An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Russell Kirk became the intellectual backbone of American conservative thought in the mid to late twentieth century, restating the views of the latter period of Edmund Burke’s life: rich with tradition, cautious in action, and deeply sceptical of human hubris.
While his ideas resonate with conservatives, classical liberals (ie libertarians) offer a dynamic counterpoint, championing freedom, innovation, and individual choice over reverence for the past.
Let’s dive in and see how these two visions clash — and sometimes align — in the battle of ideas.
Classical liberals see a brighter path where freedom, innovation, and individuality take centre-stage.
1. Morality
Kirk’s Claim A timeless moral order, grounded in religion or natural law, shapes the universe. To stray from it is to invite chaos.
Classical Liberal Response Of course morality matters—but whose morality? The beauty of liberty is letting individuals find the moral tradition of their choice, or not, as long as they don’t trample on the rights of others. Forced adherence to one moral order does not permit the free will bestowed on us.
2. Tradition
Kirk’s Claim Human existence is a tapestry of traditions, mysteries, and customs that deserve our respect.
Classical Liberal Response Traditions can be wonderful, but let’s not wrap them in bubble wrap. If customs no longer serve us, let’s voluntarily innovate. Progress doesn’t mean erasing history—it means freely building on it without being chained to it.
3. Hierarchies
Kirk’s Claim Hierarchies are natural, fostering stability and a sense of duty.
Classical Liberal Response Natural? Maybe. Necessary? Hardly. Hierarchies should be earned, not inherited. Let merit, not birthright or tradition, determine who leads and who follows. Liberty thrives when everyone gets a fair shot.
4. Private Property
Kirk’s Claim Property rights anchor freedom and bind people to their communities.
Classical Liberal Response: Property is sacred — but not because it ties you to the community, but because it stems from self-ownership. Let’s defend property from all threats, especially meddling states that “know best.”
5. Customs
Kirk’s Claim: Customs and conventions are society’s foundation, providing stability and identity.
Classical Liberal Response: Stability is great, but not at the expense of liberty. Some customs deserve to fade if they stand in the way of equal opportunity, freedom, or progress. Traditions should evolve naturally, not be frozen in time.
Classical Liberal Response: Gradual change is fine — unless injustice is screaming for a fix. Why crawl when running is faster? Sometimes society needs a jolt to tear down barriers to freedom and opportunity. Now sounds good.
7. Restraint
Kirk’s Claim: Left unchecked, human passions spiral into chaos. Society needs guardrails.
Classical Liberal Response: Guardrails? Sure, but self-imposed ones. Free individuals can manage their passions without the heavy hand of tradition or authority. Let personal responsibility—not paternalism—be our guide.
The beauty of liberty is letting individuals find the moral tradition of their choice
8. Coercion
Kirk’s Claim: Conservatives distrust concentrated power and prefer decentralised authority.
Classical Liberal Response: Amen to that! But let’s not stop at the state. Employers, the media, the church, crime syndicates, vexatious litigants, stalkers, trespassers, even nosey neighbours can also wield power oppressively. True liberty means vigilance against all forms of coercion, wherever they lurk.
9. Permanence v Progress
Kirk’s Claim: Good society walks a tightrope between enduring truths and necessary changes.
Classical Liberal Response: Why tiptoe when you can stride boldly toward progress? Permanence often masks stagnation. Liberty flourishes when we embrace change, guided by the timeless principle of individual freedom.
Kirk’s Claim: Careful deliberation is essential for wise governance.
Classical Liberal Response: Prudence, yes. Paralysis, no. Being cautious is fine, but let’s not use it as an excuse to cling to restrictive systems or delay justice. Sometimes boldness is the wisest course.
The Bottom Line
Kirk’s conservatism prioritises stability, tradition, and cautious change. Classical liberals see a brighter path where freedom, innovation, and individuality take centre-stage. While Kirk builds fences to protect what is, classical liberals dream of bridges to what could be—a world where liberty is not just preserved but unleashed.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Few political affiliations draw more stigma and ostracism than white nationalism and neo-Nazism. The fear and disdain these ideologies provoke make them a potent weapon to wield against political opponents. The Victorian Liberal Party’s 18-month internal conflict, centred on allegations of links to neo-Nazis, illustrates how damaging such accusations can be.
No one wants to be branded a Nazi, yet both sides of politics continue to flirt with the rhetoric of ‘identity politics’ that fuels such extreme manifestations. As they see it, you are defined by the group, or identity, to which you belong, in particular your gender, race, or sexual preference. Each side typically targets constituencies based on such identities.
Distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked
I know this personally because for six years of my teenage life, I embodied the most extreme version of the ‘identitarian right.’ My personal experience with racist nationalism positions me to argue that both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence. Moreover, libertarianism was not only the antidote to my own toxic beliefs, but is essential to countering the divisive nature of identity politics.
For most, being an ‘actual Nazi’ is unimaginable. This extremist, violent ideology requires more than mere exposure to certain ideas — it involves a process of radicalisation shaped by psychology, peer groups, and the surrounding culture. Here, I will focus on how culture and ideas drove my radicalisation, and how they continue to pose a risk to vulnerable young people. It is less autobiography and more cautionary tale.
The 9/11 attacks were a defining moment in my life. At 12 years old, I became captivated by history and politics, realising that events and ideas shaped the present and were in constant competition. This set me on a path of seeking where I fit in this world.
At school, teachers often portrayed Australia as a colonial oppressor, its culture irredeemably marred by the sins of white settlement and the White Australia Policy. Multiculturalism, they implied, was both penance and salvation. According to this narrative, Australia had no intrinsic culture, and what existed was enriched only by others. Progressives cast Australians – particularly white males like me – as oppressors. I was the villain in the story of my own country.
Meanwhile, the Howard government promoted multiculturalism and nationalism, tinged with anti-Islamic sentiment. Events like 9/11 and the Tampa crisis linked immigration to terrorism. John Howard’s refrain – “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” – fuelled public fears. To my 12 year old self, growing up in Melbourne’s working-class northern suburbs with large Lebanese and Turkish populations, these narratives resonated. The progressive view vilified me for my identity, while the conservative view glorified an Australian identity under threat.
I naturally leaned toward conservatism but carried an anti-authoritarian streak, fuelled by the Iraq War’s WMDs deception. Together, these narratives primed me to adopt an ideology offering both belonging and an outlet for my growing xenophobia and distrust of the establishment.
In 2005, the Cronulla riots became the spark. At 14 I was seeking answers, and the media’s portrayal of Australia as inherently racist clashed with my own experiences. Conservative leaders, meanwhile, distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked. Disillusioned, I turned to the internet, where white nationalist forums offered an alternative worldview. Here, my conservative leanings devolved into outright racism. By embracing conspiracy theories, including a Jewish global agenda, my transformation into a neo-Nazi was complete.
For six years, I was deeply involved in this violent subculture, promoting its ideas online and on the streets. This period profoundly shaped me, for better and worse.
Both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence.
Thankfully, I began to change. Exposure to libertarian ideas during Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign planted the seeds of a new worldview. Libertarian principles of non-aggression and individual liberty stood in stark contrast to my authoritarian beliefs, offering a path forward based on individualism, voluntary cooperation and mutual respect. It took two years to fully disentangle myself from neo-Nazism, but by 2010 I was free.
Determined to promote liberty I joined the Liberal Party, hoping to steer it away from identity politics and back toward classical liberalism. This hope was short-lived. After my past was exposed, I resigned – a blessing in disguise, given the party’s continued departure from principles of individual freedom.
Ten years later, I remain a libertarian, advocating for an ideology that values individuals as unique and capable of forging their own paths. Unlike progressivism and conservatism, which exploit fears and biases to create division, libertarianism fosters cooperation and mutual understanding. It champions less government interference, trusting that most people will live peacefully when left to their own devices.
Today’s political landscape is more polarised than it was in 2001. Identity politics, central to both the progressive left and conservative right, is the most dangerous driver of radicalisation. By creating ‘us vs them’ mentalities, it breeds resentment and hatred, ultimately leading to violence. The antidote is to focus on individuals, not groups. Libertarianism, which prioritises individual freedom and responsibility, is the ideological counterweight we desperately need. It is an idea whose time has come.
Scott began his political career on the far-right but, repelled by identity politics and big government, he then found a political home as a libertarian. Now he champions grassroots activism and community building. An IT professional and father, he’s passionate about free speech, religious freedom, and parental rights.
Libertarians often face a dilemma: the desire to advance freedom through political involvement versus the reality that libertarian ideas rarely shape government. While participation in elections and campaigns can bring momentary hope, the political pendulum inevitably swings, and within a few years, libertarians find themselves back where they started, under administrations pushing for more centralised control.
This cycle begs the question: should libertarians invest so much emotionally and practically in the political process?
Harry Browne, a prominent libertarian thinker, explored this question in his book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. Browne argued that living freely despite restrictive laws and norms requires a shift from external efforts—such as political engagement—to internal actions that maximise personal freedom and autonomy.
Instead of, or perhaps as well as, battling the political system, consider cultivating personal resilience and independence
Browne’s philosophy remains as relevant as ever for today’s libertarians: by focusing on enhancing self-reliance, personal safety, and independence in daily life, we can embody liberty even without legislative victories.
His work also explores philosophical and practical ways to secure freedom outside traditional political and social channels. He emphasises that freedom starts with self-awareness, recognising that one’s actions, beliefs, and lifestyle can either liberate or restrict. He discusses the pitfalls of conventional life scripts that people blindly follow, and how real freedom lies in shedding these scripts to create a life based on one’s values and goals.
Instead of, or perhaps as well as, battling the political system, consider cultivating personal resilience and independence through the following practical steps. These areas can help insulate you from a society where the state’s reach continues to expand.
Self-Reliance for Physical Needs
Capture Your Own Drinking Water: Secure a reliable source of water with rainwater tanks or wells to reduce dependence on government water systems.
Form a Local Network: Surround yourself with like-minded neighbours for mutual support and barter.
Invest in Freezer Storage: A deep freezer allows you to store food in bulk and withstand potential shortages.
Grow Your Own Produce: Cultivate your own fruit and vegetables, preserve them, and develop a barter system with neighbours who do the same.
Purchase Meat in Bulk: Build a relationship with a grazier and buy half a butchered animal for a sustainable, long-term meat supply. Arrange for a neighbour to buy the other half.
Adopt a Whole-Foods Diet: Avoid ultra-processed foods to reduce the risk of adverse health and reliance on universal healthcare systems.
Exercise Regularly: Staying fit helps you stay resilient against both physical and mental stress (and avoid universal healthcare systems).
Establish a Pre-Sleep Routine: Healthy sleep improves mental clarity and resilience.
Find Compatible Healthcare Providers: Cultivate relationships with doctors and other healthcare providers who share your desire for personal autonomy.
Learn First Aid and Stock Supplies: Ensure you have basic medical skills and a well-stocked first-aid kit for emergencies.
Prepare Clothing for the Long-Term: Stock up on durable clothing to reduce dependency on retailers.
Learn Clothing Repair and Creation: A basic knowledge of sewing and knitting can be invaluable for clothing upkeep.
Acquire Land and Build a Home: Land ownership gives you control and a safe space to exercise your autonomy.
Prepare an Emergency Kit: Essentials like tarpaulins, flashlights, and basic tools can protect you in uncertain situations.
Stockpile Pharmaceuticals: Maintaining a backup of medications or essential supplies ensures you’re not caught short in emergencies.
Self-Reliance for Safety Needs
Install a Security System: A comprehensive security system protects against burglary and provides peace of mind.
Secure Your Home: Regularly inspect locks and access points.
Learn Self-Defence: Knowing how to defend yourself gives you confidence and protection in risky situations.
Develop Basic Firearms Skills: Shooting and firearms knowledge can serve as a last-resort means of defence.
Make a Bow and Arrow: Primitive weapons can be useful in scenarios where other tools are unavailable.
Should libertarians invest so much emotionally and practically in the political process?
Independent Freedom of Movement
Invest in an alternative fuel vehicle: Australia’s oil supply is precarious. Consider how you would get around if it was not available.
Add Solar Panels: Solar energy allows you to reduce dependence on the government regulated grid.
Get a Second Passport: A second passport offers enhanced global mobility.
Obtain a Pilot’s License: Being able to pilot a plane allows for greater travel independence.
Consider Private Air Travel: Chartering a jet reduces reliance on government supervised commercial air travel.
Own a Seaworthy Yacht: A well-maintained yacht gives you the freedom to travel by sea.
Learn Sailing Skills: With ocean sailing skills, you have a path to freedom and independence.
Practice Celestial Navigation: Celestial navigation ensures you can chart your course without relying on GPS.
Achieving Financial Independence
Leave Public Sector Work: Free yourself from government employment and its requirements.
Avoid Large Corporations: Working independently reduces control by others over your finances.
Start a Business: By becoming an entrepreneur, you gain financial autonomy.
Develop a Savings Strategy: Building savings creates a buffer against life’s uncertainties.
Diversify Investments: Broaden your investment portfolio to reduce risk.
Open Foreign Bank Accounts: These accounts can protect you from domestic currency and policy instability.
Control Your Digital Footprint: Minimise online mentions and profile information for privacy.
Use Cash for Purchases: This reduces your digital paper trail.
Use a VPN: Virtual private networks help safeguard your internet history.
Ditch Your Smartphone: A simpler flip-phone offers fewer surveillance risks.
Limit Government Interaction: Minimise dependency on government support, as it can often mean added scrutiny.
By developing skills and strategies to live freely and independently, libertarians can pursue personal autonomy and minimise their susceptibility to control by others, particularly the government.
What actions have I missed? How many of these are you already doing?
Share your score out of 40 in the comments section below.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
It has been just over thirty years since the term, “It’s the economy, stupid” was coined by political strategist, James Carville, during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential election campaign.
While that maxim remains central to the prosperity of any nation, there is a new kid in town and the world has just witnessed its great rebirth in the United States.
I say “rebirth” because the fight for freedom has never ended.
Australia seems intent on launching straight into the depths of its hell!
America has returned the right to true liberty to the table, and with it put other nations on notice if they want to participate in a relationship.
Vice President elect, J D Vance, recently raised the issue of free speech during an interview on discussions around NATO:
“It’s insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isn’t going to be pro-free speech. I think we can do both. But we’ve got to say American power comes with certain strings attached. One of those is respect free speech, especially in our European allies.”
It is not just the magnitude of Trump’s victory that is stunning, but the highlighting of the age-old rule that freedom is fragile and must be guarded around the clock if we are to preserve and pass it on to the next generation.
When ancient Republican Rome was on the cusp of civil war, and prior to its great fall with the ushering in of the Empire, Cicero continued to warn his fellow senators and the people that tyranny must always be defeated.
Cicero said in a fiery speech in 43 BC:
“No calamity could befall the Republic without it being the fault of the Senate.”
He was right in the sense that those who are given the honour to guard their nations fail when they preside over its fall. But so, too, the responsibility must rest with the people, particularly in our modern era when we all have access to what is happening around us.
America has returned the right to true liberty to the table
If we claim to not know, then we are admitting to ignorance and worse, wilful ignorance.
Cicero campaigned against the tyranny of Marcus Antonius following the assassination of Julius Caesar. He saw Antony as a worse tyrant than Caesar himself. He knew the consequences of speaking out, but he went on the offensive anyway.
One of his most poignant warnings was when he told a fractious and divided Senate that Antony would stop at nothing to enslave them all:
For if he found slavery bearable for himself, why foist a master on us? If in his boyhood days he endured the lusts of those who tyrannised over him, was he also to produce a master and tyrant over our children? And so, when Caesar was killed, Antonius became to the rest of the community what he wanted Caesar to be to us.
While America embarks on unshackling itself from the reign of tyranny, Australia seems intent on launching straight into the depths of its hell!
It honestly beggars belief that Australian leaders, left and right alike, cannot understand that if we are to continue to enjoy a close relationship with the largest democracy in the world, and our most important ally, we must obliterate these heinous censorship laws and sack any public servants who continue to push for them.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
Ever since the Romans, standing armies have been viewed with deep suspicion. They are expensive to maintain, which often leads to onerous taxation, and they have an appalling record as instruments of oppression.
In Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England, Henry St. George Tucker wrote: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
America’s founding fathers were of the same opinion. Having freed themselves of British military tyranny, they were in no hurry to suffer the same fate at the hands of their own government. Alexander Hamilton thought Congress should vote every two years “upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot”, while Thomas Jefferson suggested the Greeks and Romans were wise “to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army.” James Madison wrote: “Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
Standing armies remain a threat to liberty, much as they were in the time of the Romans.
In the twentieth century, with the growth in technology, a well-trained professional military became difficult to avoid. Some democracies, Switzerland being a well-known example, created a small full-time professional core but retained its reliance on citizen militia. Most others sought to limit the use of the military to national defence. Every dictatorship, by contrast, has used its military to retain power.
Our Australian Defence Force, while not enjoying the status of the military in Israel or America, nonetheless has widespread community support. It is also seen as professional and competent, if seriously under equipped, with no political agenda other than a growing trend towards wokeness.
Its role is also notionally limited to national defence, despite occasionally getting involved in such things as delivering relief supplies, erecting field hospitals or evacuating those affected by natural disasters. This is reinforced by the constitution, which nominates the Governor-General as commander in chief, not the Prime Minister, Defence Minister or state premiers.
But things have changed over the last few years. The ADF has not only provided logistics support during major bushfires, but has also engaged with police in traffic control. And during the Covid restrictions it worked alongside police to enforce border closures and quarantine and, in Victoria, to enforce a prolonged severe lockdown. A very important line was crossed.
Sections 92 and 117 of the constitution guarantee free movement of people and trade between the states. Although the High Court decided to allow WA’s border closures during the Covid period, many legal scholars believe it could go the other way in a similar case. For the ADF to have helped enforce border closures that might be unconstitutional is a particularly serious concern.
Our Australian Defence Force, while not enjoying the status of the military in Israel or America, nonetheless has widespread community support.
As for Victoria’s lockdowns, the implications for the ADF were worse by an order of magnitude. With the authority of a state of emergency, Victorian police were given extremely wide powers including the right to enter premises without a warrant, to enforce rules on exercise, working from home, wearing a mask, home quarantine, distance from home and essential work.
They attacked people walking peacefully and socially distanced, questioned and threatened those who post on Facebook about going walking, broke down doors and arrested those who advocated protests about the loss of freedom, and selectively arrested those who actually protested. Moreover, much of this occurred with a degree of thuggish enthusiasm that would be familiar to any of the last century’s dictators.
The only reason the police were able to do all this was because of the broad backup provided by the ADF. They could never have done it without them.
The ADF needs to focus on its national defence role. Indeed, given the worsening situation with China, that ought to be its only purpose. Perhaps it might have a role occasionally in providing relief during emergencies, but it should have absolutely no role in law enforcement, even indirectly.
Standing armies remain a threat to liberty, much as they were in the time of the Romans. We should not tolerate the ADF diminishing our liberty.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
Virtually all political persuasions agree on the need for police. For libertarians, maintaining a criminal justice system, of which the police are a major component, is viewed as one of the few legitimate roles of government.
The first modern and professional police force was the London Metropolitan Police Service, established in 1829. At the time there was substantial public opposition to a large and possibly armed police force, based on fears it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule. The example of France, which had secret police at the time, was significant.
The Met was established by Robert Peel, Britain’s Home Secretary, who set out to address these concerns via his nine principles of policing. These principles are now famous and remain the gold standard for police everywhere.
Peel believed that the power of the police was dependent on public approval and derived from public cooperation rather than fear. Also known as policing by consent, his key principle was that “the police are the public and the public are the police”.
Corrupt and thuggish police must be rooted out and the selective enforcement of laws based on political allegiances prohibited
He ensured police uniforms were different from the military, avoided military ranks, and only armed officers with a wooden truncheon and rattle (later a whistle) to signal the need for assistance. Every officer was issued a warrant card with a unique identification number to assure accountability for his actions, and Londoners were expected to give assistance, including loaning their revolvers to officers in pursuit of armed felons. Many did exactly that.
Peel was also clear about the primary role of the police – to prevent crime. Police effectiveness is not measured by the number of arrests, he said, but by the absence of crime and disorder.
Almost two hundred years later, police in many locations could benefit from a reminder of Peel’s principles.
One issue is the steady militarisation of the police. This ranges from references to the public as civilians and assertions that the police place their lives on the line every day (which is obvious garbage) to black uniforms, military assault rifles and ex-military equipment such as armoured personnel carriers.
When they see themselves as soldiers in a war, it is not surprising that some police have no regard for public welfare. The result is the abuse of civil rights and the unnecessary use of tasers and firearms, with deaths in police custody.
Peel’s principles also stipulate that police should only use physical force when persuasion, advice and warning are insufficient, to use only the minimum force necessary, and that the cooperation of the public diminishes proportionately with the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion.
For libertarians, maintaining a criminal justice system, of which the police are a major component, is viewed as one of the few legitimate roles of government.
Yet how often do we see police resort to violence when making an arrest? People are tackled, forced to the ground with knees on their back and neck amid blows, kicks and the vindictive use of Tasers, simply to apply handcuffs. Being ‘non-compliant’ or raising verbal objections is enough to prompt this.
Moreover, such rough handling amounts to a form of punishment. That is also in conflict with Peel’s Principles, which require the police to avoid usurping the powers of the judiciary by authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
Enforcement of the Covid rules, including the authoritarian decrees and fines imposed by state premiers, provided multiple examples of poor policing: the petty closing of cafes, prosecutions for reading in a park, chasing individuals along a closed beach, stopping fishing from a pier the day after 10,000 gathered in a demonstration, and even a Police Commissioner who denounces the cruise industry as criminal, are among them.
We now see the police routinely looking the other way when demonstrators spew their hateful antisemitism and calls for genocide against the Jews, even arresting a solitary Jewish observer. The Australian public are never likely to accept the police as one of them while those sorts of things occur.
Change is necessary. Corrupt and thuggish police must be rooted out and the selective enforcement of laws based on political allegiances prohibited. Victimless crimes should never be given priority and arresting people should be the last resort for problems that originate in drug use, alcoholism, mental illness and poverty.
The fundamental responsibility of governments is to protect life, liberty and property. If the police were to focus on these while upholding Peel’s Principles, Australians might even respect them enough to come to their aid. As it stands, many would refuse.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
Australians more and more have reason to question why over a billion dollars of their taxes are poured annually into what has become nothing but a far-left propaganda outfit. A particularly nasty one at that, with a decided proclivity for feting anti-Semitic terrorists.
The ABC has made multiple changes to a story about Israel’s attack on Lebanon after receiving complaints claiming the article was “too sympathetic to Hezbollah and that it omitted relevant context and perspectives”.
Oh, just a mistake, the ABC apologists will no doubt airily hand-wave it away. Yet, it’s notable that, like its sister the BBC, the mistakes only ever go one way: against the Jewish state. In fact, the BBC was recently found to have endemic bias against Israel. The ABC is clinging to the Beeb’s brown shirttails.
The ABC will appoint one of its own staff members to ask its other staff members if they’re biased liars
ABC ombudsman Fiona Cameron received 16 complaints about the article titled “Lebanese Australian community heartbroken over Israeli attack on Lebanon”, which prompted her to examine whether the story met the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality and accuracy.
In her report, she assessed grievances by complainants that argued “the article did not stipulate that Hezbollah was a listed terrorist organisation and that the context for the escalation of the conflict in south Lebanon was unclear”.
The article was written by reporter Nabil Al Nashar.
Nabil Al Nashar… there’s something about that name. Can’t quite put a finger on it, though. Just like Antoinette Lattouf, who was actually sacked by the ABC for her pro-Hamas social media posts.
Looks like that well-publicised push by the ABC to hire more ‘diverse’ staff is really paying off.
That’s just the nastiest aspect of what is a concatenation of failures at the ‘national broadcaster’.
The ABC is facing accusations of airing misleading and “activist-led” journalism on two separate issues over the past fortnight, with both its flagship current affairs programs, Four Corners and 7.30, at the centre of the storm.
“Misleading”? “Activist-led”? Doesn’t sound like the ABC at all. You know, the ABC whose former leading presenter Fran Kelly openly bragged that she was an activist.
Lobby group Nuclear for Australia, which boasts 75,000 members, sent a formal complaint to the ABC on Friday in response to last week’s Four Corners episode titled ‘The Future of Nuclear Power in Australia’, arguing the program was deliberately misleading, failed to disclose conflicts of interests of interviewees, and omitted pertinent facts about the nuclear industry […]
In a formal complaint to the ABC, Nuclear for Australia said Four Corners’ “central assertion of the episode that [the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia] … was the sole reason power bills increased in Georgia is false”.
The ABC has made multiple changes to a story about Israel’s attack on Lebanon
“Instead, there were many factors that Four Corners didn’t mention including gas price increases due to the Ukrainian war, the cost of upgrading hundreds of transformers around the state due to storm damage, and the cost of grid infrastructure to support solar arrays in the middle of Southern Georgia,” the lobby group’s complaint to the ABC ombudsman reads.
Nuclear for Australia has called for the Four Corners episode to be removed from the ABC’s various platforms. An ABC spokesman said: “Any complaint will be dealt with according to the ABC’s usual processes.”
Meaning, the ABC will appoint one of its own staff members to ask its other staff members if they’re biased liars, and when they have all agreed with each other that they’re not, they’ll bury the whole thing and carry on as normal.
Such as, trying to stop better reporters from telling a less-biased story.
A senior ABC reporter has been accused of intentionally blocking a source from speaking to members of the press who were trying to scrutinise the quality of his journalism, a court has heard.
The Federal Court on Tuesday heard Mark Willacy instructed ‘Josh’, a confidential source at the centre of an allegedly defamatory article, not to speak with other media outlets, after a journalist from the Daily Telegraph started making inquiries about the substance of Mr Willacy’s story.
The story in question concerned ex-commando Heston Russell, who is suing the ABC, Willacy and journalist Josh Robertson over a story he alleges implied he was complicit in the execution of a prisoner in Afghanistan. The same story has already been exposed as using doctored audio, a fact which was previously brought to the ABC’s attention.
This is what we get for our billion dollars. I think we deserve our money back.
Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.
I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.
My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.
Flag-ban laws should be repealed immediately, and let sunlight be the best disinfectant
Let’s be clear, here: as a free speech advocate, I don’t believe that states should be banning flags, symbols or slogans of any group. Whether it’s the Nazi hakenkreuz, the communist hammer-and-sickle, a Che Guevara icon or the Hezbollah flag.
Not only because the same state that can ban the iconography of ideologies I despise can also ban those of which I approve. More importantly, banning flags doesn’t make the ideology disappear, it only drives it out of sight. If there’s a wasp in the room, as C S Lewis said, I like to see it. No matter how uncomfortable it may make me or anyone else.
I also believe that the law must, if the rule of law is to mean anything, apply equally to all.
So, if Australian governments are going to – as they have – prosecute individuals for displaying banned Nazi symbols, they must equally vigorously prosecute those showing other banned symbols.
Such as the Hezbollah flag.
You can’t purchase a Hezbollah flag on eBay. Purveyors of flags in Australia are prohibited by law from selling it, and without descending into creepy nooks of the internet on the dark web only one online vendor of dubious provenance offers the flag for sale for $US40 ($58) but is out of stock. Perhaps there has been a run on sales.
Judging by the sheer volume of the ‘moderate Muslim majority’ waving Hezbollah flags in Melbourne and Sydney this past week, this is probably true.
Yet, despite such flags being prohibited, not one charge has been laid.
That’s because the relevant laws are a dog’s breakfast.
Merely displaying the flag in a public space is not sufficient for an arrest to be made. Police need to go through a veritable laundry list of vague law in part because our politicians imposed the reasonable person test – the formless everyman sitting on a Bondi tram – to determine if a person waving the Hezbollah flag at a rally is engaged in the “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred, (which) could incite another person or a group of persons to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”. There are various other codicils, and immediately we move into grey areas of interpretation to be left in the hands of police, judges, juries and magistrates.
The laws were written in haste last year, after Victoria police inexplicably escorted a group of neo-Nazis, who gatecrashed a Kellie-Jay Keen women’s rights rally in Melbourne, to front and centre on the steps of Parliament House. In a typical government, ‘we must be seen to be doing something’, knee-jerk response, both the Victoria and federal Labor government rushed the laws through.
And, as always, laws written in haste are very bad laws.
A week later the bill quietly was changed and took the giant leap from prohibiting the display of Nazi symbols where a reasonable person is likely to conclude that a Nazi hakenkreuz is totemic of racial hatred to symbols of proscribed terrorist groups where that same reasonable person may draw a different conclusion.
The motivation of parliamentarians appears to have been the all-too frequent legislative impulse: “We need to do something. This is something. So, let’s do this” […]
This is a mess of the government’s making based on cobbled-together law. The responsibility for the shambles extends to the entire federal parliament, which waved through the bill late last year in an orgy of self-congratulation. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Act 2023 is black-letter law that attempts to solve two distinct problems with one muddled law.
It may be useful in prosecuting those who tote Nazi symbols in public or online but it is less clear how it may serve to prohibit other symbols of racial hatred including Hezbollah’s flag.
Now, the same politicians who passed such obviously bad laws are pointing the finger of blame at police. Anyone but themselves, of course. But police can only try and prosecute the laws the politicians have passed. As Kerry Packer once told the Senate, he didn’t write the laws they accused him of using to minimise his tax (which he bluntly agreed he did), they did.
Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.
I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.
My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.
The clothes we wear may change, but the virtues and vices of mankind do not.
As a historian of ancient Rome, I am in awe of the vast and rich sourcebook of knowledge it offers to guide us on what to heed and what to avoid. Yet it appears that those we elect, rule over us with no regard for what we think, as they wield the proverbial sword of what they call justice.
The warnings from the Australian government to the people around the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are reminiscent of the treatment meted out to those who dared to criticise rulers in ancient Rome; the caveat being that brutality of the highest order is not in play here.
However, this Bill comes on the back of four years of politicians instilling fear into the population, so it is not a standalone government edict. I argue that it is the trigger for the final battle in protecting our liberties and freedoms.
Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation
We were warned in no uncertain terms by state premiers that the virus would “hunt down the unvaccinated”, and if we continued to ignore the dictates from on high, Senator Jacqui Lambie was there to warn that the government would come after us “lock, stock and barrel” unless we complied.
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live. Now, they are being primed to accept the most illiberal piece of legislation imaginable. And they will achieve this not just with help from the scaremongering media, but through hopes of raising an army of civilian snitches.
When Lucius Cornelius Sulla was made consul in the early 80s BC and, later, dictator with the goal to restore the Roman Republican constitution, he told the people that if they obeyed him, he would introduce changes that would benefit them all. Should they decide not to, then punishment would be swift and savage.
Those he considered enemies, or friends of enemies, were put on public proscription lists. In addition, he added a statement “detailing a prize for killers, rewards for informers, and penalties for concealment.”
Guilt by association also copped a severe punishment:
“Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation, and there were actually cases of condemnation for showing sympathy or merely travelling in company with a suspect.”
The result of his unadulterated power?
Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live.
“He took sole charge of shaping all the political institutions of the state in the way he wanted. For there was no longer any talk of laws, or elections, or sortition, since everybody was quaking with fear and lying low or keeping silent.”
Forty years later, a group of three – the infamous triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus – conspired to punish their enemies in their quest for vengeance following the assassination of Julius Caesar.
They prepared a list in private, and even traded names of friends and foes of one another, surrendering their own relatives if necessary.
“These included brothers and uncles of the men who proscribed them and of their subordinates, if they had done anything to offend the leaders or these subordinates.”
In principle, what is the difference of intent between 80 BC and 2024 AD?
The Roman consuls proscribed those who offended them through brutal means, as was the order of the day. Our leadership designs legislation to incriminate us if we dare to offend them.
The intent remains the same – to silence anyone with a different view. The lesson here is more for the ordinary person than the egotistical politician, for they already know the rulebook inside out – how to manipulate the population. We, as people who merely want to live our lives in relative peace, must harness a sense of courage to stand against the machinery of an overbearing government, even if it means earning the moniker of being an enemy of the state.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia. This has a lot to do with the fact that it is not really a freedom per se, so much as a collection of more fundamental individual freedoms with which people are much more familiar: freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly.
What makes religious freedom a distinct concept is the unique content of the conscience, thought and speech in question, and the unique purposes and function of association and assembly conducted in its name.
For example, religions represent the most ancient belief systems still in existence in our modern societies, and this ancient pedigree sometimes puts the religion, and its adherents, at odds with more recent cultural changes. Religions also tend to consist of more comprehensive and determinate worldviews than are typical of secular culture.
A society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.
Secular world views, to the extent that they exist at all, tend to be more open, indeterminate and relativist than religious world views (militant secularists are the exception that proves the rule).
The comprehensiveness of the typical religious world view, and the ethical systems and modes of living that embody and express them, can make it difficult, if not impossible, for the religious believer to socially compartmentalise their faith, ensuring social friction in a secular, pluralistic society like Australia. Moreover, religious world views are held by a decreasing percentage of the Australia population, progressively widening the gap between the religious believer and the cultural mainstream.
Evidence of this widening cultural distance can be seen in the increasing demand for faith-based schools and homeschooling, as religious believers seek to ensure that their children can be educated according to their faith and world view, free from the corruption of the dominant non-religious state ideology and the secular values and mores that now permeate society.
It is a combination of the unique content of religious belief, on the one hand, and its socially relevant practices and public activities, on the other, that create the kinds of tensions and dilemmas at the heart of the debate about religious freedom. The pointy end of this debate relates to faith-based schools, which have to pastorally manage the presence of same-sex attracted and gender dysphoric students enrolled in them while remaining faithful to the religious teaching and ethos for which the school was established in the first place. This can be particularly vexed in circumstances of open enrolment, where children of parents belonging to the establishing faith of the school are enrolled alongside children of parents who do not belong to it, leading to competing expectations and demands on the school.
However, the key thing to bear in mind about religious freedom, and something often forgotten in public discussion, is that it is simply an expression and manifestation of the most fundamental individual freedoms that constitute a free society, and which most citizens take for granted as self-evident goods. As such, any restriction of religious freedom is by default a restriction of either freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or some combination thereof.
Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia.
That said, none of the fundamental freedoms that comprise religious freedom is absolute. All individual freedoms are subject to necessary limitations and compromises in the name of protecting individuals from violence, aggression and unjustified coercion. The terrorist cannot invoke religious freedom in order to justify the planning and execution of a mass casualty attack according to some perceived divine revelation or injunction.
The challenge for a society with a mixed population of (diverse) religious and non-religious citizens is to properly identify the necessary limitations on religious freedom, without unduly compromising and undermining the fundamental individual freedoms that are essential to the creation and sustenance of a free society, the only kind in which human flourishing is truly possible.
The boundaries of religious freedom, which is to say a society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.
Anyone who professes to value freedom of conscience, thought, speech, association and assembly must care about religious freedom, and must want to see society recognise, preserve and defend ample social space for the practice and expression of religion—not because one necessarily accepts the metaphysical and moral claims of any particular religion, but because one can see the inextricable connection between religious freedom and the fundamental freedoms that constitute a free society, for theist, atheist and agnostic alike.
Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”
The socialist government of Anthony Albanese is, once again, proposing legislation to de-anonymise, monitor and censor the Internet. From across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand I can smell the American eKaren Julie Inman Grant’s enthusiasm for this sort of authoritarian crackdown.
As always the justification amounts to “Please! Won’t Someone Think of The Children!”, along with misdirections concerning child safety and insulating young minds from dangerous misinformation and disinformation. Coded language that really means truths that are inconvenient obstacles for leftist narratives.
Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new. Leftists in Western democracies have been endeavouring to implement them for decades. The problem has been public resistance, with opponents able to point to China and its Great Firewall as a handy example of how such initiatives enable totalitarianism.
There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught
A massive public relations campaign has been underway across the West for many years, conducted by western governments, aligned NGOs and supra-national organisations such as the WEF, attempting to sway public opinion against the maintenance of civil liberties across the Internet. A recent example is the coordinated attacks upon Elon Musk’s 𝕏 platform, which has largely refused to comply with government demands for censorship and state surveillance of 𝕏 users: censorship and surveillance to which other social media platforms such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook have been only too willing to comply.
Musk’s intransigence has attracted the ire of the authoritarian elites across the world, and not just Australia’s petulant eKaren Julie Inman Grant. From European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton’s jackboot demands for 𝕏 to comply with oppressive provisions of the bloc’s Digital Service (DSA) Act through Brazil’s Justice Alexandre de Moraes banning 𝕏 altogether in the country at the behest of the ruling leftist regime, to French president Emmanuel Macron luring Telegram CEO Pavel Durov to France so he could be arrested, the social media platforms allowing resistance to state censorship and surveillance have been put on notice.
Nonetheless, the attacks on the social media giants are a sideshow. The leftist elites are well aware that compliance by the social media companies does not solve the underlying issue of users themselves circumventing surveillance and censorship on platforms simply by moving to alternative platforms that refuse to comply.
We’re seeing this already as frustrated users flee Facebook en masse for platforms that don’t block their content and suspend their accounts when they post about Hunter Biden’s transgressions. The more adventurous migrate to decentralised platforms (or federated as the terminology goes) that don’t even have a corporation behind them for governments to bully. Remember MySpace? When one social media platform loses prominence, another rises to take its place.
The solution is to impose surveillance and censorship at the source rather than the destination: the users themselves. The preferred approach of the leftist elites is to impose technological restrictions and then to enact punitive punishments against those who circumvent them. Brazil has implemented this, with users caught using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to access banned sites such as 𝕏 facing fines of up to $US9,800 per infraction. China employs a similar technology/legislation regime though the punishments meted out to transgressors are considerably worse.
What is a citizen opposed to this totalitarian crackdown on basic civil liberties to do? In a democracy the true solution lies at source: cease voting for leftwing political parties that promulgate and promote this hateful ideology. But if you happen to live under such a government such as Australia, there are technical mitigations available too. In recent days I’ve heard chatter similar to “just use a VPN. Everyone will have a VPN app installed on their device in two minutes” to bypass restrictions. It’s not that simple.
Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new.
VPNs are great and everyone should use one. They are a trivially easy method of routing your traffic through another country, one with a better commitment to fundamental human rights. The problem is that VPNs are also trivially easy to detect. Detection by the state -such as in Brazil and China- is rapidly followed by state enforcement. I have heard sotto voce that the Australian Labor party intends such a ban on VPNs. Bring on the organ harvesting.
Fortunately for Aussies, people living under other repressive regimes have developed solutions. Technical advances from those on the side of freedom against the enforcement mechanisms of the leftists are in the ascendency, though it must be said there is no such thing as perfect security. The technique with the most value is obfuscation, a method of giving VPN traffic the appearance of being a different type of traffic, making it far more difficult to detect. The most mature and readily-available suite of sophisticated tools to obfuscate Internet traffic is the Tor network, a component of which the leftist elites endeavour to scare you about by using the bogeyman term Dark Net.
Tor works by bouncing traffic from ingress nodes through intermediary nodes to exits nodes back onto the Surface Internet in order to obfuscate the origin, meaning the user. This comes at the cost of additional latency but Tor has an equally valuable feature: the facility to obfuscate the type of traffic with pluggable transports, better known as bridges. Two of the most popular are OBFS4 bridges running on Tor relays and Snowflake, which operates as a simple peer-to-peer browser extension. Alongside VPNs, both of these are technologies Australians would be well advised to utilise.
In the escalating technology war against Internet civil liberties, advances in AI analysis of obfuscated traffic poses the most critical risk. A simple VPN may suffice for Australian Internet users and I recommend using one. Tor is the next step up and you should start using that too. It’s available for all platforms and devices.
There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught: following in the footsteps of other oppressive regimes the Australian Labor government is likely to discourage circumvention through VPNs and Tor with punitive penalties.
And as I alluded earlier, technology is merely mitigation. The solution is to vote the nasty bastards enacting these attacks upon civil liberties out of office.
Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.
There are increasing efforts to mandate age restrictions for social media. These efforts have occurred at federal level with a proposed minimum age of 16, and in Victoria with a proposed minimum age of 14 with parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. My home state of South Australia is also considering something similar.
This legislation is motivated by concerns about some of the negative effects of social media use on teenage mental health. I do not believe this type of legislation is the right solution to the problem and that it constitutes government overreach. I am concerned about its effects on civil liberties and internet privacy along with how it may be implemented.
My first major concern is the effect on internet privacy. In the event that such legislation is strictly enforced, social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia. This will severely compromise internet anonymity, which is important as it allows people to more openly discuss uncomfortable but important issues and protects the identities of people who are at risk of political persecution.
Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility
This is of particular concern given the increasing trend in Commonwealth countries of people being arrested for saying things online related to hot button political topics or that for some reason have been deemed offensive.
There is also the issue of data privacy. Forcing people to hand over their ID involves the disclosure of sensitive personal data which could then be exposed in a data leak, stolen by hackers, or sold to third parties by the social media company itself.
My second major concern is that such a law takes choice out of the hands of parents and increases government interference in the lives of families. All teenagers are different, and some are more mature than others. The decision to engage on social media should be made by parents, not the government.
Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility. When some parents are asked why they don’t restrict social media for their children despite complaining about it, the conversation seems to go like this:
Parent: I’m concerned that social media is harming my child’s mental health.
Me: Why don’t you stop them from using social media or restrict its use?
Parent: No. I can’t do that. I want my child to fit in and be popular!!!
Me in my head: WTF?
My third major concern is that the policy may have unintended consequences. Like many things, social media has both good and bad aspects, with the bad aspects more pronounced when used excessively. However, social media also allows people to interact with others regardless of how far away they are and to connect with like-minded people.
This can be particularly beneficial to teenagers who live in remote communities, have family that lives far away, seek a family group chat, want to let the world know what is happening in their communities, or for some reason have limited opportunities to socialise in person.
For example, I recently had a friend who was committed to a psych ward. Social media allowed us to talk to each other when I couldn’t visit and outside of visiting hours. A policy of restricting social media would create a government-imposed one-size-fits -all approach affecting all teenagers that will not work for all. Such a policy simply doesn’t distinguish between excessive and moderate social media use.
Social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia.
My fourth major concern is what the government defines as social media. Not all social media is the same. I personally have Facebook, Discord and Signal. All these apps function differently despite falling under the umbrella of social media.
Facebook mandates that people use their real name to create a profile. On Facebook you can create both public and private events, comment on things publicly, message people privately, and a range of other things. On Discord, you create a username and then can message people and join private and semi-public groups.
Signal works like text messaging, but you can create group chats and relies on the internet rather than phone data. Signal does not have public pages like Facebook. As someone who intends to become a parent in the future, I would approach all these apps differently and allow them each at different ages.
I would also like to point out that many social media sites already have age restrictions. Facebook, for example, requires a minimum age to join of 13. There are also apps that you can get on phones and computers that limit social media use or block certain sites.
Given this, I believe the best alternative solution to this legislation would be increased parental responsibility surrounding social media, and social and societal support for parents who choose to limit excessive teen social media use.
Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.
The recent controversy surrounding two boxers, Imane Khelif from Algeria and Lin Yu-ting from Taiwan, who won gold medals in the women’s events at the Paris Olympics, has ignited a worldwide debate. The key issue at the heart of this controversy is whether athletes with XY chromosomes who live as female, should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, given the potential genetic advantages that male physiology may give. From a libertarian standpoint, this debate also intersects with individual freedom, freedom of association, and the role of competition among organisations.
The Facts: No Dispute on XY Chromosomes
First and foremost, it is undisputed that the two athletes in question have XY chromosomes. This genetic marker is typically associated with male physiology, which includes traits like increased muscle mass, greater bone density, and overall physical strength. These traits can provide a significant competitive advantage in sports, particularly in a physically demanding sport like boxing.
The focus should remain on whether allowing athletes with XY chromosomes to compete in women’s events upholds the integrity of the sport
IOC’s Policy Shift: From Gender Testing to Passport Recognition
Historically, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) disqualified women with XY chromosomes from competing in women’s events. However, in 1999 it stopped mandatory gender testing, a move influenced by the growing recognition of the complexities of gender identity. The IOC now accepts the gender listed on an athlete’s passport as the sole criterion for gender classification in sports. This policy shift has been both praised for its inclusivity and criticised for undermining fairness in women’s sports.
The Issue of Fairness: A Level Playing Field?
The principle of fairness in sports is paramount. In boxing, for example, athletes are not allowed to compete across different weight classes because doing so would create an inherent imbalance in competition. The same logic should apply when considering the participation of XY chromosome athletes in women’s events. The genetic advantages associated with XY chromosomes, such as greater physical strength, raise ethical questions about whether it is fair to allow these athletes to compete against women with XX chromosomes.
The IBA’s Role: Irrelevant to the Core Issue
Some have questioned the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) stance, with allegations of being pro-Russia or corrupt. However, these concerns are irrelevant. The focus should remain on whether allowing athletes with XY chromosomes to compete in women’s events upholds the integrity of the sport. Notably, neither of the athletes in question disputed the IBA’s decision, with Imane Khelif initially challenging the results before later withdrawing the objection.
Respecting Identity vs. Maintaining Fairness
As a libertarian, I fully respect these athletes for competing to the best of their abilities. It is perhaps a sad reality that they have XY chromosomes, which presents challenges in their personal lives and public identities. However, respecting them as individuals does not mean that they should be allowed to compete in women’s events where their genetic makeup could provide an unfair advantage. The core principle of fair competition must take precedence in this context.
Individual Freedom and Freedom of Association
Libertarianism strongly advocates for individual freedom, including the right to self-identify and even to change one’s gender. Individuals should have the freedom to disclose whatever gender they wish and live according to their identity without coercion from the state or other entities. However, this freedom also extends to organisations like the IOC and IBA, which should have the autonomy to set their own rules regarding gender recognition and participation criteria. If athletes or the public disagree with these policies, they should have the freedom to boycott these organisations and seek alternative platforms that align better with their values.
It is undisputed that the two athletes in question have XY chromosomes
The Role of Organisational Competition
In a free market, competition among organisations like the IOC and IBA ensures that those which offer the fairest and most transparent rules will ultimately succeed. If one organisation’s policies are viewed as unfair, another organisation with more balanced criteria could emerge and gain popularity. Over time, this competition would lead to a natural selection of policies that best serve the interests of athletes and sports fans alike.
Censorship and Free Speech
The controversy also touches on broader societal issues such as censorship and free speech. After winning their gold medals, one of the athletes, Khalif, filed a legal complaint against what they termed online harassment. Although online harassment can be a nasty issue, the sanctity of free speech must be upheld. Some celebrities like Richard Dawkins complained about Facebook’s censorship after his post suggesting genetically male boxers should not fight women in Olympics. Censorship is censorship, whether it’s initiated by private entities or the government. The truth can only emerge in the “free speech town square,” where ideas can be debated freely, and the so-called “misinformation and disinformation” are not censored but countered with better arguments.
In conclusion, while recognising the challenges faced by women with XY chromosomes, it is essential to maintain fairness in women’s sports by upholding the principle that genetically male athletes should not compete in women’s events. By allowing market forces and free association to shape the rules, we may strike a balance that honours both individual rights and the essential fairness of competitive sports.
Got something to say?
Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.
Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
Libertarianism is an ideology, but not a world view, according to a distinction offered by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action. A world view, Mises explains, is “an interpretation of all things,” “an explanation of all phenomena.” In short, world views “interpret the universe.” Ideology, by contrast, is a narrower concept comprising “the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations.” Ideologies are concerned solely with human action as it manifests in social cooperation. Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies.
Mises observes that world views and ideologies both share a normative outlook. They do not purport merely to describe the way things are, but offer a perspective on the way things ought to be. What distinguishes a world view from an ideology is scope. Where world views have broad and diverse, even cosmic, interests and concerns, ideologies have limited interests and concerns, specifically centred around the nature, shape and fate of society. This narrower focus on society naturally lends ideologies to political action, whether in the form of party organisation, reform, lobbying, protest or rebellion, because political power is a significant lever for affecting the shape of society.
As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism
World views, on the other hand, because of the breadth of their concern and the extent of the phenomena they purport to explain, encompass wholistic outlooks on life. They can encompass anything from stories about the creation of the universe to dietary habits, as many religions do. Their breadth of perspective is such that they can and do incorporate and integrate views about society and politics. However, this breadth does not necessitate the action-oriented social focus of ideologies. The religious ascetic is a case in point. The ascetic withdraws entirely from society as a means of dedicating themselves completely to their world view.
Because ideologies, on Mises’s account, are only concerned with human action and social cooperation, they tend to “disregard the problems of metaphysics, religious dogma, the natural sciences and the technologies derived from them.” This seems to overlook the capacity of at least some religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to involve themselves with social and political concerns. It also overlooks, or perhaps underestimated (Mises was born in 1881 and died in 1973), the way that science has more recently proved itself capable of morphing into political ideology. Still, it is undeniable that all three Abrahamic faiths constitute world views on the Misesian definition. Each has generated traditions and practices that avoid, shun or repudiate political action, proving that they are capable of existing as non-ideological world views. In the case of libertarianism, on the other hand, the Misesian distinction between world view and ideology is helpful in clarifying that it is very much an ideology, as distinct from a world view.
Libertarianism is concerned exclusively with society, particularly the way it is organised and governed. It possesses neither a cosmogony, nor a cosmology, distinguishing it from classical, if controversial, definitions of religion. Libertarians can, of course, mirror some of the attributes of religious adherents in their zeal, proselytising and uncompromising commitment to dogma. However, this does not make libertarianism a world view per se, nor the most ardent libertarian fanatic the adherent of a libertarian world view.
The truth of the matter is that libertarianism is agnostic on the fundamental questions of existence that animate religions and philosophies, and which are therefore essential to world views. These are questions best left to the conscience of individuals, as far as libertarians are concerned. Moreover, the libertarian program does not hinge on any particular answer to them. Mises, an agnostic Jew, exemplified this principle in his own life. He thought it was futile to speculate about the given facts of the universe. Instead, he was interested in analysing and understanding human action within the given parameters of existence: the means individuals employ to attain their chosen ends. He thought there was no point evaluating the ends as these were inherently a matter of subjective choice.
Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies.
Means, on the other hand, could be analysed objectively and evaluated concretely in terms of success and failure, i.e., an assessment of whether the chosen means realised the ends they were employed to attain. He thought the majority of political ideologies ultimately aspired to the same ends, including liberalism and socialism, namely human prosperity and wellbeing. Where they differed, and in very consequential ways, was means. Mises took little issue with the aspirational ends of socialism. He simply, and accurately, predicted that the means employed—common ownership over the means of production—would lead to the opposite outcome from that intended. Liberalism, on the other hand, in the 19th century classical European sense of the term, was in Mises’s view the only objective means of attaining the ends of human prosperity and wellbeing. By liberalism, Mises meant a social organisation that maximised individual freedom to purse personally chosen ends and means, with a minimal government in the background protecting individuals from aggression, fraud and infringement against their property rights.
Mises typified the world view agnosticism that is characteristic of libertarianism today. He was as uncompromising a defender of individual freedoms, private property and free markets as anyone (famously so). But he was genuinely open and agnostic on the great existential questions that occupy the human mind and heart. The stridency of his views about social and political means was matched by a tolerance for all manner of diverse world views, at least as their teaching pertained to the origin and nature of the universe, and the myriad ends that humans are free to pursue.
The world view flexibility of libertarianism is evident today in the way that it is embraced by religious believers and atheists alike, not to mention agnostics like Mises. As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism. It is possible for individuals with clashing and mutually incompatible world views (Christians and atheists, for example) to unite around the cause of a libertarian ideology. World view pluralism is simply the by-product of the libertarian ideological commitment to a social order that permits individuals to pursue their own diverse ends. The freedoms libertarians wish to secure and safeguard for all individuals to develop their own world views is one of the unheralded virtues of their ideology.
Got something to say?
Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.
Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across
the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.
Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com
Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols) is a clever guy.
As Robert McCall (aka Denzel Washington) says in the movie Equalizer 2 to Miles, a troubled teenager: ‘It takes talent to make money, Miles, but it takes brains to keep it’.
Regardless of one’s taste in music, there’s no doubting John Lydon had talent – and brains.
‘Imperfection is at the heart of life’, Lydon once said. ‘Imperfection is the greatest gift of all.’
‘Arabic rug makers will make their work perfect except for one tiny stitch, because nothing is perfect in the eyes of God. Only God is perfect. I think that is magnificently intelligent’.
Before the 2022 federal election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to overhaul religious protection laws in Australia.
Under existing law, when hiring teachers or workers, faith-based organisations are able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity via an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational
The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) now says that exemption should be scrapped. No legislation has yet been introduced.
Not content to wait for the Federal Government to act, activists have shifted to the old ‘State by State’ stalking horse approach – find the most amenable State, introduce the law there and then get other States to adopt it one by one. Once a few States have adopted the new law, the Federal Government is then pressured into doing the same. It’s a tried-and-tested model of creeping change.
Former SA Greens Senator and now Greens SA Upper House member Robert Simms is proposing to introduce legislation into the SA Parliament next month which would remove all exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.
Robert Simms
There are some things people will not be dictated to or lectured about. One of those is their faith or their morals – particularly what they teach their children. They will certainly not be brow-beaten or cowed into submission by being called bigots or homophobes.
The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those. It is about discrimination against religious people. The Left may call for tolerance but what they really want is for everyone to agree with and endorse – even celebrate – their view of the world. They are not interested in debate or argument; they simply want the legislative power of the state to force everyone to comply.
If being free means anything, it means citizens having the right to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children conforms with their own convictions – as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.
It means having freedom of conscience, and the freedom to believe and practice the core tenets and values of a person’s faith. It is the state’s role to protect those rights.
There’s no doubt that the Left is out to undermine our freedoms. They’re coming for our churches, our schools, our faith-based organisations, our farms, our mines, our cars and, most of all, our children. They’re also coming for our old people with their euthanasia packs, for our about-to-be-born babies with their grotesque abortion laws, and they’re coming to indoctrinate our primary school children. They’re also coming for Christmas Day and Australia Day and Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. These people mean business.
People and faith-based organisations – schools, hospitals, aged care providers and charities – should not have to rely on exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to function in accordance with their faith.
The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those.
They should, by right, have the freedom to select people as they see fit.
Political parties grant that right to themselves because they believe, quite rightly, that the political allegiance of a job applicant matters.
In environmental groups, views about climate change are relevant; in women’s shelters, gender is very important.
Saying you can only become a member of a chess club if you play chess is not discriminating against people who don’t play chess!
In ethnic clubs and institutions, ethnicity is sensible and practical.
We accept all these differences.
And in faith-based organisations, faith matters.
Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational. After all, no-one is forced to work for a faith-based organisation or send their children to a faith-based school where all the staff follow that particular faith.
Expressions of faith by a person or faith-based organisations must be declared lawful. Statutory exemptions are totally inadequate. Exemptions granted can just as easily be withdrawn – as is now being proposed.
The right to religious freedom must be treated as a pre-eminent right and be recognised and protected. Human Rights Commissions should have no role to play.
A Commonwealth law, by reference to its Objects clauses, must recognise religious freedom as pre-eminent and override all state and territory anti-discrimination laws.
To paraphrase John Lydon, while such a law may be imperfect, it would be a magnificent gift.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
In light of recent scandals surrounding the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), it is time to consider a more fundamental issue: the very existence of unions in modern society. Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect. From a libertarian perspective, unions disrupt voluntary employer-employee relationships, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. The existence of unions like the CFMEU is contrary to the principles of a free market and individual autonomy.
Libertarian economists and thinkers have extensively argued that unions are inherently coercive institutions that distort labour markets and undermine individual freedom. Essentially, unions are a political organisation rather than an economic organisation, aiming at controlling the labour market with coercive and political means, rather than through voluntary exchange and cooperation.
Distortion of Labour Markets
Fundamentally, unions disrupt the natural balance between employers and employees. Unions often demand higher wages and better working conditions than what the market can sustainably provide, which inevitably leads to inefficiencies and can drive businesses to reduce their workforce. As Murray Rothbard once stated, “unions cannot determine wage rates without putting companies out of business and causing unemployment.” The adversarial relationships unions create between employers and employees often lead to strikes, reduced productivity, and a hostile work environment. Employers are forced to comply with union demands or face the threat of collective action, which is economically damaging.
Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous.
Infringement on Individual Liberty
Unions impose collective bargaining agreements on all workers, regardless of individual preferences. This coercive nature undermines the voluntary nature of employment contracts. One of the most fundamental arguments against unions is that they violate the very basic principle of freedom of association, as well as the freedom not to associate. In a free market, employment terms are negotiated based on mutual benefit. Employers offer wages and conditions that reflect the value of the work, and employees accept jobs that meet their needs and preferences. This voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.
Perpetuation of Corruption and Inefficiency
The CFMEU scandal is just another recent prime example of how unions can become corrupt and self-serving. Instead of protecting workers, the CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities, kickback schemes, and internal conflicts that harm the very people they are supposed to help. This corruption is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the broader problem with unions. With power comes corruption. It is no surprise that unions become corrupt over time as that is part of their nature.
The Case for Abolishing Unions
Given all the fundamental problems with unions, the natural conclusion is that we should abolish them entirely. Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous. Without unions, employers and employees would engage in direct negotiations, fostering a more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. Without unions, businesses would operate more efficiently, leading to greater innovation, job creation, and economic growth.
Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect.
Furthermore, the abolition of unions would protect individual freedoms. Workers would and should have the freedom to negotiate their terms of employment based on their unique needs and circumstances, without being forced into collective agreements that may not serve their interests. This would lead to a more diverse and dynamic labour market, where individuals are free to pursue opportunities that best align with their skills and personal situations.
Moreover, many industries with either very weak or nominal unions, such as hospitality, IT, and the gig economy, flourish due to less intervention from unions, resulting in a freer labour market. For example, the tech industry has seen tremendous growth and innovation partly because it is less burdened by union constraints, allowing for more flexible and dynamic employment practices. The gig economy, encompassing platforms like Uber, demonstrates how flexible work arrangements can be managed without the involvement or interference of unions. This, I believe, represents the future of employment, where every individual acts as their own boss, making the existence of unions unnecessary. These examples highlight how a freer labour market can lead to industry growth and innovation, benefiting both employers and employees.
In summary, unions like the CFMEU should have no place in a modern, free-market economy. They distort labour markets, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. From a libertarian perspective, the abolition of unions would lead to a more prosperous, fair, and free society. By allowing voluntary employer-employee relationships to flourish, we can create a more dynamic and innovative economy that benefits everyone.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
Populism occurs when the masses revolt against the elites’ view of the world. Elite opinion does not often deal directly with popular opinion, that is, with the people who have to pay for elite opinion. When elites get it wrong, the masses revolt through the ballot; the Voice referendum being a good example. The question is, when is the next chance?
Currently, the elite consensus on issues like net zero, immigration and identity politics is so far removed from the reality of the masses that it is no wonder they are pushing back. The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.
International
Net zero is a preposterous notion. The world population is eight billion people. By 2050, it could be 10 billion people, a 25 per cent increase. These people will need energy. World energy consumption is 600 BTUs. By 2050, it could be 900 BTUs, a 50 per cent increase: more people, higher living standards, more energy. Electricity generation will rise mainly in the Asia-Pacific among developing nations. Renewables do not generally feature in developing countries’ energy mixes anywhere near developed nations’ proportions.
Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia.
Of 144 nations tracked for net zero, only 26 have placed in law their commitment to net zero by 2050 (or sooner). For example, the Maldives has pledged net zero by 2030 but it has no plan or accountability mechanism; it is pure hot air. Even Goody Two-Shoes Finland leaves out aviation and shipping and has plans but no mechanism for carbon removal. The US (2050), Russia (2060), China (2060), India (2070) and Brazil (2050) have a ‘policy document’, but nothing in law.
Australia has a plan written in law that is sure to kill the nation’s wealth. Industrial and economic mayhem, loss of reliable energy and higher energy prices will reduce living standards. Minister Bowen’s deployment targets are logistically impossible in the time frame.
Kenneth Schultz estimates a total cost of $1.4 trillion for the Coalition’s renewables-nuclear option. He estimates the cost for Labor’s renewables-battery option at $4.4 trillion, nine times the federal government’s total annual revenue.
National
Migration in Europe and Australia is dangerous at levels that challenge national unity. Numbers count. If one million Palestinians settled in Australia in a short period, for example, the result would undermine Australian society. Palestinians would settle in a few suburbs and recreate a Palestinian society, i.e. one that recreates the hatred extant in Gaza and the West Bank.
Values also count. Australia would do well to distinguish migrants by the nature of their observance, which is apparent in the laws on marriage, succession, or rape in marriage among our key Islamic migrant source countries: Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. A striking feature of those laws is that they distinguish the application of the law by religion. Religion first; the rule of law second. The question is how to distinguish this at an individual level. Classing people by source country is too crude and unfair, but not to distinguish people would be foolhardy. Why should Australia invite those unlikely to integrate or, worse, become an enemy?
Those who appreciate the benefits of the nation-state would support Prime Minister John Howard’s view that, ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’ Howard and the Australian electorate recognised that some people are not welcome as they are unlikely to fit in. In the long term, Australia will be much more Indian and Chinese. Of the three million permanent migrants who arrived in Australia since 2000, almost 450,000 were from India, and nearly 350,000 were from China. The assumption of integration must be reinforced.
The easy assumptions of integration post-World War II no longer hold. Since 2022, the Netherlands has required a substantial investment from a person applying for permanent residence before that privilege is granted. The civic integration requirements are set out in the Civic Integration Act 2021. The point of the Netherlands law is that applicants must be sufficiently integrated before they become permanent.
The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.
Personal
Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia. They are free to sing the praises of Palestine. Homosexuals are free to marry and raise children. But the trans lobby wants to abolish gender, which is dangerous to the mental health of trans people. Sex must be understood in evolutionary terms. There must be sperm and eggs for reproduction. Two women do not create a child, and two men do not create a child. They may care for them, and we wish them well. The proposition that sex is not binary, that it is socially determined, is dangerous, especially to those who find that they are not at ease with their sex and want to reassign their sex to suit their ‘gender’.
Anyone should be free to express themselves as male or female. But when sex is detached from reproduction, there are consequences. As Zachary Elliott argues in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth, ‘If we abandon sex as an important category in our society, how can we conduct safe and effective medical research and treatment; fight sex-based injustices; record accurate crime statistics; maintain fair, safe, and competitive sports categories; and implement equal opportunities for both sexes?’
There is a claim that almost two per cent of the population is intersex, neither male nor female. The numbers consist almost entirely of those who suffer developmental disorders, such as late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. People with these conditions account for nearly all the males or females who do not appear to be one or the other. The disorders occur in nature and do not result in good health. They are not socially determined.
Populism in the service of correcting the madness of net zero, overplayed migration and undermined sexual identity are ground zero for the populist fightback. The masses await the right leader and the right policies. Populism? More please!
Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.
Dean Russell, a staff member at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), was the first to propose that America’s classical liberals and individualists rebrand themselves as “libertarians.” In an article published by FEE in 1955, Russell wrote: “Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our use the good and honourable word ‘libertarian.’”
That good and honourable term was actually coined, or at least first used in print, by William Belsham in 1789. At that time, and until its political repurposing by Russell, it denoted a distinct philosophical school in the context of debates about free will. The opponents of philosophical libertarians then were necessitarians.
The context for Russell’s proposal was the perversion of the term “liberal” in the American political context at the hands of big government New Deal interventionists. This development led to the rather awkward, and unusual, situation of political opponents using exactly the same language to define themselves. The libertarian rebrand was, if nothing else, an admission of defeat: the term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals who identified with the tradition of nineteenth century liberalism and the principles of the American revolution. Yet, it proved to be wildly successful and is now in wide usage by America’s liberty lovers in all their diversity and eccentricity. Indeed, there now exists a robust “libertarian” ecosystem in America, replete with think tanks, academics, journalists, magazines, personalities, the odd celebrity and a political party to boot.
The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia
However, this linguistic turn, which proved so successful in the American context, has struggled to find relevance and application in other contexts like Australia. Here, “liberal” has stubbornly retained its nineteenth century brand connotations, if not its genuine ideological content. Thanks to the dominance of the Liberal Party as the right-hand pole in Australia’s bipolar political contest, the term “liberal” continues to evoke in the minds of many political consumers something right of centre, as amorphous, incoherent and ill-defined as that may be. This brand phenomenon has served as a bulwark against the kind of leftward semantic evolution that the term “liberal” underwent in early twentieth century America.
Moreover, the most ambitious among those who now embrace the term “conservative” to describe their political identity still find the LiberalParty of Australia to be the most conducive vehicle for political influence, notwithstanding pressures and temptations from Australia’s motley collection of right-wing populist minor parties. As such, Australia’s Liberal Party boasts an influential conservative wing, described routinely in left-friendly media outlets as the “hard right” or “far right.” This association of the term “conservative” with “liberal,” let alone “hard right” with “liberal,” is an association that simply does not exist in the American political market. It is a peculiar distinctive of the Australian political landscape, a quirk, as it were. It does, however, provide yet further explanation for why the term “liberal” has resisted its American descent into the semantics of liberal progressivism, at least in the minds of the public, and through them the political vernacular of Australia
The term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals
The fact that Australia’s most successful libertarian party was founded under the name Liberal Democrats in 2001 and only changed its name to the Libertarian party in 2023 speaks volumes about the fortunes of the term “liberal” in Australia (there were legal reasons to change the name). It speaks, on the one hand, to the classical liberal connotations of the term in Australia of 2001, the golden age of Howard’s Broad Church, with its putative synthesis of Millian liberalism and Burkean conservativism. Its name change, on the other hand, in an era in which so-called “moderate” liberals in the Liberal Party stand for woke-lite social policy and a slightly less interventionist economic policy than the Australian Labor Party, signals the final severance of the conjunction “classical” and “liberal in the Australian context, more than 200 years after it arrived in the Australian continent with European settlement, and 68 years after a libertarian rebrand in America.
The Liberal Party is now constituted by incompatible liberal progressives and conservatives, neither of whom show any real interest in advancing the classical liberal cause. While an uneasy truce prevails following the sectarian civil war of the immediate past, they now inhabit a rather unhappy marriage of convenience. They sleep in separate bedrooms, but stay together for the sake of the kids, in this case the chance at electoral success. Meanwhile, Australia’s classical liberals have deserted the Liberal Party and thrown in their lot with Australia’s radical liberals to embrace, albeit with some consternation and anxiety, the label “libertarian.”
The challenge confronting Australia’s nascent libertarian movement, now that it has finally parted ways with the term “liberal,” is to galvanise Australia’s small but passionate band of liberty lovers around a term that is foreign to the Australian political lexicon. More challenging still, there is the task of cultivating a libertarian constituency that prizes and prioritises individual freedom, property rights, unhampered markets, limited government and peaceful international relations in a country whose founding mythos and national identity are not centred around the concept of liberty, as they are in America. The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia, are different species of the genus “liberalism,” each with their own distinct origins, political histories and intellectual development. All political ideologies face a temptation in the Australian context to simply ape and regurgitate the loud, exciting and flamboyant political ideas and innovations that inevitably flow downstream from America to Australia. This is a particular temptation for Australia’s right-wing heirs of the liberal tradition who have recently chosen to embrace the language of the much more highly developed and institutionalised ecosystem in America. If libertarianism is to have any future at all in Australia, it will need to take inspiration from the best that American libertarianism has to offer and adapt, refine and develop it for the unique socio-political environment of Australia.
Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”
Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? After all, Australia is, it surprises many to learn, the only Western democracy with neither a constitutional nor legislated Bill of Rights. Various attempts over the years to legislate one have failed.
The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992, when the High Court ruled that the Constitution carried an implied right to free speech — in political matters only. As the Chief Justice observed:
To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential: it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments.
If that sounds like a reach, later High Court rulings found that it was. When a public servant who had been sacked for criticising the government on Twitter appealed the sacking on the grounds of such an implied right to political speech, she lost. The court ruled that there is no personal right to free speech, but a restriction on legislative power, which “extends only so far as is necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution”.
The Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act”
If anyone still doubted that Australians’ basic rights are not protected from government overreach, the last five years should have put a brutal end to such illusions.
But Canada has a Bill of Rights, and so does New Zealand, and yet their governments were no less draconian in crushing basic rights, from informed consent, to free assembly, to free speech.
So it looks like a Bill of Rights is worth precisely shit when the government boot comes down.
Or is it?
For all its faults, the United States’ Bill of Rights is holding up reasonably well against sustained assault by the state and its corporate attack dogs.
The difference lies in how a Bill of Rights is framed: to whit, which view of freedom is at its heart.
There are, in essence, two basic conceptual frameworks of freedom, with very different outcomes. These are positive liberty and negative liberty. At first blush, “positive liberty” may seem like the preferred option. It’s “positive”, after all!
In fact, positive liberty is the stomping ground of collectivist ideologies which are almost invariably associated with the worst shackles placed on individual freedom. That’s because positive liberty is better understood as “freedom to”.
That is, the freedom to act only within the constraints set down by law and society. Anti-discrimination laws are an example of positive freedom: citizens are free to act only within the bounds established by the laws enacted by the state. You are free to say only this and not that. You are only as free as the state decides to let you be. You can choose any colour, so long as it’s black.
Negative liberty is very different. Negative liberty is the “freedom from”. Freedom from constraint. Negative liberty establishes what citizens can tell the state it is not allowed to do. It is the type of freedom associated with classical liberalism and libertarianism. The US First Amendment is a negative liberty: Congress shall make no law… The Second Amendment is in the same vein: the peoples’ right shall not be infringed.
The other great difference between the USA’s, and NZ’s and Canada’s, Bills of Rights is that the United States’ is Constitutional; NZ’s and Canada’s are legislative.
A Constitutional law is the absolute bedrock law of the land. No matter what the government of the day may legislate, it must conform to the Constitution.
Legislation can be overturned by a simple vote in parliament. Or, like NZ’s, it can be restricted such that it cannot override any other legislation. Unlike the US Supreme Court, a NZ court cannot strike down or override any act of parliament with reference to the Bill of Rights. Which makes it a moot point as to why it exists at all.
The only way to get a Constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia would be by referendum. Good luck with that. The Australian Constitution was framed such that amending it is extremely difficult: a proposed amendment must secure not only a national majority of voters, but a majority of voters in a majority of states as well. Australians have, by and large, chosen to validate that high hurdle: of 45 referendums since Federation, only eight have ever been passed.
No referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support (and few indeed of those that had bipartisan support). Given that a legislated Bill of Rights has never made it past parliament, the chances of it passing referendum seem almost nil.
A major reason that a Bill of Rights has never passed parliament, let alone been proposed at referendum, is the suspicion voiced by former prime minister John Howard that such a Bill would transfer power from elected representatives to unelected judges and bureaucrats. It’s not hard to see the wisdom of his observation: consider, after all, just how much power health bureaucrats seized during the pandemic.
The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992
Even the High Court’s “implied right to free speech” decision could be seen as just the sort of judicial overreach Howard warns against. As the US Supreme Court did in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, the Australian High Court took it on itself to invent a potentially far-reaching decision out of Constitutional thin air. More recent High Court decisions, which affectively affirm the role of magic — a supposed Aboriginal “spiritual connection to the land” — in law show that such unelected judges are the last people to whom we should trust our rights.
As it happens, the Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act” — and it’s even worse than you might think.
As should surprise no-one, given its origin in a left-wing government, it’s mired, waist-deep, in a mindset of positive liberty. That is, it’s all about what the state will allow Australians to do — not what Australians can tell the state what it cannot do.
For instance, freedom of religious belief is only allowed at the discretion of a judge. A judge can restrict religious freedom any time he or she considers it “reasonable” and “justified”. Religious freedom may be restricted in order to “protect public safety, order, health, morals or the rights of others”.
Who wants to take bets on how politically-appointed judges will interpret that one?
Freedom of speech gets even shorter shrift. Speech may be restricted — again, at a judge’s discretion — “in order to respect the rights and reputations of others or to protect national security, public order or public heath”. Ask Zoe Buhler, the Victorian mum arrested, pregnant, in her pyjamas, and crying, in front of her children, simply for posting the details of an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook, how that one’s likely to play out.
Perhaps the most alarming aspects of the proposed Human Rights Act is that it would include a mechanism that would enable everyone to sue for monetary compensation whenever they decided that their rights had been breached. Again, we only need to look at how aggrieved activists, most notably the “rainbow” lobby, have weaponised the existing “human rights” infrastructure to threaten critics and impose a chilly pall of silence on matters of essential public debate.
Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.
I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.
My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.
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, becausewe 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.”
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.”
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
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.
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.
Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”
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.
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.
Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.
I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.
My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.
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.
‘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.
Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.
“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.
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?
Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.
I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.
My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.
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.
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
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.
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.
Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.
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:
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.
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.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
Two months ago I wrote an article in which I questioned my boy’s childcare centre for indoctrinating kids at preschool age about the controversial political matter of Acknowledgment of Country.
Shortly after, our second baby was born. During the hospital stay, unable to work much, I listened to several audiobooks that made me reconsider our children’s future education. I had long considered homeschooling but had comfortably settled on sending them to a private school. After careful discussion, my wife and I decided homeschooling is the right choice for our family.
Homeschooling aligns seamlessly with libertarian values, fostering individual freedom, intellectual growth, strong family bonds, and meaningful social interactions. This article summarises our thoughts on the ideological, intellectual, financial, familial, and social justifications for choosing to homeschool our two children.
Ideological Justification: Homeschooling as an Act of Anti-State
Homeschooling, viewed through a libertarian lens, represents a profound act of anti-state resistance. It rejects the traditional “factory model of education,” designed to produce a uniform, obedient workforce suitable for industrial society, heavily influenced by state mandates and standardised curricula. By choosing to homeschool, parents assert their right to direct their children’s education, free from government control and standardised norms.
Homeschooled children interact with people of various ages and backgrounds, enriching their social experiences and fostering a broader understanding of the world.
This opting out of the state-run education system rejects the regimented, one-size-fits-all approach of public schooling, which often emphasises conformity over individuality and critical thinking. Homeschooling allows for a more personalised and flexible educational experience, fostering independent thought and a deeper connection to learning, which starkly contrasts with the efficiency-driven, industrial roots of the current public education system. This choice embodies a broader libertarian ethos of minimising state intervention in personal and family matters, thereby promoting freedom, autonomy, and self-reliance.
Intellectual Justification: Personalised and Effective Learning
One of the greatest advantages of homeschooling is the ability to provide a personalised education tailored to each child’s strengths, weaknesses, and interests. Traditional schooling often hinders the intellectual growth of children who do not fit the mould. Homeschooling allows for a more flexible and adaptive learning environment, where children can explore subjects in greater depth and at their own pace.
This personalised approach not only enhances academic performance but also fosters the ability to self-learn, which is crucial for lifelong intellectual development. By cultivating self-directed learning skills, children become more engaged and motivated in their educational journey, making the process both more enjoyable and sustainable. They learn how to seek out information, critically evaluate sources, and apply knowledge in real-world contexts, far beyond the confines of traditional academic settings. Ultimately, homeschooling nurtures not just academic excellence in the short run but also the capacity for lifelong learning and intellectual curiosity, providing a foundation for ongoing personal and professional growth.
Financial Justification: Investment in Long-Term Gains
A key concern in choosing homeschooling is the financial burden. My work keeps me heavily occupied, and a high mortgage adds pressure. Homeschooling requires sacrificing work schedules and dedicating more time to children’s education, doubling the financial strain. This concern is common among libertarians, especially in expensive cities like Sydney.
However, we see homeschooling as an investment, yielding significant long-term benefits. The financial cost is offset by the gains in children’s education and personal development. Additionally, homeschoolers can take holidays during school terms when travel is cheaper, which benefits families with extended families overseas. Homeschooling also encourages children to develop life skills, financial literacy and responsibility from a young age, likely bringing financial rewards earlier.
Family Bond: Strengthening Family Connections
Homeschooling fosters a closer family bond by allowing parents and children to spend more quality time together. Parents can gain a better understanding of their children’s needs, interests, and learning styles, leading to a more effective educational experience.
Homeschooling aligns seamlessly with libertarian values, fostering individual freedom, intellectual growth, strong family bonds, and meaningful social interactions.
Additionally, the involvement of grandparents and other extended family members can further enrich the homeschooling experience. Intergenerational communication allows children to learn from the wisdom and experiences of their elders, fostering respect and understanding across generations. This dynamic can also provide emotional support and a broader perspective on life, enhancing the educational journey.
Social Justification: Learning Without Peer Pressure
A significant social advantage of homeschooling is the opportunity for children to grow without the negative influence of peer pressure. Instead of being confined to a classroom with same-age peers, homeschooled children interact with people of various ages and backgrounds, enriching their social experiences and fostering a broader understanding of the world. This exposure helps develop better social skills and a well-rounded social aptitude.
Homeschooling, when done right, provides numerous opportunities for real-life social interactions through community activities, volunteer work, and diverse social engagements, preparing children for the complexities of adult life and helping them build meaningful relationships and valuable life skills beyond the traditional classroom setting.
Homeschooling offers a compelling option for libertarian families seeking to raise free-thinking, intellectually curious and well-rounded individuals. It aligns with the core values of liberty and personal responsibility, providing a tailored and effective educational experience. Despite the financial challenges, the long-term gains in personal development, family bonds, and social skills make homeschooling a worthwhile investment. By embracing homeschooling, libertarian parents can ensure that their children receive an education that truly reflects their values and prepares them for a life of independence and critical thinking.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
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!
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.’
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
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 businessmade 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.
“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/
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
The journalist Michael Schellenberger recently discovered that there is a formal government censorship network called the “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” (GORSN). Australia’s top Internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, an American, described it at the World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK, and Fiji.
This is a concerning development for anyone who values freedom of speech and privacy. The initiative aims to create a global coalition of regulators to combat harmful online content. However, in reality it is a veiled attempt at global censorship of the internet, aimed at circumventing the protections provided by Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).
At its core, GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders. Libertarians and advocates of free expression have long warned against concentrated government control, arguing that it almost inevitably leads to abuse and suppression of dissenting voices.
The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy.
Grant outlined the significant powers that regulators within the GORSN have at their disposal. She said that GORSN members can block internet service providers (ISPs), compel content takedowns, fine individuals or platforms that host offensive content, and impose other punitive measures as deterrents. Additionally, Grant discussed a new legislative framework that allows regulators to enforce basic online safety expectations. This framework’s scope suggests that GORSN aims to exercise substantial control over the internet, raising concerns about censorship, regulatory overreach, and the broader impact on freedom of expression and privacy.
Another alarming aspect of GORSN is its potential to invade privacy on a global scale. Grant’s remark that the network had the power to compel “basic device information and account information” are a stark warning that the network could enable mass surveillance. For libertarians, privacy is a very high priority and the notion that regulators could gather personal data without appropriate oversight is a worrying development. Broad powers to compel information from tech platforms suggests that GORSN could become a mechanism for government surveillance on an international level.
Grant’s mention of social media companies increasingly collecting phone numbers and email addresses raises the spectre of a surveillance state, where governments can easily track individuals and monitor their online activities. This level of intrusion into personal privacy should be of concern to anyone who believes in the right to remain anonymous and free from unwarranted government scrutiny.
GORSN’s push for global identity requirements and restrictions on VPNs is a direct assault on digital autonomy. VPNs are essential tools for maintaining privacy and accessing information freely, especially in countries with oppressive internet regulations. Any move to limit their use would further erode individual freedoms and strengthen authoritarian regimes.
The centralised control proposed by GORSN threatens to undermine the fundamental principle of a decentralised internet where individuals can maintain their anonymity and exercise their rights without fear of government intrusion, leading to an internet that is more tightly monitored and regulated by governments with varying degrees of respect for freedom and democracy.
GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders
The sheer scope of GORSN’s power, including the ability to fine content hosts, compel takedowns, and block ISPs, is a classic case of regulatory overreach. When governments are given this level of authority, the risk of abuse is high. Such power can be used to suppress dissent, stifle criticism, and enforce a particular worldview, all under the guise of “online safety.”
From a libertarian perspective, the existence of GORSN is a troubling development that undermines the ideals of a decentralised internet. The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy. Instead of a collaborative effort to address harmful content, GORSN represents a centralised approach that risks creating a global surveillance state.
The Global Online Safety Regulators Network is a danger to internet freedom. Its focus on centralised control, coupled with its broad powers, sets a dangerous precedent for governments seeking to extend their reach into the digital world. As the network gains momentum, it is crucial that libertarians and other advocates of free speech push back against this overreach and defend the principles of a decentralised internet.
Platforms like X and Rumble have taken public stances opposing intrusive government requests for content takedowns and data collection. Chris Pavlovski, the founder of Rumble, highlighted this issue in a recent post on X, stating, “Rumble has received censorship demands from Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that infringe on everyone’s human rights. We are noticing a dramatic increase in global censorship unlike we’ve ever seen before.” Elon Musk, the owner of X, endorsed this sentiment, indicating a shared concern among tech leaders.
But it takes more than a couple of tech leaders to fight censorship. To push back against government intrusion and censorship there are several measures that individuals can undertake. Support platforms that actively resist censorship and champion free speech, use VPNs to preserve online privacy and bypass censorship. Importantly, connect through servers in countries that are not part of the GORSN. This can help avoid unwanted surveillance and ensure a greater degree of anonymity while online.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
‘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.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
The only currency that matters is power – getting it and holding on to it.
Attaining power these days involves denigrating and silencing your opponents in any way possible: censoring them, branding what they say as misinformation, disinformation or malinformation, with the primary aim being to prevent them getting their message out.
As has been observed, ‘When ideas are bad, censorship will always be more attractive than debate.’
In a recent renewable energy report, Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Andrew Dyer summed up in one concise sentence why governments relish powers like the ones being proposed.
Dyer said, “Opposition is often driven by ‘misinformation’.”
That is what is called a ‘shibboleth’.
Shibboleth is a Hebrew word meaning ‘stream’. It is referred to in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Jephthah and the men of Gilead fought the Ephraimites and captured the Jordan River crossing. As people crossed the river, to distinguish who was friend from foe, they had everyone say the word ‘shibboleth’. If they couldn’t pronounce it properly, they knew they were the enemy. From this, the word shibboleth was absorbed into the English language to describe a key identifier or a dead give-away.
What we saw in the Energy Commissioner’s comment was that dead give-away.
Once this Bill is law, all the government has to do is label something ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ to have it shut down. Presto! Any opposition is eliminated.
Historically, the media has fought hard to maintain freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Internationally, ‘misinformation and disinformation’ have risen to number one on the list of top 10 risks cited by the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Risks Report 2024.
Addressing the recent WEF conference, European Union President Ursula von der Leyen said: ‘Like in all democracies, our freedom comes with risks. There will always be those who try to exploit our openness, both from inside and out. There will always be attempts to put us off track – for example, with ‘misinformation and disinformation.’
The politics of fear
Fear has always been a powerful political motivator. Fear makes people accept things they wouldn’t otherwise accept.
In the 16th Century, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a book that would influence political strategy and tactics for the next 500 years.
Machiavelli’s book centred on the use of fear to control the masses – ‘The best course of action for a ruler to take is to instil fear in the people’, he said.
And for people to not only fear what might happen, but that they would also ‘fear the worst’.
Minister Rowland has said misinformation and disinformation pose a threat to ‘the safety and wellbeing of Australians’ and ‘to our democracy, society and economy’.
This is the politics of fear.
And the antidote to fear is knowledge – information, facts, figures. Which is why they want the power to prevent people from receiving it.
Conflating issues also plays a useful role.
As well as the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, Minister Rowland has also announced a review of the Online Safety Act, saying the government is committed to introducing a revised version of its ‘internet censorship laws’.
The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) hit back:
“It is completely disingenuous for the Minister to seek to conflate the protection of Australians from predators online with the federal government’s plan to empower bureaucrats in Canberra (ACMA) with the right to determine what is truth, and to censor mainstream opinion through its ‘misinformation’ bill,” said the IPA’s John Storey.
“The federal government is cravenly using heightened concerns about current tensions in parts of our community, and the fears of parents and others about harmful online content, as a trojan horse to push forward laws that will in practice impose political censorship,” he said.
Climate Change
South Australia’s chief public health officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier, recently warned that the nation is facing a state of “permacrisis” as climate change fuels ‘back-to-back natural disasters and the emergence of new diseases’.
In her biennial report on the state of public health, Prof. Spurrier calls climate change ‘the most significant global threat to human health’, saying the planet is getting hotter and is experiencing more extreme weather events such as flooding and bushfires.
‘We need to respond to this threat today, not tomorrow or in the distant future,’ her report states. ‘These changes to the climate are caused by humans.’
Prof. Spurrier’s report says this will lead to exacerbation of chronic diseases such as heart, lung and kidney disease; damaged food crops; increased risk of food poisoning and water contamination; injuries from flooding and bushfires; and even an increase in snake bites after floods.
‘Other health impacts from climate change include poor air quality due to increased dust and pollens and the emergence of serious new communicable diseases in South Australia, such as Japanese encephalitis virus,’ she says.
Mercifully, she spared us plagues of locusts and frogs and the Murray River turning to blood.
Attaining power these days involves denigrating and silencing your opponents in any way possible
This is ‘permacrisis’ – permanent crisis – putting communities into a permanent state of climate fear.
Machiavelli would be proud.
The Voice to Parliament Referendum
When the Yes side didn’t win the Voice Referendum, they immediately blamed, you guessed it – misinformation.
Yes campaign director Dean Parkin, said the referendum result was due to ‘the single largest misinformation campaign that this country has ever seen’.
Yes campaign spokesperson Thomas Mayo blamed the ‘disgusting No campaign, a campaign that has been dishonest, that has lied to the Australian people’.
Teal MP Zali Steggell even introduced a private members’ bill with the title Stop the Lies.
Ms Steggall stated that it was clear that the information people had access to through the course of the Voice debate was ‘heavy with misleading and deceptive facts’.
Got that? ‘Misleading and deceptive facts’, the very definition of malinformation.
Governments, technology and third-party collaborators
Baptists and Bootleggers
Whenever there is money to be made, opportunities to do business with governments – that is, do the government’s bidding in exchange for special access and privileges – present themselves. Cosy relationships between businesspeople and governments are as old as regulation itself.
What can give these relationships real potency is what has been called the ‘Baptists and Bootleggers’ phenomenon. The term stems from the 1920s’ Prohibition days, when members of the US government received bribes and donations from Bootleggers – criminals and businesspeople eager to maintain a scarcity (and resulting high price) of their product (alcohol). These same Members of Congress then justified maintaining the prohibition by publicly adopting the moral cause of the Baptists.
The same applies here. A moral cause – ‘threats to the safety and wellbeing of Australians’, and financial rewards to those assisting governments in their pursuit of power.
Historically, the media has fought hard to maintain freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
However, new media have no such compunction. As more and more people source their news through Google, Facebook, X, Tik Tok, Instagram and other social media platforms, these global behemoths exert more and more power and influence. And while the old press barons took free speech seriously, big tech sees no problem at all in doing the government’s bidding – provided the government maintains their ‘platform, not publisher’ status and the advertising money keeps flowing. Al Capone may have invented bootlegging, but big tech has certainly perfected it.
Tech entrepreneur and former Google insider Tristan Harris says we are in the midst of a ‘great social upheaval’. Technology, he says, is being used to attack the very foundation of what we trust. ‘We are entering a Digital Dark Age’.
Digital IDs Drivers’ licences, proof of age cards, passports, Medicare cards, birth certificates, home addresses, MyGov IDs, tax returns, credit cards and banking details, remote-controlled smart meters on our homes, digital certificates of title for our properties. Once these are all linked – as the government ads say, ‘bringing together government and industry’, the government’s control will be complete.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly, ‘Tis the prettiest little parlour, that ever you did spy, Oh no, no! then said the fly, to ask me is in vain, For who goes up to your winding stair,
Can ne’er come down again.
Mary Howitt’s old poem could well be describing another web, the one that ensnares us all – the world-wide-web.
Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions. It is because of this web, that we are now in this predicament.
We have all been caught, and to quote Mary Howitt, we’re ‘ne’er coming down again’.
In January 2023, the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, announced that the Albanese Government would introduce new laws to provide the media regulator – the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – with ‘new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation’.
The proposed new bill, the Communication Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, would:
The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.
– Enable ACMA to gather information from global tech companies and require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation and provide those records to ACMA.
– Enable ACMA to request industry to develop, vary and/or register a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which ACMA could then register and enforce.
– Allow ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms
– Empower ACMA to regulate electoral and referendum content, but NOT the power to regulate political parties with regard to misleading and/or deceptive conduct.
– Empower the Minister to direct ACMA to conduct investigations into any matter regarding misinformation or disinformation and empower the Minister to set the terms of reference for any such investigation.
The Bill also provides for significant penalties for digital platforms or individuals that do not comply with the Bill and/or the new codes and standards the Bill creates. Penalties include:
– Imprisonment of up to 12 months for providing false or misleading information to ACMA.
– Non-attendance at an ACMA investigation hearing of up to 33 penalty units ($9,000) for each day of non-attendance.
– Non-compliance with a registered code of up to 10,000 penalty units ($2.75 mill) or 2% of global turnover (whatever is greater).
– Non-compliance with an industry standard of up to 25,000 penalty units ($6.88 mill) or 5% of global turnover (whatever is greater).
Other penalties may also apply.
The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.
Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions.
Ms Rowland said the government was committed to introducing legislation that would fine social media companies for allowing misinformation or disinformation to be broadcast on their platforms.
Misinformation is defined as ‘false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive’.
Disinformation is defined as ‘false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes.’
“In the face of seriously harmful content that sows division, undermines support for pillars of our democracy, or disrupts public health responses, doing nothing is not an option.
“The proposal would empower the regulator to examine the systems and processes these tech giants already have in place, and develop standards should industry self-regulation measures prove insufficient in addressing the threat posed by misinformation and disinformation”.
Harsh words indeed.
In its submission to the draft bill, the Law Council of Australia warned that the proposal could have a ‘chilling effect on freedom of expression’ by allowing social media giants and the communications watchdog (ACMA) to decide what constitutes information, opinion and claims online.
And in case anyone is thinking this is solely a Labor Party contrivance, before the 2022 election the Morrison government pledged to, ‘… introduce stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation onlineby giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers’.
To cap it all off, waiting in the wings is ‘mal-information’, defined as ‘truth which is used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country’ and ‘information that stems from the truth, but is often portrayed in a way that misleads and/or causes potential harm.’
To invoke Climate Czar and former US Presidential candidate Al Gore, malinformation might be otherwise described as ‘an inconvenient truth’.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
Shortly after 4pm on the 27th of March, the X account @churPanic commenced a live broadcast on a mobile phone from the streets of Gisborne, New Zealand.
Against a backdrop of community outrage at taxpayer-funded Rainbow Storytime in the local library, a pedestrian crossing had been whitewashed. Residents of this small North Island town were protesting at the repainting of it in the colours of the Rainbow flag. There was a heavy police presence manhandling the demonstrators and making arrests.
Minutes earlier the livestream on Facebook from one of the protest groups had gone dark when police arrested the cameraman. It didn’t take long for the internet to discover the small @churPanic account on another platform: a link to his broadcast was rapidly shared and reshared, and hundreds of people tuned in. Two hours later tens of thousands had watched the footage. Shortly after midnight photojournalist Chris De Bruyne in Sydney published a subtitled remix of a clip someone else had cut from the original as a service to the deaf community. 75,000 people viewed De Bruyne’s version. It was one of many.
Within a day hundreds of thousands – if not millions – had watched the footage in one form or another, most with no idea of its origin. This is raw news, proliferating through the democratising process of the internet.
And it’s killing mainstream media.
4pm is too late in the day for the story to make the 6 o’clock news on TV channels. The first mainstream coverage was at 9 pm in online newspapers and late evening broadcasts. By the time the creaking legacy media fabricated a narrative fitting their editorial slant for consumption by a domestic New Zealand audience, the entire world had already seen @churPanic’s footage in one form or another and formulated their own interpretations.
Legacy media perceive the social media giants as the greatest threat to their business models.
Blatant biases aside, the reason for the demise of the legacy media is their slavish devotion to antiquated businesses models that stymie innovation. In failing to evolve, audiences have abandoned them for more reliable sources elsewhere, and advertisers have shifted with them.
The legacy media isn’t going down without a fight though, and its death throes are interesting to observe. Far from reviewing their own approach, the legacy media have declared war on everyone else: social media corporations, independents, imagined disinformation programmes by shadowy international organisations, even their own audiences.
The reality the legacy media refuses to accept is that We, The People, Are The Media Now. Where once it was said to be unwise to “quarrel with a man who buys his ink by the barrel”, the reality isthatevery person today has a video camera in their pocket with social media providing the capability to reach millions with the click of a button. In seeking out alternative information sources, the people changed the channel.
Back to Chris De Bruyne. It’s mid-afternoon on the 24th of March and British author Douglas Murray is speaking in Sydney. Murray’s presence attracts a pro-Palestine demonstration, one of whom assaults a pro-Israel counter-demonstrator in full view of NSW police, who don’t intervene. The incident is caught in De Bruyne’s livestream which, as an experienced independent, he broadcasts with an embedded watermark. Realising the newsworthiness, he offers to sell the footage to the major Australian news agencies, all of whom decline.
Citizen journalists and independents are, after all, objects of derision amongst the great and good of legacy news desks. They are qualified to arbitrate content to the public while De Bruyne, in their opinion, is not. But they rip off his footage anyway.
At 9pm Rita Panahi introduces the story on Sky News with the watermarked livefeed, scraped from De Bruyne’s social media account. She’s doing him a favour; other channels broadcast his material with the watermark blurred out.
Against a backdrop of community outrage at taxpayer-funded Rainbow Storytime in the local library, a pedestrian crossing had been whitewashed.
Paying compensation for copyright infringement is relatively inexpensive on the rare occasions an independent has the financial means to sustain litigation. As a bonus, legacy media can avoid the operational costs of employing cameramen in the field while there is content to be misappropriated and independents who can be exploited.
It happens to De Bruyne so regularly he keeps a spreadsheet.
Legacy media perceive the social media giants as the greatest threat to their business models. Utilising their incestuous relationships with predominantly left-wing political parties, they’re forcing those platforms to pay compensation for disseminating local news content. In Australia it’s called the News Media Bargaining Code and in New Zealand, the Fair Digital News Media Bargaining Bill.
The irony of demanding fees to redistribute their content whilst they themselves habitually infringe the copyright of independent producers is lost on the legacy media. But the deliciousness of the irony is that it isn’t the social media platforms that are their enemy. Rather, it’s the people who utilise them. While legacy media are distracted by a war they cannot win with social media corporations, Chris in Sydney and some bloke who goes by the handle “@churPanic” in Gisborne are the people on the ground, reshaping the media landscape by delivering unvarnished news and enabling audiences to reach their own conclusions.
And they are one component of a much broader trend. Traditionally trained journalists such as Chris Lynch Media in Christchurch are increasingly going independent. Blogs such as The BFD in Auckland are evolving into fully-fledged media operations. Writers publish to their subscribers on sites such as Substack in the first instance and take offers from legacy media to republish.
Desperate to navigate the new realities of a dying industry, NZME appointed a blogger to head their NewstalkZB+ division. Alternative media operators have emerged with innovative business models as varied as The Platform, financed by old money, and RCR, with support from their audience. The Underground Daily provide platforms to deliver services enabling new talent.
Collectively these individuals and organisations comprise the new media landscape. Legacy media no longer controls the medium. It is the independents that create the message because content is king and they produce it. Time will tell, and the market will decide, if these new players can develop revenue streams beyond advertising to sustain themselves.
But one thing is certain: the media landscape belongs to them and its future is theirs to determine.
Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.
One of the most famous lines of historical literature, and of life, was spoken by Shakespeare’s Hamlet as he sought to avenge the murder of his father by his uncle. Claudius wanted power and what better way to get it than to dispose of his brother and marry his widow.
It is an age-old proposition for those seeking power. The state murders our right to think and speak freely, so that it can assume the role of omnipotent overlord.
Australia is staring down the barrel of the state’s loaded gun of censorship; of its unbridled passion to control what we can think, speak, and write. While the country awaits the full implication of impending Misinformation laws, the New South Wales parliament was recently presented with a Bill to enshrine free speech into its constitution.
Without the all-knowing omnipotent government watching and controlling all that we do.
John Ruddick, Member of the Legislative Council, New South Wales, moved a Bill in November 2023 to amend the state’s constitution to protect free speech. On March 20, 2024 he spoke to the bill, the Constitution Amendment (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 2023, stating the aim was to restrict the power of the New South Wales parliament ‘to prohibit the citizens of New South Wales of having open expression.’
Referring to the boldness of the American Constitution that gave rise to many nations basing their own upon that same document, he went on to highlight that the first amendment to the American Constitution is free speech. But that concept dates back much earlier than 1791 when the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted.
Ancient Greece is our model. It owns the claim to the idea of demokratia – democracy as we know it today. Its function was premised upon the concept of direct selection, something that bloated modern democratic leadership delight in telling us is not possible in our modern world due to sheer size of populations. But that is a topic for another time.
Australia is staring down the barrel of the state’s loaded gun of censorship; of its unbridled passion to control what we can think, speak, and write.
Demokratia means rule (kratos) of the people (demos). The fundamental idea of it was a broad concept of liberty: the public capacity to participate in public affairs, and private capacity to conduct one’s life as considered best.
We have strayed so far from that basic principle that it is almost incomprehensible to think we might recover such ancient wisdom as living by one’s own standard, without the all-knowing omnipotent government watching and controlling all that we do.
Needless to say, the bill did not pass. I often ask myself what the ancients would think of how we have manipulated for our own ends what they devised as being best for citizens.
So let us channel Shakespeare and, like Hamlet, ask the question:
‘To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ‘t is nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them!’
It is not just boldness that requires such an avenging act, but it is our moral duty to do so – ideally within the bounds of the law!
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
“No gods, no masters” has been a popular anarchist phrase for over 500 years. Yet as society and culture becomes increasingly secular, authoritarianism has grown alongside it. The atheist utopia of a world dedicated to logic and reason seems further away now than it ever has been, despite more people choosing not to affiliate with religion.
STATE WORSHIP
Religion, in some form or another, has existed ever since humans developed consciousness. In fact, sacred texts like the Bible, Tanakh and Quran did not have a word or even a concept of religion in their original languages – nor did the people or cultures in which they were written. In other words, religion itself is so ingrained into the human experience that it precedes the concept of religion. The people and cultures of biblical times viewed religion as so quintessentially human that they saw no need to develop a distinction.
So is the modern rise of atheism the beginning of perhaps the most fundamental change in human nature?
The libertarian readership of Liberty Itch should have little problem acknowledging the danger of elevating government to the place of ultimate authority in Western society.
Modern atheists are not embracing the 15th-century anarchist phrase; they have simply replaced their god with something else – and something worse. Covid tyranny showcased many things, perhaps most alarmingly the willingness of so many to so readily worship at the altar of the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient state. The government served as the Father; the “all-knowing” bureaucrat as the Son; and The Science™ as the Spirit.
And for atheists who manage to escape the religion of government, they simply find another god: money, consumerism and hedonism being some of the more popular ones.
MYTH AND LEGEND
Atheists are quick to point out the ridiculousness of many religious truth claims. Until very recently I would have considered myself one of these atheists. However, they completely miss the point. Debating whether the universe was truly created in six days or whether the Great Flood was all that great is the most uninspired, surface-level analysis of religion. Yet every discussion about religion seems to lead to a boring dissection of the truthfulness of highly symbolic stories written in a unique literary style many thousands of years ago.
The Bible, and other similar sacred texts, is not a dispassionate recount of historical events, but a book that delicately interweaves prose and poetry, narrative and direct address, and history and myth. It is also important that we do not regard “myth” as merely synonymous with untruth. A myth can be a profoundly true statement which speaks to universal aspects of life and reality: its meaning rises above time and space. Art, film and music can all provide transcendent meaning and truth to our understanding of the human experience as well as our own lives, whether or not the subject matter is objectively true. Religion is no exception.
Religion, in some form or another, has existed ever since humans developed consciousness.
LIFE AND MEANING
If you have no authority higher than government, government becomes the greatest authority. The libertarian readership of Liberty Itch should have little problem acknowledging the danger of elevating government to the place of ultimate authority in Western society. Even the US Founding Fathers saw the need to mention that our rights are derived from God; and while not all libertarians agree with the divine origin of rights, we can all agree that they are inherent – they were not endowed merely by fiat of man.
But if religion has existed for as long as humanity, what is the significance of Christianity?
There is a reason Christianity is the most popular religion: no matter what degree of interpretation you choose, it will always provide meaning. Whether you choose to take a more literal interpretation or orient your life toward the symbolic meaning that can be extracted from biblical text, you will be an objectively better person and lead an objectively more meaningful life. While correlation is not necessarily causative, it is hard to ignore the ridiculous degeneracy of a modern society that actively rejects religion, particularly Christianity.
While deriving meaning from the extraordinary is not unique to Christianity, it is unique to traditional religion – rather than the modern idols we have put in its place. Worshipping the state, money, hedonistic impulses, vapid consumerist culture or any other modern idol will provide you with neither self-improvement nor meaning. Perhaps if I were writing this for an Eastern audience, I might urge readers to consider Hinduism or Buddhism; but it seems absurd to suggest that westerners overlook the religion that has been foundational to the very culture we live in.
While Easter may be wrapping up, it is not too late to pick up a Bible or visit your local church. It may very well be the most libertarian thing you can do.
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
– if immigration detention is not a practical step towards a person being removed from the country, the detention amounts to punishment, and
– governments can only mete out punishment if they are sentencing someone for a crime.
This ruling led to the release of around 140 people who were in immigration detention but not on a path to removal from the country.
Both the ruling and the release were positive developments.
The people in question could not be lawfully removed from Australia because Australian law:
– requires another country to take them, and there was no country willing to do so,
– deems them to be subject to persecution overseas and hence deserving of protection here, or
– deems them to be physically or mentally unfit for removal.
These laws are decent and should remain.
Some of the people in question have committed no crime. There is no justification for indefinitely detaining people like this, just as there is no justification for detaining citizens who are non-criminals.
The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians.
Some of the people in question have committed crimes, but all of them have completed the sentences handed down for those crimes. There is no justification for continuing to detain people who have completed their sentences.
If you are found guilty of a crime, you are sentenced by a court that has all the evidence before it. Years later, a panel or tribunal considering post-sentence punishment will be inherently less informed about your crime than the original court, and may end up punishing you for things you are yet to do and may not do. The injustice of this is exacerbated if post-sentence punishments were not part of the law when you committed the crime.
In Western civilisation, a certain amount of surveillance and the availability of preliminary offences like conspiracy, aiding-and-abetting, and attempt, are balanced responses to the prospect of future crime. Preventative detention, continuing detention, curfews, and ankle bracelets are not.
The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation. Despite this, conservative politicians have suggested the ruling and release were bad outcomes.
Liberal National politicians have suggested that the Labor Government should have maintained its long-standing lie to the courts that the people in question were on a path to removal from the country.
These politicians have called for public reporting on the location of people who have been released from immigration detention (without corresponding calls relating to citizens released from prisons).
They have also claimed that, under Labor, Australian women are at risk of being assaulted by foreign criminals.
That said, Labor’s approach has been far from enlightened. Labor argued against, and has since opposed, the High Court ruling. Labor has also punished and imposed constraints on the people released from detention without doing anything similar to citizens with the same criminal history (or absence thereof).
Crime more generally
The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians.
The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.
The Liberal National Coalition has recently proposed that those who make social media posts depicting violence, drug offences, or property offences be hit with up to two years’ imprisonment plus a ban from social media.
Conservative politicians regularly call for less bail, so that people are locked up despite not being convicted of a crime. They cite re-offending as a reason for more incarceration, when re-offending can just as readily serve as evidence of the failure of incarceration. They also justify calls for more police, based on claims that crime is out of control.
As it happens, crime rates in Australia are low and falling.
3.1 per cent of people older than 14 were victims of physical assault in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.7 per cent.
Over the same period, the rate for robbery went from 0.6 per cent to 0.2 per cent.
3.3 per cent of households were victims of break-ins in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.8 per cent.
Over the same period, the rate for malicious property damage went from 11 per cent to 3.7 per cent.
Regarding youth crime, in 2008-09 the rate of offending by those aged 10 to 17 was 3,186.8 per 100,000. In 2022-23 it was 1,847.3 per 100,000.
And with crime by people born overseas, such people make up 30 per cent of the population but only 17 per cent of the prison population.
It is incumbent upon those who are liberally-minded to oppose arbitrary detention and punishment, fanciful claims of crime waves, and the conservatives who perpetuate such madness.
Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.
As a society, we generally do not like to talk about suicide. And when we do, we tend to avoid a key issue – why do so many men take their own lives, and why are so many of them middle-aged?
The statistics are stark: of 3,249 Australians who took their own lives in 2022, 2,455 were males. That’s more than the number of women dying from breast and cervical cancer combined.
Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men. The overall suicide rate was 12.3 deaths per 100,000 population but for men it was 18.8.
The absolute highest rate is among men aged 85 or over (32.7 per 100,000 versus 10.6 for women), but the next highest is middle-aged males (45-59) at 32.6 (versus 8.8 for women). These rates have also increased over the last decade.
By contrast the murder rate, at less than 1.0 per 100,000, has been declining for decades, while deaths from road accidents (4.6 per 100,000 people) are also trending down.
Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men.
Someone taking their own life at 85 probably has a reason we can understand; there are downsides to life at that age. But men in middle age have many years of active life ahead of them. They are often at the peak earning stage and are obviously somebody’s son, brother, husband, partner, father or grandfather. That so many are killing themselves is a tragedy of enormous proportions.
And yet, while we hear plenty about youth suicide, blamed on everything from NAPLAN tests to sharing dick pics, and indigenous suicides, for which incarceration rates and white supremacy are supposedly responsible, when it comes to apparently normal middle-aged men taking their own lives there is stony silence.
The reasons for the high rates are not well understood. Even the common assumption that it is a mental health issue is probably wrong. Mental health has become a growth industry, with the problems of everyday life increasingly medicalised, but certainly no worse among middle aged men.
To the extent that the causes are known, they conflict with current narratives about the place of men in today’s society; that masculinity is toxic, all men are responsible for domestic violence, all men are potential rapists, and society is patriarchal. Indeed, unless they are indigenous, men are blamed for just about everything wrong with the world.
To the extent that there is evidence, it appears family and relationship breakdown may be a major underlying factor. Statistics show men live longer and happier lives when they are in a committed relationship.
That goes some way to explain the suicide rate among men affected by separation or divorce, particularly with children involved. Not only can they be made liable to pay child support that leaves them unable to support a new family, but false allegations of violence and sexual misconduct are routinely used to deny them access to their children.
Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men.
But there are obviously other factors too. If they work with women, men are at constant risk of accusations of bullying if they disagree. If they stare, it is sexual harassment. If they work with black or brown people, practically anything can be interpreted as racist (although they can never be victims of racism themselves). If they employ women, paying them less than men is misogyny, irrespective of the roles or hours worked.
Increasingly, men risk accusations of rape and the onus to prove consent, years or decades later.
It is likely most men take their own lives because they believe they are failing. There are many reasons for that belief, but failure as a bread winner is probably the main one; protecting and providing for a family is hard-wired, notwithstanding the claims of radical feminists that it is social conditioning. So when men lose their job, fail at business or are simply unable to meet expectations, they suffer. The all-time highest rates of suicide were in 1930 during the Great Depression, when unemployment was huge.
Libertarians believe in self-ownership and accept suicide is a matter of personal choice. But that does not preclude encouraging a different choice; indeed, it is arguably a moral obligation. The question is, how to do that?
Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men. It needs more of them.
We need more people making the case for lower taxes and less red and green tape, so there is less unemployment and fewer business failures. We need more who refuse to judge others on the basis of gender, race or sexual preference. We need more who defend the role of masculinity in strong, brave and selfless men. And we need more who insist that children need their fathers.
There’s something we can all do, and we might just save a life.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
One year ago I made a young man famous. The video footage of the horrific political violence he perpetrated against a 71 year-old lady at a Women’s Rights rally shocked the world, leading to international condemnation of New Zealand.
Two weeks ago I was in court to witness his sentencing: he received a discharge without conviction and his name was permanently suppressed.
Immediately after the hearing I interviewed his distressed victim on the courthouse steps and published the unredacted version of her Victim Impact Statement. This is the original, containing the changes agreed between the prosecution and defence counsels, written in the police prosecutor’s own handwriting, before it was handed back to the victim so she could read it in open court.
The publication of this material led to further international outrage, intensified by their sharing and re-posting on social media by celebrities as varied as Alison Moyet and Martina Navratilova. The case appeared to obviously justify a conviction and substantial sentence. The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court.
Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy.
Kiwis, on the other hand, were quite unsurprised. A key reason is that the Establishment was directly implicated in the violence. MPs of the two governing parties at the time, Labour and the Greens, actually participated in the mob. One Green party MPs incited her 41,000 followers that morning stating she was “So ready to fight Nazis” on her way to the demonstration. Another appeared to justify employing political violence against her perceived opponents in a subsequent television interview. Even Chris Hipkins, the Labour party Prime Minister at the time, effused about how proud he would have been to support it in person.
New Zealand is a small country. That the government of Labour and the Greens had joined forces with Trades Union and Rainbow groups to suppress women’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly is widely known. If anything, the reaction from officialdom was expected.
What followed was entirely predictable. Only two of the many perpetrators of violence that day have been charged. One has just been all-but acquitted and the other is yet to see the inside of a courtroom, a full year after the event. Victims of other assaults were told that police “were not there to protect them” by multiple police officers. In refusing to pursue several arrests and prosecutions of identified offenders, some victims were themselves blamed by police for their own assaults.
To this day, none of the organisers who incited violence have been charged. None of the legacy media organisations which fabricated false narratives has been sanctioned by governing or government bodies.
Instead, the people of New Zealand have been treated to political theatre. Panem et circenses without the bread.
The case against this young man is a case in point. In my opinion police deliberately bungled the investigation and prosecution at every juncture; initially informing the victim that charges couldn’t be laid without knowing her assailant’s identity, then minimising charges when the identity was supplied. The offender could have been charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act or the lesser charge of Male Assaults Female; instead he received the minimum charge police could possibly engineer: Common Assault.
The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court.
And from there it only gets worse. Diversion is a system in New Zealand where first-time offenders, typically the young, avoid conviction for minor offences. It is atypical for Diversion to be offered to an offender in a case of serious assault, particularly when opposed by the victim. Yet the police offered Diversion to the offender anyway, only retracting it with risible claims of “administrative error” in response to public uproar.
This has all been theatre. The people have been distracted by the ebbs and flows of this case while the broader issues remain. In my opinion the defendant at the centre of it all is almost inconsequential: a young man radicalised on campus by far-Left, extremist propaganda who committed an awful crime and has become the focus of worldwide rage because of it.
While those who radicalised him have not been called to account.
New Zealand prescribes puberty blockers to children at ten times the rate of the United Kingdom’s NHS, at least it did until the NHS banned such prescriptions a week ago. Attending gender training is mandatory for some employees in both the public and private sectors. New Zealand birth certificates cannot be used as a supplemental form of identification in any Western country because of the Self-Identification law, unopposed by any party in parliament. Drag queens groom children weekly in libraries, paid for by taxpayers. Midwives who use the words “woman” or “mother” risk de-registration by the Midwifery Council. The Relationships and Sexual Education program mandated by the Ministry of Education is simply rainbow indoctrination of impressionable children.
Objecting to any of this invites condemnation, ostracism and even unemployment. Gender ideology has permeated New Zealand society to such an extent that Kiwis live in fear of the consequences of not adhering to its orthodoxies.
Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy. The true battle we should be fighting is against Gender Ideology, those who promulgate it, and those who employ cancellation and political violence against those who dissent. Meanwhile the Establishment laughs at how easy it was to distract our attention by feeding us a steady diet of bread and circuses about some stupid kid.
Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.
A few weeks ago, when dropping off my child at their childcare centre, I noticed something on the classroom whiteboard that I hadn’t paid attention to before – the “Daily Routine”. Amid the usual activities, one particular sticker caught my eye: “Acknowledgement of Country”. I was SHOCKED. It prompted me to write the following letter to the Centre.
Dear Centre Management Team,
I hope this message finds you well. I want to start by expressing my deep gratitude for the nurturing environment the Centre provides. It has been a joy to see my child thrive, embracing the learning and playing programs, along with diverse cultural celebrations, from Chinese festivals to many others. Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.
However, I feel compelled to share a concern, approached with the utmost respect for the delicate balance you maintain. Over the past year, I’ve observed several Aboriginal events and celebrations, including last year’s National Reconciliation Week with the slogan “Be a VOICE for Generations – Act Today For A Reconciled Tomorrow,” amid the very controversial and politically divided national Voice referendum. Recently, I was surprised to notice a “Daily Routine” of “Acknowledgement of Country”.
if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day?
While I deeply respect Aboriginal people, I am concerned that this is verging into the realm of political expression, given the variety of views on this topic within our community, vividly highlighted in the last referendum debate which resulted in over 60% voting No.
As I see it, “Acknowledgement of Country” carries a strong politically driven message that may convey controversial implications. Its literal meaning not only recognises the historical ownership of the land by indigenous Australians but also implies the concept of “stolen land”, as promoted by many Voice advocates, along with “Pay the Rent” as one of the preferred “Treaties.” If the land and property we own today were “stolen,” should we then return it? And if so, to whom? If we do not, which I guess is the case for most, does that make us hypocritical?
I am a migrant drawn to Australia for its embodiment of Western values – democracy, liberty, and the rule of law – the principles that make Australia unique and appealing globally. My hope is to see these aspects of our great country celebrated and taught with the same enthusiasm. If politics is to be taught in school, a highlight of our country’s values should be celebrated, foundational to our society and a reason we have a wonderful Centre with educators and students from diverse cultural backgrounds.
Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.
As a parent, I am thrilled to see kids learning new things, meeting new friends, acquiring new skills, fostering good character, and growing well physically and mentally. I always appreciate the Centre for providing a great learning environment and having educators who genuinely care for the kids. Having grown up in an authoritarian country, I recall how political education at every level significantly affected young kids’ freedom of thought. Therefore, I am extremely concerned if certain controversial opinions are taught as facts to young minds.
Might I suggest that if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day? This gesture could serve to highlight the unity and shared core values within our diverse community. Additionally, while the learning of new Aboriginal songs enriches our cultural tapestry, perhaps including ‘Advance Australia Fair’ occasionally could foster a broader sense of national pride and identity.
Furthermore, if ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ is part of our daily routine, exploring the Christian origins and significance of the coming Easter holiday – beyond the familiar symbols of rabbits and eggs – could offer the children an opportunity to understand the holiday’s deeper cultural and religious meanings.
Please understand that my reflections are shared with the highest regard for the incredible work you do and in no way diminish my gratitude for your dedication. My intent is to engage in a constructive dialogue about how we can celebrate all facets of our community’s culture, including its core Western heritage, with balance and sensitivity.
Thank you for considering my perspective. I look forward to any thoughts you may have on this matter and remain, as always, immensely appreciative of your commitment to our children’s growth and well-being.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
In today’s politically charged atmosphere, evangelical libertarians often stray into polarising debates around topics like firearms or drug legalisation. Is there a subtler, more effective approach?
I suggest the “everyday libertarian mindset”. It involves reframing common complaints and concerns through the lens of smaller government and individual liberty.
I often hear myself responding to complaints about government by saying “that’s why we need guns”. When I say this, libertarians “get it”. But this phrase causes our “normie” friends to switch off.
Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power
How about a more congenial conversational pivot: “That’s why we need smaller government.”
Picture this: A friend laments Australia’s low productivity. Instead of delving into a heated debate about employment policies, you respond calmly, “That’s why we need smaller government.” This simple phrase opens the door to a discussion about the role of government in the economy and the importance of prioritising individual liberties over interventionist agendas.
Here are some instances where the everyday libertarian mindset shines:
1. Healthcare costs: Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market. Advocating for smaller government and increased competition can give individuals greater control over their healthcare decisions and costs. Would there be a shortage of doctors, hospitals, and other services if the government got out of the way?
2. Education quality: When concerns arise about education quality, highlight how government monopolies limit choice and innovation in education. By advocating for school choice and decentralising control over education, parents and students can access a wider range of educational opportunities tailored to their needs.
3. Bureaucratic red tape: Encountering bureaucratic red tape or inefficiency? Emphasise the need for smaller government and streamlined regulations. By reducing the size and scope of government, individuals and businesses can navigate processes more efficiently.
4. Personal freedoms: Discuss personal freedoms and civil liberties, emphasising the importance of limiting government power to protect individual rights. Smaller government leads to less intrusion into citizens’ lives and greater respect for individual autonomy.
Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market
5. Publicly funded broadcasters: When discussing the publicly funded government broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS in Australia, consider the implications of government involvement in media. Point out that taxpayer-funded media outlets compete with the private sector, which do not cost taxpayers anything. By advocating for smaller government and media independence, individuals can support a diverse and free press that serves the interests of the public rather than political agendas. Encourage exploring alternative funding models, such as private sponsorship or subscriber-based models, to ensure journalistic integrity and freedom of expression.
6. Nuclear energy: Discuss the lifting of the ban on nuclear energy in Australia. Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power. Advocate for a free-market approach to energy production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy solutions without burdensome government regulations hindering progress.
I find the phrase “that’s why we need smaller government” easy to apply to almost any situation. Any mistake a government makes – “that’s why we need smaller government – less for these people to stuff up”.
By incorporating these instances, we illustrate how the everyday libertarian mindset can be applied to a wide range of issues, promoting smaller government and individual liberty in everyday conversations. It’s about sparking thoughtful discussions and planting seeds of libertarian principles in the minds of others, one conversation at a time.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
Last week, Australian journalist Julian Assange’s legal team sought permission from the High Court of the United Kingdom to appeal his extradition to the United States, where he could potentially face severe penalties. This appeal represents Assange’s final opportunity to challenge his extradition within the UK’s legal system.
Assange has become a symbol of injustice, political persecution, and the fight for freedom of speech and press freedom. Behind the symbolic figure lies a human being languishing in the high-security prison.
The same week witnessed international outcry over the death of Alexei Navalny, who died in a Siberian prison. World leaders, including British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and U.S. President Joe Biden, condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin for Navalny’s imprisonment, a man they consider a journalist who spoke out against the Russian President. They asserted that he was murdered, although they had no evidence to support this claim.
The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case.
Assange has been indicted under the Espionage Act 1917, his alleged crime being publication of classified documents that exposed corruption, government misconduct, surveillance, and war crimes. The US government has focused on the publication of the documents, which it says exposed sources and personnel to danger. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures.
Supporters argue the documents were divulged by Chelsea Manning (who was convicted and then pardoned), and that Assange’s prosecution threatens freedom of the press. They contend that his actions as the founder of WikiLeaks were acts of journalism protected by free speech and the principles of press freedom. They insist he is being selectively targeted for political reasons rather than legitimate legal concerns, highlighting the discrepancy in treatment compared to other journalists and media organisations.
Granting leave to appeal would prolong Assange’s pre-trial detention, further deteriorating his health. Holding him in a maximum-security prison is normally reserved for those convicted of serious crimes, yet he has not been convicted of anything. There are no reasons why alternatives such as house arrest could not be employed.
Assange’s prosecution in the US raises concerns about government overreach, the chilling effect on free speech and journalism, and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. The High Court must carefully consider the potential human rights implications of extradition, including the risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Assange’s status as a non-U.S. citizen complicates matters, as he lacks the same legal standing to claim First Amendment protections in U.S. courts, despite the global implications of his case for press freedom and whistleblowing activities.
Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures.
The prolonged pre-trial detention of Julian Assange while awaiting an appeal also poses concerns for the rule of law and due process. In contravention of the presumption of innocence, Assange’s extended confinement undermines fundamental legal principles, casting doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the legal proceedings against him.
The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case. The U.S. government’s pursuit of Assange undermines its commitment to press freedom and freedom of expression, both domestically and internationally. While condemning other countries for similar actions, the U.S. government fails to uphold these fundamental principles when it comes to Assange. By continuing to prosecute Assange and seeking his extradition, the U.S. undermines its own credibility as a champion of human rights and democratic values. The initiative by Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Junior to petition for Assange’s release and pledge a pardon on the first day of his presidency serves as a compelling argument for his immediate release.
At this critical juncture in Julian Assange’s legal battle, mere appeals for justice fall short of addressing the urgent humanitarian issue. Assange’s deteriorating health underscores the immediate need for his release. The prolonged legal proceedings have taken a severe toll on his physical and mental well-being, making his continued detention untenable. It is evident that Assange’s health is rapidly deteriorating, and every passing day in detention further exacerbates his condition. The time for legal manoeuvring has passed; what is needed now is decisive action to rectify the grave injustice inflicted upon Assange and ensure his right to life, freedom, and dignity.
As we await the outcome of the High Court’s decision, we must remember that true justice can only be realised through the immediate abandonment of the extradition request and the immediate release of Assange.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
Curiosity for a deeper understanding of how Jeremy Bentham’s Inspection House principle relates to our current world has got the better of me. There is so much to dissect in the Panopticon that I thought it fitting to follow on from last month’s contribution.
At the end of his treatise, Bentham stresses that his principle of inspection should not be confused with that of spying, but rather, monitoring. He argues that those under surveillance must know they are subject to being watched, as this will result in producing the intended ideal outcome of: “morals reformed, health preserved, industry invigorated, instruction diffused, public burdens lightened, economy seated as it were upon a rock, the Gordian knot of the poor-laws not cut but untied…”
Yet, the detailing of his idea belies such an approach:
“It is obvious that, in all these instances, the more constantly the persons to be inspected are under the eyes of the persons who should inspect them, the more perfectly will the purpose of the establishment have been attained.”
Those who are incarcerated would be fully aware of being watched, in the same way we associate with the omnipotent eye of Big Brother. But to insist they will somehow be “kept in the loop” by their watchers is folly. Also, such an approach would merely produce robots rather than solve an unsolvable problem via the cutting of a Gordian knot.
There is no institution the globalists have left untouched in implementing their own Inspection House principle.
It is idealism on steroids to assert that those who you’ve incarcerated would always be kept abreast of your intentions and then expect to obtain the results referred to above. It is akin to today’s central planners – their intentions versus actions always at loggerheads.
This brings us to the question of who will watch those watching us?
Tyrannical-type characters have been waiting in the wings to exert their control over societies throughout history. At least in the ancient world there was a limit to how much territory those with power could seize; we are not so fortunate. The global entities of the UN, WEF, and WHO have gained a stronghold over the entire world. They work in lockstep with one another and with leaders of every nation – witness the coordinated pandemic response of 2020, still bearing fruit in 2024 via whipped up fear of new deadly viruses on the horizon – and predictions of global boiling ready to consume us in a fiery furnace.
Jeremy Bentham’s circular cell building arrangement of surveillance eerily mirrors what we are seeing planned today with 15-minute cities and herding of people from regional to urban areas. We are told it is to make life easier when it is just a foil to “monitor” us more closely.
Jeremy Bentham’s
Consider this final paragraph of Bentham’s Panopticon:
“What would you say, if by the gradual adoption and diversified application of this single principle, you should see a new scene of things spread itself over the face of civilised society?”
Between 1787 and 2024 his idea has indeed spread, gradually and fully over the face of civilisation.
Bentham refers to his principle as a “great and new invented instrument of government,” going on to define its excellence as the “great strength it is capable of giving to any institution it may be thought proper to apply it to.”
Stopping the spread requires parents and extended families to reclaim control over the raising of their children. It begins with the young, as they will be the future leaders and shapers of the world to come. No easy task when all around we see large, factory-like buildings being constructed for the sole purpose of “early learning.”
Bentham stresses that his principle of inspection should not be confused with that of spying, but rather, monitoring.
Reforming offenders in prisons is one thing, but schools are something else; at least, that’s what most of us would think. Yet, in Letter 21 of his treatise, Bentham raises the spectre of introducing “tyranny into the abodes of innocence and youth.”
Including the next generation in the need to be trained within a setting akin to reforming prisoners, reveals Bentham’s inclination to authoritarianism. Yet it is at this level that world rulers seek to manipulate and control. The current global ruling elite relish the idea of control, portraying it under the guise of moral reformation (much the same as Bentham), for example with health emergencies and restrictions cloaked in the narrative of keeping us safe.
Who better to inculcate a heart wrenching story into the minds of the young than those who seek to rob us of our freedoms and liberties? There is no institution the globalists have left untouched in implementing their own Inspection House principle. Have they managed to take Bentham’s blueprint to its natural conclusion? One may wonder at such a feat of horror.
But wonder, we must. When Bentham writes of a “simple idea of architecture” being the vehicle to improve morals, productivity and stabilise the economy, this does not necessarily mean a physical place, for in our world that would indicate our digital environment. We are already incarcerated inside our very own modern-day Panopticon, replete with watchmen on every digital corner.
Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes – Who will watch the watchers?
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
When Al Grassby was Immigration Minister in the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, he announced that multiculturalism was to be Australia’s future policy. Assimilation was over.
There was a time when Australia actively promoted assimilation. It was the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and applied to Aborigines, varied by state and location, involved the removal of vulnerable children from families, included an obligation to learn English, discouraged speaking local languages, and prohibited certain customary practices – particularly those involving violence.
But Grassby was not referring here to Aborigines or to policies from the distant past. Nor was it a reference to the White Australia policy, which the Whitlam government had officially ended. His comment was about new immigrants and implied that they had been subject to a policy of assimilation.
In the generally accepted meaning of the word, this was complete nonsense. What Australia had was a policy of promoting integration. And, as history shows, it had been remarkably successful.
The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.
Mostly European and British, Australia’s post-war immigrants were referred to as “New Australians”. Although encouraged to learn English, they were never asked to disown their origins. There were free English classes for adults, and parents were required to send their children to school, like everyone else, where lessons were conducted in English. The kids often became interpreters for their parents.
Most immigrants became Australian citizens relatively quickly, the only negative being they had to renounce the citizenship of their original country; Australia did not permit dual citizenship until 2000.
If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second. Immigrants married other immigrants, their children married other immigrant children, and many went on to be highly successful.
The Whitlam government also began to admit significant numbers of people from Asia, initially Vietnam and Cambodia. And while there were pockets of resistance to this, with Whitlam himself wary of accepting anti-communist Vietnamese refugees, these also integrated well. Later waves from places such as Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Hong Kong, Malaysia and India were equally successful.
But then something changed. Certain immigrants began to form enclaves and avoid contact with other AustraliansThey also mademinimal effort to learn English. The men often went back to their country of origin to find a wife, even if they were born in Australia, refusing to contemplate finding one locally.
Most importantly, they became contemptuous of Australian culture and values while demanding respect for their own. This was not about football, music or food, but core aspects of liberal democracy: equality before the law, presumption of innocence, respect, democracy, free speech, economic opportunity, and tolerance. This was accompanied by a major upsurge in violent crime and welfare fraud.
While it obviously reflects a failure to integrate, this is nonetheless multiculturalism. The culture of these people is maintained in parallel with Australia’s traditional culture.
If the immigrants themselves had mixed feelings, the second or third generations saw themselves as Australians first and their country of origin second.
After several decades of this, Australia’s laidback ‘live and let live’ culture is now under serious challenge.
In a number of countries in Europe, the same issue has arisen. Several are now abandoning multiculturalism in favour of active integration. Perhaps it could even be called assimilation.
The Netherlands, for example, now requires most immigrants (including asylum seekers) to undertake a “civic integration” examination within three years of arrival. The examination tests knowledge of the Dutch language and society, and a pass is required to obtain permanent residence and citizenship. Certain classes of prospective immigrants must also pass a test even before they first enter the country. The pass mark is being steadily raised.
It is obvious that Al Grassby’s policy is no longer appropriate, if it ever was. Liberal democratic values are jeopardised when authoritarian, doctrinaire or anti-liberal cultures are given equal standing. The presumption of innocence took a major hit in the Higgins case, for example; equality before the law came under threat with the Voice referendum; freedom of speech faces yet more limits with the Government’s Misinformation and Disinformation bill; and economic opportunity is being squeezed by excessive taxation and red tape. Meanwhile, tolerance is challenged by cancel culture and antisemitism.
None of these is directly attributable to a failure of immigrants to integrate, but they indicate a lack of national commitment. If traditional values are not defended, alternative values will inevitably gain a foothold.
There are multiple ways to rectify this problem. Australia already has an integration test for citizenship, for example, but it could be made more like that of the Dutch. There are many sources of potential immigrants, so we could select those most likely to integrate (most of those refusing to integrate come from the Middle East). And we could also make it abundantly clear to prospective immigrants that they are expected to adapt to Australian culture, not vice versa.
The point is, values matter. Australia does not need multiculturalism.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
The Rolling Stones were wrong: you can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill. And if you forum shop.
So it was with a recent native title ‘victory’ at the High Court of Australia. The Court overturned a decision of the full court of the Federal Court of Australia.
Native title holders at the Macarthur River in the Northern Territory wanted a say over a new tailings dam associated with the mining and transhipment of zinc-lead-silver ore. Fair enough. The McArthur River Project ore concentrate must travel 120 kilometres by road to the “Bing Bong” loading facility located on the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is loaded onto a bulk-carrier vessel for transhipment to larger ocean-going ships.
This part of the Gulf is shallow, and the bulk carrier must use a navigation channel, which needs to be maintained by regular dredging. The resulting dredged sediment is pumped onshore to a Dredge Spoil Emplacement Area, which has been filling up. In 2013, Mt Isa Mines applied for a new mineral lease under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT) to construct a new area on a pastoral lease near the Bing Bong loading facility.
This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining.
The Northern Land Council sought to prevent the issue of the minerals lease and a declaration that the proposed grant of the lease was invalid because the procedures under their preferred section of the Native Title Act had not been followed.
The High Court ordered that the Northern Territory Minister be restrained from deciding the application for the future act until the completion of the procedures under the Native Title Act. The High Court had to decide whether, besides freeholder rights, the native title claimants had a right to object under native title. It seems they did.
Imagine fighting all the way to the High Court of Australia: first the Federal Court, then appealing to a full bench of the Federal Court, and then to the High Court. The time and cost to Australian taxpayers are enormous. And for what?
The victory was that the High Court resolved differing interpretations of the meaning of the phrase “right to mine for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility… associated with mining” in the context of the 633-page Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
The key was whether native title holders had access to one ‘notification, objection and consultation procedure’ under the Native Title Act, or to another procedure under the same Act. It was either the same procedural rights as the holders of ‘ordinary title’ land or additional procedural rights to object to the future act and have those objections heard by an ‘independent person’.
If that wasn’t sufficiently indulgent, the applicants were entitled to processes under the Mineral Titles Act 2010 (NT), a right to negotiate procedure, and a right to be heard at the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or have an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. Indeed, an ILUA was commenced in 2021 before the appeal to the full court of the Federal Court.
You can always get what you want if you are patient and the taxpayer foots the bill.
The decision by the High Court relates to one set of facts about what constitutes a mining operation. This may or may not provide a guide to any other disputes between native title holders and miners. At the outset there were six families involved in discussions on the mine. Three families were not directly affected but have now been drawn into the ILUA. The context is important; there are no other major economic bases in the region; the mine and associated works are it. Twenty three per cent of the workforce are Aboriginal.
This matter started in 2013. The mine and its associated infrastructure began in 1992. The original applicant for the objection died before the courts resolved the matter. For whom is this a victory?
The Northern Land Council hoped this decision would prompt the mining company to ‘engage proactively and in good faith with the native title holders, through their … legal representatives, to obtain free, prior and informed consent before further disturbing their native title.’ There is no evidence it did not, but it probably spoke to the native title holders in preference to the NLC and its lawyers.
The term ‘free, prior and informed’ is taken from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is the real agenda: further elaboration of rights and expanding power to extract more rent from mining. If Aborigines keep playing this rent-seeker game, they will never escape poverty, and the culture that holds them in a state of dependence on public servants and land councils will remain.
Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.
In my previous article “China 2024 and Beyond“, I argued that China, amid its troubles, is in desperate need of a visionary leader akin to Deng Xiaoping. Such a leader could rejuvenate China’s economy through policies that prioritise freedom.
The esteemed former senator, Bob Day, responded by emphasising the power of the Gospel when contemplating China’s future trajectory. It’s a common assertion among Christians, particularly those with libertarian leanings, that the importance of Christianity, along with economic and political freedom, could herald comprehensive benefits for the nation. This article explores these considerations while also engaging in a broader discussion on the interplay between freedom and (Christian) faith.
The Spiritual Evolution in China
In my opinion China’s spiritual landscape has evolved through four distinct stages: the early spirituality may be characterised by nature and ancestor worship, and a worship of “Shang Di” (Heavenly Lord), who is believed to be the creator of heaven and earth, similar to the Christian God but far less personal. This belief is still prevalent among the general public.
The second stage is philosophical spirituality with the emergence of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. However, arguably, none of these are religions per se: Confucianism is a set of philosophies clearly based on the teachings of Confucius without any deity; Taoism, with Laozi as its founder, who many regard as the first libertarian philosopher in human history, later developed into a polytheistic religion; while Buddhism similarly shared a path from being a philosophy into a religion.
Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial.
The third stage began with the Chinese Communist Party’s control of China since 1949, leading to a brutal suppression of spiritual beliefs, especially during the Cultural Revolution.
The fourth stage, following China’s reopening in the late 1970s, has seen a remarkable revival of spirituality, reflecting a collective search for meaning and identity amidst rapid modernisation.
The Role of Faith in Individual and Societal Morality
Fundamentally, faith acts as a guiding light for personal conduct and a moral compass for believers. It endows life with purpose, peace, and direction for believers, while non-believers might find similar guidance in their conscience.
On a societal level, faith possesses transformative power. Traditions like Buddhism and Taoism encourage introspection, whereas Christianity and Islam advocate for outward societal influence which has the potential to prompt change, for better or for worse. Despite the general hostility of modern authoritarian regimes towards religion, often under Marxist influences, their tolerance varies across faiths.
In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance, with only state-approved churches operating openly (and still cautiously) and underground churches enduring constant harassment.
Understanding Faith Correctly
Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial. Using Christianity as an illustration, it’s evident how misconceptions can distort its teachings for harmful ends—endorsing slavery through misinterpretations of the Old Testament, justifying support for Hitler with references to Romans, and aligning it with Communism by pointing to Acts.
In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance
A proper understanding of Christianity revisits foundational principles: God’s creation of Adam with free will and accountability, the Ten Commandments’ assertion of the rights to life, liberty, and property, and Jesus’ teaching of the Golden Rule to treat others as one wishes to be treated, without advocating coercion to impose personal beliefs on others.
Consider the concept of a “Christian society” as a further example. Despite their differences, both Western nations like the UK, the US, and Australia and those caught in the “Latin American Trap”, including Argentina and Brazil, share a profound commonality: they are deeply influenced by Christianity and have substantial Christian populations. While the former group has achieved peace and prosperity, the latter has experienced considerable chaos and distress. This division illustrates that while the path to freedom has been closely linked with Christian teachings historically, the presence of Christian faith alone does not ensure a nation’s success. Faith, undoubtedly beneficial for inner peace, moral guidance, or spiritual salvation, falls short as a reliable predictor of a country’s future prosperity.
Freedom: The Foundation of Prosperity
Freedom, on the other hand, is the cornerstone of a country’s prosperity. Under Deng Xiaoping, China made significant progress in economic freedom from the late 1970s, seeing major advancements through the 1990s and stability into the early 2010s. This progress has significantly reversed under Xi Jinping’s rule. Meanwhile, the brief hope for political freedom in the 1980s was crushed by the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the absence of political freedom has further undermined economic liberties, eventually culminating in constitutional changes that could extend Xi’s presidency indefinitely.
In the end, I believe faith is akin to the heart, guiding individuals and societies with its moral compass and providing the ultimate meaning of life. Freedom, on the other hand, is akin to the mind, steering societal direction, with economic freedom protecting property rights and political freedom guarding individual sovereignty.
I endorse the words of Argentine President Javier Milei from his Davos speech: “Long live freedom, dammit!”
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
The reverse correlation between the internet’s growing accessibility and its diminishing freedom can only be arrested by changes in user habits
Much has been made of the ACMA ‘misinformation bill’ and its potential impact on free speech online in Australia. But the internet hasn’t been a bastion of free expression for quite some time now, and like always, it ultimately comes down to choice and the power of the consumer.
Prior to the rise of social media giants such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter/X, the internet was largely a decentralised hub of independent content, websites, blogs and message boards. It was something of a wild west – not as easy to navigate or as accessible as it is today.
The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online.
Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience. Google search functioned properly, as your search terms would deliver you to websites or listings which were actually relevant. Anonymity online was a key tenet of staying safe – people were actually encouraged to separate their online and offline lives.
This has now been replaced or superseded. Mostly gone are the volunteer admins of message boards – automated or paid moderation teams on large sites such as YouTube now ban users with no remit and apply terms and conditions selectively. Google search has descended into a bidding war for top place between AI-generated SEO-optimised junk listicles that attract clicks but ultimately waste your time (hint – use Reddit instead).
As for anonymity, KYC (know your customer), verification ticks and ID verification on account of frauds and criminals have largely taken care of that. Even Bitcoin, created to store wealth and transact outside the traditional finance system, has instead limped into Wall St via ETFs as dreams of mass adoption turned to mass investment by the very institutions it sought to subvert.
Alternatives exist, of course: you can source your news and editorials from independent publications like this one, or via Substack and other such platforms. You can even support creators directly who can no longer exist on YouTube or Facebook via platforms such as Rumble or Locals.
But we often don’t – it takes extra time, extra money, extra effort. Just like acting to protect our freedoms offline – we could use cash more, we could avoid supermarkets and shop local, we could live off-grid.
Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience.
Ultimately, our collective need for security and convenience has allowed larger players to create monopolies in online spaces. As the internet has become more centralised and increased traffic (ie revenue) flows to the major players, we have subsequently seen an alarming but unsurprising partnership between ‘big tech’ and government develop. One that has sought to suppress free expression and crush competition.
We have largely allowed the same offline of course. It’s not just government either – consider the extra restrictions and occasional obstacles we face when transferring money from bank accounts for certain purposes. This is at least in part due to the collective risk of scams and fraud that is being passed on as a reduction in the ability to transact freely.
Achieving political, cultural or economic change which protects or expands freedom requires you to act, not just to think, not just to post online.
The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online.
As with the internet, when demand for security and convenience grew, the market adjusted. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World perfectly described a society that had sleep-walked willingly into dystopia by simply having their base needs and comforts met conveniently.
We mustn’t follow a similar pattern. So don’t just demand freedom — create demand for freedom!
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” is the famous statement attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief. This is an example of lawfare: the manipulation of legal processes, civil or criminal, to serve political, ideological, or personal interests rather than upholding justice.
Lawfare involves the misuse of the law by various means including selective enforcement, biased prosecutions, and politically motivated judgments for reasons unrelated to justice. It targets individuals or groups based on their political beliefs, policies or affiliations, and uses the law as a weapon to suppress dissent.
Civil Law
Civil law is traditionally employed to resolve disputes between private individuals or entities. However, it has increasingly become a weapon in the hands of powerful interests to silence critics. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused. These lawsuits are often filed with the primary aim of intimidating, censoring, or bankrupting individuals or organisations critical of those in power.
Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech.
SLAPP suits typically lack merit but serve as a tool to burden defendants with legal expenses and time-consuming litigation. The fear of financial ruin can force individuals or groups to retract their statements, cease their activities, or settle out of court.
Criminal law
Governments and powerful organisations have increasingly turned to criminal law to suppress dissenting voices. Laws that criminalise defamation, sedition, or spreading false information can be exploited to target political opponents, journalists, activists, or any individual expressing dissenting views.
Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech. Ostensibly drafted to address the dissemination of false information, the legislation raises concerns due to its broad scope, leaving individuals uncertain about what constitutes a violation. Such ambiguity can be exploited to selectively enforce the law, enabling those in power to target specific individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the alleged offense.
The absence of precise definitions allows for the manipulation of the law to serve political interests, allowing authorities to interpret and apply it selectively. This raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles, as those in authority exploit legal measures to silence opposition and stifle public discourse.
One of the key concerns in the misuse of civil and criminal law is the selective prosecution of individuals or groups based on their political beliefs or affiliations. Authorities may use their power to target specific dissenting voices, leaving others untouched, thereby creating a chilling effect on those who oppose the status quo.
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused.
An example of this is the prosecution of Donald Trump, who many people believe is being persecuted rather than prosecuted to defeat him as a presidential candidate. Many believe Joe Biden has weaponised the Department of Justice to go after his political opponent, contrasting its treatment of Trump to that of Joe Biden in spite of widespread allegations of Biden’s corruption.
The repeated prosecution of Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, is another example. The Pakistan military has used the country’s courts to impose jail sentences that ensure he and his party are unable to participate in forthcoming elections.
When legal actions are driven by political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, it erodes the credibility of the legal system. The rule of law is founded on the principles of fairness, due process, and the objective application of legal standards, not on the whims of those in power.
Frivolous civil lawsuits targeting individuals or groups and selective prosecution in criminal law depart significantly from a rule of law approach. In a rule of law framework, legal processes are expected to be impartial, fair, and based on established principles rather than arbitrary decisions or personal biases. Frivolous civil lawsuits, often driven by ulterior motives such as harassment or silencing dissent, abuse the legal system by burdening individuals with unnecessary litigation, straying from the principle of justice and fairness.
Similarly, selective prosecution in criminal law undermines the rule of law by targeting individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the merits of the case. A rule of law system requires equal application of the law, ensuring that legal actions are not used as tools for persecution or favouritism. When prosecution becomes selective, it compromises the foundational principles of fairness, due process, and equal protection under the law. In essence, both frivolous civil lawsuits and selective criminal prosecution deviate from the rule of law by introducing bias, subjectivity, and personal motivations into legal processes.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
Welcome to the Inspection House, known as the Panopticon.
Jeremy Bentham, eighteenth century political thinker, was one of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which he considered to be a fundamental principle of morality.
Managing societies is no easy task, hence, as first principles go, it seems reasonable. But what of the outsiders, those who prefer to live life as they see best for themselves? Well, Bentham’s take was more simplistic. He argued that human beings are ruled by two things only – pleasure and pain.
“All men are under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”
The bolded words are my emphasis for the purpose of showing that three centuries do not bring about change in how people think and act – I refer to the past few years of bending to the will of government edicts. I would like to think that most people knew what they “ought” to do in relation to government coercion around Covid vaccines and staying under house arrest, but fear determined what they “shall” do, and they did so in large numbers.
Today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about.
Some would consider Bentham’s view crude and base. After all, surely, we are more than the sum of two conflicting emotions. However, he considered this the most effective means of making laws to ensure that people’s actions amounted to the greatest happiness for all.
To ensure stability of the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, Bentham saw the need for a solution that would act to deter those seeking to disrupt the status quo, so he developed the concept of an institutional system where prisoners would be observed without their knowing.
Jeremy Bentham
Very 1984!
Today, surveillance is now part and parcel of our lives. We moderns tend to think that what we are encountering with the plethora of misinformation laws and censorship to within an inch of our lives, is new, be that good or bad, depending on what side of the fence one sits on with the issue.
But today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about.
The early 1780s saw the Inspection House proposal hatched, known as the Panopticon. Its primary purpose was to house prisoners based on the idea of the best design to produce the best outcomes – the Utility principle at work.
However, a closer look at Bentham’s personal letters reveals more than just a desire to incarcerate criminals.
In a series of letters written in 1787 concerning a Plan of Management for a House of Corrections, he wrote:
No matter how different, or even opposite the purpose: whether it be that of punishing the incorrigible, guarding the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspected, employing the idle, maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, instructing the willing in any branch of industry, or training the rising race in the path of education: in a word, whether it be applied to the purposes of perpetual prisons in the room of death, or prisons for confinement before trial, or penitentiary-houses, or houses of correction, or work-houses, or manufactories, or mad-houses, or hospitals, or schools.
One of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number
Of all the bolded phrases (mine for emphasis), the “training the rising race in the path of education” is the most alarming. We are already witnessing the outcomes of progressive education. Imagine what humanity will look like if we cannot pull it back from the brink.
There is not, and never has been, a shortage of individuals hellbent on shaping the world by their own means. Three centuries have passed since Jeremy Bentham concocted an idea to easily coerce people to the whims of intellectual prowess, and I don’t mean that in a complimentary way.
The Utility principle is akin to the concept of the “greater good.” It has always been at the core of public planning for the mere reason that most people prefer others to make the hard decisions, even when it comes to their own personal lives. But Utility is not for everyone. Some of us prefer to live our lives by the “do no harm” principle,” otherwise known as living by one’s own code and doing no harm to anyone else in the process.
Probably, is my answer. And that doesn’t mean we stop resisting its implementation through peaceful non-compliance. If history shows us one thing only, it is that pride comes before a fall, and the globalist agenda is big, bold, and ugly. We owe it to our families, friends and all who believe in freedom to continue to defend humanity at all costs.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
As another Australia Day passes, it gives us the opportunity to reflect on our national identity and what it truly means to be Australian with the number purporting to opt out of celebrating our national day increasing.
CHANGE THE DATE
26 January 1788 marks the landing of the First Fleet and raising of the Union Jack in Sydney Harbour. While it is true it has only been granted public-holiday status since 1994, the term “Australia Day” has been used to celebrate 26 January in all states and territories since 1935. In New South Wales, 26 January celebrations date back to 1808.
While changing the date may sound like a way of keeping more people happy, in fact complaints about the date are nothing more than a facade for the true anti-Australian and anti-Western motivations behind the movement.
History is replete with actions that we would find abhorrent in modern society – and some of the actions of Australia’s first settlers are no exception. Regardless of what new date we may find, the grievance industry would have absolutely no hesitation finding some historical injustice on that new date to complain about. Which is precisely the point.
Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny.
The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety. In fact, these grievance professionals do not believe Australia, or its culture, is worth celebrating. They are the Australian subsidiary of the global grievance industry’s efforts to prevent the celebration of any aspect of Western culture, despite it being responsible for the most free and equitable societies in human history.
A BROKEN CLOCK
But what if they’re right? What if these grievance professionals have stumbled onto something, inadvertently of course? The irony is that Australia is the wet dream of the very authoritarians who attempt to suppress the celebration of any of its achievements.
Contrary to the popular narrative of the laid-back Aussie, we are an incredibly orderly and compliant bunch. If Shakespeare was right and all the world is indeed a stage, Australia is the usher, dutifully ensuring the audience is seated correctly and quickly shushing those who dare exceed the permitted level of fun.
“But we were once a great nation” all the boomers will cry! Perhaps we were; I was not alive to see, but I suspect that is nothing more than a nice comfort to cling to.
THE LUCKY COUNTRY
Our history suggests we were always orderly and compliant, inheriting our love for order from Mother Britian and never seeking independence from her. Like an overly dependent child and a helicopter mother: the mother fearful of the harms that freedom may entail, and the child comforted by a familiar dependence.
The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety.
Australian liberty is no better summarised than by our closest encounter with homegrown rebellion: the Eureaka Stockade. It lasted a grand total of 15 minutes before the rebels were overrun by security forces.
While the founding documents of the rebel miners proclaims that “taxation without representation is tyranny”, echoing the language of the United States Declaration of Independence, the Eureka flag now hangs in the offices of tyrants across the country.
The symbol of our failed rebellion is captured by the tax collectors and tyrants it once opposed. All to the rapturous applause and adulation of the captive populace.
GOLDEN SOIL
Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny. American gun-grabbers point to “the Australian model” to disarm their populace. Global health bureaucrats gushed over “the Australian approach” to Covid tyranny. Regulators worldwide were inspired by Australia’s plain-package cigarettes and sky-high tobacco excise.
While the Australian economy was once described as “a farm on top of a mine”, it should now be updated to “an unrelenting bureaucracy on top of a mine”. By revenue, state government administration is now the biggest industry in Australia. And tyranny is our biggest export. And even though I celebrated Australia Day the most Aussie way I know how, in front of a barbeque, with a beer in hand and the cricket on TV, as the state-mandated bedtime approached, I couldn’t help but wonder: am I truly proud to be Australian?
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
For every government in New Zealand, the year commences with a focus on Maori affairs. For historical reasons most political parties undertake a pilgrimage to the Ratana Church on the 25th of January to commemorate the birthday of the congregation’s prophet, Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana. It is a reserved affair: politicians are discouraged from grandstanding and expected to listen to the concerns of the Ratana movement (by no means representative of all Maori). Marvellously, they do.
Waitangi Day, New Zealand’s national day, is celebrated on the 6th of February. By tradition politicians travel to the Waitangi Marae(meeting grounds), the site of the signing of the treaty between the British Empire and many Maori tribes which most New Zealanders consider the country’s founding document.
Democracy in New Zealand has eroded over the last six years of a radical Labour/Green regime
Maori protocol is fairly strictly maintained within the Marae (female politicians require a dispensation in order to speak, for instance) but outside things can be rather raucous. In the past Maori and their non-Maori supporters have used the occasion to express discontent, with some protests turning confrontational and descending into violence. As recently as 2009 former Prime Minister John Key was assaulted on his way onto the Treaty Grounds. While most Waitangi Days at Waitangi are one big Kiwi picnic, confrontations between angry demonstrators and lines of police are not unknown.
Against the backdrop of these occasions is the culture wars. On one side are the proponents of democracy comprising the vast majority of non-Maori New Zealanders. On the other are the proponents of Maori separatism comprising the tribal elites, their progressive allies, and those ordinary Maori who agree with their point of view. The essence of the disagreement is in interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi.)
“The Treaty” as it is known in Kiwi parlance is a relatively simple document in its original English form: ceding sovereignty to the Crown with equal rights as British subjects and property rights guaranteed. In the Maori version the language is more open to interpretation. Some doubt whether Maori ceded sovereignty at all, complicated by the fact some Maori tribes didn’t sign it.
The confusion surrounding interpretation has led to the development of the Principles of the Treaty. Although never defined, the Principles permeate legislation and proliferate throughout the public sector. At the core of the previous Labour/Green regime’s radical interpretation of the Principles is racial segregation: Maori at 16% of the population sharing equal authority with the 84% non-Maori population, euphemistically referred to as “co-governance.”
In some respects, it is reminiscent of Apartheid.
The Waitangi Tribunal was established in the 1970s to negotiate compensation from the Crown for the various Maori tribes due to historical Treaty breaches. A programme of “full and final” settlements has been underway ever since. The majority of Kiwis support these settlements as fair and believed the end to be in sight as the number of outstanding negotiations dwindled. Their disappointment at learning this was not to be the case and that Maori were instead demanding an end to equal suffrage was a major factor in the overwhelming victory of the centre-right coalition at the November general election.
For every government in New Zealand, the year commences with a focus on Maori affairs.
Both of the winning minor parties signed coalition agreements with the major National party that included Maori specific policy. The populist NZ First party promised to ensure English would be used across the public sector so the 97% of Kiwis who don’t speak te reo Maori could understand government communications. The libertarian ACT party undertook to deliver a referendum to define the Principles of the Treaty but the other two parties could only bring themselves to go as far as to support a parliamentary bill through to First Reading. For its part, National said that co-governance would be entirely removed from the delivery of public services and eligibility would be determined by need instead of by race.
This shared policy platform enrages the Maori elite and those who benefited from the previous Labour/Green regime’s largesse, predictably leading to tiresome accusations of racism. New Zealand is perhaps the only country in the world where ‘inherently racist tyranny of the majority’ is regarded as a valid description of democracy. Indeed, variations of this sentiment regularly appear in our national discourse, espoused by the left-wing.
Other intemperate remarks from left-wing politicians such as threats to “go to war” certainly haven’t helped, instead exacerbating tensions. Tensions that may be violently expressed outside Te Tii Waitangi marae on New Zealand’s national day.
Democracy in New Zealand has eroded over the last six years of a radical Labour/Green regime and the country now stands at a crossroads. Our society is confronted by fundamental challenges to our constitutional arrangements and the choice is simple: either we’re a multicultural liberal democracy or we’re a bi-cultural ethno-state.
Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe we are one people, and this was the intention of the signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Redress for past injustices is right and proper, the imposition of Apartheid is not.
Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.
My recent discussions on Liberty Itch have painted a picture of China’s landscape as a prison-like surveillance-intensive system, and as a no-privacy technology-driven cashless society. In this article, I want to further explore the future of China as we look towards 2024 and beyond. I will examine the implications of China’s expanding surveillance state, the tightening grip of authoritarian power, the simmering economic challenges, and the looming demographic crisis.
A Safe Prison
In China, particularly within its major cities where surveillance cameras are omnipresent, the situation resembles a vast yet secure prison. Proponents may argue that it ensures unparalleled safety, but high security is also a characteristic of prisons, largely due to extensive surveillance, with only a few exceptions like Jeffrey Epstein.
Beyond what I discussed in my previous article, emerging technologies are being used by the government to further erode any remaining privacy. A recent example I heard from a friend is a discreet device, easily overlooked, capable of extracting comprehensive information from your phone within a short range. Although not widely deployed yet, the potential of such technology is horrifying. While the most secure phone option in China is an overseas iPhone, these have been banned by all government bodies and affiliated organisations – a decision aimed at facilitating surveillance under the guise of patriotism.
The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023
A Loyal Empire
Xi Jinping’s regime is imposing a concentration of power unprecedented since Mao’s era. This communist empire demands not just loyalty, but absolute allegiance from its members. Figures like the recently deceased former Premier Li Keqiang, known for their more liberal stances on society and the economy, have been conspicuously absent from the new cabinet for a year.
With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier. In various government bodies and affiliated institutions, such as banks and universities, advanced AI-embedded cameras are being employed to analyse people’s facial reactions. These sophisticated systems scrutinise subtle changes in lips, noses, chins, eyes, and eyebrows to infer individuals’ emotions – admiration, confusion, indifference, or even dissent. The leap from mere “facial recognition” to “mind reading” is deeply troubling.
A Growth Mirage
China’s economy is facing severe challenges. Despite optimistic forecasts for a robust recovery following China’s post-COVID reopening at the end of 2022, the reality in 2023 has been starkly different.
Stock Market: In contrast to the significant gains in global share markets in 2023, with the US up by 24.2%, the Eurozone by 15.7%, and Australia by 7.8%, China’s stock market has seen a decline, down by 11.4%.
Property Market: The real estate sector, once a cornerstone of China’s economic growth, has seen a decline of 20-30% across most major cities. In cities like Shanghai, luxury properties have seen even steeper declines of 30-40%. This downturn is more pronounced in smaller cities experiencing a net population outflow. Additionally, a report in August 2023 indicated that the vacancy rate in 28 major cities was at 12%. (For comparison, Australia’s vacancy rate was recorded at 1.02% in October 2023.)
Local Government Debts: Local governments need to repay a record US$651 billion in bonds in 2024. The deep property slump is reducing their ability to generate income from land sales, which is a crucial revenue source. The slowdown in the broader economy has also affected their tax revenue. Growing concerns about potential defaults could trigger a widespread economic crisis.
Spending: Although people are still showing off with travelling photos on popular Chinese social media platforms, overall spending has reduced significantly, leading to the phenomenon termed “selfie travel.” A friend, whose business has suffered a significant downturn, satirically remarked, “I used to shop at Hermes, but now I shop at Uniqlo.”
With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier.
Youth Unemployment: The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023, leading to the government’s decision to cease publishing the data. The last official youth unemployment rate was over 20%. This trend is attributed to a slowing economy and a mismatch between graduates’ skills and job market demands, as well as their expectations and “lying flat” attitudes, which pose serious implications for social and political unrest.
Baby Boom Bust
China’s future is increasingly influenced by a significant demographic issue: its declining birth rate. In early 2023, China experienced its first decline in birth rates in 60 years, a trend that only intensified as the year progressed. Despite policy shifts from the One-Child to the Two-Child and later the Three-Child policies, young families remain reluctant to have more children. This trend, along with minimal population growth, threatens to strain social security systems, potentially leading to a critical tipping point.
While numerous factors, such as potential war with Taiwan and evolving political and economic relations with Western countries, play a role in shaping China’s future, the areas discussed here are particularly significant. The increasing reliance on surveillance, a heightened emphasis on ideological conformity, and a declining population, point towards significant difficulties ahead. Though Xi Jinping, persistently criticised for lacking the capability to advance China’s progress, remains the unchallenged supreme leader, China is in urgent need of a new Deng Xiaoping—a true reformist—to take the country back onto the right track.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
In William Blake’s hymn Jerusalem, the phrase ‘those dark Satanic mills’ was assumed to refer to the cotton and woollen mills of his time and their terrible working conditions.
Based on the date of the hymn and Blake’s religious background, many question whether he was referring to the Dickensian factories and cotton mills at all, but rather to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
Blake was scathing of universities. He loathed them. He saw them churning out, factory-like, a new godless world.
“I will not cease from mental fight”, he writes in a subsequent verse.
These elite establishments, he considered, were incapable of mental fight.
Fast forward to December 2023 and United States Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asking a number of University Presidents at a Congressional hearing whether “calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?”
Staggeringly, each of the University Presidents – including Harvard University President Claudine Gay – refused to answer in the affirmative, saying only, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”
“It would depend on the context,” she added.
In other words, only when Jews are actually murdered would the university step in!
The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful.
Similar responses were given by the other University Presidents, which would no doubt be mirrored by responses from some of Australia’s elite universities were they to be asked the same question.
‘Satanic’. ‘Incapable of mental fight’. Exactly what Blake was referring to.
The above exchange is what one might call a ‘shibboleth’.
In his excellent book Blink!, Malcolm Gladwell describes how it is possible to weigh up situations in the ‘blink’ of an eye.
In other words, how to make good decisions in an instant by doing what he calls ‘thin slicing’. Thin slicing can be likened to slicing a big salami, and no matter how thinly you slice it, everything you want to know about the whole salami is in that one slice.
Often you don’t have time to study or research an organisation or a person; you have to analyse what is going on by finding that ‘thin slice’. That shibboleth.
Shibboleth is a Hebrew word meaning ‘stream.’ It is referred to in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Jephthah and the men of Gilead fought the Ephraimites and captured the Jordan River crossing. As people crossed the river, to distinguish who was friend from foe, they had everyone say the word ‘shibboleth’. If they couldn’t pronounce it properly, they knew they were the enemy. From this, the word shibboleth was absorbed into the English language to describe a key identifier or a dead give-away.
What we saw in the University Presidents’ exchange was that dead give-away.
Jewish Liberal MP Julian Leeser has said: “I go back to the universities because this is the cauldron where it all starts.”
Julian Leeser
The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful. A recent scorecard on incidents of anti-Semitism in Australian universities found that in the last year there had been 56 incidents of anti-Semitism at the University of Sydney, 49 at the University of NSW, 17 at the University of Technology Sydney, 9 at Macquarie University, 7 at the University of Melbourne, and 6 at Monash University. 72 per cent of those surveyed said experiences of anti-Semitism had worsened since the Hamas attack of October 7.
Part of the explanation for this lies with Gramsci’s long march through the institutions to impose Marxist thinking – beginning with the universities. It is where formative minds are indoctrinated.
Once out of university, these graduates disperse into other key institutions – the law, politics, media, business – where Marxist ideology soon takes hold.
It was once the case that occupations such as nursing, teaching and journalism were learned ‘on the job’ – on the hospital ward, in the classroom, doing the rounds of the courts – supplemented by part-time study. Journalism, in particular, was considered more of a trade than a profession.
Not anymore. Now, they all go to university first.
Calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?
Sometimes, when a regime has been in place for a very long time, it is not possible to break through that system. Over time, institutions – such as the public service or the industrial relations system or higher education – become adept at building up defences and seeing off zealous reformers.
The only option is to break with it.
Employers should be encouraged to hire students with the appropriate aptitude straight from high school and facilitate their continued education in the form of part-time study at industry-specific places of higher learning.
I myself was recruited straight from high school into a materials testing and research laboratory.
Similarly, sponsored employment traineeships and cadetships could be rolled out across all sectors, so as to by-pass the toxic environment that our universities have become.
Let me finish with a story.
A group of hikers was out walking when they chanced upon a river. Their attention was suddenly drawn to a number of young people in difficulties being carried downstream by the river’s strong current.
The hikers immediately jumped into the river and started rescuing the youngsters.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
Somehow, the West has gotten into a real twist about identity, especially that of minorities. In the name of justice for minorities, identity is being used to undermine equality and liberty. Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority. The result is that common humanity and individual freedoms are being undermined. More insidiously, merit is being forgotten.
Much of the work on behalf of minorities has come subsequent to their success. Liberalism was their friend. It may have taken longer than, for example, white working-class people to succeed, but they got there or are well underway. Identity campaigns are not helping anyone except the elite of the minorities trying to capture more of the spoils.
For example, the University of Technology Sydney announced in 2018 that it intended to build a First Nations College. Fortunately, it has not progressed too far: the 2018 announcement that it would open in 2023 remains unfulfilled. It is a pity Monash University had no Working Class College when I attended in the 1970s. I could have avoided those middle-class private school wankers by hanging around with grunters from my old suburb. Well, those that made it to university.
Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day.
It is true that other identities, such as Catholics and Anglicans, built university colleges, but they mostly raised their own money and had a deep history of scholarship. There are women’s colleges too, but these, like single-sex schools, are fading.
The aim of the UTS college, it said, was to help ‘forge a more inclusive society’. By separating one race from others? Mind you, race is a bit of a stretch. The students most likely to attend would be from the suburbs and probably the children of intermarried parents; in other words, they are highly integrated – think Pearson, Langton, Davis, Behrendt, etc.
Aboriginal and working class students are not so successful as a group, but those who are bright can and do make it. That is the point. Others may not want to attend, preferring to follow in their parent’s footsteps, where TAFE beckons and practical skills can be acquired that are less susceptible to identity propaganda. Even a Labor Prime minister has woken up to free fees for TAFE.
The UTS college also claims its purpose is ‘to remove the real and perceived barriers that prevent Indigenous participation in higher education and the broader economy.’ They made it to university on merit, didn’t they? The rest is up to them, or should be, unless they are to be cossetted forever. The fear of segregated colleges (UTS says they will allow some non-indigenous students) is that they discourage integration and shun inclusion.
According to Pluckrose’s Social Injustice, identity politics emerged in the 1960s within the broader manifestation of postmodernism. Postmodernism emerged in academia as a philosophy that questioned everything. It is so sceptical that it does not believe in objective truth or knowledge, believing everything, even knowledge, is corrupted by politics and political power. It opened the door to identity as a powerful tool to undermine common humanity, individual freedom, and merit.
Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority.
A more prosaic explanation of identity politics is that of Mounk’s The Identity Trap. He explains that the Left was lured by collective action against the majority, where, despite the triumph of liberalism, minorities were marginalised. And yet, the minorities only had to wait; liberalism was their saviour. Actions such as a First Nations College come after the triumph of liberalism. It is an attempt by successful Aborigines to capture more power and glory undeservedly.
The antidote to the evils of postmodernism and identity politics is, of course, liberalism. Pluckrose appeals to secularism’s principle: ‘In a secular society, no one should be punished for rejecting religion or any other ideology.’ In other words, stop the cancel culture gig. The former President of Harvard University, Professor Gay, resigned because she was the culmination of cancel culture. When pressed by a Congressional committee on virulent anti-Israel protests on her campus, she defended the cancel mob. Simple direct questions from a single Republican representative outed her.
Mounk recommends that leaders cultivate a spirit of tolerance of ideas; for example, when racist accusations are made, he recommends no discipline until the facts are clear. That seems obvious, but the rush to judgment fuels the fire. Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day. Don’t allow craven editors and the X (Twitter) mob to be the judge. Gay was forced out not because she wanted to let things settle before acting against anti-Semitic hate speech but because she was in a vanguard that selected students on race and brooked no demur from those in the hate speech camp.
Essentially, there are no ‘identity’ ideas, just ideas. Joining in this crusade for liberalism, our group, Close the Gap Research, is working to uncover one of the engine rooms of the identity industry as it manifests in Aboriginal politics. We are reviewing the qualifications of professors who claim Aboriginal heritage. We are also analysing Reconciliation Action Plans where organisations profess to do good but instead reinforce separate identities and undervalue the contribution of people as employees: workers. Now, there’s an old-fashioned idea.
Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research and author of The Burden of Culture.
Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.
‘Go where you are treated best’ is the tagline of entrepreneur, Andrew Henderson, founder of the business Nomad Capitalist. Andrew and his team help entrepreneurs, retirees and others move their lives out of countries like Australia to countries where they will be treated best. It is a business that has being growing exponentially in recent years.
When I first heard Andrew speak those six words during the earliest days of the Covid sham, it hit me like a power-slap from Mike Tyson. What the hell was I still doing in Australia? For years I thought I had been fighting to build small businesses. But I had not; I could do business just fine. I had a bunch of great products and services in an interesting niche. I liked my customers, and my customers liked me. The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it. The reality was Australia no longer treated me well, let alone best.
The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments.
“We crush many a dream around [here]” was proudly proclaimed to me by an officer of Melbourne’s Stonnington Council when I applied for a permit to open a simple, small business. He also bragged how new laws rendered thousands of commercial properties “completely unlettable”. Sadly, the only thing shocking about his statements was his candor. His malicious and malignant attitude towards honest citizens, small business operators and the future success of the country was what I had come to expect from Australian bureaucrats.
Being an unwilling participant in an abusive relationship with local government was only part of the problem. The bigger problem was the direction of the country as a whole.
The absolutely disgusting and immoral human rights abuses orchestrated by the Victorian Government, media and law enforcement during the Covid sham was not an aberration. Nor was the Victorian public’s willing complicity. It was unequivocal proof of the direction society had been headed.
So what is a patriotic Australian supposed to do? Vote? For whom? Protest? And get shot with rubber bullets or sprayed with mace for not supporting the Government-approved message? Exercise your free-speech online? And get arrested in your home, in front of your kids, even if you are pregnant? Or have your government-permission to practice your profession cancelled? Or have your bank accounts frozen?
Australia does not have a bill of rights. You have no legislated right to free speech or right to protest. The Government could not care less about having signed the international treaty for human rights. Their Covid shenanigans proved that unequivocally.
When democracy has been hijacked, like it has been in much of the so-called “free world”, your most powerful option is to vote with your feet and go where you are treated best. If enough people leave, the people and government left behind will be forced to change, to stem further losses and attract good people back. If they do not change, the country will fail as their beliefs and policies were destined to anyway.
The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it.
Unfortunately, for most people leaving is not an option. The nature of most people’s vocations, businesses, finances and/or families makes leaving all but impossible. There will always be people who have no option but to stay and fight against bad governments. But that does not mean staying and fighting is noble; in most cases throughout history, staying to fight your own government has been a terrible option.
For the few people who can move their lives and business elsewhere in the world, they owe it to themselves and their country to go where they are treated best. It is not weak or cowardly, as many jealous people will say. Nothing is harder than leaving family and a lifetime of friends, to face the uncertainty of restarting life in a new country. But it can be the most patriotic thing you can do; not to mention cathartic, enlightening and positively life changing.
A country is not its government. Being so disgusted and disillusioned with a government that you move says nothing about your feelings toward the country or its people. The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments.
Australians are lucky to be welcomed all over the world. Wherever you go, you will always be Australian (or whatever nationality you are). If you go where you really are treated best, you will almost certainly be more financially, emotionally and spiritually successful than you could have been under the current government in Australia.
Nomad Capitalist has a website. I recommend taking a look at it.
Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.
Unions and libertarians disagree about almost everything. However, they do both share one core tenet – the right to “freedom of association”. Well, maybe not so much anymore.
Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals. It also happens to be a right incorporated in international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Freedom of association stands as a cornerstone of a free society.
Unions rely on freedom of association for their very existence. Unless workers are free to associate, there can be no unions.
Finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith.
However, a piece of recent news begs the question as to whether this right is still valued, or maybe even understood, by the union movement. Or perhaps the left’s war on Christianity gets precedence over one of the union movement’s foundation principles.
For many Christians it is their faith that has led them to libertarianism – for reasons discussed elsewhere on Liberty Itch. I won’t revisit here that any attack on Christianity is also an attack on our civil liberties.
Not all libertarians are church goers of course (albeit they should seriously consider becoming so). Secular libertarians should be alarmed, nonetheless. The debate over proposed religious discrimination laws in Australia presents a significant point of contention, particularly concerning the principle of freedom of association.
The union movement’s position on this is riddled with hypocrisy.
Firstly, the right to freedom of association also extends to religious organizations, allowing them to maintain their faith-based hiring practices. By pushing to restrict these schools’ hiring autonomy, the trade unions risk undermining the very freedom of association they hold dear.
Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals.
Second, trade unions, which typically advocate for workers’ rights, appear to disregard this idea when it comes to religious schools’ hiring practices. This raises concerns about the consistency of their stance and whether they are applying the same standards to themselves.
Third, while the unions bemoan discrimination implicit (they say) in hiring based on faith, by limiting faith-based schools’ hiring autonomy, they may discriminate against religious individuals who want to work in environments aligned with their beliefs, thus contradicting their own principles of non-discrimination.
And finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith. Limiting their ability to hire staff who share their beliefs homogenises the educational landscape and limits diversity of educational options, which is contrary to the principles of a free and open society.
Let’s call it what it is: the trade union movement’s call to prevent faith-based hiring in religious schools is at best the “politics of envy”, and at worst an unprincipled and hypocritical attack on Christianity. Let’s see if state and federal governments have the courage and integrity to resist this push.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
The past few years have prompted a more focused view upon the word Freedom and all that it entails. Covid lockdowns along with coercive directives to take a new and warp-speed developed vaccine to “save Grandma” have been at the core of it.
When I ran as a candidate in Australia’s federal election in 2022 for the United Australia Party, I was one of four freedom candidates vying in my electorate of Lilley. One day on pre-poll, I approached a journalist from one of our major newspapers to ask why we were being ignored by the press, and the public not afforded the opportunity to hear what we had to say. His response was to cast his arm widely over the throng of people lining up on a very wet and wild day to say that we were irrelevant, and that what all those people out there were interested in was only “red” and “blue.”
We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth.
After explaining to him why I was standing up for our freedoms and challenged him to tell me why the people didn’t have the right to hear our messages, he told me: “Freedom is a non-word.”
Naturally I disagreed, and the historian in me tried to appeal to his better judgement, given that his own career reflected the freedoms available to him to pursue a path to write and communicate his thoughts and ideas.
If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans, which was created to ensure the people had a voice and for the three levels of government to remain separate.
Imagine telling Socrates, the man who questioned everything and who encouraged others to do the same, that the word Freedom meant nothing at all? I doubt he would have needed hemlock to see his last day – the shock would have taken him out.
Almost four years have gone by since our world changed, and many people have forgotten about the egregious rules and punishments that were handed down from on high. They have proceeded to carry on with their lives, tut-tutting those of us who remind them of just what the government overlords did.
If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans
Australians are by nature laid back. Sadly, that proved more true than many of us thought possible when the majority knelt before the altar of the Leviathan.
The future may look grim as we watch our inherent rights taken away from us, but I continue to look to the wisdom and foresight of the ancients as they navigated their own way through the quagmire of tyranny and oppression. We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth.
When the Gauls razed Rome to the ground in 390 BC, the general, Camillus, had to restore faith in the soldiers and the people to continue to defend and believe in their own freedoms. Many wanted to leave the ruins and rubble of their beloved Rome, but Camillus would have none of that, stating:
“Must it be seen that Gauls could tumble Rome to the ground, while Romans are too weak to lift her up again?”
It is my hope that one day soon our nation will wise up enough to do the same heavy lifting which is required to reclaim what is rightfully ours, and what is absolutely a word unto itself – Freedom.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
During my recent one-month stay in China’s bustling metropolises, the omnipresence of technology, particularly WeChat (a “Super App” Elon Musk wants X to be for the West), was starkly evident. QR codes adorned nearly every surface, from restaurant menus to market stalls, making WeChat an indispensable part of daily life. The ‘everything app’ seamlessly integrates functions akin to WhatsApp, Facebook, eBay, Uber and many others into one platform.
The convenience it offers is undeniable: messaging, social networking, making payments, ordering food and hailing rides are all accomplished with a few taps on a smartphone. However, beneath this veneer of ultra-convenience lies a more ominous reality.
The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy
In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a superficially perfect society masks deep underlying issues. This theme resonates profoundly with my experience in China. On the surface, life is streamlined and digitised. In cities like Shanghai, cash is almost obsolete (I used no cash at all for the one-month trip), and every need or whim is catered to with astonishing efficiency, with technology not just an enabler but a dominant force shaping society. Yet, this convenience comes at a steep cost – privacy is virtually non-existent.
The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens.
Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm
The extensive surveillance network I described in “China’s Dystopia I: Security to Slavery” is not limited to physical spaces. Every transaction, interaction or movement facilitated by WeChat and other digital platforms is tracked, recorded, and scrutinised whenever the government deems necessary. The app, while a marvel of modern technology, doubles as a tool for surveillance, with the Chinese government having unfettered access to the data collected.
Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword
This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience. On the other, it represents a dystopian reality where personal details, preferences, and even thoughts are no longer private. Every digital footprint is monitored, contributing to a profile that the government can access and analyse at will. The notion of ”Big Brother” in George Orwell’s “1984” finds a parallel here, though it is perhaps more aptly described by Huxley’s vision where citizens are placated with pleasures and conveniences, unaware of or indifferent to the loss of their freedoms.
The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit
The move towards a cashless society in China brings its own set of risks. The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens. Coupled with the social credit system, this creates a scenario where individuals can be rewarded or punished not just for their actions, but also for their associations.
This system has become a tool for cracking down on dissent. Individuals or groups who interact with or support entities disfavoured by the government can find themselves facing financial restrictions or worse. Being locked out of WeChat, for example, effectively prevents participation in daily life.
This level of control over personal and financial interactions adds another layer to the surveillance state, where not just actions, but also associations, are monitored and controlled.
This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience.
Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World
As we progress further into the digital era, the Chinese model serves as a crucial case study for the rest of the world. It poses a fundamental question: what is the true cost of convenience? In a society where every digital interaction is monitored, can freedom truly exist? The allure of a frictionless, digital life is powerful, but it should not blind us to the importance of safeguarding our privacy and freedom.
As Australia observes the unfolding digital dystopia in China, it becomes imperative to reflect upon our own relationship with technology and surveillance. While enjoying a more open and democratic society, Australia is not immune to the risks posed by the unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies. The use of such technologies for contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic signalled clear privacy erosion and government overreach.
As Australia strides forward in its technological journey, it must tread cautiously to avoid the pitfalls seen in China. As Huxley’s “Brave New World” warns, a society enamoured with comfort and entertainment may be blind to the erosion of its essential liberties. The challenge for us is to ensure that technological advancements serve humanity, not government.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
The Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 (the Digital ID Bill) was passed by the Senate this month.
According to the government the Digital ID System will address the need for a “secure, voluntary, and inclusive method” to verify Australians online, because “recent cyber incidents” have proven the need for identification to be “reliable”. Somehow, this is all said without the slightest hint of irony.
Just last year the story emerged that the government’s flagship Digital Identification system, ‘myGov’, had been ‘hacked’ to the tune of over half a billion dollars. Fraudsters claimed $557 million from the Australian Tax Office (ATO) by creating false myGov accounts and linking them to the tax files of 8100 genuine taxpayers. They replaced the bank details of real people and businesses with their own.
This ‘recent cyber incident’ did indeed prove the need for identification to be secure and reliable. It also proved that government is not the organisation to make it so.
But this example of the government’s profound lack of competence with information technology is not isolated or rare. The government’s track record of implementing reliable and secure digital infrastructure projects could only be described as appalling.
How can the government claim that its digital identification system will be voluntary and inclusive when it has been knowingly acting unlawfully with identification for years?
Who can forget when Queensland Health tried to implement a new payroll system? They blew their budget by 20,000%, costing Queensland taxpayers an astonishing $1.2 billion and requiring 1,000 new staff to manually manage the payroll. The independent inquiry described the debacle as “the worst failure in public administration in Australian history”.
Then there was the disastrous Robo debt scheme. The Australian government tried to build a system to detect welfare fraud and overpayments. 443,000 Australians were abused and wrongly accused of fraud or Centrelink debts. Some were so distressed by the abuse they took their own lives. There was a class action lawsuit resulting in a $1.8billion pay-out from the government. The debacle led to a Royal Commission which described Robo debt as a “human tragedy”.
Then there is the $1.5 billion My Health Record project. The former head of the project, Paul Shelter, famously said he would opt-out of the My Health Record system that he himself was responsible for building because of the poor security model. He disliked that your private and personal data can be accessed for reasons of public revenue. He said that the poor security, along with the way people were being signed up (without their express consent) was “symptomatic of the way government handles IT”. The National Audit Office confirmed recently that My Health Record still fails to appropriately manage cybersecurity risks.
With a resume of disasters like these, how can we be expected to trust the government to build a secure and reliable digital identification system? The centrepiece of the system – myGov – has already been hacked successfully.
But the demonstrable lack of trustworthiness of the government with regard to digital identification extends beyond incompetence. The Government has for years been unlawfully using identity verification services without any legislative basis in breach of their own privacy laws. A Senate inquiry heard that the Document Verification Service has been used over 140 million times by approximately 2,700 government agencies and industry organisations. That was just in the past year alone.
443,000 Australians were abused and wrongly accused of fraud or Centrelink debts.
In addition, the Face Verification Service was used 2.6 million times. Senator Shoebridge stated that “The conclusion that pretty much every stakeholder has drawn is that the current identity verification services procedure is unlawful and, in the absence of any statutory underpinning, is open to legal challenge”.
He warned that the government was facing “potentially significant civil damages” that could be “aggravated by the fact that they continue to operate a service knowing full well that it is unlawful, and in breach of the privacy laws”.
The newly passed legislation is clearly a case of the Government giving itself legal permission to do what it has been doing unlawfully. Digital Rights Watch told Senators that the government was now retrofitting a legislative foundation to an existing set of practices and rushing the Bill through to protect itself from liability. The Law Council of Australia also criticised the use of these services without any laws underpinning it.
How can the government claim that its digital identification system will be voluntary and inclusive when it has been knowingly acting unlawfully with identification for years? The long history of catastrophically botched digital infrastructure projects prove that we absolutely cannot trust in the government’s competence. But its equally appalling record of disregarding privacy and identity – to the point of ignoring its own laws – prove that it cannot be trusted with our privacy or personal information at all.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
As the Publisher of Liberty Itch, I receive six industry briefings, exposes or whistleblower tips weekly. Some are anonymous, others with a name.
Most don’t advance the debate on public issues.
Recently though, I spoke with a doctor, frustrated at the way government has ruined a once proud and independent profession.
His firm conclusion: informed consent, the underlying component for any doctor-patient relationship, is no longer possible in Australia.
He has been practicing medicine in Australia for 15 years, so his career is well-advanced. He presents as a professional who loves his job, with all the challenges and rewards it brings.
Until the governments around Australia coordinated on Covid-19, he said he never cared much for politics. It wasn’t part of his life. But witnessing politicians trample over human rights, intrude and violate the sacred relationship between doctor and patient, was enough to activate him.
He’s not in the mood for forgiving the perpetrators.
Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored.
When a patient presents with any health problem or condition, a doctor must convey all of the available relevant information to the patient in order to gain his or her voluntary consent for any medical procedure. When a government hides or lies, and a patient is coerced into a procedure, informed consent is dead!
Relevant information regarding a vaccination might include the side effects, relevant and absolute risk of prevention, trial information, and any other safety data. Yet the Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this.
The British Medical Association’s BMJ has written that Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration is dependent on funding by pharmaceutical companies at a worrying 96%, the highest among peer international organisations. This leads to obvious questions about independence and whether there are conflicts of interest. In July 2023 the TGA stated: “As reporting rates of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination are very stable, we will not include this section in future COVID-19 vaccine safety reports”.
Yet as our doctor-friend pointed out to me, “The rates were in fact stable, at the highest levels recorded in history. What are they now? We don’t know, because the TGA won’t give us this information.”
Australians were openly bullied into taking vaccines on the coercive promise –that once inviolate freedoms would be restored. Vaccine mandates were slapped on a trusting populace on the basis of the greater good – of protecting others. Even now there are many places where these mandates remain despite overwhelming evidence that vaccination against Covid-19 does not prevent either infection or transmission of the disease. And despite numerous reports of adverse side effects, still no reliable data is provided.
Australian Government signed secret contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply novel medications for a new virus without disclosing any of this.
One could perfectly understand his visceral reaction to the deplatforming of professionally-acclaimed, peer-reviewed medical experts simply because they shared research data that did not fit the narrative of ‘safe and effective’.
But then witness Dr Jeanette Young, the Queensland Chief Health Officer at the time, who cautioned against one vaccine whilst promoting another while, as the Courier Mail reported, her husband, Professor Graeme Nimmo, was financially incentivised by Pfizer.
Dr Jeannette Young
Dr Young should have been punished for failing to declare a major conflict of interest, but instead was promoted to Governor of Queensland, a handsome reward from her friend Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has now resigned without facing the consequences of her own Covid-19 decisions.
“So what happens if your doctor wants to caution you about any of this information?”, I naively asked our whistleblower doctor.
The sobering answer should send chills down the spine of all Australians.
“They will likely be suspended. The governing body of Australian doctors, AHPRA, has done just that that to several who were brave enough to speak out. As a registered doctor with AHPRA, I am not allowed to publicly state my opinions on health policy (including on social media), as it may undermine the confidence in those in political positions making up the rules. Any Australian doctor who denies this statement does not fully understand their conditions of registration with AHPRA.”
To protect his livelihood and family, he only talks to me.
The greatest discoveries in medicine and science have come from testing a hypothesis that contradicts traditional schools of thought. When the health system is hijacked by conflicted bureaucrats, problems inevitably arise. The past few years have left our doctor with an absolute disgust for our Chief Health Officers and Health Ministers, and for the first time a sense of embarrassment at what should be an honourable profession without government interference.
Most disconcertingly of all, he feels most concern for patients who are now subject to near-complete control by the collectivist bureaucrats and their centralised treatment plans for diseases which are yet to come.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Christmas is characterised by the ubiquitous plentiful Christmas lunch. However, many Australian families will struggle to afford to put food on the table, as they face food insecurity troubles.
Defining Food Insecurity According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the UN, food insecurity is defined as “whenever the availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or the ability to acquire acceptable food in socially acceptable ways, is limited or uncertain.”
Food insecurity is ascertained by one simple question: “In the past 12 months, were there any times that you ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy any more?”
Reasons for food insecurity in Australia Cost of living is most often cited as the main reason for food insecurity. Cost of living pressures have been exacerbated by a number of factors.
Above average inflation: In January this year, the CPI headline reading of 7.8% was the highest since 1990. This figure has remained around this mark all year. Recently, the RBA stated that inflation won’t return to target range (2% to 3%) until the end of 2025.
Elevated food inflation: Data indicate that food prices will continue increasing by up to 10% each year. This will increase the average household’s annual grocery bill of $13,000 by ~$108 per month.
Industry levies are insidious. Just like a tax, the cost filters through supply chains, affecting the end consumer.
Elevated interest rates:Mortgage payments increased 71% YOY this year, as people came off fixed-rate mortgages and on to higher variable rates. By the end of this year, 48.5% of total borrowers will require 30%+ of their income to service their mortgage, according to Australian National University’s Australian tax and welfare system model.
Declining household savings: Increasing mortgage repayments and inflation have seen the average household savings ratio drop to 1.1% – the lowest level since 2007.
Wages unable to keep up: The Australian Bureau of Statistics says the wage price index increased 1.3% in Q3, the biggest quarterly rise in the 26-year history of the report. Simultaneously, the RBA raised interest rates to a 12-year high of 4.35% in order to combat a CPI increase of 5.4% over the 12 months to September 2023 quarter.
Libertarian solutions As Adlai Stevenson said, “A hungry man is not a free man”. Addressing food insecurity from a libertarian perspective requires furthering freedom and voluntary cooperation. In practice, this includes minimising government intervention to maximise efficient allocation of resources and productive output.
Adlai Stevenson
Australian farmers are essential for our food production and security. According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), most of the food sold within this country is supplied by Australian producers.
National Farmers Federation’s (NFF) recent campaign made a stand against expanding government intervention, claiming “food production is not a central priority for the current Federal government”. NFF went on to add that Labor is running a “niche ideological agenda” and “wilfully ignorant of the plight of farmers”. To support these claims, NFF cited a recent survey finding a majority of farmers think the Labor government’s policies are harming the agricultural industry.
Contributing to this sentiment is the federal government’s proposition to introduce a new Biosecurity Protection Levy from the 1st of July 2024. According to the DAFF, “taxpayers, importers, international travellers and producers” would be subjected to this cost.
Cost of living is most often cited as the main reason for food insecurity.
In their research paper ‘Towards Levyathan? Industry levies in Australia’, the Productivity Commission included a case study on the Biosecurity Protection Levy. This report is unerring in its analysis of government motivation for opting for the levy structure. The report:
Suggests that targeted industry “levies” may encounter less community resistance compared to broad tax increases.
Highlights the public’s immediate concern with direct costs of taxation, emphasising the potential favourability of perceived indirect costs of an efficient tax system.
Notes that people may view levies more positively, assuming they are not directly impacted, creating a phenomenon termed “fiscal illusion.”
Industry levies are insidious. Just like a tax, the cost filters through supply chains, affecting the end consumer. In this case, further increasing grocery bills for families across Australia. The report asks and answers two important questions:
Will levy payers be in a position to monitor and influence how levy proceeds are used?
How will primary producers know whether levy proceeds are going to activities that they value?
The answer: unclear, but unlikely. Levy proceeds will only fund a proportion of overall biosecurity activities, and it is not proposed that those revenues will be allocated to particular activities.
As libertarians, we stand in opposition to the appropriation of funds for opaque causes. It is essential we “watch the watchmen”, and advocate fiscal responsibility and austerity. This is an important part of our work to spread a singular life-giving, flourishing freedom throughout our country, including affordable food.
Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.
It is the festive season. You are annoyed every time someone wishes you “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. You are a libertarian who wants to save Christendom, but where were you last Sunday morning?
Personal salvation aside, there are a number of compelling reasons for spending your Sunday mornings in the pews. I suggest there are two broad reasons. First, a church not supported by its local community will disappear – and that’s a bad thing. And second, Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.
If a local community does not support its local church, it will disappear because without attendance, volunteerism, and financial contributions, it will lack the necessary resources to operate.
That’s a bad thing for libertarians.
These local institutions often embody principles fundamental to libertarian thought. Local churches are more than just places of worship; they are community hubs where individuals come together voluntarily, a core tenet of libertarianism. They foster a sense of community and interconnectedness, offering a means of social engagement, moral discourse, and mutual support, all without reliance on government intervention.
The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.
Moreover, churches traditionally play a significant role in providing social services, education, and charity, operating independently of the state (think of all those schools and hospitals called “Saint Paul’s” etc). This aligns with the libertarian preference for private, community-based solutions over government-run programs. The disappearance of local churches has a compounding effect that means a reduction in the number of non-governmental avenues available for community support and social welfare, increasing reliance on the state.
Furthermore, churches often serve as bastions of moral and ethical teachings. These complement and reinforce libertarian principles of personal responsibility and ethical conduct. A moral framework that helps guide individual and community behaviour, essential in a society where libertarian principles prioritise individual decision-making and self-governance.
So, the disappearance of local churches means a loss of important community structures that support libertarian values of voluntary association, community-driven welfare, and moral guidance, making it a concerning development for those who advocate for a society built on these principles.
Take a moment to ask yourself – where does the rubber really hit the road in a libertarian society? We mythologise the empowering of community groups and volunteerism in order to disempower the state – but what do you think this looks like? An individual accountable only to their families and God is the epitome of personal responsibility.
Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.
How then do Christian teachings complement libertarian ethics? By reflecting a harmonious blend of spiritual beliefs and political philosophy. At the core of both systems is a strong emphasis on individual liberty and personal responsibility. Christian doctrine champions free will, advocating that individuals are morally accountable for their choices, a notion that resonates deeply with libertarian values. Additionally, the concept of stewardship in Christianity, which calls for responsible management of resources and care for the world, parallels the libertarian emphasis on self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.
In terms of ethical conduct the Christian Golden Rule, which advises treating others as one would wish to be treated, aligns closely with the libertarian non-aggression principle, which advocates peaceful and voluntary interactions among individuals. Both philosophies encourage charity and voluntary aid, preferring acts of compassion and generosity over compulsory state-led welfare. This common ground highlights a shared belief in the power of individual and community action in addressing social needs.
Moreover, Christian teachings about peace, non-violence, and the significance of smaller, community-based decision-making resonate with libertarian views on limited governance and opposition to unnecessary wars. The respect for moral autonomy and the individual conscience is a crucial intersection of these belief systems. It underscores the importance of making ethical decisions based on personal convictions, free from external coercion. The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.
So quit complaining and save your local church. But find a “traditional service” that preaches the Gospel and not progressive talking points. Make the effort and do your homework. Start with a Christmas service. It will be the most impactful thing you can do to save Christendom and the libertarian values it enshrines. And you may even save your soul.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
The year is 1643. The English Civil War between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians has begun. The new revolutionary Parliament has refused to relax laws around censorship of books and has now passed a new law to license the press – Ordinance for the Regulating of Printing, also known as The Licensing Order of 1643.
The political theorist and poet, John Milton, was prompted to write an appeal to Parliament arguing that England required a free press, unshackled from the strict licensing that Charles I had imposed via his infamous Star Chamber, which had been abolished in 1641.
The argument failed.
Australians need to be mindful of the inflammatory use of such weaponised language by those who are meant to “serve” us, rather than “manage” us.
Milton’s pamphlet, entitled Areopagitica, was designed to be delivered in the same manner as at the Council of ancient Athens on the Hill of Ares, north-west of the Acropolis, known as the Areopagus.
John Milton
Yet here we are in 2023, post tyrannical regimes, famines, and great wars, still fighting to retain our right to free thought and speech . And as far as the press goes, the inimitable Kerry Packer would be turning in his grave to see what the modern media has become.
Is it any wonder that some of us question the whole idea of progress?
Surely, we have passed through that archaic and staid period where people could not speak their mind or write their thoughts down without fear or favour.
Are we not the ones chosen to live in a time of great innovation that will march our species into the world of wild imaginings of the kind that require open minds and the freedom to articulate those ideas?
As we stare down the imminent passing of a Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, it is clear the answer is NO.
The Minister with oversight of this Bill, Michelle Rowland, recently presented a speech at the Press Club in Canberra in rousing support for, and defence of, the Bill. The section of gravest concern is that of the new powers which the government seeks to impose on what they consider to be misinformation and disinformation.
Ms Rowland highlighted what she regards as a “gap in our existing regulatory framework,” which she stressed needs to be tackled “seriously.” (I can feel Kerry’s presence as his spiritual wrath arises!).
Michelle Rowland
She claims that 70% of Australians are concerned with misinformation, with the press release inferring that the people see this as solely a responsibility of the government. There is no room for consideration that the government should step back from regulating.
The Opposition doesn’t get a free pass: as the Minister states, her predecessor, the Liberals Paul Fletcher, “announced that ‘his’ government would legislate to give the regulator new information gathering and enforcement powers in this area.”
So heinous are the people of Australia that they know not what they do when stating their views. The Minister refers to a report by the Chief of the Defence Force in which he says, “disinformation operations” have the potential to “fracture and fragment entire societies.”
So, not only are we unable to manage our own thoughts and words, but we are mounting “operations.”
Surely, we have passed through that archaic and staid period where people could not speak their mind or write their thoughts down without fear or favour.
Australians need to be mindful of the inflammatory use of such weaponised language by those who are meant to “serve” us, rather than “manage” us.
We should be declaring our belief in the right we have as human beings – to think and speak freely and to understand that offence is taken and not given
Milton argued that should the new Parliament fail to rescind the law, it will succumb to the same fate as that which it fought the King to abolish:
“We can grow ignorant again, brutish, formal, and slavish, as you found us; but you then must first become that which you cannot be – oppressive, arbitrary, and tyrannous, as they were from whom you have freed us.”
It is a question we need to ask our politicians: How do they see themselves after this Bill is enshrined? Do they believe they will be immune under the law, a law which they themselves put in place? Why would they escape it? How did they manage to conjure up such a miserable decree in the first place? And more importantly, why?
Australia operates as a representative parliamentary democracy; a place where Truth and Falsehood engage in battle in the hope that Truth wins the day. As Milton so eloquently expresses:
“And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength.”
Let us insist that our own Areopagus in Canberra be used for purposes that demonstrate a sense of responsibility, humility, and honour, lest this great Famine leave our minds a desperate wasteland.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
Did Certain Events Really Take Place The Way They Have Been Presented?
Many readers will be aware of the term ‘red pill’. But for those who are not, it refers to a scene in the 1999 blockbuster The Matrix where the main protagonist, Neo, is presented with the option of continuing to live in his computer-simulated reality by taking the blue pill, or to be exposed to the unsettling truth of his existence by taking the red pill. In the decades since, being ‘red pilled’ has come to refer to waking up to the unsettling realities of our controlled existence.
To take the white pill is to abandon despair and surrender to the optimism of hope.
DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE In the last few years, use of the pill metaphor to represent different ideologies and worldviews has continued to expand. Yet while many are now aware of red and blue pills, far fewer are aware of black and white pills.
The commonly understood pathway is that we begin in a blue-pilled existence: we accept the world around us as the truth and do not question what is presented before us. Most people spend their entire lives perceiving the world this way – never delving below the surface level. Some of us begin to question the world we see around us: we become red pilled. Is the government really acting in our best interests? Are we truly free? Did certain events really take place the way they have been presented?
The awakening that comes from taking the red pill can often spur someone to action. The realisation that all is not as it seems must be shouted from the rooftops; people need to be woken from their living slumber and see what is really going on. But the reality is that most people want to continue living in the simulation. Challenging your worldview and potentially shattering everything you believe to be true is hard, and that is a journey most people are not willing to take.
THE BLACK PILL Those who are red pilled can become disillusioned by their failed efforts. Ultimately they believe that nothing matters and any efforts to change are futile: they take the ‘black pill’. They become extreme nihilists. For many, their journey ends here: bitter at the world for failing to see what they see. They withdraw, believing that the living zombies around them deserve this world they have created.
Unfortunately many libertarians, and those who are politically active, fall into this trap. Stuck in a sad, black-pilled existence; determined that they will be further alienated by an increasingly authoritarian world. Looking around, particularly during recent Covid tyranny, it is hard not to agree. News of new, “deadly” Covid strains, incoming global warming lockdowns, 20-minute cities, a growing surveillance state and unending censorship is incredibly depressing to those of us who believe in freedom, prosperity and human enterprise.
ANOTHER WAY There is one final step on this journey: the ‘white pill’. To take the white pill is to abandon despair and surrender to the optimism of hope. Unlike the blue pilled, who are hopeful due to ignorant optimism, being white pilled requires you to challenge nihilism with reason and inquiry. In other words, it is to become cynical of cynicism and sceptical of scepticism.
we accept the world around us as the truth and do not question what is presented before us.
There is nothing dishonest or unprincipled about taking the white pill. While the blue pill represents optimism due to ignorance, the white pill represents optimism in spite of ignorance. And not only is it ideologically authentic, it is also much more likely to convince others of the merits of freedom and liberty. When you live your life as a beacon of hope and reasoned optimism, others will be naturally drawn to you. When you live a sad and bitter existence, others cannot wait to get away from you.
WALK YOUR OWN WAY Libertarians might not enjoy much political success, but I don’t particularly care what a bunch of bloated public servants in a fancy room hundreds of miles away from me say – and neither should you. These are people who I have never met and do not relate to in any way. Despite what they may call themselves, they are not my representatives.
Winning seats in parliaments should not be our metric for success; rather living a free and prosperous life. Freedom comes from within, and I know I will always be a free man unless I let them take it from me!
Have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the festive season, free and white pilled.
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
Cancel culture is an online phenomenon involving a collective shared public response, with the intention of holding individuals or entities accountable for perceived offenses. Frequently involving public shaming, it can manifest as boycotts, calls for de-platforming, or efforts to damage reputations and careers. Exacting consequences on an individual’s reputation and livelihood, it replaces a rule of law approach governing the conduct of individuals in society
Anyone can become a target just by being part of the online community and offending someone, although the real intention behind cancel culture is to silence those who do not conform to a particular narrative or have differing and unacceptable views.
Cancel culture bypasses due process, denying individuals the opportunity for a fair defence
Without a formal process, individuals find themselves unable to address or counter accusations, contrary to the principles of due process that provide the right to a fair hearing and the chance to present a defence.
A recent example of this was the case of Russell Brand, an alternative media personality known for promoting free speech on YouTube and Rumble. Brand has consistently spoken out against big pharma, censorship, Covid tyranny and vaccine mandates and government and legacy media corruption. Brand has been labelled a right-wing extremist and conspiracy theorist but when these labels did not deter him nor his audience of almost 7 million viewers, he became himself the target of cancel culture.
Brand was accused by way of a British television documentary in which women anonymously accused him of historical sexual abuse allegations. Brand vehemently denied the allegations, had not been questioned by police or charged with any of the alleged crimes.
Brand was estimated to earn a million British pounds just from YouTube. Nonetheless, YouTube swiftly demonetised him.
Caroline Dinenage, a British MP, wrote to Rumble’s CEO asking whether Rumble intended to join YouTube in suspending Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.
Caroline Dinenage a British MP
In a public statement posted on X, Rumble called the letter disturbing and said Dinenage’s demands were deeply inappropriate and dangerous. The Platform added that it was devoted to an internet where nobody arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform. It added that while it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of the company’s values and mission. Rumble also stated that it was even more disturbing singling out an individual and demanding his ban given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.
Despite this win against the cancel culture mob, months later,Brand remains demonetised on YouTube although YouTube continues to make money from his content. He still has not been charged with any offence and the mob has moved on.
Legal Certainty
While the rule of law upholds the principle that laws should be clear, predictable, and consistently applied, with cancel culture, individuals may face consequences for conduct they could not predict would lead to severe backlash, from liking a post to expressing an opinion deemed offensive.
Lack of Due Process
The rule of law ensures individuals have a fair chance to defend themselves in a structured and systematic manner. Cancel culture bypasses due process, denying individuals the opportunity for a fair defence and subjecting them to arbitrary judgments by an angry online mob.
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
The rule of law affords individuals the right not to comment during an investigation or testify during trial to prevent self-incrimination while cancel culture demands public apologies, placing individuals in a lose-lose situation. Silence is assumed guilt, while an apology is a self-incriminating admission of guilt.
real intention behind cancel culture is to silence those who do not conform to mainstream narratives
Procedural Fairness and Due Process
The rule of law ensures individuals have the right to legal representation, procedural fairness, and equal application of the law. Whereas cancel culture is applied inconsistently, with different consequences for similar conduct based on ideological or political affiliations.
Proportionate Punishments
The rule of law prescribes clear guidelines for penalties based on established legal principles. Unlike cancel culture which imposes disproportionate punishments such as de-platforming, job loss, and public humiliation without adherence to legal principles.
Legal Accountability of Law Enforcement Officials
The rule of law imposes accountability on law enforcement officials for their actions. Cancel culture lacks accountability, enabling online mobs to cause irreparable harm without consequences.
Cancel culture has flourished in a climate of political demagoguery, where appeals to emotions, prejudices, and fear shape public narratives. Governments and activists manipulate public sentiment to justify silencing dissent and punishing those with differing views.
The clash between cancel culture and the rule of law highlights the need for a nuanced and reasoned approach to free speech, dissent, and accountability. In a democratic society, the principles of due process, legal accountability, and equality under the law should always prevail over arbitrary and emotional judgments.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
I was flattered to receive an invitation from Liberty Itch to join the team of writers.
They asked that my début article be something of an introduction: explaining how I came to notoriety, so here it is.
On 25th March I filmed trans activists rioting in Auckland’s Albert Park, preventing British women’s rights campaigner Posie Parker from speaking. I used a 360° camera attached to a three-metre-long selfie-stick so the footage is overhead, from the middle of the crowd. These cameras film in all directions concurrently and from it, flat clips can be exported.
That evening on the nightly news and over the next two days the ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful. They used sound bites such as “peaceful protest,” “pure trans joy” and “an outpouring of aroha [love.]”
I knew the footage I had directly contradicted this false narrative so I started publishing it.
The following day my life changed.
Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”
I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it!
I used Twitter to post infrequently about my interests, stuff people weren’t particularly interested in. But oh boy, were they interested in this. On the morning of the 28th I woke to twenty notifications per second, requests from major news organisations for syndication (accepted) and for interview (declined.) By the end of the week millions of people around the world had viewed the material.
Then I started receiving requests. Primarily from assault victims, some of whom remain traumatised. With a 360° camera I’m seldom looking in the direction of pertinent material. People came to me with requests for flat exports at a certain time in a certain direction so the footage could be evidential in police complaints and subsequently prosecutions.
Of course, I agreed. And kept publishing, clip after clip, each more damning of the official narrative than the last. This didn’t endear me much to the authorities or the rainbow community, nor their left-wing supporters and the domestic mainstream media. In a small country I’m no longer a private citizen.
People came to trust in my integrity. And I’ve become something of a clearing house for information: witness statements, responses to Official Information Act requests, footage from other photographers wishing to remain anonymous and so on. Publishing this material helps to keep the pressure on the authorities (who very much want all of this to go away) to do the right thing.
Which brings me to the New Zealand Police.
On the day of the riot the police withdrew to the outskirts of Albert Park, allowing the rainbow community to get stuck into the women who were there to speak or listen. In a frenzy the rioters broke through metal barriers to get to them. Whilst this was occurring the police were in constant contact with the rainbow organisers. Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”
I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it, and I’m in possession of the OIA responses and independent witness accounts that corroborate it.
This was -at best- a significant operational failure on the part of the police. Some might go so far as to say collusion with a violent mob. It is contentious enough for the Independent Police Conduct Authority to launch an investigation. At the insistence of several victims the IPCA interviewed me two weeks ago, which of course I published, and you can listen to the testimony at my YouTube channel.
To coincide with a court hearing concerning one of her alleged assailants, Posie Parker was due to attend another speaking event in Auckland on 20th September. She cancelled because the New Zealand authorities refused to guarantee her safety. It offends me greatly that anyone is prevented from speaking in public and I am ashamed that my country is not a safe place for her to visit. The event went ahead in her absence.
Which brings me to the power of photography.
The ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful.
The police and the rainbow community are deeply cognizant of the damage the Albert Park footage has done respectively to their reputation and their cause. To discourage violence, hold police accountable and above all keep women safe I formed a team of volunteers to film the event. We achieved these objectives.
Other photographers regularly hit me up to back them up in tricky situations, typically demonstrations. Pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, anti-co-governance, whatever. I do so because I want to prevent harm coming to anyone and for the truth to be told.
Now I’m notorious, these are increasingly dangerous situations. Demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, media, police. People I’ve never met address me by name.
Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.
Arrogant and egotistical are the two words most equated with politicians.
Australians who voted NO to enshrine race into our Constitution will no doubt confirm the veracity of these two terms now that some states have declared they intend to legislate it anyway.
Despite the overwhelming NO vote, state politicians, through their arrogance and egos, are ignoring that majority by either pushing on, in the case of South Australia and Western Australia, or begrudgingly backing down for now while continuing to make excuses as to why it is needed.
The question must be asked by every citizen who values their democratic rights and the rights of their fellows: how is this democracy at work?
The focus here is not on pros and cons of the issue, nor the referendum result. Rather, it is to highlight the blatant disrespect of the citizenry by those who are elected to represent them – the “pollies,” to use Australian vernacular.
It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris.
Is it power they cannot resist? Or do they truly believe they know best?
Undoubtedly, it is a combination of both. And it is as old as time. Most of them are caught up eventually in the net of hubris. As Plato wrote over two millennium ago, that “under tyranny of the master passion, a man becomes in his waking life what he was once only occasionally in his dreams.”
Plato learned from his teacher, Socrates, considered to be the wisest man in history despite him declaring he knew nothing.
Socrates was condemned to death on the charge of leading the youth astray by encouraging them to continually ask questions of everything. Here we are, 2400 years later, and the modern West is on the verge of censoring their citizens from forming their own opinions via strict misinformation laws. Not much has changed really. But I digress.
The Death of Socrates
Plato presents Socrates’ account leading up to his death in Apology. The God of Delphi declared that there was no man wiser than Socrates. In his defence to his accusers, he urged them to listen carefully to his account, as I likewise urge you to read it closely:
‘After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly, I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So, I left him, saying to myself as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.’
It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris. Then perhaps they, with the wisdom of Socrates, would look with eyes wide open at the upcoming Misinformation Bill that is slated to rob Australians of their right to think and speak as free people.
Sure, we won’t be put to death by hemlock poisoning; but to censor what we as free people have to say and be threatened with jail terms should we resist the edict by what James Hol describes as the “Cult of Authority” is not acceptable in a modern democracy.
It is very concerning when a Minister of the Crown fronts the media to say that “there are no lessons to be learned from the Voice referendum.” The Queensland Minister for Housing, Meaghan Scanlon, made this statement on 16 October. A few days later, the Queensland government announced it would not proceed with the legislation due to the Opposition withdrawing support. But the political indifference by politicians of people’s views is indisputable.
It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.
Perhaps the Minister considers that in her very young life she has learned all there is to learn in this world. Socrates died 2400 years ago, yet his words still resonate for those who have ears to hear and the will to listen.
Two millennium must count for something – wisdom via endurance.
The most infamous of prideful kings of ancient Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus – Tarquin the Proud. Superbus is the Latin term for a proud man. So, in ancient Roman terms, Ms Scanlon would be referred to as Superba, the “ba” representing the feminine, compared to “bus” representing the masculine.
It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
Libertarians are somewhat like socialists and communists: while they agree on broad principles (such as low taxes and small government), they argue endlessly about the details. How low should taxes be? Should roads be privatised? Should the gold standard return? Is a social safety net needed?
In America, American libertarians also argue endlessly about abortion. It is at times an election issue, especially since the US Supreme Court decided it is a state responsibility. But unlike on other issues, arguments are often based on emotion rather than libertarian values. Indeed, there can be an unwillingness to admit there is more than one viewpoint.
Abortion is not an election issue in Australia and non-libertarians rarely debate it. Yet Australian libertarians, who take their debating cues from America, repeatedly clash over it. And just as in America, the debate can be notable for bigotry and the absence of libertarian fundamentals.
The two sides are broadly referred to as pro-choice and pro-life. That is, the pro-choice side takes the side of women, while the pro-life takes the side of the embryo or foetus.
Block considers a woman’s uterus as her property and an unwanted foetus as a “trespasser or parasite”, even while lacking the will to act.
The pro-life position is straightforward – life begins at conception and must never be deliberately terminated. Strictly applied, this includes children conceived through rape, incest and, of course, contraceptive failure. And obviously there are no exceptions for malformed foetuses.
The belief that an embryo is entitled to the same rights at conception as a born human is not based on libertarianism; rather, it is based in faith. It has long been the policy of the Catholic Church, for example, although some other faiths hold the same view. Once accepted, libertarian values can certainly be applied. For example, libertarians oppose capital punishment on the basis that no state should have the power to kill a human being, so it follows that it should not sanction the killing of unborn children.
The pro-choice position can equally have a non-libertarian starting point. The claims that children should always be wanted, for example, or that women denied a legal termination will often seek one that is illegal, do not derive from libertarian thinking.
The libertarian argument is that women are entitled to agency over their own bodies. That is, it should be their choice whether to incubate a foetus. It is called self-ownership; the same argument against compulsory Covid vaccinations and in support of voluntary assisted dying. If somebody else can make decisions about your body, in a sense you are a slave.
Non-libertarian views are not invalid solely for that reason, and they can of course be sincerely held, but it is important to know what they are.
Things get especially complicated when abortion occurs after the foetus is capable of surviving outside the woman’s body. That is a function of medical technology; currently about 10% of premature babies survive when born at 22 weeks’ gestation, and 40% at 24 weeks. As technology advances, survival rates increase.
Although premature births are common, abortions in late pregnancy are not, mostly prompted by the baby having significant developmental abnormalities. The libertarian question is, who has the right to decide whether the pregnancy should be terminated: the parents who will be responsible for a severely disabled baby, the taxpayers who may end up paying for it, or some other person with particular moral values?
There is no easy answer to this. JS Mill’s harm principle, that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”, is difficult to apply. Whose harm matters more?
The belief that an embryo is entitled to the same rights at conception as a born human is not based on libertarianism; rather, it is based in faith.
The renowned American libertarian Walter Block has proposed a solution based on property rights, a value close to libertarian hearts. Called evictionism, it is based on Murray Rothbard’s view that “no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body”, meaning women are entitled to eject a baby from their body at any time.
Block considers a woman’s uterus as her property and an unwanted foetus as a “trespasser or parasite”, even while lacking the will to act. He believes a pregnant woman has the right to evict a foetus from her body since she has no obligation to care for a trespasser.
However, he also argues that nobody the right to kill a foetus, as murder is equally contrary to libertarian values, and hopes that others will care for evicted babies (in a process known as homesteading, or gaining ownership through appropriation) and ensure their survival.
Winning an argument requires a sound appreciation of the other side. When it comes to abortion, each side needs to understand when their arguments are libertarian.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
As a Chinese Australian who has called this nation home for the past 11 years, I am compelled to vehemently oppose the Voice referendum. The decision, for me, feels instinctive but is rooted in principles and values deeply ingrained in my perspective as a new migrant.
In Upholding the Principle of Anti-Racism
While society, media, and certainly politicians discuss “racism” all the time, few define racism clearly and unequivocally. Racism fundamentally involves treating individuals differently based on their race, often rooted in beliefs of inherent superiority or inferiority. While the Voice is claimed to rectify historical and systemic racial disparities, it’s very crucial to scrutinise its potential unintended consequences.
… anyone who pretends the Voice has nothing to do with the treaty is either being blindly naïve or being inherently evil.
A referendum of this kind can (and may have already) sow division in society. Granting privileges to specific racial groups always leads to unnecessary racial tensions. And even if Aboriginals benefit from the constitutional changes, relying on race-based policies risks entrenching the harmful notion that these groups cannot thrive without special provisions.
Race-embedded policies, though meant to address racial disparities, can ironically perpetuate longstanding racism.
In Respecting the Gravitas of the Constitution
The constitution of a nation is far more than just another piece of written legislation. Serving as a testament to a nation’s historical foundation and its future ambitions, it is the bedrock upon which a nation is built. It has a pivotal role, designed to withstand the test of time, offering consistent guidance to each generation, helping them navigate evolving challenges while staying true to foundational principles.
Considering the profound weight the constitution carries, any proposed alterations should be approached with the utmost caution and reverence. Changes shouldn’t merely reflect temporary sentiments or transient political inclinations, but should genuinely resonate with core principles that, in my view, should be rooted in the rights to life, liberty, and property.
In Understanding the Core of the Voice
The Voice has been portrayed as a benevolent change for Aboriginal communities—a gesture of goodwill or, minimally, a harmless addition. Many Chinese migrants I’ve spoken with initially responded, “I might vote ‘yes’, as it benefits the disadvantaged.” However, a deeper exploration of the Voice’s implications reveals strong reasons to reconsider.
While the Voice undeniably stems from the Uluru Statement, it doesn’t exist in isolation. Historically, discussions about the Voice have invariably been linked with a Treaty. Noel Pearson, a primary architect of the Voice, has emphatically stated, “Treaty door is the second door. The first door is constitutional enshrinement.” He further clarified, “The first precondition to treaty is Voice, a voice to negotiate treaty, it’s common sense.” Another significant contributor to the Voice, Marcia Langton, noted, “The Uluru Statement states two broad objectives… Voice and a Makkaratta [Treaty] Commission.”
So, what does this treaty entail? What discussions surround it? And how might the “pay the rent” concept be realised? The Albanese government would prefer us to overlook the treaty, asserting the referendum is unrelated. However, anyone who pretends the Voice has nothing to do with the treaty is either being blindly naïve or being inherently evil.
Simply Put, I Don’t Give A F*ck
Australia, for millions of migrants, stands as a beacon of Western civilisation, radiating values of democracy, rule of law, and individual liberties. These values, which neither directly nor indirectly relate to Aboriginal culture and history, draw countless individuals to its shores, searching for a better life and a better future.
There were times when I found myself disillusioned with Australia, particularly during the severe and arbitrary lockdowns and mandates during the COVID era. However, on balance, Australia has afforded me more than I ever dreamed. Australia is rife with opportunities, and I’ve witnessed countless individuals, from diverse backgrounds, flourish here, be they white-collar professionals, blue-collar workers, or entrepreneurs. It’s this spirit of perseverance and ambition that should define our nation, rather than any identity politics and its policies.
Racism fundamentally involves treating individuals differently based on their race, often rooted in beliefs of inherent superiority or inferiority.
As an immigrant, I don’t give a f*ck about policies that purport to help but in fact only bloat the bureaucracy and strain the social fabric. Australia already has a heart, while numerous non-profits, businesses and churches extend aid to those genuinely in need. While assistance is needed, we must recognize a fundamental truth: nations, communities, and individuals grow not through handouts, but through resilience, hard work, and self-determination.
In summary, given all the factors mentioned earlier, casting a ‘no’ vote against a divisive and racially-biased alteration to the constitution would be the appropriate course of action.
Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that if a republic is to live long, it is necessary to draw it back often toward its beginning.
“For all the beginning of sects, republics, and kingdoms must have some goodness in them, by means of which they may regain their first reputation and their first increase. Because in the process of time, that goodness is corrupted, unless something intervenes to lead it back to the mark, it of necessity kills the body.”
It is now time for Australia, and all modern western democracies, to be led back to the starting point, less necessity kills our body politic.
No political system has ever been immune to corruptible processes.
Now, the concept of going “back” will raise the ire of progressives. It could even unnerve libertarians, the thinking being that any hint of the status quo or traditionalism is the sole purview of conservatives. But I would remind them of what Thomas Paine said, that when government “operates to create an increased wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.”
Thomas Paine
We could argue over the difference between Paine’s reform and Machiavelli’s drawing back to the beginning, but as a historian, I stand by the view that unless one contemplates how a thing starts, the solution to improving it can be neither understood nor solved.
A searing reminder of how far Australia has fallen from political grace can be seen in the erosion of habeus corpus, articulated brilliantly by Jaimie Stevenson in her article, Imprisoned with Zero Charges, noting that this “unchecked authority fundamentally challenges the principles upon which our democratic society is based.”
Surely, this one issue alone requires us to be drawn back to our beginning. But if we need more reminders of the importance to look in the rear-view mirror, it can be found in Kenelm Tonkin’s explanation of the Tocqueville Matrix.
When government operates to create an increased wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.
It is not new, this thing known as recovery of freedom. In 509 BC, Lucius Junius Brutus rescued Rome from the corruption and pride of kings gone bad. After two hundred years the monarchy had degenerated into vileness at the hands of one man vested with too much power.
It is not a stretch to draw parallels with life in Australia from 2020 – 2022 under the direction of Scott Morrison as Prime Minister, who set up an unconstitutional National Cabinet, continued to this day by current leader, Anthony Albanese; and who allowed unrestricted power to state premiers for carte blanche hard-line rule over their populations. Daniel Andrews’ iron fist in Victoria demonstrates that it is all too easy for one man to think himself a god. Though he was not alone in his authoritarian bent, he was by far the most brutal of all the state’s leaders.
We can ruminate on our demise, or we can each do something to regain the goodness which has been corrupted by time. This is a process in itself; documenting what is wrong by looking back to what provided the foundation upon which democracy was built. And it does not require the commanding presence of public figures.
It is now time for Australia, and all modern western democracies, to be led back to the starting point, less necessity kills our body politic.
In Cicero’s dialogues between past heroes of the Roman Republic, Scipio Africanus said of Lucius Brutus:
“No one is a mere private citizen when the liberty of his fellows needs protection.”
For those who question the relevance of being drawn back to beginnings, I urge you to consider the increase in dystopian and futuristic writing and ask yourself why it is occurring.
John Goddard writes fast fiction; dystopian ponderings, often with a question as to what went before. In a recent article entitled Mephistopheles, his dystopian character questions the relevance of old-world heroes, that they have “no place in our modern mythology.” It is a hellscape scenario in which to question anything significant from the old world would be to bring down the wrath of the state upon oneself.
That people lament the absence of old heroes; or sound the alarm about the deterioration of valued democratic safeguards like habeus corpus; or feel compelled to encourage us moderns to look back to invigorating figures like Alexis de Tocqueville, surely tells us that the past does hold significance in the quest to understand ourselves and our societies.
No political system has ever been immune to corruptible processes. And now it is our time to act. It may even require a “going to the mattresses” approach, not as a physical war, but as an intellectual war between the people and those we put in office to represent us.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
*** Publisher’s Note: this article was written before the resignation of Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews ***
Victoria is a Nanny State on steroids. Dan Andrews’ Labor government’s shenanigans are impossible to avoid, beginning every morning when you get in the car to drive to work. It’s like living in a video game that you have no chance of winning, that purely serves their purpose of keeping us supposedly “safe” within the uncompromising confines of their matrix.
The biggest gripe I have at the moment is hidden speed cameras, particularly when they are on vehicles parked illegally (and dangerously – oh the irony). Apparently, I’m not the only one: last year three traffic camera cars were attacked within a 10-day time frame. Having recently received a fine for the victimless crime of travelling a whole 3km/hr over the speed limit, it’s only human nature to imagine the satisfaction felt from smashing those windows in.
The Victorian Police assistant commissioner claimed the actions were “cowardly” and “really, really harmful to the broader road safety program”. In reality, the statistics suggest quite the opposite and that the attacks could possibly be justified as saving lives.
Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.
Over the border, when the New South Wales government removed the pre-warning signs for their camera cars during the pandemic, it doubled the revenue for the State. However, the death toll also increased tragically by 21. It is abundantly clear that hidden speed cameras have absolutely nothing to do with our safety and everything to do with government control through revenue raising that disproportionately punishes low-income earners.
So, while no-one could argue that the attacks on these cars align with the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP), US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.
Barry Goldwater, philosophical libertarian
The New South Wales community took a different approach, responding peacefully by pushing back against the government. The public backlash forced pre-warning signs to be reintroduced.
The contrast with Victorians became particularly apparent during Covid, when a certain percentage of our population seem to blindly trust what they are told by authority without question, making life extremely difficult for the rest of us.
There’s an unhealthy dependency on the State here, as if a section of the population feels they’re incapable of making informed, adult decisions for their own health and safety and the health and safety of others around them because the government knows best and of course always has our best intentions at heart.
They’ve been made to fear their neighbour; they no longer believe that the majority of people are good and can be trusted to do the right thing, and do not realise that those who disagree cannot be deterred by a traffic camera and the threat of jail or a fine. They’ve also been made to fear death, the only certainty besides paying taxes. I’m unsure at what point Victorians felt the need to wrap themselves in cotton wool.
Hidden speed cameras are only one problem in an assortment of issues Victorian motorists have to contend with on a daily basis though. The number of speed humps and 40k zones in Melbourne makes me wonder whether there is any point having tarmac on the roads, because we might as well go back to travelling by horse and cart. Perhaps this reflects the real agenda, and why the government is making motor vehicle travel a warzone for commuters. My local council is currently pushing for bike riding to replace cars, an idealistic viewpoint to the single, soy latte sipping Labor and Greens affiliated councillors, but completely unrealistic and unattainable to a mother and small business owner like me and the majority of our community.
Then there’s the issue of the surveillance state where new and highly invasive cameras are now catching people on their phones, or not wearing a seatbelt at a stop light. Ladies, don’t forget to wear undies under your skirt, because these intrusive cameras can even detect what you ate for breakfast.
US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.
There are licence plate recognition cameras on nearly every corner, ready at any second for our local “governments” to spring the 20-minute SMART cities nightmare on us. A similar concept to the 5k travel radius during Covid, except instead of being sold to the masses as a saving-granny exercise, we’ll be told we’re saving the planet from its impending doom.
Trialled in the UK, locals insisted that they actually made congestion in the city worse. People responded by removing bollards at the 15-minute borders or concreting them in, destroying the cameras and refusing to pay the fines. Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.
Caroline is a mother who owns children’s dance schools in Melbourne and Japan. Frustrated by the corruption in our political system and led by a desire to provide her community with trustworthy leadership, she began running as a candidate. Caroline’s most recent political foray was as an independent, where she placed third.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the USA, Australia enacted a multitude of counter-terrorism laws ostensibly intended to bolster national security and deter acts of terrorism. However, the unintended consequences of those laws pose significant threats to fundamental legal rights, including the right to a fair trial and the protection of habeas corpus.
9/11 ushered in the US Patriot Act. Australia then slapped on 92 counter-terrorism statutes
From 2001 to 2021 a total of 92 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation were pushed through Parliament, many without proper debate or scrutiny. These laws threaten fundamental rights such as free speech and freedom from arbitrary detention, and have expanded in scope from targeting terrorism to targeting most serious criminal crimes. Their impact affects all Australians, not just suspected terrorists.
They include restrictions on freedom of speech through sedition offences; detention and questioning of Australians not suspected of any crime; control orders enabling house arrest for up to a year; extended periods of detention without charge; warrantless searches of private property by police; and secretive trials.
92 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation were pushed through Parliament
The absence of human rights safeguards such as a bill of rights might offer has provided fertile ground for the enactment of especially disproportionate laws in Australia. As a result, our ostensible “anti-terrorism” laws may present far greater threat to the civil liberties of Australians than anything Americans face from the USA’s infamous Patriot Act.
What is habeas corpus?
Habeas corpus is a fundamental right that protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful detention by the government. It is the right to challenge the legal justification of any detention before a court of law. If the judge finds the detention to be unlawful, the individual must be released.
The historical roots of habeas corpus can be traced back to 13th Century medieval England; a period where the Monarchy and Government had powers to detain individuals without clear legal justification, which predictably resulted in frequent arbitrary and indefinite detentions.
A shift in legal paradigm
The War on Terror marked a significant shift in the legal landscape. Traditional criminal law focused on punishing individuals for actual crimes, based on material evidence. The new focus is on preventing potential crimes, based on often undisclosed suspicions.
Preventative detention, for instance, allows the Australian Federal Police to question anybody without charge, simply by deeming the person a ‘terrorism suspect’. The practice of ‘preventative detention’ contravenes key principles of international law, including Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
So, while the principle of habeas corpus exists on paper in Australia, its strength and spirit are dead.
So, how does this affect non-terrorists?
The Australian Government has armed itself with extraordinary powers that have reshaped the very essence of justice. The Government and its agents gave themselves the ability to search without warrant, detain without charge, and declare organisations as threats to national security without substantive proof. If that was not scary enough, what remains deeply concerning is the ambiguity surrounding the definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘threat to national security’.
These laws threaten fundamental rights
Under the legislation, political labels can be applied to activities that, if genuinely criminal, would have fallen under the purview of existing criminal laws. These criminal laws come with vital safeguards that ensure individuals have the right to receive a fair trial and are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Counter-terrorism laws erode these fundamental legal protections, placing the burden of proof on the accused, effectively reversing the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
The principle of habeas corpus exists on paper in Australia, its strength and spirit are dead.
Recent global events serve as clear reminders of the dangers associated with politicising alleged criminal activities. The Canadian trucker freedom convoy was portrayed by the media and the Canadian government as an occupation, despite it being a protest against Covid restrictions. The January 6th protests in the USA were labelled an insurrection, despite having few of the elements of a genuine insurrection. And Covid-related freedom protests in Australia were stigmatised as right-wing extremism. Such hasty and politically charged characterisations only underscore the perilous implications of these counter-terrorism laws and their potential misuse.
Canadian Truckie ConvoyAustralian Freedom RallyUS January 6th
At the core of this issue lies the power vested in the government to declare individuals or groups as threats to national security, bypassing cherished legal safeguards such as habeas corpus, and unleashing an arsenal of undemocratic laws upon those who are accused. This unchecked authority fundamentally challenges the principles upon which our democratic society is based.
bypassing cherished legal safeguards such as habeas corpus
It is worth considering the words of Lord Hoffman when he delivered his dissenting opinion on counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”
These words should resonate with every citizen, as they highlight the dire need for a careful and considered re-evaluation of the balance between national security and the preservation of our fundamental legal rights, ensuring that justice, transparency, and accountability are not casualties in the fight against terrorism.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
In my previous article, I asked readers to consider making a submission to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) regarding the draconian Misinformation Bill. I have always been sceptical of the effect of such submissions, but it is hard for government to fly in the face of overwhelming public backlash.
Politicians, like prostitutes, are in the business of pleasing people and, while that continues, there is value in protests, petitions, submissions and all manner of public dissent.
While I completely understand the hesitation of many people to engage with the government any more than they absolutely must, there is one motivation we should never allow the government to use to manipulate us: fear.
THE BATTLELINES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DRAWN
For those who are too scared to be public with your dissent for fear of retribution, I am sorry to break it to you: it’s too late.
The battlelines have already been drawn. If you think you will be spared from a murderous and reprehensible entity with unlimited resources that it can steal with impunity because of your ‘anonymous’ social media account or refusing to submit your dissent to impending legislation, I have a bridge to sell you.
For many years I watched politics and culture from the sidelines: I had strong opinions, but they were only uttered among the safety of family and close friends. After the novelty of social media had worn off in my late teenage years, I barely posted anything. I always removed myself from photos that were likely to find their way online and maintained a very private life. My online persona, or lack thereof, was unusual for someone my age.
But then Covid happened.
DIE ON YOUR FEET
Before I decided to run for public office in the 2022 South Australian election, I thought a lot about the implications of my political ‘coming out’. Would I still be able to find a job? Would I lose friends? Would this be used against me? But the reality is, that kind of thinking was a selfish luxury. And in the harsh light of the tyrannical Covid response, it didn’t matter anymore.
Tyrannical Covid-19 Response
Who cares about a job when your dollar can’t buy you anything?
Who cares about friends when you can never trust anyone?
Who cares about anything being used against you when you’re already living in a free-range prison?
While we are still a long way away from dystopia, it is coming faster than you think. And totalitarian government only seeks one thing: more power. It will leverage the useful idiots, those who have honest intent but are not aware of the authoritarian intentions of the policy they advocate, until they are no longer useful – then it will throw them aside. No one is safe from authoritarianism, whether you dissent publicly or not.
While Emiliano Zapata is generally considered a socialist, we can still learn from his ethos: ‘It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.’
LIVE FREE OR DIE
The reality is, we are faced with two options: live a short and miserable existence in silence, until the authoritarians have rendered you useless, or speak up and fight back!
If you speak up and fight back, I cannot promise you that your existence won’t be just as short, but it will be far more rewarding. And maybe, just maybe, if we all speak up loudly enough and fight back hard enough, we will all exist to (not) fight the next battle.
I do not fear being put on a watchlist. I embrace it!
Live free or die because death is not the worst of evils.
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
A non-illustrated guide to where conservatives continually fall short on a key pillar of liberty…
Libertarians and conservatives might be friends on certain issues, often shoved into the same corner by the ‘progressive’ left, but it’s time we libertarians took a hard stance on free speech.
James Hol’s recent commentary regarding the proposed ‘misinformation’ bill reflected an attitude towards freedom of speech and expression that is generally shared across the entirety of the centre-right.
However, conservatives are not yet ready to defend the speech and expression of those they don’t agree with. Purporting to pick and choose who has access to free expression is a dark pathway to liberty.
Free speech is very easy to defend when you agree with the speech that is being censored – the true test of principle is to defend all speech, regardless of your personal view on what is being expressed. Yet apparently Yumi Stynes’ ‘graphic’ book titled Welcome to Sex should be ‘wrapped in black plastic’ and sold in a restricted manner akin to a pornographic magazine according to the self-confessed ‘conservative patriot’ Senator Ralph Babet.
Comments from Stynes that she would be ‘comfortable’ with an 8 year-old child reading the book, and its availability in major retailer chains, have sparked community outrage at the supposed accessibility of such material to children. Yet what does it say about the rights of parents if conservative commentators feel entitled to decide what is suitable for other people’s children? It raises questions on our perceptions of the role of parents too – is it their job to manage what their child has access to, or is that the job of government and society at large?
You have to wonder at what point any more restrictive approach by government towards curating children’s material could be weaponized against conservatives. This of course is the fundamental weakness in the conservative take on this issue: the lack of foresight as to how restricting the speech and expression of one group weakens it for us all in the end. Furthermore, all the attention and furore over the content of the book led to it becoming a bestseller.
Controversial book ‘Welcome To Sex’ attracted conservative calls for it to be banned
It’s not the first time so-called ‘freedom friendly’ MPs have actually sought to curb the rights of those they disagree with. In February, Liberal Senator Alex Antic introduced a private member’s bill that sought to impose harsh criminal penalties on ‘incitement to trespass, cause property damage or traffic disruption’ (paraphrased). This was clearly an attack on extinction rebellion type traffic protests and the activities of animal rights protesters at slaughterhouses.
Yet it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the same laws could easily have been imposed on leaders of protests against vaccine mandates. This bill was yet another reactionary, populist thought bubble that demonstrates the folly of conservatism as a philosophical vehicle to protect individual rights and reduce the size of government.
As seen by the impact of boycotts and negative PR directed at companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Gillette, Target and Big W, it is much more effective to fight bad ideas and bad speech with consumer action as opposed to legislative action. It is also fundamentally moral – the market will ultimately determine the social licence companies have to comment on social or political issues by rewarding or punishing them via consumers.
Good ideas don’t require force, and bad ideas don’t require banning. As libertarians we must fight both progressives and conservatives who seek to censor or ban speech they dislike.
They will invoke the innocence of children, the plight of minority groups or the collective ‘harm’ caused by disinformation, but history tells us that those doing the censoring are never the good guys.
The only role politicians have with regards to free speech is to protect it, and the best way to protect free speech is to amend the Australian constitution, enshrining the right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly.
Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.
Imagine a fictional country named “Straya” has an authoritarian government that prohibits the publication of misinformation. The law defines misinformation as any information that is not approved by government authorities. It also states that misinformation does not require proof of intent to constitute spreading false information.
Straya’s government publicly declared that the sky is green. John, a citizen of Straya, posted on social media that the sky is blue, contrary to the government’s assertion. He shares a photo of a blue sky from his backyard, along with a caption discussing the colour of the sky.
… an authoritarian government that prohibits the publication of misinformation.
The authorities in Straya, relying on the broad and unworkable definitions in the legislation and their discretionary powers, classify John’s post as misinformation simply because it contradicts the government’s approved narrative. The social media company is obliged to remove John’s post or risk severe fines. There is no need to prove that John intended to spread false information or that he acted maliciously. John might be mistaken, but his post is automatically categorised as misinformation because it contradicts the government narrative and the authorities decided his post is likely to cause harm to the Straya environment.
While this example is obviously hypothetical and intentionally ridiculous, the recently released draft of the Australian Government’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) (Bill) 2023 could make it a reality.
In this fictional tale, Straya’s authoritarian government wields an alarming power: the authority to define truth. The actual, non-fictional proposed legislation, reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984”, similarly allows the government to label any information not approved by the authorities as misinformation. This broad definition could include opinions and viewpoints that challenge the government’s narrative, stifling legitimate debates and discussions. The absence of an intent requirement opens the door to suppressing dissent under the guise of combating misinformation.
The Victorian Bar published a submission on the Bill. In their own words: “The Bar is concerned that the Bill creates an unlevel playing field between governments and other speakers. Any view authorised by the government is, by statutory definition, not ‘misinformation’, however false or misleading it might be. Only information that is not authorised by government is capable of being ‘misinformation’ as defined. That double standard is illiberal, and disadvantages critics of government in comparison with a government’s supporters”.
The Ambiguity of Definitions
One of the Bill’s major flaws lies in its ambiguous definitions. The legislation requires a distinction between “information” and other online content. However, what exactly constitutes “information” remains unclear. This ambiguity creates a chilling effect on free speech, as individuals and platforms are forced to self-censor due to fear of legal repercussions. The lack of transparency surrounding what qualifies as misinformation gives the government a powerful tool to selectively target and suppress voices that oppose its narrative.
This ambiguity creates a chilling effect on free speech
The Broad Concept of Harm
The Bill’s broad definition of “harm” compounds the concerns over freedom of expression. It extends the definition to cover situations where content might only be “reasonably likely” to cause harm or “contribute to” harm. Such a wide interpretation opens the door for subjective judgments and potentially oppressive actions against content creators, further inhibiting open discussions that are essential for a healthy democracy.
Defending Democracy and Freedom
The example of Straya serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of legislation that undermines freedom of expression. In the real world, the fictional scenario shares alarming similarities with the concerns raised over the Australian Government’s proposed legislation. The Victorian Bar’s submission regarding the Bill underscores the danger of allowing governments to wield unchecked power over information, stifling opposition, and undermining the democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and open debate. The Bar concludes that as the Bill is currently drafted, it should not be enacted.
The Victorian Bar slammed the Bill as ‘illiberal’.
To quote directly from the Bar’s submission: “The exclusion in subclause (e) (content that is authorised by a government) highlights the Bill’s significant inroads into freedom of expression. The views of government — any government — are automatically protected from designation as ‘misinformation’, however inaccurate, controversial, or contestable they may be; yet the views of critics of government (whether the political opposition, NGOs or private individuals) are at risk of precisely such a designation. The prospect of politically charged accusations of ‘misinformation’ against opponents and critics readily presents itself. The later history of the Star Chamber was replete with exactly such politically motivated claims of misinformation.”
That double standard is illiberal
The Star Chamber operated from the 15th century until its abolition in 1641. The Court was used as a tool of government to bypass the rule of law and to exert control over political dissenters. The Bar’s explicit mention of the Star Chamber should serve as a warning as to how concerning this Bill is to the function of democracy in Australia.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
Recently I attended the Australian Medical Professional Society’s Curing the Corruption of Medicine event in Melbourne. The keynote speaker was British cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra.
Double vaccinated with Pfizer, Dr Malhotra initially supported the vaccine rollout and encouraged the vulnerable to take the injection on national TV in January of 2021.
His stance soon changed when, amongst other concerning research and reports, his father, also double vaccinated, died suddenly of a heart attack. With a strong understanding of his medical history and current health condition, Dr Malhotra couldn’t comprehend how his father’s coronary arteries were shown in the autopsy to have narrowed so quickly.
After some of the world’s top scientists published an independent reanalysis of the original Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data, which found that patients are more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine including hospitalisation, disability or a life changing event than what they are to be hospitalised from Covid, he now believes ”these (mRNA) vaccinations should never have been approved for use in a single human”, and is calling for their suspension.
Governments across Australia have spent hundreds of millions of dollars frightening the pants off our population, promoting and enforcing Covid 19 vaccinations with no end in sight. Despite AstraZeneca having been quietly pulled from the shelves earlier this year and ATAGI no longer recommending Covid 19 vaccines for healthy under 65-year-olds, the government is still relentlessly promoting vaccination to young, fit, healthy adults. There are taxpayer funded, daily reminders to get your jab on TV commercials, Youtube ads, and road signs on main arterials – nearly two and a half years on.
There is just no reprieve from the Covid mania.
Covid 19 mandates ravaged the foundations of the medical industry. I had a local GP tell me they were making a mockery of his profession. Informed consent ceased to exist with a paternalistic approach as patients were coerced into a medical procedure without being informed of potential risks or able to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. Bodily autonomy and medical privacy were disregarded and doctors who dared to raise concerns were threatened with deregistration.
Robust discussion was censored as the government intruded into the doctor patient relationship. We were even denied basic health benefits such as vitamin D due to government restrictions that had us locked in our houses for 23 hours a day. Any ounce of trust I had left for Big Pharma and the government has been completely eroded as a consequence.
During Dr Malholtra’s nearly one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, he outlined policy making as a main factor in improving the current state of play. You know we have a serious problem when even the wokest journalist from The Age (who felt virtuous getting his 5th booster) is questioning why government policy sees Covid 19 vaccines given away to young people at the expense of the taxpayer.
The idea of the government staying out of people’s medical decisions is rooted in the concept of individual liberty. Here are my policy ideas for reform –
Whistle blower protection for the healthcare industry. Doctors should be able to speak up without fear of losing their job.
Stop Covid 19 vaccine and mRNA manufacturing subsidies. All over the world highly vaccinated countries are recording uncommonly high excess deaths. Dr Malhotra is of the opinion, and the data suggests, that Covid 19 vaccines have a role to play. Pending further investigation, the mRNA vaccines should be suspended. The government should also stop subsidising mRNA manufacturing.
Ban taxpayer funded spend on advertising pharmaceutical products. If Big Pharma wants to make a profit by selling products that are not properly tested, surely they can afford to pay for their own promotions.
Remove remaining mandates & get our unvaccinated workers back in the work force immediately. With the current staff shortages, particularly in healthcare, it’s unconscionable that unvaccinated workers, police officers and firefighters are unable to work, with compliance still taking precedence over the safety of our community.
Big Pharma companies fund compensation schemes, not the Australian taxpayer. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for damage and deaths caused by pharmaceutical companies.
Caroline is a mother who owns children’s dance schools in Melbourne and Japan. Frustrated by the corruption in our political system and led by a desire to provide her community with trustworthy leadership, she began running as a candidate. Caroline’s most recent political foray was as an independent, where she placed third.
Who would have thought that quacking geese could help save the Roman Republic from a Gallic horde in 390 BC?
It prompts the question: could a stirring speech on liberty help save Australia from its government in 2023 AD?
The Roman Republic was born when a warrior gathered his family from the ashes of Troy and founded a city destined to become one of the greatest civilisations in history. But its emergence was not without repeated struggles.
Grappling with rapid growth and accumulated power, the Republic was in danger of being crushed by Gallic invaders. Rome had conquered most of her neighbouring Italian lands, but chronic infighting among the Senate and Tribunes distracted it from the rising threat outside the empire.
The ancient historian, Livy, in The Early History of Rome, wrote of a warning which was ignored because it came from a plebeian of no consequence.
“The Gauls are coming!”
And they were. Gallic armies decimated vast swathes of Roman territory.
In a final siege to sack Rome, Gallic troops climbed the Citadel wall, which was minimally defended as an exodus to neighbouring provinces had occurred. The people slept. Not even the dogs were alerted; it took the screeching of sacred geese to wake the people from their slumber and quickly act to repel the enemy.
Australia in 2023 is facing its own enemy at the gate. It goes by the name of Government.
While we don’t suffer from screeching geese in our parliaments – albeit some may like to draw a comparison – our representatives are in a prime position to sound the alarm.
The government’s surveillance tentacles are reaching so far into our lives that we soon may not be able to breathe without its consent. Citizens are facing censorship of their thoughts, speech, and actions with the impending ACMA Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, a direct threat to our democracy.
In the Parliament of New South Wales, on 28 June 2023, one newly elected MP laid down the stakes for liberty, delivering a rousing endorsement of the natural rights and abilities of the people, and a scathing assessment of government interference.
In his maiden speech, John Ruddick articulated the essence of free market capitalism:
“We believe in the inherent morality of capitalism simply because, that is what people will spontaneously do when left alone. The worst atrocities of history were not the result of drought, flood, pestilence, or plague but of big government throwing its weight around like an elephant stomping on ants.”
One would think such a passionate defence of liberty would be welcomed in a democratic nation.
Alas, YouTube swiftly took it down.
Was it the mention of “anarcho-capitalism” that offended the senses of the censorship tzars? Perhaps too radical an idea for our modern and progressive world to embrace. Sadly, this term is misunderstood. Where it is demonised as being violent in meaning and action, it is really the opposite.
As Mr Ruddick said:
“Anarcho-capitalism has a favourable view of human nature and an unlimited belief in our potential. I am increasingly attracted to the view that we will tap humanity’s highest potential via a government-free voluntary-based society.”
Great speeches won’t save a nation from ruin, but they can affect how people begin to consider the world around them.
Livy tells us that “Destiny had decreed that the Gaul’s were still to feel the true meaning of Roman valour.”
Let our citizens record that the enemy of liberty is still to feel the true meaning of Australian spirit and enterprise.
Sacred geese did not prevent Rome from being invaded by the Gauls, but their screeching put Romans on notice.
Perhaps Mr Ruddick’s speech will serve as a warning for Australians in the face of monumental government overreach, reminding them of the value of our inalienable individual rights and freedoms, and how voluntary associations and agreements are by far the preferred mode of human interaction.
Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.
The Government recently released its exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. It is just as Orwellian as it sounds – if not more.
The Bill empowers the even more Orwellian-sounding Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to not only engage in fascistic partnerships with social media giants, but to impose industry-wide standards and codes to ensure “misinformation” is not spread online.
MISINFORMATION
The obvious question is, what is misinformation? The Bill, in its infinite wisdom, defines misinformation as “false, misleading or deceptive” content that “is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”
Harm is given a broad definition, including disseminating “hatred against a group in Australian society” and harming Australia’s health or environment. Of course, we are no wiser as to how “serious” this harm must be.
It is clear what this Bill aims to do: shut down anti-government sentiment and the dissident class.
Doubting the climate narrative online? Now you are harming the Australian environment. Remember, you do not even need to be causing this “harm”; merely contributing to it.
IT GETS WORSE
Now I am sure esteemed readers of Liberty Itch are already well aware of what I have outlined, but many are under the mistaken assumption that this will only apply to social media giants. In fact, it will apply to every single website that provides “news content” and has an “interactive feature”.
If you think you can avoid the Ministry of Truth by simply starting your own social media platform or providing content on your own website, you’d be advised to have no interest in a comments section or posting video content, otherwise that website will also be captured by these draconian laws. Indeed, this Liberty Itch masthead will be at threat of fines in the millions of dollars should this Bill become law.
Perhaps some hope to escape the law by hosting servers or establishing companies overseas. But no: ACMA are wise to that. The Bill includes an extra-territorial provision, meaning hiding outside Australia’s borders won’t stop ACMA from fining you.
AN AFFRONT TO OUR VALUES
As well as the government seeking to extend its tentacles outside its own jurisdiction, which is becoming increasingly common in modern law-making, ACMA has taken many longstanding precedents to the shredder with this Bill.
While unfortunately not enshrined in our Constitution, Australians are endowed with the right not to incriminate themselves. If this Bill passes Parliament, that will no longer apply to instances of online “misinformation”.
While the Bill gives lip service to our constitutionally implied freedom of political communication, it attempts to circumvent it by creating a fascistic partnership between ACMA and private entities. Instead of ACMA enforcing speech, it makes digital service providers do its dirty work – at threat of significant fines.
However, ACMA can impose industry-wide standards and codes if digital service providers go rogue and dishonour their fascistic agreements. Hoping for a safe haven at Elon Musk’s Twitter (now called X), might be more pipe dream than reality.
This Bill also does away with another long-held precedent: serving legal notices in person. Under this Bill, ACMA is now empowered to serve legal notices, including summons, electronically.
THE FIGHT OF OUR LIVES
Perhaps the only good thing about this Bill is that it is in the relatively early stages of drafting. Public submissions have been invited by ACMA and I implore all readers to give their feedback. A massive outpouring of concern and a public backlash might force ACMA to reconsider its brazen destruction of our fundamental liberties. Continued activism will also be required to ensure whatever subversive version of this Bill the government thinks they can get away with never reaches the floor of Parliament.
Above all, non-compliance is necessary. This is where we must draw a line, stand strong in the face of overbearing penalties and defend everything we stand for with everything we have.
While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.
Nobody forces us to fall in love, to dislike another person, or to prefer a certain type of music. One person could spend six months sailing around the world and not feel lonely for a moment, while another can feel desperately lonely in the midst of a crowd.
In the Australian vernacular, being called a ‘bastard’ can be intended as a serious insult, a minor criticism or a term of endearment, yet someone may find the term offensive irrespective of the intent of the person making the comment.
The same is true when it comes to comments about political beliefs, sexual orientation, appearance, gender identity, age, religious values or many other factors that are variously claimed to give rise to offense. Nobody can say with certainty how a comment might be received.
In tort and criminal law, a person can be liable for all the consequences resulting from activities that lead to injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unexpectedly serious damage due to a pre-existing vulnerability. Known as the egg shell rule, it means liability may be severe if a person suffers injury as a result of assault or negligence and has a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg.
This relates only to physical injury though, and there is no such rule regarding verbal matters. Nonetheless, there is a growing tendency to attribute blame for the consequences of offence at the feet of those who utter the words, irrespective of the circumstances of the person claiming to be offended. Indeed, there is an absolute epidemic of mental illness and PTSD for which others are being blamed.
The Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”, and yet whether anyone is indeed offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated is up to the receiver of the message. Given an inability to know in advance how the recipient might choose to feel, the only option is to avoid saying anything much at all.
This can have significant consequences for the way we speak. In America, and increasingly now here, it has become common to wish everyone happy holidays rather than Merry Christmas on the assumption that non-Christians may feel offended.
Filmmakers, cartoonists, artists and authors are reluctant to tackle certain subjects because individuals or groups claim to be offended, sometimes even responding with violence.
We must now also deal with accusations of hate speech, which are typically nothing more than statements with which someone disagrees and has decided is offensive.
Feeling offended is an emotion, similar to anger, frustration and loneliness. But while they can be powerful, emotions are within our control. Apart from clinical depression perhaps, none can be blamed on someone else.
Even when a comment is intended to be hurtful, or there is indifference as to whether hurt is caused, how we respond depends on the beliefs we have accumulated over a lifetime. We can take offence at the slightest remark, or remain serene in the face of a serious insult.
Why then do we blame others if we take offence? If we are responsible for our feelings in some cases, surely we are responsible in all cases.
Because there is no cause and effect, the right of free speech does not require the right to offend. That does not mean we should ignore cultural norms like good manners and consideration for the feelings of others, but we do not need the law to tell us that the wrong response to the question ‘does my bum look big in this?’ can lead to problems.
The very notion that someone else can govern the way we feel diminishes our independence and self-ownership. If nobody can force us to think in a particular way, nobody can make us feel offended.
No matter how bigoted, ill-informed or obnoxious, our reaction to someone else’s words is always up to us. Unless words are coercive, by threatening, tricking or forcing us to do something against our will, we are responsible for how they are received. If we feel offended, we have the option of choosing another feeling.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
The public health industry is a menace and remains a threat to Australia.
It comprises people who believe we all require their guidance because, unlike them, we are incapable of making the right choices for ourselves. We must be nudged, cajoled, taxed, and supervised to ensure we get it right. And if that doesn’t work, compelled by force of law.
The Covid pandemic exposed this in stark terms. The authoritarian wave that engulfed us, while mostly authorised by spineless politicians, originated from the public health people behind them. And in almost every case, they got it profoundly wrong.
The result was countless businesses failed, careers ruined, relationships destroyed, and education missed, with worse health outcomes than Sweden. Even the current inflation is primarily a consequence of propping up the economy with borrowed money whilst “flattening the curve”.
In terms of sheer ineptitude, it is difficult to go past the Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) in the states and Commonwealth. Paraded as experts and fawned on by the media, they proved to be foolish control freaks.
Kerry Chant. NSW Chief Health Officer.Brett Sutton. Vic Chief Health Officer.Jeannette Young. Qld Chief Health Officer.Andy Robertson. WA Chief Health Officer.
CMOs ought to be expert at public health, since their focus is on the health of everyone rather than individual patients, and up-to-date with both the scientific literature and international developments. While not necessarily researchers or experts themselves, they should be well aware of who the researchers and experts are and how to contact them.
Yet repeatedly, the policies they recommended and endorsed were contrary to science, to experience, or both.
It started on day one. Australia’s rational and proportionate pandemic plan was simply abandoned in favour of China’s panicked lockdown model.
Covid-19 is a respiratory corona virus, a well-studied category. It was well known that these viruses are highly vulnerable to sunlight and short-lived outside the body, relying on person-to-person transmission. Outdoor transmission was never likely, yet beaches and parks were closed, and gatherings prohibited. As for indoor spread, what was all that “deep cleaning” about? And why is ventilation only being mentioned now? It’s a no-brainer in the veterinary world.
Once it was obvious that only the elderly were in danger, it was unconscionable to maintain the pretence that everyone else was. Children were never at risk, except from vaccine side effects, yet schools were closed and parents terrorised.
In early 2021 when, contrary to expectations, it became apparent the Covid vaccines did not prevent either transmission or infection, the campaign to vaccinate everyone should have ceased. A statement from a CMO that the unvaccinated presented no danger to anybody else would have ended it. Yet vaccination certificates acquired the status of internal passports in the Soviet Union, and countless people lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated.
Ivermectin was being used to treat cases in multiple other countries with clear evidence of its value, yet it was banned from therapeutic use in Australia. How many lives might have been saved if CMOs had learned from what was happening overseas?
From the very beginning, the CMOs knew masks were useless at stopping respiratory viruses. Even Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Adviser to the US President, said as much. Yet despite zero data to prompt a change, they somehow became a symbol of compliance; a sign that we were worshipping at the Covid altar. Even now there are poor neurotic souls who continue to wear them (and even some medical facilities that still require them.) The CMOs simply allowed the stupidity to continue.
Their advice was at times foolish, even idiotic. The Chief Medical Officer in South Australia, for example, told spectators at a football match to avoid touching the ball. And South Australia was put into lockdown based on a rumour that a man had contracted Covid from a pizza box.
South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier
The Covid panic might be over, but the public health industry remains unscathed. The bureaucrat behind Melbourne becoming the world’s most locked down city, where playgrounds were closed and fishing banned, curfews imposed and all manner of other idiocy imposed, was made Victorian Of The Year despite his state recording the highest Covid death rate in Australia. In Queensland, where closing the border with NSW caused enormous suffering, the CMO was promoted to governor.
Much of the harm resulting from the Covid control measures could have been minimised, if not avoided entirely, if the CMOs had stuck to the science. Even if they had thought they were doing the right thing, they could have published their advice to governments so that others with relevant expertise could comment. Of all the CMOs, only Nick Coatsworth has showed any signs of regret.
It is only a matter of time before we are again subjected to their mindset. Even if there are no more pandemics, they will continue to impose their views on issues like smoking, alcohol, sugar and obesity.
The public health industry perpetually worries that we might enjoy ourselves in an unapproved manner. Having succeeded far beyond their expectations with Covid, they remain a clear and present danger to society.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
In a democratic society, freedom of speech is an essential human right that enables the contest of ideas, intellectual debate, and societal progress. However, recent years have revealed a disturbing trend: those in power view free speech as a threat to their control and a hindrance to their plans.
Nowhere is this more apparent than on social media platforms, where the censorship of free speech has become alarmingly prevalent. This encroachment upon a fundamental right poses a significant danger to democracy itself.
Limitations on free speech should, at a minimum, be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. They must be applied impartially and without discrimination. While certain grounds for restricting speech, such as threats of harm or incitement to violence may be justified, they must be carefully balanced to safeguard individual rights.
However, we find ourselves now in a climate of confusion regarding what constitutes harm or violence. Certain speech, labelled as hate speech or even violence, has become subject to arbitrary interpretation.
As a consequence, freedom of expression is stifled as people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The broadening of definitions and the ensuing uncertainty lead to self-censorship, allowing governments to exploit this confusion and control the speech of those with differing opinions, thereby eroding the very foundations of democracy.
In addition to limiting freedom of expression, certain ideologies go even further, seeking to compel speech. The transgender movement and debates over the definition of womanhood exemplify this. Individuals are pressured to use specific pronouns chosen by others, forced to disregard their own reality and life experiences. Threats of de-platforming, de-monetisation, or denial of basic services like banking contribute to an environment of fear and self-censorship. Prominent figures including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jordan Peterson, and Nigel Farage, have faced punitive measures for expressing the wrong opinions. These examples serve as a warning to anyone who dares challenge the government narrative.
Western societies currently grapple with censorship on social media platforms. Elon Musk’s advocacy for free speech on Twitter has faced intense backlash, prompting governments to enact legislation aimed at curtailing it. The Online Safety Act 2021 in Australia and the Digital Service Act in the European Union, for example, threaten fines of up to 6 percent of annual revenue. The USA’s Restrict Act threatens imprisonment for up to 20 years. These laws exemplify an authoritarian approach to controlling information and stifling public discourse. In contrast, Mark Zuckerberg’s launch of Threads, a platform designed to restore online censorship, has received biased media coverage, painting it as a positive move. This skewed portrayal, labelling free speech as a right-wing ideology rather than a fundamental human right, highlights the distorted narrative being propagated.
Renowned leftist Russell Brand has emerged as a champion for the restoration of free speech. Brand’s realisation that free speech transcends political ideologies and is a fundamental right offers a glimmer of hope. He, along with other content creators, has had to resort to self-censorship on platforms like YouTube to avoid de-platforming or demonetisation. They have sought refuge on platforms such as Rumble, the “Home of Free Speech,” where open discussion on previously taboo topics is encouraged. Such a shift to alternative platforms demonstrates the need for a free market in spaces that prioritise and protect free speech.
A recent event, the Censorship Industrial Complex, hosted by Brand, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Shellenberger, shed light on the issue of censorship on social media platforms. The deliberate practice of self-censorship, designed to pre-empt dangerous thoughts, has been exposed. Stanford University’s involvement in guiding social media platforms on COVID-19 further reveals the collusion between governments and tech companies in silencing dissenting voices, undermining democratic principles, and hindering informed decision-making.
The actions taken by governments, social media platforms, and the media to stifle dissent and impose censorship present an imminent threat to democracy.
Transparent, reasonable and impartial laws are needed to safeguard our fundamental rights. It is imperative that governments respect the rights of individuals to express their opinions, irrespective of whether they challenge prevailing narratives.
In addition, individuals and content creators should actively support and embrace alternative platforms that prioritise free speech, such as Rumble. By rejecting self-censorship and promoting platforms that uphold the principles of free speech, we can reclaim our right to express ourselves without fear of retribution. Together, we must stand united to protect the values that underpin our society and ensure that freedom of speech remains a pillar of our democracy.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.
Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.
No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.
Divide and conquer
As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.
What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.
In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:
“Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.
Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.
Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.“
For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.
In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.
Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.
Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.” So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.
While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.
Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.
The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.
Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.
Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.
In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.
So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.
Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?
As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.
If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.
Ted HuiKevin Yam
The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!
Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.
When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.
Hong Kong Handover. 1997.
Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.
In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.
Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.
These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.
These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.
The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.
In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”
Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”
The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.
It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
A libertarian friend called me at 6.30am last Tuesday whist I was riding the train to work. “How do you start a community bank?” he asked. My friend lives in rural NSW and as they say in the country, he is “jack” of the major banks.
“The banks are closing one after the other and the ATMs are disappearing too. Which means cash is disappearing. We need to get our own bank around here”.
This issue is fast becoming mainstream, reported in media outlets including the ABC, News, and Sky in the past seven days alone.
Rural folk love their cash for practical reasons. Libertarians love it for ideological ones, which some might find ironic given many libertarians also advocate the end of fiat currency and its replacement with gold or crypto.
But here is why libertarians hold cash dear:
1. Financial Privacy Cash transactions provide anonymity and privacy. You can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move. Electronic payments can be tracked and monitored by banks, governments, or other third parties, potentially compromising your financial privacy.
2. Vulnerability To Surveillance Electronic payment systems create a digital trail of transactions, creating an incentive for governments and corporations to collect vast amounts of data on your purchasing habits, preferences, and of course personal information.
Cash means you can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move.
3. Government Tyranny A shift toward electronic payments can give governments greater control over our financial activities. They can potentially freeze or confiscate funds, impose restrictions on transactions, or even manipulate the monetary system to suit their own interests. This would never happen, right? Ask the Canadian truckers or Nigel Farage.
4. Vulnerability To Cyber Threats Relying solely on electronic payments increases the risk of cyber attacks and fraud. Carrying cash comes with its own risks, sure, but cash can’t be hacked. Major corporations are getting hacked left and right. Who is safe?
5. Exclusion of Marginalised Communities Not everyone has access to electronic payment methods. Not all communities have the same infrastructure as large cities. Denying communities which rely on cash for their daily transactions is surely discriminatory.
6. Dependency On Intermediaries My economics professor used to say, “the more you cut up the cake, the more of it sticks to the knife”. Electronic payments typically require intermediaries, none of which provide their service for free. And for every intermediary in the transaction chain, there is another point of control and vulnerability as users become subject to the policies and regulations set by these intermediaries. Look what happened when Israel Folau tried to raise a ‘Go Fund Me’ for his legal fees.
7. Limitations On Personal Choice Cash provides individuals with a tangible and universally accepted form of payment that can be used freely and without restrictions.
8. Infringement On Property Rights Cash represents physical ownership. You hold it in your hand. It’s yours. Property rights are infringed when you are forced to rely on electronic representations of money stored at the pleasure of others.
9. Impact On Small Businesses Cash transactions offer certain advantages to small businesses, reduced transaction costs and the ability to avoid credit card processing fees for a start. Denying small businesses the opportunity to trade in cash makes it harder for them to compete with their corporate counterparts. Libertarians believe in free markets, not markets distorted in this way.
Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.
Since the middle of 2020, while everyone was busy with pandemic matters, the ACT, Queensland, and Victorian governments passed laws to ban the practice of “conversion therapy”. Victoria’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021[1] is the most comprehensive of these. These laws have been lauded as important steps in protecting the freedom of LGBTQI+ Australians. Other states will inevitably follow suit and national legislation is already on the agenda.
In the Orwellian dystopia in which we find ourselves, it’s important to clarify what “conversion therapy” means. “Conversion therapy” is anything that goes against the affirmation of someone’s sexual orientation or, crucially, their subjective gender identity. It can include – we are told – forms of abuse like beatings, electrocution, forced medication, castration, lobotomy and clitoridectomy.
Freedom from torture, inhumane or degrading treatment is protected in human rights legislation across Australia. So why was new legislation really needed? On the website dedicated to the CSPP Act, the Victorian government has kindly provided a section “For families and friends”. It informs us that “it is against the law to try to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity”. There is a handy list of examples of prohibited practices, of which the first two are:
a parent denying their child access to any health care services that would affirm their child’s gender identity.
a parent refusing to support their child’s request for medical treatment that willprevent physical changes from puberty.
In another section we are informed that criminalised conversion practices also include “people receiving subtle and repeated messages, that with faith and effort, they can change or hide their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
It goes as far as listing what can be said in prayer and what cannot.
Until very recently “psychotherapy involved helping the child to feel more comfortable in their own body with the belief that gender is quite malleable at a young age and gender dysphoria will likely resolve itself over time”[2]. This has now become a criminal offence.
More disturbingly, the same people that condemn prayer, psychotherapy, and genuine parental concern, are more than happy to promote radically dangerous practices when they are performed on children in the name of gender affirmation.
So-called affirmation treatments include:
Puberty suppression drugs, administered by intramuscular injection every 3 months, even though no drugs have been approved by the TGA for treatment of gender dysphoria.
A lifetime of dependence on cross-sex hormones to develop secondary characteristics of the opposite sex (e.g., testosterone to cause a girl’s voice to deepen).
Surgery. Options for males include facial feminization (nose reshaping, tracheal shave, cheek implants, etc), body feminization (trunk liposuction, buttocks augmentation), breast implants and “penile inversion”, where the penis is turned inside out to form the inner walls of a “neo vagina”. Options for females include double mastectomies and phalloplasty, a procedure that involves taking skin, fat, nerves and arteries from an arm or leg to create a penis.
Like many other issues of our time, we are supposed to believe the science is settled: gender affirmative interventions are always, unquestionably, in the best interest of the child.
Nothing is further from the truth. A 2023 study from The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, NSW, concluded that “the evidence-base pertaining to the gender-affirming medical pathway is sparse and, for the young people who may regret their choice of pathway at a future point in time, the risks for potential harm are significant.”[3]
Osteoporosis is a known risk of puberty suppression, but very little is known about the long-term effects of stopping the natural process of growth. Cross-sex hormones are associated with cardiovascular disease and blood clots. Their impact on fertility and sexual function is still not well understood. Not surprisingly, there can be significant complications with major surgical interventions offered as gender-affirming “care”. Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, and the UK have placed severe restrictions or banned these practices on minors altogether.
It’s hard to image how anyone could support such barbarism. Yet the perversely misleading “conversion ban” laws promote these discredited radical interventions. Such laws are not based on the best available science but reflect the influence of Queer Theory[4] ideologues, convinced beyond any doubt that children can (and should) bypass the perils of puberty and mould their bodies into whatever shape they want, in an impossible quest to become something that they are not. Like all irrational crusaders, they use state coercion to impose their views.
As the hubristic celebrations of Pride Month come to an end, we can only pray for our political leaders to find the humility to change course.
Lionel is an IT engineer with more than 20 years’ experience developing enterprise applications in the private and public sectors. He completed his computer science degree in Venezuela in 2001. Then in 2002, Lionel moved to Australia after obtaining an international internship in Canberra. He became an Australian citizen in 2008.
In short, and especially for our subscribers outside Australia, the Voice proposal is for a consultative body – let’s be blunter and say it’s a representative body – to which all federal government policies and legislation impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will be referred for consideration.
The battle for and against is now formally engaged.
Here are 14 reasons Australians should vote against the proposal.
1. Systemic Racism
Libertarians are Australia’s leaders against racism. We reject collectivism of any kind and judge individuals on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin or any other group attribute. Labor and the Greens are seeking to introduce a procedural body into the legislative process based on race, hints of Caucasian rule in Rhodesia or South Africa. The Left’s much hackneyed phrase of ‘systemic racism’ applies. If it’s part of the system and it’s based on race, guess what? It’s systemic racism.
Libertarians say Vote No.
And frankly, that’s sufficient reason.
But I have 13 more reasons …
2. Fractious Treaties
Supporters of the proposal have said the next step after a Voice are formal treaties. It’s a slippery slope. Freedom House says there are only 17 genuinely free nations in a world of 197 countries and that Australia is one of them. As a libertarian, I’d like to keep it as free as possible. That’s not compatible with negotiating treaties with 500 ethno-state ‘First Nations’, as woke activists now strategically call this part of our citizenry.
3. Communist Mastermind
The author of the Voice To Parliament is Thomas Mayo. He is a communist, a supporter of an ideology which has thus far killed 100 million people.
Don’t believe that he’s a communist?
Here he is in his own words …
4. Preferential Rents
Ethno-nationalists Senator Lidia Thorpe and Mr Mayo are openly calling for freehold title holders to pay rent to indigenous leadership groups. Will Australian mortgagees and tenants be required to add an indigenous rent?
5. Economic Drag
With the ambiguity on not knowing what the Voice To Parliament will recommend to the Government, will there be new permits required for economic activity.? What grifting black tape will be placed on a business sector already constrained by green and red tape?
6. Impossible Reversal
If the Voice To Parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, became a corrupt rabble like ATSIC, we would not be able to remove it from the Constitution except through another referendum. We’d be stuck with the constitutional vandalism.
7. Ambiguous Scope
As much as we’ve asked, we still have no understanding of the scope of the Voice To Parliament. Will its recommendations be binding on Parliament? What are matters affecting indigenous people? Remote communities? Native title property portfolios? Aboriginal-only businesses? United Nations treaty implications? Australians need to know the scope of this body before voting. We ask. We get no answers.
8. Undefined Structure
How many people will sit on the Voice To Parliament? 5? 18? Will there be one per tribe, so 500 of them? None of us know. Who will be eligible to serve on the Voice? Certainly not all Australians. Again, this is systemic racism in action. How is aboriginality defined? DNA? Statutory declaration? Tribal declaration? Still, no answers.
9. Uncosted
From a standing start, the NDIS now spends more of our hard-earned tax dollars than Medicare and Defence! With form like this and the same people pushing this new proposal, can you imagine the cost of the Voice To Parliament? We’ve asked for a budget. No dice!
10. Ignored Communities
It’s not as if most aboriginal communities on the ground were consulted or were yearning for a Voice To Parliament. Videos are emerging of everyday indigenous citizens explaining that they’ve never heard of a Voice To Parliament.
11. Elitist Gravy Train
The proposal is being pushed by Canberra-based, virtue-signalling, snouts-in-the-trough, activists. Decades of collectivist molly-coddling by Labor has created a gravy-train of the most bloated kind. Woke identitarian activists trying to create an indigenous industry, with all the non-productivity of the old-world European aristocracies.
12. Partisan
This is a Labor and Green project. A weepy-eyed, spend-what-may socialist wet dream. A one-sided wank job.
13. Referendum Funding
To drive home the point, Government is funding the yes campaign while struggling citizens under cost-of-living pressure are expected to fund the no campaign. Equity? Shhhhhh.
14. Ends Reconciliation
The Reconciliation Movement had noble ideals when started. After 20 years, we now see clearly where it is heading. An elite land grab, the fracturing of Australia into ethno-microstates and the distribution of a lot of money for a non-productive industry.
But as I say, none of this matters. It is sufficient reason to Vote No that they are proposing a race-based system.
The moment freedom lovers regain power, a priority must be to repeal s51(xxvi) of the Constitution to end this race-baiting once and for all.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
One of the main safeguards to the rule of law is an independent judiciary. Courts should have the authority to decide cases related to the exercise of emergency powers and remove measures that violate laws or fundamental rights. Judicial review acts as a check of executive power and helps maintain the rule of law.
This point was established long ago during World War II. Liversidge v. Anderson was a case that related to the involuntary detainment of a man at the discretion of the Home Secretary, without trial. The majority judgement upheld the detainment. However, Lord Atkin’s dissenting judgement went on to be regarded as a landmark contribution to the jurisprudence surrounding the tension between executive powers and individual rights in times of crisis. Lord Atkin’s commitment to upholding fundamental legal principles, despite the political climate, has been widely respected and influenced subsequent legal thinking.
Lord Atkin. Leading Australian-born British judge.
In more recent times in Australia, Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Lyndall Dean, delivered a powerful, well-reasoned, rational, and factual dissenting judgement that also went against the prevailing political climate. The judgement related to the case of Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd [2021] FWCFB 6015. Ms. Kimber, a receptionist at an aged care facility, was dismissed by her employer for refusing to take an influenza vaccine. A majority 2-1 full bench of the Commission affirmed the dismissal, emphasising the significance of Public Health Orders and the obligation of employers to comply.
Ms Dean believed that the majority decision in Ms Kimber’s case was unjust, as it denied her workplace law protections based on a suspicion of anti-vaccination views. Ms Dean argued that even those with anti-vaccination views should be afforded legal protections and highlighted the importance of consent in medical treatments. She criticised coercion, stating that threatening dismissal and the withdrawal of societal participation for refusing a vaccine is incompatible with consent and a breach of fundamental human rights. She opposed the censorship of differing opinions, condemned vaccine mandates as coercive, undemocratic, and unethical, and urged Australians to question current policies and preserve the freedom to engage in scientific inquiry.
Lyndall Dean. Deputy President. Fair Work Commission.
Nothing about Ms Dean’s judgement was inaccurate, sensational, or controversial. Her judgement was sound, rational, and well-reasoned. Where Ms Dean fell foul was that she exercised her judicial independence instead of going along with the narrative. Her voice, just like many others, would have to be silenced; and that is indeed what happened.
Lyndall Dean was ordered to undertake professional conduct training and “disqualified herself” from workplace vaccination cases on the grounds of bias.
Removing Ms Dean from hearing vaccine workplace cases because she did not hold the majority view sends a message that only certain perspectives are acceptable, potentially compromising the fairness and integrity of the judicial process
In a law based, democratic society it is essential that judges must be able to render their decisions based on their interpretation of the law and their assessment of the facts, free from external pressure or political considerations. By removing Ms Dean for her dissenting opinions, judicial independence was compromised, eroding public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.
In Liversidge v. Anderson, the majority of the House of Lords upheld the detention powers granted to the Home Secretary under the Defence Regulations, even if the Secretary’s decision was based on subjective and unreviewable grounds. This decision was seen as a departure from the rule of law, which emphasises the critical importance of legal certainty and due process.
Lord Atkin’s judgement, like Lyndall Dean’s, underscored the importance of upholding fundamental rights and the rule of law even in times of crisis. It emphasised that the executive’s exercise of emergency powers must be subject to legal constraints and judicial review. It reinforced the notion that even in times of crisis, governments must respect fundamental rights and ensure that emergency measures are proportionate, necessary, subject to meaningful oversight, safeguard the rule of law and protect individual liberties.
Both Lyndall Dean’s and Lord Atkin’s dissenting judgements were viewed as controversial during their respective times, given the prevailing political climate. Lord Atkin’s judgement has since gained significant recognition and praise for its principled stance on the rule of law.
One would hope that, just like Lord Atkin’s, Lyndall Dean’s dissenting judgement will be viewed in the future as a potent reminder of the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights during a time of crisis.
Lord Atkin famously stated …
“In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace.”
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
Since a new Labor government in Australia was elected in 2022, there has been a warming trend in Australia-China relations. Our ministers are back engaging with Beijing officials and trips to China by our elected leaders are resuming.
The CCP influence whistleblower, Sydney based former Chinese diplomat Mr Yonglin Chen, who defected to Australia in 2005, issued a warning many years ago that Beijing aimed to transform Australia into ‘a stable and obedient resource supplier’ and, if we are not vigilant, we could be economically colonised into becoming a Province of China.
Mr Yonglin Chen. Former Chinese diplomat. Defected to Australia in 2005.
Chen’s chilling reminder resurfaces, as Australia-China relations begin to thaw.
Having been part of the ‘CCP body’ in the past, Chen’s ‘flip’ is invaluable in helping us understand how the Chinese Communists operate within Australia.
Despite his efforts to lead a simple life, Chen and his family receive regular threats from Beijing operatives in Sydney. But threats and coercion only make him more determined to defend universal principles and values.
Chen has agreed to an interview with Liberty Itch and has drawn from his personal experience to reveal the key functions of Chinese consulates in Australia.
In this interview, Chen asserts that these consulates engage in harassment of the Chinese diaspora and conduct activities aimed at interfering in the host country.
Unlike consulates of other countries, Chinese consulates prioritise political interference over consular affairs, with various offices aggressively involved in surveillance and espionage activities.
Beijing currently operates 275 diplomatic posts worldwide, surpassing the United States’ count of 267 and Australia’s count of 125, according to the Lowy Institute’s Global Diplomacy Index. These figures highlight China’s ambition to exert influence globally.
Here is the interview with Yonglin Chen.
LI: Tell us about the inner workings of Chinese Consulates in Australia.
YC: China gathers local intelligence through multiple avenues. General Staff focuses on military intelligence and high-tech innovations, while the Ministry of State Security(MSS) focuses on high-tech intelligence, counterespionage, and political interference.
The Ministry of Public Security (Police) focuses on Operation Fox Hunt, targeting individuals from the Chinese community and Chinese companies in Australia. Chinese missions also collaborate with Australian governments through Sister Cities or Sister State Relationships and oversee United Front organisations and Chinese Students & Scholars Associations (CSSA) at Australian universities.
They seek to control the majority of local Chinese language media and utilise the Confucius Institute system to influence opinions.
Beijing also promotes propaganda in mainstream local media and attempts to bribe and lure Australian MPs for their personal gains.
Additionally, China employs the Thousand Talent Plan and similar programs to recruit scientists and experts in order to acquire top-secret intelligence, as Australia shares academic research with the US. China’s methods for gathering intelligence are extensive, aiming to collect comprehensive big data on individuals.
LI: Please tell us more about the scale and tactics of the Chinese Spy network in our country.
YC: China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale, with over 1,000 professional operatives not only deployed in various Australian sectors, including government institutions, universities and laboratories, but also located in China’s state-owned enterprises, media outlets, commerce, and trade organisations in Australia.
China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale, with over 1,000 professional operatives
The CCP targets individuals within the Chinese diaspora and Australian elites, such as local, state, and federal politicians, their staffers, scientists, and academics, aiming to obtain valuable information. Confucius classrooms specifically target younger generations in Australia.
LI: We have seen an increasing number of seemingly ‘pro-CCP candidates’ running for our local councils and state parliaments. How are they ‘endorsed’ and ‘selected’? How do they interfere with Australian elections?
YC: The CCP’s United Front Work Department initiated the Chinese for Political Participation Program globally in 2005. Before that, politicians and officials of Chinese descent usually received preferential treatment, including luxurious trips to China and free accommodation and education for their children in Chinese universities.
After 2005, even more favorable treatment was provided, funded through the Ambassadorial Fund and other Special Budgets. Chinese missions may also arrange secret funds from Chinese state-owned enterprises and pro-CCP individuals in the Chinese community in Australia.
China’s media promotes election candidates through CCP mouthpieces such as China Central Television (CCTV), People’s Daily, and authorised WeChat red groups, boosting their popularity.
This increases their chances of winning elections in areas with a dense Chinese population. Chinese immigrants, who use WeChat, and Chinese language media in Australia, including Media Today Group, massively influenced by China, are utilised to disseminate CCP propaganda and influence voters.
Chinese volunteers, particularly young international students, are recruited to support ‘selected candidates’. Secret funds are also utilised in these efforts.
To protect Australia’s national interests, Chen emphasises six urgent actions:
Uphold principles when dealing with the Communist Regime and avoid appeasement, recognising that China relies on Australia’s resources and market, not the other way around.
Enforce the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021 effectively.
Reduce by half the number of PRC diplomats in Australia and expel CCP spies, removing specific operatives located within consulate’ premises.
Exercise strict oversight on funds directed towards election candidates.
Provide education on universal values and democratic principles to the mainland Chinese immigrant community and international Chinese students.
Expose spies’ activities in Australia and ensure the protection of Australian nationals.
As Beijing continues to entice our elected representatives, let’s hope that the Australian Parliament and the State MPs will consider Chen’s well-meaning advice.
Trade Minister, Don Farrell, was given a tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing in May 2023
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
For all my life, Australia has been a place where freedoms were safe.
In fact, Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, a Labor man of letters, youngest ever High Court justice, Opposition Leader during the Menzies era and a not so distant relative of mine, led an Australian delegation to the brand-new United Nations and pushed through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So passionate was he to have such a statement of our basic freedoms that he later became President of the United Nations General Assembly.
Dr H.V. Evatt. Author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That declaration enshrined the basics we’ve come to know in the West as underpinning our way of life:
Doc Evatt, the very essence of what Labor was at its most noble, would be turning in his grave today that his own Party in South Australia has decided to dismantle what he stood for.
The Malinauskas Labor Government in South Australia had a blank canvass on which to correct the wrongs of the previous Liberal government. That government was as illiberal as any Australian administration as I have seen in my lifetime, barring the Andrews and Gunner Labor Governments of Victoria and Northern Territory respectively.
Peter Malinauskas. Premier. South Australia. Labor.
Instead, Malinauskas South Australian Labor has covered the snow-white canvass in tyrannical excrement.
I am so ashamed to be South Australian.
Its rushed Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill 2023 is a disgrace.
The freedoms we have come to rely on: freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition the government, and the freedom of speech and expression, are now under direct attack.
The new Government is now increasing protestor fines from $750 to $50,000 and you can be jailed for three months.
Rushed through the House of Assembly after protestors made their presence felt against Santos, this Labor Government swiftly did the bidding of big business.
Citizens must be free to protest. Citizens must be free to express themselves.
I’ll have no truck with the conservative voices I’ve heard on this. They said “You’re taking the side of the Extinction Rebellion. They’re ratbags. These are the same people who throw soup on artwork.”
If protestors damage property, the rule of law must prevail and property rights must be protected.
But you don’t achieve that by throwing out other rights we’ve come to expect from a liberal democracy.
No.
So what if left-leaning organisations have condemned Labor for this erosion of our freedoms?. Amnesty International, the Australian Services Union, Extinction Rebellion and the South Australian Council of Social Service are correct on this issue. It’s not a partisan matter. It’s about liberal democracy itself.
Sarah Game MLC, One Nation, is appalled by this Bill. She is correct.
The Hon. Sarah Game MLC. One Nation. South Australia.
You know something is not right in the state of Denmark when Extinction Rebellion and One Nation band together.
Where are the South Australian libertarians on this matter? Where are the Nationals? Where the United Australia Party? Where Family First? Where Shooters, Fishers and Farmers?
And where are those lukewarm Liberals? Michelle Lensink MLC: you’re being outflanked by One Nation on a matter of civil liberties. You were a philosophical liberal when we were both on the Federal Executive of the Young Liberal Movement. What happened to you?
If you’re reading this, speak up! If you’re a Liberal Party member, get on the phone to your MLCs now. If you’re a Labor Party member, turn up to your MLC’s office now.
The freedoms to assemble, protest, speak and petition the government are not negotiable.
Doc Evatt, exemplar of the civil rights that Labor used to cherish, would be pulling his hair out today because of his own party.
And of all places in our Commonwealth, South Australia was the freest historically.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
The Iron Curtain referred to the boundary separating the Soviet Union and some European countries from the Western world. It became not just of a physical border but a symbol of the ideological distinction between communism and liberal democracy.
As is well known, the Soviet regime was authoritarian and repressed individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. In fact, all aspects of life were controlled by the Communist party.
The Soviet regime was the very definition of authoritarian
We can draw comparisons between current restrictions on free speech in the West and the suppression of free speech in the Soviet Union.
Often the first sign of a society moving down a totalitarian path is the imposition of restrictions of freedom of speech.
The Soviet government heavily restricted media including print, radio and television. All were state controlled and heavily censored to ensure they were not critical of government. Currently the West is imposing restrictions on certain kinds of speech, such as speech considered discriminatory or harmful to certain groups. There are also rules against “disinformation” and “misinformation” and attempts to limit speech that is deemed to be false or misleading.
Media Censorship
Western governments have been accused of controlling and pressuring media to report on public interest matters to suit a particular narrative. We have witnessed this during the Ukraine conflict. The European Commission silenced Russian state media outlets Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik and prohibited European Union operators from broadcasting any of the content of RT and Sputnik. This move is reminiscent of the Soviet governments radio jamming during the Cold War, where transmissions of Western radio stations were blocked to “protect” Soviet citizens from Western “propaganda”.
This move to block Russian state media coverage of the Ukraine conflict was criticised by the European Federation of Journalists as “disproportionate and arbitrary interference by the EU with the right to freedom of expression and information regardless of frontiers as protected by Article 10 ECHR and as a denial of the freedom of the media as guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”. (Dirk Voorhoof, Human Rights Centre Ghent University).
Surveillance
Another control tactic used by the oppressive Soviet regime was surveillance. The KGB monitored all forms of communication and utilised informants who reported dissenters.
Social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google not only censor content that is considered inappropriate or offensive, but also gather data on their users which can be used to monitor and influence their behaviour. Such forms of surveillance can be used to suppress and silence dissenting views. The tech giants have been accused of suppressing the free speech of those with whom they disagree, particularly conservative or right-wing commentators.
Punishment
The Soviet government punished those who criticised or opposed the state with punishments including torture, forced confessions and the deprivation of liberty in gulags.
We have seen people in Western countries punished for speaking out against the government including journalists such as Julian Assange and whistle blowers. Punishments include imprisonment, de platforming and cancel culture. Social media companies also punish users who violate their policies by suspending or banning accounts, another method to silence voices who do not support the government narrative.
Julian Assange. His ongoing detention without trial is illiberal.
Libertarians recognise the importance of freedom of speech as a bedrock principle of democracy and do not seek to limit the speech of others. In a free and democratic society, the media is supposed to operate independently of government control, to inform the public about matters that are in the public interest, and to hold governments accountable.
One must ask why our governments censor information and limit access to information. Regarding the Ukraine conflict, the government and media are displaying their contempt toward citizens in not allowing them, as free-thinking human beings, to decide for themselves which information they will consume and what conclusions that they will draw from that information. There is only one narrative that they will allow – the one that they control. Is the West drawing a digital iron curtain?
Soviet journalist, dissident and former political prisoner Alexander Podrabinek wrote that “Free speech is what digs the grave for despotism, while suppression of free speech is the trademark of dictatorship”. (Totalitarianism and Freedom of Speech, 24 June 2014, Institute of Modern Russia). Podrabinek went on to argue that the collapse of totalitarianism always began with the assertion of freedom of speech.
The Soviet regime’s suppression of free speech had a terrible effect on its citizens and is viewed as one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history. But brave freedom fighters spoke out against the regime, circumvented restrictions on radio broadcasting and other methods of control, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed.
Freedom begins with free speech and the free exchange of ideas. It is vital to our democracy. We must remain vigilant against the creep of totalitarianism to protect our personal freedoms. We must continue to use our voices individually and collectively to push back against any attempt to curtail our right to free speech.
Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.
If Foreign Interference is still a strange concept for laid-back Aussies, we will all soon be familiar with it – directed, supervised or financed foreign meddling and, unfortunately, citizens who knowingly assist with such foreign meddling for various reasons.
The most common reason, of course, is financial benefits. And the most rampant meddler is not Iran, or even Russia, but Communist China, a fact the Albanese Government refuses to admit. But they know. We also know. It is the elephant in the room.
Playing by the rules is not in the Beijing psyche. We can, therefore, expect more and more of these novel criminal charges to occur in Australia.
On 14 April 2023, Sydney man, Alexander Csergo, was charged with one count of ‘Reckless Foreign Interference’ by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for allegedly selling sensitive Australian defence and economic information to the Chinese Communist Party.
Australian businessman, Alexander Csergo
That was the second time anyone had been charged with a Foreign Interference Offence in the country since the relevant legislation passed in the Australian Parliament in 2018. The first Australian charged with Foreign Interference, a Melbourne man with Vietnamese heritage, was reported in Liberty Itch in February 2023.
A savvy Australian entrepreneur, a UNSW graduate, Mr Csergo, aged 55, had taken cash payments from the CCP proxies in exchange for his reports on Australia’s defence and trade matters, Sydney Court heard on 17 April 2023.
Mr Csergo was approached by two individuals via LinkedIn, calling themselves ‘Ken’ and ‘Evelyn’, who told Mr Csergo that they were from a ‘think tank’. They asked Mr Csergo to assist with their ‘research’ by providing information on highly sensitive national security matters to their make-believe research centre.
Mr Csergo was arrested at his Bondi NSW home on 14 April 2023
Magistrate Michael Barko denied bail for Mr Csergo, stating that the prosecution had a compelling case and the defendant was a “sophisticated, worldly businessperson” with flight risks.
According to court proceedings reported by The Australian Financial Review on 14 April 2023, Mr Csergo admitted that he knew the two individuals who approached him were from China’s Ministry of State Security.
The reports compiled by Mr Csergo included data on Australia’s AUKUS defence technology partnership, the QUAD, iron ore and lithium mining. They had been discovered by the AFP three weeks after Csergo returned to Sydney. Mr Csergo had been on the AFP radar since 2021, the court was told.
On 23 April 2023, The Guardian reported that Mr Csergo’s defence lawyer, Bernard Collaery, was requesting the Attorney General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, to drop the matter before the court.
As libertarians, we may have conflicting emotions regarding these charges. While we advocate for personal freedom, privacy, and limited government intervention, we are also becoming increasingly aware of the growing threat posed by the CCP, as it aggressively abuses and exploits our open and ‘lenient’ democratic policy.
Liberty Itch has reported on numerous CCP influence operations in our institutions, including in Higher Education and Political Parties.
Without tough legislation in place, our freedom, sovereignty and the integrity of our institutions will be, if not already, in jeopardy.
As democracy loving liberals, of course, we presume Mr Csergo innocent until proven guilty. We also appreciate how important it is to have separation of powers between the executive and the judicial system.
Asking the AG to exercise his executive power to drop the prosecution is questionable to those who believe in the rule of law. This is a national security matter for all Australians and a matter of public interest.
In light of this, Liberty Itch earnestly hopes that the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP will continue to resist pressure from the defense lawyer which could obstruct the discovery of truth and the delivery of justice in our court.
Amidst the disappointments that we have held in recent times as a nation, I hope that we have not all completely lost our faith in the institutions that form the backbone of our society. Otherwise, we would only serve to amuse the manipulative Chinese regime that seeks to exploit our discord and disunity.
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
AI is constantly promulgated as either being our new potential best friend or Terminator-style singularity-based doom. To an IT expert with a law degree, the responses of the law seem to be lagging in relation to AI generated creations, particularly in relation to deepfakes.
A deepfake is a product where any image and/or voice is substituted for any other image and/or voice. The images can be either still or moving – the format is not a concern: the concern is the output which may either purport to be fake or which may play off as being real. Either way, the product is not a genuine representation of the individual who is represented.
A further problem is that even an artificially created face can sufficiently resemble an individual such that they might perceive that they are being represented. Presently, artificially generated faces are taken by “averaging” the images of many people, but those artificial faces themselves can nevertheless resemble real people very closely. Having been mistaken for other girls/women multiple times (especially one of my own distant cousins who alarmed a law professor when he found out we were not the same woman), I’m very conscious of how only a slight degree of similarity is required to evoke the image of a person.
The problem of deepfake porn For most publication inventions, including the printing press, their first uses was the Bible and the second was pornography. Deepfakes, however, was one of the first that genuinely went the other way and headed straight to pornography. Defenders of deepfake pornography argue that it should be permitted, because it is often labelled as a deepfake and that the women (because it is usually women being abused) complaining about their faces being overlaid on deepfake porn are not actually being non-consensually touched. Their argument continues that it is no different to people imagining in their minds (the individual being faked) being in that sexual situation, and that there should never be any laws that impinge upon individual’s imagination, because that amounts to totalitarian thought control.
Whereas I can agree that there should not be laws that prevent people from imagining whatever they wish to imagine within the confines of their own minds, the difficulty that I have with their argument is that the person being faked cannot experience what another individual is imagining and is not subject to images that they may have in their mind. I can see why people are entirely permitted to write fanfic and can reduce their (sometimes disgusting) desires to writing, but I would argue that there’s a more visceral response to witnessing someone abusing what appears, even superficially, to be your body than there is to reading about someone abusing your body. When reading a literary work, a lot of the action and visual description of the action is left to the imagination. In comparison to a literary work, pictures or especially moving images are more immersive. Whereas I accept that individuals can be reasonably distressed by literary work pornography, I also understand that moving image pornography representing the individual (whether deepfake or by a lookalike) is going to have much greater impact, because humans who can hear see and hear (those who are able) are highly visual and aural creatures.
Existing Crimes that would protect against Deepfakes Currently, in Australia we have laws that protect against stalking, harassment or causing “offence” using a carriage service (ie, telephone/the internet). It would be a novel case, but I believe that the “causing offence” component of a deepfake, whether it was a fake endorsement or deepfake porn, would be sufficient. I think that an “ordinary person” (the test) would be caused offence by seeing themselves or a loved one engaging in sex that they weren’t engaging in or representing products that they would not endorse.
The difficulty that people are discovering in relation to all IT law is that the police are not familiar with the technology and the prosecutors are unsure about jurisdiction, so matters such as this, although definitely crimes, are not presently prosecuted. With education, the deepfakes would be sufficient to be covered by existing laws regarding “causing offence”, but I suspect that the real problem in this regard will be police resources.
Note, I initially had strenuously objected to “causing offence” being included as a crime on the grounds that I did not imagine that “causing offence” was sufficiently criminal to warrant prison time, but in this context as opposed to the initial purpose of that law, I can see that it can be sensibly adopted for the context of deep fakes.
In relation to depictions of minors, any deepfake presenting itself as being a child in a sexual situation will be child pornography. Even an AI likeness of a child being subject to sexual situations will be child pornography, because the appearance of the age of the “person” engaging in the conduct is what matters, not their actual age. The laws in this regard are sadly seeing increasing use as minors depict other minors in sexual situations to cause them deliberate harm through “bullying”.
Existing Civil Remedies The trouble is that police are already overtaxed by physical crimes and are certainly under-educated, so “self help” might be a quicker and more effective action. If someone were to get a court order, breaching that court order would be criminal, so a financial remedy and take-down order would go some way to vindicating a victim. The problem with this is that only the sufficiently wealthy or connected are able to obtain a court order to shut down publication of an offensive publication.
Defamation may be one such law that would be able to be used in the context of deepfakes, because aligning someone’s persona with an activity that would be viewed as “seriously” injurious could be defamatory. People are not generally aware that we have both civil AND criminal defamation in Australia and that deepfake porn would, in my view, constitute both, because it would give rise to the inference that the person portrayed would engage in that activity before a camera. Stating that it was a deepfake would still not remove the “sting” of the defamation.
Another law that would address such action is the civil action of a person (including a company) engaging misleading or deceptive conduct/misleading endorsement. The difficulty in this law would be that often deepfake porn states directly that it is not the person that it purports to be, so there would need to be a decision of a higher court to the effect that a small disclaimer is insufficient to undo the misleading nature of someone’s face and/or voice being presented. Courts have, from time-to-time, ruled that weak disclaimers are insufficient to undo the confusion that would exist in the mind of a “consumer” (these are consumer protection laws) so there could be an avenue for a joint defamation/misleading deceptive conduct action.
Intellectual property, the laws that most people reach for when someone takes an intangible that they believe belongs to them, are unsuitable, because intellectual property protects the expressions of ideas that are created, it is not designed to protect things that are already in existence – such as the appearance of an individual. Even photographs have very limited protection under copyright (but the right is vested in the photographer, not the person photographed).
We recognise no tort of the right of privacy in Australia, so there is no applicable privacy law.
Conclusion
Despite deviating from my original libertarian views on protecting one’s likeness, the increasing existence of deepfake porn has led to me to conclude that the police should be educated and deepfakes that cause offence should be forbidden by criminal and civil law and properly investigated by the State. My reasoning, as above, is because deepfakes, although currently imperfect to the eyes of some, are sufficiently convincing to cause people considerable genuine loss and damage and significant anguish not only to the person being represented, but also to their family and friends, whether the person is alive or dead.
Barrister at Law, LLB PhD (economics and commerce) ANU. Logic is beautiful – it is the necessary condition of mathematics and vital for proper discussion and policy-making. Logic and number theory are good hobbies – they keep me off the streets.
Whenever there is a public shooting in America, Australian media and politicians give a sigh and shake their heads in mock despair. How is it, they ask, that a smart country like America cannot do what is necessary to stop this from occurring, by implementing gun laws similar to those in Australia?
The gun laws Australia introduced in 1997 were some of the most restrictive in the world. They included bans on many types of firearms, universal gun registration, and a gun confiscation program costing taxpayers a billion dollars.
1997 Australian Gun Confiscation Program
It has become perceived wisdom that the laws reduced gun violence and prevented further mass shootings. That perception has spread outside the country too. When she was running for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton argued that the US should follow Australia’s lead.
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s master of propaganda, is infamous for his claim that a lie told once is still a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth. Australia’s 1996 gun laws did not make Australia safer, did not prevent mass shootings and are not an example for other countries, but you will have a hard time convincing most people of that. They have heard the opposite so often.
The data shows that Australia’s murder rate, already steadily declining prior to 1996, continued to decline at the same rate after the laws took effect. Several academic studies using Australian Bureau of Statistics data have confirmed this. Furthermore, there have been several mass shootings since the gun laws were introduced.
There is a simple explanation for this.
There is no correlation between gun control and crime.
Some countries with low crime rates have strict gun control while others have relaxed gun control. Some with high crime rates have strict gun laws while others have relaxed gun laws.
Malaysia, for example, has both corporal and capital punishment for using a gun to commit a crime, yet its murder rate is roughly double that of Australia’s. On the other hand, the Czech Republic has very relaxed gun laws including the right to carry a gun for self-defence, similar to most states of America, yet its murder rate is the same as Australia’s.
It is the same within the US, notwithstanding assumptions that it is uniformly violent. The places with the worst gun violence, Chicago and Washington DC for example, have quite strict gun laws while other places, such as the state of Vermont, have virtually no restrictions on gun ownership and a murder rate comparable to that of Australia’s.
The conclusion is unavoidable. If Australia were to adopt the same relaxed gun laws as Vermont, there would be no change in the crime rate. If Vermont were to adopt the same gun control laws as Australia, it would remain a safe, non-violent place. Gun control and crime are independent variables.
The obvious question from this is, what purpose do gun control laws serve? Some people feel nervous about guns and are happier knowing they are heavily restricted, but feelings should never be the basis for placing restrictions on other people. Moreover, such people are rarely nervous about police carrying guns.
Another awkward fact is that gun control laws have a sinister history. For example, their origins are deeply racist, being introduced to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves in America, aborigines in Australia and Māoris in New Zealand. In Britain they were introduced soon after the First World War in response to concerns that returning soldiers might be tempted to emulate the recent Communist revolution in Russia.
If there is one purpose for gun laws that users and anti-gun people agree on, it is that they should seek to keep guns away from those who are likely to become violent, whether the mentally ill or those with violent intentions. How to achieve this in a sensible manner, without imposing on the freedom of those who are not violent, is what ought to be the subject of debate by reasonable people.
David Leyonhjelm was a senator from 2014 to 2019. His book Gun Control – What Australia did, what other countries do and is any of it sensible, is available from Connor Court and online booksellers.
David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.
This is especially true if the political speech in question is radical, is expressed by the craziest, most dangerous people.
Never ban a communist, a fascist, an ethno-nationalist or a militant jihadist.
Why?
I’ll give you eight reasons …
Banning political speech white-ants liberal democracy. How is this the case when liberal democracy is the very thing we cherish and want to protect? Well, if governments of free-people ban a group from expressing themselves, we’ve just taken one incremental step away from freedom. Ban one, you can ban two. Each step logically moves democracy towards a regime less tolerant. If a country has, say, eleven political movements, the government of the day needs only take ten steps to ban all opposing views!
Banning political speech is a double-edged sword. Sure, it’s tempting when in power. How long will you be in power though? Today’s government is tomorrow’s opposition. Ban a view today and you’ll be muzzled tomorrow. It’s a dangerous tactic with unintended consequences for you personally.
Banning political speech creates a habit our politicians shouldn’t develop. Prohibiting one thing can lead to outlawing many other freedoms. If political speech can be banned without a whimper, why not who we associate with or where we travel, how we earn a living or who we worship.
Banning political speech creates martyrs for your opponent’s movement. The zealots and disgruntled fanatics who follow them have long, long memories, will use the banning as evidence for their cause and will add it as yet another grievance to motivate and inspire an ever-growing support base.
Banning political speech hides the enemy. If the views you’ve prohibited from being expressed are radical and could lead to, if implemented, the end of liberal democracy itself, it’s far, far better to know the identities of these foes. Shut them down and you might never know who and where they are.
Banning political speech weakens the future leaders of liberal democracy. The next generation of political leaders will have lived without hearing the message we’ve banned. They will be unpractised countering taboo opinions. They’ll be less battle-hardened politically and ill-prepared for the fights ahead.
Banning political speech is the Leftists’ cancel culture you despise. Today, they have little choice. Winning an argument is beyond many in the Left. Let them play the game of deplatforming and cancelling. Let them weaken themselves. Liberals, classical liberals and libertarians? Never.
Banning political speech puts you in very bad company. Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein were chillingly effective at using this blunt, illiberal tool to crush dissent. Do you really want to associate yourself with these despots?
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
The Workplace Health and Safety Bill was being debated at 12:30pm today and a coordinated insurgency was executed to amend the Bill to ensure covid vaccine mandates were impermissible.
Leading the fight were Senators Ralph Babet (UAP, Vic), Gerard Rennick (LNP, Qld), Matt Canavan (LNP, Qld), Malcolm Roberts (ON, Qld) and Alex Antic (Lib, SA).
Labor, the Greens and all but three of the Liberal-National Coalition voted in unison to allow covid mandates to continue. The vote for the amendment was Ayes 5 and No’s 31.
We understand Pauline Hanson (ON, Qld) was absent.
Here’s a video summary published from Senator Babet’s office.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Australia is home to nearly 3,000 Tibetans. This number has increased steadily by around 100 new Tibetans a year. Almostall are on humanitarian visas.
3,000 is not a huge number, but it fills up the whole town of, say, McLaren Vale, a well-known wine-producing region in South Australia. Whilst it may sound quite cozy, the reality of life for these Tibetans, of course, is nothing like sipping delicious wine.
These Tibetans are political prisoners who have fled Tibet and come to Australia for safety, due to the brutal persecution by Beijing since its Tibet annexation in 1951. Although it may seem like a long time ago, the human rights abuses in Tibet have not stopped since the Chinese invasion.
Religious persecution has been a consistent theme in China. Liberty Itch has reported the Chinese Communist Party’s unspeakable abuses of the Uyghurs, Christians, and Falun Gong.
The Chinese regime is determined that all their citizens worship nothing but the Chinese Communist Party – except that Tibetans are not even ‘Chinese citizens.’ Like East Turkistan, Tibet was an independent neighbouring country on the Western side of China.
Neighbours of the People’s Republic of China.
It’s unfortunate to be China’s neighbours, as their autonomy and freedom are constantly at risk.
Alarmingly, the CCP’s invasion of economically weaker countries is not just a matter of history. We know that Taiwan is the next immediate invasion target while the Indo-Pacific region has received increasing ‘interest’ and economic coercion by the Chinese State.Subscribe
It is not right that only the Chinese propaganda machine has the power to narrate history. Liberty Itch is eager to reach out to individuals, who possess first-hand stories of what has occurred in their nation’s history.
We made contact with Perth based Tibetan Australian, Tenpa Dargye, who spent five years in a Chinese prison from 2001 to 2006. He is a direct victim of the atrocities committed by the Chinese government. Although he is well settled in Australia, his life continues to be impacted today.
Tanpa visited Adelaide last week and the interview was conducted face to face.
Liberty Itch: Please tell us about your experience in Tibet.
Tenpa Dargye: I was born and grew up in the Golog of Eastern Tibet. Today, Tibet is the least free country in the world, among the same ranks of Syria and South Sudan. I believe in Buddhism and my spiritual leader is the Dalai Lama. I meditate regularly and believe in peace and kindness.
Golog, Eastern Tibet.
Prior to People’s Republic of China’s invasion in 1950, Tibet was an independent country with its own government, military, national flag, language and currency. The majority of Tibetans practice Buddhism and respect the nature that inherits the Ancient Bon Religion, the indigenous religious tradition of Tibet.
Since 1987, the PRC government suddenly tightened its control over the three regions of Tibet again. I was imprisoned by the Colonial Government of the PRC for practicing the political vision of the 14th Dalai Lama. I was in prison for five years from 2001 to 2006. I was released in 2006 but I got arrested again, during the 2008 Tibetan uprising, for another two months.
LI: Five years is a long time. What was it like in a Chinese prison during this period?
TD: I was in a Colonial Government prison in Lhasa, which is the capital city of Tibet. The interrogations in prison were unbearable. Without given any reason, I was given electric shocks to my heart and mouth. The PRC prison guards seemed to enjoy causing anguish, as they were laughing after giving me each shock. During interrogations, they demanded I recant my faith in the Dalai Lama and declare loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. I felt powerless and terrified.
Potala Palace, Lhasa City, Tibet.
I was finally released in 2006 on admitted that the Chinese Communist Party rule was the best rule for all Tibetans. I was coerced into admitting it so I could get out of prison.
Then in 2008, I was arrested again for two months. Arbitrary arrest and detention are ‘normal’ in Tibet. I was arrested for ‘having incorrect sentiment’ towards to Chinese Communist Party.
This time when they released me, I fled to India. India is a common place to which Tibetans escape, because of its proximity to Tibet.
LI: How did you end up in Australia? How is your life impacted today?
TD: When I was in India in 2009, I was helped by people who created the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. They were very kind and helped me apply for an Australian humanitarian visa.
In 2014, I started the campaign, “I’m not celebrating the Tibetan New year before the reunion of inside and outside Tibetan people”. As part of the campaign, each year, I visit a different Australian capital city during Tibetan New Year, usually in February. I want people to understand and remember the 160 Tibetan self-immolators, including among them 41 Buddhist monks and 8 nuns, who have set fire to themselves in protest at the Chinese occupation.
‘Self-immolation’ is an action in Tibetan Buddhism, where one sets fire to oneself as a form of protest and sacrifice. I want people to honour and remember them, like we honour our war heroes on Anzac Day. All of them have sacrificed themselves for our freedom.
My campaign started in Dharamshala in North India in 2014. Then I went to Brisbane in 2015, Sydney in 2016, Canberra in 2017, Melbourne in 2018, Perth in 2019, Hobart in 2020, Perth again in 2021 and 2022 due to COVID restrictions, and in 2023 I visited Adelaide for the first time.
Tenpa Dargye at Parliament House, Adelaide. 21 February 2023.
I want my fellow compatriots to understand that although Tibet seems ‘invisible’ today due to Chinese occupation, I still refuse to accept my nation’s invasion by Beijing.
Tibet still lives in my heart and I dream of a day when it will be free again, with spirituality replacing the CCP’s vandalism.
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
By crikey, I’m a little bothered we’re always at sea politically.
The Left is pounding us with wave after relentless policy wave.
The Liberal Party has drowned, its body face-down, bobbing and drifting. We libertarians, classical liberals and the otherwise centre-right are in danger of the rip sweeping us to sea.
Things are perilous. Just look at the eddies and currents fatiguing us:
Familiar places and landmarks being renamed in costly rebranding programs
Activists undermining joyful time spent on Australia Day
If we continue only to oppose these ideas, as is the conservative instinct, but not counter with our own, we’ll soon lose more freedoms than is already the case.
We need bold classical liberals and pugnacious libertarians to fiercely propose striking new policies.
Take the Voice To Parliament as an example.
… classical liberals cannot support systemic racism.
But first, here’s a quick primer for our international subscribers. The Voice To Parliament is a government body proposed by referendum to be enshrined in Australia’s Constitution. It’s stated purpose is to recognise Indigenous people as the first inhabitants of Australia and to act as an advisory board for any bills coming through the Federal Parliament which impact Indigenous people. The body would be comprised exclusively of ethnically Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The motivation for the Voice To Parliament is that Indigenous people suffer poorer life chances and that this is the result of British colonial invasion and ongoing occupation. The Voice to Parliament is said to be just one step in a process of Reconciliation, the duration and shape of which is unspecified.
In short, what’s being proposed is a new third-chamber of the Australian Parliament with a racial-eligibility criterion to participate.
Yes, it’s as bad as that sounds.
Think Apartheid.
Predictably, the Labor Government along with the socialist Australian Greens will vote “Yes.”
The feckless Liberals are confused and unable to take a view. Their paralysis is painful to witness.
Their Coalition partner, The Nationals, are deeply-rooted and sure in saying “No” and have weathered the storm of a confused defector.
Primer over.
So what do we do?
First, we vote “No.” We do so because we as classical liberals cannot support systemic racism.
Good so far but now we must plan to seize the initiative.
Second, we ask ourselves, “By what power or mechanism can the Labor Government even legislate something as abhorrent as systemic racism?”
The answer is in the Australian Constitution. Like the United States Constitution, Australia’s has an enumerated list of areas in which a Commonwealth government can legislate.
It’s section 51.
Run your finger down that list and you’ll discover subsection 26 furtively trying its best not to draw attention to itself …
Section 51 (xxvi) “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”
Yes, you read that correctly. The Constitution anticipates that a Federal government may legislate on the basis of race.
I don’t know about you but I find this abhorrent. What happened to equality before the law? What happened to judging not by the colour of one’s skin but by the content of one’s character? I’m thinking of 1933 Germany, 1970 South Africa, of Rwanda at its most bleak. Why look at people from a racial perspective at all? If we must have legislation, let’s not discriminate by the amount of melanin in the skin!
So, here’s the front-foot classical liberal in me …
At the very next electoral opportunity, let’s put a referendum of our own to the people. Let’s rescind section 51(xxvi) from the Constitution!
In one fell swoop, no Commonwealth Government will ever again be allowed to make laws with respect to race.
The benefits are:
No elevating one ethnic group at the expense of the other
No targeting one ethnic group for the purpose of disadvantaging them
No costly Department of Indigenous Affairs and the countless agencies which grift off it
The Federal Government has one less legislative jurisdiction, has its wings slightly clipped
With the money saved, we can repay at least some of the suffocating debt
Indigenous communities will be treated like all others and so weaned off the teat of the state. Same opportunities. Same laws.
Indigenous communities stuck in a cycle of inter-generational welfare receipt will learn self-reliance quickly.
It has a lot to recommend it.
So rather than simply react to a Leftist proposal and not respond in kind, let’s advocate a bolder, muscular kind of original liberalism, of classical liberalism, of libertarianism.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
This interview is hard for sun-soaked Australians to comprehend.
It’s a topic most of our politicians avoid. It’s too troubling. It opens a Pandora’s Box of questions, about humanity, ethics, complex interconnections, human rights, our future, and sickening expediency beyond our imagination.
So, before the interview, Liberty Itch will step you through a quick, summarising primer.
There is credible evidence that Australia’s #1 trading partner, the People’s Republic of China, runs the world’s largest forced organ harvesting business.
Australia doesn’t simply buy electronics, steel and machinery from China but, critics assert, the Communist Chinese Party does a roaring trade in human hearts, lungs and kidneys, treated as commodities like any other. It’s a lucrative, bloody business.
The China Tribunal, a London-based non-government tribunal which investigated claims of forced human organ harvesting chaired by former lead prosecutor of the Slobodan Milošević trial, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, has made some shocking findings.
Its damning final judgment claimed there are over 1.5 million people currently detained in Chinese prison camps, many of them are being brutally killed or operated on, alive, to provide organs for the $1 billion transplant industry.
$1 billion! That’s the size of Australia’s wine exports to China, when the communists aren’t interfering with free trade. This is the scale of the ghoulish business.
If you think the issue of Beijing’s organ trafficking is a far-away problem overseas, you are mistaken. It’s on our doorstep. It’s here.
The China Tribunal discovered a few Australians in the medical profession linked to a Sydney hospital were denying organs were sourced through coercion and human rights abuses.
Further, the Australian reported contentious, CCP-propagandist white-washing of forced harvesting by a former Griffith University academic, Campbell Fraser, who had a history of cooperative association with CCP mouthpiece, China Daily.
Campbell Fraser. Griffith University barred him from trips to China.
Further again, Australia’s SBS reported a complicated fracas between medical practitioners at Westmead Hospital. In that report, Dr Chapman, a staunch defender of Chinese Communist Party organ harvesting practices, had in earlier years reported another physician allegedly being told by a patient of Chinese origin, “I cannot come in for dialysis tomorrow. I have to fly tonight because they are shooting my donor tomorrow.”
Though obviously the Australian and SBS are reputable sources, Liberty Itch wanted to speak directly with other investigators with expertise in China’s organ harvesting practices.
The following interview is with David Matas CM.
David Matas CM is an international human rights lawyer based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is co-author with David Kilgour, a former Canadian Secretary of State and Deputy Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, of Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for their Organs, 2009 and co-editor with Torsten Trey of State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China, 2012. David is a co-founder with David Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, and a member of the Order of Canada.
David Matas CM. International human rights lawyer, author, researcher and 2010 Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
<Interview starts>
LI: Can you give Liberty Itch subscribers a brief overview of the Chinese state’s organ harvesting business? How is it done?
DM: Prisoners of conscience in arbitrary indefinite detention are systematically blood tested and organ examined. The lists of prisoners with blood types and tissue types are circulated to nearby health practitioners and hospitals. When a patient arrives needing a transplant, the blood and tissue typing is matched with that of a prisoner. The matching prisoner is, in detention, injected with anti-coagulants and immobilisers and then taken to a nearby van where organs are extracted. The extraction kills the prisoner. His or her body is cremated on site. The organ or organs are taken by the van to a nearby hospital or to an airport for transport elsewhere in China.
LI: What is the scale? Who are the victims and who are the ‘clients’?
DM: About 100,000 organs a year. The victims are primarily practitioners of the spiritually based set of exercises Falun Gong, also Uyghurs in large numbers, Tibetans and House Christians, mostly Eastern Lightning, in smaller numbers. The clients are transplant tourists, and wealthy or well-connected Chinese.
LI: Who benefits from the Chinese State’s organ harvesting business?
DM: The health system benefits financially. The Communist Party benefits through elimination of those it sees as insufficiently Communist.
LI: You recently visited Australia, late last year, and have gone to Canberra to present the issue of Beijing’s Illegal Organ Trafficking to our elected representatives in the Federal Parliament. What was the response?
DM: There has been significant concern in the Parliament of Australia about organ transplant abuse in China. There have been many petitions in the Parliament of Australia, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, addressing Falun Gong and organ harvesting, starting in 2006 when the report that I wrote with David Kilgour first came out and continuing to this year. The Parliament, it is safe to say, is well-informed of the abuse and has showed considerable concern about the abuse.
However, the response from the individual elected representatives varied, depending on the representative with whom I met. I would suggest contacting these representatives directly for their response.
LI: What more should the Australian Government do to tackle this crime?
DM: These are 5 suggestions to the Australian government in summary.
1) Improve the Australian Senate procedures. There are several Parliaments around the world which have, through motions or resolutions, condemned the mass killing in China of prisoners of conscience for their organs and called for Government action to avoid complicity in those killings. Australia should follow suit.
2) Adopt mandatory reporting whereby medical professionals have an obligation to report, to an appropriate registry or authority, any knowledge or reasonable suspicion that a person under their care has received a commercial transplant or one sourced from a non-consenting donor, be that in Australia or overseas;
3) Implement extraterritorial legislation. The current Australia’s Criminal Code does not explicitly prohibit organ trafficking. The government has accepted the recommendation to amend it but no amendments have been proposed in reality. As an alternative, private Members and Senators could introduce amendments to prohibit organ trafficking;
4) Become a state party to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and join other nations in a collective effort to combat foreign organ transplant abuse;
5) One last suggestion I would make is the constitution of a friends of Falun Gong Parliamentary group. Australian Parliamentarians, through the many petitions they have presented to Parliament, as well as through the Sub Committee report, and statements they have made outside Parliament, have shown an understanding of the issue of the mass killing.
Liberty Itch urges the Albanese Government to take leadership to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. It was promised to us that Australia will ‘cooperate where we can, disagree where we must’ with China.
This is an area that we ‘disagree where we must’ and immediate actions need to be taken.
There’s more you can do:
The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC) has an Australian chapter that works on a range of initiatives. Apart from legislation change, there is also a need for Australian universities, hospitals and transplant associated organisations to undertake due diligence in their interactions with China in the areas of transplant medicine, research and training.
It’s important that our medical professionals and academics are not unknowingly aiding and abetting China in its illegal organ trafficking practices.
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
This open letter assumes the reader has also read the Australian Financial Review column by Alexander Downer dated 4 Dec 2022 found here . Start there and follow with this Open Letter.
As a former State and Federal Executive member of the Liberal Party, as a former Young Liberal of the Year and participant in 72 pre-selections, I agree with much of what you wrote.
The fact that the Liberal Party has lost its philosophical mooring and is now drifting wherever the political currents take it was the very reason I left and joined the Liberal Democrats in South Australia.
They stand for fiscal restraint, individual freedom, rule of law, freedom of speech, entrepreneurialism, freedom of worship, free trade, equality before the law, innovation and science, the very things the Liberal Party have abandoned and seem unable to clearly articulate.
As an example of just how unable even Liberal Party senators have become to hold true and firm to these beliefs, see here Senator Andrew Bragg from NSW on ABC’s Q&A:
It’s not only the Liberal Democrats who provide fresh competition. There are good people in other parties who share these values but do not see the Liberal Party as their natural home any longer.
Nowhere was the Liberal Party’s drift more evident than during covid overreach. And it’s with that in mind that I turn to your column.
You wrote, “In South Australia, the public was on the whole supportive of the state government’s termination of traditional civil liberties.”
As you know, public opinion can be manufactured. When you say leadership was required rather than managerialism, nowhere was that needed more than during covid.
You wrote further, “The values of selfless individualism and individual freedom and responsibility are timeless. The Liberal Party shouldn’t allow them to be cast as anachronistic.”
You can see my emphasis in both these quotes.
I’d therefore like to ask you a simple question in an effort to reconcile those two quotes from your column:
Do you agree it was a mistake for the recent SA Liberal Government to have terminated traditional civil liberties at the expense of our timeless value of individual freedom?
This open letter is published on Liberty Itch, which boasts current and past MPs as well as current party leaders and activists as subscribers.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Here is your definitive list of Australia Day must-dos. Any one of these makes you a thoughtful Aussie. Do all 22 and you’ll end up with an Order of Australia.
Here we go …
Start the day with Vegemite on damper and Weet Bix;
Wear eucalypt silvery-green and deep gold clothing. Make an effort with the hues. Lime-green and canary yellow just won’t cut it;
Fly a large Australian flag at home so your neighbours can see it. Bonus points for a huge flag flown proudly atop a permanent flagpole in your front yard;
Host an Australia Day BBQ at your place;
Decorate your entire house with dozens of miniature Blue Ensigns;
Give someone you love a bouquet of native flowers;
Sizzle all-Aussie beef steaks and burgers with a native bush tomato and mountain pepper berry rub;
Serve burgers with beetroot and an oversized Queensland pineapple ring. Bonus points for onion and a BBQ poached egg;
Make an Australian dessert like pavlova, lamingtons, Iced Vovo tart, vanilla slice or fairy bread;
Recite Mackellar’s My Country aloud before the family. Bonus points for Banjo Paterson’s The Geebung Polo Club done with rhythm and build-up;
Play a hotly-contested, raucous game of backyard cricket. Bonus points for loud, speculative appealing and protestations when turned down;
Do anything at the beach. Absolutely anything!
Tweet your unreserved appreciation and love for Australia;
Recite the Oath of Allegiance even as a lifelong citizen;
Share with family and friends what you love about Australia;
Play Slim Dusty, Midnight Oil or Percy Grainger, as your taste dictates. Just make sure the music is Australian;
Self-consciously use old Australian dialect words. Bonus points for,
“You’re bonzer, cobber. It’s the Pom who’s gone troppo, a fair dinkum drongo. What a galah!”
Fly the flag from your car and drive around your neighbourhood;
Photograph a beautiful Australian scene and share on social media;
Sing loudly and without any hint of self-consciousness any of the following: I Am Australian, I Still Call Australia Home, Waltzing Matilda or Advance Australia Fair. Bonus points for leading a group to sing all of them with you;
Debate who is Australia’s greatest author; and
Prepare and deliver a short summary of the life and adventures of an Australian explorer.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
First, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation effective, at the latest, early in February 2023. (Yes, New Zealanders need to endure her for a few weeks more!)
Second, I put out this short tweet yesterday together with a video of the Prime Minister, and it went viral. In a mere 180 minutes, it was seen by 67,400 people and was still swishing around the globe as I wrote this. After 8 hours, 165,000+!
Jacinda Ardern set a couple of records. She was the youngest female prime minister ever in 2017. Further, she gave birth whilst in office.
Of course, neither of these have anything to do with political achievement.
To be fair, we can probably agree that Jacinda Ardern is expressive.
Some went so far as to say she showed great empathy.
I think it more accurate to say any apparent empathy was self-consciously dispensed and exclusively to beneficiaries of her bias.
Any praise for expressiveness and empathy needs much closer scrutiny. It’s what she expresses that so confounds civil libertarians like you and me. And, if you don’t mind me expressing myself here dear reader, she showed a distinct lack of empathy for many during covid lockdowns, victims of which are generations not yet born as you’ll see. So read on.
Instead, what we observed was a smiling socialist, a Daughter of Davos, instinct over intellect, all feeling and no financial finesse. In short, she was a classical liberal’s nightmare.
Just look at the legacy she leaves after six reckless years in office:
Frequent meddling with the free market. The results: distortions in housing prices and a generation of first home buyers shut-out of their ownership aspirations;
A backlash against over-zealous covid restrictions and loss of personal freedoms, including creating a medical-apartheid defined by vaccination-status. See the video tweet above;
Conscientious objectors and the vaccine-hesitant were shunned socially, denied mobility, prevented from earning a living and targeted by government in ways the Stasi would have relished in Soviet-era East Germany;
Consequential increasing crime rates in the island nation;
Inflation sitting at 7.2%;
Food prices spiking 8.3% compared with the same time a year earlier;
Successive interest rate increases from New Zealand’s central bank;
A monstrous public debt! When she took office, the public debt was approximately $60 billion USD. Projections are that, based on all data currently available reflecting the decisions of her government, that the national debt will balloon to $151 billion USD by 2027. If the figure proves higher or lower than that, it will be the result of her successor’s policies, but you can see the economic vandalism on her watch. Put it this way, she led a government which racked-up triple the debt of all previous New Zealand governments combined. She went way over the credit card limit and left someone else to pick up the bill. Funny, right?;
For a country with a population the size of Boston, it will take three generations at least to bring that debt to heel. We are talking inter-generational theft which will crush Zoomer Kiwis’ standard of living, their children and their grandchildren. That is to say, on the day after you, I and Jacinda Ardern meet our Lord and Maker, New Zealanders will be dealing with the Ardern Economic Catastrophe for another two generations thereafter;
Many of them will flee New Zealand and hollow this beautiful jewel of the South Pacific. They have been emigrating anyway, mainly to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States;
A strategic flirtation with the Chinese Communist Party. Her Labour Party has long shunned our liberal democratic ally, America. It was a natural progression from that to openly calling for greater integration with the communists, a weak-kneed strategy in favour of firebrand authoritarianism with a chequebook over the cleansing-balm of liberty;
Consistent with that predisposition towards authoritarianism, civil liberties in New Zealand were shattered under her Governments. Emergency powers poised to be invoked again at any time are left in place;
Chinese Communist Party infiltration of New Zealand consulates and banks;
She openly lied about the efficacy of covid vaccines. “If you take the vaccine, you’ll still get covid but you won’t get sick and you won’t die” was a claim she made during the height of an hysteria of her own making, and contradicted by the science and the manufacturer. Don’t believe me? Watch this …
More government restrictions on the access and use of water;
Crushing regulations on agricultural emissions;
Further shifting of the goal posts with hate speech laws without any safeguards as to who adjudicates what ‘hate speech’ actually is.
The adulation and applause had faded about a year ago. The shadowy World Economic Forum’s simping seemed impossibly distant now. Jacinda Ardern had to face the people of New Zealand imminently and the prospects weren’t promising.
With polling numbers in decline and the sparkle now tarnished, the Prime Minister did what all faithful authoritarians and central-planners do when their number is up. She spoke sweetly, smiled nervously, then scurried to the nearest exit hoping that the rule of law she undermined holds firm for her.
I was shocked my tweet went viral. I shouldn’t have been. Countless everyday people across the West, people like you and I, have had a gutful.
The Daughter of Davos was a symbol of all that has gone wrong over the last 3 years. So of course you cheered her departure.
I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before she re-emerges with an ostentatious job title and global brief somewhere in the world. “Poverty Ambassador-At-Large, World Economic Forum”, on $820,000 per annum, Davos chalet and chauffeur the obligatory perks on top sounds about right.
And when that happens, you and I can both smile knowingly that at least here she won’t have harmed anyone further. On her departure from the Land of the Long White Cloud, she will increase the average IQ of New Zealand, and not decrease that of the World Economic Forum.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Chinese Communist Party supporter, Billy Kwok, influenced by the Chinese government’s propagandist apps WeChat and Weibo, was not happy with Mr. Hui’s pro-democracy advocacy. So, he decided to take matters into his own hands and used violence to handle a political difference of opinion.
The police officially charged Mr. Kwok in September 2022, but the case was delayed due to ‘mental health’ grounds.
These delays were overcome and, this week, a Sydney court found him guilty on two counts of criminal intimidation, handing-down both a community service order of 12 months and a $500 fine.
On hearing the verdict, Mr. Hui said, “This successful prosecution sends two important messages to the community. Firstly, all people in Australia have the right to express their political views freely. This must be respected.”
“Secondly, pro-Beijing people need to understand that they cannot use violence against any person, just because they have a different political persuasion. The rule of law underpins the way Australian society is governed”, he continued.
Liberty Itch praises Mr. Hui for his courage and tenacity in defending Australian free speech and fighting for democracy in Hong Kong.
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
Last week, I commented on how spooky George Orwell’s predictions in his dystopian novel 1984 have become – a growing state, growing authoritarianism, the rise of rent-seekers and how our fellow citizens are being manipulated.
So, let’s talk more about our fellow citizens, what’s happening with them, and how we can help them to fight back.
Most people do not follow politics so have no idea what is happening around them and to them.
Often their only source of information is via social media – and who controls that? Those who want more government, more spending, more taxes, more regulation and more control, of course. Facebook, for example is censoring information which urges people to vote “no” in the upcoming referendum on the Voice. As former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said, “Big Tech is joining with government in trying to force the Voice through without a debate.”
Former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson said recently, “We live in an age of astonishing disengagement by far too many good citizens in the life of our nation. I suspect that without compulsory voting we’d have up to half the electorate not bothering to vote at all.”
Disengaging citizens from politics is not accidental. Keeping people in the dark, doing things that turn them off politics – parliament’s Question Time for example, where not only do politicians behave appallingly, but also brazenly claim to be acting ‘in the best interests of the Australian people’, when they are clearly acting in their own interest and the interests of the rent-seeking cartels. It is no wonder people are disillusioned and disengaged.
As we know, most people do not like confrontation and choose instead to ‘opt out’. They let the world be ruled by ‘those who show up’ as the old saying goes. The problem is that those who show up are not the ‘good citizens’ John Anderson has in mind.
What will it take to engage people – a catastrophe perhaps?
Australians are about to be mugged by reality. Higher mortgage rates, power blackouts, food and petrol shortages, price rises, a housing affordability and rental crisis are going to severely test the Albanese government.
Across the globe there is havoc. Ukraine, Taiwan, an energy crisis, rising interest rates caused by rising inflation, Covid, climate, the Voice, workplace relations changes aka more union power, rising electricity and gas prices. Shakespeare’s ‘dogs of war’ are growling, and Australia will not escape at least some of this havoc.
Here in Australia, Gillian Triggs, the former president of Australia’s Human Rights Commission received a standing ovation at a (former Greens leader) Bob Brown event, for a speech which included the line, “Sadly, you can say what you like around the kitchen table at home.”
I prefer the version of former US President Ronald Reagan, in his farewell address following his successful eight-year presidency when he said …
“All great change begins at the dinner table”.
In 2015, when former Senator David Leyonhjelm and I were in parliament, we tried to amend Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
The amendment we proposed in our Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill was relatively modest. It simply removed the highly subjective terms “offend” and “insult” from the Act. Words such as “humiliate” and “intimidate” remained. If the Bill had passed, the original intention of the Racial Discrimination Act would have been restored – freedom of speech and protection against racial discrimination. These two objectives would have been able to co-exist in equilibrium.
Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.
With his face covered in goggles, protective gas mask and yellow hard-hat that symbolised the pro-democracy movement, Eldia was one of the students involved in the 2019 Siege of Polytechnic University in Hong Kong.
An estimated 1,300 people were detained during the turmoil. Eldia, 21, was among them.
Although he had taken part in the protest peacefully, he was arrested and ended up with charges of rioting, which would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Coming from a respectable, educated, middle-class family, Eldia should have had a promising future in Hong Kong, prior to the breakdown of the rule of law in the formerly free and civilised city.
In a desperate attempt to escape the oppressive Communist Chinese regime, Eldia decided to break his bail agreement and flee to Australia on a visitor visa in 2020.
Two years on, his future remains uncertain.
Fearing incarceration upon returning to Hong Kong, he has submitted a protection visa application to the Home Affairs Department to safeguard himself from the world’s most totalitarian government.
Liberty Itch reached out to the Australia-Hong Kong Link, a non-profit organisation that works to promote the democracy movement in Hong Kong, to gain an insight into Eldia’s life as a political refugee in Australia.
Despite his young appearance, Eldia exudes a strength of character that belies his age. He has a quiet, unassuming demeanour yet demonstrates an unwavering commitment to advancing the prospects of Hong Kong.
Here is the interview with Eldia…
What activities were you engaged in to advance the democracy movement in Hong Kong?
I attended the demonstrations in Hong Kong on a frequent basis in 2019. I was non-violent the whole time. I took part in the protests, but I did not join the front line. The only thing I did was stay peaceful and helped other young people. I was in the vicinity of Polytechnic University to help students who were trapped in the university campus by hundreds of riot police. I now carry multiple democracy-related ‘criminal charges’. I was charged just for going to a protest, I actually did nothing but to provide moral support to students in need. But the police were charging young people at the scene who were simply wearing a mask.
Has the democracy movement completely stopped now in Hong Kong?
I don’t think the democratic movement in Hong Kong has completely stopped, but after the establishment of the Hong Kong ‘National Security Law’, Hong Kong has completely lost freedom of speech. In addition, there are often pre-trial sentences in the courts, which has been a major blow to the democratic movement in Hong Kong.
Even speaking online, you risk being arrested.
Are you in touch with other activists in Australia and overseas?
Being part of a pro-democracy organisation consisting of Hongkongers living in Australia, I feel privileged to be able to express my support for the Hong Kong diaspora and their cultural identity, as well as appreciate the democratic liberties of Australia.
What is life like as a political asylum seeker in Australia?
The thought of never being able to return to Hong Kong can be sad and heavy. I never thought that I would be a political refugee with ‘criminal charges’! Typically, Hong Kong students in Australia become skilled migrants, not political refugees who need protection.
But I feel very lucky to be able to live in Australia because I am free.
I think daily about the innocent people in Hong Kong facing years in prison. They aren’t forgotten.
I was already a student studying in Australia, so I have adapted to life here. I feel free, however, I am not allowed to go overseas as per the conditions of my protection visa.
Is Beijing still after you and do you feel safe?
I feel relatively safe in Australia because I’m not a public figure, so I haven’t been threatened too much. But make no mistake, I am currently a ‘fugitive’ in the eyes of the CCP Hong Kong Government. Needless to say, I am absent from the relevant court hearings in Hong Kong and worry that it may negatively impact on people around me because of my sensitive identity.
As we know, the Chinese Government’s tentacles are far and wide in Australia.
I am therefore staying low-key in supporting Hong Kong democracy movement overseas. Most people I interact with daily don’t know that I am an asylum seeker.
Where is your family and how do you stay connected with them?
My family is still in Hong Kong and I’m very worried about their safety. I hope they can leave Hong Kong as soon as possible.
Now I use anonymous software to communicate with my family and friends.
Are you still fighting for Hong Kong democracy? If so, how?
I’ll continue to fight for Hong Kong’s democracy and freedom until Hong Kong is liberated. I know very well that what we are facing is the world’s largest and the most-cruel dictatorship – Communist China. It will not be easy to liberate Hong Kong and it may not even be something that can be seen in my lifetime. But I will still insist on fighting for democracy and freedom, because many people have sacrificed their freedom for it.
If we give up, their sacrifice will be in vain. Therefore, I often remind myself to tell people in Australia what is happening in Hong Kong as much as possible, and let others know that democracy and freedom should not be taken for granted. Freedom is hard-won and easily lost. We need to continue defending our inalienable rights.
I intend to remain involved in operations conducted by Australian Hongkongers and joining with those who think similarly. I’m also looking to conduct more outreach activities in the future, for example, setting up a page devoted to my own observations and sharing them.
How do you build a fulfilling life in Australia going forward?
I plan to continue my studies and hope that I can make a positive contribution to Australia. I volunteer for the local community and through these volunteer activities, I have a better understanding of the lives of the locals, so that I can be more integrated into Australian life.
What else would you like the readers of Liberty Itch to know?
It’s no secret that China is the world’s second largest economy, and Australia cannot avoid economic and trade ties with it. Nevertheless, I plead with the Australian government to balance its desire for high-growth trade with the need to expose human rights abuses in China. And remember, in the last few years, Chinese infiltration and interference has been rampant, putting Australia’s freedom and autonomy in jeopardy. We must remember the people who have borne the brunt of the CCP’s oppression in Hong Kong, East Turkistan, Tibet, Taiwan, and other regions. Australia needs to break its reliance on Chinese trade and quickly diversify its investments.
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
Set aside Mr. Adams’ incorrect claim that Sir Donald Bradman deemed Nelson Mandela unworthy. The opposite is true. They were fond of each other. Mandela regarded Bradman as a hero for his 1972 decision to withdraw Australia from playing South Africa. Bradman sent gifts to Mandela. They corresponded.
Instead, after Kamahl’s post regarding his positive first-hand experience of Sir Donald, focus on Mr. Adams’ incendiary reply.
Here’s my question for you, dear reader:
POLL
Was Phillip Adams’ “Honorary White” comment to Kamahl racist?
Yes
100%
No
0%
13 VOTES · POLL CLOSED
If you voted ‘yes’, this raises the issue of whether we as a society should be funding such racism. ABC, and therefore Mr. Adams’ salary, is funded by your taxes, after all.
So, here’s a second question:
POLL
Is it ‘systemic’ or ‘institutional’ racism for ABC to continue to employ Mr. Adams?
Yes
100%
No
0%
11 VOTES · POLL CLOSED
If you answered ‘yes’ here and you call yourself a ‘liberal’, a ‘classical liberal’ or a ‘libertarian’, write to the ABC’s Managing Director and your local MP now. Call for Mr. Adams’ termination.
There is no place for institutional racism in Australia.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Federation University’s Verity Archer discovered a letter written in 1975 by Sir Donald Bradman, the greatest cricket batsman ever to play with an unparalleled average of 99.94, to newly elected Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.
The 1975 federal election was undoubtedly a fiercely contested battle. Emotions were high. As any citizen was and is entitled to do, Bradman took a side and wrote:
“A marvellous victory in which your personal conduct and dignity stood out against the background of arrogance and propaganda indulged in by your opponents.”
Bradman next makes a prediction, which you would have to say history shows to be prescient:
“Now you may have to travel a long and difficult road along which your enemies will seek to destroy you.”
Cricket was a sport for amateurs in The Don’s day. Big money had not yet influenced the sport. Players therefore had to develop a career independent their sporting masters. They were tough men on long, self-funded tours, most unlike some knee-bending virtue-signalers and sandpaper betting-agency grubs you are more familiar with from more recent periods. In Sir Donald’s case, he was an accomplished and successful stockbroker in his own right with an advanced understanding of the regulatory framework of his time. Writing about regulations on capital, Bradman consequently wrote:
“What the people need are clearly defined rules which they can read and understand so that they can get on with their affairs.”
Seems fair enough. Sounds like Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS) rules decades later. He then adds:
“The public must be re-educated to believe that private enterprise is entitled to rewards as long as it obeys fair and reasonable rules laid down by government. Maybe you can influence leaders of the press to a better understanding of this necessity of presentation.”
There are four points in that paragraph:
Belief in private enterprise. This is straightforward enough of an idea. It’s the basis of our Western, capitalist liberal democracy;
Gaining the rewards of its initiative. Yes. Private enterprise offers goods and services to the public in return for a profit. This is basic economics. Got it;
Some fair and reasonable rules. Well, let’s not have any rules if possible but, if we must, light-touch and easy-the-understand, sure;
Explain this to the media. Not a bad idea for a government to share with the press the direction it would like to take the country. All good.
What’s to disagree with here?
Yet, out come the socialists and 1975 ancient historians with an axe to grind:
Broadcaster Phillip Adams wrote, “Sad. Lost letter from Bradman to Fraser after Whitlam’s dismissal reveals ‘the Don’ to be a RWNJ.”
Unaccustomed to shorthand slurs from journalists, I had to find what RWNJ meant: right-wing nut-job, apparently.
To some boomer-era, battle-axe activists-come-journalists, supporting free-enterprise, light-touch regulation and transparency with the media is radical. Apparently these positions are extreme, wild enough to be branded a right-wing nut-job!
At what point in Australian progress did free enterprise become a dirty word?
Or can we say Mr. Adams is the radical one for slandering a long-deceased Australian sporting icon because he believed in free enterprise.
Or …
… maybe, just maybe, Mr. Adams has another axe to grind. Perhaps he just hates supporters of Malcolm Fraser over the Political Crisis of 1975.
All Liberty Itch says in response is:
Mr. Fraser won in a record landslide still not bettered today. Mr. Adams is surely not saying the vast majority of Australians including Sir Donald were RWNJs, is he?
Mr. Fraser’s successor, Bob Hawke, thought highly enough of Mr. Fraser to appoint him to the Eminent Persons Group to tackle racism in Apartheid-era South Africa. Mr. Adams is surely not saying Bob Hawke was a right-wing nut-job as well for supporting Mr. Fraser, is he?
Like you, dear reader, I was taught never to speak ill of the dead.
It seems Mr. Adams wasn’t.
Long after Mr. Adams meets the Lord, free enterprise and Western liberal democracy will prevail.
I do hope though that the practice of throwing mud at men long dead and unable to defend their reputations will cease, for Mr. Adams’ sake you understand, dear reader.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
This month, six members of Australia’s federal parliament, composed of both Labor and Coalition members, visited Taiwan. This diplomatic excursion was organised by Liberal politician Scott Buchholz and involved former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, as well as Labor MPs Meryl Swanson and Libby Coker.
Under intense pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and no doubt advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese downplayed the significance of the trip, noting that it isn’t uncommon for politicians to go to Taiwan.
“There have been backbench visits to Taiwan for a long time. This is another one”, he said.
He further qualified that this “isn’t a government visit” and that the bipartisan position when it comes to China and Taiwan remains the same.
The Australian delegation in Taiwan is being careful not to make too much fuss about it, due to the sensitive nature of the issue. Nevertheless, it believes the visit is important for Australia to maintain a close relationship with both mainland China and Taiwan, and support the principles of democracy.
Beijing has long viewed these visits as an unacceptable endorsement of Taiwan’s separation from the mainland, claiming that such visits are a “serious breach of the One China principle.”
In response, the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda mouthpiece Global Times lashed out with predictable broken-English sabre-rattling:
The Prime Minister should keep doing his handshakes. Heavens knows diplomacy seems to be a constant requirement for a twitchy Chinese Communist Party.
However, if democratic Taiwan wishes to invite a bipartisan Australian parliamentary delegation for a visit, it will be up to that delegation to accept or decline.
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
Here at Liberty Itch, we love practical initiatives which undermine the need for government.
Afterall, if we’re constantly fighting government bloat within the bureaucracy, we’re probably going to lose. There are too many Sir Humphrey Appleby’s around, right?
So, if the battle is about making government smaller, let’s withdraw from its services.
Let’s make government redundant.
Here’s how.
Home-schooling!
Let’s step through the basics, some of the old chestnut arguments against home-schooling, its amazing advantages, a look at how big home-schooling is in Australia, what it’s like home-schooling your children, the impact of home-schooling on your household budget and a recommendation at the end based on all this information.
Let’s go.
WHO HOME-SCHOOLS?
There are three groups who decide home-schooling is the best option for their children:
Parents with advanced students Think here of particularly gifted students for whom a classroom environment is just going to slow them down. These children need accelerating to meet their potential and the school system just can’t keep up.
Parents with belief systems You’ll instinctively understand this group. Here, we’re talking about parents with strong religious or political views, often both. They feel their values aren’t reflected in the system and they are driven to ensure their children receive an education which does.
Parents with students the government can’t helpSometimes a student has such a bad time of our industrial-era schooling system that he falls through the cracks and is left behind. In these cases, the parents have no option but to withdraw their child and turn to home-school.
By far, most home schoolers are in groups one and two.
COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMESCHOOLING
Now let’s start with what the naysayers from the Department of Education, the Teachers Federation and public education activists will tell you:
Your child doesn’t get the value of the National CurriculumThe truth is that home-schooled students are still required to cover the material within the National Curriculum. However, you can create your own curriculum which covers this and other material.
Your child isn’t taught by trained professionals I know several people home-schooling their children, trained teachers who’ve lost their jobs from covid vaccine mandates. Further, you may not think much of the quality of the trained teachers your children are currently allocated. Perhaps you’ll be better. Further still, maybe these trained teachers are predisposed to teach your child ideas you’re not comfortable with. So maybe it’s an advantage not to have these trained teachers.
Your child won’t qualify for an ATAR Wrong. Home-schooled students do qualify for university. The vast majority are better prepared and excel at a tertiary level.
Your child loses socialisation skills There are home-school networks entrepreneurially springing up all over Australia. These are home-schooling families which meet regularly to ensure students’ continued interaction with peers all under the caring supervision of parents. Bullying? Adverse peer-group pressure behaviours? Not in this environment.
You have to quit your job to do it If both parents cooperate, this can be achieved. See template household budget below.
THE 13 BENEFITS OF HOME-SCHOOLING
In comparison, the benefits are many times greater than any perceived problems. Let’s look at thirteen I could readily identify:
Less Regimentation, More AdaptationWith home-school, you’re not regimented into 9am to 3pm. You can be creative, not to lose structure but, by seizing learning opportunities as they present themselves. Astronomy at night, excursions in good weather.
Individualised, Tailored Learning ExperiencesFinally, you can educate your children according to their specific needs. No more cookie-cutter approach from the government or government-funded schools.
Rapid Student AccelerationIf your child is highly intelligent, fantastic. Now you can feed his or her curiosity at an accelerated pace.
Political EmphasisIf you are concerned that your child is being indoctrinated with left-wing dogma, now your concerns evaporate. Teach without the slant. Teach with your own slant. The choice is yours.
Religious Reinforcement
If you feel a secular education is insufficient, home-schooling puts you in the driver’s seat. Integrate Faith subjects and experiences into the curriculum you teach.
Customised Student 1-On-1 Support
If your child is falling behind, who better to fight for his or her improvement. No-one professional teacher is going to fight as hard as you. Years later, your child will thank you.
Unleashed Creativity
Home-schooling shatters the industrial-age education system’s trait of producing conformity. TED’s most popular speech at 22 million views was titled “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” by the late Sir Ken Robinson.
It reflects the importance of preserving and nourishing creativity, which home-schooling achieves in spades.
Total Focus On Your Children
The juggle facing families between making a living and educating children is a thing of the past. Each parent specialises. One earns. The other teaches. Both do that well. No more half-thwarted job and 3 minute parent-teacher reports at night. You’re in control.
Enhanced Family CohesionA fully-immersed family life can only benefit the family and society.
Stellar Scholastic ResultsWith all this extra care and diligence with the children, results are likely to improve.
Fosters Self-Direction and IndependenceYour children are encouraged to think and act with a greater degree of independence. Why? The mere fact that you’ve taken an independent path from government and government-funded education will be noticed by your children and reinforced by you in the mindset you instil in them. Share Liberty Itch
Develop and Finetune Your Own Training SkillsYou’ll learn new skills as a trainer and teacher. How could you not? These are portable skills of great utility which will make you more valuable in the market, should you wish to return.
Disempowering Government and the Education MonopolyWhile all this is happening, you’ve weaned one family off the government education teat and undermined the Teachers Federation monopoly. You’ve improved Australia by proving their involvement in our lives is not needed.
HOW MANY HOME-SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA?
The home-schooling rate is 3.4% in the United States.
There are approximately 4.08 million primary and secondary students in Australia. Of these, just 30,000 are home-schooled. That’s less than 1%. But the figure increased 105% last year alone.
The days of Australians not even knowing that home-schooling exists as an option are fast ending.
More and more families are deciding to take government out of the education business.
WHAT IT’S LIKE HOME-SCHOOLING?
I have first-hand experience home-schooling my children in the United States where I lived for 12 years.
There, local government runs the public school system. The process was as easy at calling the local school district, telling them we were moving from private school to home-school, complete a one-page form and them acknowledging it. We submitted one report quarterly. The reports were rudimentary. They didn’t interfere. They respected our choice to be free.
At the time, we wanted our children to have the option to attend one of the top universities in that country. This required careful selection and timing of subjects, and results. We made a mistake in subject selection and timing because we didn’t include practical, lab-based biology at one point.
We didn’t have a laboratory. How could we achieve this?
One 30 second Google search later and we found “biology lab in a box”, hit overnight delivery and next day our garage was converted into a full-scale biology lab with the whole family dissecting pig’s eyes, frogs and lamb hearts, then writing-up the lab reports.
One of our children is an extrovert and felt the impact of not having a social environment outside the family. We were a bit slow off the mark and hadn’t joined the home-school networks designed to sort this out. However, we increased social interaction and the issue was gone.
We tracked how quickly our children moved through our heavier curriculum compared with other education options. My children typically had their work done by 1pm with a heavier workload. They ploughed through the material, much faster than traditional classrooms.
Overall, I feel my children benefitted from the home-schooling experience. They are independent-thinking, problem-solvers.
Of course, all this is an American experience from an Australian’s perspective.
Here in Australia, I contacted a teacher who lost her job due to the vaccine mandate. She decided to home-school. Today the network had shrunk a little but still active.
In South Australia, there is a well-known science competition called the Oliphant Science Awards. Past winners have included students from home-school networks in the Adelaide Hills. Past home-schoolers have placed well.
YOUR HOUSEHOLD BUDGET WHEN YOU HOME-SCHOOL
Of course, every household budget is unique and canvassing them all in this article is impossible. Let’s make some assumptions so at least we can see the impact of home-schooling under those prerequisites.
We’ll assume this is a two-parent, two child family. One parent is on $120,000 per annum and the other on $80,000. In the table below, I ran numbers assuming they are currently sending their two children to a public school, a private school or a top-tier Sydney or Melbourne private school.
Then I show what the disposable income after school fees would be if they home-schooled.
Here’s the comparison:
Therefore, for the 40% of families sending their secondary student children to private schools in Australia, you are either going to take a $30,000 hit to your family budget or make a $30,000 gain by opting for home-school instead.
What is your child and country worth?
YOUR DECISION
If you want to make government redundant, you’re going to have to take matters into your own hands.
One way to do this is to try home-schooling for your children.
The benefits are enormous, not just for your child, not just for you, but for the country.
I don’t know a better way to instil the next generation with self-reliance, independence, problem-solving, adaptability, creativity and leadership than this way.
And I certainly don’t know a better way to reduce the impact of government over the long-term than this.
Try it.
I’d love to hear your experiences with home-schooling in the comments below. You are guaranteed a reply.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Omar Bekali visited Adelaide recently to deliver a series of keynote speeches.
At first glance, a man on a speaking tour seems ordinary enough. However, Omar’s story is anything but ordinary.
A survivor of the Chinese Communist Party’s Xinjiang Camp, Omar Bekali, 46, presents as a courageous but scarred man with first-hand experience of the Chinese Government’s network of concentration camps. He not only saw people being subjected to unspeakable brutality and torture. He was one of them!
The following interview is compelling and especially wincing, coming with a reader warning. Yet his message is of global importance. The dark truth of China’s concentration camps and human rights violations is uncovered in all their gore.
The scene is Chinese occupied East Turkistan, Xinjiang.
The interview begins …
Liberty Itch: How did you end up in a concentration camp in XinJiang?
OB: My family and I lived in Kazakhstan. I went to Urumqi for a Trade Expo on 22 March 2017 for my work. Then on 25 March 2017, I went to Turpan, a City in Xinjiang, to visit my parents, where I was arrested and detained.
That morning, I was at my parents’ house with my brothers and sisters. Suddenly two police cars pulled up outside our house. Five armed police officers got out from their cars, came into our home, and arrested me. They never presented me with a warrant; they told me that they had one on their computer. I was brought to Dighar Village Police Station where I was made to wait for two hours. Every chance I got, I’d ask to call my parents, a lawyer, the Kazakh Embassy, or my wife, because no one knew where I was and I couldn’t call for help.
LI: On what grounds were you arrested by the Chinese Police?
OB: It is because I am a Turkic Kazakh. Beijing wants to erase all Turkic people in East Turkistan, a country invaded by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. The land is now commonly known as ‘XinJiang, China’. I was suddenly accused of ‘terrorism’ and ‘smuggling people out of China’. I was targeted and discriminated against for being a Turkic Kazakh.
LI: When and how long did you stay in the camp?
OB: I stayed in the camp from 26 March 2017 to 24 November 2017.
LI: Where was your family at that time?
OB: My family was in Kazakhstan. I have a beautiful family with my wife and 3 children.
LI: How was your family impacted?
OB: The CCP destroyed my beautiful family. My family members including my children are all mentally impacted. My youngest son, who was one year and three month old when I was captured, could not call me dad for nearly a year after I returned. He complains even now that I abandoned him.
The purpose of these concentration camps is to indoctrinate Uyghurs into obeying the Chinese government. They use sophisticated mechanisms to brainwash us. I was told by the guards I had been poisoned by extreme ideologies during my life outside of China and needed to have a proper ‘Chinese Education’.
LI: What activities did they require of you in the camp?
OB: We are forced to study the Chinese language, Marxism, ‘Xi Jinping Thoughts’, renounce our religion and younger inmates worked in factories.
We were denied food for not agreeing to sing anthems that praised the Chinese government, otherwise known as Red Songs. We were told to denounce our Uyghur identity and Muslim faith. I was made to read a list of 60 types of common crimes associated with my ethnic and religious identity, praying to Allah, having a beard, attending a Muslim marriage, and communicating with people outside China.
My personal belief is that they never actually planned on indoctrinating us. The plan was always to exterminate the Uyghur population and harvest our organs.
LI: Did you comply with all the tasks? What would happen if you didn’t do them?
OB: I tried to resist. I denied the Chinese government’s accusations and asked them to show me the evidence. But that led to severe torture as punishment. The police realised they needed to escalate the pressure to get me to say what they wanted me to say.
From the police station I was brought somewhere I didn’t recognise. The police made me take off my clothes and examined my body, making notes about my condition. That’s when the torture started. They transferred me to the police station, in Kelamayi, Xinjiang.
My hands were strapped onto the arms on the chair and my feet were constrained at the bottom while needles were gradually slid into my fingers. That would last four to eight hours every day.
From April 3 to April 7, 2017, they would put me in the ‘Tiger Chair’ to try and extract information from me and compel me to admit to crimes I wasn’t guilty of.
They said I organised terrorist activities, propagated terrorism, or covered-up for terrorists. The police showed me photos of Uyghur and Kazakh people in Kazakhstan and asked me for their information.
I was given a letter accounting for all of my ‘crimes’ and told to sign it as a confession.
My job was used against me. The police claimed I was using my tourism career as a way to smuggle people out of China and into neighbouring countries.
Needles and nails were inserted into my body every time I told them “no” or “I’m innocent”.
An iron wire was shoved into my penis.
Rope was tied to the ceiling and around my wrists so tight that my feet couldn’t touch the ground. The rope ripped through the skin on my wrists while my body weight pulled me down.
Other days I was put in a “flying plane” position, where both my wrists and feet were tied to the ceiling, pulling my arms and legs out of their sockets while I was left dangling.
The guards would laugh as my body pulled itself apart.
There were five other types of punishment for those who didn’t follow the guards’ orders.
First, they’d make me face a wall for 24 hours without food or drink while they beat me with rubber rods.
Second, we were put in the Tiger Chair where needles were shoved into our fingers and feet.
Third, we’d be left in solitary confinement with no light for 24 hours.
Fourth, they’d put us into scorching hot rooms in the summer or freezing cold rooms in the winter.
Finally, a punishment I thankfully never experienced was called water prison. I heard of many detainees who were put in the water prison, but I don’t know what it is.
OB: To my great surprise on November 24, 2017, I was informed of my release and expulsion to Kazakhstan. I had been detained for eight months. I later learned that my wife sent a number of letters to the UN Human Rights Commission and the Kazakhstan Foreign Minister attesting to my innocence.
The considerable press coverage of my illegal detainment was a major factor in my release.
LI: Where do you live now?
OB: I migrated to the Netherlands with a valid visa. I moved there to provide eyewitness evidence about what is happening in the concentration camps in XinJiang.
LI: How many Uyghur people are in concentration camps in XiaJiang?
OB: It’s always hard to tell, of course. However, while I was in the camp in 2017, my best estimate is that more than a million Uyghurs were in the camps.
Omar’s is a cautionary tale about brutality inflicted by our largest trading partner. He endured trauma and unspeakable pain that no-one should be required to bear.
However, I prefer to see Omar through the lens of unfaltering courage, resilience and the strength to survive. There’s a bravery in telling his painful story again and again on a global stage, a story shared by millions of Uyghurs and other minority groups who are still in the XinJiang camps.
Today, he is bringing his testimony before international human rights bodies.
What can everyday Australians do to help the Uyghur people?
This year the United States used it’s Magnitsky legislation to ban the import of certain Xinjiang products, including cotton, over concerns about forced-labor in the XinJiang region.
Australia has similar Magnitsky legislation but has not used it to sanction companies exploiting Uyghur slave-labour.
Whilst we at Liberty Itch wholeheartedly support free-trade and are against wholesale nationwide sanctions, products manufactured with slave-labour is anathema to free-trade principles and cannot be supported.
While you wait for your Commonwealth Government to take a stand on this, you can take action as an individual and purchase alternatives to brands made with Uyghur slave-labour.
Small acts of defiance in support of human rights go a long way.
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
Brave Chinese citizens have yet again risked imprisonment challenging their country’s regime.
They took to the streets to fight the Chinese Communist Party’s prolonged and inhumane lockdown, a policy which caused residents trapped in their high-rise apartment building in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, to be burned-alive.
In scenes from the security state rarely accessible to the world, Chinese people gathered in the Shanghai streets and chanted ‘CCP, step down. Xijiping, step down!’ The chanting showed the citizens’ barely concealed contempt and dissatisfaction with their government, seemingly well beyond just its strict COVID measures.
The whereabouts of the protest leader you see in this video is unknown.
His family were eye-witnesses to him being handcuffed and unceremoniously bundled into a van. There is no official paperwork of his arrest. His family reported that three days after the arrest, there is still no trace of the young man.
He was simply ‘made to disappear.’
China is the world’s most heavily surveilled country. Intrusive facial recognition software, a tool used to thwart human rights and civil liberties, is now being routinely exploited by the Chinese Police State. Facial recognition systems log nearly every single citizen in the country, with 372.8 cameras per 1,000 people.
Chinese authorities have reportedly begun tracking-down people who took part in the demonstrations. Students are always the weakest and easiest to pick off. Others who attended the protests are being rounded-up without scrutiny from international media.
This wasn’t sufficient intimidation for the despotic regime. The Chinese Government immediately made its military presence felt more publicly as it rolled-out armoured tanks on the street.
Unlike the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, the Government now has the technology to corral freedom-activists more secretly to avoid the world’s condemnation. The Chinese Communist Party, with all the apparatus of a surveillance state and growing superpower, seemingly acts in fear of its own defenceless citizens.
These actions are a continuation of well-documented brutality evident in the 2019 Hong Kong protests. (Warning: the next video depicts graphic violence on an unarmed civilian. Viewer discretion recommended.)
Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.
You could be forgiven for feeling despair at the state of Australian politics right now.
Ditto for the West as a whole.
Unfortunately, despair doesn’t take us where we need to go.
There are four forces pulling us in the wrong direction at the moment. The quick summary is that the Liberty-Authority war is raging but Liberty is losing too many battles, our politicians don’t know how ‘mixed’ our mixed-economy should be and so are preferencing Authority in that war, there’s a kind of matrix hanging over us which makes things hard to change, and we aren’t giving our parliamentarians the right incentives to stop.
What we urgently need is clear-thinking on these four forces, an action plan to counter them and a lot of good people like you to follow the plan.
This article will give you the clear-thinking and the action plan.
Read what follows then decide whether you’ll join the fight.
LIBERTY-AUTHORITY WAR
First, the Liberty-Authority war is raging but Liberty is losing too many battles.
There are two extremes in government: 100% Liberty and 100% Authority.
Total Liberty is a utopia, which can only fleetingly exist before Authority is needed to stabilise it. At 95% Liberty and 5% Authority, stability is possible. Imagine 1880s London or 1980s Hong Kong. In this light-touch government, the enterprising individual flourishes to produce a dynamic, Liberty-loving productive society. Individual independence, live and let live lifestyle, free-trade, creativity, flair, ambition, initiative, vision, self-reliance, energy, innovation and self-actualisation abound. The society throbs with entrepreneurial instinct.
Total Authority is a dystopia, which inevitably collapses from the murder, starvation or flight of millions. It is frequently reformed out of necessity. At 95% Authority and 5% Liberty, the Liberty manifests as a barely-tolerated, hardscrabble barter just to ward-off widespread starvation. Imagine 2020s North Korea or 2020s Eritrea. The economy is small and centrally controlled. Basic needs are unmet. In this despotic, heavy-handed government, enterprise is crushed, initiative regarded with suspicion and people cower in fear and repression, forced into a life of misery. There is no spark in its people, no verve, no passion, no striving, no vivacity.
Australia sits nowhere near these two ends of the spectrum, of course. It would be feeble-thinking however to surmise that we are exempt from the Liberty-Authority war. All societies are subject to it, Australia included, and Liberty is losing.
Consider Authority’s recent wins:
Border closures
Vaccine mandates
Emergency power legislation enshrined and ready for reactivation
Job terminations over mandates
QR codes to track your movements and bar entry
Elected politicians denied entry into parliament
Peaceful citizens shot in the back with rubber bullets
Home detention of the population
Laws requiring employers to gather private medical data
Secrecy over vaccine purchase terms
Door-to-door visits for covid vaccine rollout
Opaque health information about vaccine injuries
Construction of covid detention camps.
Think that’s the end of it?
First, none of these powers has been removed as covid wanes.
Second, at the time of writing, there were 122 bills before Capital Hill, Canberra. This figure obviously changes but you can review the list at anytime yourself here.
I want you to think of the Commonwealth Parliament as a school of ravenous piranha. Every time a new law is passed, your personal and financial Liberty is being thrown in the legislative pond for thirty seconds. You scramble out with razor cuts all over your bloodied body. Then you’re pushed back in by errant leaders and the populist mob for another gasping swim. Again and again, the body politic is attacked, your Liberty weakened with every new law passed.
During my frantic attempts to call MPs during the covid overreach, part of my epiphany that the Liberal Party – far from being an agent for small government – is complicit in this process was a question I posed to an MP. I asked this person to find out from the Parliamentary Library how many Commonwealth statutes are active. The experts couldn’t come up with a number. We are suffocated with so many laws, we don’t know how many there are!
We’ve fought 121 years in Australia over whether we need more economic and personal Liberty on the one side, and whether we need more Authority and protection on the other.
Authority is winning.
One of the issues is that our fellow citizens are increasingly expecting government to be an end-to-end solution to every risk we face in life. What we demand of our governments is that they increasingly manage the risks of life which we have handled privately in the past. Fear is a powerful motivator.
We have to make our politicians understand that we don’t expect them to carry all the risks in our lives.
As Lord Jonathan Sumption said in a recent trip to Australia:
“If we hold governments responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our autonomy so that nothing can go wrong.”
I think he’s being optimistic about ‘nothing can go wrong’ but you see his point.
MIXED ECONOMY
Second, our politicians don’t know how ‘mixed’ our mixed-economy should be and so are preferencing Authority in that war.
Throughout time immemorial, we have sought to balance these competing but innate needs. On one side, creative, independent, self-actualising Liberty and, on the other side, risk-avoiding, dependent, protective Authority.
Democracy, coupled with its ‘mixed-economy’, tries to navigate between the two. That is, there is constant tension within a mixed-economy democracy to balance Liberty and Authority.
How are each enabled?
The general rule of thumb is that the bigger a government’s budget, the greater the means by which our leaders can impose Authority.
Big government budget means more Authority and less Liberty.
Small government budget means more Liberty and less Authority.
So, what’s the trendline in Australia.
If we use government expenditure as a percentage of GDP as the litmus test since Federation in 1901, we see an obvious trend. I’m going to use cut-offs at the end of each Liberal government (or its predecessor equivalents) since centre-right Liberals are reputationally supposed to be the small government, pro Liberty advocates.
Here’s what we discover:
Deakin (third government): 5%
Menzies (second government): 17%
Fraser: 26%
Howard: 37%
Morrison: 45%.
The trend is clearly from Liberty to Authority.
We need to jettison this old Keynesian term ‘mixed economy’. It’s an umbrella phrase which masks intent. An economy set at 90% Liberty and 10% Authority is a mixed-economy of a sort. So is 10% Liberty and 90% Authority. Even comparing Alfred Deakin’s 5% government economy versus Scott Morrison’s 45% government economy, the two look nothing like each other.
Using the term ‘mixed-economy’ gives licence to the Authority-lovers to execute socialism-creep.
During our lives, government is becoming ever larger and the piranha are being fed. Government has the growing means to intervene, coerce and limit our Liberty by a thousand imperceptible cuts over time.
And the truth is that the Liberal Party has been completely unsuccessful over 121 years in reversing the trend.
Why?
TOCQUEVILLE’S MATRIX
Well, third, there’s a kind of matrix hanging over us which makes things hard to change. I call it the Tocqueville Matrix.
The answer is that we’re in a system bigger than ourselves. We can laugh at analogies with the film The Matrix all we like. However, the reality of our predicament today was well uncovered, not by the hacker Neo in that movie but, 187 years ago by the classical liberal philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville in his celebrated essay “Democracy In America”, the result of a fact-finding mission for France.
Alexis de Tocqueville. 1805-1859. Classical liberal.
Though published in 1835 on the other side of the planet, it was highly relevant to Australia at the time. The free-settled Province of South Australia was just one year from proclamation. A mere fifty-four years later, Sir Henry Parkes delivered his famous Federation-rallying Tenterfield Oration in which he said “Surely what the Americans have done by war, Australians can bring about in peace.”
Here’s what Tocqueville witnessed of the new American republic, at this point only two generations old. As you read his words, pay attention to the creaking tension between Liberty and Authority, and the ongoing, overall impact of democracy on its people:
“The protecting power of the state extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of Man is not shattered but it is softened, bent and guided. Men are seldom forced to act but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates and extinguishes. It stupefies a people until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals to which the government is the shepherd.”
Dare tell me this is not Australia in 2022.
I’ve shown you our legislative losses. I’ve revealed the legislative agenda in progress. I’ve shared that we don’t even know how many laws are on the books. This is Tocqueville’s ‘complicated rules, minute and uniform.’
Further, who are our ‘most original minds and the most energetic characters’? We may not be shattered as a people. But who will deny we are ‘softened, bent and guided’?
The word ‘enervates’ means ‘to make a person drained of energy or vitality.’ If this is how you feel right now about politics, it’s the Tocqueville Matrix of democracy working you over! Resist it. Let your innate self-reliance and self-actualisation radiate.
I could have sworn Tocqueville was in Australia from 2020-2022 when writing that last sentence.
If you feel that your fellow citizens exhibit foggy thinking, if you believe they make terrible electoral choices, then take heart. We know why …
Australia, like all Western liberal democracies, has placed an apparatus over its citizens. This apparatus of uncountable statutes and a million regulatory miscellany soften, bend and guide us. Initiative, vigour and swashbuckling verve are all discouraged as is self-reliance. Our innate creativity, independence and self-actualising Liberty has been dampened. We are less Errol Flynn, Sir Charles Kingsford Smith and Sir Douglas Mawson, and now more a half-thwarted version of our true selves.
Sir Douglas Mawson OBE FRS. 1882-1958. First to climb Mount Erebus and reach South Magnetic Pole.
Authority has taken over Liberty as the primary force in Australia. We accommodate too much. We fund too much. We have power-hungry, entrenched legislators. Our fellow Australians are too prone to expect government to manage all the risks of the world.
PARLIAMENTARY INCENTIVES
Fourth, we aren’t giving our parliamentarians the right incentives to stop.
Our politicians, specifically the ones housed in the seat-holding incumbency parties of Labour, Greens, Liberals and Nationals, often spend ten to twenty years working towards preselection. They aren’t going to rock-the-boat once in power after that investment of time.
We need term limits. We also need the hard work within party preselection processes to turnover long-time incumbents.
Another issue is that we, as a people, are simply unpractised to tell a politician ‘no’! We advocate for spending on our pet projects and our politicians say ‘yes’ to everyone. It’s unsustainable. And when we argue for cuts, we are vulnerable to the ‘what government program are you going to end?’ We need a coherent, well-practised push-back to this. Citizens can’t keep acting like toddlers asking for more and politicians need to be disciplined in saying ‘no’.
We are terrible at applying constant pressure on our representatives between elections. They rarely hear from us after a poll. We need to visit them, form relationships with them, lobby them, guide them and, yes if necessary, threaten them with electoral backlash.
In fifty-four years, I’ve not seen one protest outside an electorate office by citizens angry about the MPs big spending tendencies. Not one.
We aren’t giving them the right incentives to correct.
AN URGENT ACTION PLAN
So, here’s what you need to do.
For Liberal and National members:
Action 1: Gather fellow members and advocate for a three-term limit. Make clear to an MP in his or her third term that this is it. Say it’s not personal, it’s a systemic position about renewal. Encourage challenges if the MP won’t budge.
Action 2: Make clear at State Council that you demand budget reductions in government. Educate MPs on the importance of reducing budgets. Ask for their game plan to achieve this. Embarrass elected officials who lack the courage to reduce the size of government. Normalise talk of smaller government. As a group or faction, make clear you will be targeting MPs who don’t work towards this.
Action 3: Gather fellow members and internally advocate for policy not tactical preferencing. Discourage tricky tactics which ultimately splinter the centre-right. Shame and seek the removal of any state director or parliamentary leader who supports tactical preferencing to Labor or the Greens ahead of the more Liberty-friendly emerging parties.
For members of the Liberal Democrats, the United Australia Party, One Nation, the Nationals outside coalition, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers and the Democratic Labor Party:
Action 4: Write to the local MP. Meet and lobby the MP. Educate the MP. Make clear that you want the next budget to be less than the current one. Make clear you want government expenditure as a percentage of GDP to be 40%, then 35%, then 30% and so forth year by year
Action 5: Advocate for a formal coalition and joint tickets. Joint tickets are important. They plug the preference leaking so prevalent on the centre-right. Work towards agreement that each emerging party gets to lead one upper house race. This is a near-guaranteed strategy for a bloc of six senators.
Action 6: Organise in vulnerable Labor lower-house seats to perform what I call the Purple Flip. This is Teal but in reverse. Identify and draft well-known local leaders to run as independents, perhaps tradies or sports figures, who project their working-class background but, due to their success, lean centre-right for its aspirational, social mobility message. Publicly appeal to aspirational voters in these Labor electorates, say they’ve been forgotten by Labor, and privately convince the die-hard but never electorally successful Liberals and Nationals in the seat to vote tactically for the independent.
The simple truth is that, if you don’t take these actions in concert with like-minded centre-right people, that big government trendline will continue to 50%, 57%, 63% and so on.
In democracy, you have to fight for the right balance between Liberty and Authority. Liberty is losing the battle for dominance. We are fast heading to an Authoritarian Australia. Covid overreach surely taught us that. Looming issues of digital passports, facial recognition systems and digital currency are facing Liberty-lovers right now.
You must act. The alternative is that you live, as Tocqueville pointedly wrote, as a ‘timid and industrious animal’ or we just continue to scratch-around in the political wilderness.
We can do better. Let’s steel ourselves now for the battle ahead.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
To be clear, I don’t know who’s going to win the Victorian election later tonight, 26 November 2022.
How can I or any of us?
However, I’m going to make a prediction as I write this at 3:20pm ACDT 26 November 2022, and have the prediction published just minutes before the polls have closed so you know I’ve not had any input from the counting of the votes. There’s my accountability, dear reader, to you.
Labor will win!
If my prediction is wrong, take all future predictions from me with a grain of salt. Throw tomatoes and rotten eggs at me. I’ll deserve it.
Right now, I’m quietly confident in making this prediction, however ghastly it may be.
And here is my reasoning. Hear it through …
Heavens know, Dan Andrews and the Labor Government he leads in Victoria has been revolting.
Who can forget the litany of failures …
Rubber bullets in the back, pregnant woman arrested in her pyjamas for a Facebook post, the world’s longest lockdown, businesses crushed, women and children manhandled for not wearing masks, family nest-eggs shattered, MPs arrested and denied access to their democratically elected seat in Parliament House itself, elderly citizens having their pelvis fractured as they are slammed to the ground by overzealous police, churches ordered to close at the point of police intrusion into sacred spaces, and a once vibrant city – the envy of the world – hollowed of its sparkle.
There will be a long-tail to this shocking overreach. Early figures are indicating that the rates of men aged 18 to 44 presenting with myocarditis, a long-term heart condition, have doubled. Yes, 2X. Men in their prime, cut low.
Most devastating to the soul was the sight of a young man, hitherto mentally healthy, taking his own life on a Melbourne street by setting himself ablaze whilst in the grip of a lockdown-induced depression. The depravity of this Government’s policies is chilling.
Free people have a right to be free. Free people have a God-given right to practise their religion. It’s part of our Christian-informed civil libertarian culture. And our Faith gives us Grace. It’s who we are. It’s how we cope with a world of sin.
And Dan Andrews failed as a standard bearer of those freedoms.
Why then do I predict this tyrant will be returned to office?
Why do I put my predictive reputation on the line and call the election for Labor even before the polls have closed?
The answer is that people don’t vote for “anyone would be better than” candidate X.
Our good citizens require an informed choice, a differentiation upon which they can decide.
And I’m afraid to say it but the Liberal Party’s leader, Matthew Guy, has failed to differentiate his Party.
How could he?
He’s limp, insipid, hardly the embodiment of inspiration and action!
Beyond the personal characteristics of the leader, the seeds of the Liberal Party’s failure in this election were planted in 2020. Throughout the entirety of the covid pandemic, if that’s what it was and is, the Liberal Party played a small target, Labor-lite game.
The Liberal Party could have weighed multiple harms to the community of Labor’s draconian covid measures, things like job loss, depression and endless racking-up the State debt for future generations to absorb, instead of robotically following bureaucratic health advice to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Liberal MPs didn’t. That would take differentiation, a knowledge of John Stuart Mill, the fortitude to use the minds our Lord gave them, and the courage to avoid groupthink.
The Liberal Party could have heeded the warnings of the worst civil liberty abuses in 100 years, passionately articulated in the Victorian Bar Association’s extraordinary and unprecedented open letter from sixty-four Queens Counsel.
Liberal MPs didn’t. That would take differentiation through a bedrock of principles.
The Liberal Party could have rallied the churches, giving cover and much needed support to pastors and priests throughout the State, stunned that worshipers were to have doors slammed in their faces.
Liberal MPs didn’t. They aren’t Christians, most of them. That would take differentiation through Faith.
At every opportunity, the Liberal Party Opposition Leader has looked politically anemic. You don’t win by hedging. You don’t win by staying small. You don’t win by cloning yourself using a tyrant as the mould.
You win by standing for something. You win by inspiring people for a better tomorrow. You win by giving people hope. You win by serving others in practical, helpful ways. You win by differentiating yourself from the tyrant.
None of this was done by Matthew Guy and his Liberal Party in Victoria.
I therefore don’t need to watch the election coverage tonight.
Labor will be returned.
Lack of differentiation and beliefs will be the reason.
Pray for the people of Victoria.
And if my prediction is wrong, pray for the people of Victoria anyway.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
If you listen to rare public forays by senior members of the security establishment, the spies and their agencies, we in the West are under threat from several fronts. Looming front and centre, they say, is an expansionary Chinese Communist Party.
To be clear, Liberty Itch has no quarrel with the Chinese people.
However, Liberty Itch is sceptical of government of all stripes, whether in the West or the Chinese Communist Party. Government has a nasty habit of suppressing its people, sometimes stripping freedoms one imperceptible step at a time, its citizens in a saucepan of the slow boil kind. Sometimes government makes swift and savage moves against its people. History is replete with examples of both.
So well may we ask: Is the Chinese Communist Party friend or foe, our ally or adversary? We in the West welcome and educate their students. We trade with their corporations. Australia, the United States and indeed the entire OECD are beneficiaries of China’s emergence. Our shared prosperity is enormous as China brings a billion citizens out of agrarian life into a century-delayed Industrial Revolution and today’s Information Age simultaneously. The project is breathtaking.
But as Liberty Itch discovered, geopolitical relationships are complex. Material wealth is soulless if not accompanied by human rights. We cannot be so naïve or selectively blind as to ignore civil liberties in our estimation. The Dragon we feed and enable today should be ready to take its place on the world stage as a force for good.
With an open mind, Liberty Itch therefore embarked on an investigation, a series of tell-all interviews with people with particular direct experience with the Chinese Communist Party. The stories are real. The events described happened and cannot be ignored. What each does is illuminate, directly and personally, how the Chinese Communist Party acts from a civil liberties perspective.
Our first guest in this series is Fiona Hui.
You can see the former flight attendant in Fiona instantly. Urbane, impeccably-dressed and possessed of a welcoming smile, she possesses a charm hard not to like. She has navigated many of life’s milestones and responsibilities already while retaining her youthful energy.
First impressions rarely tell the whole story. As you peel-away the onion layers of her life, normality gives way to heartache, the collapse of her homeland, the incarceration of a loved one and a fight for survival with lessons for all freedom-lovers who value their civil liberties.
So her story is yours. There are some timely warnings for all of us.
Here’s Liberty Itch’s short interview with Fiona Hui.
LI: When did you become an Australian citizen?
FH: Although I have been living in Australia for nearly 20 years, I only became an Australian citizen very recently, in 2021. I applied for my citizenship in light of the loss of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong in 2019. At that point, I realised that Australia is my only home, so I submitted my citizenship application.
LI: Prior to this, you were a citizen of which country?
FH: Prior to 2021, I was a citizen of Hong Kong. I was born and raised under the British rule in Hong Kong.
LI: You lived in Hong Kong during which years?
FH: I lived in Hong Kong since I was born in 1980, until 2004, when I left Hong Kong and came to Australia to pursue a liberal arts education.
LI: What was life like in Hong Kong in those early years?
FH: As a successful former British Colony from 1841–1997, Hong Kong is a unique place blending East and West. I always felt free, safe, and connected to the West when I was a child and a young teenager. I enjoyed living in a ‘very Chinese city’ essentially, but also appreciated the opportunities to be exposed to Western literature, music, philosophies and ideologies. It was dynamic, stimulating and exciting.
LI: Why did you leave Hong Kong?
FH: I left Hong Kong for a Western higher education. I did not imagine Hong Kong could become what it is today when I left. Like most people. I have taken democracy for granted and couldn’t imagine otherwise.
LI: From the handover by Britain in 1997 to your departure, what changes did you notice in Hong Kong?
FH: Since the handover in 1997, there has been a steady and gradual erosion of Hong Kong freedoms. Since the structure of democracy was already in place, Hong Kong people had been asking for ‘universal suffrage’, all adult citizens should be able to vote for their government representatives, as highlighted by the Occupy Central and Umbrella Movement in 2014.
In 2019, 70-80% of the Hong Kong population participated in the largest and longest Hong Kong protests in history, in demonstration of the City’s strong will to safeguard Hong Kong’s declining civil liberties and freedoms.
Then in 2020, the National Security Law was introduced by the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. Under this law, any pro-democracy movement was suddenly classified as ‘secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion’.
2020 was the year when Hong Kong lost its press freedom, the rights to peaceful protests, and the complete collapse of the rule of law.
LI: I believe this is the time we saw footage of Chinese Communist Party agents breaking into the The Epoch Times and smashing the printing presses with sledge-hammers …
FH: Yes. They actually set fire to the bureau. The building was aflame.
LI: How did these changes impact your family initially?
FH: My family was fine for many years after the handover. The whole world thought China was opening-up and we could work together for a more prosperous world.
LI: Your brother was a Hong Kong democratically-elected parliamentarian. How did his status slowly change?
FH: It was not until 2019 with the breakout of large-scale protests in Hong Kong that it started to seriously impact my family. My brother, Ted Hui, being a vocal pro-democracy legislator, was frequently arrested due to his involvement in mediating the protests, wanting to protect young people and ordinary citizens from being abused and arrested. Like the majority of the population, Ted was pepper sprayed, tear-gassed, abused and arrested many times. In the end, his parliamentarian status was completely disregarded by the Hong Kong Police and the Chinese Communist Party. They just treated him like a ‘criminal’. Democracy had suddenly become a serious crime.
LI: How did your brother and other democratically-elected parliamentarians reconcile the freedoms bequeathed by British rule and a growing autocratic influence from the Chinese Communist Party?
FH: They have never reconciled the loss of freedoms. Some of his MP friends are still in prison. Many like Ted, went in ‘exile’ and continued with the movement overseas, lobbying governments of the Five Eyes, warning them of the dangers of the Chinese Communist Party regime. I guess they are now all ‘colluding with foreign forces’, as the Chinese Communist Party would describe it.
LI: How did things come to a flashpoint?
FH: The prolonged protests in 2019, combined with the noble and pure intention of democracy-loving Hongkongers, and the Chinese Communist Party led by a psychopathic Chinese President Xi Jinping have all contributed to this flashpoint.
LI: What role did you play in responding to the loss of civil liberties?
FH: I was not interested in politics at all prior to 2019, I had a great life in Adelaide. Who cared? However, the 2019 Hong Kong Crisis made me awake. The images and live-streaming of abuse in Hong Kong stunned me. I was in disbelief that freedom could be lost like this overnight. I couldn’t believe that people could be thrown in prison for protesting and speaking. It was all just unimaginable.
So I became a ‘democracy activist’.
Then I discovered CCP activism in my adopted country of Australia. So I exposed the CCP’s interference in Australia and politicians who were working with the CCP for their own self-serving interests.
I joined the Liberal Democrats for a period because I saw that they had good policy in support of libertarianism and humanitarianism principles. I also connected with organisations and communities who cared about our civil liberties.
FH: My brother got ‘invited’ by some young, democracy-loving Danish politicians and libertarians to attend a ‘Climate Conference’. It was staged so that Ted had an excuse to get out of Hong Kong. At that time, his passport was detained by the Hong Kong Court, but the judge decided to release his passport so that Ted could attend this ‘conference’. The judge made a fine decision but, to this day, I don’t know whether he was subsequently imprisoned by the Chinese Communist Party!
Ted escaped also because many people around that world have played a part in helping him and praying for him. This includes the Australian Government and many nameless men and women within and outside our government. We have some good people in this country, who have empathy, intelligence, capability and goodwill. God bless Australia.
LI: What did you leave behind?
FH: My family and I won’t be able to go back to Hong Kong for a long time. Under the current circumstances, I’ve convinced myself there is not much worth going back for anyway. I miss the mountains. I miss the views. Any love I had of shopping there is tainted by the lack of a free press, no free speech, no rule of law. Home is where the family is. Australia is my only home. Look forward rather than backwards!
LI: Why choose Australia to live?
FH: I chose Australia due to its beauty, its reputation in higher education and its proximity to Asia.
LI: What worrying early-signs in sliding from democracy to tyranny do you see in Australia?
FH: The early-signs were shown during the last two years: how our governments managed COVID, especially in Melbourne, the prolonged lockdowns, and the mandatory vaccinations in various industries.
Modern technological advancement means that people are more easily monitored. I’m worry about the introduction of My Gov Accounts, facial recognition cameras in our City here in Adelaide, digital IDs and yet more business-crushing IDs for company directors.
We have to be careful how people in positions of power use these mechanisms. They could be used to make us a more effective country, or they could be used as a means of monitoring and control. It all depends on how you view the government and the people holding those powerful positions.
We need to be awake and alert.
LI: How quickly can that slide happen, in your experience?
FH: The loss of freedom could happen so quickly that people will be in disbelief. Just look at Hong Kong. A clean, proper judicial system could end so fast. Unimaginable.
LI: What can your fellow Australians do to counteract this?
FH: Stay aware and united with fellow Australians. Unity and helping others in need. Play a part to end the divide and polarisation in society. Be the change you want to see in the world.
LI: What do you think the outlook is for Australia?
FH: Australia is a lucky country. I believe that we will continue to be blessed. Be careful of the ‘doom and gloom’ presented in the media. I feel hopeful and positive about our country.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
In a quiet moment today or even right now if that’s possible, read the lyrics below whilst watching this clip … and tell me this doesn’t make you more determined politically.
“We’re not gonna sit in silence, We’re not gonna live with fear” could well apply to the last two and a half years. So, are you going to “Make a noise and make it clear”?
We have the chance to turn the pages over We can write what we want to write We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older We’re all someone’s daughter We’re all someone’s son How long can we look at each other Down the barrel of a gun?
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
This time, we know we all can stand together With the power to be powerful Believing we can make it better Ooh, we’re all someone’s daughter We’re all someone’s son How long can we look at each other Down the barrel of a gun?
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
Ooh, we’re all someone’s daughter We’re all someone’s son How long can we look at each other Down the barrel of a gun?
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make the noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
You’re the voice, try and understand it Make a noise and make it clear Oh, whoa We’re not gonna sit in silence We’re not gonna live with fear Oh, whoa
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
Two hours ago, Elon Musk’s long-anticipated acquisition of Twitter was completed.
Hopes now run high that at least one social media platform can operate for all and free speech restored.
Time will tell.
As an avid user of the platform, I believe the following needs addressing:
1. Bots. The system is fouled by fake accounts created by algorithm. The platform must be cleansed on this problem.
2. Bad-Faith Actors. I’m not talking about typical anonymous accounts, but rather accounts run by nation-state troll farms at call centre scale. I’m constantly inundated with this scourge. They used to be easy to spot: low follower numbers, homogeneity of digital assets in the profile feed, short sentences in broken English. They are now becoming harder and harder to spot. They sit like sleeper agents in good citizens’ follower list for what sinister purpose or misinformation we are yet to learn. Get rid of them.
3. Safety & Integrity. It almost goes without saying that the previous management, the CEO, CFO, Corporate Counsel and Policy Officer now unceremoniously terminated by Musk, actively pursued centre-right users with the Safety & Integrity Department. It used a pincer movement to suppress centre-right users. The first was the dreaded algorithm which flagged people and then spurted automatic double-speak messages to put people in a procedural cul-de-sac. Then it referred a select few of the targeted users to an inadequately small Safety & Integrity Department of actual humans who them mercilessly cancelled many honest users with unfavoured political views. Ending this double-pincer is huge priority to restore the platform.
4. Advertising. As a B2B businessman, I have no need to advertise on Twitter. It’s a B2C platform. Even if I were wishing to advertise to the retail or B2C markets, I wouldn’t use Twitter. How can targeting occur when most handles are anonymous. It’s a very low-value, hit and miss way to reach new customers.
5. Caves and Common. A ‘cave’ is a place in an online community where a person can retreat or pursue more focused relationships. A ‘common’ is where you’re in the flow of action, in the bright shiny lights of the site. Because Twitter is all common, is feels like a brutal fight club. There’s little respite, little joy, little reprieve. Twitter groups or rooms would be a fantastic innovation.
6. Anonymous Handles. Of course, most people tweet with the protection of anonymity. But for the advertising issue, I think that’s OK. However, the site would be far better if people declared their identity. It would temper the fight club feel of the platform and users would be more likely to self-moderate. As there are advantages to anonymity, like speaking truth to power and whistleblowing, I think a hybrid model would work well. So users could still have an anonymous handle, but with limited reach or features. Upgrading to full user identification would allow greater reach and features.
Whatever changes are made by Mr Musk, one thing is certain. The property is now in the hands of a man who knows how to make things happen.
It will be interesting to watch.
It will be even more interesting being a Twitter user.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
So is the propaganda and freedom-busting laws which have accompanied it.
Thankfully now, the hysteria seems to be dissipating and we should all feel more comfortable pushing back. The laws which are eroding our civil liberties? Removing them will take years.
In light of Pfizer executive Janine Small’s admission to the the European Parliament that their covid vaccine does not stop transmission, government policies around the world which sought to deny the vaccine-hesitant their basic human rights are now discredited.
The media, which relentlessly proselytised ‘the vaccine stops the spread’ and ‘you are selfish if you don’t take the vaccine’ in order to retain their broadcasting licences, revealed just how inadequate they are as a bulwark against government overreach.
So much for our Fourth Estate!
Both government and media co-opted celebrity too in their efforts to control. Sometimes the mouthpieces were celebrities who even previously held high office.
Take this clip doing the rounds on social media …
“The only way we prevent this is to get vaccinated” was wrong, says Pfizer itself.
And the “Screw your freedom!”, from a former Republican no less, is chilling.
Sometimes it takes years before the present catches up to history, proving past events and decisions wrong.
In Arnold Schwarzenegger’s case, mere months.
Well may the Terminator have said “I’ll be back.”
Given Mr. Schwarzenegger’s visceral “screw your freedom” remark, let’s hope at least he never again returns to the public square, especially when mouthing government and media propaganda now discredited by the very manufacturer of covid vaccines.
An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.
