Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Personal Liberty

    Home Personal Liberty Page 7

    A Serving of Humble Pie, Minister?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    6

    Arrogant and egotistical are the two words most equated with politicians.

    Australians who voted NO to enshrine race into our Constitution will no doubt confirm the veracity of these two terms now that some states have declared they intend to legislate it anyway.

    Despite the overwhelming NO vote, state politicians, through their arrogance and egos, are ignoring that majority by either pushing on, in the case of South Australia and Western Australia, or begrudgingly backing down for now while continuing to make excuses as to why it is needed.

    The question must be asked by every citizen who values their democratic rights and the rights of their fellows: how is this democracy at work?

    The focus here is not on pros and cons of the issue, nor the referendum result. Rather, it is to highlight the blatant disrespect of the citizenry by those who are elected to represent them – the “pollies,” to use Australian vernacular.

    It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris.

    Is it power they cannot resist? Or do they truly believe they know best?

    Undoubtedly, it is a combination of both. And it is as old as time. Most of them are caught up eventually in the net of hubris. As Plato wrote over two millennium ago, that “under tyranny of the master passion, a man becomes in his waking life what he was once only occasionally in his dreams.”

    Plato learned from his teacher, Socrates, considered to be the wisest man in history despite him declaring he knew nothing.

    Socrates was condemned to death on the charge of leading the youth astray by encouraging them to continually ask questions of everything. Here we are, 2400 years later, and the modern West is on the verge of censoring their citizens from forming their own opinions via strict misinformation laws. Not much has changed really. But I digress.

    The Death of Socrates

    Plato presents Socrates’ account leading up to his death in Apology. The God of Delphi declared that there was no man wiser than Socrates. In his defence to his accusers, he urged them to listen carefully to his account, as I likewise urge you to read it closely:

    ‘After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly, I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So, I left him, saying to myself as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.’

    It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris. Then perhaps they, with the wisdom of Socrates, would look with eyes wide open at the upcoming Misinformation Bill that is slated to rob Australians of their right to think and speak as free people.

    Sure, we won’t be put to death by hemlock poisoning; but to censor what we as free people have to say and be threatened with jail terms should we resist the edict by what James Hol describes as the “Cult of Authority” is not acceptable in a modern democracy.

    It is very concerning when a Minister of the Crown fronts the media to say that “there are no lessons to be learned from the Voice referendum.” The Queensland Minister for Housing, Meaghan Scanlon, made this statement on 16 October. A few days later, the Queensland government announced it would not proceed with the legislation due to the Opposition withdrawing support. But the political indifference by politicians of people’s views is indisputable.

    It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.

    Perhaps the Minister considers that in her very young life she has learned all there is to learn in this world. Socrates died 2400 years ago, yet his words still resonate for those who have ears to hear and the will to listen.

    Two millennium must count for something – wisdom via endurance.

    The most infamous of prideful kings of ancient Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus – Tarquin the Proud. Superbus is the Latin term for a proud man. So, in ancient Roman terms, Ms Scanlon would be referred to as Superba, the “ba” representing the feminine, compared to “bus” representing the masculine.

    It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.

    Being Libertarian About Abortion

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    4

    Libertarians are somewhat like socialists and communists:  while they agree on broad principles (such as low taxes and small government), they argue endlessly about the details. How low should taxes be?  Should roads be privatised? Should the gold standard return? Is a social safety net needed?

    In America, American libertarians also argue endlessly about abortion. It is at times an election issue, especially since the US Supreme Court decided it is a state responsibility. But unlike on other issues, arguments are often based on emotion rather than libertarian values. Indeed, there can be an unwillingness to admit there is more than one viewpoint.

    Abortion is not an election issue in Australia and non-libertarians rarely debate it. Yet Australian libertarians, who take their debating cues from America, repeatedly clash over it. And just as in America, the debate can be notable for bigotry and the absence of libertarian fundamentals.

    The two sides are broadly referred to as pro-choice and pro-life. That is, the pro-choice side takes the side of women, while the pro-life takes the side of the embryo or foetus.

    Block considers a woman’s uterus as her property and an unwanted foetus as a “trespasser or parasite”, even while lacking the will to act.

    The pro-life position is straightforward – life begins at conception and must never be deliberately terminated. Strictly applied, this includes children conceived through rape, incest and, of course, contraceptive failure. And obviously there are no exceptions for malformed foetuses.

    The belief that an embryo is entitled to the same rights at conception as a born human is not based on libertarianism; rather, it is based in faith. It has long been the policy of the Catholic Church, for example, although some other faiths hold the same view. Once accepted, libertarian values can certainly be applied. For example, libertarians oppose capital punishment on the basis that no state should have the power to kill a human being, so it follows that it should not sanction the killing of unborn children.

    The pro-choice position can equally have a non-libertarian starting point. The claims that children should always be wanted, for example, or that women denied a legal termination will often seek one that is illegal, do not derive from libertarian thinking.

    The libertarian argument is that women are entitled to agency over their own bodies. That is, it should be their choice whether to incubate a foetus. It is called self-ownership; the same argument against compulsory Covid vaccinations and in support of voluntary assisted dying. If somebody else can make decisions about your body, in a sense you are a slave.

    Non-libertarian views are not invalid solely for that reason, and they can of course be sincerely held, but it is important to know what they are.

    Things get especially complicated when abortion occurs after the foetus is capable of surviving outside the woman’s body. That is a function of medical technology; currently about 10% of premature babies survive when born at 22 weeks’ gestation, and 40% at 24 weeks. As technology advances, survival rates increase.  

    Although premature births are common, abortions in late pregnancy are not, mostly prompted by the baby having significant developmental abnormalities. The libertarian question is, who has the right to decide whether the pregnancy should be terminated: the parents who will be responsible for a severely disabled baby, the taxpayers who may end up paying for it, or some other person with particular moral values?

    There is no easy answer to this. JS Mill’s harm principle, that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”, is difficult to apply. Whose harm matters more? 

    The belief that an embryo is entitled to the same rights at conception as a born human is not based on libertarianism; rather, it is based in faith.

    The renowned American libertarian Walter Block has proposed a solution based on property rights, a value close to libertarian hearts. Called evictionism, it is based on Murray Rothbard’s view that “no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body”, meaning women are entitled to eject a baby from their body at any time.

    Block considers a woman’s uterus as her property and an unwanted foetus as a “trespasser or parasite”, even while lacking the will to act. He believes a pregnant woman has the right to evict a foetus from her body since she has no obligation to care for a trespasser.

    However, he also argues that nobody the right to kill a foetus, as murder is equally contrary to libertarian values, and hopes that others will care for evicted babies (in a process known as homesteading, or gaining ownership through appropriation) and ensure their survival.

    Winning an argument requires a sound appreciation of the other side. When it comes to abortion, each side needs to understand when their arguments are libertarian.

    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.

    We Ignore The Erosion of Democracy At Our Peril

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    1

    Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that if a republic is to live long, it is necessary to draw it back often toward its beginning.

    “For all the beginning of sects, republics, and kingdoms must have some goodness in them, by means of which they may regain their first reputation and their first increase. Because in the process of time, that goodness is corrupted, unless something intervenes to lead it back to the mark, it of necessity kills the body.”

    It is now time for Australia, and all modern western democracies, to be led back to the starting point, less necessity kills our body politic.

    No political system has ever been immune to corruptible processes.

    Now, the concept of going “back” will raise the ire of progressives. It could even unnerve libertarians, the thinking being that any hint of the status quo or traditionalism is the sole purview of conservatives.  But I would remind them of what Thomas Paine said, that when government “operates to create an increased wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.”

    Thomas Paine

    We could argue over the difference between Paine’s reform and Machiavelli’s drawing back to the beginning, but as a historian, I stand by the view that unless one contemplates how a thing starts, the solution to improving it can be neither understood nor solved.

    A searing reminder of how far Australia has fallen from political grace can be seen in the erosion of habeus corpus, articulated brilliantly by Jaimie Stevenson in her article, Imprisoned with Zero Charges, noting that this “unchecked authority fundamentally challenges the principles upon which our democratic society is based.”

    Surely, this one issue alone requires us to be drawn back to our beginning. But if we need more reminders of the importance to look in the rear-view mirror, it can be found in Kenelm Tonkin’s explanation of the Tocqueville Matrix.

    When government operates to create an increased wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.

    It is not new, this thing known as recovery of freedom. In 509 BC, Lucius Junius Brutus rescued Rome from the corruption and pride of kings gone bad. After two hundred years the monarchy had degenerated into vileness at the hands of one man vested with too much power.

    It is not a stretch to draw parallels with life in Australia from 2020 – 2022 under the direction of Scott Morrison as Prime Minister, who set up an unconstitutional National Cabinet, continued to this day by current leader, Anthony Albanese; and who allowed unrestricted power to state premiers for carte blanche hard-line rule over their populations. Daniel Andrews’ iron fist in Victoria demonstrates that it is all too easy for one man to think himself a god. Though he was not alone in his authoritarian bent, he was by far the most brutal of all the state’s leaders.

    We can ruminate on our demise, or we can each do something to regain the goodness which has been corrupted by time. This is a process in itself; documenting what is wrong by looking back to what provided the foundation upon which democracy was built. And it does not require the commanding presence of public figures.

    It is now time for Australia, and all modern western democracies, to be led back to the starting point, less necessity kills our body politic.

    In Cicero’s dialogues between past heroes of the Roman Republic, Scipio Africanus said of Lucius Brutus:

    “No one is a mere private citizen when the liberty of his fellows needs protection.”

    For those who question the relevance of being drawn back to beginnings, I urge you to consider the increase in dystopian and futuristic writing and ask yourself why it is occurring.

    John Goddard writes fast fiction; dystopian ponderings, often with a question as to what went before. In a recent article entitled Mephistopheles, his dystopian character questions the relevance of old-world heroes, that they have “no place in our modern mythology.” It is a hellscape scenario in which to question anything significant from the old world would be to bring down the wrath of the state upon oneself.

    That people lament the absence of old heroes; or sound the alarm about the deterioration of valued democratic safeguards like habeus corpus; or feel compelled to encourage us moderns to look back to invigorating figures like Alexis de Tocqueville, surely tells us that the past does hold significance in the quest to understand ourselves and our societies.

    No political system has ever been immune to corruptible processes. And now it is our time to act. It may even require a “going to the mattresses” approach, not as a physical war, but as an intellectual war between the people and those we put in office to represent us.

    Victoria: The Nanny State

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    0

    *** Publisher’s Note: this article was written before the resignation of Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews ***

    Victoria is a Nanny State on steroids. Dan Andrews’ Labor government’s shenanigans are impossible to avoid, beginning every morning when you get in the car to drive to work. It’s like living in a video game that you have no chance of winning, that purely serves their purpose of keeping us supposedly “safe” within the uncompromising confines of their matrix.

    The biggest gripe I have at the moment is hidden speed cameras, particularly when they are on vehicles parked illegally (and dangerously – oh the irony). Apparently, I’m not the only one: last year three traffic camera cars were attacked within a 10-day time frame. Having recently received a fine for the victimless crime of travelling a whole 3km/hr over the speed limit, it’s only human nature to imagine the satisfaction felt from smashing those windows in.

    The Victorian Police assistant commissioner claimed the actions were “cowardly” and “really, really harmful to the broader road safety program”. In reality, the statistics suggest quite the opposite and that the attacks could possibly be justified as saving lives.

    Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

    Over the border, when the New South Wales government removed the pre-warning signs for their camera cars during the pandemic, it doubled the revenue for the State. However, the death toll also increased tragically by 21. It is abundantly clear that hidden speed cameras have absolutely nothing to do with our safety and everything to do with government control through revenue raising that disproportionately punishes low-income earners.

    So, while no-one could argue that the attacks on these cars align with the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP), US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

    Barry Goldwater, philosophical libertarian

    The New South Wales community took a different approach, responding peacefully by pushing back against the government. The public backlash forced pre-warning signs to be reintroduced.

    The contrast with Victorians became particularly apparent during Covid, when a certain percentage of our population seem to blindly trust what they are told by authority without question, making life extremely difficult for the rest of us.

    There’s an unhealthy dependency on the State here, as if a section of the population feels they’re incapable of making informed, adult decisions for their own health and safety and the health and safety of others around them because the government knows best and of course always has our best intentions at heart.

    They’ve been made to fear their neighbour; they no longer believe that the majority of people are good and can be trusted to do the right thing, and do not realise that those who disagree cannot be deterred by a traffic camera and the threat of jail or a fine. They’ve also been made to fear death, the only certainty besides paying taxes. I’m unsure at what point Victorians felt the need to wrap themselves in cotton wool.

    Hidden speed cameras are only one problem in an assortment of issues Victorian motorists have to contend with on a daily basis though. The number of speed humps and 40k zones in Melbourne makes me wonder whether there is any point having tarmac on the roads, because we might as well go back to travelling by horse and cart. Perhaps this reflects the real agenda, and why the government is making motor vehicle travel a warzone for commuters. My local council is currently pushing for bike riding to replace cars, an idealistic viewpoint to the single, soy latte sipping Labor and Greens affiliated councillors, but completely unrealistic and unattainable to a mother and small business owner like me and the majority of our community.

    Then there’s the issue of the surveillance state where new and highly invasive cameras are now catching people on their phones, or not wearing a seatbelt at a stop light. Ladies, don’t forget to wear undies under your skirt, because these intrusive cameras can even detect what you ate for breakfast.

    US presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (a libertarian) also once said, “extremism in defence of liberty is no vice”.

    There are licence plate recognition cameras on nearly every corner, ready at any second for our local “governments” to spring the 20-minute SMART cities nightmare on us. A similar concept to the 5k travel radius during Covid, except instead of being sold to the masses as a saving-granny exercise, we’ll be told we’re saving the planet from its impending doom.

    Trialled in the UK, locals insisted that they actually made congestion in the city worse. People responded by removing bollards at the 15-minute borders or concreting them in, destroying the cameras and refusing to pay the fines. Unlike Australians, the English have a long history of bold and drastic measures to defend their freedom from a corrupted state.

    Imprisoned With Zero Charges

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    2

    In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the USA, Australia enacted a multitude of counter-terrorism laws ostensibly intended to bolster national security and deter acts of terrorism. However, the unintended consequences of those laws pose significant threats to fundamental legal rights, including the right to a fair trial and the protection of habeas corpus.

    9/11 ushered in the US Patriot Act. Australia then slapped on 92 counter-terrorism statutes

    From 2001 to 2021 a total of 92 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation were pushed through Parliament, many without proper debate or scrutiny. These laws threaten fundamental rights such as free speech and freedom from arbitrary detention, and have expanded in scope from targeting terrorism to targeting most serious criminal crimes. Their impact affects all Australians, not just suspected terrorists.

    They include restrictions on freedom of speech through sedition offences; detention and questioning of Australians not suspected of any crime; control orders enabling house arrest for up to a year; extended periods of detention without charge; warrantless searches of private property by police; and secretive trials.

    92 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation were pushed through Parliament

    The absence of human rights safeguards such as a bill of rights might offer has provided fertile ground for the enactment of especially disproportionate laws in Australia. As a result, our ostensible “anti-terrorism” laws may present far greater threat to the civil liberties of Australians than anything Americans face from the USA’s infamous Patriot Act.

    What is habeas corpus?

    Habeas corpus is a fundamental right that protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful detention by the government. It is the right to challenge the legal justification of any detention before a court of law. If the judge finds the detention to be unlawful, the individual must be released.

    The historical roots of habeas corpus can be traced back to 13th Century medieval England; a period where the Monarchy and Government had powers to detain individuals without clear legal justification, which predictably resulted in frequent arbitrary and indefinite detentions.

    A shift in legal paradigm

    The War on Terror marked a significant shift in the legal landscape. Traditional criminal law focused on punishing individuals for actual crimes, based on material evidence. The new focus is on preventing potential crimes, based on often undisclosed suspicions.

    Preventative detention, for instance, allows the Australian Federal Police to question anybody without charge, simply by deeming the person a ‘terrorism suspect’. The practice of ‘preventative detention’ contravenes key principles of international law, including Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

    So, while the principle of habeas corpus exists on paper in Australia, its strength and spirit are dead.

    So, how does this affect non-terrorists?

    The Australian Government has armed itself with extraordinary powers that have reshaped the very essence of justice. The Government and its agents gave themselves the ability to search without warrant, detain without charge, and declare organisations as threats to national security without substantive proof. If that was not scary enough, what remains deeply concerning is the ambiguity surrounding the definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘threat to national security’.

    These laws threaten fundamental rights

    Under the legislation, political labels can be applied to activities that, if genuinely criminal, would have fallen under the purview of existing criminal laws. These criminal laws come with vital safeguards that ensure individuals have the right to receive a fair trial and are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Counter-terrorism laws erode these fundamental legal protections, placing the burden of proof on the accused, effectively reversing the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

    The principle of habeas corpus exists on paper in Australia, its strength and spirit are dead.

    Recent global events serve as clear reminders of the dangers associated with politicising alleged criminal activities. The Canadian trucker freedom convoy was portrayed by the media and the Canadian government as an occupation, despite it being a protest against Covid restrictions. The January 6th protests in the USA were labelled an insurrection, despite having few of the elements of a genuine insurrection. And Covid-related freedom protests in Australia were stigmatised as right-wing extremism. Such hasty and politically charged characterisations only underscore the perilous implications of these counter-terrorism laws and their potential misuse.

    Canadian Truckie Convoy
    Australian Freedom Rally
    US January 6th

    At the core of this issue lies the power vested in the government to declare individuals or groups as threats to national security, bypassing cherished legal safeguards such as habeas corpus, and unleashing an arsenal of undemocratic laws upon those who are accused. This unchecked authority fundamentally challenges the principles upon which our democratic society is based.

    bypassing cherished legal safeguards such as habeas corpus

    It is worth considering the words of Lord Hoffman when he delivered his dissenting opinion on counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.”

    These words should resonate with every citizen, as they highlight the dire need for a careful and considered re-evaluation of the balance between national security and the preservation of our fundamental legal rights, ensuring that justice, transparency, and accountability are not casualties in the fight against terrorism.

    Join Me On The Watchlist

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    In my previous article, I asked readers to consider making a submission to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) regarding the draconian Misinformation Bill. I have always been sceptical of the effect of such submissions, but it is hard for government to fly in the face of overwhelming public backlash.

    Politicians, like prostitutes, are in the business of pleasing people and, while that continues, there is value in protests, petitions, submissions and all manner of public dissent.

    While I completely understand the hesitation of many people to engage with the government any more than they absolutely must, there is one motivation we should never allow the government to use to manipulate us: fear.

    THE BATTLELINES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DRAWN

    For those who are too scared to be public with your dissent for fear of retribution, I am sorry to break it to you: it’s too late.

    The battlelines have already been drawn. If you think you will be spared from a murderous and reprehensible entity with unlimited resources that it can steal with impunity because of your ‘anonymous’ social media account or refusing to submit your dissent to impending legislation, I have a bridge to sell you.

    For many years I watched politics and culture from the sidelines: I had strong opinions, but they were only uttered among the safety of family and close friends. After the novelty of social media had worn off in my late teenage years, I barely posted anything. I always removed myself from photos that were likely to find their way online and maintained a very private life. My online persona, or lack thereof, was unusual for someone my age.

    But then Covid happened.

    DIE ON YOUR FEET

    Before I decided to run for public office in the 2022 South Australian election, I thought a lot about the implications of my political ‘coming out’. Would I still be able to find a job? Would I lose friends? Would this be used against me? But the reality is, that kind of thinking was a selfish luxury. And in the harsh light of the tyrannical Covid response, it didn’t matter anymore.

    Tyrannical Covid-19 Response

    Who cares about a job when your dollar can’t buy you anything?

    Who cares about friends when you can never trust anyone?

    Who cares about anything being used against you when you’re already living in a free-range prison?

    While we are still a long way away from dystopia, it is coming faster than you think. And totalitarian government only seeks one thing: more power. It will leverage the useful idiots, those who have honest intent but are not aware of the authoritarian intentions of the policy they advocate, until they are no longer useful – then it will throw them aside. No one is safe from authoritarianism, whether you dissent publicly or not.

    While Emiliano Zapata is generally considered a socialist, we can still learn from his ethos: ‘It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.’

    LIVE FREE OR DIE

    The reality is, we are faced with two options: live a short and miserable existence in silence, until the authoritarians have rendered you useless, or speak up and fight back!

    If you speak up and fight back, I cannot promise you that your existence won’t be just as short, but it will be far more rewarding. And maybe, just maybe, if we all speak up loudly enough and fight back hard enough, we will all exist to (not) fight the next battle.

    I do not fear being put on a watchlist. I embrace it!

    Live free or die because death is not the worst of evils.

    Welcome To Free Speech

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    2

    A non-illustrated guide to where conservatives continually fall short on a key pillar of liberty… 

    Libertarians and conservatives might be friends on certain issues, often shoved into the same corner by the ‘progressive’ left, but it’s time we libertarians took a hard stance on free speech.

    James Hol’s recent commentary regarding the proposed ‘misinformation’ bill reflected an attitude towards freedom of speech and expression that is generally shared across the entirety of the centre-right.

    However, conservatives are not yet ready to defend the speech and expression of those they don’t agree with. Purporting to pick and choose who has access to free expression is a dark pathway to liberty.

    Free speech is very easy to defend when you agree with the speech that is being censored – the true test of principle is to defend all speech, regardless of your personal view on what is being expressed. Yet apparently Yumi Stynes’ ‘graphic’ book titled Welcome to Sex should be ‘wrapped in black plastic’ and sold in a restricted manner akin to a pornographic magazine according to the self-confessed ‘conservative patriot’ Senator Ralph Babet. 

    Comments from Stynes that she would be ‘comfortable’ with an 8 year-old child reading the book, and its availability in major retailer chains, have sparked community outrage at the supposed accessibility of such material to children. Yet what does it say about the rights of parents if conservative commentators feel entitled to decide what is suitable for other people’s children? It raises questions on our perceptions of the role of parents too – is it their job to manage what their child has access to, or is that the job of government and society at large? 

    You have to wonder at what point any more restrictive approach by government towards curating children’s material could be weaponized against conservatives. This of course is the fundamental weakness in the conservative take on this issue: the lack of foresight as to how restricting the speech and expression of one group weakens it for us all in the end. Furthermore, all the attention and furore over the content of the book led to it becoming a bestseller. 

    Controversial book ‘Welcome To Sex’ attracted conservative calls for it to be banned

    It’s not the first time so-called ‘freedom friendly’ MPs have actually sought to curb the rights of those they disagree with. In February, Liberal Senator Alex Antic introduced a private member’s bill that sought to impose harsh criminal penalties on ‘incitement to trespass, cause property damage or traffic disruption’ (paraphrased). This was clearly an attack on extinction rebellion type traffic protests and the activities of animal rights protesters at slaughterhouses. 

    Yet it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the same laws could easily have been imposed on leaders of protests against vaccine mandates. This bill was yet another reactionary, populist thought bubble that demonstrates the folly of conservatism as a philosophical vehicle to protect individual rights and reduce the size of government. 

    As seen by the impact of boycotts and negative PR directed at companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Gillette, Target and Big W, it is much more effective to fight bad ideas and bad speech with consumer action as opposed to legislative action. It is also fundamentally moral – the market will ultimately determine the social licence companies have to comment on social or political issues by rewarding or punishing them via consumers. 

    Good ideas don’t require force, and bad ideas don’t require banning. As libertarians we must fight both progressives and conservatives who seek to censor or ban speech they dislike.

    They will invoke the innocence of children, the plight of minority groups or the collective ‘harm’ caused by disinformation, but history tells us that those doing the censoring are never the good guys. 

    The only role politicians have with regards to free speech is to protect it, and the best way to protect free speech is to amend the Australian constitution, enshrining the right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly.

    Green Sky Thinking

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    0
    Green Sky

    Imagine a fictional country named “Straya” has an authoritarian government that prohibits the publication of misinformation. The law defines misinformation as any information that is not approved by government authorities. It also states that misinformation does not require proof of intent to constitute spreading false information.

    Straya’s government publicly declared that the sky is green. John, a citizen of Straya, posted on social media that the sky is blue, contrary to the government’s assertion. He shares a photo of a blue sky from his backyard, along with a caption discussing the colour of the sky.

    … an authoritarian government that prohibits the publication of misinformation.

    The authorities in Straya, relying on the broad and unworkable definitions in the legislation and their discretionary powers, classify John’s post as misinformation simply because it contradicts the government’s approved narrative. The social media company is obliged to remove John’s post or risk severe fines. There is no need to prove that John intended to spread false information or that he acted maliciously. John might be mistaken, but his post is automatically categorised as misinformation because it contradicts the government narrative and the authorities decided his post is likely to cause harm to the Straya environment.

    While this example is obviously hypothetical and intentionally ridiculous, the recently released draft of the Australian Government’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) (Bill) 2023 could make it a reality.

    The Ministry of Truth

    In this fictional tale, Straya’s authoritarian government wields an alarming power: the authority to define truth. The actual, non-fictional proposed legislation, reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984”, similarly allows the government to label any information not approved by the authorities as misinformation. This broad definition could include opinions and viewpoints that challenge the government’s narrative, stifling legitimate debates and discussions. The absence of an intent requirement opens the door to suppressing dissent under the guise of combating misinformation.

    The Victorian Bar published a submission on the Bill.  In their own words: “The Bar is concerned that the Bill creates an unlevel playing field between governments and other speakers. Any view authorised by the government is, by statutory definition, not ‘misinformation’, however false or misleading it might be. Only information that is not authorised by government is capable of being ‘misinformation’ as defined. That double standard is illiberal, and disadvantages critics of government in comparison with a government’s supporters”.

    The Ambiguity of Definitions

    One of the Bill’s major flaws lies in its ambiguous definitions. The legislation requires a distinction between “information” and other online content. However, what exactly constitutes “information” remains unclear. This ambiguity creates a chilling effect on free speech, as individuals and platforms are forced to self-censor due to fear of legal repercussions. The lack of transparency surrounding what qualifies as misinformation gives the government a powerful tool to selectively target and suppress voices that oppose its narrative.

    This ambiguity creates a chilling effect on free speech

    The Broad Concept of Harm

    The Bill’s broad definition of “harm” compounds the concerns over freedom of expression. It extends the definition to cover situations where content might only be “reasonably likely” to cause harm or “contribute to” harm. Such a wide interpretation opens the door for subjective judgments and potentially oppressive actions against content creators, further inhibiting open discussions that are essential for a healthy democracy.

    Defending Democracy and Freedom

    The example of Straya serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of legislation that undermines freedom of expression. In the real world, the fictional scenario shares alarming similarities with the concerns raised over the Australian Government’s proposed legislation. The Victorian Bar’s submission regarding the Bill underscores the danger of allowing governments to wield unchecked power over information, stifling opposition, and undermining the democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and open debate. The Bar concludes that as the Bill is currently drafted, it should not be enacted.

    The Victorian Bar slammed the Bill as ‘illiberal’.

    To quote directly from the Bar’s submission: “The exclusion in subclause (e) (content that is authorised by a government) highlights the Bill’s significant inroads into freedom of expression. The views of government — any government — are automatically protected from designation as ‘misinformation’, however inaccurate, controversial, or contestable they may be; yet the views of critics of government (whether the political opposition, NGOs or private individuals) are at risk of precisely such a designation. The prospect of politically charged accusations of ‘misinformation’ against opponents and critics readily presents itself. The later history of the Star Chamber was replete with exactly such politically motivated claims of misinformation.”

    That double standard is illiberal

    The Star Chamber operated from the 15th century until its abolition in 1641. The Court was used as a tool of government to bypass the rule of law and to exert control over political dissenters. The Bar’s explicit mention of the Star Chamber should serve as a warning as to how concerning this Bill is to the function of democracy in Australia.

    5 Policy Responses To The Covid-19 Vaccination Disaster

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    1

    Recently I attended the Australian Medical Professional Society’s Curing the Corruption of Medicine event in Melbourne. The keynote speaker was British cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra.  

    Double vaccinated with Pfizer, Dr Malhotra initially supported the vaccine rollout and encouraged the vulnerable to take the injection on national TV in January of 2021.  

    His stance soon changed when, amongst other concerning research and reports, his father, also double vaccinated, died suddenly of a heart attack. With a strong understanding of his medical history and current health condition, Dr Malhotra couldn’t comprehend how his father’s coronary arteries were shown in the autopsy to have narrowed so quickly. 

    After some of the world’s top scientists published an independent reanalysis of the original Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data, which found that patients are more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine including hospitalisation, disability or a life changing event than what they are to be hospitalised from Covid, he now believes ”these (mRNA) vaccinations should never have been approved for use in a single human”, and is calling for their suspension. 

    Governments across Australia have spent hundreds of millions of dollars frightening the pants off our population, promoting and enforcing Covid 19 vaccinations with no end in sight. Despite AstraZeneca having been quietly pulled from the shelves earlier this year and ATAGI no longer recommending Covid 19 vaccines for healthy under 65-year-olds, the government is still relentlessly promoting vaccination to young, fit, healthy adults. There are taxpayer funded, daily reminders to get your jab on TV commercials, Youtube ads, and road signs on main arterials – nearly two and a half years on.

    There is just no reprieve from the Covid mania.

    Covid 19 mandates ravaged the foundations of the medical industry. I had a local GP tell me they were making a mockery of his profession. Informed consent ceased to exist with a paternalistic approach as patients were coerced into a medical procedure without being informed of potential risks or able to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. Bodily autonomy and medical privacy were disregarded and doctors who dared to raise concerns were threatened with deregistration.

    Robust discussion was censored as the government intruded into the doctor patient relationship. We were even denied basic health benefits such as vitamin D due to government restrictions that had us locked in our houses for 23 hours a day. Any ounce of trust I had left for Big Pharma and the government has been completely eroded as a consequence. 

    During Dr Malholtra’s nearly one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, he outlined policy making as a main factor in improving the current state of play. You know we have a serious problem when even the wokest journalist from The Age (who felt virtuous getting his 5th booster) is questioning why government policy sees Covid 19 vaccines given away to young people at the expense of the taxpayer. 

    The idea of the government staying out of people’s medical decisions is rooted in the concept of individual liberty. Here are my policy ideas for reform –  

    Whistle blower protection for the healthcare industry. Doctors should be able to speak up without fear of losing their job. 

    Stop Covid 19 vaccine and mRNA manufacturing subsidies. All over the world highly vaccinated countries are recording uncommonly high excess deaths. Dr Malhotra is of the opinion, and the data suggests, that Covid 19 vaccines have a role to play. Pending further investigation, the mRNA vaccines should be suspended. The government should also stop subsidising mRNA manufacturing. 

    Ban taxpayer funded spend on advertising pharmaceutical products. If Big Pharma wants to make a profit by selling products that are not properly tested, surely they can afford to pay for their own promotions. 

    Remove remaining mandates & get our unvaccinated workers back in the work force immediately. With the current staff shortages, particularly in healthcare, it’s unconscionable that unvaccinated workers, police officers and firefighters are unable to work, with compliance still taking precedence over the safety of our community. 

    Big Pharma companies fund compensation schemes, not the Australian taxpayer. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for damage and deaths caused by pharmaceutical companies. 

    1...678...12Page 7 of 12
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv