Personal Liberty

-

28 July 2023

1

Nobody forces us to fall in love, to dislike another person, or to prefer a certain type of music. One person could spend six months sailing around the world and not feel lonely for a moment, while another can feel desperately lonely in the midst of a crowd.

In the Australian vernacular, being called a ‘bastard’ can be intended as a serious insult, a minor criticism or a term of endearment, yet someone may find the term offensive irrespective of the intent of the person making the comment.

The same is true when it comes to comments about political beliefs, sexual orientation, appearance, gender identity, age, religious values or many other factors that are variously claimed to give rise to offense. Nobody can say with certainty how a comment might be received.

In tort and criminal law, a person can be liable for all the consequences resulting from activities that lead to injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unexpectedly serious damage due to a pre-existing vulnerability. Known as the egg shell rule, it means liability may be severe if a person suffers injury as a result of assault or negligence and has a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg.

This relates only to physical injury though, and there is no such rule regarding verbal matters. Nonetheless, there is a growing tendency to attribute blame for the consequences of offence at the feet of those who utter the words, irrespective of the circumstances of the person claiming to be offended. Indeed, there is an absolute epidemic of mental illness and PTSD for which others are being blamed.

The Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”, and yet whether anyone is indeed offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated is up to the receiver of the message. Given an inability to know in advance how the recipient might choose to feel, the only option is to avoid saying anything much at all.

This can have significant consequences for the way we speak. In America, and increasingly now here, it has become common to wish everyone happy holidays rather than Merry Christmas on the assumption that non-Christians may feel offended.

Filmmakers, cartoonists, artists and authors are reluctant to tackle certain subjects because individuals or groups claim to be offended, sometimes even responding with violence.

We must now also deal with accusations of hate speech, which are typically nothing more than statements with which someone disagrees and has decided is offensive.

Feeling offended is an emotion, similar to anger, frustration and loneliness. But while they can be powerful, emotions are within our control. Apart from clinical depression perhaps, none can be blamed on someone else.

Even when a comment is intended to be hurtful, or there is indifference as to whether hurt is caused, how we respond depends on the beliefs we have accumulated over a lifetime. We can take offence at the slightest remark, or remain serene in the face of a serious insult.

Why then do we blame others if we take offence? If we are responsible for our feelings in some cases, surely we are responsible in all cases.

Because there is no cause and effect, the right of free speech does not require the right to offend. That does not mean we should ignore cultural norms like good manners and consideration for the feelings of others, but we do not need the law to tell us that the wrong response to the question ‘does my bum look big in this?’ can lead to problems.

The very notion that someone else can govern the way we feel diminishes our independence and self-ownership. If nobody can force us to think in a particular way, nobody can make us feel offended.

No matter how bigoted, ill-informed or obnoxious, our reaction to someone else’s words is always up to us. Unless words are coercive, by threatening, tricking or forcing us to do something against our will, we are responsible for how they are received. If we feel offended, we have the option of choosing another feeling.

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

The Danger To Society of the Public Health Industry

By

-

19 July 2023

6

The public health industry is a menace and remains a threat to Australia.

It comprises people who believe we all require their guidance because, unlike them, we are incapable of making the right choices for ourselves. We must be nudged, cajoled, taxed, and supervised to ensure we get it right. And if that doesn’t work, compelled by force of law.

The Covid pandemic exposed this in stark terms. The authoritarian wave that engulfed us, while mostly authorised by spineless politicians, originated from the public health people behind them. And in almost every case, they got it profoundly wrong.

The result was countless businesses failed, careers ruined, relationships destroyed, and education missed, with worse health outcomes than Sweden. Even the current inflation is primarily a consequence of propping up the economy with borrowed money whilst “flattening the curve”.

In terms of sheer ineptitude, it is difficult to go past the Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) in the states and Commonwealth. Paraded as experts and fawned on by the media, they proved to be foolish control freaks.

CMOs ought to be expert at public health, since their focus is on the health of everyone rather than individual patients, and up-to-date with both the scientific literature and international developments. While not necessarily researchers or experts themselves, they should be well aware of who the researchers and experts are and how to contact them.

Yet repeatedly, the policies they recommended and endorsed were contrary to science, to experience, or both.

It started on day one. Australia’s rational and proportionate pandemic plan was simply abandoned in favour of China’s panicked lockdown model.

Covid-19 is a respiratory corona virus, a well-studied category. It was well known that these viruses are highly vulnerable to sunlight and short-lived outside the body, relying on person-to-person transmission. Outdoor transmission was never likely, yet beaches and parks were closed, and gatherings prohibited. As for indoor spread, what was all that “deep cleaning” about? And why is ventilation only being mentioned now? It’s a no-brainer in the veterinary world.

Once it was obvious that only the elderly were in danger, it was unconscionable to maintain the pretence that everyone else was. Children were never at risk, except from vaccine side effects, yet schools were closed and parents terrorised.

In early 2021 when, contrary to expectations, it became apparent the Covid vaccines did not prevent either transmission or infection, the campaign to vaccinate everyone should have ceased. A statement from a CMO that the unvaccinated presented no danger to anybody else would have ended it. Yet vaccination certificates acquired the status of internal passports in the Soviet Union, and countless people lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated.

Ivermectin was being used to treat cases in multiple other countries with clear evidence of its value, yet it was banned from therapeutic use in Australia. How many lives might have been saved if CMOs had learned from what was happening overseas?

From the very beginning, the CMOs knew masks were useless at stopping respiratory viruses. Even Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Adviser to the US President, said as much. Yet despite zero data to prompt a change, they somehow became a symbol of compliance; a sign that we were worshipping at the Covid altar. Even now there are poor neurotic souls who continue to wear them (and even some medical facilities that still require them.) The CMOs simply allowed the stupidity to continue.

Their advice was at times foolish, even idiotic. The Chief Medical Officer in South Australia, for example, told spectators at a football match to avoid touching the ball. And South Australia was put into lockdown based on a rumour that a man had contracted Covid from a pizza box.

South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier

The Covid panic might be over, but the public health industry remains unscathed. The bureaucrat behind Melbourne becoming the world’s most locked down city, where playgrounds were closed and fishing banned, curfews imposed and all manner of other idiocy imposed, was made Victorian Of The Year despite his state recording the highest Covid death rate in Australia. In Queensland, where closing the border with NSW caused enormous suffering, the CMO was promoted to governor.

Much of the harm resulting from the Covid control measures could have been minimised, if not avoided entirely, if the CMOs had stuck to the science. Even if they had thought they were doing the right thing, they could have published their advice to governments so that others with relevant expertise could comment. Of all the CMOs, only Nick Coatsworth has showed any signs of regret.

It is only a matter of time before we are again subjected to their mindset. Even if there are no more pandemics, they will continue to impose their views on issues like smoking, alcohol, sugar and obesity.

The public health industry perpetually worries that we might enjoy ourselves in an unapproved manner. Having succeeded far beyond their expectations with Covid, they remain a clear and present danger to society.

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

The Censorship Industrial Complex – A Threat to Democracy

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

17 July 2023

In a democratic society, freedom of speech is an essential human right that enables the contest of ideas, intellectual debate, and societal progress. However, recent years have revealed a disturbing trend: those in power view free speech as a threat to their control and a hindrance to their plans.

Nowhere is this more apparent than on social media platforms, where the censorship of free speech has become alarmingly prevalent. This encroachment upon a fundamental right poses a significant danger to democracy itself.

Limitations on free speech should, at a minimum, be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. They must be applied impartially and without discrimination. While certain grounds for restricting speech, such as threats of harm or incitement to violence may be justified, they must be carefully balanced to safeguard individual rights.

However, we find ourselves now in a climate of confusion regarding what constitutes harm or violence. Certain speech, labelled as hate speech or even violence, has become subject to arbitrary interpretation.

As a consequence, freedom of expression is stifled as people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The broadening of definitions and the ensuing uncertainty lead to self-censorship, allowing governments to exploit this confusion and control the speech of those with differing opinions, thereby eroding the very foundations of democracy.

In addition to limiting freedom of expression, certain ideologies go even further, seeking to compel speech. The transgender movement and debates over the definition of womanhood exemplify this. Individuals are pressured to use specific pronouns chosen by others, forced to disregard their own reality and life experiences. Threats of de-platforming, de-monetisation, or denial of basic services like banking contribute to an environment of fear and self-censorship. Prominent figures including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jordan Peterson, and Nigel Farage, have faced punitive measures for expressing the wrong opinions. These examples serve as a warning to anyone who dares challenge the government narrative.

Western societies currently grapple with censorship on social media platforms. Elon Musk’s advocacy for free speech on Twitter has faced intense backlash, prompting governments to enact legislation aimed at curtailing it. The Online Safety Act 2021 in Australia and the Digital Service Act in the European Union, for example, threaten fines of up to 6 percent of annual revenue. The USA’s Restrict Act threatens imprisonment for up to 20 years. These laws exemplify an authoritarian approach to controlling information and stifling public discourse. In contrast, Mark Zuckerberg’s launch of Threads, a platform designed to restore online censorship, has received biased media coverage, painting it as a positive move. This skewed portrayal, labelling free speech as a right-wing ideology rather than a fundamental human right, highlights the distorted narrative being propagated.

Renowned leftist Russell Brand has emerged as a champion for the restoration of free speech. Brand’s realisation that free speech transcends political ideologies and is a fundamental right offers a glimmer of hope. He, along with other content creators, has had to resort to self-censorship on platforms like YouTube to avoid de-platforming or demonetisation. They have sought refuge on platforms such as Rumble, the “Home of Free Speech,” where open discussion on previously taboo topics is encouraged. Such a shift to alternative platforms demonstrates the need for a free market in spaces that prioritise and protect free speech.

A recent event, the Censorship Industrial Complex, hosted by Brand, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Shellenberger, shed light on the issue of censorship on social media platforms. The deliberate practice of self-censorship, designed to pre-empt dangerous thoughts, has been exposed. Stanford University’s involvement in guiding social media platforms on COVID-19 further reveals the collusion between governments and tech companies in silencing dissenting voices, undermining democratic principles, and hindering informed decision-making.

The actions taken by governments, social media platforms, and the media to stifle dissent and impose censorship present an imminent threat to democracy.

Transparent, reasonable and impartial laws are needed to safeguard our fundamental rights. It is imperative that governments respect the rights of individuals to express their opinions, irrespective of whether they challenge prevailing narratives.

In addition, individuals and content creators should actively support and embrace alternative platforms that prioritise free speech, such as Rumble. By rejecting self-censorship and promoting platforms that uphold the principles of free speech, we can reclaim our right to express ourselves without fear of retribution. Together, we must stand united to protect the values that underpin our society and ensure that freedom of speech remains a pillar of our democracy.

Jaimie Stevenson

Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.

The New Gulag

By

Bob Day

-

14 July 2023

In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.

Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.

No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.

Divide and conquer

As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.

What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.

In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:

“Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.

Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.

Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.“

For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.

In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.

Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.

Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.” So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.

While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.

Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.

The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.

Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.

Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.

In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.

So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.

Thank you for your support.

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Laughing In The Face of Tyranny, $1 Million Bounty On Their Heads

By

-

12 July 2023

Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.

Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?

As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.

If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.

The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!

Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.

When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.

Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.

In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.

Liberty Itch has covered Mr. Hui here and here.

Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.

These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.

These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.

The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.

In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”

Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”

The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.

It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.

If you don’t, who will support yours?

An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.

The Right To Keep and Bear Cash

By

Nicholas Samios

-

10 July 2023

2

A libertarian friend called me at 6.30am last Tuesday whist I was riding the train to work. “How do you start a community bank?” he asked. My friend lives in rural NSW and as they say in the country, he is “jack” of the major banks.

“The banks are closing one after the other and the ATMs are disappearing too. Which means cash is disappearing. We need to get our own bank around here”.

This issue is fast becoming mainstream, reported in media outlets including the ABC, News, and Sky in the past seven days alone.

Rural folk love their cash for practical reasons. Libertarians love it for ideological ones, which some might find ironic given many libertarians also advocate the end of fiat currency and its replacement with gold or crypto.

But here is why libertarians hold cash dear:

1. Financial Privacy
Cash transactions provide anonymity and privacy. You can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move. Electronic payments can be tracked and monitored by banks, governments, or other third parties, potentially compromising your financial privacy.

2. Vulnerability To Surveillance
Electronic payment systems create a digital trail of transactions, creating an incentive for governments and corporations to collect vast amounts of data on your purchasing habits, preferences, and of course personal information.

Cash means you can do your business without a centralised authority monitoring your every move.

3. Government Tyranny
A shift toward electronic payments can give governments greater control over our financial activities. They can potentially freeze or confiscate funds, impose restrictions on transactions, or even manipulate the monetary system to suit their own interests. This would never happen, right? Ask the Canadian truckers or Nigel Farage.

4. Vulnerability To Cyber Threats
Relying solely on electronic payments increases the risk of cyber attacks and fraud. Carrying cash comes with its own risks, sure, but cash can’t be hacked. Major corporations are getting hacked left and right. Who is safe?

5. Exclusion of Marginalised Communities
Not everyone has access to electronic payment methods. Not all communities have the same infrastructure as large cities. Denying communities which rely on cash for their daily transactions is surely discriminatory.

6. Dependency On Intermediaries
My economics professor used to say, “the more you cut up the cake, the more of it sticks to the knife”. Electronic payments typically require intermediaries, none of which provide their service for free. And for every intermediary in the transaction chain, there is another point of control and vulnerability as users become subject to the policies and regulations set by these intermediaries. Look what happened when Israel Folau tried to raise a ‘Go Fund Me’ for his legal fees.

7. Limitations On Personal Choice
Cash provides individuals with a tangible and universally accepted form of payment that can be used freely and without restrictions.

8. Infringement On Property Rights
Cash represents physical ownership. You hold it in your hand. It’s yours. Property rights are infringed when you are forced to rely on electronic representations of money stored at the pleasure of others.

9. Impact On Small Businesses
Cash transactions offer certain advantages to small businesses, reduced transaction costs and the ability to avoid credit card processing fees for a start. Denying small businesses the opportunity to trade in cash makes it harder for them to compete with their corporate counterparts. Libertarians believe in free markets, not markets distorted in this way.

Are ‘Community Banks’ the answer? Stay tuned.

Nicholas Samios

Nicholas Samios is a fund manager and small business investor with a wealth of experience spanning three decades in commercial finance and SME capital raising. In his spare time, he puts on his “Austrian School” economist hat and utilises his insights from the commercial
world to analyse the economic landscape for SMEs and entrepreneurs.

Humility At The End of The Rainbow

By

Lionel Orellana

-

28 June 2023

Since the middle of 2020, while everyone was busy with pandemic matters, the ACT, Queensland, and Victorian governments passed laws to ban the practice of “conversion therapy”. Victoria’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021[1] is the most comprehensive of these. These laws have been lauded as important steps in protecting the freedom of LGBTQI+ Australians. Other states will inevitably follow suit and national legislation is already on the agenda.

In the Orwellian dystopia in which we find ourselves, it’s important to clarify what “conversion therapy” means. “Conversion therapy” is anything that goes against the affirmation of someone’s sexual orientation or, crucially, their subjective gender identity. It can include – we are told – forms of abuse like beatings, electrocution, forced medication, castration, lobotomy and clitoridectomy.

Freedom from torture, inhumane or degrading treatment is protected in human rights legislation across Australia. So why was new legislation really needed? On the website dedicated to the CSPP Act, the Victorian government has kindly provided a section “For families and friends”. It informs us that “it is against the law to try to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity”. There is a handy list of examples of prohibited practices, of which the first two are:

a parent denying their child access to any health care services that would affirm their child’s gender identity.
a parent refusing to support their child’s request for medical treatment that will prevent physical changes from puberty.

In another section we are informed that criminalised conversion practices also include “people receiving subtle and repeated messages, that with faith and effort, they can change or hide their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

It goes as far as listing what can be said in prayer and what cannot.

Until very recently “psychotherapy involved helping the child to feel more comfortable in their own body with the belief that gender is quite malleable at a young age and gender dysphoria will likely resolve itself over time” [2]. This has now become a criminal offence.

More disturbingly, the same people that condemn prayer, psychotherapy, and genuine parental concern, are more than happy to promote radically dangerous practices when they are performed on children in the name of gender affirmation.

So-called affirmation treatments include:

Puberty suppression drugs, administered by intramuscular injection every 3 months, even though no drugs have been approved by the TGA for treatment of gender dysphoria.
A lifetime of dependence on cross-sex hormones to develop secondary characteristics of the opposite sex (e.g., testosterone to cause a girl’s voice to deepen).
Surgery. Options for males include facial feminization (nose reshaping, tracheal shave, cheek implants, etc), body feminization (trunk liposuction, buttocks augmentation), breast implants and “penile inversion”, where the penis is turned inside out to form the inner walls of a “neo vagina”. Options for females include double mastectomies and phalloplasty, a procedure that involves taking skin, fat, nerves and arteries from an arm or leg to create a penis.

Like many other issues of our time, we are supposed to believe the science is settled: gender affirmative interventions are always, unquestionably, in the best interest of the child.

Nothing is further from the truth. A 2023 study from The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, NSW, concluded that “the evidence-base pertaining to the gender-affirming medical pathway is sparse and, for the young people who may regret their choice of pathway at a future point in time, the risks for potential harm are significant.”[3]

Osteoporosis is a known risk of puberty suppression, but very little is known about the long-term effects of stopping the natural process of growth. Cross-sex hormones are associated with cardiovascular disease and blood clots. Their impact on fertility and sexual function is still not well understood. Not surprisingly, there can be significant complications with major surgical interventions offered as gender-affirming “care”. Finland, Sweden, Norway, France, and the UK have placed severe restrictions or banned these practices on minors altogether.

It’s hard to image how anyone could support such barbarism. Yet the perversely misleading “conversion ban” laws promote these discredited radical interventions. Such laws are not based on the best available science but reflect the influence of Queer Theory[4] ideologues, convinced beyond any doubt that children can (and should) bypass the perils of puberty and mould their bodies into whatever shape they want, in an impossible quest to become something that they are not. Like all irrational crusaders, they use state coercion to impose their views.

As the hubristic celebrations of Pride Month come to an end, we can only pray for our political leaders to find the humility to change course.

[1] https://www.humanrights.vic.gov.au/change-or-suppression-practices/about-the-csp-act/

[2] Gender questioning children and family law: an evolving landscape. Paper for the Australian Family Law profession. Belle Lane.

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9955757/

[4] https://guides.library.illinois.edu/queertheory/background

Lionel Orellana

Lionel is an IT engineer with more than 20 years’ experience developing enterprise applications in the private and public sectors. He completed his computer science degree in Venezuela in 2001. Then in 2002, Lionel moved to Australia after obtaining an international internship in Canberra. He became an Australian citizen in 2008.

14 Reasons To VOTE NO In The Voice To Parliament Referendum

By

-

22 June 2023

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

In short, and especially for our subscribers outside Australia, the Voice proposal is for a consultative body – let’s be blunter and say it’s a representative body – to which all federal government policies and legislation impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will be referred for consideration.

The battle for and against is now formally engaged.

Here are 14 reasons Australians should vote against the proposal.

1. Systemic Racism

Libertarians are Australia’s leaders against racism. We reject collectivism of any kind and judge individuals on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin or any other group attribute. Labor and the Greens are seeking to introduce a procedural body into the legislative process based on race, hints of Caucasian rule in Rhodesia or South Africa. The Left’s much hackneyed phrase of ‘systemic racism’ applies. If it’s part of the system and it’s based on race, guess what? It’s systemic racism.

Libertarians say Vote No.

And frankly, that’s sufficient reason.

But I have 13 more reasons …

2. Fractious Treaties

Supporters of the proposal have said the next step after a Voice are formal treaties. It’s a slippery slope. Freedom House says there are only 17 genuinely free nations in a world of 197 countries and that Australia is one of them. As a libertarian, I’d like to keep it as free as possible. That’s not compatible with negotiating treaties with 500 ethno-state ‘First Nations’, as woke activists now strategically call this part of our citizenry.

3. Communist Mastermind

The author of the Voice To Parliament is Thomas Mayo. He is a communist, a supporter of an ideology which has thus far killed 100 million people.

Don’t believe that he’s a communist?

Here he is in his own words …

4. Preferential Rents

Ethno-nationalists Senator Lidia Thorpe and Mr Mayo are openly calling for freehold title holders to pay rent to indigenous leadership groups. Will Australian mortgagees and tenants be required to add an indigenous rent?

5. Economic Drag

With the ambiguity on not knowing what the Voice To Parliament will recommend to the Government, will there be new permits required for economic activity.? What grifting black tape will be placed on a business sector already constrained by green and red tape?

6. Impossible Reversal

If the Voice To Parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, became a corrupt rabble like ATSIC, we would not be able to remove it from the Constitution except through another referendum. We’d be stuck with the constitutional vandalism.

7. Ambiguous Scope

As much as we’ve asked, we still have no understanding of the scope of the Voice To Parliament. Will its recommendations be binding on Parliament? What are matters affecting indigenous people? Remote communities? Native title property portfolios? Aboriginal-only businesses? United Nations treaty implications? Australians need to know the scope of this body before voting. We ask. We get no answers.

8. Undefined Structure

How many people will sit on the Voice To Parliament? 5? 18? Will there be one per tribe, so 500 of them? None of us know. Who will be eligible to serve on the Voice? Certainly not all Australians. Again, this is systemic racism in action. How is aboriginality defined? DNA? Statutory declaration? Tribal declaration? Still, no answers.

9. Uncosted

From a standing start, the NDIS now spends more of our hard-earned tax dollars than Medicare and Defence! With form like this and the same people pushing this new proposal, can you imagine the cost of the Voice To Parliament? We’ve asked for a budget. No dice!

10. Ignored Communities

It’s not as if most aboriginal communities on the ground were consulted or were yearning for a Voice To Parliament. Videos are emerging of everyday indigenous citizens explaining that they’ve never heard of a Voice To Parliament.

11. Elitist Gravy Train

The proposal is being pushed by Canberra-based, virtue-signalling, snouts-in-the-trough, activists. Decades of collectivist molly-coddling by Labor has created a gravy-train of the most bloated kind. Woke identitarian activists trying to create an indigenous industry, with all the non-productivity of the old-world European aristocracies.

12. Partisan

This is a Labor and Green project. A weepy-eyed, spend-what-may socialist wet dream. A one-sided wank job.

13. Referendum Funding

To drive home the point, Government is funding the yes campaign while struggling citizens under cost-of-living pressure are expected to fund the no campaign. Equity? Shhhhhh.

14. Ends Reconciliation

The Reconciliation Movement had noble ideals when started. After 20 years, we now see clearly where it is heading. An elite land grab, the fracturing of Australia into ethno-microstates and the distribution of a lot of money for a non-productive industry.

But as I say, none of this matters. It is sufficient reason to Vote No that they are proposing a race-based system.

The moment freedom lovers regain power, a priority must be to repeal s51(xxvi) of the Constitution to end this race-baiting once and for all.