Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Freedom of Speech & Expression

    Home Personal Liberty Freedom of Speech & Expression Page 2

    No, Men are not OK

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    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.

    Granny Basher’s Discharge Sends the Right Message

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    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.

    Assange’s Last Appeal

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    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.

    Who will watch the Watchers?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    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. 

    Jeremy Bentham’s

    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!

    Brave New World Wide Web

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    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!       

    Utilitarianism and the Omnipotence of Government

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    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. 

    Jeremy Bentham

    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.

    Racial Friction in New Zealand

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    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 25th 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 6th 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.

    Is “Freedom” a Non-Word?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

    Because history does matter. And so does freedom.

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

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

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

    China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

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

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

    The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy

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

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

    Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm

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

    Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword

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

    The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit

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

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

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

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

    Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    The Famine Upon Our Minds.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    3

    Our right to free thought and speech

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

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

    The argument failed.

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

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

    John Milton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Michelle Rowland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

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

    123...5Page 2 of 5
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv