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

    Freedom of Religion

    Home Personal Liberty Freedom of Religion

    Libertarian, Go To Church This Christmas

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    7

    But where were you last Sunday morning?

    It is the festive season. You are annoyed every time someone wishes you “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.  You are a libertarian who wants to save Christendom, but where were you last Sunday morning?

    Personal salvation aside, there are a number of compelling reasons for spending your Sunday mornings in the pews.  I suggest there are two broad reasons. First, a church not supported by its local community will disappear – and that’s a bad thing.  And second, Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.

    If a local community does not support its local church, it will disappear because without attendance, volunteerism, and financial contributions, it will lack the necessary resources to operate.

    That’s a bad thing for libertarians.

    These local institutions often embody principles fundamental to libertarian thought. Local churches are more than just places of worship; they are community hubs where individuals come together voluntarily, a core tenet of libertarianism. They foster a sense of community and interconnectedness, offering a means of social engagement, moral discourse, and mutual support, all without reliance on government intervention.

    The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.

    Moreover, churches traditionally play a significant role in providing social services, education, and charity, operating independently of the state (think of all those schools and hospitals called “Saint Paul’s” etc). This aligns with the libertarian preference for private, community-based solutions over government-run programs. The disappearance of local churches has a compounding effect that means a reduction in the number of non-governmental avenues available for community support and social welfare, increasing reliance on the state.

    Furthermore, churches often serve as bastions of moral and ethical teachings.  These complement and reinforce libertarian principles of personal responsibility and ethical conduct. A moral framework that helps guide individual and community behaviour, essential in a society where libertarian principles prioritise individual decision-making and self-governance.

    So, the disappearance of local churches means a loss of important community structures that support libertarian values of voluntary association, community-driven welfare, and moral guidance, making it a concerning development for those who advocate for a society built on these principles.

    Take a moment to ask yourself – where does the rubber really hit the road in a libertarian society?  We mythologise the empowering of community groups and volunteerism in order to disempower the state – but what do you think this looks like?  An individual accountable only to their families and God is the epitome of personal responsibility.

    Christian teachings are a wonderful complement to libertarian ethics.

    How then do Christian teachings complement libertarian ethics? By reflecting a harmonious blend of spiritual beliefs and political philosophy. At the core of both systems is a strong emphasis on individual liberty and personal responsibility. Christian doctrine champions free will, advocating that individuals are morally accountable for their choices, a notion that resonates deeply with libertarian values. Additionally, the concept of stewardship in Christianity, which calls for responsible management of resources and care for the world, parallels the libertarian emphasis on self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.

    In terms of ethical conduct the Christian Golden Rule, which advises treating others as one would wish to be treated, aligns closely with the libertarian non-aggression principle, which advocates peaceful and voluntary interactions among individuals. Both philosophies encourage charity and voluntary aid, preferring acts of compassion and generosity over compulsory state-led welfare. This common ground highlights a shared belief in the power of individual and community action in addressing social needs.

    Join Mailing List

    Moreover, Christian teachings about peace, non-violence, and the significance of smaller, community-based decision-making resonate with libertarian views on limited governance and opposition to unnecessary wars. The respect for moral autonomy and the individual conscience is a crucial intersection of these belief systems. It underscores the importance of making ethical decisions based on personal convictions, free from external coercion. The synergy between Christian teachings and libertarian ethics presents a compelling framework for individuals wanting to commit to personal freedom, ethical integrity, and community engagement.

    So quit complaining and save your local church. But find a “traditional service” that preaches the Gospel and not progressive talking points.  Make the effort and do your homework. Start with a Christmas service.  It will be the most impactful thing you can do to save Christendom and the libertarian values it enshrines.  And you may even save your soul.

    Stunning Early Victorian Election Prediction

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    Matthew Guy

    To be clear, I don’t know who’s going to win the Victorian election later tonight, 26 November 2022.

    How can I or any of us?

    However, I’m going to make a prediction as I write this at 3:20pm ACDT 26 November 2022, and have the prediction published just minutes before the polls have closed so you know I’ve not had any input from the counting of the votes. There’s my accountability, dear reader, to you.

    Labor will win!

    If my prediction is wrong, take all future predictions from me with a grain of salt. Throw tomatoes and rotten eggs at me. I’ll deserve it.

    Right now, I’m quietly confident in making this prediction, however ghastly it may be.

    And here is my reasoning. Hear it through …

    Heavens know, Dan Andrews and the Labor Government he leads in Victoria has been revolting.

    Who can forget the litany of failures …

    Rubber bullets in the back, pregnant woman arrested in her pyjamas for a Facebook post, the world’s longest lockdown, businesses crushed, women and children manhandled for not wearing masks, family nest-eggs shattered, MPs arrested and denied access to their democratically elected seat in Parliament House itself, elderly citizens having their pelvis fractured as they are slammed to the ground by overzealous police, churches ordered to close at the point of police intrusion into sacred spaces, and a once vibrant city – the envy of the world – hollowed of its sparkle.

    There will be a long-tail to this shocking overreach. Early figures are indicating that the rates of men aged 18 to 44 presenting with myocarditis, a long-term heart condition, have doubled. Yes, 2X. Men in their prime, cut low.

    Most devastating to the soul was the sight of a young man, hitherto mentally healthy, taking his own life on a Melbourne street by setting himself ablaze whilst in the grip of a lockdown-induced depression. The depravity of this Government’s policies is chilling.

    Free people have a right to be free. Free people have a God-given right to practise their religion. It’s part of our Christian-informed civil libertarian culture. And our Faith gives us Grace. It’s who we are. It’s how we cope with a world of sin.

    And Dan Andrews failed as a standard bearer of those freedoms.

    Why then do I predict this tyrant will be returned to office?

    Why do I put my predictive reputation on the line and call the election for Labor even before the polls have closed?

    The answer is that people don’t vote for “anyone would be better than” candidate X.

    Our good citizens require an informed choice, a differentiation upon which they can decide.

    And I’m afraid to say it but the Liberal Party’s leader, Matthew Guy, has failed to differentiate his Party.

    How could he?

    He’s limp, insipid, hardly the embodiment of inspiration and action!

    Beyond the personal characteristics of the leader, the seeds of the Liberal Party’s failure in this election were planted in 2020. Throughout the entirety of the covid pandemic, if that’s what it was and is, the Liberal Party played a small target, Labor-lite game.

    The Liberal Party could have weighed multiple harms to the community of Labor’s draconian covid measures, things like job loss, depression and endless racking-up the State debt for future generations to absorb, instead of robotically following bureaucratic health advice to the exclusion of all other considerations.

    Liberal MPs didn’t. That would take differentiation, a knowledge of John Stuart Mill, the fortitude to use the minds our Lord gave them, and the courage to avoid groupthink.

    The Liberal Party could have heeded the warnings of the worst civil liberty abuses in 100 years, passionately articulated in the Victorian Bar Association’s extraordinary and unprecedented open letter from sixty-four Queens Counsel.

    Liberal MPs didn’t. That would take differentiation through a bedrock of principles.

    The Liberal Party could have rallied the churches, giving cover and much needed support to pastors and priests throughout the State, stunned that worshipers were to have doors slammed in their faces.

    Liberal MPs didn’t. They aren’t Christians, most of them. That would take differentiation through Faith.

    At every opportunity, the Liberal Party Opposition Leader has looked politically anemic. You don’t win by hedging. You don’t win by staying small. You don’t win by cloning yourself using a tyrant as the mould.

    You win by standing for something. You win by inspiring people for a better tomorrow. You win by giving people hope. You win by serving others in practical, helpful ways. You win by differentiating yourself from the tyrant.

    None of this was done by Matthew Guy and his Liberal Party in Victoria.

    I therefore don’t need to watch the election coverage tonight.

    Labor will be returned.

    Lack of differentiation and beliefs will be the reason.

    Pray for the people of Victoria.

    And if my prediction is wrong, pray for the people of Victoria anyway.

    A Digital Dark Age (part 3)

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    ‘We will continue to be your single source of truth.

    Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth’.

    So said former New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. 

    Covid

    When Covid hit in 2020, people had no reason to doubt what they were being told by their political leaders. 

    However, the pandemic very quickly exposed the incompetence of many in the medical and scientific establishment, with politicians and public sector bureaucrats making up rules as they went along, and ramping up censorship.

    Suggestions that the virus might have come from a lab leak, or anything negative about masks or vaccines, soon became misinformation or disinformation and was immediately censored.

    Politicians, public sector bureaucrats, pharmaceutical company executives, all in cahoots with one another, blatantly lied to us. The early bootleggers were amateurs compared with these people.

    They were wrong on lockdowns. They were wrong on border closures. They were wrong on school closures. They were wrong on masking. They were wrong about vaccines. 

    Poor people were hurt the most. 

    Anyone, including qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

    The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

    Academics who had been studying lockdowns were also blacklisted. Dr Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at the US’s Stanford University, was one of them. ‘Censorship of scientific discussion led to policies like school closures,’ he said. ‘A generation of children were hurt.’ 

    At the behest of governments, social media platforms removed any and all content which questioned the safety or efficacy of the vaccines.

    In April 2021, the Coalition government had Instagram remove a post which claimed that ‘Covid-19 vaccine does not prevent Covid-19 infection or Covid-19 transmission’, a statement that clearly was accurate.

    Ivermectin was prohibited from being prescribed in Australia from January 2021, by which time the vaccination rate had reached 98%. Prohibition of Ivermectin was enforced right until the very end of the vaccine roll-out.

    We now know the Covid-19 vaccines were neither safe nor effective. They did not prevent infection or transmission and have been linked to blood clots, heart conditions and other ‘died suddenly’ events. 

    A peer-reviewed study published in January 2024, found that more deaths were caused by the mRNA vaccines than were saved by it. Other studies suggest the widespread use of ivermectin could have saved many lives. 

    As Thomas Sowell once said, “It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

    Climate Change and Renewable Energy

    Probably no other area of public debate has been more manipulated than climate change.

    What started as ‘the greenhouse effect’, soon became ‘global warming’ which morphed into the now all-encompassing ‘climate change’. 

    To up the ante even more, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres stated recently, ‘The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”. 

    Global boiling obviously hasn’t yet reached the poles, as Arctic ice is currently at its greatest extent in more than 20 years.

    Renowned quantum physics scholar Dr John Clauser, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics has stated, ‘I do not believe there is a climate crisis’.  

    More bootleggers, in the form of renewable energy merchants, have leapt on to the climate change bandwagon with unbridled zeal and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.

    Indigenous matters

    Toddlers and pre-schoolers in childcare centres across Australia are being taught that Australia was stolen from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

    Qualified medical professionals, who said Covid vaccines were causing serious side-effects and possibly a significant number of deaths, were silenced and threatened.

    More than 7,000 schools and daycare centres now have formal ‘acknowledgements of country’ in place, which includes children singing or reciting that the land on which they sit belongs to Indigenous people.

    At SDN (formerly Sydney Day Nursery) Children’s Services in the ACT, kindy kids are taught about ‘stolen land’ as they recite an acknowledgement of country each morning.

    ‘The foundation for this learning begins when the children enter the centre as infants’, the organisation says on its website.

    ‘Now older preschoolers participate in the daily ritual of acknowledging country to build on the explicit teaching about stolen land.’

    As NSW Libertarian Party MP John Ruddick said, ‘children were being indoctrinated to feel ashamed of their country’.

    The Religious Freedom Bill

    There is no doubt that any ‘religious exemptions’ in the Bill will not make life less hazardous for faith-based organisations.

    While certain religious groups which might comprise Labor’s voting base will be protected, other religious groups most likely will not. 

    As we have seen recently, clear examples of the crime of incitement to violence – perpetrated seemingly with impunity – will, undoubtedly, be given more latitude.

    Join Mailing List

    Christians, however, will not enjoy similar leniency.

    The Australian Law Reform Commission has already recommended the removal of the right for Christian schools to hire staff who share their values.

    And Christians will most certainly not be able to criticize the trans movement or ‘gender affirming’ practices.

    The world now says truth is subjective – ‘my truth, your truth, their truth …’

    However, the Good Book says, ‘You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.’

    The Best Lack All Conviction

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Anti-Semitism is on the march because no-one in authority will stand up to it.

    It’s common for historians to portray the Sturmabteilung, the SA or “Brownshirts” as they were known, as a motley crew of rowdy young thugs looking to brawl. The reality, as detailed in Daniel Siemens’ Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler’s Brownshirts, was far more concerning. In fact, the paramilitaries who propelled the fledgling Nazi party to absolute power were a million-member organization whose ranks included a disproportionately large group of university students and middle-class professionals (doctors, for example, were grossly over-represented in the Nazi membership).

    In fact, the Nazis own propaganda lauded the “Workers of the Head and the Fist”. To that end, in 1926 the Nazis founded the National Socialist German Student League. The league was to foster ideological training at universities and to implement paramilitary training, and the ideal Nazi student was intended to be a man or woman of action, not an idle thinker.

    The passage of the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” on April 7, 1933, was the student Brownshirts’ license to put their training into action. Jews were quickly and violently driven from German universities, whether as students or academics. “Paramilitary student groups often interrupted lectures, provoked skirmishes, and physically intimidated Jewish students.” [W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”]

    Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism.

    In 1934, the Nazi Student League took over the Student Union.

    Is all of this sounding grimly familiar yet?

    Highly organised, ideologically-motivated and, above all, viciously anti-Semitic student organisations are taking over university campuses once again. Jewish students and professors are verbally and physically assaulted. And campus authorities are either openly complicit, or spinelessly hopeless.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    If anyone is in doubt about the absolute moral swamp that Australia’s universities have become, as the vicious herd mentality of student activism reaches a dangerous pitch not seen in the West since the 1930s, consider what our million-dollar-a-year vice-chancellors are doing.

    Worse than nothing.

    Consider the “brave”, “forthright”, “line in the sand” statement by Western Sydney University chancellor Jennifer Westacott. In just 844 words, Westacott mentioned “anti-Semitism” five times and “Islamophobia/Islam” three times. The same double act runs through her anecdotes: 58 words, two sentences about visiting the Holocaust Museum; 67 words, three sentences dedicated to lauding Muslim “asylum seekers”.

    Remember, this was supposed to be a forthright condemnation of campus anti-Semitism.

    Instead, every time, it was “anti-Semitism and…” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any form of abhorrent discrimination.” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, hate speech or intimidation.” “growing division and creeping anti-Semitism.” “hate speech and anti-Semitism.” “anti-Semitism and hate speech.”

    One is left with the overwhelming impression that the crisis on university isn’t about anti-Semitism at all.

    Why does an opinion piece posing as a beacon of moral clarity on campus anti-Semitism need to repeatedly add, “…and Islamophobia”? Is there an anti-Muslim camp on a single university in Australia, let alone the world? Are campuses hosting activists celebrating the murder of Muslims, and promising to visit future terror attacks on Muslims? Are Muslim students being attacked daily, physically and verbally?

    We know perfectly well that the answer to all of those is, “no”.

    So why the moral equivalence? 

    And this is the best statement that any chancellor or vice-chancellor has yet made.

    Everywhere we look to campus authorities for moral clarity, there is, at best, mealy-mouthed moral equivalence.

    Jane Hansen, the chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Australia’s highest-ranked university, refuses to even acknowledge an anti-Semitism crisis. Instead, it’s the same gutless waffle about “many different forms of racism”. Worse, Hansen claims that even questioning supine university leaders is merely “looking for division”.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    Ditto University of Sydney chancellor, Belinda Hutchinson.

    This isn’t a “line in the sand”, it’s dragging a rotting jellyfish along the low-tide line, hoping the sharks won’t bite too hard.

    I’ve often wondered what it must have been like for the average German, seeing your country slide, inch by inexorable inch, into anti-Semitic tyranny. I’m finding out in the worst possible way.

    After all, even at its peak (curiously, perhaps, in the last year of WWII), only 12% of Germans were Nazi Party members. In the crucial years of the early 1930s, only 1% of Germans were members. Even among card-carrying Nazis, anti-Semitism was of little to no concern.

    Academic Peter Merkl wrote an exhaustive study of the history of hundreds of foundational Nazis. He found that 33.3 per cent of them showed no interest in anti-Semitism, 14.3 per cent expressed “mild verbal clichés” regarding Jews, 19.1 per cent displayed “moderate” disdain for Jewish cultural influence in Germany, while only 12.9 per cent advocated “violent countermeasures” against Jews.

    Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism. In the years leading up to the crucial elections that finally propelled the Nazis to the point where they could seize power (even in 1932, the Nazis never won a majority; Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933, not democratically elected), even Hitler toned down the anti-Semitic rhetoric. By 1930, he “seldom spoke explicitly of Jews,” says historian Ian Kershaw.

    The gambit, tragically, worked: of the thousands of Jews who fled Germany in 1933, 16,000 returned in 1934.

    Join Mailing List

    That’s how nations slide into murderous tyranny: one step at a time. Every outrage becomes anodyne, and the outrages escalate. One year, student activists are driving Jews from campus; four years later, Jewish businesses, synagogues and houses are trashed in an orgy of violence.

    And it’s far from over. We all know what happened over the next decade.

    Right now, we’re just at the “students trying to kick Jews off campus” stage. Where we go next depends in large part on the nation’s leadership.

    Which, from academia to the floors of parliaments, is almost completely missing in action — or worse.

    VIDEO: Doing What’s Right!

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

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

    Dan Andrews: Doing What’s Right

    GRAPHIC: Live, fatal organ extraction exposed

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0
    doc

    Prepare yourself.

    This interview is hard for sun-soaked Australians to comprehend.

    It’s a topic most of our politicians avoid. It’s too troubling. It opens a Pandora’s Box of questions, about humanity, ethics, complex interconnections, human rights, our future, and sickening expediency beyond our imagination.

    So, before the interview, Liberty Itch will step you through a quick, summarising primer.

    There is credible evidence that Australia’s #1 trading partner, the People’s Republic of China, runs the world’s largest forced organ harvesting business.

    Australia doesn’t simply buy electronics, steel and machinery from China but, critics assert, the Communist Chinese Party does a roaring trade in human hearts, lungs and kidneys, treated as commodities like any other. It’s a lucrative, bloody business.

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/u2bUusvh3c0?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    The China Tribunal, a London-based non-government tribunal which investigated claims of forced human organ harvesting chaired by former lead prosecutor of the Slobodan Milošević trial, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, has made some shocking findings.

    This will give you a feeling for those findings:

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/naJFMfDv3Tc?start=425s&rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Its damning final judgment claimed there are over 1.5 million people currently detained in Chinese prison camps, many of them are being brutally killed or operated on, alive, to provide organs for the $1 billion transplant industry.

    $1 billion! That’s the size of Australia’s wine exports to China, when the communists aren’t interfering with free trade. This is the scale of the ghoulish business.

    If you think the issue of Beijing’s organ trafficking is a far-away problem overseas, you are mistaken. It’s on our doorstep. It’s here.

    The China Tribunal discovered a few Australians in the medical profession linked to a Sydney hospital were denying organs were sourced through coercion and human rights abuses.

    Further, the Australian reported contentious, CCP-propagandist white-washing of forced harvesting by a former Griffith University academic, Campbell Fraser, who had a history of cooperative association with CCP mouthpiece, China Daily.

    Campbell Fraser. Griffith University barred him from trips to China.

    Further again, Australia’s SBS reported a complicated fracas between medical practitioners at Westmead Hospital. In that report, Dr Chapman, a staunch defender of Chinese Communist Party organ harvesting practices, had in earlier years reported another physician allegedly being told by a patient of Chinese origin, “I cannot come in for dialysis tomorrow. I have to fly tonight because they are shooting my donor tomorrow.”

    Though obviously the Australian and SBS are reputable sources, Liberty Itch wanted to speak directly with other investigators with expertise in China’s organ harvesting practices.

    The following interview is with David Matas CM.

    David Matas CM is an international human rights lawyer based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is co-author with David Kilgour, a former Canadian Secretary of State and Deputy Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, of Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for their Organs, 2009 and co-editor with Torsten Trey of State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China, 2012. David is a co-founder with David Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, and a member of the Order of Canada.

    David Matas CM. International human rights lawyer, author, researcher and 2010 Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

    <Interview starts>

    LI: Can you give Liberty Itch subscribers a brief overview of the Chinese state’s organ harvesting business? How is it done?

    DM: Prisoners of conscience in arbitrary indefinite detention are systematically blood tested and organ examined. The lists of prisoners with blood types and tissue types are circulated to nearby health practitioners and hospitals. When a patient arrives needing a transplant, the blood and tissue typing is matched with that of a prisoner. The matching prisoner is, in detention, injected with anti-coagulants and immobilisers and then taken to a nearby van where organs are extracted. The extraction kills the prisoner. His or her body is cremated on site. The organ or organs are taken by the van to a nearby hospital or to an airport for transport elsewhere in China.

    LI: What is the scale? Who are the victims and who are the ‘clients’?

    DM: About 100,000 organs a year. The victims are primarily practitioners of the spiritually based set of exercises Falun Gong, also Uyghurs in large numbers, Tibetans and House Christians, mostly Eastern Lightning, in smaller numbers. The clients are transplant tourists, and wealthy or well-connected Chinese.

    LI: Who benefits from the Chinese State’s organ harvesting business?

    DM: The health system benefits financially. The Communist Party benefits through elimination of those it sees as insufficiently Communist.

    LI: You recently visited Australia, late last year, and have gone to Canberra to present the issue of Beijing’s Illegal Organ Trafficking to our elected representatives in the Federal Parliament. What was the response?

    DM: There has been significant concern in the Parliament of Australia about organ transplant abuse in China. There have been many petitions in the Parliament of Australia, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, addressing Falun Gong and organ harvesting, starting in 2006 when the report that I wrote with David Kilgour first came out and continuing to this year. The Parliament, it is safe to say, is well-informed of the abuse and has showed considerable concern about the abuse.

    However, the response from the individual elected representatives varied, depending on the representative with whom I met. I would suggest contacting these representatives directly for their response.

    LI: What more should the Australian Government do to tackle this crime?

    DM: These are 5 suggestions to the Australian government in summary.

    1) Improve the Australian Senate procedures. There are several Parliaments around the world which have, through motions or resolutions, condemned the mass killing in China of prisoners of conscience for their organs and called for Government action to avoid complicity in those killings. Australia should follow suit.

    2) Adopt mandatory reporting whereby medical professionals have an obligation to report, to an appropriate registry or authority, any knowledge or reasonable suspicion that a person under their care has received a commercial transplant or one sourced from a non-consenting donor, be that in Australia or overseas;

    3) Implement extraterritorial legislation. The current Australia’s Criminal Code does not explicitly prohibit organ trafficking. The government has accepted the recommendation to amend it but no amendments have been proposed in reality. As an alternative, private Members and Senators could introduce amendments to prohibit organ trafficking;

    4) Become a state party to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and join other nations in a collective effort to combat foreign organ transplant abuse;

    5) One last suggestion I would make is the constitution of a friends of Falun Gong Parliamentary group. Australian Parliamentarians, through the many petitions they have presented to Parliament, as well as through the Sub Committee report, and statements they have made outside Parliament, have shown an understanding of the issue of the mass killing.

    You can see the full text of my suggestions here.

    <Interview ends>

    Liberty Itch urges the Albanese Government to take leadership to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. It was promised to us that Australia will ‘cooperate where we can, disagree where we must’ with China.

    This is an area that we ‘disagree where we must’ and immediate actions need to be taken.

    There’s more you can do:

    The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC) has an Australian chapter that works on a range of initiatives. Apart from legislation change, there is also a need for Australian universities, hospitals and transplant associated organisations to undertake due diligence in their interactions with China in the areas of transplant medicine, research and training.

    It’s important that our medical professionals and academics are not unknowingly aiding and abetting China in its illegal organ trafficking practices.

    The Iron Curtain Draws Across The West

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    0
    poiuy

    The Iron Curtain referred to the boundary separating the Soviet Union and some European countries from the Western world. It became not just of a physical border but a symbol of the ideological distinction between communism and liberal democracy.

    As is well known, the Soviet regime was authoritarian and repressed individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. In fact, all aspects of life were controlled by the Communist party.

    The Soviet regime was the very definition of authoritarian

    We can draw comparisons between current restrictions on free speech in the West and the suppression of free speech in the Soviet Union.

    Often the first sign of a society moving down a totalitarian path
    is the imposition of restrictions of freedom of speech.

    The Soviet government heavily restricted media including print, radio and television. All were state controlled and heavily censored to ensure they were not critical of government. Currently the West is imposing restrictions on certain kinds of speech, such as speech considered discriminatory or harmful to certain groups. There are also rules against “disinformation” and “misinformation” and attempts to limit speech that is deemed to be false or misleading.

    Media Censorship

    Western governments have been accused of controlling and pressuring media to report on public interest matters to suit a particular narrative. We have witnessed this during the Ukraine conflict. The European Commission silenced Russian state media outlets Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik and prohibited European Union operators from broadcasting any of the content of RT and Sputnik. This move is reminiscent of the Soviet governments radio jamming during the Cold War, where transmissions of Western radio stations were blocked to “protect” Soviet citizens from Western “propaganda”.

    This move to block Russian state media coverage of the Ukraine conflict was criticised by the European Federation of Journalists as “disproportionate and arbitrary interference by the EU with the right to freedom of expression and information regardless of frontiers as protected by Article 10 ECHR and as a denial of the freedom of the media as guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”. (Dirk Voorhoof, Human Rights Centre Ghent University).

    Surveillance

    Another control tactic used by the oppressive Soviet regime was surveillance. The KGB monitored all forms of communication and utilised informants who reported dissenters.

    Social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google not only censor content that is considered inappropriate or offensive, but also gather data on their users which can be used to monitor and influence their behaviour. Such forms of surveillance can be used to suppress and silence dissenting views. The tech giants have been accused of suppressing the free speech of those with whom they disagree, particularly conservative or right-wing commentators.

    Punishment

    The Soviet government punished those who criticised or opposed the state with punishments including torture, forced confessions and the deprivation of liberty in gulags.

    We have seen people in Western countries punished for speaking out against the government including journalists such as Julian Assange and whistle blowers. Punishments include imprisonment, de platforming and cancel culture.  Social media companies also punish users who violate their policies by suspending or banning accounts, another method to silence voices who do not support the government narrative.

    Julian Assange. His ongoing detention without trial is illiberal.

    Libertarians recognise the importance of freedom of speech as a bedrock principle of democracy and do not seek to limit the speech of others. In a free and democratic society, the media is supposed to operate independently of government control, to inform the public about matters that are in the public interest, and to hold governments accountable.

    One must ask why our governments censor information and limit access to information. Regarding the Ukraine conflict, the government and media are displaying their contempt toward citizens in not allowing them, as free-thinking human beings, to decide for themselves which information they will consume and what conclusions that they will draw from that information. There is only one narrative that they will allow – the one that they control. Is the West drawing a digital iron curtain?

    Soviet journalist, dissident and former political prisoner Alexander Podrabinek wrote that “Free speech is what digs the grave for despotism, while suppression of free speech is the trademark of dictatorship”. (Totalitarianism and Freedom of Speech, 24 June 2014, Institute of Modern Russia). Podrabinek went on to argue that the collapse of totalitarianism always began with the assertion of freedom of speech.

    The Soviet regime’s suppression of free speech had a terrible effect on its citizens and is viewed as one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history. But brave freedom fighters spoke out against the regime, circumvented restrictions on radio broadcasting and other methods of control, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed.

    Freedom begins with free speech and the free exchange of ideas. It is vital to our democracy. We must remain vigilant against the creep of totalitarianism to protect our personal freedoms. We must continue to use our voices individually and collectively to push back against any attempt to curtail our right to free speech.

    A Letter to My Kid’s Childcare Centre

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    Background:

    A few weeks ago, when dropping off my child at their childcare centre, I noticed something on the classroom whiteboard that I hadn’t paid attention to before – the “Daily Routine”. Amid the usual activities, one particular sticker caught my eye: “Acknowledgement of Country”. I was SHOCKED. It prompted me to write the following letter to the Centre.

    Dear Centre Management Team,

    I hope this message finds you well. I want to start by expressing my deep gratitude for the nurturing environment the Centre provides. It has been a joy to see my child thrive, embracing the learning and playing programs, along with diverse cultural celebrations, from Chinese festivals to many others. Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    However, I feel compelled to share a concern, approached with the utmost respect for the delicate balance you maintain. Over the past year, I’ve observed several Aboriginal events and celebrations, including last year’s National Reconciliation Week with the slogan “Be a VOICE for Generations – Act Today For A Reconciled Tomorrow,” amid the very controversial and politically divided national Voice referendum. Recently, I was surprised to notice a “Daily Routine” of “Acknowledgement of Country”. 

    if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day?

    While I deeply respect Aboriginal people, I am concerned that this is verging into the realm of political expression, given the variety of views on this topic within our community, vividly highlighted in the last referendum debate which resulted in over 60% voting No.

    As I see it, “Acknowledgement of Country” carries a strong politically driven message that may convey controversial implications. Its literal meaning not only recognises the historical ownership of the land by indigenous Australians but also implies the concept of “stolen land”, as promoted by many Voice advocates, along with “Pay the Rent” as one of the preferred “Treaties.” If the land and property we own today were “stolen,” should we then return it? And if so, to whom? If we do not, which I guess is the case for most, does that make us hypocritical?

    I am a migrant drawn to Australia for its embodiment of Western values – democracy, liberty, and the rule of law – the principles that make Australia unique and appealing globally. My hope is to see these aspects of our great country celebrated and taught with the same enthusiasm. If politics is to be taught in school, a highlight of our country’s values should be celebrated, foundational to our society and a reason we have a wonderful Centre with educators and students from diverse cultural backgrounds.

    Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    As a parent, I am thrilled to see kids learning new things, meeting new friends, acquiring new skills, fostering good character, and growing well physically and mentally. I always appreciate the Centre for providing a great learning environment and having educators who genuinely care for the kids. Having grown up in an authoritarian country, I recall how political education at every level significantly affected young kids’ freedom of thought. Therefore, I am extremely concerned if certain controversial opinions are taught as facts to young minds.

    Might I suggest that if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day? This gesture could serve to highlight the unity and shared core values within our diverse community. Additionally, while the learning of new Aboriginal songs enriches our cultural tapestry, perhaps including ‘Advance Australia Fair’ occasionally could foster a broader sense of national pride and identity. 

    Furthermore, if ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ is part of our daily routine, exploring the Christian origins and significance of the coming Easter holiday – beyond the familiar symbols of rabbits and eggs – could offer the children an opportunity to understand the holiday’s deeper cultural and religious meanings.

    Join Mailing List

    Please understand that my reflections are shared with the highest regard for the incredible work you do and in no way diminish my gratitude for your dedication. My intent is to engage in a constructive dialogue about how we can celebrate all facets of our community’s culture, including its core Western heritage, with balance and sensitivity.

    Thank you for considering my perspective. I look forward to any thoughts you may have on this matter and remain, as always, immensely appreciative of your commitment to our children’s growth and well-being.

    Regards,

    A Concerned Parent

    Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? After all, Australia is, it surprises many to learn, the only Western democracy with neither a constitutional nor legislated Bill of Rights. Various attempts over the years to legislate one have failed.

    The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992, when the High Court ruled that the Constitution carried an implied right to free speech — in political matters only. As the Chief Justice observed:

    To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments.   

    If that sounds like a reach, later High Court rulings found that it was. When a public servant who had been sacked for criticising the government on Twitter appealed the sacking on the grounds of such an implied right to political speech, she lost. The court ruled that there is no personal right to free speech, but a restriction on legislative power, which “extends only so far as is necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution”.

    The Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act”

    If anyone still doubted that Australians’ basic rights are not protected from government overreach, the last five years should have put a brutal end to such illusions.

    But Canada has a Bill of Rights, and so does New Zealand, and yet their governments were no less draconian in crushing basic rights, from informed consent, to free assembly, to free speech.

    So it looks like a Bill of Rights is worth precisely shit when the government boot comes down.

    Or is it?

    For all its faults, the United States’ Bill of Rights is holding up reasonably well against sustained assault by the state and its corporate attack dogs.

    The difference lies in how a Bill of Rights is framed: to whit, which view of freedom is at its heart.

    There are, in essence, two basic conceptual frameworks of freedom, with very different outcomes. These are positive liberty and negative liberty. At first blush, “positive liberty” may seem like the preferred option. It’s “positive”, after all!

    In fact, positive liberty is the stomping ground of collectivist ideologies which are almost invariably associated with the worst shackles placed on individual freedom. That’s because positive liberty is better understood as “freedom to”.

    That is, the freedom to act only within the constraints set down by law and society. Anti-discrimination laws are an example of positive freedom: citizens are free to act only within the bounds established by the laws enacted by the state. You are free to say only this and not that. You are only as free as the state decides to let you be. You can choose any colour, so long as it’s black.

    Negative liberty is very different. Negative liberty is the “freedom from”. Freedom from constraint. Negative liberty establishes what citizens can tell the state it is not allowed to do. It is the type of freedom associated with classical liberalism and libertarianism. The US First Amendment is a negative liberty: Congress shall make no law… The Second Amendment is in the same vein: the peoples’ right shall not be infringed.

    The other great difference between the USA’s, and NZ’s and Canada’s, Bills of Rights is that the United States’ is Constitutional; NZ’s and Canada’s are legislative.

    A Constitutional law is the absolute bedrock law of the land. No matter what the government of the day may legislate, it must conform to the Constitution.

    Legislation can be overturned by a simple vote in parliament. Or, like NZ’s, it can be restricted such that it cannot override any other legislation. Unlike the US Supreme Court, a NZ court cannot strike down or override any act of parliament with reference to the Bill of Rights. Which makes it a moot point as to why it exists at all.

    The only way to get a Constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia would be by referendum. Good luck with that. The Australian Constitution was framed such that amending it is extremely difficult: a proposed amendment must secure not only a national majority of voters, but a majority of voters in a majority of states as well. Australians have, by and large, chosen to validate that high hurdle: of 45 referendums since Federation, only eight have ever been passed.

    No referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support (and few indeed of those that had bipartisan support). Given that a legislated Bill of Rights has never made it past parliament, the chances of it passing referendum seem almost nil.

    A major reason that a Bill of Rights has never passed parliament, let alone been proposed at referendum, is the suspicion voiced by former prime minister John Howard that such a Bill would transfer power from elected representatives to unelected judges and bureaucrats. It’s not hard to see the wisdom of his observation: consider, after all, just how much power health bureaucrats seized during the pandemic.

    The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992

    Even the High Court’s “implied right to free speech” decision could be seen as just the sort of judicial overreach Howard warns against. As the US Supreme Court did in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, the Australian High Court took it on itself to invent a potentially far-reaching decision out of Constitutional thin air. More recent High Court decisions, which affectively affirm the role of magic — a supposed Aboriginal “spiritual connection to the land” — in law show that such unelected judges are the last people to whom we should trust our rights.

    As it happens, the Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act” — and it’s even worse than you might think. 

    As should surprise no-one, given its origin in a left-wing government, it’s mired, waist-deep, in a mindset of positive liberty. That is, it’s all about what the state will allow Australians to do — not what Australians can tell the state what it cannot do.

    For instance, freedom of religious belief is only allowed at the discretion of a judge. A judge can restrict religious freedom any time he or she considers it “reasonable” and “justified”. Religious freedom may be restricted in order to “protect public safety, order, health, morals or the rights of ­others”.

    Who wants to take bets on how politically-appointed judges will interpret that one?

    Freedom of speech gets even shorter shrift. Speech may be restricted — again, at a judge’s discretion — “in order to respect the rights and reputations of others or to protect national security, public order or public heath”. Ask Zoe Buhler, the Victorian mum arrested, pregnant, in her pyjamas, and crying, in front of her children, simply for posting the details of an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook, how that one’s likely to play out.

    Perhaps the most alarming aspects of the proposed Human Rights Act is that it would include a mechanism that would enable everyone to sue for monetary compensation whenever they decided that their rights had been breached. Again, we only need to look at how aggrieved activists, most notably the “rainbow” lobby, have weaponised the existing “human rights” infrastructure to threaten critics and impose a chilly pall of silence on matters of essential public debate.

    Join Mailing List

    While it may be bad enough that Australia lacks any formal Bill of Rights, the threat of an ill-intentioned, badly framed one is infinitely worse.

    It all comes down, in the end, to what Tony Abbott so famously asked during Australia’s last referendum campaign: do you really trust politicians?

    Anyone who still does, clearly spent the last five years either in a deep coma, or developing a slavish taste for boot leather.

    None So Intolerant as the Tolerant

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    The Victorian Bar – you remember them – was a big advocate for the Yes side in the referendum. Fifty-seven per cent of the Victorian Bar considered the constitutional amendment ‘sound, appropriate, and compatible with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government’. Such ignorance could only come from a highly woke and politicised Bar. Fortunately, Victorians voted 54 per cent the other way.

    The Victorian Bar is also a big advocate of human rights, but not so much against the former premier Victorian Dan Andrew’s world-record lockdown sans medical advice. Then there is their championing of social justice, a term that should never pass the lips of any self-respecting lawyer. There is no law in social justice.

    The Victorian Bar is also big into diversity. Indeed, no less than the Equality and Diversity Committee of the Victorian Bar held a panel discussion on 30 May 2024 titled ‘Cultural Diversity in the Profession: Where to from Here?’

    The event was to ‘revolve around a panel discussion between Victorian barristers and judicial officers from diverse backgrounds, reflecting on the need for the legal profession to reflect the cultural diversity of the broader Victorian community, as well as celebrating the achievements of solicitors, barristers and judicial officers in Victoria’.

    Walking out on a person who holds a different view is not big or clever. It’s just highly intolerant and disrespectful behaviour.

    The fact that the Bar feels the need to reflect cultural diversity was their first mistake. The second, evidently, was to invite a Zionist. The Honourable Andrew Strum, of Egyptian and Belgian heritage, was born in Melbourne. Did I mention he is also a devout Jew? During the discussion, he said he was a privileged and proud Zionist. He was privileged to have parents who supported him and is proud to support Israel as the homeland of Jews.

    The remarks, may I remind the readers, were made during a discussion of cultural diversity but were too much for at least three attendees who walked out. More than that, one of the walkouts, ‘Melanie’, posted the following on LinkedIn: ‘I walked out of this event after panellist Justice Strum declared himself a proud and privileged Zionist and then unabashedly began vomiting the false narrative that Judaism and Zionism are inextricably linked.’

    Melanie declared that she was not alone in her walkout. ‘All I can say is, shame on the Victorian Bar for this disgraceful, underhanded attack on those of us in the profession who are on the right side of history.’ Mmmm, where have I heard the right-side-of-history argument before? I remember! The claptrap was fed to the electors at the Voice referendum by no less than the Prime Minister.

    Ah, the certainty of youth (judging from her photo on LinkedIn). Indeed, ‘Kali’, similarly youthful, posted, ‘I couldn’t agree more. It was shocking to have a proud racist [at] such an event’ and young ‘Asif’ chipped in, ‘Well done… very disappointing and ironic considering the nature of the “intended” topics of discussion.’

    What irony, Melanie, Kali and Asif, do you understand what Zionism is? It’s not the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the invention of the Russian Tsar’s secret police; all-powerful Jewish tentacles do not entangle the world. A Jewish homeland has a proud history; perhaps Palestinians one day may be able to achieve the same.

    Fifty-seven per cent of the Victorian Bar considered the constitutional amendment ‘sound, appropriate, and compatible with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government’.

    More mature voices also posted. Daniel Myers wrote, ‘I recommend that you learn some more history about this complex topic. If (as is your right) you continue to disagree or hold strong views, at least have the courtesy and understanding to accept that your perspective is not the only such perspective. Many, many people hold opposite beliefs just as sincerely as you. Walking out on a person who holds a different view is not big or clever. It’s just highly intolerant and disrespectful behaviour.’

    This reminds me of an excellent recent explanation of Zionism by the young actor Noah Tishby. Her book, Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth, is so well written and accessible that our young intolerants may be able to cope. Tishby was born in Israel, and her grandmother was a Russian Jew who escaped the Bolsheviks, landing in Jaffa in 1925. Her grandmother was an avid Zionist. From her grandmother, she gleaned this understanding: ‘Zionism is a merging of liberal values and cultural Jewishness; in simple words, it is a national liberation movement. Zionism was never about having an exclusively Jewish state.’

    She writes, ‘I thought Zionism was pretty self-evident, and I had no idea that anti-Zionism had become a thing. I didn’t even realise that antisemitism was still a thing!’ Indeed it is, Noah, right there in the heart of the Victorian Bar, or, at least, some of its attendees.

    Tishby recalls a time in her youth, not so long ago, when she was holidaying in Greece and met a young German. All went well until she remarked that she was Israeli. She described a ‘cold, indecipherable look appeared on his face’. Assuming he was uncomfortable with their nation’s and people’s history, she indicated, as the young do, that it all happened long ago.

    Join Mailing List

    ‘The young German said, “Well, we actually don’t know if it really happened. There are a lot of books that say that it didn’t.” To be clear, the “it” he was talking about was the Holocaust. But that wasn’t all! As my jaw dropped open, he continued, “and even if it did happen, your country took all the money we gave you and used it for your wars”.’

    I am not suggesting that our young attendees at the Victorian Bar event are so ignorant, and bravo to the Bar for inviting Strum, but that such hatred and ignorance, nay intolerance, exists among the profession is a reminder that the fight for tolerance is never over.

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    What “Decolonisation” Really Looks Like

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    “Decolonisation” is the left’s One Big Idea. Hamas is showing us what it looks like in practice.

    Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi issued a rather telling tweet in response to the October 7 pogrom. When PM Anthony Albanese finally stirred himself to respond with a declaration of sympathy for Israel, Faruqi responded, “One colonial government supporting another, what a disgrace”.

    Faruqi clearly regards both Australia and Israel as “colonisers”, confirming yet again Natasha Hausdorff’s observation that “pro-Palestine” idiots are too often “desperately ignorant, yet highly opinionated”. After all, how does the Pakistani-born Muslim Faruqi imagine that the Jews, whose indigenous heritage in Israel stretches back at least 7,000 years, are “colonisers”? And what does she have to say about the Palestinian Arabs whose ancestors violently displaced the Jewish indigenes after the Islamic empire conquered the region?

    Well, no-one ever said that the green-left is the world’s brain’s trust. 

    But the second, and more alarming, implication of Faruqi’s gibbering is shown by her incessant screeching of “Free Palestine”. Free from what? Her Twitter feed makes clear she means “colonisers”. 

    “De-colonisation” has become one of the great monomanias of the Western left. Much of it fuelled, of course, by the descendants of the formerly colonised who’ve had unrestricted admission to the great institutions of the West, but can’t help but notice that even after more than half a century of being freed of the colonisers, their homelands are still mostly kleptocratic shitholes run by brutal nepotistic thugs. 

    Far from being inspired by the dreaming spires to reach for similar greatness, the third world troglodytes’ only impulse is to smash it all. All in the name of “decolonising”, of course.

    If you really want to get a glimpse of “de-colonisation” in full swing, take a look at the smoking, blood-spattered ruins of Kfar Aza, and the piles of corpses at the Supernova festival grounds.

    Jews cannot suffer racism, the narrative goes, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”.

    Don’t believe me? Ask the leftist supporters of Hamas’ atrocities.

    Somali-American “writer” Najma Sharif, who hooted in response to the beheaded babies and burned-alive grandmothers of Kfar Aza, “What did y’all think decolonization meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays? Losers. ‘Not like this’ Then like what. Show us LOL.” 

    Sharif is no fringe nutcase — she’s right at the epicentre of cultural clout in racially-reckoned America. She writes for TeenVogue and Instyle. Her tweet garnered 100,000 Likes, including from Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah.

    The Democratic Socialists of America cheered Hamas’ slaughter at a New York rally. Leftism-central Jacobin lauded Hamas as “the violent face of Palestinian resistance” — with heavy approval loaded on the “violent part”.

    Because violence is part and parcel of the “decolonisation” narrative.

    It began with the “intellectual”, Frantz Fanon. Given the very best educational opportunities in France by the “colonisers”, Fanon chose to return their generosity with undying hate. In particular, he celebrated and endorsed anti-white violence, coining the favourite leftist phrase “by any means necessary”.

    Today’s “de-colonisers” share Fanon’s taste for anti-white violence. A TV “documentary” on Toussaint’s slave rebellion in Haiti re-enacts the rape and brutal murders of white women with the sort of relish that D. W. Griffith exploited in The Birth of a Nation. Quentin Tarantino cucks himself shamelessly with an orgy of white slaughter in Django Unchained, like Homer Simpson hooting that his fellow whites are “so lame”.

    The toxicity of the “de-colonisation” ideology is now clear, following October 7. An inverted version of the Nazis’ racial hierarchy collides with a historically nonsensical mix of Marxist theory, Soviet propaganda, and traditional anti-Semitism, thrown into the hateful blender of identity politics. What emerges is a dull-witted, violent leftist dogma of “oppressed” and “oppressors”. The argument is that it is almost impossible for the “oppressed” to be themselves racist, just as it is impossible for an “oppressor” to be the subject of racism.

    This leftist analysis, with its hierarchy of oppressed identities and intimidating jargon, a clue to its lack of factual rigor, has in many parts of the academy and media replaced traditional leftist values, including internationalist standards of decency and respect for human life and the safety of innocent civilians. When this clumsy analysis collides with the realities of the Middle East, it loses all touch with historical facts.

    Jews cannot suffer racism, the narrative goes, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”. They cannot be victims, no matter how many and how brutally they are actually victimised. In a modern version of Himmler’s “filing card” mentality, where Jews enroute to mass slaughter were reduced to mere numbers tattooed on arms, left-wing intellectuals have shamelessly debated whether 40 babies were dismembered or some smaller number merely had their throats cut or were burned alive. The same people who refuse to drink cow’s milk because of animal cruelty regard a baby’s murder and mutilation as somehow an acceptable act of “by any means necessary” revolution — just so long as they weren’t beheaded. Or at least, not too many.

    “De-colonisation” has become one of the great monomanias of the Western left. Much of it fuelled, of course, by the descendants of the formerly colonised

    I mean, it’s not as if the left don’t have standards.

    The irony is that Israel was once the poster-child of the left. The worst atrocities were committed at Kibbutz Kfar Aza; the hundreds of concert-goers were massacred near Kibbutz Be’eri. These are communes that once represented an ideal for many Western progressives, a victory for communalism over capitalism, miniature socialised, green utopias. It was as much a received orthodoxy for the Left in the 1950s and 60s as “de-colonisation” is today.

    What went wrong for the Jews, vis-a-vis the left?

    Quite simply, the Jews won. Nothing gets a “de-colonisation” fanatic’s back up quite like somebody else’s success. Frantz Fanon ignored the long history of Africans conquering and enslaving each other, if not wiping each other out enmasse. It was when white folks did it that he got resentful. Edward Said, another “de-colonisation” intellectual poster-boy, studiously ignored Islam’s brutal record of genocidal conquest and enslavement, but the British empire really got his nose out of joint.

    When Israel proved Adolf Hitler so wrong and became a testament to Jewish ability, as far as the left were concerned, it had joined the ranks of “oppressors”.

    The left who endlessly squawk about “oppression of Palestinians” are as choosy as ever. They say nothing, for instance, about the brutal persecution of Palestinian refugees by their “brother” Arabs in Syria or Lebanon. They ignore the fact that Muslim Egypt has, and still does, steadfastly locked out neighbouring Palestinians.

    The left said nothing when more than a million Muslims were slaughtered on the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. There were no open letters from lecturers about the half a ­million Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein in the decade after. On the contrary, left-wing “progressives” staged some of the largest marches in history, determined to keep him in power.

    But all that was, after all, a series of dog-fights between tribes of mutual brown losers. Without a handy skin-colour chart to tell them who the oppressed and oppressors were, the left simply dumped it all into the too-hard basket.

    Join Mailing List

    The Jews, though? Oh, that’s easy for a leftist. They’re oppressors, all the way. No wonder pumpkin-headed leftist poison-pinup Greta Thunberg strategically positioned a toy octopus in her “pro-Palestine” photo-op. The octopus is the age-old anti-Semitic metaphor: the Joos, with their tentacles controlling the world.

    The Joos run everything, after all. So they’re the ultimate “oppressors”. Now, they’re being decolonised as bloodily as a leftist could ever hope for.

    So, take note of the piles of corpses in Kfar Azar and Be’eri. That’s what’s coming for the rest of the West — just ask Hamas, who are adamant that eradicating the Jews is just the start of the “global intifada”.

    What did y’all think “decolonisation” really meant, anyway?

    Carpet Call: The Imperfect Gift of Religious Freedom

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols) is a clever guy. 

    As Robert McCall (aka Denzel Washington) says in the movie Equalizer 2 to Miles, a troubled teenager: ‘It takes talent to make money, Miles, but it takes brains to keep it’. 

    Regardless of one’s taste in music, there’s no doubting John Lydon had talent – and brains.

    ‘Imperfection is at the heart of life’, Lydon once said. ‘Imperfection is the greatest gift of all.’

    ‘Arabic rug makers will make their work perfect except for one tiny stitch, because nothing is perfect in the eyes of God. Only God is perfect. I think that is magnificently intelligent’.

    Before the 2022 federal election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to overhaul religious protection laws in Australia. 

    Under existing law, when hiring teachers or workers, faith-based organisations are able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity via an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

    Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational

    The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) now says that exemption should be scrapped. No legislation has yet been introduced.

    Not content to wait for the Federal Government to act, activists have shifted to the old ‘State by State’ stalking horse approach – find the most amenable State, introduce the law there and then get other States to adopt it one by one. Once a few States have adopted the new law, the Federal Government is then pressured into doing the same. It’s a tried-and-tested model of creeping change.

    Former SA Greens Senator and now Greens SA Upper House member Robert Simms is proposing to introduce legislation into the SA Parliament next month which would remove all exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

    Robert Simms

    There are some things people will not be dictated to or lectured about. One of those is their faith or their morals – particularly what they teach their children. They will certainly not be brow-beaten or cowed into submission by being called bigots or homophobes.

    The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those. It is about discrimination against religious people. The Left may call for tolerance but what they really want is for everyone to agree with and endorse – even celebrate – their view of the world. They are not interested in debate or argument; they simply want the legislative power of the state to force everyone to comply.

    If being free means anything, it means citizens having the right to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children conforms with their own convictions – as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. 

    It means having freedom of conscience, and the freedom to believe and practice the core tenets and values of a person’s faith. It is the state’s role to protect those rights.

    There’s no doubt that the Left is out to undermine our freedoms. They’re coming for our churches, our schools, our faith-based organisations, our farms, our mines, our cars and, most of all, our children. They’re also coming for our old people with their euthanasia packs, for our about-to-be-born babies with their grotesque abortion laws, and they’re coming to indoctrinate our primary school children. They’re also coming for Christmas Day and Australia Day and Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. These people mean business.

    People and faith-based organisations – schools, hospitals, aged care providers and charities – should not have to rely on exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to function in accordance with their faith. 

    The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those.

    They should, by right, have the freedom to select people as they see fit. 

    Political parties grant that right to themselves because they believe, quite rightly, that the political allegiance of a job applicant matters. 

    In environmental groups, views about climate change are relevant; in women’s shelters, gender is very important. 

    Saying you can only become a member of a chess club if you play chess is not discriminating against people who don’t play chess! 

    In ethnic clubs and institutions, ethnicity is sensible and practical. 

    We accept all these differences. 

    And in faith-based organisations, faith matters. 

    Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational. After all, no-one is forced to work for a faith-based organisation or send their children to a faith-based school where all the staff follow that particular faith.

    Expressions of faith by a person or faith-based organisations must be declared lawful. Statutory exemptions are totally inadequate. Exemptions granted can just as easily be withdrawn – as is now being proposed.

    Join Mailing List

    The right to religious freedom must be treated as a pre-eminent right and be recognised and protected. Human Rights Commissions should have no role to play. 

    A Commonwealth law, by reference to its Objects clauses, must recognise religious freedom as pre-eminent and override all state and territory anti-discrimination laws.

    To paraphrase John Lydon, while such a law may be imperfect, it would be a magnificent gift.

    Let’s Make Government Redundant. Here’s How.

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    1
    Home Schooling

    MAKING GOVERNMENT REDUNDANT

    Here at Liberty Itch, we love practical initiatives which undermine the need for government.

    Afterall, if we’re constantly fighting government bloat within the bureaucracy, we’re probably going to lose. There are too many Sir Humphrey Appleby’s around, right?

    So, if the battle is about making government smaller, let’s withdraw from its services.

    Let’s make government redundant.

    Here’s how.

    Home-schooling!

    Let’s step through the basics, some of the old chestnut arguments against home-schooling, its amazing advantages, a look at how big home-schooling is in Australia, what it’s like home-schooling your children, the impact of home-schooling on your household budget and a recommendation at the end based on all this information.

    Let’s go.

    WHO HOME-SCHOOLS?

    There are three groups who decide home-schooling is the best option for their children:

    1. Parents with advanced students
      Think here of particularly gifted students for whom a classroom environment is just going to slow them down. These children need accelerating to meet their potential and the school system just can’t keep up.
    2. Parents with belief systems
      You’ll instinctively understand this group. Here, we’re talking about parents with strong religious or political views, often both. They feel their values aren’t reflected in the system and they are driven to ensure their children receive an education which does.
    3. Parents with students the government can’t helpSometimes a student has such a bad time of our industrial-era schooling system that he falls through the cracks and is left behind. In these cases, the parents have no option but to withdraw their child and turn to home-school.

    By far, most home schoolers are in groups one and two.

    COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMESCHOOLING

    Now let’s start with what the naysayers from the Department of Education, the Teachers Federation and public education activists will tell you:

    • Your child doesn’t get the value of the National CurriculumThe truth is that home-schooled students are still required to cover the material within the National Curriculum. However, you can create your own curriculum which covers this and other material.
    • Your child isn’t taught by trained professionals
      I know several people home-schooling their children, trained teachers who’ve lost their jobs from covid vaccine mandates. Further, you may not think much of the quality of the trained teachers your children are currently allocated. Perhaps you’ll be better. Further still, maybe these trained teachers are predisposed to teach your child ideas you’re not comfortable with. So maybe it’s an advantage not to have these trained teachers.
    • Your child won’t qualify for an ATAR
      Wrong. Home-schooled students do qualify for university. The vast majority are better prepared and excel at a tertiary level.
    • Your child loses socialisation skills
      There are home-school networks entrepreneurially springing up all over Australia. These are home-schooling families which meet regularly to ensure students’ continued interaction with peers all under the caring supervision of parents. Bullying? Adverse peer-group pressure behaviours? Not in this environment.
    • You have to quit your job to do it
      If both parents cooperate, this can be achieved. See template household budget below.

    THE 13 BENEFITS OF HOME-SCHOOLING

    In comparison, the benefits are many times greater than any perceived problems. Let’s look at thirteen I could readily identify:

    1. Less Regimentation, More AdaptationWith home-school, you’re not regimented into 9am to 3pm. You can be creative, not to lose structure but, by seizing learning opportunities as they present themselves. Astronomy at night, excursions in good weather.
    2. Individualised, Tailored Learning ExperiencesFinally, you can educate your children according to their specific needs. No more cookie-cutter approach from the government or government-funded schools.
    3. Rapid Student AccelerationIf your child is highly intelligent, fantastic. Now you can feed his or her curiosity at an accelerated pace.
    4. Political EmphasisIf you are concerned that your child is being indoctrinated with left-wing dogma, now your concerns evaporate. Teach without the slant. Teach with your own slant. The choice is yours.

    Religious Reinforcement

    If you feel a secular education is insufficient, home-schooling puts you in the driver’s seat. Integrate Faith subjects and experiences into the curriculum you teach.

    Customised Student 1-On-1 Support

    If your child is falling behind, who better to fight for his or her improvement. No-one professional teacher is going to fight as hard as you. Years later, your child will thank you.

    Unleashed Creativity

    Home-schooling shatters the industrial-age education system’s trait of producing conformity. TED’s most popular speech at 22 million views was titled “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” by the late Sir Ken Robinson.

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/iG9CE55wbtY?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0


    It reflects the importance of preserving and nourishing creativity, which home-schooling achieves in spades.

    Total Focus On Your Children

    The juggle facing families between making a living and educating children is a thing of the past. Each parent specialises. One earns. The other teaches. Both do that well. No more half-thwarted job and 3 minute parent-teacher reports at night. You’re in control.

    2. Enhanced Family CohesionA fully-immersed family life can only benefit the family and society.
    3. Stellar Scholastic ResultsWith all this extra care and diligence with the children, results are likely to improve.
    4. Fosters Self-Direction and IndependenceYour children are encouraged to think and act with a greater degree of independence. Why? The mere fact that you’ve taken an independent path from government and government-funded education will be noticed by your children and reinforced by you in the mindset you instil in them.
      Share Liberty Itch
    5. Develop and Finetune Your Own Training SkillsYou’ll learn new skills as a trainer and teacher. How could you not? These are portable skills of great utility which will make you more valuable in the market, should you wish to return.
    6. Disempowering Government and the Education MonopolyWhile all this is happening, you’ve weaned one family off the government education teat and undermined the Teachers Federation monopoly. You’ve improved Australia by proving their involvement in our lives is not needed.

    HOW MANY HOME-SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA?

    The home-schooling rate is 3.4% in the United States.

    There are approximately 4.08 million primary and secondary students in Australia. Of these, just 30,000 are home-schooled. That’s less than 1%. But the figure increased 105% last year alone.

    The days of Australians not even knowing that home-schooling exists as an option are fast ending.

    More and more families are deciding to take government out of the education business.

    WHAT IT’S LIKE HOME-SCHOOLING?

    I have first-hand experience home-schooling my children in the United States where I lived for 12 years.

    There, local government runs the public school system. The process was as easy at calling the local school district, telling them we were moving from private school to home-school, complete a one-page form and them acknowledging it. We submitted one report quarterly. The reports were rudimentary. They didn’t interfere. They respected our choice to be free.

    At the time, we wanted our children to have the option to attend one of the top universities in that country. This required careful selection and timing of subjects, and results. We made a mistake in subject selection and timing because we didn’t include practical, lab-based biology at one point.

    We didn’t have a laboratory. How could we achieve this?

    One 30 second Google search later and we found “biology lab in a box”, hit overnight delivery and next day our garage was converted into a full-scale biology lab with the whole family dissecting pig’s eyes, frogs and lamb hearts, then writing-up the lab reports.

    One of our children is an extrovert and felt the impact of not having a social environment outside the family. We were a bit slow off the mark and hadn’t joined the home-school networks designed to sort this out. However, we increased social interaction and the issue was gone.

    We tracked how quickly our children moved through our heavier curriculum compared with other education options. My children typically had their work done by 1pm with a heavier workload. They ploughed through the material, much faster than traditional classrooms.

    Overall, I feel my children benefitted from the home-schooling experience. They are independent-thinking, problem-solvers.

    Of course, all this is an American experience from an Australian’s perspective.

    Here in Australia, I contacted a teacher who lost her job due to the vaccine mandate. She decided to home-school. Today the network had shrunk a little but still active.

    In South Australia, there is a well-known science competition called the Oliphant Science Awards. Past winners have included students from home-school networks in the Adelaide Hills. Past home-schoolers have placed well.

    YOUR HOUSEHOLD BUDGET WHEN YOU HOME-SCHOOL

    Of course, every household budget is unique and canvassing them all in this article is impossible. Let’s make some assumptions so at least we can see the impact of home-schooling under those prerequisites.

    We’ll assume this is a two-parent, two child family. One parent is on $120,000 per annum and the other on $80,000. In the table below, I ran numbers assuming they are currently sending their two children to a public school, a private school or a top-tier Sydney or Melbourne private school.

    Then I show what the disposable income after school fees would be if they home-schooled.

    Here’s the comparison:

    Therefore, for the 40% of families sending their secondary student children to private schools in Australia, you are either going to take a $30,000 hit to your family budget or make a $30,000 gain by opting for home-school instead.

    What is your child and country worth?

    YOUR DECISION

    If you want to make government redundant, you’re going to have to take matters into your own hands.

    One way to do this is to try home-schooling for your children.

    The benefits are enormous, not just for your child, not just for you, but for the country.

    I don’t know a better way to instil the next generation with self-reliance, independence, problem-solving, adaptability, creativity and leadership than this way.

    And I certainly don’t know a better way to reduce the impact of government over the long-term than this.

    Try it.

    I’d love to hear your experiences with home-schooling in the comments below. You are guaranteed a reply.

    University River

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    2

    In William Blake’s hymn Jerusalem, the phrase ‘those dark Satanic mills’ was assumed to refer to the cotton and woollen mills of his time and their terrible working conditions.  

    Based on the date of the hymn and Blake’s religious background, many question whether he was referring to the Dickensian factories and cotton mills at all, but rather to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

    Blake was scathing of universities. He loathed them. He saw them churning out, factory-like, a new godless world. 

    “I will not cease from mental fight”, he writes in a subsequent verse. 

    These elite establishments, he considered, were incapable of mental fight.

    Fast forward to December 2023 and United States Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asking a number of University Presidents at a Congressional hearing whether “calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?”

    Staggeringly, each of the University Presidents – including Harvard University President Claudine Gay – refused to answer in the affirmative, saying only, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”

    “It would depend on the context,” she added.

    In other words, only when Jews are actually murdered would the university step in!

    The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful.

    Similar responses were given by the other University Presidents, which would no doubt be mirrored by responses from some of Australia’s elite universities were they to be asked the same question.

    ‘Satanic’. ‘Incapable of mental fight’. Exactly what Blake was referring to.

    The above exchange is what one might call a ‘shibboleth’.

    In his excellent book Blink!, Malcolm Gladwell describes how it is possible to weigh up situations in the ‘blink’ of an eye.

    In other words, how to make good decisions in an instant by doing what he calls ‘thin slicing’. Thin slicing can be likened to slicing a big salami, and no matter how thinly you slice it, everything you want to know about the whole salami is in that one slice.

    Often you don’t have time to study or research an organisation or a person; you have to analyse what is going on by finding that ‘thin slice’. That shibboleth.

    Shibboleth is a Hebrew word meaning ‘stream.’ It is referred to in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Jephthah and the men of Gilead fought the Ephraimites and captured the Jordan River crossing. As people crossed the river, to distinguish who was friend from foe, they had everyone say the word ‘shibboleth’. If they couldn’t pronounce it properly, they knew they were the enemy. From this, the word shibboleth was absorbed into the English language to describe a key identifier or a dead give-away. 

    What we saw in the University Presidents’ exchange was that dead give-away.

    Jewish Liberal MP Julian Leeser has said: “I go back to the universities because this is the cauldron where it all starts.”

    Julian Leeser

    The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful. A recent scorecard on incidents of anti-Semitism in Australian universities found that in the last year there had been 56 incidents of anti-Semitism at the University of Sydney, 49 at the University of NSW, 17 at the University of Technology Sydney, 9 at Macquarie University, 7 at the University of Melbourne, and 6 at Monash University. 72 per cent of those surveyed said experiences of anti-Semitism had worsened since the Hamas attack of October 7.

    Part of the explanation for this lies with Gramsci’s long march through the institutions to impose Marxist thinking – beginning with the universities. It is where formative minds are indoctrinated. 

    Once out of university, these graduates disperse into other key institutions – the law, politics, media, business – where Marxist ideology soon takes hold.

    It was once the case that occupations such as nursing, teaching and journalism were learned ‘on the job’ – on the hospital ward, in the classroom, doing the rounds of the courts – supplemented by part-time study. Journalism, in particular, was considered more of a trade than a profession. 

    Not anymore. Now, they all go to university first. 

    Calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?

    Sometimes, when a regime has been in place for a very long time, it is not possible to break through that system.  Over time, institutions – such as the public service or the industrial relations system or higher education – become adept at building up defences and seeing off zealous reformers. 

    The only option is to break with it. 

    Employers should be encouraged to hire students with the appropriate aptitude straight from high school and facilitate their continued education in the form of part-time study at industry-specific places of higher learning.

    I myself was recruited straight from high school into a materials testing and research laboratory.

    Similarly, sponsored employment traineeships and cadetships could be rolled out across all sectors, so as to by-pass the toxic environment that our universities have become.  

    Let me finish with a story.

    A group of hikers was out walking when they chanced upon a river. Their attention was suddenly drawn to a number of young people in difficulties being carried downstream by the river’s strong current. 

    The hikers immediately jumped into the river and started rescuing the youngsters.

    Join Mailing List

    As they pulled them out, they noticed that more and more young people were being swept towards them. 

    As more youngsters appear, one of the hikers climbed out of the river.

    “Where are you going?”, asks one of the other hikers.

    “I’m going upstream to find out who is throwing all these kids in the river!”, he replied.

    The universities are the river. We have to stop our young ones being thrown in.

    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv