Why We Should Oppose Government Efforts to Age Restrict Social Media

By

-

13 September 2024

There are increasing efforts to mandate age restrictions for social media. These efforts have occurred at federal level with a proposed minimum age of 16, and in Victoria with a proposed minimum age of 14 with parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. My home state of South Australia is also considering something similar.

This legislation is motivated by concerns about some of the negative effects of social media use on teenage mental health. I do not believe this type of legislation is the right solution to the problem and that it constitutes government overreach. I am concerned about its effects on civil liberties and internet privacy along with how it may be implemented.

My first major concern is the effect on internet privacy. In the event that such legislation is strictly enforced, social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia. This will severely compromise internet anonymity, which is important as it allows people to more openly discuss uncomfortable but important issues and protects the identities of people who are at risk of political persecution.

Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility

This is of particular concern given the increasing trend in Commonwealth countries of people being arrested for saying things online related to hot button political topics or that for some reason have been deemed offensive.

There is also the issue of data privacy. Forcing people to hand over their ID involves the disclosure of sensitive personal data which could then be exposed in a data leak, stolen by hackers, or sold to third parties by the social media company itself.

My second major concern is that such a law takes choice out of the hands of parents and increases government interference in the lives of families. All teenagers are different, and some are more mature than others. The decision to engage on social media should be made by parents, not the government.

Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility. When some parents are asked why they don’t restrict social media for their children despite complaining about it, the conversation seems to go like this:

Parent: I’m concerned that social media is harming my child’s mental health.

Me: Why don’t you stop them from using social media or restrict its use?

Parent: No. I can’t do that. I want my child to fit in and be popular!!!

Me in my head: WTF?

My third major concern is that the policy may have unintended consequences. Like many things, social media has both good and bad aspects, with the bad aspects more pronounced when used excessively. However, social media also allows people to interact with others regardless of how far away they are and to connect with like-minded people.

This can be particularly beneficial to teenagers who live in remote communities, have family that lives far away, seek a family group chat, want to let the world know what is happening in their communities, or for some reason have limited opportunities to socialise in person.

For example, I recently had a friend who was committed to a psych ward. Social media allowed us to talk to each other when I couldn’t visit and outside of visiting hours. A policy of restricting social media would create a government-imposed one-size-fits -all approach affecting all teenagers that will not work for all. Such a policy simply doesn’t distinguish between excessive and moderate social media use.

Social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia.

My fourth major concern is what the government defines as social media. Not all social media is the same. I personally have Facebook, Discord and Signal. All these apps function differently despite falling under the umbrella of social media.

Facebook mandates that people use their real name to create a profile. On Facebook you can create both public and private events, comment on things publicly, message people privately, and a range of other things. On Discord, you create a username and then can message people and join private and semi-public groups.

Signal works like text messaging, but you can create group chats and relies on the internet rather than phone data. Signal does not have public pages like Facebook. As someone who intends to become a parent in the future, I would approach all these apps differently and allow them each at different ages.

Join Mailing List

I would also like to point out that many social media sites already have age restrictions. Facebook, for example, requires a minimum age to join of 13. There are also apps that you can get on phones and computers that limit social media use or block certain sites.

Given this, I believe the best alternative solution to this legislation would be increased parental responsibility surrounding social media, and social and societal support for parents who choose to limit excessive teen social media use.

Jess Colby

Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.

The Libertarian Perspective on the Controversy of XY Boxers

By

Warren Wang

-

23 August 2024

0

The recent controversy surrounding two boxers, Imane Khelif from Algeria and Lin Yu-ting from Taiwan, who won gold medals in the women’s events at the Paris Olympics, has ignited a worldwide debate. The key issue at the heart of this controversy is whether athletes with XY chromosomes who live as female, should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, given the potential genetic advantages that male physiology may give. From a libertarian standpoint, this debate also intersects with individual freedom, freedom of association, and the role of competition among organisations.

The Facts: No Dispute on XY Chromosomes

First and foremost, it is undisputed that the two athletes in question have XY chromosomes. This genetic marker is typically associated with male physiology, which includes traits like increased muscle mass, greater bone density, and overall physical strength. These traits can provide a significant competitive advantage in sports, particularly in a physically demanding sport like boxing.

The focus should remain on whether allowing athletes with XY chromosomes to compete in women’s events upholds the integrity of the sport

IOC’s Policy Shift: From Gender Testing to Passport Recognition

Historically, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) disqualified women with XY chromosomes from competing in women’s events. However, in 1999 it stopped mandatory gender testing, a move influenced by the growing recognition of the complexities of gender identity. The IOC now accepts the gender listed on an athlete’s passport as the sole criterion for gender classification in sports. This policy shift has been both praised for its inclusivity and criticised for undermining fairness in women’s sports.

The Issue of Fairness: A Level Playing Field?

The principle of fairness in sports is paramount. In boxing, for example, athletes are not allowed to compete across different weight classes because doing so would create an inherent imbalance in competition. The same logic should apply when considering the participation of XY chromosome athletes in women’s events. The genetic advantages associated with XY chromosomes, such as greater physical strength, raise ethical questions about whether it is fair to allow these athletes to compete against women with XX chromosomes.

The IBA’s Role: Irrelevant to the Core Issue

Some have questioned the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) stance, with allegations of being pro-Russia or corrupt. However, these concerns are irrelevant. The focus should remain on whether allowing athletes with XY chromosomes to compete in women’s events upholds the integrity of the sport. Notably, neither of the athletes in question disputed the IBA’s decision, with Imane Khelif initially challenging the results before later withdrawing the objection.

Respecting Identity vs. Maintaining Fairness

As a libertarian, I fully respect these athletes for competing to the best of their abilities. It is perhaps a sad reality that they have XY chromosomes, which presents challenges in their personal lives and public identities. However, respecting them as individuals does not mean that they should be allowed to compete in women’s events where their genetic makeup could provide an unfair advantage. The core principle of fair competition must take precedence in this context.

Individual Freedom and Freedom of Association

Libertarianism strongly advocates for individual freedom, including the right to self-identify and even to change one’s gender. Individuals should have the freedom to disclose whatever gender they wish and live according to their identity without coercion from the state or other entities. However, this freedom also extends to organisations like the IOC and IBA, which should have the autonomy to set their own rules regarding gender recognition and participation criteria. If athletes or the public disagree with these policies, they should have the freedom to boycott these organisations and seek alternative platforms that align better with their values.

It is undisputed that the two athletes in question have XY chromosomes

The Role of Organisational Competition

In a free market, competition among organisations like the IOC and IBA ensures that those which offer the fairest and most transparent rules will ultimately succeed. If one organisation’s policies are viewed as unfair, another organisation with more balanced criteria could emerge and gain popularity. Over time, this competition would lead to a natural selection of policies that best serve the interests of athletes and sports fans alike.

Censorship and Free Speech

The controversy also touches on broader societal issues such as censorship and free speech. After winning their gold medals, one of the athletes, Khalif, filed a legal complaint against what they termed online harassment. Although online harassment can be a nasty issue, the sanctity of free speech must be upheld. Some celebrities like Richard Dawkins complained about Facebook’s censorship after his post suggesting genetically male boxers should not fight women in Olympics. Censorship is censorship, whether it’s initiated by private entities or the government. The truth can only emerge in the “free speech town square,” where ideas can be debated freely, and the so-called “misinformation and disinformation” are not censored but countered with better arguments.

Join Mailing List

Conclusion: Upholding Fairness in Sports

In conclusion, while recognising the challenges faced by women with XY chromosomes, it is essential to maintain fairness in women’s sports by upholding the principle that genetically male athletes should not compete in women’s events. By allowing market forces and free association to shape the rules, we may strike a balance that honours both individual rights and the essential fairness of competitive sports.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Warren Wang

Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.

The Coming Populist Revolt

By

Gary Johns

-

17 July 2024

0

Populism occurs when the masses revolt against the elites’ view of the world. Elite opinion does not often deal directly with popular opinion, that is, with the people who have to pay for elite opinion. When elites get it wrong, the masses revolt through the ballot; the Voice referendum being a good example. The question is, when is the next chance?

Currently, the elite consensus on issues like net zero, immigration and identity politics is so far removed from the reality of the masses that it is no wonder they are pushing back. The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

International

Net zero is a preposterous notion. The world population is eight billion people. By 2050, it could be 10 billion people, a 25 per cent increase. These people will need energy. World energy consumption is 600 BTUs. By 2050, it could be 900 BTUs, a 50 per cent increase: more people, higher living standards, more energy. Electricity generation will rise mainly in the Asia-Pacific among developing nations. Renewables do not generally feature in developing countries’ energy mixes anywhere near developed nations’ proportions.

Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia.

Of 144 nations tracked for net zero, only 26 have placed in law their commitment to net zero by 2050 (or sooner). For example, the Maldives has pledged net zero by 2030 but it has no plan or accountability mechanism; it is pure hot air. Even Goody Two-Shoes Finland leaves out aviation and shipping and has plans but no mechanism for carbon removal. The US (2050), Russia (2060), China (2060), India (2070) and Brazil (2050) have a ‘policy document’, but nothing in law.

Australia has a plan written in law that is sure to kill the nation’s wealth. Industrial and economic mayhem, loss of reliable energy and higher energy prices will reduce living standards. Minister Bowen’s deployment targets are logistically impossible in the time frame.

Kenneth Schultz estimates a total cost of $1.4 trillion for the Coalition’s renewables-nuclear option. He estimates the cost for Labor’s renewables-battery option at $4.4 trillion, nine times the federal government’s total annual revenue.

National

Migration in Europe and Australia is dangerous at levels that challenge national unity. Numbers count. If one million Palestinians settled in Australia in a short period, for example, the result would undermine Australian society. Palestinians would settle in a few suburbs and recreate a Palestinian society, i.e. one that recreates the hatred extant in Gaza and the West Bank.

Values also count. Australia would do well to distinguish migrants by the nature of their observance, which is apparent in the laws on marriage, succession, or rape in marriage among our key Islamic migrant source countries: Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. A striking feature of those laws is that they distinguish the application of the law by religion. Religion first; the rule of law second. The question is how to distinguish this at an individual level. Classing people by source country is too crude and unfair, but not to distinguish people would be foolhardy. Why should Australia invite those unlikely to integrate or, worse, become an enemy?

Those who appreciate the benefits of the nation-state would support Prime Minister John Howard’s view that, ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’ Howard and the Australian electorate recognised that some people are not welcome as they are unlikely to fit in. In the long term, Australia will be much more Indian and Chinese. Of the three million permanent migrants who arrived in Australia since 2000, almost 450,000 were from India, and nearly 350,000 were from China. The assumption of integration must be reinforced.

The easy assumptions of integration post-World War II no longer hold. Since 2022, the Netherlands has required a substantial investment from a person applying for permanent residence before that privilege is granted. The civic integration requirements are set out in the Civic Integration Act 2021. The point of the Netherlands law is that applicants must be sufficiently integrated before they become permanent.

The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

Personal

Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia. They are free to sing the praises of Palestine. Homosexuals are free to marry and raise children. But the trans lobby wants to abolish gender, which is dangerous to the mental health of trans people. Sex must be understood in evolutionary terms. There must be sperm and eggs for reproduction. Two women do not create a child, and two men do not create a child. They may care for them, and we wish them well. The proposition that sex is not binary, that it is socially determined, is dangerous, especially to those who find that they are not at ease with their sex and want to reassign their sex to suit their ‘gender’.

Anyone should be free to express themselves as male or female. But when sex is detached from reproduction, there are consequences. As Zachary Elliott argues in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth, ‘If we abandon sex as an important category in our society, how can we conduct safe and effective medical research and treatment; fight sex-based injustices; record accurate crime statistics; maintain fair, safe, and competitive sports categories; and implement equal opportunities for both sexes?’

There is a claim that almost two per cent of the population is intersex, neither male nor female. The numbers consist almost entirely of those who suffer developmental disorders, such as late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. People with these conditions account for nearly all the males or females who do not appear to be one or the other. The disorders occur in nature and do not result in good health. They are not socially determined.

Join Mailing List

Populism in the service of correcting the madness of net zero, overplayed migration and undermined sexual identity are ground zero for the populist fightback. The masses await the right leader and the right policies. Populism? More please!

Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research

This article was first published in The Spectator.

Gary Johns

Dr Gary Johns served as former Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Special Minister of State & Vice-President of the Executive Council in the Keating Labor Government. A philosophical rethink saw him accept a series of appointments in the service of economic rationalism, including Senior Fellow at the IPA and Assoc. Commissioner at the Productivity Commission. He recently served as Commissioner of
the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission.

Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?

By

Lushington D Brady

-

10 July 2024

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.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

Slaying the dragon of censorship.

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

8 July 2024

0

Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

This is the question the ancient Greek historian, Plutarch, asked in relation to the actions of the newly formed triumvirate of Octavian (soon to be Rome’s first emperor, Augustus), Antony, and Lepidus as they turned on their Roman countrymen in their quest for power in the final stages of the fall of the Roman Republic in 43 BC.

It is a reasonable question to be asked of anyone aiming to assume leadership over their fellow citizens, no matter the period in history. That we have enough warnings of the traps which men fall into, should be uppermost in our minds when it comes to seeing our democracies as fair and reasonable.

At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

The most prescient warning, articulated in what I consider the best advice when setting up government, was penned by the Roman historian, Livy.

“The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

To the question of power, I argue that it is even more pertinent today in our modern liberal democracy, because we were led to believe that modernity has ushered in a more humane, decent, and enlightened way to conduct our lives.

Recent events, however, prove otherwise.

Much has been written about the powers sought by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, to silence Australians as if we were kindergarten children who cry out for guidance at every turn in the playground.

By now we ought to be used to unfettered power being sought and wielded by senior bureaucrats; the recent four years of mandates and scare tactics being a prime example. But we should never get used to our political representatives further bolstering those powers without consulting the people first.

It is frightening to consider what might lay before us here in Australia, with the recent announcement by opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Liberal Party in government would introduce a ban on social media for children under 16 years of age.

This is the mainstream party that apparently espouses the values of individual liberty.

Dutton says that facial recognition to determine somebody’s age is “appropriate.” That, therefore, would leave anyone over 16 needing to comply with this ultimatum if they want to have a social media presence.

No doubt the government will call it “choice.” We will be told it is all in the name of safety; in this case, keeping children safe online. Nobody disputes the gold standard of being able to keep children safe from harm, but to punish law-abiding citizens by extinguishing their individual right to express themselves and associate with others in a peaceful way, is wrong.

Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate compared to the punishment dished out in the ancient world.

As the Roman Republic lay dying in the late first century BC, Cicero offended Marc Antony in several of his speeches, declaring Antony an enemy of the state.

For his efforts of expressing views to save his beloved Republic from a would-be tyrant in Antony, Cicero had his head and hands cut off, the latter pinned to the rostra in the forum. It was said to be a reminder of what happens to those who disagree with the ruling elite of the day but it was, for Antony, a statement of revenge upon the man who consistently delivered powerful invectives against his character.

At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

But the words of Cicero are still as meaningful today as they were when he warned his fellow senators that “servitude is the worst of all evils.”

Join Mailing List

It is with a degree of risk that we stand up publicly and declare his warnings today, but to do so with the eloquence of a man who is considered by many to have been Rome’s greatest politician, would be sweet indeed:

“To be slaves to libertines, bullies, foul profligates, gamblers, and drunkards, that is the ultimate in misery joined with the ultimate in dishonour.”

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

Reassessing Australian Judges’ Role in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (Part 2)

By

Ted Hui

-

12 June 2024

0

Introduction
In the previous part, I discussed the historical background and recent political developments in Hong Kong that have raised concerns about the role of Australian judges in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. This part will examine specific cases involving Australian judges to assess their contributions and the extent to which they have challenged the infringement of human rights in their judgments.

Judgments by Australian Justices
In the case of HKSAR v. Chow Hang Tung [2024] HKCFA 2, the appellant, Chow Hang Tung, a human rights lawyer, was convicted for inciting others to participate in an unauthorised assembly. This charge stemmed from her attempt to challenge the legality of a police prohibition on a public assembly intended to commemorate the anniversary of the June 4th massacre.

Despite her efforts to appeal the prohibition, her conviction represents a significant setback for freedom of assembly in Hong Kong. Justice Gleeson’s role in this case was minimal yet consequential. He concurred with the judgment that upheld Chow’s conviction, rejecting Chow’s point of view, and agreeing with the majority’s decision that found Chow’s collateral and constitutional challenges to be without merit. Notably, Justice Gleeson did not offer any commentary, not even as obiter dictum, in support of Hong Kong’s freedom of assembly. This contributed to the affirmation of her conviction, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals seeking to exercise their right to assembly in Hong Kong’s increasingly constrained legal landscape.

The continued service of Australian judges in a Hong Kong court system increasingly manipulated to repress dissent under authoritarian rules

In the case of HKSAR v. Choy Yuk Ling [2023] HKCFA 12, the appellant, Choy Yuk Ling, a journalist, sought to uncover collusion between the Hong Kong police and criminal mobs in suppressing the civil rights of Hong Kongers through her investigative journalism. Despite the noble intentions behind her news report, she was punished with a minor offence by the police for allegedly making false statements in her application for vehicle registration details, leading to a costly 30-month legal battle that escalated from the lowest courts to the Court of Final Appeal. Ultimately, Choy achieved a rare victory in court, with her convictions being quashed. However, Justice Gummow’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, merely uttering seven words, “I agree with the judgment of J. Fok.” His lack of criticism, among other judges, towards the prosecution’s approach or the retaliatory actions of the Hong Kong Police is notable, as it suggests a silent endorsement of the status quo, leaving the broader implications of Choy’s case and the state of press freedom in Hong Kong unaddressed.

In the case of HKSAR v. Mak Wing Wa [2023] HKCFA 19, Mak Wing Wa was convicted of taking part in an unlawful assembly during a massive protest by Hong Kongers for freedom in 2019. The incident involved a large crowd gathering at Wong Tai Sin Square, with some individuals, including Mak, shining torches and laser pointers at police officers. The Court of Final Appeal held that Mak had participated in the unlawful assembly with intent, as he was aware of the prohibited conduct of others and joined in by using a torch against the police.

The conviction and sentence were restored by the Court of Final Appeal. In this case, Justice Keane’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, as he simply concurred with the judgment of Mr. Justice Lam PJ. Furthermore, he chose to endorse the conviction without addressing the broader context of the peaceful protests or offering any sympathy towards the powerless protesters, who wielded nothing more than torches and laser pens against a violent crackdown by the police.

A journalist, sought to uncover collusion between the Hong Kong police and criminal mobs in suppressing the civil rights of Hong Kongers

In the case HKSAR v. Chan Chun Kit [2022] HKCFA 15, also known as the Zip Ties case, the appellant, Chan Chun Kit, was initially convicted for possessing 48 pieces of 6-inch plastic cable ties, deemed to be an instrument fit for unlawful purposes under section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance. This case is emblematic of the police crackdown on the 2019 mass protests for freedom in Hong Kong, where many young protesters commonly carried plastic cable ties to construct barricades as a defence against police tear gas and rubber bullets.

Unexpectedly, The Court of Final Appeal overturned the conviction, ruling that the plastic cable ties did not fall within the scope of section 17. In this case, Justice Gleeson’s contribution to the judgment was minimal, as he merely concurred with other judges who focused on the technicalities of the law, without addressing the broader issue of the police’s abuse of power and arbitrary arrests of peaceful protesters. Furthermore, he did not challenge the prosecution’s reasoning, failing to question why plastic cable ties could be considered unlawful in the first place.

Conclusion
The approach of the three Australian judges in the above cases has been minimalist, focusing primarily on technicalities without addressing the broader context of the law being used as a tool for political repression. There has been no demonstration that their presence has helped maintain the independence of Hong Kong’s courts from political interference by the regime. Consequently, their involvement has failed to show any meaningful infusion of Western liberal or democratic values into the increasingly authoritarian environment in Hong Kong. It is important to note that these cases represent only minor political offences; more serious charges under the NSL, such as conspiracy to subvert state power and collusion with foreign elements, are entirely beyond the purview of Australian judges.

Join Mailing List

The continued service of Australian judges in a Hong Kong court system increasingly manipulated to repress dissent under authoritarian rules not only threatens the integrity of the Australian legal profession but also risks diminishing Australia’s standing within the international common law community. The departure of British judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, due to their stance against endorsing an administration that strays from core values of political freedom and freedom of expression, underscores the growing international unease with the judicial environment in the region.

This stark contrast between the British judges’ principled exit and the ongoing presence of Australian judges in the same system could significantly erode trust in the Australian judiciary, potentially transforming these distinguished legal figures into a source of national embarrassment. Given these circumstances, it is crucial for the Australian legal community to critically reassess its involvement

Ted Hui

Ted Hui is a solicitor at RSA Law and former Member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council)

Why You Should Oppose the Government’s Attempt to Censor the Sydney Church Stabbing Video

By

Jess Colby

-

5 June 2024

0

If you have been following the issue of freedom of expression in Australia, you will be aware of the efforts of the government to censor the Sydney church stabbing video on X (but not mainstream media websites) via a court order. The court order has since been overturned although what will happen next is still uncertain.

It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders. X is currently willing to comply with that, but the Australian government also wants to restrict what the whole world can see.

Below I will offer some reasons why you should oppose the censorship efforts of the Australian government, including both within Australia and globally.

Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect

One reason given by the Australian government for its current censorship efforts is that the video in question is considered to be indecent, confronting and violent. The problem with censoring videos on this basis is that it sets a dangerous precedent that would enable the government to censor a wide range of media; it is a slippery slope. Whether a video is considered indecent, confronting or violent is subjective and a matter of individual interpretation.

Regardless, even if a video is ‘indecent’, ‘confronting’ or ‘violent’, that is not sufficient reason to tell someone they cannot watch it. That decision should be up to the individual, not the government.

In any case, contrary to what may be portrayed by the mainstream media and government, government censorship is not about protecting the public but instead gives the government cover to selectively censor things it finds embarrassing or doesn’t want the public to know about or talk about.

Many confronting and violent videos are in fact matters of public interest; a prominent example being the Afghan Files, which were a collection of videos that depict war crimes committed by the Australian Army in Afghanistan. When these videos were publicly reported, the Australian government attempted to censor them and even raided Australian media organisations. The only difference was that they used the ‘justification’ of national security rather than public decency.

When considering any sort of law or government policy, it is always important to consider how such a law or policy might be misused by a stupid person or weaponised by an evil person. From my perspective, I consider the government to be a rather stupid and evil organisation.

It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders.

An issue of major concern which is often subject to censorship is footage of police shootings. These videos often depict police brutality and misconduct and are an important matter of public interest. If the Australian government can establish that it is acceptable to censor videos on the basis of being confronting and depicting violence, footage of police shootings will be at high risk of government censorship.

‘Confronting’ and ‘violent’ videos can be a primary source of information. They allow people to know exactly what happened, as cameras don’t lie. Censoring such videos forces people to rely on secondary sources of information such as the mainstream media and government, both of which are often biased and leave out critical details without allowing the public to verify their information.

Preventing the spread of extremism is also used to justify the censorship of the Sydney church stabbing. However, censoring the video does not address the root causes of Islamic extremism within segments of Muslim community, or prevent people from knowing about the incident.

Join Mailing List

Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect and brought more attention than if it had just been allowed to fade into obscurity.

As for wider implications, if the Australian government has the power to censor the internet globally, other governments around the world will inevitably seek to do the same. This includes repressive nations that already have a strong desire to censor the World Wide Web such as China, Russia and many more.

Opposing the recent censorship efforts of the Australian government isn’t just important for protecting freedom of expression and information in Australia, but it is also important for the entire world.

Jess Colby

Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.

Mind Your Language

By

Bob Day

-

22 May 2024

1

Everyone knows a suit is comprised of a jacket and a pair of pants. Two jackets are not a suit. Neither can two pairs of pants be called a suit.

This was an argument I often made during the marriage debate. Marriage, I argued, was the joining of a man and woman in a special relationship.

If two men or two women wished to be joined together then they can call it something else, but not marriage; not a suit.

This idea of insisting that words reflect their true meaning and that things be called what they are, is not a new idea.

As long ago as 500BC, Chinese philosopher Confucius said, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language.

As US preacher Chuck Swindoll says, ‘they adopt our vocabulary but not our dictionary.’

A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

Farmers used to drain water-logged swamp areas of their land, and no-one batted an eye.

Then swamps were renamed ‘wetlands’, and now can’t be touched.

We’ve re-named euthanasia ‘dying with dignity’; abortion is now referred to as ‘reproductive health’ or ‘planned parenthood’ or simply ‘pro-choice’.

Free speech is branded hate speech, local aboriginal tribes have become ‘First Nations’, power cuts are now called ‘load shedding’, tax increases are re-badged as ‘budget savings’ and denying one’s gender has become gender affirming.

A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

‘Safe schools’ and ‘respectful relationships’ are anything but – as evidenced by lessons in bestiality presented to 14-year-old schoolgirls in South Australia.

The Good Book says, ‘Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.’ – Isaiah 5:20.

Then there are the perpetual ‘straw man’ arguments – misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to quickly and easily destroy their argument.

‘Trickle-down economics’ is a straw man argument. There is no such theory in economics. But opponents of free-market economics invented the term ‘trickle-down’ to suggest free-markets are all about favouring the rich and hoping some of their wealth will ‘trickle down’ to those lower on the socio-economic ladder.

Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language.

Then there’s the ubiquitous use of the term ‘flat earthers’ when no-one, anywhere throughout history thought the world was flat. Not the Egyptians, not the Phoenicians, not the ancient Greeks; no-one thought the earth was flat. They weren’t silly. By standing on high ground and watching their tall ships sail over the horizon, they knew the earth was round, they just didn’t know how big it was. Christopher Columbus left Spain and headed west for India, not to prove the world was round, but to determine its size.

Or the phrase Terra Nullius, a term used to manipulate debate on indigenous matters.

‘Australia was founded on the basis of Terra Nullius,’ is one of those myths that survives by repetition, not historical fact.

Terra Nullius is a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no one’.

Yet no-one ever said Australia was not occupied.

The term ‘terra nullius’ was not mentioned anywhere in Australia until 1977!

Join Mailing List

Regarding exploration and occupation, the book 18^th Century Principles of International Law stated that, “All territory not in the possession of states who are members of the family of nations and subjects of International Law must be considered as technically res nullius and therefore open to occupation”. ‘Res nullius’ – land not owned by a recognised nation, is not the same as ‘terra nullius’ – land not occupied by anyone e.g. Antarctica.

And on a similar vein, that Aborigines didn’t get the vote, or were treated as ‘flora and fauna,’ until 1967.

All false. All examples of the mutilation of language to influence political debate. US author Michael Malice writes, ‘they’re not using language to communicate, they’re using it to manipulate.’

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.

The Global Online Safety Regulators Network: A Global Surveillance State?

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

29 April 2024

1

The journalist Michael Schellenberger recently discovered that there is a formal government censorship network called the “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” (GORSN). Australia’s top Internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, an American, described it at the World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK, and Fiji.

This is a concerning development for anyone who values freedom of speech and privacy. The initiative aims to create a global coalition of regulators to combat harmful online content. However, in reality it is a veiled attempt at global censorship of the internet, aimed at circumventing the protections provided by Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

At its core, GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders. Libertarians and advocates of free expression have long warned against concentrated government control, arguing that it almost inevitably leads to abuse and suppression of dissenting voices.

The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy.

Grant outlined the significant powers that regulators within the GORSN have at their disposal. She said that GORSN members can block internet service providers (ISPs), compel content takedowns, fine individuals or platforms that host offensive content, and impose other punitive measures as deterrents. Additionally, Grant discussed a new legislative framework that allows regulators to enforce basic online safety expectations. This framework’s scope suggests that GORSN aims to exercise substantial control over the internet, raising concerns about censorship, regulatory overreach, and the broader impact on freedom of expression and privacy.

Another alarming aspect of GORSN is its potential to invade privacy on a global scale. Grant’s remark that the network had the power to compel “basic device information and account information” are a stark warning that the network could enable mass surveillance. For libertarians, privacy is a very high priority and the notion that regulators could gather personal data without appropriate oversight is a worrying development. Broad powers to compel information from tech platforms suggests that GORSN could become a mechanism for government surveillance on an international level.

Grant’s mention of social media companies increasingly collecting phone numbers and email addresses raises the spectre of a surveillance state, where governments can easily track individuals and monitor their online activities. This level of intrusion into personal privacy should be of concern to anyone who believes in the right to remain anonymous and free from unwarranted government scrutiny.

GORSN’s push for global identity requirements and restrictions on VPNs is a direct assault on digital autonomy. VPNs are essential tools for maintaining privacy and accessing information freely, especially in countries with oppressive internet regulations. Any move to limit their use would further erode individual freedoms and strengthen authoritarian regimes.

The centralised control proposed by GORSN threatens to undermine the fundamental principle of a decentralised internet where individuals can maintain their anonymity and exercise their rights without fear of government intrusion, leading to an internet that is more tightly monitored and regulated by governments with varying degrees of respect for freedom and democracy.

GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders

The sheer scope of GORSN’s power, including the ability to fine content hosts, compel takedowns, and block ISPs, is a classic case of regulatory overreach. When governments are given this level of authority, the risk of abuse is high. Such power can be used to suppress dissent, stifle criticism, and enforce a particular worldview, all under the guise of “online safety.”

From a libertarian perspective, the existence of GORSN is a troubling development that undermines the ideals of a decentralised internet. The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy. Instead of a collaborative effort to address harmful content, GORSN represents a centralised approach that risks creating a global surveillance state.

The Global Online Safety Regulators Network is a danger to internet freedom. Its focus on centralised control, coupled with its broad powers, sets a dangerous precedent for governments seeking to extend their reach into the digital world. As the network gains momentum, it is crucial that libertarians and other advocates of free speech push back against this overreach and defend the principles of a decentralised internet.

Join Mailing List

Platforms like X and Rumble have taken public stances opposing intrusive government requests for content takedowns and data collection. Chris Pavlovski, the founder of Rumble, highlighted this issue in a recent post on X, stating, “Rumble has received censorship demands from Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that infringe on everyone’s human rights. We are noticing a dramatic increase in global censorship unlike we’ve ever seen before.” Elon Musk, the owner of X, endorsed this sentiment, indicating a shared concern among tech leaders.

But it takes more than a couple of tech leaders to fight censorship. To push back against government intrusion and censorship there are several measures that individuals can undertake. Support platforms that actively resist censorship and champion free speech, use VPNs to preserve online privacy and bypass censorship. Importantly, connect through servers in countries that are not part of the GORSN. This can help avoid unwanted surveillance and ensure a greater degree of anonymity while online.

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.

A Digital Dark Age (part 2)

By

Bob Day

-

23 April 2024

0

The only currency that matters is power – getting it and holding on to it.

Attaining power these days involves denigrating and silencing your opponents in any way possible: censoring them, branding what they say as misinformation, disinformation or malinformation, with the primary aim being to prevent them getting their message out.

As has been observed, ‘When ideas are bad, censorship will always be more attractive than debate.’

In a recent renewable energy report, Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Andrew Dyer summed up in one concise sentence why governments relish powers like the ones being proposed.

Dyer said, “Opposition is often driven by ‘misinformation’.”

That is what is called a ‘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 Energy Commissioner’s comment was that dead give-away.

Once this Bill is law, all the government has to do is label something ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ to have it shut down. Presto! Any opposition is eliminated.

Historically, the media has fought hard to maintain freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Internationally, ‘misinformation and disinformation’ have risen to number one on the list of top 10 risks cited by the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Risks Report 2024.

Addressing the recent WEF conference, European Union President Ursula von der Leyen said: ‘Like in all democracies, our freedom comes with risks. There will always be those who try to exploit our openness, both from inside and out. There will always be attempts to put us off track – for example, with ‘misinformation and disinformation.’

The politics of fear

Fear has always been a powerful political motivator. Fear makes people accept things they wouldn’t otherwise accept.

In the 16^th Century, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a book that would influence political strategy and tactics for the next 500 years.

Machiavelli’s book centred on the use of fear to control the masses – ‘The best course of action for a ruler to take is to instil fear in the people’, he said.

And for people to not only fear what might happen, but that they would also ‘fear the worst’.

Minister Rowland has said misinformation and disinformation pose a threat to ‘the safety and wellbeing of Australians’ and ‘to our democracy, society and economy’.

This is the politics of fear.

And the antidote to fear is knowledge – information, facts, figures. Which is why they want the power to prevent people from receiving it.

Conflating issues also plays a useful role.

As well as the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, Minister Rowland has also announced a review of the Online Safety Act, saying the government is committed to introducing a revised version of its ‘internet censorship laws’.

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) hit back:

“It is completely disingenuous for the Minister to seek to conflate the protection of Australians from predators online with the federal government’s plan to empower bureaucrats in Canberra (ACMA) with the right to determine what is truth, and to censor mainstream opinion through its ‘misinformation’ bill,” said the IPA’s John Storey.

“The federal government is cravenly using heightened concerns about current tensions in parts of our community, and the fears of parents and others about harmful online content, as a trojan horse to push forward laws that will in practice impose political censorship,” he said.

Climate Change

South Australia’s chief public health officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier, recently warned that the nation is facing a state of “permacrisis” as climate change fuels ‘back-to-back natural disasters and the emergence of new diseases’.

In her biennial report on the state of public health, Prof. Spurrier calls climate change ‘the most significant global threat to human health’, saying the planet is getting hotter and is experiencing more extreme weather events such as flooding and bushfires.

‘We need to respond to this threat today, not tomorrow or in the distant future,’ her report states. ‘These changes to the climate are caused by humans.’

Prof. Spurrier’s report says this will lead to exacerbation of chronic diseases such as heart, lung and kidney disease; damaged food crops; increased risk of food poisoning and water contamination; injuries from flooding and bushfires; and even an increase in snake bites after floods.

‘Other health impacts from climate change include poor air quality due to increased dust and pollens and the emergence of serious new communicable diseases in South Australia, such as Japanese encephalitis virus,’ she says.

Mercifully, she spared us plagues of locusts and frogs and the Murray River turning to blood.

Attaining power these days involves denigrating and silencing your opponents in any way possible

This is ‘permacrisis’ – permanent crisis – putting communities into a permanent state of climate fear.

Machiavelli would be proud.

The Voice to Parliament Referendum

When the Yes side didn’t win the Voice Referendum, they immediately blamed, you guessed it – misinformation.

Yes campaign director Dean Parkin, said the referendum result was due to ‘the single largest misinformation campaign that this country has ever seen’.

Yes campaign spokesperson Thomas Mayo blamed the ‘disgusting No campaign, a campaign that has been dishonest, that has lied to the Australian people’.

Teal MP Zali Steggell even introduced a private members’ bill with the title Stop the Lies.

Ms Steggall stated that it was clear that the information people had access to through the course of the Voice debate was ‘heavy with misleading and deceptive facts’.

Got that? ‘Misleading and deceptive facts’, the very definition of malinformation.

Governments, technology and third-party collaborators

Baptists and Bootleggers

Whenever there is money to be made, opportunities to do business with governments – that is, do the government’s bidding in exchange for special access and privileges – present themselves. Cosy relationships between businesspeople and governments are as old as regulation itself.

What can give these relationships real potency is what has been called the ‘Baptists and Bootleggers’ phenomenon. The term stems from the 1920s’ Prohibition days, when members of the US government received bribes and donations from Bootleggers – criminals and businesspeople eager to maintain a scarcity (and resulting high price) of their product (alcohol). These same Members of Congress then justified maintaining the prohibition by publicly adopting the moral cause of the Baptists.

The same applies here. A moral cause – ‘threats to the safety and wellbeing of Australians’, and financial rewards to those assisting governments in their pursuit of power.

Historically, the media has fought hard to maintain freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Join Mailing List

However, new media have no such compunction. As more and more people source their news through Google, Facebook, X, Tik Tok, Instagram and other social media platforms, these global behemoths exert more and more power and influence. And while the old press barons took free speech seriously, big tech sees no problem at all in doing the government’s bidding – provided the government maintains their ‘platform, not publisher’ status and the advertising money keeps flowing. Al Capone may have invented bootlegging, but big tech has certainly perfected it.

Tech entrepreneur and former Google insider Tristan Harris says we are in the midst of a ‘great social upheaval’. Technology, he says, is being used to attack the very foundation of what we trust. ‘We are entering a Digital Dark Age’.

Digital IDs Drivers’ licences, proof of age cards, passports, Medicare cards, birth certificates, home addresses, MyGov IDs, tax returns, credit cards and banking details, remote-controlled smart meters on our homes, digital certificates of title for our properties. Once these are all linked – as the government ads say, ‘bringing together government and industry’, the government’s control will be complete.

Tomorrow – part 3

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.

The Murder of Free Speech

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

3 April 2024

0

One of the most famous lines of historical literature, and of life, was spoken by Shakespeare’s Hamlet as he sought to avenge the murder of his father by his uncle. Claudius wanted power and what better way to get it than to dispose of his brother and marry his widow.

It is an age-old proposition for those seeking power. The state murders our right to think and speak freely, so that it can assume the role of omnipotent overlord.

Australia is staring down the barrel of the state’s loaded gun of censorship; of its unbridled passion to control what we can think, speak, and write. While the country awaits the full implication of impending Misinformation laws, the New South Wales parliament was recently presented with a Bill to enshrine free speech into its constitution.

Without the all-knowing omnipotent government watching and controlling all that we do.

John Ruddick, Member of the Legislative Council, New South Wales, moved a Bill in November 2023 to amend the state’s constitution to protect free speech. On March 20, 2024 he spoke to the bill, the Constitution Amendment (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 2023, stating the aim was to restrict the power of the New South Wales parliament ‘to prohibit the citizens of New South Wales of having open expression.’

Referring to the boldness of the American Constitution that gave rise to many nations basing their own upon that same document, he went on to highlight that the first amendment to the American Constitution is free speech. But that concept dates back much earlier than 1791 when the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted.

Ancient Greece is our model. It owns the claim to the idea of demokratia – democracy as we know it today. Its function was premised upon the concept of direct selection, something that bloated modern democratic leadership delight in telling us is not possible in our modern world due to sheer size of populations. But that is a topic for another time.

Australia is staring down the barrel of the state’s loaded gun of censorship; of its unbridled passion to control what we can think, speak, and write.

Demokratia means rule (kratos) of the people (demos). The fundamental idea of it was a broad concept of liberty: the public capacity to participate in public affairs, and private capacity to conduct one’s life as considered best.

We have strayed so far from that basic principle that it is almost incomprehensible to think we might recover such ancient wisdom as living by one’s own standard, without the all-knowing omnipotent government watching and controlling all that we do.

Needless to say, the bill did not pass. I often ask myself what the ancients would think of how we have manipulated for our own ends what they devised as being best for citizens.

Join Mailing List

So let us channel Shakespeare and, like Hamlet, ask the question:

‘To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ‘t is nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them!’

It is not just boldness that requires such an avenging act, but it is our moral duty to do so – ideally within the bounds of the law!

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

No, Men are not OK

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

25 March 2024

2

As a society, we generally do not like to talk about suicide. And when we do, we tend to avoid a key issue – why do so many men take their own lives, and why are so many of them middle-aged?

The statistics are stark: of 3,249 Australians who took their own lives in 2022, 2,455 were males. That’s more than the number of women dying from breast and cervical cancer combined.

Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men. The overall suicide rate was 12.3 deaths per 100,000 population but for men it was 18.8.

The absolute highest rate is among men aged 85 or over (32.7 per 100,000 versus 10.6 for women), but the next highest is middle-aged males (45-59) at 32.6 (versus 8.8 for women). These rates have also increased over the last decade.

By contrast the murder rate, at less than 1.0 per 100,000, has been declining for decades, while deaths from road accidents (4.6 per 100,000 people) are also trending down.

Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men.

Someone taking their own life at 85 probably has a reason we can understand; there are downsides to life at that age. But men in middle age have many years of active life ahead of them. They are often at the peak earning stage and are obviously somebody’s son, brother, husband, partner, father or grandfather. That so many are killing themselves is a tragedy of enormous proportions.

And yet, while we hear plenty about youth suicide, blamed on everything from NAPLAN tests to sharing dick pics, and indigenous suicides, for which incarceration rates and white supremacy are supposedly responsible, when it comes to apparently normal middle-aged men taking their own lives there is stony silence.

The reasons for the high rates are not well understood. Even the common assumption that it is a mental health issue is probably wrong. Mental health has become a growth industry, with the problems of everyday life increasingly medicalised, but certainly no worse among middle aged men.

To the extent that the causes are known, they conflict with current narratives about the place of men in today’s society; that masculinity is toxic, all men are responsible for domestic violence, all men are potential rapists, and society is patriarchal. Indeed, unless they are indigenous, men are blamed for just about everything wrong with the world.

To the extent that there is evidence, it appears family and relationship breakdown may be a major underlying factor. Statistics show men live longer and happier lives when they are in a committed relationship.

That goes some way to explain the suicide rate among men affected by separation or divorce, particularly with children involved. Not only can they be made liable to pay child support that leaves them unable to support a new family, but false allegations of violence and sexual misconduct are routinely used to deny them access to their children.

Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men.

But there are obviously other factors too. If they work with women, men are at constant risk of accusations of bullying if they disagree. If they stare, it is sexual harassment. If they work with black or brown people, practically anything can be interpreted as racist (although they can never be victims of racism themselves). If they employ women, paying them less than men is misogyny, irrespective of the roles or hours worked.

Increasingly, men risk accusations of rape and the onus to prove consent, years or decades later.

It is likely most men take their own lives because they believe they are failing. There are many reasons for that belief, but failure as a bread winner is probably the main one; protecting and providing for a family is hard-wired, notwithstanding the claims of radical feminists that it is social conditioning. So when men lose their job, fail at business or are simply unable to meet expectations, they suffer. The all-time highest rates of suicide were in 1930 during the Great Depression, when unemployment was huge.

Libertarians believe in self-ownership and accept suicide is a matter of personal choice. But that does not preclude encouraging a different choice; indeed, it is arguably a moral obligation. The question is, how to do that?

Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men. It needs more of them.

Join Mailing List

We need more people making the case for lower taxes and less red and green tape, so there is less unemployment and fewer business failures. We need more who refuse to judge others on the basis of gender, race or sexual preference. We need more who defend the role of masculinity in strong, brave and selfless men. And we need more who insist that children need their fathers.

There’s something we can all do, and we might just save a life.

David Leyonhjelm

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.

Granny Basher’s Discharge Sends the Right Message

By

Simon Anderson

-

20 March 2024

3

One year ago I made a young man famous. The video footage of the horrific political violence he perpetrated against a 71 year-old lady at a Women’s Rights rally shocked the world, leading to international condemnation of New Zealand.

Two weeks ago I was in court to witness his sentencing: he received a discharge without conviction and his name was permanently suppressed.

Immediately after the hearing I interviewed his distressed victim on the courthouse steps and published the unredacted version of her Victim Impact Statement. This is the original, containing the changes agreed between the prosecution and defence counsels, written in the police prosecutor’s own handwriting, before it was handed back to the victim so she could read it in open court.

The publication of this material led to further international outrage, intensified by their sharing and re-posting on social media by celebrities as varied as Alison Moyet and Martina Navratilova. The case appeared to obviously justify a conviction and substantial sentence. The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court.

Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy.

Kiwis, on the other hand, were quite unsurprised.
A key reason is that the Establishment was directly implicated in the violence. MPs of the two governing parties at the time, Labour and the Greens, actually participated in the mob. One Green party MPs incited her 41,000 followers that morning stating she was “So ready to fight Nazis” on her way to the demonstration. Another appeared to justify employing political violence against her perceived opponents in a subsequent television interview. Even Chris Hipkins, the Labour party Prime Minister at the time, effused about how proud he would have been to support it in person.

New Zealand is a small country. That the government of Labour and the Greens had joined forces with Trades Union and Rainbow groups to suppress women’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly is widely known. If anything, the reaction from officialdom was expected.

What followed was entirely predictable. Only two of the many perpetrators of violence that day have been charged. One has just been all-but acquitted and the other is yet to see the inside of a courtroom, a full year after the event. Victims of other assaults were told that police “were not there to protect them” by multiple police officers. In refusing to pursue several arrests and prosecutions of identified offenders, some victims were themselves blamed by police for their own assaults.

To this day, none of the organisers who incited violence have been charged. None of the legacy media organisations which fabricated false narratives has been sanctioned by governing or government bodies.

Instead, the people of New Zealand have been treated to political theatre. Panem et circenses without the bread.

The case against this young man is a case in point. In my opinion police deliberately bungled the investigation and prosecution at every juncture; initially informing the victim that charges couldn’t be laid without knowing her assailant’s identity, then minimising charges when the identity was supplied. The offender could have been charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act or the lesser charge of Male Assaults Female; instead he received the minimum charge police could possibly engineer: Common Assault.

The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court.

And from there it only gets worse. Diversion is a system in New Zealand where first-time offenders, typically the young, avoid conviction for minor offences. It is atypical for Diversion to be offered to an offender in a case of serious assault, particularly when opposed by the victim. Yet the police offered Diversion to the offender anyway, only retracting it with risible claims of “administrative error” in response to public uproar.

This has all been theatre. The people have been distracted by the ebbs and flows of this case while the broader issues remain. In my opinion the defendant at the centre of it all is almost inconsequential: a young man radicalised on campus by far-Left, extremist propaganda who committed an awful crime and has become the focus of worldwide rage because of it.

While those who radicalised him have not been called to account.

New Zealand prescribes puberty blockers to children at ten times the rate of the United Kingdom’s NHS, at least it did until the NHS banned such prescriptions a week ago. Attending gender training is mandatory for some employees in both the public and private sectors. New Zealand birth certificates cannot be used as a supplemental form of identification in any Western country because of the Self-Identification law, unopposed by any party in parliament. Drag queens groom children weekly in libraries, paid for by taxpayers. Midwives who use the words “woman” or “mother” risk de-registration by the Midwifery Council. The Relationships and Sexual Education program mandated by the Ministry of Education is simply rainbow indoctrination of impressionable children.

Join Mailing List

Objecting to any of this invites condemnation, ostracism and even unemployment. Gender ideology has permeated New Zealand society to such an extent that Kiwis live in fear of the consequences of not adhering to its orthodoxies.

Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy. The true battle we should be fighting is against Gender Ideology, those who promulgate it, and those who employ cancellation and political violence against those who dissent. Meanwhile the Establishment laughs at how easy it was to distract our attention by feeding us a steady diet of bread and circuses about some stupid kid.

Simon Anderson

Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.

Assange’s Last Appeal

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

11 March 2024

1

Last week, Australian journalist Julian Assange’s legal team sought permission from the High Court of the United Kingdom to appeal his extradition to the United States, where he could potentially face severe penalties. This appeal represents Assange’s final opportunity to challenge his extradition within the UK’s legal system.

Assange has become a symbol of injustice, political persecution, and the fight for freedom of speech and press freedom. Behind the symbolic figure lies a human being languishing in the high-security prison.

The same week witnessed international outcry over the death of Alexei Navalny, who died in a Siberian prison. World leaders, including British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and U.S. President Joe Biden, condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin for Navalny’s imprisonment, a man they consider a journalist who spoke out against the Russian President. They asserted that he was murdered, although they had no evidence to support this claim.

The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case.

Assange has been indicted under the Espionage Act 1917, his alleged crime being publication of classified documents that exposed corruption, government misconduct, surveillance, and war crimes. The US government has focused on the publication of the documents, which it says exposed sources and personnel to danger. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures.

Supporters argue the documents were divulged by Chelsea Manning (who was convicted and then pardoned), and that Assange’s prosecution threatens freedom of the press. They contend that his actions as the founder of WikiLeaks were acts of journalism protected by free speech and the principles of press freedom. They insist he is being selectively targeted for political reasons rather than legitimate legal concerns, highlighting the discrepancy in treatment compared to other journalists and media organisations.

Granting leave to appeal would prolong Assange’s pre-trial detention, further deteriorating his health. Holding him in a maximum-security prison is normally reserved for those convicted of serious crimes, yet he has not been convicted of anything. There are no reasons why alternatives such as house arrest could not be employed.

Assange’s prosecution in the US raises concerns about government overreach, the chilling effect on free speech and journalism, and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. The High Court must carefully consider the potential human rights implications of extradition, including the risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Assange’s status as a non-U.S. citizen complicates matters, as he lacks the same legal standing to claim First Amendment protections in U.S. courts, despite the global implications of his case for press freedom and whistleblowing activities.

Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures.

The prolonged pre-trial detention of Julian Assange while awaiting an appeal also poses concerns for the rule of law and due process. In contravention of the presumption of innocence, Assange’s extended confinement undermines fundamental legal principles, casting doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the legal proceedings against him.

The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case. The U.S. government’s pursuit of Assange undermines its commitment to press freedom and freedom of expression, both domestically and internationally. While condemning other countries for similar actions, the U.S. government fails to uphold these fundamental principles when it comes to Assange. By continuing to prosecute Assange and seeking his extradition, the U.S. undermines its own credibility as a champion of human rights and democratic values. The initiative by Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Junior to petition for Assange’s release and pledge a pardon on the first day of his presidency serves as a compelling argument for his immediate release.

Join Mailing List

At this critical juncture in Julian Assange’s legal battle, mere appeals for justice fall short of addressing the urgent humanitarian issue. Assange’s deteriorating health underscores the immediate need for his release. The prolonged legal proceedings have taken a severe toll on his physical and mental well-being, making his continued detention untenable. It is evident that Assange’s health is rapidly deteriorating, and every passing day in detention further exacerbates his condition. The time for legal manoeuvring has passed; what is needed now is decisive action to rectify the grave injustice inflicted upon Assange and ensure his right to life, freedom, and dignity.

As we await the outcome of the High Court’s decision, we must remember that true justice can only be realised through the immediate abandonment of the extradition request and the immediate release of Assange.

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.

Who will watch the Watchers?

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

6 March 2024

0

The Inspection House Principle

Curiosity for a deeper understanding of how Jeremy Bentham’s Inspection House principle relates to our current world has got the better of me. There is so much to dissect in the Panopticon that I thought it fitting to follow on from last month’s contribution.

At the end of his treatise, Bentham stresses that his principle of inspection should not be confused with that of spying, but rather, monitoring. He argues that those under surveillance must know they are subject to being watched, as this will result in producing the intended ideal outcome of: “morals reformed, health preserved, industry invigorated, instruction diffused, public burdens lightened, economy seated as it were upon a rock, the Gordian knot of the poor-laws not cut but untied…”

Yet, the detailing of his idea belies such an approach:

“It is obvious that, in all these instances, the more constantly the persons to be inspected are under the eyes of the persons who should inspect them, the more perfectly will the purpose of the establishment have been attained.”

Those who are incarcerated would be fully aware of being watched, in the same way we associate with the omnipotent eye of Big Brother. But to insist they will somehow be “kept in the loop” by their watchers is folly. Also, such an approach would merely produce robots rather than solve an unsolvable problem via the cutting of a Gordian knot.

There is no institution the globalists have left untouched in implementing their own Inspection House principle.

It is idealism on steroids to assert that those who you’ve incarcerated would always be kept abreast of your intentions and then expect to obtain the results referred to above. It is akin to today’s central planners – their intentions versus actions always at loggerheads.

This brings us to the question of who will watch those watching us?

Tyrannical-type characters have been waiting in the wings to exert their control over societies throughout history. At least in the ancient world there was a limit to how much territory those with power could seize; we are not so fortunate. The global entities of the UN, WEF, and WHO have gained a stronghold over the entire world. They work in lockstep with one another and with leaders of every nation – witness the coordinated pandemic response of 2020, still bearing fruit in 2024 via whipped up fear of new deadly viruses on the horizon – and predictions of global boiling ready to consume us in a fiery furnace.

Jeremy Bentham’s circular cell building arrangement of surveillance eerily mirrors what we are seeing planned today with 15-minute cities and herding of people from regional to urban areas. We are told it is to make life easier when it is just a foil to “monitor” us more closely.

Consider this final paragraph of Bentham’s Panopticon:

“What would you say, if by the gradual adoption and diversified application of this single principle, you should see a new scene of things spread itself over the face of civilised society?”

Between 1787 and 2024 his idea has indeed spread, gradually and fully over the face of civilisation.

Bentham refers to his principle as a “great and new invented instrument of government,” going on to define its excellence as the “great strength it is capable of giving to any institution it may be thought proper to apply it to.”

Stopping the spread requires parents and extended families to reclaim control over the raising of their children. It begins with the young, as they will be the future leaders and shapers of the world to come. No easy task when all around we see large, factory-like buildings being constructed for the sole purpose of “early learning.”

Bentham stresses that his principle of inspection should not be confused with that of spying, but rather, monitoring.

Reforming offenders in prisons is one thing, but schools are something else; at least, that’s what most of us would think. Yet, in Letter 21 of his treatise, Bentham raises the spectre of introducing “tyranny into the abodes of innocence and youth.”

Including the next generation in the need to be trained within a setting akin to reforming prisoners, reveals Bentham’s inclination to authoritarianism. Yet it is at this level that world rulers seek to manipulate and control. The current global ruling elite relish the idea of control, portraying it under the guise of moral reformation (much the same as Bentham), for example with health emergencies and restrictions cloaked in the narrative of keeping us safe.

Who better to inculcate a heart wrenching story into the minds of the young than those who seek to rob us of our freedoms and liberties? There is no institution the globalists have left untouched in implementing their own Inspection House principle. Have they managed to take Bentham’s blueprint to its natural conclusion? One may wonder at such a feat of horror.

Join Mailing List

But wonder, we must. When Bentham writes of a “simple idea of architecture” being the vehicle to improve morals, productivity and stabilise the economy, this does not necessarily mean a physical place, for in our world that would indicate our digital environment. We are already incarcerated inside our very own modern-day Panopticon, replete with watchmen on every digital corner.

Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes – Who will watch the watchers?

We must!

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

Brave New World Wide Web

By

Max Payne

-

14 February 2024

1

The reverse correlation between the internet’s growing accessibility and its diminishing freedom can only be arrested by changes in user habits

Much has been made of the ACMA ‘misinformation bill’ and its potential impact on free speech online in Australia. But the internet hasn’t been a bastion of free expression for quite some time now, and like always, it ultimately comes down to choice and the power of the consumer.

Prior to the rise of social media giants such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter/X, the internet was largely a decentralised hub of independent content, websites, blogs and message boards. It was something of a wild west – not as easy to navigate or as accessible as it is today.

The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online.

Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience. Google search functioned properly, as your search terms would deliver you to websites or listings which were actually relevant. Anonymity online was a key tenet of staying safe – people were actually encouraged to separate their online and offline lives.

This has now been replaced or superseded. Mostly gone are the volunteer admins of message boards – automated or paid moderation teams on large sites such as YouTube now ban users with no remit and apply terms and conditions selectively. Google search has descended into a bidding war for top place between AI-generated SEO-optimised junk listicles that attract clicks but ultimately waste your time (hint – use Reddit instead).

As for anonymity, KYC (know your customer), verification ticks and ID verification on account of frauds and criminals have largely taken care of that. Even Bitcoin, created to store wealth and transact outside the traditional finance system, has instead limped into Wall St via ETFs as dreams of mass adoption turned to mass investment by the very institutions it sought to subvert.

Alternatives exist, of course: you can source your news and editorials from independent publications like this one, or via Substack and other such platforms. You can even support creators directly who can no longer exist on YouTube or Facebook via platforms such as Rumble or Locals.

But we often don’t – it takes extra time, extra money, extra effort. Just like acting to protect our freedoms offline – we could use cash more, we could avoid supermarkets and shop local, we could live off-grid.

Speech online was regulated not by law as much as in-house moderation, which sought primarily to improve the user experience.

Ultimately, our collective need for security and convenience has allowed larger players to create monopolies in online spaces. As the internet has become more centralised and increased traffic (ie revenue) flows to the major players, we have subsequently seen an alarming but unsurprising partnership between ‘big tech’ and government develop. One that has sought to suppress free expression and crush competition.

We have largely allowed the same offline of course. It’s not just government either – consider the extra restrictions and occasional obstacles we face when transferring money from bank accounts for certain purposes. This is at least in part due to the collective risk of scams and fraud that is being passed on as a reduction in the ability to transact freely.

Achieving political, cultural or economic change which protects or expands freedom requires you to act, not just to think, not just to post online.

Join Mailing List

The market responds to genuine economic incentives far more than it does to vitriolic comments online.

As with the internet, when demand for security and convenience grew, the market adjusted. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World perfectly described a society that had sleep-walked willingly into dystopia by simply having their base needs and comforts met conveniently.

We mustn’t follow a similar pattern. So don’t just demand freedom — create demand for freedom!

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Utilitarianism and the Omnipotence of Government

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

5 February 2024

1

Welcome to the Inspection House, known as the Panopticon.

Jeremy Bentham, eighteenth century political thinker, was one of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which he considered to be a fundamental principle of morality.

Managing societies is no easy task, hence, as first principles go, it seems reasonable. But what of the outsiders, those who prefer to live life as they see best for themselves? Well, Bentham’s take was more simplistic. He argued that human beings are ruled by two things only – pleasure and pain.

“All men are under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”

The bolded words are my emphasis for the purpose of showing that three centuries do not bring about change in how people think and act – I refer to the past few years of bending to the will of government edicts. I would like to think that most people knew what they “ought” to do in relation to government coercion around Covid vaccines and staying under house arrest, but fear determined what they “shall” do, and they did so in large numbers.

Today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about.

Some would consider Bentham’s view crude and base. After all, surely, we are more than the sum of two conflicting emotions. However, he considered this the most effective means of making laws to ensure that people’s actions amounted to the greatest happiness for all.

To ensure stability of the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number, Bentham saw the need for a solution that would act to deter those seeking to disrupt the status quo, so he developed the concept of an institutional system where prisoners would be observed without their knowing.

Very 1984!

Today, surveillance is now part and parcel of our lives. We moderns tend to think that what we are encountering with the plethora of misinformation laws and censorship to within an inch of our lives, is new, be that good or bad, depending on what side of the fence one sits on with the issue.

But today’s surveillance systems have their genesis in something far more sinister than what most of us care to think about.

The early 1780s saw the Inspection House proposal hatched, known as the Panopticon. Its primary purpose was to house prisoners based on the idea of the best design to produce the best outcomes – the Utility principle at work.

However, a closer look at Bentham’s personal letters reveals more than just a desire to incarcerate criminals.

In a series of letters written in 1787 concerning a Plan of Management for a House of Corrections, he wrote:

No matter how different, or even opposite the purpose: whether it be that of punishing the incorrigible, guarding the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspected, employing the idle, maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, instructing the willing in any branch of industry, or training the rising race in the path of education: in a word, whether it be applied to the purposes of perpetual prisons in the room of death, or prisons for confinement before trial, or penitentiary-houses, or houses of correction, or work-houses, or manufactories, or mad-houses, or hospitals, or schools.

One of the earliest exponents of the principle of Utilitarianism – the greatest happiness for the greatest number

Of all the bolded phrases (mine for emphasis), the “training the rising race in the path of education” is the most alarming. We are already witnessing the outcomes of progressive education. Imagine what humanity will look like if we cannot pull it back from the brink.

There is not, and never has been, a shortage of individuals hellbent on shaping the world by their own means. Three centuries have passed since Jeremy Bentham concocted an idea to easily coerce people to the whims of intellectual prowess, and I don’t mean that in a complimentary way.

The Utility principle is akin to the concept of the “greater good.” It has always been at the core of public planning for the mere reason that most people prefer others to make the hard decisions, even when it comes to their own personal lives. But Utility is not for everyone. Some of us prefer to live our lives by the “do no harm” principle,” otherwise known as living by one’s own code and doing no harm to anyone else in the process.

Join Mailing List

Should we be alarmed at the rise of these new old concepts?

Are we on the precipice of the collapse of humanity as we have known it?

Is the old Panopticon the new 15 Minute City, designed to enslave us?

Probably, is my answer. And that doesn’t mean we stop resisting its implementation through peaceful non-compliance. If history shows us one thing only, it is that pride comes before a fall, and the globalist agenda is big, bold, and ugly. We owe it to our families, friends and all who believe in freedom to continue to defend humanity at all costs.

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

Racial Friction in New Zealand

By

Simon Anderson

-

29 January 2024

2

For every government in New Zealand, the year commences with a focus on Maori affairs. For historical reasons most political parties undertake a pilgrimage to the Ratana Church on the 25^th of January to commemorate the birthday of the congregation’s prophet, Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana. It is a reserved affair: politicians are discouraged from grandstanding and expected to listen to the concerns of the Ratana movement (by no means representative of all Maori). Marvellously, they do.

Waitangi Day, New Zealand’s national day, is celebrated on the 6^th of February. By tradition politicians travel to the Waitangi Marae (meeting grounds), the site of the signing of the treaty between the British Empire and many Maori tribes which most New Zealanders consider the country’s founding document.

Democracy in New Zealand has eroded over the last six years of a radical Labour/Green regime

Maori protocol is fairly strictly maintained within the Marae (female politicians require a dispensation in order to speak, for instance) but outside things can be rather raucous. In the past Maori and their non-Maori supporters have used the occasion to express discontent, with some protests turning confrontational and descending into violence. As recently as 2009 former Prime Minister John Key was assaulted on his way onto the Treaty Grounds. While most Waitangi Days at Waitangi are one big Kiwi picnic, confrontations between angry demonstrators and lines of police are not unknown.

Against the backdrop of these occasions is the culture wars. On one side are the proponents of democracy comprising the vast majority of non-Maori New Zealanders. On the other are the proponents of Maori separatism comprising the tribal elites, their progressive allies, and those ordinary Maori who agree with their point of view. The essence of the disagreement is in interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi.)

“The Treaty” as it is known in Kiwi parlance is a relatively simple document in its original English form: ceding sovereignty to the Crown with equal rights as British subjects and property rights guaranteed. In the Maori version the language is more open to interpretation. Some doubt whether Maori ceded sovereignty at all, complicated by the fact some Maori tribes didn’t sign it.

The confusion surrounding interpretation has led to the development of the Principles of the Treaty. Although never defined, the Principles permeate legislation and proliferate throughout the public sector. At the core of the previous Labour/Green regime’s radical interpretation of the Principles is racial segregation: Maori at 16% of the population sharing equal authority with the 84% non-Maori population, euphemistically referred to as “co-governance.”

In some respects, it is reminiscent of Apartheid.

The Waitangi Tribunal was established in the 1970s to negotiate compensation from the Crown for the various Maori tribes due to historical Treaty breaches. A programme of “full and final” settlements has been underway ever since. The majority of Kiwis support these settlements as fair and believed the end to be in sight as the number of outstanding negotiations dwindled. Their disappointment at learning this was not to be the case and that Maori were instead demanding an end to equal suffrage was a major factor in the overwhelming victory of the centre-right coalition at the November general election.

For every government in New Zealand, the year commences with a focus on Maori affairs.

Both of the winning minor parties signed coalition agreements with the major National party that included Maori specific policy. The populist NZ First party promised to ensure English would be used across the public sector so the 97% of Kiwis who don’t speak te reo Maori could understand government communications. The libertarian ACT party undertook to deliver a referendum to define the Principles of the Treaty but the other two parties could only bring themselves to go as far as to support a parliamentary bill through to First Reading. For its part, National said that co-governance would be entirely removed from the delivery of public services and eligibility would be determined by need instead of by race.

This shared policy platform enrages the Maori elite and those who benefited from the previous Labour/Green regime’s largesse, predictably leading to tiresome accusations of racism. New Zealand is perhaps the only country in the world where ‘inherently racist tyranny of the majority’ is regarded as a valid description of democracy. Indeed, variations of this sentiment regularly appear in our national discourse, espoused by the left-wing.

Other intemperate remarks from left-wing politicians such as threats to “go to war” certainly haven’t helped, instead exacerbating tensions. Tensions that may be violently expressed outside Te Tii Waitangi marae on New Zealand’s national day.

Join Mailing List

Democracy in New Zealand has eroded over the last six years of a radical Labour/Green regime and the country now stands at a crossroads. Our society is confronted by fundamental challenges to our constitutional arrangements and the choice is simple: either we’re a multicultural liberal democracy or we’re a bi-cultural ethno-state.

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe we are one people, and this was the intention of the signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Redress for past injustices is right and proper, the imposition of Apartheid is not.

Simon Anderson

Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.

Is “Freedom” a Non-Word?

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

5 January 2024

2

The past few years have prompted a more focused view upon the word Freedom and all that it entails. Covid lockdowns along with coercive directives to take a new and warp-speed developed vaccine to “save Grandma” have been at the core of it.

When I ran as a candidate in Australia’s federal election in 2022 for the United Australia Party, I was one of four freedom candidates vying in my electorate of Lilley. One day on pre-poll, I approached a journalist from one of our major newspapers to ask why we were being ignored by the press, and the public not afforded the opportunity to hear what we had to say. His response was to cast his arm widely over the throng of people lining up on a very wet and wild day to say that we were irrelevant, and that what all those people out there were interested in was only “red” and “blue.”

We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth.

After explaining to him why I was standing up for our freedoms and challenged him to tell me why the people didn’t have the right to hear our messages, he told me: “Freedom is a non-word.”

Naturally I disagreed, and the historian in me tried to appeal to his better judgement, given that his own career reflected the freedoms available to him to pursue a path to write and communicate his thoughts and ideas.

If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans, which was created to ensure the people had a voice and for the three levels of government to remain separate.

Imagine telling Socrates, the man who questioned everything and who encouraged others to do the same, that the word Freedom meant nothing at all? I doubt he would have needed hemlock to see his last day – the shock would have taken him out.

Almost four years have gone by since our world changed, and many people have forgotten about the egregious rules and punishments that were handed down from on high. They have proceeded to carry on with their lives, tut-tutting those of us who remind them of just what the government overlords did.

If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans

Australians are by nature laid back. Sadly, that proved more true than many of us thought possible when the majority knelt before the altar of the Leviathan.

The future may look grim as we watch our inherent rights taken away from us, but I continue to look to the wisdom and foresight of the ancients as they navigated their own way through the quagmire of tyranny and oppression. We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth.

Join Mailing List

Because history does matter. And so does freedom.

When the Gauls razed Rome to the ground in 390 BC, the general, Camillus, had to restore faith in the soldiers and the people to continue to defend and believe in their own freedoms. Many wanted to leave the ruins and rubble of their beloved Rome, but Camillus would have none of that, stating:

“Must it be seen that Gauls could tumble Rome to the ground, while Romans are too weak to lift her up again?”

It is my hope that one day soon our nation will wise up enough to do the same heavy lifting which is required to reclaim what is rightfully ours, and what is absolutely a word unto itself – Freedom.

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

By

Warren Wang

-

28 December 2023

2

During my recent one-month stay in China’s bustling metropolises, the omnipresence of technology, particularly WeChat (a “Super App” Elon Musk wants X to be for the West), was starkly evident. QR codes adorned nearly every surface, from restaurant menus to market stalls, making WeChat an indispensable part of daily life. The ‘everything app’ seamlessly integrates functions akin to WhatsApp, Facebook, eBay, Uber and many others into one platform.

The convenience it offers is undeniable: messaging, social networking, making payments, ordering food and hailing rides are all accomplished with a few taps on a smartphone. However, beneath this veneer of ultra-convenience lies a more ominous reality.

The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy

In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a superficially perfect society masks deep underlying issues. This theme resonates profoundly with my experience in China. On the surface, life is streamlined and digitised. In cities like Shanghai, cash is almost obsolete (I used no cash at all for the one-month trip), and every need or whim is catered to with astonishing efficiency, with technology not just an enabler but a dominant force shaping society. Yet, this convenience comes at a steep cost – privacy is virtually non-existent.

The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens.

Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm

The extensive surveillance network I described in “China’s Dystopia I: Security to Slavery” is not limited to physical spaces. Every transaction, interaction or movement facilitated by WeChat and other digital platforms is tracked, recorded, and scrutinised whenever the government deems necessary. The app, while a marvel of modern technology, doubles as a tool for surveillance, with the Chinese government having unfettered access to the data collected.

Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword

This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience. On the other, it represents a dystopian reality where personal details, preferences, and even thoughts are no longer private. Every digital footprint is monitored, contributing to a profile that the government can access and analyse at will. The notion of ”Big Brother” in George Orwell’s “1984” finds a parallel here, though it is perhaps more aptly described by Huxley’s vision where citizens are placated with pleasures and conveniences, unaware of or indifferent to the loss of their freedoms.

The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit

The move towards a cashless society in China brings its own set of risks. The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens. Coupled with the social credit system, this creates a scenario where individuals can be rewarded or punished not just for their actions, but also for their associations.

This system has become a tool for cracking down on dissent. Individuals or groups who interact with or support entities disfavoured by the government can find themselves facing financial restrictions or worse. Being locked out of WeChat, for example, effectively prevents participation in daily life.

This level of control over personal and financial interactions adds another layer to the surveillance state, where not just actions, but also associations, are monitored and controlled.

This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience.

Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World

As we progress further into the digital era, the Chinese model serves as a crucial case study for the rest of the world. It poses a fundamental question: what is the true cost of convenience? In a society where every digital interaction is monitored, can freedom truly exist? The allure of a frictionless, digital life is powerful, but it should not blind us to the importance of safeguarding our privacy and freedom.

Join Mailing List

As Australia observes the unfolding digital dystopia in China, it becomes imperative to reflect upon our own relationship with technology and surveillance. While enjoying a more open and democratic society, Australia is not immune to the risks posed by the unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies. The use of such technologies for contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic signalled clear privacy erosion and government overreach.

As Australia strides forward in its technological journey, it must tread cautiously to avoid the pitfalls seen in China. As Huxley’s “Brave New World” warns, a society enamoured with comfort and entertainment may be blind to the erosion of its essential liberties. The challenge for us is to ensure that technological advancements serve humanity, not government.

Warren Wang

Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.

The Famine Upon Our Minds.

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

7 December 2023

3

Our right to free thought and speech

The year is 1643. The English Civil War between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians has begun. The new revolutionary Parliament has refused to relax laws around censorship of books and has now passed a new law to license the press – Ordinance for the Regulating of Printing, also known as The Licensing Order of 1643.

The political theorist and poet, John Milton, was prompted to write an appeal to Parliament arguing that England required a free press, unshackled from the strict licensing that Charles I had imposed via his infamous Star Chamber, which had been abolished in 1641.

The argument failed.

Australians need to be mindful of the inflammatory use of such weaponised language by those who are meant to “serve” us, rather than “manage” us.

Milton’s pamphlet, entitled Areopagitica, was designed to be delivered in the same manner as at the Council of ancient Athens on the Hill of Ares, north-west of the Acropolis, known as the Areopagus.

Yet here we are in 2023, post tyrannical regimes, famines, and great wars, still fighting to retain our right to free thought and speech . And as far as the press goes, the inimitable Kerry Packer would be turning in his grave to see what the modern media has become.

Is it any wonder that some of us question the whole idea of progress?

Surely, we have passed through that archaic and staid period where people could not speak their mind or write their thoughts down without fear or favour.

Are we not the ones chosen to live in a time of great innovation that will march our species into the world of wild imaginings of the kind that require open minds and the freedom to articulate those ideas?

As we stare down the imminent passing of a Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, it is clear the answer is NO.

The Minister with oversight of this Bill, Michelle Rowland, recently presented a speech at the Press Club in Canberra in rousing support for, and defence of, the Bill. The section of gravest concern is that of the new powers which the government seeks to impose on what they consider to be misinformation and disinformation.

Ms Rowland highlighted what she regards as a “gap in our existing regulatory framework,” which she stressed needs to be tackled “seriously.” (I can feel Kerry’s presence as his spiritual wrath arises!).

She claims that 70% of Australians are concerned with misinformation, with the press release inferring that the people see this as solely a responsibility of the government. There is no room for consideration that the government should step back from regulating.

The Opposition doesn’t get a free pass: as the Minister states, her predecessor, the Liberals Paul Fletcher, “announced that ‘his’ government would legislate to give the regulator new information gathering and enforcement powers in this area.”

So heinous are the people of Australia that they know not what they do when stating their views. The Minister refers to a report by the Chief of the Defence Force in which he says, “disinformation operations” have the potential to “fracture and fragment entire societies.”

So, not only are we unable to manage our own thoughts and words, but we are mounting “operations.”

Surely, we have passed through that archaic and staid period where people could not speak their mind or write their thoughts down without fear or favour.

Australians need to be mindful of the inflammatory use of such weaponised language by those who are meant to “serve” us, rather than “manage” us.

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

We should be declaring our belief in the right we have as human beings – to think and speak freely and to understand that offence is taken and not given

Milton argued that should the new Parliament fail to rescind the law, it will succumb to the same fate as that which it fought the King to abolish:

“We can grow ignorant again, brutish, formal, and slavish, as you found us; but you then must first become that which you cannot be – oppressive, arbitrary, and tyrannous, as they were from whom you have freed us.”

It is a question we need to ask our politicians: How do they see themselves after this Bill is enshrined? Do they believe they will be immune under the law, a law which they themselves put in place? Why would they escape it? How did they manage to conjure up such a miserable decree in the first place? And more importantly, why?

Join Mailing List

Australia operates as a representative parliamentary democracy; a place where Truth and Falsehood engage in battle in the hope that Truth wins the day. As Milton so eloquently expresses:

“And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength.”

Let us insist that our own Areopagus in Canberra be used for purposes that demonstrate a sense of responsibility, humility, and honour, lest this great Famine leave our minds a desperate wasteland.

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

Cancel Culture – Could you be next?

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

25 November 2023

1

Efforts to damage reputations and careers

Cancel culture is an online phenomenon involving a collective shared public response, with the intention of holding individuals or entities accountable for perceived offenses. Frequently involving public shaming, it can manifest as boycotts, calls for de-platforming, or efforts to damage reputations and careers. Exacting consequences on an individual’s reputation and livelihood, it replaces a rule of law approach governing the conduct of individuals in society

Anyone can become a target just by being part of the online community and offending someone, although the real intention behind cancel culture is to silence those who do not conform to a particular narrative or have differing and unacceptable views.

Cancel culture bypasses due process, denying individuals the opportunity for a fair defence

Without a formal process, individuals find themselves unable to address or counter accusations, contrary to the principles of due process that provide the right to a fair hearing and the chance to present a defence.

A recent example of this was the case of Russell Brand, an alternative media personality known for promoting free speech on YouTube and Rumble. Brand has consistently spoken out against big pharma, censorship, Covid tyranny and vaccine mandates and government and legacy media corruption. Brand has been labelled a right-wing extremist and conspiracy theorist but when these labels did not deter him nor his audience of almost 7 million viewers, he became himself the target of cancel culture.

Brand was accused by way of a British television documentary in which women anonymously accused him of historical sexual abuse allegations. Brand vehemently denied the allegations, had not been questioned by police or charged with any of the alleged crimes.

Brand was estimated to earn a million British pounds just from YouTube. Nonetheless, YouTube swiftly demonetised him.

Caroline Dinenage, a British MP, wrote to Rumble’s CEO asking whether Rumble intended to join YouTube in suspending Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.

In a public statement posted on X, Rumble called the letter disturbing and said Dinenage’s demands were deeply inappropriate and dangerous. The Platform added that it was devoted to an internet where nobody arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform. It added that while it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of the company’s values and mission. Rumble also stated that it was even more disturbing singling out an individual and demanding his ban given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble.

Despite this win against the cancel culture mob, months later, Brand remains demonetised on YouTube although YouTube continues to make money from his content. He still has not been charged with any offence and the mob has moved on.

Legal Certainty

While the rule of law upholds the principle that laws should be clear, predictable, and consistently applied, with cancel culture, individuals may face consequences for conduct they could not predict would lead to severe backlash, from liking a post to expressing an opinion deemed offensive.

Lack of Due Process

The rule of law ensures individuals have a fair chance to defend themselves in a structured and systematic manner. Cancel culture bypasses due process, denying individuals the opportunity for a fair defence and subjecting them to arbitrary judgments by an angry online mob.

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

The rule of law affords individuals the right not to comment during an investigation or testify during trial to prevent self-incrimination while cancel culture demands public apologies, placing individuals in a lose-lose situation. Silence is assumed guilt, while an apology is a self-incriminating admission of guilt.

real intention behind cancel culture is to silence those who do not conform to mainstream narratives

Procedural Fairness and Due Process

The rule of law ensures individuals have the right to legal representation, procedural fairness, and equal application of the law. Whereas cancel culture is applied inconsistently, with different consequences for similar conduct based on ideological or political affiliations.

Proportionate Punishments

The rule of law prescribes clear guidelines for penalties based on established legal principles. Unlike cancel culture which imposes disproportionate punishments such as de-platforming, job loss, and public humiliation without adherence to legal principles.

Legal Accountability of Law Enforcement Officials

The rule of law imposes accountability on law enforcement officials for their actions. Cancel culture lacks accountability, enabling online mobs to cause irreparable harm without consequences.

Cancel culture has flourished in a climate of political demagoguery, where appeals to emotions, prejudices, and fear shape public narratives. Governments and activists manipulate public sentiment to justify silencing dissent and punishing those with differing views.

Join Mailing List

The clash between cancel culture and the rule of law highlights the need for a nuanced and reasoned approach to free speech, dissent, and accountability. In a democratic society, the principles of due process, legal accountability, and equality under the law should always prevail over arbitrary and emotional judgments.

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.

Citizen Journalist Videos Police Collusion With A Violent Mob

By

Simon Anderson

-

9 November 2023

1

I was flattered to receive an invitation from Liberty Itch to join the team of writers.

They asked that my début article be something of an introduction: explaining how I came to notoriety, so here it is.

On 25^th March I filmed trans activists rioting in Auckland’s Albert Park, preventing British women’s rights campaigner Posie Parker from speaking. I used a 360° camera attached to a three-metre-long selfie-stick so the footage is overhead, from the middle of the crowd. These cameras film in all directions concurrently and from it, flat clips can be exported.

That evening on the nightly news and over the next two days the ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful. They used sound bites such as “peaceful protest,” “pure trans joy” and “an outpouring of aroha [love.]”

I knew the footage I had directly contradicted this false narrative so I started publishing it.

The following day my life changed.

Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”

I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it!

I used Twitter to post infrequently about my interests, stuff people weren’t particularly interested in. But oh boy, were they interested in this. On the morning of the 28^th I woke to twenty notifications per second, requests from major news organisations for syndication (accepted) and for interview (declined.) By the end of the week millions of people around the world had viewed the material.

Then I started receiving requests. Primarily from assault victims, some of whom remain traumatised. With a 360° camera I’m seldom looking in the direction of pertinent material. People came to me with requests for flat exports at a certain time in a certain direction so the footage could be evidential in police complaints and subsequently prosecutions.

Of course, I agreed. And kept publishing, clip after clip, each more damning of the official narrative than the last. This didn’t endear me much to the authorities or the rainbow community, nor their left-wing supporters and the domestic mainstream media. In a small country I’m no longer a private citizen.

People came to trust in my integrity. And I’ve become something of a clearing house for information: witness statements, responses to Official Information Act requests, footage from other photographers wishing to remain anonymous and so on. Publishing this material helps to keep the pressure on the authorities (who very much want all of this to go away) to do the right thing.

Which brings me to the New Zealand Police.

On the day of the riot the police withdrew to the outskirts of Albert Park, allowing the rainbow community to get stuck into the women who were there to speak or listen. In a frenzy the rioters broke through metal barriers to get to them. Whilst this was occurring the police were in constant contact with the rainbow organisers. Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”

I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it, and I’m in possession of the OIA responses and independent witness accounts that corroborate it.

This was -at best- a significant operational failure on the part of the police. Some might go so far as to say collusion with a violent mob. It is contentious enough for the Independent Police Conduct Authority to launch an investigation. At the insistence of several victims the IPCA interviewed me two weeks ago, which of course I published, and you can listen to the testimony at my YouTube channel.

To coincide with a court hearing concerning one of her alleged assailants, Posie Parker was due to attend another speaking event in Auckland on 20^th September. She cancelled because the New Zealand authorities refused to guarantee her safety. It offends me greatly that anyone is prevented from speaking in public and I am ashamed that my country is not a safe place for her to visit. The event went ahead in her absence.

Which brings me to the power of photography.

The ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful.

The police and the rainbow community are deeply cognizant of the damage the Albert Park footage has done respectively to their reputation and their cause. To discourage violence, hold police accountable and above all keep women safe I formed a team of volunteers to film the event. We achieved these objectives.

Join Mailing List

Other photographers regularly hit me up to back them up in tricky situations, typically demonstrations. Pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, anti-co-governance, whatever. I do so because I want to prevent harm coming to anyone and for the truth to be told.

Now I’m notorious, these are increasingly dangerous situations. Demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, media, police. People I’ve never met address me by name.

Some are not fans.

Simon Anderson

Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.

A Serving of Humble Pie, Minister?

By

Gerardine Hoogland

-

2 November 2023

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two millennium must count for something – wisdom via endurance.

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

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

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

Imprisoned With Zero Charges

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

25 September 2023

2

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

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

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

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

92 pieces of counter-terrorism legislation were pushed through Parliament

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

What is habeas corpus?

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

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

A shift in legal paradigm

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

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

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

So, how does this affect non-terrorists?

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

These laws threaten fundamental rights

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

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

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

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

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

bypassing cherished legal safeguards such as habeas corpus

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

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

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.

Join Me On The Watchlist

By

James Hol

-

6 September 2023

0

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

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

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

THE BATTLELINES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DRAWN

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

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

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

But then Covid happened.

DIE ON YOUR FEET

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

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

Who cares about friends when you can never trust anyone?

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

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

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

LIVE FREE OR DIE

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

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

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

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

James Hol

While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.

Welcome To Free Speech

By

Max Payne

-

23 August 2023

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

Green Sky Thinking

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

21 August 2023

0

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

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

… an authoritarian government that prohibits the publication of misinformation.

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

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

The Ministry of Truth

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

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

The Ambiguity of Definitions

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

This ambiguity creates a chilling effect on free speech

The Broad Concept of Harm

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

Defending Democracy and Freedom

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

The Victorian Bar slammed the Bill as ‘illiberal’.

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

That double standard is illiberal

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

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 Ministry of Truth

By

James Hol

-

2 August 2023

4

The Government recently released its exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. It is just as Orwellian as it sounds – if not more.

The Bill empowers the even more Orwellian-sounding Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to not only engage in fascistic partnerships with social media giants, but to impose industry-wide standards and codes to ensure “misinformation” is not spread online.

MISINFORMATION

The obvious question is, what is misinformation? The Bill, in its infinite wisdom, defines misinformation as “false, misleading or deceptive” content that “is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”

Harm is given a broad definition, including disseminating “hatred against a group in Australian society” and harming Australia’s health or environment. Of course, we are no wiser as to how “serious” this harm must be.

It is clear what this Bill aims to do: shut down anti-government sentiment and the dissident class.

Posting uncomfortable facts about a pandemic? Now you are harming the health of Australians.

Advocating a vote against the Voice to Parliament on social media? Now you are disseminating hatred against a group based on race.

Doubting the climate narrative online? Now you are harming the Australian environment. Remember, you do not even need to be causing this “harm”; merely contributing to it.

IT GETS WORSE

Now I am sure esteemed readers of Liberty Itch are already well aware of what I have outlined, but many are under the mistaken assumption that this will only apply to social media giants. In fact, it will apply to every single website that provides “news content” and has an “interactive feature”.

If you think you can avoid the Ministry of Truth by simply starting your own social media platform or providing content on your own website, you’d be advised to have no interest in a comments section or posting video content, otherwise that website will also be captured by these draconian laws. Indeed, this Liberty Itch masthead will be at threat of fines in the millions of dollars should this Bill become law.

Perhaps some hope to escape the law by hosting servers or establishing companies overseas. But no: ACMA are wise to that. The Bill includes an extra-territorial provision, meaning hiding outside Australia’s borders won’t stop ACMA from fining you.

AN AFFRONT TO OUR VALUES

As well as the government seeking to extend its tentacles outside its own jurisdiction, which is becoming increasingly common in modern law-making, ACMA has taken many longstanding precedents to the shredder with this Bill.

While unfortunately not enshrined in our Constitution, Australians are endowed with the right not to incriminate themselves. If this Bill passes Parliament, that will no longer apply to instances of online “misinformation”.

While the Bill gives lip service to our constitutionally implied freedom of political communication, it attempts to circumvent it by creating a fascistic partnership between ACMA and private entities. Instead of ACMA enforcing speech, it makes digital service providers do its dirty work – at threat of significant fines.

However, ACMA can impose industry-wide standards and codes if digital service providers go rogue and dishonour their fascistic agreements. Hoping for a safe haven at Elon Musk’s Twitter (now called X), might be more pipe dream than reality.

This Bill also does away with another long-held precedent: serving legal notices in person. Under this Bill, ACMA is now empowered to serve legal notices, including summons, electronically.

THE FIGHT OF OUR LIVES

Perhaps the only good thing about this Bill is that it is in the relatively early stages of drafting. Public submissions have been invited by ACMA and I implore all readers to give their feedback. A massive outpouring of concern and a public backlash might force ACMA to reconsider its brazen destruction of our fundamental liberties. Continued activism will also be required to ensure whatever subversive version of this Bill the government thinks they can get away with never reaches the floor of Parliament.

Above all, non-compliance is necessary. This is where we must draw a line, stand strong in the face of overbearing penalties and defend everything we stand for with everything we have.

Have your say! Fight for liberty!

James Hol

While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.

Offence Is Taken, Not Given

By

David Leyonhjelm

-

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

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

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

12 July 2023

0

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?

Kenelm Tonkin

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.

Labor Betrays Doc Evatt And South Australians

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

1 June 2023

0

For all my life, Australia has been a place where freedoms were safe.

In fact, Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, a Labor man of letters, youngest ever High Court justice, Opposition Leader during the Menzies era and a not so distant relative of mine, led an Australian delegation to the brand-new United Nations and pushed through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So passionate was he to have such a statement of our basic freedoms that he later became President of the United Nations General Assembly.

Dr H.V. Evatt. Author of the *Universal Declaration of Human Rights*.

That declaration enshrined the basics we’ve come to know in the West as underpinning our way of life:

Freedom of assembly
Freedom to petition the government
Freedom of speech and expression.

and many more.

Doc Evatt, the very essence of what Labor was at its most noble, would be turning in his grave today that his own Party in South Australia has decided to dismantle what he stood for.

The Malinauskas Labor Government in South Australia had a blank canvass on which to correct the wrongs of the previous Liberal government. That government was as illiberal as any Australian administration as I have seen in my lifetime, barring the Andrews and Gunner Labor Governments of Victoria and Northern Territory respectively.

Peter Malinauskas. Premier. South Australia. Labor.

Instead, Malinauskas South Australian Labor has covered the snow-white canvass in tyrannical excrement.

I am so ashamed to be South Australian.

Its rushed Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill 2023 is a disgrace.

The freedoms we have come to rely on: freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition the government, and the freedom of speech and expression, are now under direct attack.

Labor be damned.

It was bad enough that we had multiple Freedom Rallies in Adelaide in opposition to a government deaf to our calls for freedom from Covid coercion. At least, we then had a change of government. But to what?

The new Government is now increasing protestor fines from $750 to $50,000 and you can be jailed for three months.

Rushed through the House of Assembly after protestors made their presence felt against Santos, this Labor Government swiftly did the bidding of big business.

Citizens must be free to protest. Citizens must be free to express themselves.

I’ll have no truck with the conservative voices I’ve heard on this. They said “You’re taking the side of the Extinction Rebellion. They’re ratbags. These are the same people who throw soup on artwork.”

If protestors damage property, the rule of law must prevail and property rights must be protected.

But you don’t achieve that by throwing out other rights we’ve come to expect from a liberal democracy.

No.

So what if left-leaning organisations have condemned Labor for this erosion of our freedoms?. Amnesty International, the Australian Services Union, Extinction Rebellion and the South Australian Council of Social Service are correct on this issue. It’s not a partisan matter. It’s about liberal democracy itself.

Sarah Game MLC, One Nation, is appalled by this Bill. She is correct.

The Hon. Sarah Game MLC. One Nation. South Australia.

You know something is not right in the state of Denmark when Extinction Rebellion and One Nation band together.

Where are the South Australian libertarians on this matter? Where are the Nationals? Where the United Australia Party? Where Family First? Where Shooters, Fishers and Farmers?

And where are those lukewarm Liberals? Michelle Lensink MLC: you’re being outflanked by One Nation on a matter of civil liberties. You were a philosophical liberal when we were both on the Federal Executive of the Young Liberal Movement. What happened to you?

If you’re reading this, speak up! If you’re a Liberal Party member, get on the phone to your MLCs now. If you’re a Labor Party member, turn up to your MLC’s office now.

The freedoms to assemble, protest, speak and petition the government are not negotiable.

Doc Evatt, exemplar of the civil rights that Labor used to cherish, would be pulling his hair out today because of his own party.

And of all places in our Commonwealth, South Australia was the freest historically.

No more.

Act.

Kenelm Tonkin

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 Iron Curtain Draws Across The West

By

Jaimie Stevenson

-

15 May 2023

0

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.

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.

8 Reasons Liberal Democracies Should Never Ban Political Speech

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

13 March 2023

0

Never ban political speech.

This is especially true if the political speech in question is radical, is expressed by the craziest, most dangerous people.

Never ban a communist, a fascist, an ethno-nationalist or a militant jihadist.

Why?

I’ll give you eight reasons …

Banning political speech white-ants liberal democracy.
How is this the case when liberal democracy is the very thing we cherish and want to protect? Well, if governments of free-people ban a group from expressing themselves, we’ve just taken one incremental step away from freedom. Ban one, you can ban two. Each step logically moves democracy towards a regime less tolerant. If a country has, say, eleven political movements, the government of the day needs only take ten steps to ban all opposing views!
Banning political speech is a double-edged sword.
Sure, it’s tempting when in power. How long will you be in power though? Today’s government is tomorrow’s opposition. Ban a view today and you’ll be muzzled tomorrow. It’s a dangerous tactic with unintended consequences for you personally.
Banning political speech creates a habit our politicians shouldn’t develop.
Prohibiting one thing can lead to outlawing many other freedoms. If political speech can be banned without a whimper, why not who we associate with or where we travel, how we earn a living or who we worship.
Banning political speech creates martyrs for your opponent’s movement.
The zealots and disgruntled fanatics who follow them have long, long memories, will use the banning as evidence for their cause and will add it as yet another grievance to motivate and inspire an ever-growing support base.
Banning political speech hides the enemy.
If the views you’ve prohibited from being expressed are radical and could lead to, if implemented, the end of liberal democracy itself, it’s far, far better to know the identities of these foes. Shut them down and you might never know who and where they are.
Banning political speech weakens the future leaders of liberal democracy.
The next generation of political leaders will have lived without hearing the message we’ve banned. They will be unpractised countering taboo opinions. They’ll be less battle-hardened politically and ill-prepared for the fights ahead.
Banning political speech is the Leftists’ cancel culture you despise.
Today, they have little choice. Winning an argument is beyond many in the Left. Let them play the game of deplatforming and cancelling. Let them weaken themselves. Liberals, classical liberals and libertarians? Never.
Banning political speech puts you in very bad company.
Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein were chillingly effective at using this blunt, illiberal tool to crush dissent. Do you really want to associate yourself with these despots?

Kenelm Tonkin

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.

INTERVIEW: Undaunted, He Still Fights For Freedom

By

Fiona Hui

-

8 March 2023

0

Australia is home to nearly 3,000 Tibetans. This number has increased steadily by around 100 new Tibetans a year. Almost all are on humanitarian visas.

3,000 is not a huge number, but it fills up the whole town of, say, McLaren Vale, a well-known wine-producing region in South Australia. Whilst it may sound quite cozy, the reality of life for these Tibetans, of course, is nothing like sipping delicious wine.

These Tibetans are political prisoners who have fled Tibet and come to Australia for safety, due to the brutal persecution by Beijing since its Tibet annexation in 1951. Although it may seem like a long time ago, the human rights abuses in Tibet have not stopped since the Chinese invasion.

Religious persecution has been a consistent theme in China. Liberty Itch has reported the Chinese Communist Party’s unspeakable abuses of the Uyghurs, Christians, and Falun Gong.

The Chinese regime is determined that all their citizens worship nothing but the Chinese Communist Party – except that Tibetans are not even ‘Chinese citizens.’ Like East Turkistan, Tibet was an independent neighbouring country on the Western side of China.

Neighbours of the People’s Republic of China.

It’s unfortunate to be China’s neighbours, as their autonomy and freedom are constantly at risk.

Alarmingly, the CCP’s invasion of economically weaker countries is not just a matter of history. We know that Taiwan is the next immediate invasion target while the Indo-Pacific region has received increasing ‘interest’ and economic coercion by the Chinese State.Subscribe

It is not right that only the Chinese propaganda machine has the power to narrate history. Liberty Itch is eager to reach out to individuals, who possess first-hand stories of what has occurred in their nation’s history.

We made contact with Perth based Tibetan Australian, Tenpa Dargye, who spent five years in a Chinese prison from 2001 to 2006. He is a direct victim of the atrocities committed by the Chinese government. Although he is well settled in Australia, his life continues to be impacted today.

Tanpa visited Adelaide last week and the interview was conducted face to face.

Liberty Itch: Please tell us about your experience in Tibet.

Tenpa Dargye: I was born and grew up in the Golog of Eastern Tibet. Today, Tibet is the least free country in the world, among the same ranks of Syria and South Sudan. I believe in Buddhism and my spiritual leader is the Dalai Lama. I meditate regularly and believe in peace and kindness.

Prior to People’s Republic of China’s invasion in 1950, Tibet was an independent country with its own government, military, national flag, language and currency. The majority of Tibetans practice Buddhism and respect the nature that inherits the Ancient Bon Religion, the indigenous religious tradition of Tibet.

Since 1987, the PRC government suddenly tightened its control over the three regions of Tibet again. I was imprisoned by the Colonial Government of the PRC for practicing the political vision of the 14^th Dalai Lama. I was in prison for five years from 2001 to 2006. I was released in 2006 but I got arrested again, during the 2008 Tibetan uprising, for another two months.

LI: Five years is a long time. What was it like in a Chinese prison during this period?

TD: I was in a Colonial Government prison in Lhasa, which is the capital city of Tibet. The interrogations in prison were unbearable. Without given any reason, I was given electric shocks to my heart and mouth. The PRC prison guards seemed to enjoy causing anguish, as they were laughing after giving me each shock. During interrogations, they demanded I recant my faith in the Dalai Lama and declare loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. I felt powerless and terrified.

I was finally released in 2006 on admitted that the Chinese Communist Party rule was the best rule for all Tibetans. I was coerced into admitting it so I could get out of prison.

Then in 2008, I was arrested again for two months. Arbitrary arrest and detention are ‘normal’ in Tibet. I was arrested for ‘having incorrect sentiment’ towards to Chinese Communist Party.

This time when they released me, I fled to India. India is a common place to which Tibetans escape, because of its proximity to Tibet.

LI: How did you end up in Australia? How is your life impacted today?

TD: When I was in India in 2009, I was helped by people who created the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. They were very kind and helped me apply for an Australian humanitarian visa.

In 2014, I started the campaign, “I’m not celebrating the Tibetan New year before the reunion of inside and outside Tibetan people”. As part of the campaign, each year, I visit a different Australian capital city during Tibetan New Year, usually in February. I want people to understand and remember the 160 Tibetan self-immolators, including among them 41 Buddhist monks and 8 nuns, who have set fire to themselves in protest at the Chinese occupation.

‘Self-immolation’ is an action in Tibetan Buddhism, where one sets fire to oneself as a form of protest and sacrifice. I want people to honour and remember them, like we honour our war heroes on Anzac Day. All of them have sacrificed themselves for our freedom.

My campaign started in Dharamshala in North India in 2014. Then I went to Brisbane in 2015, Sydney in 2016, Canberra in 2017, Melbourne in 2018, Perth in 2019, Hobart in 2020, Perth again in 2021 and 2022 due to COVID restrictions, and in 2023 I visited Adelaide for the first time.

Tenpa Dargye at Parliament House, Adelaide. 21 February 2023.

I want my fellow compatriots to understand that although Tibet seems ‘invisible’ today due to Chinese occupation, I still refuse to accept my nation’s invasion by Beijing.

Tibet still lives in my heart and I dream of a day when it will be free again, with spirituality replacing the CCP’s vandalism.

Fiona Hui

Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.

FREEDOM! The Daughter of Davos Resigns.

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

20 January 2023

0

Two extraordinary things happened yesterday.

First, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation effective, at the latest, early in February 2023. (Yes, New Zealanders need to endure her for a few weeks more!)

Second, I put out this short tweet yesterday together with a video of the Prime Minister, and it went viral. In a mere 180 minutes, it was seen by 67,400 people and was still swishing around the globe as I wrote this. After 8 hours, 165,000+!

You have to ask ‘WHY?’

https://twitter.com/KenelmTonkin/status/1615875921638219778?s=20

Jacinda Ardern set a couple of records. She was the youngest female prime minister ever in 2017. Further, she gave birth whilst in office.

Of course, neither of these have anything to do with political achievement.

To be fair, we can probably agree that Jacinda Ardern is expressive.

Some went so far as to say she showed great empathy.

I think it more accurate to say any apparent empathy was self-consciously dispensed and exclusively to beneficiaries of her bias.

Any praise for expressiveness and empathy needs much closer scrutiny. It’s what she expresses that so confounds civil libertarians like you and me. And, if you don’t mind me expressing myself here dear reader, she showed a distinct lack of empathy for many during covid lockdowns, victims of which are generations not yet born as you’ll see. So read on.

Instead, what we observed was a smiling socialist, a Daughter of Davos, instinct over intellect, all feeling and no financial finesse. In short, she was a classical liberal’s nightmare.

Just look at the legacy she leaves after six reckless years in office:

Frequent meddling with the free market. The results: distortions in housing prices and a generation of first home buyers shut-out of their ownership aspirations;
A backlash against over-zealous covid restrictions and loss of personal freedoms, including creating a medical-apartheid defined by vaccination-status. See the video tweet above;
Conscientious objectors and the vaccine-hesitant were shunned socially, denied mobility, prevented from earning a living and targeted by government in ways the Stasi would have relished in Soviet-era East Germany;
Consequential increasing crime rates in the island nation;
Inflation sitting at 7.2%;
Food prices spiking 8.3% compared with the same time a year earlier;
Successive interest rate increases from New Zealand’s central bank;
A monstrous public debt! When she took office, the public debt was approximately $60 billion USD. Projections are that, based on all data currently available reflecting the decisions of her government, that the national debt will balloon to $151 billion USD by 2027. If the figure proves higher or lower than that, it will be the result of her successor’s policies, but you can see the economic vandalism on her watch. Put it this way, she led a government which racked-up triple the debt of all previous New Zealand governments combined. She went way over the credit card limit and left someone else to pick up the bill. Funny, right?;
For a country with a population the size of Boston, it will take three generations at least to bring that debt to heel. We are talking inter-generational theft which will crush Zoomer Kiwis’ standard of living, their children and their grandchildren. That is to say, on the day after you, I and Jacinda Ardern meet our Lord and Maker, New Zealanders will be dealing with the Ardern Economic Catastrophe for another two generations thereafter;
Many of them will flee New Zealand and hollow this beautiful jewel of the South Pacific. They have been emigrating anyway, mainly to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States;
A strategic flirtation with the Chinese Communist Party. Her Labour Party has long shunned our liberal democratic ally, America. It was a natural progression from that to openly calling for greater integration with the communists, a weak-kneed strategy in favour of firebrand authoritarianism with a chequebook over the cleansing-balm of liberty;
Consistent with that predisposition towards authoritarianism, civil liberties in New Zealand were shattered under her Governments. Emergency powers poised to be invoked again at any time are left in place;
Chinese Communist Party infiltration of New Zealand consulates and banks;
She openly lied about the efficacy of covid vaccines. “If you take the vaccine, you’ll still get covid but you won’t get sick and you won’t die” was a claim she made during the height of an hysteria of her own making, and contradicted by the science and the manufacturer. Don’t believe me? Watch this …

https://twitter.com/KenelmTonkin/status/1616211090882592768?s=20
More government restrictions on the access and use of water;
Crushing regulations on agricultural emissions;
Further shifting of the goal posts with hate speech laws without any safeguards as to who adjudicates what ‘hate speech’ actually is.

The adulation and applause had faded about a year ago. The shadowy World Economic Forum’s simping seemed impossibly distant now. Jacinda Ardern had to face the people of New Zealand imminently and the prospects weren’t promising.

With polling numbers in decline and the sparkle now tarnished, the Prime Minister did what all faithful authoritarians and central-planners do when their number is up. She spoke sweetly, smiled nervously, then scurried to the nearest exit hoping that the rule of law she undermined holds firm for her.

I was shocked my tweet went viral. I shouldn’t have been. Countless everyday people across the West, people like you and I, have had a gutful.

The Daughter of Davos was a symbol of all that has gone wrong over the last 3 years. So of course you cheered her departure.

I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before she re-emerges with an ostentatious job title and global brief somewhere in the world. “Poverty Ambassador-At-Large, World Economic Forum”, on $820,000 per annum, Davos chalet and chauffeur the obligatory perks on top sounds about right.

And when that happens, you and I can both smile knowingly that at least here she won’t have harmed anyone further. On her departure from the Land of the Long White Cloud, she will increase the average IQ of New Zealand, and not decrease that of the World Economic Forum.

Pardon me if I shed not a solitary tear.

Kenelm Tonkin

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.

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

By

Fiona Hui

-

14 December 2022

0

This isn’t easy to read.

Omar Bekali visited Adelaide recently to deliver a series of keynote speeches.

At first glance, a man on a speaking tour seems ordinary enough. However, Omar’s story is anything but ordinary.

A survivor of the Chinese Communist Party’s Xinjiang Camp, Omar Bekali, 46, presents as a courageous but scarred man with first-hand experience of the Chinese Government’s network of concentration camps. He not only saw people being subjected to unspeakable brutality and torture. He was one of them!

The following interview is compelling and especially wincing, coming with a reader warning. Yet his message is of global importance. The dark truth of China’s concentration camps and human rights violations is uncovered in all their gore.

The scene is Chinese occupied East Turkistan, Xinjiang.

The interview begins …

Liberty Itch: How did you end up in a concentration camp in XinJiang?

OB: My family and I lived in Kazakhstan. I went to Urumqi for a Trade Expo on 22 March 2017 for my work. Then on 25 March 2017, I went to Turpan, a City in Xinjiang, to visit my parents, where I was arrested and detained.

That morning, I was at my parents’ house with my brothers and sisters. Suddenly two police cars pulled up outside our house. Five armed police officers got out from their cars, came into our home, and arrested me. They never presented me with a warrant; they told me that they had one on their computer. I was brought to Dighar Village Police Station where I was made to wait for two hours. Every chance I got, I’d ask to call my parents, a lawyer, the Kazakh Embassy, or my wife, because no one knew where I was and I couldn’t call for help.

LI: On what grounds were you arrested by the Chinese Police?

Share Liberty Itch

OB: It is because I am a Turkic Kazakh. Beijing wants to erase all Turkic people in East Turkistan, a country invaded by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949. The land is now commonly known as ‘XinJiang, China’. I was suddenly accused of ‘terrorism’ and ‘smuggling people out of China’. I was targeted and discriminated against for being a Turkic Kazakh.

LI: When and how long did you stay in the camp?

OB: I stayed in the camp from 26 March 2017 to 24 November 2017.

LI: Where was your family at that time?

OB: My family was in Kazakhstan. I have a beautiful family with my wife and 3 children.

LI: How was your family impacted?

OB: The CCP destroyed my beautiful family. My family members including my children are all mentally impacted. My youngest son, who was one year and three month old when I was captured, could not call me dad for nearly a year after I returned. He complains even now that I abandoned him.

The purpose of these concentration camps is to indoctrinate Uyghurs into obeying the Chinese government. They use sophisticated mechanisms to brainwash us. I was told by the guards I had been poisoned by extreme ideologies during my life outside of China and needed to have a proper ‘Chinese Education’.

LI: What activities did they require of you in the camp?

OB: We are forced to study the Chinese language, Marxism, ‘Xi Jinping Thoughts’, renounce our religion and younger inmates worked in factories.

We were denied food for not agreeing to sing anthems that praised the Chinese government, otherwise known as Red Songs. We were told to denounce our Uyghur identity and Muslim faith. I was made to read a list of 60 types of common crimes associated with my ethnic and religious identity, praying to Allah, having a beard, attending a Muslim marriage, and communicating with people outside China.

My personal belief is that they never actually planned on indoctrinating us. The plan was always to exterminate the Uyghur population and harvest our organs.

LI: Did you comply with all the tasks? What would happen if you didn’t do them?

OB: I tried to resist. I denied the Chinese government’s accusations and asked them to show me the evidence. But that led to severe torture as punishment. The police realised they needed to escalate the pressure to get me to say what they wanted me to say.

From the police station I was brought somewhere I didn’t recognise. The police made me take off my clothes and examined my body, making notes about my condition. That’s when the torture started. They transferred me to the police station, in Kelamayi, Xinjiang.

My hands were strapped onto the arms on the chair
and my feet were constrained at the bottom
while needles were gradually slid into my fingers.
That would last four to eight hours every day.

From April 3 to April 7, 2017, they would put me in the ‘Tiger Chair’ to try and extract information from me and compel me to admit to crimes I wasn’t guilty of.

They said I organised terrorist activities, propagated terrorism, or covered-up for terrorists. The police showed me photos of Uyghur and Kazakh people in Kazakhstan and asked me for their information.

I was given a letter accounting for all of my ‘crimes’ and told to sign it as a confession.

My job was used against me. The police claimed I was using my tourism career as a way to smuggle people out of China and into neighbouring countries.

Needles and nails were inserted into my body every time I told them “no” or “I’m innocent”.

An iron wire was shoved into my penis.

Rope was tied to the ceiling and around my wrists so tight that my feet couldn’t touch the ground. The rope ripped through the skin on my wrists while my body weight pulled me down.

Other days I was put in a “flying plane” position, where both my wrists and feet were tied to the ceiling, pulling my arms and legs out of their sockets while I was left dangling.

The guards would laugh as my body pulled itself apart.

There were five other types of punishment for those who didn’t follow the guards’ orders.

First, they’d make me face a wall for 24 hours without food or drink while they beat me with rubber rods.
Second, we were put in the Tiger Chair where needles were shoved into our fingers and feet.
Third, we’d be left in solitary confinement with no light for 24 hours.
Fourth, they’d put us into scorching hot rooms in the summer or freezing cold rooms in the winter.
Finally, a punishment I thankfully never experienced was called water prison. I heard of many detainees who were put in the water prison, but I don’t know what it is.

Share

LI: How did you manage to escape?

OB: To my great surprise on November 24, 2017, I was informed of my release and expulsion to Kazakhstan. I had been detained for eight months. I later learned that my wife sent a number of letters to the UN Human Rights Commission and the Kazakhstan Foreign Minister attesting to my innocence.

The considerable press coverage of my illegal detainment was a major factor in my release.

LI: Where do you live now?

OB: I migrated to the Netherlands with a valid visa. I moved there to provide eyewitness evidence about what is happening in the concentration camps in XinJiang.

LI: How many Uyghur people are in concentration camps in XiaJiang?

OB: It’s always hard to tell, of course. However, while I was in the camp in 2017, my best estimate is that more than a million Uyghurs were in the camps.

Omar’s is a cautionary tale about brutality inflicted by our largest trading partner. He endured trauma and unspeakable pain that no-one should be required to bear.

However, I prefer to see Omar through the lens of unfaltering courage, resilience and the strength to survive. There’s a bravery in telling his painful story again and again on a global stage, a story shared by millions of Uyghurs and other minority groups who are still in the XinJiang camps.

Today, he is bringing his testimony before international human rights bodies.

What can everyday Australians do to help the Uyghur people?

This year the United States used it’s Magnitsky legislation to ban the import of certain Xinjiang products, including cotton, over concerns about forced-labor in the XinJiang region.

Australia has similar Magnitsky legislation but has not used it to sanction companies exploiting Uyghur slave-labour.

Whilst we at Liberty Itch wholeheartedly support free-trade and are against wholesale nationwide sanctions, products manufactured with slave-labour is anathema to free-trade principles and cannot be supported.

While you wait for your Commonwealth Government to take a stand on this, you can take action as an individual and purchase alternatives to brands made with Uyghur slave-labour.

Small acts of defiance in support of human rights go a long way.

Fiona Hui

Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.

BREAKING: Man Who Chanted “CCP, Step Down”, Arrested and Disappeared!

By

Fiona Hui

-

8 December 2022

0

Brave Chinese citizens have yet again risked imprisonment challenging their country’s regime.

They took to the streets to fight the Chinese Communist Party’s prolonged and inhumane lockdown, a policy which caused residents trapped in their high-rise apartment building in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, to be burned-alive.

In scenes from the security state rarely accessible to the world, Chinese people gathered in the Shanghai streets and chanted ‘CCP, step down. Xijiping, step down!’ The chanting showed the citizens’ barely concealed contempt and dissatisfaction with their government, seemingly well beyond just its strict COVID measures.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NG-91ngQn4E?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

The whereabouts of the protest leader you see in this video is unknown.

His family were eye-witnesses to him being handcuffed and unceremoniously bundled into a van. There is no official paperwork of his arrest. His family reported that three days after the arrest, there is still no trace of the young man.

He was simply ‘made to disappear.’

China is the world’s most heavily surveilled country. Intrusive facial recognition software, a tool used to thwart human rights and civil liberties, is now being routinely exploited by the Chinese Police State. Facial recognition systems log nearly every single citizen in the country, with 372.8 cameras per 1,000 people.

Chinese authorities have reportedly begun tracking-down people who took part in the demonstrations. Students are always the weakest and easiest to pick off. Others who attended the protests are being rounded-up without scrutiny from international media.

This wasn’t sufficient intimidation for the despotic regime. The Chinese Government immediately made its military presence felt more publicly as it rolled-out armoured tanks on the street.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/vG6nB_YXPUQ?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Unlike the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, the Government now has the technology to corral freedom-activists more secretly to avoid the world’s condemnation. The Chinese Communist Party, with all the apparatus of a surveillance state and growing superpower, seemingly acts in fear of its own defenceless citizens.

These actions are a continuation of well-documented brutality evident in the 2019 Hong Kong protests. (Warning: the next video depicts graphic violence on an unarmed civilian. Viewer discretion recommended.)

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WSCi38shWxg?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Freedom is worth the fight.

Pray for the Chinese people.

Fiona Hui

Fiona is a higher education professional based in South Australia. Following the collapse of Hong Kong freedom, Fiona became deeply concerned about the threats imposed by China within Australia. Her research covers a range of topics, including China’s soft power, influence, infiltration, interference and human rights abuses.

INTERVIEW: The CCP imprisoned him. She got him out!

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

9 November 2022

0

If you listen to rare public forays by senior members of the security establishment, the spies and their agencies, we in the West are under threat from several fronts. Looming front and centre, they say, is an expansionary Chinese Communist Party.

To be clear, Liberty Itch has no quarrel with the Chinese people.

However, Liberty Itch is sceptical of government of all stripes, whether in the West or the Chinese Communist Party. Government has a nasty habit of suppressing its people, sometimes stripping freedoms one imperceptible step at a time, its citizens in a saucepan of the slow boil kind. Sometimes government makes swift and savage moves against its people. History is replete with examples of both.

So well may we ask: Is the Chinese Communist Party friend or foe, our ally or adversary? We in the West welcome and educate their students. We trade with their corporations. Australia, the United States and indeed the entire OECD are beneficiaries of China’s emergence. Our shared prosperity is enormous as China brings a billion citizens out of agrarian life into a century-delayed Industrial Revolution and today’s Information Age simultaneously. The project is breathtaking.

Share Liberty Itch

But as Liberty Itch discovered, geopolitical relationships are complex. Material wealth is soulless if not accompanied by human rights. We cannot be so naïve or selectively blind as to ignore civil liberties in our estimation. The Dragon we feed and enable today should be ready to take its place on the world stage as a force for good.

With an open mind, Liberty Itch therefore embarked on an investigation, a series of tell-all interviews with people with particular direct experience with the Chinese Communist Party. The stories are real. The events described happened and cannot be ignored. What each does is illuminate, directly and personally, how the Chinese Communist Party acts from a civil liberties perspective.

Our first guest in this series is Fiona Hui.

You can see the former flight attendant in Fiona instantly. Urbane, impeccably-dressed and possessed of a welcoming smile, she possesses a charm hard not to like. She has navigated many of life’s milestones and responsibilities already while retaining her youthful energy.

First impressions rarely tell the whole story. As you peel-away the onion layers of her life, normality gives way to heartache, the collapse of her homeland, the incarceration of a loved one and a fight for survival with lessons for all freedom-lovers who value their civil liberties.

So her story is yours. There are some timely warnings for all of us.

Here’s Liberty Itch’s short interview with Fiona Hui.

LI: When did you become an Australian citizen?

FH: Although I have been living in Australia for nearly 20 years, I only became an Australian citizen very recently, in 2021. I applied for my citizenship in light of the loss of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong in 2019. At that point, I realised that Australia is my only home, so I submitted my citizenship application.

LI: Prior to this, you were a citizen of which country?

FH: Prior to 2021, I was a citizen of Hong Kong. I was born and raised under the British rule in Hong Kong.

LI: You lived in Hong Kong during which years?

FH: I lived in Hong Kong since I was born in 1980, until 2004, when I left Hong Kong and came to Australia to pursue a liberal arts education.

LI: What was life like in Hong Kong in those early years?

FH: As a successful former British Colony from 1841–1997, Hong Kong is a unique place blending East and West. I always felt free, safe, and connected to the West when I was a child and a young teenager. I enjoyed living in a ‘very Chinese city’ essentially, but also appreciated the opportunities to be exposed to Western literature, music, philosophies and ideologies. It was dynamic, stimulating and exciting.

LI: Why did you leave Hong Kong?

FH: I left Hong Kong for a Western higher education. I did not imagine Hong Kong could become what it is today when I left. Like most people. I have taken democracy for granted and couldn’t imagine otherwise.

LI: From the handover by Britain in 1997 to your departure, what changes did you notice in Hong Kong?

FH: Since the handover in 1997, there has been a steady and gradual erosion of Hong Kong freedoms. Since the structure of democracy was already in place, Hong Kong people had been asking for ‘universal suffrage’, all adult citizens should be able to vote for their government representatives, as highlighted by the Occupy Central and Umbrella Movement in 2014.

In 2019, 70-80% of the Hong Kong population participated in the largest and longest Hong Kong protests in history, in demonstration of the City’s strong will to safeguard Hong Kong’s declining civil liberties and freedoms.

Then in 2020, the National Security Law was introduced by the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. Under this law, any pro-democracy movement was suddenly classified as ‘secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion’.

2020 was the year when Hong Kong lost its press freedom, the rights to peaceful protests, and the complete collapse of the rule of law.

LI: I believe this is the time we saw footage of Chinese Communist Party agents breaking into the The Epoch Times and smashing the printing presses with sledge-hammers …

Share

FH: Yes. They actually set fire to the bureau. The building was aflame.

LI: How did these changes impact your family initially?

FH: My family was fine for many years after the handover. The whole world thought China was opening-up and we could work together for a more prosperous world.

LI: Your brother was a Hong Kong democratically-elected parliamentarian. How did his status slowly change?

FH: It was not until 2019 with the breakout of large-scale protests in Hong Kong that it started to seriously impact my family. My brother, Ted Hui, being a vocal pro-democracy legislator, was frequently arrested due to his involvement in mediating the protests, wanting to protect young people and ordinary citizens from being abused and arrested. Like the majority of the population, Ted was pepper sprayed, tear-gassed, abused and arrested many times. In the end, his parliamentarian status was completely disregarded by the Hong Kong Police and the Chinese Communist Party. They just treated him like a ‘criminal’. Democracy had suddenly become a serious crime.

LI: How did your brother and other democratically-elected parliamentarians reconcile the freedoms bequeathed by British rule and a growing autocratic influence from the Chinese Communist Party?

FH: They have never reconciled the loss of freedoms. Some of his MP friends are still in prison. Many like Ted, went in ‘exile’ and continued with the movement overseas, lobbying governments of the Five Eyes, warning them of the dangers of the Chinese Communist Party regime. I guess they are now all ‘colluding with foreign forces’, as the Chinese Communist Party would describe it.

LI: How did things come to a flashpoint?

FH: The prolonged protests in 2019, combined with the noble and pure intention of democracy-loving Hongkongers, and the Chinese Communist Party led by a psychopathic Chinese President Xi Jinping have all contributed to this flashpoint.

LI: What role did you play in responding to the loss of civil liberties?

FH: I was not interested in politics at all prior to 2019, I had a great life in Adelaide. Who cared? However, the 2019 Hong Kong Crisis made me awake. The images and live-streaming of abuse in Hong Kong stunned me. I was in disbelief that freedom could be lost like this overnight. I couldn’t believe that people could be thrown in prison for protesting and speaking. It was all just unimaginable.

So I became a ‘democracy activist’.

Then I discovered CCP activism in my adopted country of Australia. So I exposed the CCP’s interference in Australia and politicians who were working with the CCP for their own self-serving interests.

I joined the Liberal Democrats for a period because I saw that they had good policy in support of libertarianism and humanitarianism principles. I also connected with organisations and communities who cared about our civil liberties.

LI: How did your brother escape?

Share Liberty Itch

FH: My brother got ‘invited’ by some young, democracy-loving Danish politicians and libertarians to attend a ‘Climate Conference’. It was staged so that Ted had an excuse to get out of Hong Kong. At that time, his passport was detained by the Hong Kong Court, but the judge decided to release his passport so that Ted could attend this ‘conference’. The judge made a fine decision but, to this day, I don’t know whether he was subsequently imprisoned by the Chinese Communist Party!

Ted escaped also because many people around that world have played a part in helping him and praying for him. This includes the Australian Government and many nameless men and women within and outside our government. We have some good people in this country, who have empathy, intelligence, capability and goodwill. God bless Australia.

LI: What did you leave behind?

FH: My family and I won’t be able to go back to Hong Kong for a long time. Under the current circumstances, I’ve convinced myself there is not much worth going back for anyway. I miss the mountains. I miss the views. Any love I had of shopping there is tainted by the lack of a free press, no free speech, no rule of law. Home is where the family is. Australia is my only home. Look forward rather than backwards!

LI: Why choose Australia to live?

FH: I chose Australia due to its beauty, its reputation in higher education and its proximity to Asia.

LI: What worrying early-signs in sliding from democracy to tyranny do you see in Australia?

FH: The early-signs were shown during the last two years: how our governments managed COVID, especially in Melbourne, the prolonged lockdowns, and the mandatory vaccinations in various industries.

Modern technological advancement means that people are more easily monitored. I’m worry about the introduction of My Gov Accounts, facial recognition cameras in our City here in Adelaide, digital IDs and yet more business-crushing IDs for company directors.

We have to be careful how people in positions of power use these mechanisms. They could be used to make us a more effective country, or they could be used as a means of monitoring and control. It all depends on how you view the government and the people holding those powerful positions.

We need to be awake and alert.

LI: How quickly can that slide happen, in your experience?

FH: The loss of freedom could happen so quickly that people will be in disbelief. Just look at Hong Kong. A clean, proper judicial system could end so fast. Unimaginable.

LI: What can your fellow Australians do to counteract this?

FH: Stay aware and united with fellow Australians. Unity and helping others in need. Play a part to end the divide and polarisation in society. Be the change you want to see in the world.

LI: What do you think the outlook is for Australia?

FH: Australia is a lucky country. I believe that we will continue to be blessed. Be careful of the ‘doom and gloom’ presented in the media. I feel hopeful and positive about our country.

***

Kenelm Tonkin

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.

You’re The Voice

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

8 November 2022

0

In a quiet moment today or even right now if that’s possible, read the lyrics below whilst watching this clip … and tell me this doesn’t make you more determined politically.

“We’re not gonna sit in silence, We’re not gonna live with fear” could well apply to the last two and a half years. So, are you going to “Make a noise and make it clear”?

We now have our anthem!

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/6m2m_9Uijso?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

We have the chance to turn the pages over
We can write what we want to write
We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older
We’re all someone’s daughter
We’re all someone’s son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?

You’re the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh, whoa
We’re not gonna sit in silence
We’re not gonna live with fear
Oh, whoa

This time, we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing we can make it better
Ooh, we’re all someone’s daughter
We’re all someone’s son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?

You’re the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh, whoa
We’re not gonna sit in silence
We’re not gonna live with fear
Oh, whoa

Ooh, we’re all someone’s daughter
We’re all someone’s son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?

You’re the voice, try and understand it
Make the noise and make it clear
Oh, whoa
We’re not gonna sit in silence
We’re not gonna live with fear
Oh, whoa

You’re the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh, whoa
We’re not gonna sit in silence
We’re not gonna live with fear
Oh, whoa

Kenelm Tonkin

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.

VIDEO: Doing What’s Right!

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

4 November 2022

0

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

Dan Andrews: Doing What’s Right

Kenelm Tonkin

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.

Twitter Can Now Fly

By

Kenelm Tonkin

-

28 October 2022

0

Two hours ago, Elon Musk’s long-anticipated acquisition of Twitter was completed.

Hopes now run high that at least one social media platform can operate for all and free speech restored.

Time will tell.

As an avid user of the platform, I believe the following needs addressing:

1. Bots. The system is fouled by fake accounts created by algorithm. The platform must be cleansed on this problem.

2. Bad-Faith Actors. I’m not talking about typical anonymous accounts, but rather accounts run by nation-state troll farms at call centre scale. I’m constantly inundated with this scourge. They used to be easy to spot: low follower numbers, homogeneity of digital assets in the profile feed, short sentences in broken English. They are now becoming harder and harder to spot. They sit like sleeper agents in good citizens’ follower list for what sinister purpose or misinformation we are yet to learn. Get rid of them.

3. Safety & Integrity. It almost goes without saying that the previous management, the CEO, CFO, Corporate Counsel and Policy Officer now unceremoniously terminated by Musk, actively pursued centre-right users with the Safety & Integrity Department. It used a pincer movement to suppress centre-right users. The first was the dreaded algorithm which flagged people and then spurted automatic double-speak messages to put people in a procedural cul-de-sac. Then it referred a select few of the targeted users to an inadequately small Safety & Integrity Department of actual humans who them mercilessly cancelled many honest users with unfavoured political views. Ending this double-pincer is huge priority to restore the platform.

4. Advertising. As a B2B businessman, I have no need to advertise on Twitter. It’s a B2C platform. Even if I were wishing to advertise to the retail or B2C markets, I wouldn’t use Twitter. How can targeting occur when most handles are anonymous. It’s a very low-value, hit and miss way to reach new customers.

5. Caves and Common. A ‘cave’ is a place in an online community where a person can retreat or pursue more focused relationships. A ‘common’ is where you’re in the flow of action, in the bright shiny lights of the site. Because Twitter is all common, is feels like a brutal fight club. There’s little respite, little joy, little reprieve. Twitter groups or rooms would be a fantastic innovation.

6. Anonymous Handles. Of course, most people tweet with the protection of anonymity. But for the advertising issue, I think that’s OK. However, the site would be far better if people declared their identity. It would temper the fight club feel of the platform and users would be more likely to self-moderate. As there are advantages to anonymity, like speaking truth to power and whistleblowing, I think a hybrid model would work well. So users could still have an anonymous handle, but with limited reach or features. Upgrading to full user identification would allow greater reach and features.

Whatever changes are made by Mr Musk, one thing is certain. The property is now in the hands of a man who knows how to make things happen.

It will be interesting to watch.

It will be even more interesting being a Twitter user.

Kenelm Tonkin

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 Facts: No Dispute on XY Chromosomes

IOC’s Policy Shift: From Gender Testing to Passport Recognition

The Issue of Fairness: A Level Playing Field?

The IBA’s Role: Irrelevant to the Core Issue

Respecting Identity vs. Maintaining Fairness

Individual Freedom and Freedom of Association

The Role of Organisational Competition

Censorship and Free Speech

Conclusion: Upholding Fairness in Sports

Got something to say?

Our right to free thought and speech

Efforts to damage reputations and careers

Legal Certainty

Lack of Due Process

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Procedural Fairness and Due Process

Proportionate Punishments

Legal Accountability of Law Enforcement Officials

Media Censorship

Surveillance

Punishment

What can everyday Australians do to help the Uyghur people?

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY