Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Sunday, December 22, 2024
    Most popular

    Freedom from Discrimination

    Home Personal Liberty Freedom from Discrimination

    A Chinese Australian’s Voice: NO

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    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.

    The New Gulag

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0
    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.

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

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    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.

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

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    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.

    Carpet Call: The Imperfect Gift of Religious Freedom

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    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.

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    The Censorship Industrial Complex – A Threat to Democracy

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    0

    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.

    Phillip Adams Must Go

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    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.

    ‘All Great Change Begins at the Dinner Table’

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0
    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.

    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv