Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Personal Liberty

    Home Personal Liberty Page 6

    Is “Freedom” a Non-Word?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    2

    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. 

    Join Mailing List

    Because history does matter. And so does freedom.

    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.

    China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

    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.

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    Digital Incompetence

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    2

    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.

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    Australia No Longer Has Informed Consent For Medical Procedures

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    6

    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.

    I listened to this doctor’s contempt for authorities as he described himself watching the CDC change its definition of the words ‘vaccine’ and ‘vaccination’ in real time to accommodate the shortfalls of the available Covid vaccines. 

    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.”

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    A Hungry Christmas

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    0

    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?
    Join Mailing List

    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.

    Libertarian, Go To Church This Christmas

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    7

    But where were you last Sunday morning?

    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.

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    The Famine Upon Our Minds.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    3

    Our right to free thought and speech

    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.

    If we fail to stop this Bill, we will surely be at the mercy of our very own proverbial Star Chamber .

    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?

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    Take The White Pill

    By
    James Hol
    -
    2

    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.

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    Cancel Culture – Could you be next?

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    1

    Efforts to damage reputations and careers

    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.

    Join Mailing List

    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. 

    Citizen Journalist Videos Police Collusion With A Violent Mob

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    1

    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.

    Join Mailing List

    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.

    Some are not fans.

    1...567...12Page 6 of 12
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv