|February 23rd, 2008||#1|
The Legal Situation in Australia
Australia Calling: radio show on federal government attempting to censor Internet
(1/1/08) The Federal Government's plan to censor the Internet content available in Australia has finally attracted the attention of the mainstream media and the public are not happy. A News Limited on-line poll recorded that 87 percent of people were opposed to the idea.
|February 24th, 2008||#2|
Nationalist clothing website yanked on behalf of Talmudic law
A WEBSITE selling anti-Semitic and Nazi clothing has been taken offline, following a Seven Network investigation that outed its 26-year-old Bathurst owner.
The site, Noble Front, was selling T-shirts depicting swastikas and a ladies fashion range displaying photos of a smiling Hitler before a “server problem” closed the site last week.
When confronted by Seven Network News, David Pollard, the owner of the website, said he did not think he was doing anything wrong.
“We’re just selling it, we’re not forcing it onto anyone,” he said. Asked if spreading race-hate was a lucrative business, he responded by saying: “Will be.”
Pollard, whose website appears to be vilifying people based on their race or religion, said he planned to keep the website open “until it gets shut down”.
However, last week users were unable to see or buy its products.
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff said the website promoted bigotry and racial hatred, and has no place in our society.
“The internet has become the primary source of information for young people, which makes the fact that the website specifically targets this demographic particularly dangerous and insidious,” Alhadeff said.
Executive officer of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission, Manny Waks, said the items are “despicable” and “highly insensitive”.
“We would urge those who are involved in this racist endeavour to desist from doing so immediately and educate themselves on the issue of racism,” he said.
|February 24th, 2008||#3|
Nice shot Troy you got him
Join Date: Jun 2006
Blog Entries: 1
|March 2nd, 2008||#4|
[censoring Andrew Fraser]
[Australian academic censored for questioning anti-White immigration policy]
Another Oz Outrage: Andrew Fraser Furor Continues
By Steve Sailer
Americans admire Australians as plainspoken, fearless "That's not a knife, now … THAT'S a knife" Crocodile Dundees.
Yet diversity is working its emasculating effect Down Under. It’s making Australians as pusillanimous as any Harvard faculty member shocked, shocked by Larry Summers's tactless honesty about sex differences.
For years, I've been pointing out that, although ethnic diversity is alleged to inspire the free interplay of multiple viewpoints, the reality is that it undermines our heritage of free speech.
Australia is a case in point: the presence of a few hundred Sudanese refugees in the country has apparently intimidated two universities into shutting down discussion of the wisdom of importing more sub-Saharan Africans into Australia.
As I reported in July, Macquarie University suspended law professor Andrew Fraser, a VDARE.com contributor, for the unforgivable transgression of writing a letter to the local newspaper suggesting that people of African descent have a higher propensity toward crime.
In fact, of course, in the wake of the New Orleans Nightmare, the view that there are systematic differences in different races’ propensity for crime is more undeniable than ever. See, for example, the just-released report The Color of Crime—or the Associated Press report last week, "Half Katrina Refugees Have Records”:
"In South Carolina, state police checked every evacuee flown there by the government. Of 547 people checked, 301 had criminal records, according to Robert Stewart, state Law Enforcement Division Chief."
But nothing makes people madder at you than telling a truth that they are perfectly aware is true when they just want it to disappear.
So what just happened to Fraser is hardly surprising.
A lengthy essay by Fraser had passed through the standard double blind-referee evaluation process of the Deakin University law review and was scheduled for publication. Then the lawyer for the Sudanese, one George Newhouse, [send him mail] threatened Deakin University under Australia's law against "racial vilification."
After displaying some backbone for a few days, Deakin University's higher-ups shamefully caved in [email Deakin Vice-Chancellor Sally Walker] and stifled the article’s publication. In response to an inquiry by British psychometrician Chris Brand, the Dean of Deakin's Law School, Philip H. Clarke, [email him] claimed:
"The decision not to publish was taken following legal advice from counsel that publication would contravene the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and also, possibly, state and territory legislation dealing with racial and religious vilification. As I am sure you will understand, in these circumstances, publication was not possible."
Clearly, Australia needs a First Amendment. But it's also obvious that Deakin University was looking for an excuse, as Brand acidly demonstrated in his reply:
"I have read the 1975 Act and note that it actually expressly exempts racial criticism of an academic nature. Please can you tell me which law firm advised you to depublish and what was the precise wording of their opinion and how much Deakin paid for the advice? As things stand, it looks as if Deakin has been exceptionally cowardly in not even attempting to see whether academic free speech is still possible in today's Australia…"
It's striking how the mere residence of a few hundred Africans in Australia can cause two major universities to corrupt themselves morally, to humiliate themselves publicly, by junking their promises of academic freedom.
But, then, that's the magic of diversity!
Fortunately, retired academic John J. Ray showed some of that traditional Australian spunk and posted Fraser's spiked essay, "Rethinking the White Australia Policy", on one of his many websites.
Fraser's paper turns out to be far-reaching, provocative, and intellectually ambitious. Perhaps to a fault—he might have been well advised to point out that not every one of his more speculative arguments is necessary to his overall point.
To the typical contemporary intellectual with his impoverished conceptual vocabulary, however, Fraser's essay could only be expressed in one word: crimethink!
In 1901, Australia adopted a requirement that immigrants be literate in a European language, which became known as the (now much-denounced) "White Australia" policy. At the time, it was pushed through by labor unionists and socialists. They knew that both the high wages of the Australian working man and the Australian government's nascent social safety net would be undermined by the capitalist class' desire to have the impoverished masses of nearby Asia pour into this largely empty island.
Immigration restriction helped make the "Lucky Country" into a relative paradise for the working class. Also, as environmentalist Jared Diamond quietly implied in his recent bestseller Collapse, the White Australia restriction moderated the ecological stress on this geologically ancient continent permanently plagued by infertile soil and aridity.
Similarly, Californians of a century or more ago, such as the formidable socialist author Jack London, backed the U.S. government's ban on Asian immigrants.
And that helped long preserve California as the Promised Land for America's working and middle classes.
Looking back, it's clear that emigration to Australia or America could not have alleviated on any meaningful scale the awful poverty of Asia. The only thing that could help that mass of people is the kind of radical improvement in government policy that China underwent in 1978 and India in 1991.
Someday, we may see the same in Mexico—but probably not until we shut down the ruling elite's use of its northern border as a safety valve for its discontented.
After WWII, Australia encouraged immigration from southern Europe. Large numbers of Italians and Greeks were assimilated with considerable success.
In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the ascendant Leftists turned away from the welfare of the majority to championing minorities, thereby trumpeting their moral superiority over their fellow whites. Australia dumped its White Australia policy and began admitting sizable numbers of non-European immigrants. (Needless to say, Asian countries did not open their borders to Australians. Racial equality is a one-way street.)
Fraser is appalled by the Australian immigration policy of the last few decades. But an American patriot might be mildly envious. John Howard, the brilliant right-of-center politician who recently won his fourth term as Prime Minister, has made the fight against illegal immigration and abuse of the refugee process central to his political identity. (After barely scraping by two Presidential elections in a row, it's starting to become clear that the GOP's only hope in 2008 is to imitate Howard).
Australia's legal immigration quotas are high, but not as extravagant as in Canada, where the ruling Liberals use immigration to import new left-of-center voters from around the world.
And, unlike the U.S., Australia strives to accept applicants rich in human capital who are more likely to pay more in taxes than they consume in government subsidies.
Thus, Australia (and its distressed Aboriginal population in particular, who hardly need new competitors at the bottom) has largely been spared the importation of a second underclass (although Australia is having crime problems with Muslim immigrants).
In contrast, the U.S. has chosen to drive millions of African-Americans out of jobs they were qualified to do and replace them with Latin American immigrants.
Still, one downside of Australia's emphasis on high-quality immigrants is that its Asian newcomers are pushing native Australians out of elite meritocratic institutions—just as in California, several of the University of California campuses have come to be dominated by workaholic Asians.
Perhaps the most intriguing of Fraser's many themes: his paradox that the same high level of "trust" (to use Francis Fukuyama's term) extending beyond kin that has allowed the English-speaking peoples to build self-governing institutions that square the circle of reconciling individualism with cooperation also threatens to undermine the Anglosphere—by making us suckers for self-sacrificing ideologies that more clannish immigrants laugh at.
In most countries, in most eras, you needed to belong to an extended family "mafia" for protection. Upper-middle class individuals in English-speaking countries, at least when not watching The Sopranos, generally just don't get the importance of extended families in the rest of the world. Anglosphere intellectuals are especially oblivious, for emotional reasons—they tend to despise their relatives, who often aren't as smart as they are, but frequently make more money.
The English were perhaps the first to break out of this rut. Fraser notes:
"Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers…"
Some of the cultural attributes that emerged in Northwestern Europe that made individualistic polities possible include, include, according to Fraser:
"Only a people such as the English, characterized by the ‘non-kinship based forms of reciprocity’ associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a 'society of strangers.’"
Fraser speculates that these attributes have genetic roots. While that’s certainly possible scientifically, we're still a number of years away from being able to test that idea empirically.
But even if the roots of our civic societies were purely cultural in origin, as they may well be, these are not tendencies that immigrants can or will choose to adopt immediately—especially in our era, which glorifies multiculturalism and denigrates the host culture's traditional values.
"This exposes a fundamental paradox built into the free and open societies of the West: The only racial groups able to fit seamlessly into the society of strangers constituting a civic nation are those whose members can easily shed the deeply-ingrained ethnocentrism and xenophobia characterizing most non-European peoples."
For example, the extended family values of Asian newcomers often serve them well economically in English-speaking countries. But they can place a burden on the host country's civic virtues.
Fraser argues, borrowing from Amy Chua's book World on Fire:
"At the high end of Australia's immigrant intake, a growing cognitive elite of East Asians threatens to become similar to ‘market-dominant minorities’ such as the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa. Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned: Western-style ‘old boy’ preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and, thus, permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or ‘ethnic nepotism’ practiced by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians."
This is somewhat more of a danger for white Australians than white Americans, due to the Australians' greater proximity to Asia, smaller numbers, and traditional working class aversion to entrepreneurialism. But it could happen here too.
Whether the threat to the economic position of native Australians is as dire as Fraser warns, I couldn't say. But it's certainly something that should be studied in quantitative detail in Australian scholarly journals.
Oh, except that the topic apparently isn't allowed to be studied in Australian scholarly journals.
So the country is flying blind into an uncertain future.
Best of luck, Aussies.
You're going to need it.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 2nd, 2008 at 04:45 PM.
|March 10th, 2008||#5|
Dr Fredrick Töben's disclaimer:
"I am operating under a Federal Court of Australia Gag Order that prohibits me from questioning/denying the three pillars on which the >Holocaust-Shoah< story/legend/myth rests: 1. During World War II, Germany had an extermination policy against European Jewry;
2. of which they killed six million;
3. using as a murder weapon homicidal gas chambers. It is impossible to discuss the >Holocaust< with such an imposed constraint. I therefore am merely reporting on matters that I am not permitted to state.
For example, if I state the >Holocaust< is:
1. a lie;
2. six million Jews never died, or
3. the gas chambers did not exist, then I would claim that I am merely reporting on what expert Revisionists such as Professors Butz/Faurisson, et al, are stating in public.
Anyone who refuses to believe in these three pillars of orthodoxy will face a world-wide group of enforcers who will use any means to destroy dissenting voices. The problem is that these pillars are not set in concrete, though attempts at setting them in legal concrete have been under way for decades - without success.
The latest victims imprisoned for refusing to BELIEVE in the >Holocaust-Shoah< narrative are Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel & Sylvia Stolz in Germany; Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, and Wolfgang Fröhlich & Gerd Honsik in Austria.
If you wish to begin to doubt the >Holocaust-Shoah< narrative, you must be prepared for personal sacrifice, must be prepared for marriage and family break-up, loss of career, and go to prison. This is because Revisionists are, among other things, dismantling a massive multi-billion dollar industry that the >Holocaust-Shoah< enforcers are defending, as well as the survival of Zionist-racist Israel. So, do not cry when the knock on the door takes you away from family and friends. Such experiences can be character-building. Revisionists are not foolish or naive but realistic as befitting someone who still cherishes such life-affirming ideals as Love, Truth, Honour, Justice, Beauty!
a. An antisemite is someone who condemns Jews because they are Jews, something I reject in my maxim: >Don't blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure<.
b. The term >antisemitic< is itself a problem because it refers to language-type and refers to the Arabic-speaking peoples, not just the Hebrew-speaking peoples; both peoples use a Semitic language.
c. An antisemite is someone the Jews hate.
d. Antisemitism is a disease. You catch it from Jewish behaviour.
If you seek to create Beauty-Love, Honour-Justice and Truth, then feel free to enter
|April 3rd, 2008||#6|
[Every encounter between jew and Aryan gives rise to a double standard favoring the jew. Unless the Aryan is led by a nationalist government.]
The Chosen Extradition Treaty Between the
Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Israel
By David Brockschmidt
On 15 March 2008 the Melbourne Age informs its readers that an extradition treaty between Australia and Israel exists, “…but Israel does not extradite its citizens”.
So, my question to our Foreign Minister: Please explain how this so-called extradition treaty works between Australia and Israel, if only one side, in this case Australia, is willing to extradite one or more of its citizens, should the State of Israel requests that? This is assuming that such an extradition request would not violate Australian and international law
But in the case where Australia would demand one or more of its citizens living in Israel to be extradited to Australia – and we can assume they are all Jewish and hold dual citizenship – then the Australian demand for extradition is denied with a simple explanation that such a request would violate the laws of the State of Israel because as a matter of principle the State of Israel does not extradite any of its citizens to any country in the world, regardless what they are wanted for, regardless what crime has been committed.
My second question to the Foreign Minister is: What type of extradition treaty is this? Is this a joke or the Monty Python version of an extradition treaty? This makes the state of Israel look like a rogue outcast country within the international community and a haven for Jewish criminals from all over the world.
Such extradition treaty arrangements of course perverts Theodor Herzel’s idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the later foundation of the State of Israel, to become a refuge for persecuted Jews from all over the world. I don’t think Herzl wanted to include Jewish criminals in his ideal.
I will highlight just one example out of thousands to illustrate my point. I am referring to the alleged mass murderer Solomon Morel who murdered, partly with his own hands, in Polish Secret Service uniform after the end of WWII innocent Polish and German civilians, men, women and children. This took place in an ex-German concentration camp in Poland, which the Polish Bolsheviks took over, as detailed in John Sack’s book: An Eye for an Eye. John Sack was a Polish Jew living in the USA writing for various publications. Sack also attended Adelaide Institute’s 1998 Revisionist Symposium. His research activated the Polish prosecutor General in Warsaw to have Morel put on trial in Poland for crimes committed against the Polish people. Morel fled to Israel and the Israeli authorities informed the Polish prosecutor that 1. Israel does not extradite its citizens; 2. The accusations against Morel for murder had expired, and 3. The State of Israel refused to put Morel on trial in Israel for his alleged crimes committed in Poland.
This Solomon Morel case, and now the current one involving Malka Leifer, below, shows clearly that western society is morally and intellectually bankrupt because the laws of the State of Israel regarding extraditions of their citizens to countries where they are wanted and Israel’s refusal to hand them over clearly illustrates the Orwellian maxim: Some are more equal than others. I personally always believed that the so-called privilege of being a ‘chosen people’ is a curse, but in this case and in many other circumstances it works well for them.
Bye-bye Democracy, Talmudistan rules supreme – here come the Noahide Laws. On that, let’s be a little predictive here: If Australia demands the extradition of one of its citizens of Palestinian-Muslim descent, who also holds Israeli citizenship, would the state of Israel also refuse to extradite any of its Muslim or Christian citizens, for example Mordechai Vanunu? Or does the refusal to extradite its citizens apply only to Israelis of Jewish faith?
Alternately, will Australia oblige Israel with an extradition of so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’, if Israel makes such a request even if it violates Australian law?
|October 31st, 2008||#7|
Australia's compulsory internet filtering 'costly, ineffective'
By Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson October 29, 2008 08:40am
THE Federal Government is planning to make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians and could ban controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.
Australia's level of net censorship will put it in the same league as countries including China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, and the Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter when it is introduced.
Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy admitted the Federal Government's $44.2 million internet censorship plan would now include two tiers - one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a "clean feed", censoring adult material.
Despite planning to hold "live trials" before the end of the year, Senator Conroy said it was not known what content the mandatory filter would bar, with euthanasia or pro-anorexia sites on the chopping block.
"We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material," he told a Senate Estimates Committee.
Previously the net nanny proposal was going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option to contact their internet service provider and be excluded from the service.
Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia have slammed the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.
EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.
"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate," he said.
But the Australian Christian Lobby yesterday welcomed the Government's proposals.
Its managing director Jim Wallace said he expected resistance from the industry but the measures were needed.
"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access," Mr Wallace said.
|July 7th, 2009||#8|
B'nai B'rith charges Aussie web site with anti-semitic content
Jul. 4, 2009
The Australian-based news Web site newmatilda.com has been charged by the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) with featuring anti-Israel and anti-Semitic content, particularly during the first three months of 2009, despite claims from the Web site's editor that it is providing fair coverage.
The ADC issued a report highlighting newmatilda's Israel coverage, taking issue with the website's balance of Israeli and Palestinian narratives and the proportion of stories covering the conflict in the region during these months, particularly concerning Gaza.
Contrary to the editor's claims of providing fair coverage, the report states that 17 out of the 18 articles concerning Operation Cast Lead featured the Palestinian narrative. None of the articles could be characterized as balanced, and one article acknowledged the existence of competing narrative, but argued for the validity of the Palestinian narrative.
Many of the ADC's concerns regarding newmatilda are rooted in the fact that as a new media source, newmatilda does not need to adhere to journalistic standards of reporting and opinion writing. As the writers are not necessarily trained journalists and their work does not fall under the jurisdiction of a news editor, such standards are not always upheld.
Despite the fact that Australia has laws against racial vilification, the report maintains that it is both more difficult to prosecute violations of these laws in new media sources and that incriminating articles are easier to remove. The report also claims that due to the fact that this information is made available to the general public, holding newmatilda to lower standards of journalistic integrity would be inappropriate.
During the period in which the ADC studied newmatilda, the site provided a disproportionate amount of coverage on Israel. More than one article per week was published on the subject during the first three months of 2009, while only one article addressed the situation in Burma and no articles covered Darfur, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Tibet, other countries possessing humanitarian-related news.
Newmatilda features Al-Jazeera as its sole newsfeed. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, the site states that as Al-Jazeera has a non-Western focus, it brings balance to the Australian media, as it carries stories that Australians otherwise might not pursue. The ADC maintains that while Al-Jazeera is a legitimate news source, newmatilda offers no alternative sources which would present the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The issue which the ADC finds most disconcerting is the fact that the Web site maintains very lax control over its comments section, which features responses of a highly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel nature. The comments make a variety of claims, such as denying the Holocaust or claiming that it was exaggerated or "used" by the Jewish people; claiming that Jews have no right or historical attachment to Israel; that anti-Semitism does not exist; that Jews control the media; that Jews are a threat to the world and would infect the world with the plague; and that Israel is supported by "blood money." While it is likely that some of these comments breach the racial vilification provisions of both the Australian states and Commonwealth, newmatilda rarely deletes them and when it does, it does not do so immediately - granting the comments an extensive readership.
In April, the ADC wrote to newmatilda, expressing concern over the site's comments page. In response, Marni Cordell, editor of newmatilda, thanked the ADC for providing feedback and wrote "We believe we provide a fair coverage of this important nexus of issues - but we are very committed to publishing informed /opinion/ pieces, and our content reflects that. The possibility that your organization doesn't share the outlook of the bulk of our contributors - who also differ among themselves - does not make us unfair."
"If you read opinions on our site that are not commonly found in the major dailies or in publications like the Australian Jewish News, then that is one sign that we are doing our jobs," Cordell's response continued.
The ADC states that its primary concern regarding newmatilda is the effect that prejudicial coverage has on the attitude of Australians towards the Jewish people, both in Israel and in the Diaspora.
As there is a documented connection between events in Israel and incidents of local anti-Semitism, the report posits that by hosting comments slandering Israel and Jews on unjust terms, newmatilda's lax policies undermine the freedom and security of Australian Jews, regardless of whether or not this is the site's intent.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443716603&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
|May 13th, 2010||#9|
No free speech for racists, says Robert McClelland
FREEDOM of speech only goes so far and it does not stretch to racism, Attorney-General Robert McClelland says.
In a speech to a cyber-racism summit in Sydney, Mr McClelland said the Government was tackling the difficult world of cyber bullying and online protection of children.
"It may well be appropriate to set some limitation to public expression of hateful material," Mr McClelland said.
He said cyber-racism was a growing area of concern for the Human Rights Commission. Eighteen per cent of racism complaints handed to the Commission in 2008-09 were about racist internet material, up from nine per cent in the previous year.
He said the rise meant the Government would be asking the Commission to do further work on the issue.
"One of the fundamental principles of a democratic society like Australia is freedom of expression," Mr McClelland said.
"Freedom of expression is a human right that is enjoyed by all Australians and must be protected.
"However, a right to freedom of expression should not derogate from the rights of people to be treated with equality, dignity and respect."
The speech was one of Mr McClelland's last formal duties before travelling to Washington DC to meet with attorneys-general from Canada, Britain, New Zealand and the US. The quintet will be focused on issues of national security and terrorism but will also touch on increasing legal cooperation.
Mr McClelland has also been promised classified briefings from the Obama administration on intelligence and cyber security.
|May 14th, 2010||#10|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Who the fuck is Robert McClelland to decide what freedoms people should have? Is he a Jew or a Brit?
The only thing that's more disgusting than a kike is a white man sucking jewish ass. Those of British descent are the most jew-like creatures in America. Their hypocrisy, dishonesty, and proclivity towards doublespeak can be matched by jews only.
|July 30th, 2012||#11|
[snip from David Irving]
My mother died over forty-five years ago, and you can imagine how pleased and proud I was when Beatrice last week sent me that website to look at. . .
Having said which, I was never hugely happy that she had moved to Brisbane. But she found a fine Australian man to marry, and that is going to last and last. She has two beautiful Australian children, and is an Australian citizen and civil servant. When reminded of this, [your prime minister] John Howard (left) told your parliament, "I don't care that this gives Mr Irving the automatic right to enter Australia, we've changed the law once to keep him out" -- the Immigration Act, introducing a new "bad character" criterion! -- "and we will change it again if necessary." Is your Government in "their" grip, or isn't it!
|July 30th, 2012||#12|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Crawlin' from the wreckage
"Asked if spreading race-hate was a lucrative business, he responded by saying 'will be'."
That's the Spirit!
|December 19th, 2012||#13|
[bogus distinction - hate speech is speech jews hate. There is nothing legally or in any other way distinctive about it except jews wish to move it from the category of free speech to illegal speech]
‘Where do we draw the line between hate speech and free speech?’
Human Rights Day Oration - delivered by the Honourable James Spigelman AC QC
The Human Rights Day Oration was delivered by James Spigelman, Chairman of the ABC and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW from 1998 until 2011. His keynote speech tackled the topical issue of ‘Where do we draw the line between hate speech and free speech?’
Click here for audio of James Spigelman's speech (MP3, 13 minutes) | View Transcript (PDF)
For more news about the Human Rights Awards 2012 click here.
I thank the Australian Human Rights Commission, and particularly its President, Gillian Triggs, for this opportunity to participate in the recognition of so many fine Australians for their contribution to the protection of the rights of their fellow Australians, and of others. I am invited to deliver an “Oration", which may be a somewhat grandiloquent title in view of the 10 minute time limit which I have been given.
Of course, length is not a criterion of quality or of impact. One of the most memorable of all speeches is Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address–note the title, “address" not “oration". Lincoln spoke in a minor role at the Consecration of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg on 19 November 1863– the sesquicentenary of which next year will be quite an event. The principal speaker for the occasion was Edward Everett, who delivered what was called “the Oration”.
Lincoln spoke for just over two minutes and uttered about 267 words (depending on the version of the speech), some of which are amongst the most memorable words of the English language. Everett spoke for over two hours, and uttered 13,607 words, not one of which anyone remembers.
The Gettysburg Address is one of the most eloquent statements in support of the theme which the Commission has chosen for this year's Human Rights Day: “Inclusion and the right to participate in public life". Consistent with the Commission’s theme, I wish to discuss the boundary between hate speech, a significant factor in social inclusion, and free speech, perhaps the most fundamental human right underpinning participation in public life.
Human rights discourse, which has always been comfortable with privileging a right over an interest, has never successfully dealt with situations in which rights conflict. This is a context bedevilled by a conflict of metaphors: from “rights as trumps" to “balancing". As Benjamin Cardozo warned us: “Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it".
“Balancing" is often a fraught process, particularly in the usual context where the conflicting values are simply incommensurable. As one United States Supreme Court Justice put it, the process is often like asking “whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy". In the present context, the issue requires determination of how much weight is to be given to the right to freedom of speech. For many, albeit not all, that right is usually entitled to determinative weight when it conflicts with other rights, relevantly, those protected by anti-discrimination statutes.
This issue has been controversial in Australia in recent years, in the context of the racial vilification provision in section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975, which is proposed to be re-enacted as section 51 of the new omnibus legislation, the Human Rights and Anti- Discrimination Bill, 2012. The Bill was recently released for comment, an invitation I will take up in this address.
There may now have elapsed sufficient time for us to debate the issue dispassionately, and not on the basis of whether or not you like Andrew Bolt. The focus of that debate was not on the existence of a racial vilification provision, but on the breadth of the conduct to which section 18 C extends, namely, conduct “reasonably likely … to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person".
The key criticism was directed to the fact that the section made speech which merely “offends" unlawful. A similar, but less powerful objection, can be made to the reference to “insult". The critique did not, generally, extend to the words “humiliate or intimidate".
These matters have long concerned me, but my thoughts have crystallized after reading a book, published earlier this year, which contains an insightful treatment of the principles involved in regulating hate speech. It was written by Jeremy Waldron, one of the foremost jurisprudential scholars of our time, with joint appointments to Oxford University and New York University Law School. I have drawn on his writing over several decades.
His recent book, The Harm in Hate Speech, is primarily directed to an American audience. The strength of US First Amendment jurisprudence is such that hate speech is not regulated at all. In order to explain why he believes the scope of the First Amendment can properly permit regulation of hate speech, Professor Waldron has sought to identify with precision the rights that the regulation of hate speech seeks to protect. Essentially, he approaches this from two perspectives: first, in terms of society’s interest and, secondly, in terms of individual rights.
From the perspective of society, Waldron emphasizes inclusiveness as a public good, providing an assurance and sense of security to all members of the society that they can live their lives without facing hostility, violence, discrimination or exclusion. This assurance affirms each person’s status as “a member of society in good standing”.
From the other perspective, of those who are meant to benefit from this assurance, the fundamental human right that is affirmed is the right to dignity. Hate speech undermines the sense of assurance and denies the dignity of individuals.
In his 2009 Berkeley Tanner Lectures, also published this year, Waldron considered the philosophical traditions on the concept of human dignity. He sought to reconcile the treatment of human dignity as the conceptual basis for human rights and as providing the content of some recognized rights. These lectures provide a philosophical underpinning for the focus on human dignity in the hate speech debate. I believe this focus is correct.
The section of Professor Waldron’s hate speech book, which is of particular significance for our debate, is the chapter he devotes to establishing the proposition that protection of dignity does NOT require protection from being offended. As he puts it:
“Laws restricting hate speech should aim to protect people's dignity against assault. I am referring to their status as anyone’s equal in the community they inhabit, to their entitlement to basic justice, and to the fundamentals of their reputation. Dignity in that sense may need protection against attack, particularly against group- directed attacks … It understands dignity as a status sustained by law in society in the form of a public good.
However, I do not believe that it should be the aim of these laws to prevent people from being offended. Protecting people's feelings against offence is not an appropriate objective for the law.
[T]o protect people from offence or from being offended is to protect them from a certain sort of effect on their feelings. And that is different from protecting their dignity and the assurance of their decent treatment in society.” 
I agree with Professor Waldron. His detailed analysis supports the proposition that declaring conduct, relevantly speech, to be unlawful, because it causes offence, goes too far. The freedom to offend is an integral component of freedom of speech. There is no right not to be offended.
I am not aware of any international human rights instrument, or national anti-discrimination statute in another liberal democracy, that extends to conduct which is merely offensive. I have not conducted a detailed review of the international position in this respect. However, so
far as I have been able to determine, we would be pretty much on our own in declaring conduct which does no more than offend, to be unlawful. In a context where human rights protection draws on a global jurisprudence, this should give us pause when we re-enact s 18C and before we extend such protection to other contexts.
Section 19(2)(b) of the proposed Human Rights and Anti- Discrimination Bill 2012, introduces “offending” into the definition of discrimination for all purposes, not just for racial vilification. None of the other pre-existing Commonwealth Acts – covering sex, disability and age discrimination –extends the concept of discrimination to conduct which only offends.
The new s19 defines, for the first time, discrimination by unfavourable treatment to include “conduct that offends, insults or intimidates" another person. As has always been the case with s 18C, the relevant conduct must occur “because the other person has a particular protected attribute”. Significantly, unlike existing s 18C (or its replacement by the new s 51), there is no element of objectivity, as presently found in the words “reasonably likely to offend”. It appears to me the new Bill contains a subjective test of being offended.
There are 18 separate “protected attributes” set out in section 17 of the draft Bill, seven of which apply only in the employment context. These are wide ranging and, in a number of respects, novel. One such attribute is “race”. This is not just redundant. It extends the protection of proposed s 51 because of the absence of an objective element.
The inclusion of “religion” as a “protected attribute” in the workplace, appears to me, in effect, to make blasphemy unlawful at work, but not elsewhere. The controversial Danish cartoons could be published, but not taken to work. Similar anomalies could arise with other workplace protected attributes, eg. “political opinion”, “social origin”, “nationality”.
Further, each of the four existing Commonwealth anti- discrimination Acts proscribe publication of an advertisement or notice which indicates an intention to engage in discriminatory conduct. Section 53 of the new omnibus Bill goes further into freedom of speech territory, by extending this proscription beyond advertisements to any publication.
The new Bill proposes a significant redrawing of the line between permissible and unlawful speech. This is so, notwithstanding the ability to establish that relevant conduct falls within a statutory exception. A freedom that is contingent on proving, after the event, that it was exercised reasonably or on some other exculpatory basis, is a much reduced freedom. Further, as is well known, the chilling effect of the mere possibility of legal processes will prevent speech that could have satisfied an exception.
When rights conflict, drawing the line too far in favour of one, degrades the other right. Words such as “offend” and “insult”, impinge on freedom of speech in a way that words such as “humiliate”, “denigrate,” “intimidate”, “incite hostility” or “hatred” or “contempt”, do not. To go beyond language of the latter character, in my opinion, goes too
None of Australia’s international treaty obligations require us to protect any person or group from being offended. We are, however, obliged to protect freedom of speech. We should take care not to put ourselves in a position where others could reasonably assert that we are in breach of our international treaty obligations to protect freedom of speech.
 See Jeremy Waldron “Security and Liberty: The Imagery of Balance”(2003) 11 Journal of Political
Philosophy 191, especially at 198-199
 See Berkey v Third Avenue Railway Company 244 NY 84 at 94-5 (1926)
 I have discussed these issues in James Spigelman “The Forgotten Freedom: Freedom from Fear” (2010)
59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1 at pp 22-28
 Bendix Autolite Corp v Midwesco Enterprises Inc 486 US 888 at 897 (1987)
 Jeremy Waldron The Harm in Hate Speech Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2012. Waldron develops the analysis he presented in his 2009 Holmes Lectures “Dignity and Defamation: The Visibility of Hate” (2010) 123 Harvard Law Review 1596.
 See Meir Dan-Cohen (ed), Jeremy Waldron Dignity Rank & Rights Oxford Uni. Press, 2012.
 Ibid pp 105-107
|January 27th, 2013||#14|
Volume LVI Number 10
Quadrant magazine is the leading general intellectual journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate published in Australia.
The War Against Human Nature III: Race and the Nation in the Media
For the intellectual Left that came to power in the 1960s and 1970s, no front of the culture wars is more important than the national question—what constitutes a nation, the benefits and costs of nationhood, the connections between national identity and interests, ethnic and racial differences, and the proper relations between nation, state, immigration, domestic ethnic groups and other countries. Four of the five taboos in the social sciences are related directly or indirectly to these issues: race differences; blaming the victim; stereotype accuracy; and nativism.
Leftist values are not automatically anti-national. In the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth, Western elites often combined affection for their peoples with liberalism, including support for expanded civil rights. The Christian drive to end slavery in the late eighteenth century was not associated with unpatriotic sentiment. Labour movements have often supported protectionism and restrictive immigration in alliance with conservatives. However, as Eric Kaufmann has documented, the internationalist strand in socialist thought rose to prominence during the course of the twentieth century. From before the Bolshevik coup of 1917, cosmopolitans have fought against beliefs that would bolster Western identity and confidence.
One such activist was Columbia University anthropology professor Franz Boas, who helped supplant the nascent biosocial sciences in the United States with the cosmopolitan New Social Sciences. Boas’s opposition to biosocial science is valorised as “scientific anti-racism”, which he pioneered in a famous publication of 1912. The research purported to demonstrate that races rapidly converge on a common type when living in the same country. His goal was to assuage Anglo-American concerns that mass immigration would alter national identity. Boas was so strongly motivated in this direction that he opposed all biological theories of human nature. To that end he abandoned liberal and academic standards. Despite evincing the values of the 1848 liberal revolutionaries, he remained a stalwart of the Soviet Union through the Ukrainian genocide of 1931–32. On the scientific side, he doggedly supported official Soviet Lamarckianism, the theory that characteristics acquired by individuals during their lifetimes are passed on genetically to children. Boas remained a Lamarckian long after the theory was discredited in scientific circles. He approved Margaret Mead’s deeply flawed doctoral thesis on Samoan teenage sexuality that attributed white puberty blues to pathologies of Western civilisation. His 1912 research, a keystone document in the effort to radicalise American social science, was recently shown to be fallacious, not in the data collected by junior colleagues but in the statistical analysis conducted by Boas, a master statistician. Subsequent attacks on biosocial conceptions of ethnicity and nationhood have frequently been tempted to trade truth for ideology.
I am not suggesting that the pioneer leftist social scientists were Soviet agents. But they were sympathetic. For example John Dewey, held by Kaufmann to have co-founded the New Social Sciences with Boas, was not a Stalinist. Neither was he a revolutionary. But he did move in far-Leftist circles and in 1937 chaired the Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials, organised by a Trotskyist front organisation that included Boas. The Commission concluded that Trotsky had been loyal to the revolution.
A century after Boas the flaws in Marxist economics are understood but communist doctrine regarding the national question is triumphant. This is manifested intellectually in a near absence of biology in media and academic discussions. Politically it is evident in the intolerant utopianism of multiculturalism, revolutionary levels of immigration, and censorship of free speech on the subject.
The loss of this front of the culture wars unhinged the West’s political leadership’s capacity to comprehend ethnic affairs in a growingly diverse and mobile world. The same political elite that was surprised when the Soviet Union broke up into its constituent nations—because they did not regard it as an empire consisting of captive nations praying for release—is also managing the progressive swamping of Western nations by mass immigration. The policy is fascinating from the evolutionary perspective because it is drastically reducing the collective fitness of Western populations. Not everything about the process is new. Displacement of populations through colonisation has been happening since time immemorial, usually on a much smaller scale. What distinguishes the present situation throughout much of the West is that it was not initiated by armed invasion. Instead, colonisation is occurring at the invitation of Western elites, often contrary to public opinion. The process is epochal whether viewed through zoological, national or democratic eyes.
The national question figures large in the Australian media. From September 2011 until August 2012 I collected 215 articles and programs on national themes, mainly from the Sydney Morning Herald (henceforth the Herald) but also from the Australian and selected television and radio programs. The Herald is part of the Fairfax media group, which occupies a position analogous to the New York Times in America, from which it often reprints articles. The Australian is the flagship of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in Australia, which owns most of the country’s print media. The newspaper reflects the Murdoch formula of a campaigning approach to journalism with a neoconservative flavour.
The collected media reports discussed Aborigines, refugees, white racism, the benefits of multiculturalism and diversity, criticism of white Australia, national identity (including Anzac Day), foreign investment, international relations, and overseas ethnic conflict.
As expected, there were almost no references to biological factors. A rare exception was a Herald report of a scientific study concerning the evolution of racial differences (August 16, 2012, p. 18). Though it was not mentioned in the article, this area of research is relevant to studies of ethnic conflict and diversity because it bears on the significant genetic differences between ethnic groups and races. Genetic differences between groups entail genetic similarity within them, which typically resembles that found among cousins and can be as high as that found among half-siblings or grandparent and grandchild. This makes ethnic groups vast pools of kinship for their members, and helps explain the passions that frequently characterise ethnic affairs.
Another exception to the dearth of biology concerned medical differences between Australians of Aboriginal and European descent. In a radio interview conducted by Alan Jones in July 2012, Dr Alan Barclay of the Australian Diabetes Council stated that Caucasians have a lower prevalence of diabetes than indigenous Australians. He explained that the risk of Type II diabetes rises after aged forty-five for Whites but after age thirty-five for Aborigines, due to different evolutionary backgrounds. Caucasians have had agriculture for many thousands of years and become genetically adapted to more sugar in their diet. Neither man remarked that this information contradicts a mantra of multicultural ideology, that racial differences are biologically insignificant, that they are skin deep because populations have not been separated long enough for evolution to occur. Perhaps medical professionals should explain to social scientists that race differences go down at least to the pancreas and that substantial divergent evolutionary change has occurred in the last 10,000 years.
The most impressive discussion of biosocial themes was on the SBS television program Insight on April 20. SBS provides content in languages other than English and on themes of interest to non-Anglo audiences. Dr Fiona Barlow, a social psychologist in the School of Psychology, University of Queensland, explained that racism has an innate basis. Some individuals are more predisposed to develop racist attitudes than others. Humans have a cognitive bias to remember harmful but not pleasant behaviour from members of other ethnic groups, and to attribute it to that group. That is a “normal, natural” thing to do. The same program showed a video clip of an evolutionary psychologist, Professor Doug Kendrick of Arizona State University, explaining how ethnocentrism evolved. Humans are quick to suspect the motives of strangers from other ethnic groups but are also adept at calculating the risks and rewards to be gained from interaction. The evolutionary analysis of ethnic affairs does not indicate automatic racism. These contributions were valuable but did not fully develop the theme of the normality of ethnocentrism. Not only racism but pro-social values of ethnic and national community have an innate basis. And if minority ethnic consciousness is normal, so is the majority equivalent.
The general absence of biosocial perspectives was evident in the media’s lack of interest in signs of ethnic hierarchy. Pecking orders interest zoologists. They are ubiquitous in vertebrate species. Ethnic hierarchy is relevant to the national question because a fundamental legitimation for government is that it protects the people from conquest. In the Western tradition that is the first duty of sovereigns. A king might have exploited his subjects, but in defence of the realm ruler and ruled shared an interest in resisting external domination. In anthropological theories of the state, hunter-gatherers gave up their egalitarian social structure in the interests of group defence. Still today, in liberal doctrine, liberty from external subjugation takes precedence over citizens’ individual civil liberties within the state. (Libertarians are right to see war as a threat to their values.) This made good evolutionary sense because conquered populations lose resources including territory and, ultimately, reproductive fitness.
Yet the Australian elite media show little interest in ethnic hierarchy, beyond alleging white racism. If provoked into commenting on the subject, many would reply that multiculturalism has done away with the only ethnic hierarchy Australia has known, which saw Anglo-Celtic Australia firmly on top and Aborigines and non-English-speaking immigrants firmly underneath. This thesis makes sense for most of Australian history since 1788 but not in recent decades. Anglo-Celtic Australians are being rapidly displaced by mass Third World immigration that they were never asked to approve, are excluded from multicultural forums, and are the prime targets of political correctness, including a growingly coercive legal apparatus.
Anglo-Celtic Australia’s subordinate status is also indicated by the pattern of media reporting and commentary on ethnic affairs. An element of that pattern is the emphasis on white racism. Journalists are alert for discrimination when practised by Anglo Australians but are somnolent in the case of minorities. This is odd from the biosocial perspective because ethnocentrism is a species characteristic, a universal potentiality. Ethnic networking and other forms of solidarity are usually most intense in minorities.
Following in chronological order are examples of criticisms of Anglo and white Australians.
Sports journalist Patrick Smith criticised Tiger Woods’s former caddie for calling Woods a “black arsehole” despite the caddie apologising. Smith was so outraged that he rounded on the sport itself: “As for men’s golf, well, it is seen for what it always has been. A white sport played and administered protectively by white men” (Australian, November 9).
Herald columnist Ruth Ritchie (November 26–27) reviewed a television show featuring a pair of Muslim comedians who “share, with rapier wit, how it feels to be hated by white people ... And their observations about idiotic WASP male conversation is [sic] as keenly observed as any woman’s.”
After describing an English commentator as “a fraud and a mountebank”, columnist Angela Shanahan wrote: “It is an English thing, the Oxbridge talent for shock, fury and fulmination all delivered in the closed-mouthed plummy accent” (Herald, December 24–25).
Peter Gebhardt, a retired County Court Judge, wrote: “Australia Day is, of course, an artificial fabrication designed by governments ... and smug Anglo-Saxons to ensure that we forget real history. That Anglo-Saxon smugness is a resilient child of hypocrisy and racism ... It is only the resilience and the strength, the honesty and the earth-strength of the Aboriginal people that has enabled them to survive ... every conceivable peril placed in their paths by the whites who rely on a specious superiority” (Herald, January 26, online).
Former SBS newsreader Mary Kostakidis wrote: “Commercial television is still the province of middle-aged white male fantasy—non-white faces and older women are sent to Coventry” (Herald, March 3–4).
Germaine Greer’s combination of sexism and anti-Anglo chauvinism is published without editorial protest: “Australian men generally avoid women; Englishmen actively torment and belittle them” (Herald, March 3–4).
On SBS television Toby Ralph, a marketing strategist, criticised the negative stereotyping of an Indian actor in a banned television advertisement, calling it racist. He then characterised an actress in the same advertisement as “this pert little Caucasian blonde who is like a sexualised Hitler youth” (Insight, March 20).
In May, Helen Szoke, Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner, stated that Anglo Australians have a special problem with racism not found in other ethnic groups. “People who are part of the majority grouping, the white Anglo-Saxon grouping” deny that their discrimination is racist (Law Society Journal, May). Szoke painted a picture of an insensitive Anglo Australia which is not giving enough opportunities to Aborigines or immigrants of non-English-speaking background: “the white Australia policy is still part of the ‘muscle memory’ of the more homogenised white Australia”. The evidence for this strong claim was weak. Typical for anti-discrimination advocacy from its earliest days, these disparaging remarks were not balanced by a discussion of non-Anglo networking or anti-social behaviour or, on the other side of the ledger, success and overrepresentation in important areas such as higher education, selective schools, the professions, and areas of business. No mention was made of group interests, for example the cost to the Anglo community of affirmative action for minorities or infrastructure for immigrants. Racism is seen only in Anglos and whites. It gets worse. Szoke described how her own family has been adversely affected by Australian discrimination. “Here [Australia], our psyche has been scarred ... We’ll have to wait and see what happens”. The components of this story sit uncomfortably together—the categorical criticisms of Anglo Australians, the failure to consider ethnic interests, and the Commissioner’s personal ambivalence towards the same ethnic group that she officially condemns. The combination looks dangerous when she calls for the criminalisation of racial vilification (Herald, August 30). This is not an aberration. The problem is systemic and fits the Left-minority coalition’s broader effort to discourage white dissent and only white dissent.
On Anzac Day, which commemorates soldiers’ sacrifice for the nation, Eva Cox of the University of Technology, Sydney, doubted that Anzac Day was for all Australians because it is “very Anzac Anglo” (Sun-Herald, April 29, p. 86). In his Anzac comment, historian Craig Stockings sought to soften the clash between national identity and the multicultural population by exploding misconceptions about Australian soldiers. True, the Anzac legendary hero is “always, always white”, but thankfully Australia’s behaviour on the battlefield has had nothing to do with its soldiers being Australian, with their national character or “ethnic inheritance” (Australian, April 25). As Peter Coleman succinctly puts it, “Leftist writers, who do not like Australia or Australians, have assembled a portfolio of charges to debunk ‘the Anzac myth’.”
There is also the minority ethnocentric motive, usually expressed in leftist tropes. Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson feels distant from Anzac Day because it is “too white”, despite him also maintaining that race is an irrelevant category. The ritual is nauseating, he says, because it distracts whites from the more worthy memory of his own people’s suffering. Australia’s wars have been fought overwhelmingly by Anglo and other white Australians. So recent was the start of mass non-European immigration—since the 1970s—that the minority segment of the population does not yet figure in the core national identity as accumulated in images and memories of war heroes, veterans, war diaries and correspondence, casualty lists, war memorials and war leaders. The same can be said of our explorers, pioneers, leaders, writers, scientists, and of the imprint of culture, law and political institutions.
The change has been so rapid that veterans can notice. An example was publicised during Anzac Day in 2011 when Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, commented in an online message that Australians should “remember the Australia [veterans] fought for—it wasn’t gay marriage and Islamic” (Australian, April 26, 2011). He sent the message—which is true—after watching the Anzac Day march on television with his ninety-six-year-old father, a veteran of Tobruk and Milne Bay. The message provoked a storm of protest. Predictably he was called racist, despite the religious and homosexual themes. The message is also true when applied to ethnicity and race. Australian did not fight for diversity or to see their descendants become an ethnic minority. Among the reasons soldiers fight, the most common ideal was probably the aspiration for national freedom. That reality, combined with the Anglo make-up of the Anzacs, makes Australia’s past a foreign country for those alienated from the historical nation.
A Herald opinion piece complained that Australian boardrooms were too white and too male and that both deficiencies contributed to their staleness (May 9).
Herald education editor Andrew Stevenson claimed in a front-page article that private schools are insufficiently diverse. The headline contained a racial slur which indicated that “insufficiently diverse” meant too white: “The white bread playground: top private schools shun ethnic diversity” (June 12).
The ABC2 television program Dumb, Drunk and Racist, June to July 2012, presented harsh images of Anglo Australians. Mainly white Australians were shown displaying ethnic hostility and abusing alcohol. The anchor, Joe Hildebrand, a journalist for the Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph, invited four Indians to fly to Australia and pass judgment on Australian race relations. Indians were chosen because that country has an especially negative view of Australian racism. The show focused on displays of racial abusiveness in interactions claimed by Hildebrand to be purely spontaneous: “The truth is virtually every confrontation, every bit of violence or abuse, was caused by people we just happened to accidentally stumble across—or rather who just came across us.” This seems a hazardous way of organising a costly documentary. But we need go no further than Hildebrand’s own views to detect bias. In the second episode of the series, his response to the view that immigrants should adopt Australian customs was: “not sure what Australian customs there are, maybe drinking, gambling, wearing stubbies”.
Sports reporter Simon Barnes’s London Times article on Wimbledon was reprinted in the Weekend Australian: “I can never watch Serena Williams without being overwhelmed by a race-guilt for all the terrible things that white people have done to non-white people over the centuries” (July 7–8).
A candidate for council elections was reported in the Herald as opposing sharia law and praising Australian in contrast to Muslim culture. The reporter, Nicole Hasham, implied that the candidate was a “racial supremacist” (August 21).
In the context of criticising the federal parliament for insufficient ethnic diversity, columnist George Megalogenis implied that the institution is too white and that whiteness reduces openness: “It has become more monochrome at the very moment we need to pursue more openness—in markets and in immigration” (Weekend Australian, July 21–22).
The Foreign Minister Bob Carr criticised a statement by the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, that Australia belongs to the Anglosphere. He linked the statement to the anti-Asian views of One Nation founder Pauline Hanson in the 1990s. “With our heritage of White Australia and membership of the British Empire ... it’s too risky for us even to glance in the direction of talk of an Anglosphere. It revives all those unfortunate recollections and associations” (Weekend Australian, July 28–29).
In the context of criticising Christian missionaries, Phillip Adams’s accusations became racial: “The spiritual destruction of aboriginal religions throughout the world by white invaders was finally far worse ...” (Weekend Australian, August 4–5).
It seems that the elite Australian media do not always report events as objective observers but as participants, and that when they participate in ethnic issues they sometimes adopt a hostile attitude towards Anglo and white Australia but not towards minorities.
The gentle reception of anti-Anglo defamation
Sometimes what is not stated in the media points to bias. The media routinely pass over chauvinism and racism directed at Anglo Australians. An example is Herald journalist Jane Cadzow’s criticism of Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson’s verbal abuse of government officials and reporters as “f**king white c***s”. She did not dwell on the remark’s racist content (Herald, August 25). The same was true of journalist Tony Koch’s original exposé in the Weekend Australian (April 28–29). The emphasis was more on the fact that Pearson had abused a female journalist and done so with language “so foul it couldn’t be repeated here”. However, Koch was able to report Pearson’s lesser abuse of calling government officials and another female journalist “f**king racist white c***s”.
Despite this behaviour Pearson claims to be philosophically opposed to the concept of race, especially in governmental policy. In this view the British content of Australia’s national identity is all cultural. Likewise, Aboriginal identity and disability have nothing to do with race. The National Trust of Australia has named Pearson a living national treasure, something of a contrast to the treatment afforded whites who deploy vulgar racial abuse. Professor Marcia Langton, foundation chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at Melbourne University, defended Pearson’s harsh language by describing it as a feature of Aboriginal English, in which profanities are used as emphatics, “like exclamation marks”. Langton did not insert a sunset clause in her argument, such as a proviso that the cultural excuse expires in the case of a speaker who has a law degree or exerts political and administrative leadership. The twilight of Langton’s argument was when she herself lapsed into vilification by referring to the “Anglo preference for supercilious politeness”. The comment was published without apology by the Weekend Australian (May 5–6).
Also excused were negative views about whites expressed by Gracelyn Smallwood, an Aboriginal activist and an associate professor at James Cook University, made in the context of criticising Pearson. Smallwood made invidious generalisations about Anglos and whites in the Weekend Australian of July 7–8. She wrote that white Australians prefer Noel Pearson’s approach to indigenous affairs, referred to the “racist realities of mainstream Australia”, and opined that Aborigines “have long ago given up hoping that white right-wingers might be capable of understanding such things”. She continued that “Anglo-Saxon pride has been promoted for over 200 years in Australian schools. Just because it talks of being fair dinkum doesn’t disguise its origins or trajectory.”
The treatment of racist language used by Aborigines and their supporters fits the “moral apartheid” described by Herald commentator Paul Sheehan, in which Aborigines are judged by different, lighter, standards, though in the broader picture it is the Anglo community that is pilloried in its Bantustan of blame.
A higher-profile example of anti-Anglo sentiment being excused concerns the late art critic Robert Hughes. Hughes was a prominent expatriate Australian who supported the republican cause in the 1999 referendum from New York, where he was art critic for Time magazine. His anti-monarchical views extended to criticism of the British core of Australia’s national identity. He had unpleasant ethnically-charged memories of Catholic education, expressed in his book The Culture of Complaint (1993, p. 89):
Our education would prepare us to be little Englishmen and Englishwomen, though with nasal accents. We would not be accepted as such by the English themselves: we were not up to that ... In those days we had a small, 95 per cent white, Anglo-Irish society ... We were taught little Australian history.
The sentiment resembles that of the journalist John Pilger, who ridiculed Anglo Australia as a “second-hand England” in his 1992 book A Secret Country. In his book, Hughes defended the memory of the dead white males who built up most of the Western artistic and philosophical canon. But nowhere did he defend the right of live white people to witness for an identity that still nurtures that civilisation.
Anti-Anglo sentiment is also omitted from recent press coverage of the 1977 murder of anti-drugs campaigner Donald Mackay (Herald, July 13; July 14–15). The reports failed to mention the ethnic dimension of the crime. A royal commission concluded that a Calabrian Mafia organisation had targeted Mackay, an Anglo Australian. Al Grassby, a pioneering figure in Australian multiculturalism, had been a close associate of the Mafia leader who ordered Mackay’s murder, and had received generous political donations from this individual for many years. Acting on behalf of the Mafia, Grassby subsequently spread the accusation that Mackay’s own family had arranged the murder, for which he was successfully sued by Mackay’s widow. None of this was mentioned in recent press reports. An elite newspaper can be expected to inform readers of such background, indicating that Mackay’s death was an ethnically-entailed conspiracy and cover-up. Despite Grassby’s criminal activities having been revealed, the ACT’s Labor government erected a life-sized statue of him, which still stands, a cold display of contempt for the Mackay family, the Anglo community and law-abiding citizens.
Of the foregoing media reports, two of the largest categories are contradictory. Whites are commonly depicted abusing and stereotyping non-whites but also common is actual abuse and stereotyping of Anglos. No examples were sighted of journalists or commentators defaming minorities. Such behaviour exists but it is rare in the mainstream media, where abuse of Anglo Australia is common. The asymmetry in pecks and the identity and institutional affiliations of the peckers indicates that Australia has an ethnic hierarchy in which Anglos are firmly underneath and an alliance of leftist intellectuals and minorities are firmly on top. The examples also indicate that the hierarchy is not the natural order of things but is maintained through soft totalitarianism, known euphemistically as “political correctness”, consisting of intolerance on the part of the elite media, lack of political alternatives, and intimidation both informal and formal delivered by a growingly authoritarian and openly anti-Anglo immigration industry.
The low status of Anglo advocacy
The media review also revealed a pronounced status difference in Australian ethnic relations. Ethnic minorities are routinely represented by university-educated elites with access to the mass media and government while the ethnic majority is usually not. Rare exceptions, such as Professor Geoffrey Blainey was perceived to be in the 1980s, prove the rule, as does the fury they provoke from the mainstream media and Left activists. The class difference corresponds with institutional support, such that minority advocates are privileged by the establishment while majority advocates are excluded. Minority ethnic activists are treated with respect by government, the media, universities and corporations. They receive positive media coverage, jobs and other perks from the multicultural and immigration industry. They are invited to participate in government forums. Political parties sometimes favour them for preselection as a means of attracting the “ethnic vote”. Activist lawyers volunteer strategy and legal services. Peccadilloes and indiscretions are overlooked. By contrast, majority activists are derided by the media, university experts, minority activists and government officials. There are no jobs for advocates of Anglo-Australian interests in the multicultural industry or in government agencies. They are not invited to government forums. Lawyers demand full payment. Majority advocacy can stunt careers. Peccadilloes and indiscretions become the whole story. Throughout the West, efforts continue to legislate ever harsher penalties for expressions of loyalty to shrinking white majorities.
Vilification of Anglo ethnic consciousness helps perpetuate this difference. The resulting stigma helps silence the professional class that could marshal a powerful electoral and cultural defence of the historical nation.
The class difference between minority and majority ethnic advocates may have been instrumental in the top-down demographic revolution now under way across the English-speaking world. This can happen in a democracy when elites become alienated from the founding nation. According to the best academic study of the phenomenon in the USA, by Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann, by 1950 Anglo elites were stepping away from their traditional role of national leadership. Kaufmann argues that this change of heart occurred initially in the upper echelons of the intellectual elite, largely due to leftist ideologues such as Boas driving Anglo loyalists out of the social sciences and literary circles. (The remainder of this synopsis drops the positive spin Kaufmann puts on cosmopolitanism.)
One of the first casualties was consideration of human nature, the scientific study of which offered a prestigious counterweight to millenarian socialism. This changing of the intellectual guard occurred in the United States by the 1940s and was already apparent in the 1920s and 1930s with the rise of anti-Anglo ideology dressed up as anti-racism. That was the tipping point. The Gramscian process came full circle as graduates of elite universities conveyed the cosmopolitan agenda to the federal government, including the executive, the Supreme Court, and senior levels of the bureaucracy. The alienation of the state from the nation left the nation without effective leadership and thus ill-equipped institutionally or financially to contest control of centralised government, education and media.
The remainder of the twentieth century saw the mopping-up of uncoordinated pockets of Anglo dissent. One rearguard action was flight from the mainstream churches to evangelical denominations whose preachers were not the products of Ivy League colleges or adherents of progressive ecumenicalism. Despite such resistance, the top-down march of cosmopolitan ideas had a general indoctrination effect. The ability of Anglo Americans to resist electorally was steadily eroded by the mass immigration of those whose ethnic and economic interests usually lay with the Democrats, the party of relatively generous welfare, diversity enthusiasm and porous borders. Coercive measures were also deployed, formal and informal, that characterise multiculturalism everywhere (though in America the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech has been a stumbling block to criminalising racial vilification). This was a repeat of the intolerance originally shown by the left in the elite universities. Kaufmann is critical of the anti-Anglo stance of multiculturalism, suggesting that this endangers the cosmopolitan enterprise.
The process is similar in Australia, though a greater proportion of the intellectual influence has come from overseas. The Anglo elite was becoming alienated from ethnic defence by the 1960s. The Immigration Reform Group, founded in 1960 at Melbourne University, was influential in advocating ethnic moralism that soared unburdened by a concept of ethnic interests. Loyalists have still not found a response to their people’s loss of control over the state. From the 1960s the universities became a stronghold for anti-Anglo activists, eventually leading to school curricula having their civics courses stripped of patriotic history. The present Labor government is intent on introducing a national civics curriculum for schools that teaches children nothing of the country’s Anglo-Celtic and European history. Instead it intends to emphasise Aboriginal culture, Asian geography, environmental sustainability and leftist values. As Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs notes, Australia’s own English and European political traditions are not mentioned in the draft curriculum; neither is individual liberty. And as the Australian Christian Lobby argues, there is no justification for ignoring Western biblical traditions.
The potential for shifting demographics to prevent an Anglo recovery was demonstrated during the 2007 federal election, when the serving prime minister, John Howard, lost his seat to a campaign that pulled Asian votes from him on the basis of ethnic affiliation. One comment that he made twenty years earlier, to the effect that Asian immigration should be slowed a little during times of economic recession, a view he later withdrew, was sufficient to convince conservative middle-class voters of Asian origin to support the party of the left. Race trumped class. More significantly, the commentariat did not hurl accusations of racism at the Labor Party or ethnically-motivated voters. Instead they commended the tactics used. It seems that anti-racism sometimes means anti-white. The foregoing examples of media defamation send the same message. A similar double standard prevents the Greens from opposing mass immigration, which overnight transforms low-polluting Third Worlders into the highest polluters on the planet. In a way, race trumps the environment.
The subordination and steady replacement of Anglo Australia is not due to high principle but an unholy Left-minority alliance. The cosmopolitan Left has abandoned the shrinking white blue-collar working class for new constituencies, including minority ethnics who can be relied upon to vote for parties that keep the immigration door open to ethnic kin. Australia’s cosmopolitan elites are, in effect, electing a new people to replace reactionary Anglo Australia. The fact that the new people are more ethnically motivated than Anglo Australians has not bothered ideologues who are on hair-trigger alert for any hint of Anglo ethnic sentiment.
The concluding part of this article, in the next issue of Quadrant, describes how the national question is treated in Australia’s universities. Are the confusion, double standards and outright anti-white hostility evident in the media occurring despite or because of what is being taught in the social sciences?
Dr Frank Salter (franksalter.com) is an urban anthropologist and political ethologist. His article “The War against Human Nature in the Social Sciences” appeared in the June issue, and “The War against Human Nature II: Gender Studies” in the July-August issue.
 Haidt, J. (2011). "The bright future of post-partisan social psychology", Talk given at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, Texas, 27 Jan. http://www.authorstream.com/Presenta...al-psychology/.
 Kaufmann, E. (2004). The rise and fall of Anglo-America. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
 Boas, F. (1912). "Changes in bodily form of descendants of immigrants." American Anthropologist 14(3): 530-562.
 Sparks, C. S. and R. L. Jantz (2002). "A re-assessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science www.pnas.org 99(23): 14636-14639.
 Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, et al. (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
 Harpending, H. (2002). "Kinship and population subdivision." Population and Environment 24(2): 141—147.
Salter, F. K. (2007/2003). On genetic interests. Family, ethnicity, and humanity in an age of mass migration. New York, Transaction.
 Alan Jones Show, Radio 2GB, 9 July 2012.
 Cochran, G. and H. Harpending (2009). The 10,000 year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution. New York, Basic Books.
 Insight, 20 April 2012, first interview; http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episod...Not-Racist-But..., accessed 23 April 2012, at about 12 mins.
 Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
 Salter, F. K. (2002). Risky transactions: Trust, kinship, and ethnicity. New York, Berghahn Books.
 Patrick Smith, “White man’s game could show Woods some respect”, The Australian, 9 Nov. 2011, Sport, p. 33.
 Ruth Ritchie, “Crossing the racial divide”, SMH, 26-27 Nov. 2011, Spectrum, p. 18.
 Angela Shanahan, “An intellectual to learn from and a fraud to recoil from”, SMH, 24-25 Dec. 2011, p. 18.
 Peter Gebhardt, “Nation’s day a chance to shine a light into the darkness”, SMH, 26 Jan. 2012, online.
 Mary Kostakidis, “A diversified media can tell humanity’s myriad stories”, SMH, 3-4 March 2012, New Review, p. 16).
 Germaine Greer, “Women’s struggles go beyond one day”, SMH, 3-4 March 2012, p. 18.
 Insight, SBS Television, 20 March 2012. Transcript at: http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episod...Not-Racist-But.
 Anne Susskind, [Interviews Helen Szoke], Law Society Journal, May 2012, pp. 20-22.
 The evidence of Anglo racism consisted of a fall in the proportion of Aborigines in government employment, too many whites in advertising and free-to-air television, and a fall is social cohesion.
 Wilkinson, P. (2007). The Howard legacy: Displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Essendon, Australia, Independent Australian Publishers.
 Dan Harrison, “Calls for federal law to criminalise racial abuse”, SMH, 30 Aug. 2012, p. 5. http://www.smh.com.au/national/calls...829-2512p.html.
 Coleman, P. (2012). “Australian notes”. Spectator Australia. London, The Spectator Ltd., p. vi.
 Noel Pearson, 2011, Up from the mission: Selected writings, Collingwood, Victoria: Schwartz Media, p. 337.
 “Christian lobbyist sorry for gays, Islam tweet”, The Australian, 26 April 2011.
 “Diversity the answer for boardrooms”, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 May 2012, p. 11.
 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/dumbdrunkracist/, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/...nk-and-racist/, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 The Weekend Australian, 7-8 July 2012, Sport, p. 39.
 Nicole Hasham, “Politics of prejudice as cultural cowboys court xenophobic vote”, SMH, 21 Aug. 2012, p. 3.
 George Megalogenis, “Reform blues stem from parliament’s monochrome demography”, Weekend Australian, 21-22 July 2012, Inquirer, p. 22.
 “Carr takes Abbott to task on Anglo outlook”, Weekend Australian, 28-29 July 2012, The Nation, p. 6.
 Phillip Adams, “Wrecking crews”, Weekend Australian, 4-5 Aug. 2012, Life & Style, p. 46.
 Jane Cadzow, “Cape crusader”, SMH, 25 Aug. 2012, Good Weekend, pp. 12-17.
 Tony Koch, “Pearson yet to learn lessons of leadership”, Weekend Australian, 28-29 April, Inquirer, p. 18.
 Noel Pearson, “Constitutional reform crucial to indigenous wellbeing”, Weekend Australian, 24-25 Dec. 2012, Inquirer, p. 20.
 Marcia Langton, “Why I continue to be inspired by Pearson”, Weekend Australian, 5-6 May 2012, Inquirer, p. 20.
 Gracelyn Smallwood, “Self-belief a matter of survival for indigenous people”, SMH, 7-8 July 2012.
 Paul Sheehan, “Mundine sentiment missing the mark”, SMH, 26 April 2012, p. 11. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...425-1xlil.html, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 Lisa Davies, “Hopes high in search for remains of Mackay”, SMH, 13 July 2012, p. 1; Lisa Davies, “Last chance to ease pain of a town and a crusader’s family”, SMH, 14-15 July 2012, p. 15.
 National Observer (2005): http://www.nationalobserver.net/2005_winter_ed1.htm, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 Paul Sheehan, “Monuments to honesty and deceit”, SMH, 16 Feb. 2009, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/monume...0215-881s.html, accessed 30 Aug. 2012.
 Kaufmann, The rise and fall of Anglo-America.
 Ibid., pp. 293, 295.
 “New civics curriculum calls for students to be citizens of the web”, SMH, 5 June 2012, p. 3.
 Christ Berg, “Blatant bias in national curriculum could damage our democracy”, Sun-Herald, 8 July 2012, pp. 68-9. ACL submission on the national curriculum, 28 May 2010.
 Maxine McKew, who defeated Howard in the 2007 elections, won partly because the Labor machine targeted the Asian vote: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...135558234.html, accessed 1 Sept. 2012; see supporting comments by Asian community leaders in the Bennelong electorate: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...tm?site=sydney, accessed 1 Sept. 2012.
|December 3rd, 2014||#15|
[retailer yields to feminist pressure]
Grand Theft Auto 5 banned by Australian chain due to 'violence against women'
Retail chain Target says it has removed the R-rated game from shelves in stores across Australia due to complaints from customers
|March 21st, 2017||#16|
Oz: Churches, Jews, Nonwhites, Oppose Race Law Reform
MARCH 21, 2017
Almost all major churches, the Jewish lobby, and all official bodies representing nonwhites in Australia, have ganged up to halt a proposed reform of existing race laws to remove the words “insult, offend, and humiliate” and replace them with the word “harassment.”
The seemingly minor amendment to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 has been widely interpreted by the groups as “legalizing” the ability to issue insults, while the government has insisted that it is a strengthening of the law and of the right to free speech.
Currently, the law defines “offensive behavior because of race, color or national or ethnic origin” as unlawful if the “act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people.”
The government seeks to delete the words “insult,” “offend,” and “humiliate” and replace them with the term “harass.”
Freedom of speech advocates in Australia have campaigned for years to make the change, based on the fact that the Jewish lobby in particular has managed to get books, websites, and writers banned in that country based on subjective definitions of the word “insult.”
However, a formal alliance of nonwhite, Jewish, and church groups, united under the banner of the “Coalition to Advance Multiculturalism” (CAM), released a letter condemning the changes as “utterly shameful and at odds with the principles of multicultural Australia.”
“We will oppose this latest attempt to amend Section 18C with all the energy and resources at our collective disposal,” the CAM statement said.
According to a statement on the website of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV), the “Coalition to Advance Multiculturalism” consists of the following organizations: Afro-Australian Student Organization; Australasian Union of Jewish Students; Buddhist Council of Victoria; the Hindu Council of Australia; the Incubate Foundation; Islamic Council of Victoria; Jewish Community Council of Victoria; Muslim Legal Network; The Online Hate Prevention Institute; Pax Christi Australia; Sikh Interfaith Council; UNESCO Chair in Interreligious and Intercultural Relations; Uniting Church of Australia, Synod of Victoria and Tasmania; Victorian Council of Churches; and the Vietnamese Community in Australia (Vic).
Peter Wertheim, director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said that if “implemented, these proposals will weaken, perhaps emasculate, existing legal protections against racist hate speech.”
“They will give a free pass to ugly and damaging forms of racial vilification which do not satisfy the stringent legal criteria of harassment and intimidation. The publication of virtually any derogatory generalization about an entire community group would, of itself, be permissible,” Wertheim said.
The President of the Chinese Australian Forum, Kenrick Cheah announced that they would use the growing numbers of Chinese voters in Australia’s cities to punish the government if the changes went ahead.
“Look at the demographics of Sydney, for example,” Cheah said. “There are a lot of seats out there which have very vocal multicultural communities.
“I don’t think any multicultural communities have stood up for the changes—especially in marginal seats like Reid, Banks etc. where, it is quite important that either side harness the multicultural vote—I can’t see how this is going to help anyone get votes from those communities.”
Randa Kattan, the Arab Council Australia CEO, said the government was sending a “dangerous signal that it is OK to insult somebody” to a community “that faces the brunt of racism almost on a daily basis, if not on a minute-by-minute basis.”
The ruling Liberal Party is itself divided over the proposed changes, and the law faces hurdles in getting passed by the Senate, where there is enough opposition to deny the government a majority.
The executive director of the libertarian Institute of Public Affairs, John Roskam, warned that the definition of harassment was also “mired in uncertainty,” and accurately remarked that “only the full repeal of section 18C would preserve free speech.”
|March 21st, 2017||#17|
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Pre-Rapture, USA ⚛️
The USA was to have the same-Trump nixed it, but it is STILL HERE, they just renamed it:
Instead of TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) it is Trade in Services Agreement.
"..Several proposed texts from the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have been transferred to TiSA — including state-owned enterprises; rights to hold data offshore (including financial data); e-commerce; and prohibitions on performance requirements for foreign investors. While these texts originated with the United States, they appear to be supported by other parties to the TPP, even though those governments were reluctant to agree to them in the TPP and will no longer be bound by that agreement. That suggests the TPP may become the new norm even though it has only been ratified in two of the 12 countries, and that was done on the basis of U.S. participation that no longer applies. TPP cannot be allowed to become the new ‘default’ position for these flawed agreements..”
There are rules re speech that include no criticism of religion and no racial or gender based 'hate' speech.
New regs with re to online trade/businesses, and some real creepy legislation with re to banking, including:
"..The TISA Annex on Financial Services clearly states that TISA governments ‘shall permit’ foreign-owned firms to introduce any new financial product or service, so long as it does not require a new law or a change to an existing law.”
They left out the fact that the 'foreign-owned firms' are given an upperhand in many areas of International Trade with re to the way this Agreement is written.
In Australia, the bit about defining what 'harassment' or 'insult' is--this is what we will get with this bill. When something is so willy-nilly interpreted by the Courts and there's no common understanding of what is 'illegal', it's a nice way to shut people up out of fear they're breaking impossible to interpret "law".
There is some variation of this now all over the world-USA is one of the few places that doesn't have it yet--and yet most people don't know that we came very close to getting TPP and we will likely get the re-named version very soon.
"Inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception."--Richard Carrier