

    The political structure must comprise three levels of government – monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. 

    No doubt many will wonder how Sparta could possibly contribute to the advancement of liberty, given her reputation for minimalism in all things creative, and strict discipline in the ways of living. But stay with me. 

    This Spartan ruler is fascinating!

    Lycurgus is credited with the founding of Classical Sparta’s eunomia, meaning “good order.” He was a fifth century lawmaker and sage who took the time to ponder and implement what he considered to be the best solution for governance of his country. He travelled to Crete, Asia, and Egypt to examine the various ways of government. He returned to Sparta inspired and resolved to “change the whole face of the commonwealth.” He saw his duty like this:

    “He must act as wise physicians do, in the case of one who labours under a complication of diseases, by force of medicines reduce and exhaust him, change his whole temperament, and then set him upon a totally new regime of diet.”

    In other words, he wanted his country healthy in mind, body, and spirit. 

    He planned meticulously; no reactionary policy-on-the-run for this wise and disciplined man. 

    But the change of most importance was the establishment of the senate. He was in search of a ballast, a central weight that would prevent the state from leaning too much toward absolute monarchy on one hand, and pure democracy on the other. 

    He appointed people on merit – what an extraordinary idea!

    “The vacancies he ordered to be supplied out of the best and most deserving men past sixty years old…for what more glorious competition amongst men than one in which it was not contested who was swiftest among the swift or strongest of the strong, but who of many wise and good was wisest and best.”

    One can only imagine the heights of greatness a nation could aspire to if the people who governed were of sound mind and soul. For us in 2024, it appears merely as a dream. 

    And what of external conflicts? Well, Lycurgus had no desire to govern other nations; his interest lay toward his own. And that interest was grounded in virtue, and to keep the concord of his own people. His aim was this:

    No doubt many will wonder how Sparta could possibly contribute to the advancement of liberty

    “…to make and keep them free-minded, self-dependent, and temperate.”

    What better state of being could a leader possibly want for his people, and what could the people possibly want more than this? 

    Lycurgus is celebrated as the “wise lawgiver” who gave Spartans a government of “happy balance and temper.”

    My trusty Roget’s Thesaurus defines the word Spartan as:

    Stoic – patient – strict – inornate – concise – abstinent – meagre. 

    Tough words with even tougher consequences, and particularly offensive to our modern weakmindedness. Imagine imposing, let alone suggesting, the concept of “discipline.”

    But with so much chaos occurring by way of disrespect, blame-shifting, and outright inconsideration for our constitution and laws, why would we not seek to shift the pendulum back to the middle?

    The ancients learned through experience that for societies to operate within some sort of order, the political structure must comprise three levels of government – monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. 

    Join Mailing List

    The idea was that one arm would not devolve into its simplest form and thereby become perverted. 

    1. Monarchy into one-man autocratic rule. 

    2. Aristocracy into oligarchy. 

    3. Democracy into chaotic mob rule. 

    These three elements can work together to provide a stable form of government, only IF it is by choice that they work with or against one another.

    I wrote last month of broken systems and the responsibility of the people to bear some of the brunt of that brokenness, rather than merely throwing stones at those we send to represent us. Politician bashing (metaphorically) may make for good armchair sport, but it does nothing to advance the cause to restore a semblance of decency into our societies.

    To read about Lycurgus is to wonder if he is a utopian idealist, a benevolent dictatorial figure, or one who harbours an interest in libertarianism.
    My view is he comprises the essence of all three elements. It is something that we should all yearn for in our own polity.

    Mind Your Language

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    1

    Everyone knows a suit is comprised of a jacket and a pair of pants. Two jackets are not a suit. Neither can two pairs of pants be called a suit. 

    This was an argument I often made during the marriage debate. Marriage, I argued, was the joining of a man and woman in a special relationship.  

    If two men or two women wished to be joined together then they can call it something else, but not marriage; not a suit.

    This idea of insisting that words reflect their true meaning and that things be called what they are, is not a new idea.

    As long ago as 500BC, Chinese philosopher Confucius said, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

    Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language. 

    As US preacher Chuck Swindoll says, ‘they adopt our vocabulary but not our dictionary.’

    A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

    Farmers used to drain water-logged swamp areas of their land, and no-one batted an eye. 

    Then swamps were renamed ‘wetlands’, and now can’t be touched. 

    We’ve re-named euthanasia ‘dying with dignity’; abortion is now referred to as ‘reproductive health’ or ‘planned parenthood’ or simply ‘pro-choice’. 

    Free speech is branded hate speech, local aboriginal tribes have become ‘First Nations’, power cuts are now called ‘load shedding’, tax increases are re-badged as ‘budget savings’ and denying one’s gender has become gender affirming.

    A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

    ‘Safe schools’ and ‘respectful relationships’ are anything but – as evidenced by lessons in bestiality presented to 14-year-old schoolgirls in South Australia.

    The Good Book says, ‘Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.’ – Isaiah 5:20.

    Then there are the perpetual ‘straw man’ arguments – misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to quickly and easily destroy their argument.

    ‘Trickle-down economics’ is a straw man argument. There is no such theory in economics. But opponents of free-market economics invented the term ‘trickle-down’ to suggest free-markets are all about favouring the rich and hoping some of their wealth will ‘trickle down’ to those lower on the socio-economic ladder.

    Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language. 

    Then there’s the ubiquitous use of the term ‘flat earthers’ when no-one, anywhere throughout history thought the world was flat. Not the Egyptians, not the Phoenicians, not the ancient Greeks; no-one thought the earth was flat. They weren’t silly. By standing on high ground and watching their tall ships sail over the horizon, they knew the earth was round, they just didn’t know how big it was. Christopher Columbus left Spain and headed west for India, not to prove the world was round, but to determine its size.

    Or the phrase Terra Nullius, a term used to manipulate debate on indigenous matters. 

    ‘Australia was founded on the basis of Terra Nullius,’ is one of those myths that survives by repetition, not historical fact.

    Terra Nullius is a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no one’. 

    Yet no-one ever said Australia was not occupied.

    The term ‘terra nullius’ was not mentioned anywhere in Australia until 1977!

    Join Mailing List

    Regarding exploration and occupation, the book 18th Century Principles of International Law stated that, “All territory not in the possession of states who are members of the family of nations and subjects of International Law must be considered as technically res nullius and therefore open to occupation”. ‘Res nullius’ – land not owned by a recognised nation, is not the same as ‘terra nullius’ – land not occupied by anyone e.g. Antarctica.

    And on a similar vein, that Aborigines didn’t get the vote, or were treated as ‘flora and fauna,’ until 1967. 

    All false. All examples of the mutilation of language to influence political debate. US author Michael Malice writes, ‘they’re not using language to communicate, they’re using it to manipulate.’

    AI Dystopia

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    0

    Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). They fear everything from mass unemployment to societal collapse, the destruction of humanity by ‘the singularity’, the malicious, sentient AI boogieman (boogie-robot?) from so many science fiction novels and films. 

    It only takes a brief play with publicly available AI tools, such as Chat GPT, to understand the fear and excitement. It is shockingly impressive. In many ways interacting with LLM (Large Language Model) based AI feels like interacting with a person; an impressively articulate person with astonishing knowledge. It truly can seem sentient.

    But this AI is actually far more artificial than intelligent. In many ways, the LLM based AI’s seem to have been designed specifically to pass the Turing Test: to fool users into believing they are interacting with a real person.

    What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies.

    The LLM-based AI tools can be likened to a person with a photographic memory reading an entire library of books in a language that they cannot speak. When presented with a question, they can write a seemingly intelligent reply, despite having no comprehension of either the question or answer. Their answer is constructed by recognising the patterns of letters and words in the question and matching them to related patterns that they recall from the books. The reply is not reasoned or abstracted; it is not even understood. It is simply plagiarised from the combined mass of documents available. 

    Because of the way this AI works, replies tend to reflect the most commonly repeated consensus viewpoint, not necessarily the cogent or correct viewpoint. Also, as people use AI to generate more and more content, that content becomes the learning data that AI uses to generate future content, in a perpetually self-reinforcing loop. Isn’t there a saying about telling a lie often enough? 

    Obviously, not all AI solutions are LLM based. But the foundations of current AI technologies are broadly related. The most important point is that the technologies that we are currently calling AI are not progressing toward a sentient consciousness. What is being called ‘AI’ is still an application of mathematical algorithms to data. The AI ‘revolution’ has more to do with the ever increasing pool of data available, and the speed at which it can be processed, than a fundamental change to the process of computing. 

    Understanding conceptually how AI does its thing is vital to understanding the real threat of AI. An omniscient computer is not going to consciously decide to destroy all of us. We can all rest easy knowing that any decision to drop nuclear bombs, poison the water, cut off the food supply, switch off the power grid, or engage in any other method of genocide will continue to be the conscious decision of humans in governments.

    Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI).

    Nonetheless, there is evidence that we are headed toward an AI-driven dystopia that could be every bit as miserable and tyrannical as science fiction.

    WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, describes a future of “fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds”. He is so fanatically obsessed with AI technology that he genuinely believes he will live forever in a robot body after digitising his consciousness (ie downloading his brain). Meanwhile, his lead advisor, Yuval Harari, is on record lamenting what ‘they’ will do with all the “useless people” that AI renders “worthless”?

    Listening to Schwab and Harari is disturbing. But world leaders and CEOs of the world’s largest corporations seem to take them seriously. DEI, ESG, CBDCs, carbon taxes, online censorship laws, hate-speech laws, forced vaccinations, WHO treaty, etc all either came from the WEF or are being promoted by it. And, the WEF is the official strategic partner of the UN to assist with the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for “Sustainable Development”. The WEF has clout.

    Join Mailing List

    Western Governments, including Australia’s, are onboard with all of the WEF’s tyrannical plans. They have passed (or are passing) laws to censor our speech, detain us without charge, block or steal our bank accounts, revoke our professional licenses, “reeducate” us, prevent us travelling, lock us in our homes and force-medicate us. They are increasingly spying on us, 24/7, to police our every action and thought. And they are currently building and applying AI tools to analyse all of that collected data to automatically find anything that could be considered “dangerous” behaviour or thought to apply those laws.

    What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies and ostensibly put in the virtual hands of a technology that is, in fact, unintelligent, inherently prone to error, and easily manipulated. A sentient computer might have been better. At least Skynet would realise the politicians are the problem.

    Raw Deal

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    2

    A local rag (The Geelong Advertiser) reported* last month that some sort of strange secretive trade was taking place in the quiet backstreets of affluent Highton. The article heavily implied that this was an illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria.

    I found two things rather confronting about this story. 

    First, it seemed the main concern of the other residents of this quiet cul-de-sac was that once a fortnight their street attracted some extra traffic. “It was really invasive”, claimed a local resident. 

    The article explained that ‘customers’ were turning up to this particular house brandishing empty white buckets, then returning to their cars with a full one. 

    Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock.

    Second, this saga represents yet another example of Australians loving a rule and hating a rule breaker – a sad inversion of how we are traditionally portrayed. We saw the same attitude during Covid when people dobbed in neighbours who held gatherings at their houses during lockdowns. 

    It exposes a distinctly ugly side to the modern suburban Australian – spying on their neighbours and obsessed with everyone’s business but their own. It was apparently too much to ask of a suburban neighbourhood to ignore a few extra cars on their street every second Tuesday evening. 

    I don’t believe it has anything to do with health and safety. It’s a twisted manifestation of tall poppy syndrome where Australians seem to believe we should all suffer together under the tyranny of useless laws and regulations. 

    The basis for why raw milk is banned in Victoria (until 2015 it could be sold as ‘bath milk’) is a tall tale, based largely on hearsay and a coroner’s report drawing a (weak) link between a child’s death and possible raw milk consumption. Put it this way: the same health department that shut down the Dandenong I Cook Foods business made the decision.    

    Illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria

    Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock. Our stance on vape products is infamous internationally for how not to regulate them, alternative treatments for Covid 19 were needlessly banned in favour of novel vaccines (such as the recently discontinued AstraZeneca vaccine). Worse, the relentless pursuit by APHRA of renegade doctors who break rank and provide medical advice to the contrary of the national standard drives their valuable advice and expertise underground.  

    And so it is with raw milk, where in New Zealand, England, and across much of the USA and Europe, consumers can access it under the protections of a strong regulatory environment. In Australia, consumers discreetly drive to suburban distribution points at night and try not to disturb the nosy neighbours while lugging buckets back to their cars.   

    Join Mailing List

    “In general, safety takes priority over freedom of choice” was the catch cry of a Dairy Food safety regulator in response to the Geelong incident, summing up everything wrong with the attitude of the public health system. 

    Australians love rules, and health departments love making them. Thus, those wishing to exercise their freedom to choose end up needlessly on the wrong side of both the law and public opinion. At least everyone else can sleep easy at night, lest they be disturbed by some extra cars on their street!
    *https://www.melissa-payne.ca/trending/8ad51675cd36/

    Vic’s Very Naughty Boys in Blue

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    1

    Reproduced with permission from The BFD

    https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/05/02/vics-very-naughty-boys-in-blue

    Why would anyone trust police in Victoria any more? Politicised, corrupt and hypocritical, VicPol’s reputation has been battered on all fronts over the past few years.

    It wasn’t just the naked brutality of the Covid era, when Victoria Police rolled out assault vehicles and locked down the skies, smashed old ladies into the roads, and opened up with teargas and rubber bullets on the sacred grounds of the Shrine of Remembrance. It wasn’t just the deep-rooted corruption revealed by the Lawyer X and Red Shirts.

    When the High Court ruled that the George Pell trial was perhaps the most egregious miscarriage of justice since the Chamberlain saga, VicPol were in the thick of it. Police pursued an obvious vendetta against the Cardinal, setting up a “Get Pell” squad to troll for dirt, before even a single criminal complaint had been made.

    And, yes, no doubt the vast majority of VicPol employees are law-abiding — but the same could be said of priests.

    As it turns out, VicPol might have been better removing the beam in their own eyes, first.

    Some 78 Victoria Police officers and Protective Service Officers are facing criminal charges and traffic offences, with a disturbing number relating to serious sex offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent acts against children including possessing and producing child pornography.

    Three charges of rape and five sexual assault charges against police are among 19 sex charges before the courts, in addition to a range of sex offences allegedly committed against children aged under 16.

    One police officer faces a charge of incest relating to a ­sibling.

    Casting the first stone, indeed.

    Like the Church they pursued so doggedly, it seems the rozzers have more than a few skeletons they’ve been trying their darnedest to keep in their closets.

    The police crime data – released by Victoria Police after a request from The Australian – cover offences allegedly committed by 68 officers on and off duty.

    And, yes, the criminality goes all the way to the top.

    Police pursued an obvious vendetta against the Cardinal, setting up a “Get Pell” squad to troll for dirt, before even a single criminal complaint had been made.

    The 73 police officers facing charges and traffic offences include seven first constables, 20 senior constables, 26 leading senior constables, 14 sergeants, five senior sergeants and one ranked inspector or above and they face a total of about 130 charges […]

    Five PSOs are facing criminal charges, with two relating to an indecent act against a child aged under 16 and one of alleged sexual penetration of a child aged under 16. Of the PSOs charged, two were general PSOs and three senior PSOs […]

    Victoria Police said it was releasing the data as part of a commitment to transparency and stressed the vast majority of the force’s almost 18,000 police officers and PSOs were law-abiding, noting the data showed just 0.435 per cent of the force was facing criminal charges.

    The Australian

    Except, if the data has to be sought out by journalists instead of being made proactively available to the public, one might be justifiably sceptical about that “commitment to transparency”.

    Join Mailing List

    And, yes, no doubt the vast majority of VicPol employees are law-abiding — but the same could be said of priests. Yet, the presence of a small, but egregiously criminal, minority was sufficient to blacken the Church’s name. Not to mention attract the zealous attack dogs of Victoria Police.

    When institutions show that they cannot be trusted, social harmony takes a battering. Few institutions are as critical as law enforcement — and, in Victoria at least, they’re giving citizens increasingly less reason to trust them.

    A Digital Dark Age (part 3)

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    ‘We will continue to be your single source of truth.

    Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth’.

    So said former New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. 

    Covid

    When Covid hit in 2020, people had no reason to doubt what they were being told by their political leaders. 

    However, the pandemic very quickly exposed the incompetence of many in the medical and scientific establishment, with politicians and public sector bureaucrats making up rules as they went along, and ramping up censorship.

    Suggestions that the virus might have come from a lab leak, or anything negative about masks or vaccines, soon became misinformation or disinformation and was immediately censored.

    Politicians, public sector bureaucrats, pharmaceutical company executives, all in cahoots with one another, blatantly lied to us. The early bootleggers were amateurs compared with these people.

    They were wrong on lockdowns. They were wrong on border closures. They were wrong on school closures. They were wrong on masking. They were wrong about vaccines. 

    Poor people were hurt the most. 

    Anyone, including qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

    The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

    Academics who had been studying lockdowns were also blacklisted. Dr Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at the US’s Stanford University, was one of them. ‘Censorship of scientific discussion led to policies like school closures,’ he said. ‘A generation of children were hurt.’ 

    At the behest of governments, social media platforms removed any and all content which questioned the safety or efficacy of the vaccines.

    In April 2021, the Coalition government had Instagram remove a post which claimed that ‘Covid-19 vaccine does not prevent Covid-19 infection or Covid-19 transmission’, a statement that clearly was accurate.

    Ivermectin was prohibited from being prescribed in Australia from January 2021, by which time the vaccination rate had reached 98%. Prohibition of Ivermectin was enforced right until the very end of the vaccine roll-out.

    We now know the Covid-19 vaccines were neither safe nor effective. They did not prevent infection or transmission and have been linked to blood clots, heart conditions and other ‘died suddenly’ events. 

    A peer-reviewed study published in January 2024, found that more deaths were caused by the mRNA vaccines than were saved by it. Other studies suggest the widespread use of ivermectin could have saved many lives. 

    As Thomas Sowell once said, “It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

    Climate Change and Renewable Energy

    Probably no other area of public debate has been more manipulated than climate change.

    What started as ‘the greenhouse effect’, soon became ‘global warming’ which morphed into the now all-encompassing ‘climate change’. 

    To up the ante even more, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stated recently, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”. 

    Global boiling obviously hasn’t yet reached the poles, as Arctic ice is currently at its greatest extent in more than 20 years.

    Renowned quantum physics scholar Dr John Clauser, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics has stated, ‘I do not believe there is a climate crisis’.  

    More bootleggers, in the form of renewable energy merchants, have leapt on to the climate change bandwagon with unbridled zeal and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.

    Indigenous matters

    Toddlers and pre-schoolers in childcare centres across Australia are being taught that Australia was stolen from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

    Qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

    More than 7,000 schools and daycare centres now have formal ‘acknowledgements of country’ in place, which includes children singing or reciting that the land on which they sit belongs to Indigenous people.

    At SDN (formerly Sydney Day Nursery) Children’s Services in the ACT, kindy kids are taught about ‘stolen land’ as they recite an acknowledgement of country each morning.

    ‘The foundation for this learning begins when the children enter the centre as infants’, the organisation says on its website.

    ‘Now older preschoolers participate in the daily ritual of acknowledging country to build on the explicit teaching about stolen land.’

    As NSW Libertarian Party MP John Ruddick said, ‘children were being indoctrinated to feel ashamed of their country’.

    The Religious Freedom Bill

    There is no doubt that any ‘religious exemptions’ in the Bill will not make life less hazardous for faith-based organisations.

    While certain religious groups which might comprise Labor’s voting base will be protected, other religious groups most likely will not. 

    As we have seen recently, clear examples of the crime of incitement to violence – perpetrated seemingly with impunity – will, undoubtedly, be given more latitude.

    Join Mailing List

    Christians, however, will not enjoy similar leniency.

    The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

    And Christians will most certainly not be able to criticize the trans movement or ‘gender affirming’ practices.

    The world now says truth is subjective – ‘my truth, your truth, their truth …’

    However, the Good Book says, ‘You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.’

    123Page 2 of 3
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv