Freedom from Discrimination

Home Personal Liberty Freedom from Discrimination

The New Gulag

Neil Oliver

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 The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers.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.

Thank you for your support.

14 Reasons To VOTE NO In The Voice To Parliament Referendum

On Monday 19 June 2023, the Australian Senate passed a bill for a referendum to occur later in the year to establish a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament.

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.

The Iron Curtain Draws Across The West

poiuy

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.

Section 51(xxvi). Repeal. Rescind. Delete!

zxc

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
  • Oversized government expenditure now exceeding 50% of our entire economy
  • A hundred separate genders yet female athletes and prisoners forced in with biological males
  • Citizens now being denied access to much-loved national parks
  • Flag confusion
  • Victorian bullets in the back
  • Multiple treaties with multiple tribes, a native patchwork of 500 jurisdictions
  • Some kind of republic
  • Locked in your home for hundreds of days
  • 15-Minute cities, free movement lost on the altar of climate alarmism
  • The Voice To Parliament.

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.

End systemic racism. Abolish s51(xxvi)!

Then we’ll never have race-based laws again.

‘All Great Change Begins at the Dinner Table’

Leyonhjelm and Day

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.

The Coalition blocked our Bill.

Next week, how our opponents attack classical liberalism by first undermining Christianity.

Phillip Adams Must Go

I believe people should be allowed to say what they want.

Free speech is a human right.

Should you have to pay for it, though?

Take yesterday’s reply to Kamahl from taxpayer-funded ABC journalist, Phillip Adams:

Phillip Adams @PhillipAdams_1

Clearly, Kamahl, he made you an Honorary White. Whereas one of the most towering political figures of the 20th century was deemed unworthy of Bradman’s approval.

Kamahl AM @OfficialKamahl

@PhillipAdams_1 Why do you think Sir Donald Bradman refused to meet Mandela ? Why do you think the greatest ever ‘spotsman’ welcomed me at his home from August 1988 every year, till he left us in 2001? He also left me letters he wrote every year. Why Phillip ? @OfficialKamahl @PhillipAdams_110:47 PM ∙ Dec 26, 2022381Likes53Retweets

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.

INTERVIEW: Wincing First-Hand Account of Uyghur Concentration Camp Torture

This isn’t easy to read.

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?

Share Liberty Itch

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.

  1. First, they’d make me face a wall for 24 hours without food or drink while they beat me with rubber rods.
  2. Second, we were put in the Tiger Chair where needles were shoved into our fingers and feet.
  3. Third, we’d be left in solitary confinement with no light for 24 hours.
  4. Fourth, they’d put us into scorching hot rooms in the summer or freezing cold rooms in the winter.
  5. 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.

Share

LI: How did you manage to escape? 

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.

VIDEO: Doing What’s Right!

A timely reminder about what’s at stake in Victoria …

Dan Andrews: Doing What’s Right