Australia’s insane war on free speech continues

Letters from O'Brien #75

It is not too uncommon to hear about ridiculous policies being passed in Australia as legislation, as has been the case for decades, thanks to a lack of a clear constitutional foundation. Many times, over the past few years I have addressed various Australian policies and legislation in my letters. Once again, ridiculous laws are being pushed that will alter the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in the Land Down Under (…down under indeed!).

NEW LAWS

Some time ago, the Australian parliament greenlit a new set of free speech restrictions approved under the guise of preventing ‘hate speech’. Something most Western governments have been pushing for since at least 2014. Now, Australia has got their law to ensure everyone will only say nice things to one another – how progressive of us.

What is startling is that these proposals were supported on both sides of the political aisle in Australia. In fact, only a handful of representatives actively pushed back against it. These laws are broad in scope, loosely defined, far reaching and impactful for those found at the pointy end of it.

For context, I believe that Australia’s current lineup on the political left (the Labour Party) and right (Coalition) is a damn catastrophe. As in the UK, there is zero real effective difference between the two major parties (nor even an attempt to create an illusion of difference). It is like they’ve just given up trying to falsify some sort of dialectic entirely and gone with the flow of the ‘uniparty’.

Both the Coalition and Labour Party proudly pushed thorough the ‘hate speech’ legislation without resistance in either camp. There was some variation when presenting this to the public; for example those on the left appeared to show more interest in suppressing any perceived hate speech of LGBT people (especially after Trumps action to legally restrict genders to male and female), while those on the right added their own arguments, indicating that it would protect vulnerable people from bullying or something (even I’m not sure what there public argument was, it doesn’t really make sense or semblance of consistency). Both left and right seem to have agreed on the same core issue; that the bill is to stop the spread of ‘antisemitic content’ online.

Beyond this, other smaller parties also threw their support behind it. This even included Pauline Hanson, who slowly but surely seems to be drifting from the right wing into some sort of centrism, alienating her base in the process.

The thing is, these proposals were not widely discussed for obvious reasons; they understood that the political left is currently engaged in a hypothetical war of criticism with Zionism due to the Palestine conflict, whilst those on the right are increasingly resistant to all forms of coercive control by the state. Thus, really the only people in support of such a bill were technocrats, and special interest groups, which is exactly who seems to be pushing the buttons in Australia.

GUARANTEED PRISON TIME

The entire basis of these laws appears to rest on the idea that anything deemed directly ‘hateful’ can result in guaranteed prosecution if action is taken by the ‘victim’ party. As outlined in the documentation, this was pushed through as an expansion of a similar amendment agreed upon in 1995.

According to the vague nature of these new laws, things like intent and specifics will not matter. This means that satire, jokes, or even casual conversation will be judged all the same as open insult – even if there’s no intent. Context, intent, degree, none of these elements seem to matter if someone feels hated by another.

It gets worse; there will supposedly be no clear definition of ‘hate speech’. Anything that is deemed hateful by an individual can be escalated to the courts. When paired with the latter axiom, this means that any speech can be considered offensive or hateful by anyone. Seems there are no absolutes anymore, no standards, only feelings. Pointing out obvious facts can now be prosecuted as vile hate speech, by a casual bystander who may indeed be deluded about the facts of a matter.

The minimum sentencing is one year (and up to seven years). Yes, that includes anything that is deemed directly hateful regardless of intent or content. Again, this is unparalleled even in the UK or Canada.

Sentencing also appears to be mandatory. This means that once a case has been presented, the prosecutors must push for the minimum sentencing at least, and the case cannot be appealed. I am unaware of anything else like this (I’m sure China or North Korea have equivalent laws, but not in the West).

In summary then, these new laws are essentially a shotgun approach to censoring free speech, criticism, open discussion and so forth. Wielding this new ‘standard’, anything can be considered by anyone to be hate speech, regardless of intent, and once in court this will be escalated to prosecution for a minimum 1 year in prison with no hope of appeal.

For other Western nations this should be a travel warning for tourists (except for mute tourists, you’d be OK as long as you don’t write anything down).

SENSATIONALISM OR A REAL THREAT

What I have found surprising is how nationalists have responded to this. I saw Australian nationalist Joel Davis essentially downplay the new laws recently, claiming that ‘retards’ are ‘sensationalising’ it and fear mongering, and that the laws themselves are not that extreme. This same sentiment has been circulating amongst several (specifically Australian) right wingers online. I find this sudden ‘containment’ from supposed right wingers online very suspicious, especially considering that the bipartisan support for these laws essentially stemmed from claims of ‘rising antisemitism’, which immediately garnered a response.

Here is the problem which these online accounts do not seem to realise; these laws are open ended in practice, evident not only in the wording of the laws but in the words used by politicians to describe what these laws are and why they are introducing them. The whole idea that this is not a problem because it’s not ‘extreme enough’ is absurd, short sighted, and likely fatal. These laws will be used to legally justify the targeting of dissident individuals, based on false testimony, misconstrued or out of context speech, ‘misinformation’, and so on. The government (and their patrons) now have a powerful legal tool to silence anyone they like.

These laws are technically both an extension and amplification of existing anti-hate laws already in place in Australia. These ‘less extreme’ laws already knock down the dissident element very effectively. Just last week I read about two Australian military veterans who were sentenced to 1 month in jail, because one of them (a military history collector) showed the other a newly-acquired piece of German WW2 memorabilia in a pub. Someone saw them taking a photo with the German flag with a swastika, reported it, and then the incident was followed by legal action (arrested, without bail) partially as a result of these existing hate-laws which allow prosecution for displaying perceived hate symbols. The police report said the men had been “charged with knowingly display by public act Nazi symbol without excuse.”(sic)

This recent example is a perfect indicator of the insanity that will arise; in this case, the court found that the two men were completely innocent of any qualifiable hate action, yet even then the judge claimed that he couldn’t “guarantee the public’s safety” if the two were let out of holding, thus as far as I am aware they will remain in jail until the end of February. What the blazes do you think a collector of war memorabilia is going to do that’s threatening to public safety? This is like the demo-version of what you will get next in Australia.

People freaking out are not sensationalising the impact of this legislation. Consider the statements made by Australia’s Attorney General Mark Dreyfus - an avid supporter of the provisions which he believes will counter the rise of antisemitism. Dreyfus told the Australian Jewish News that the legislation “delivers the toughest laws Australia has ever had against hate crimes”, and that the “the overwhelming vote in our national parliament sends a clear and unambiguous message that antisemitic acts are criminal acts and will not be tolerated”. This is not an independent saying this, it is the Attorney General admitting that these laws have bipartisan support, will be the ‘toughest ever’.

So why - under any circumstance - would anyone try and downplay or countersignal people freaking out online (justifiably, I might add), in response to the state attempting to crush free speech and open avenues for sudden arrests with guaranteed imprisonment. Unless these commentators are literally part of a control network running containment (wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen this on the right wing)! Then they should admit that every one of these steps by the government is an attack on basic liberties. I do find it suspicious that many are running for cover over this legislation, especially given the relevant context. Australian citizens collectively freaking out online is a good thing, since I rarely see Australians actively resisting such political tyranny.

Every step even remotely pushing Australia towards censorship and tyranny should be called out and resisted. Every single step. No matter how big or small, ‘extreme’ or limited. Why? Because none of these changes will ever be reversed once they are passed into law. Half the reason we in the west are in this position in the first place is because of slow encroachment through micro-changes occurring over the years, without notice or pushback.

SOCIAL MEDIA BAN

The other important move made by parliament was to green light a ‘social media ban’, as part of an Under-16s restriction. This went through earlier in 2024 after months of debate. As far as I am aware, there hasn’t been any direct action yet, however the signs seem to indicate that restrictions can be bought in at any time.

These laws would directly affect those under the age of 16, in a bid to defend them from the ‘harms of social media’. Many believe it was primarily motivated by young people’s response to the events following October 7, and the criticism of Zionism - much like the attempted TikTok ban and later seizure by a US intermediary. Just as with the TikTok situation in the US, politicians in Australia rapidly pushed through such restrictions with largely bipartisan support. If this were about health, the primary target would be banning porn websites, but instead Australian’s are getting information censorship.

Regardless of the true justifications for its introduction, overall, it is just another attempt to censor information of all kinds; a shotgun approach to basically preventing young people from seeing anything others are sharing online.

I have no idea how this second set of possible restrictions will affect the population. Personally, I think it will be entertaining to see the reaction; thus far the Australian people appear to be silent on this set of possible restrictions, but that is because the young people are all on social media. Take them off their phones, and they will awaken to the grim nature of their situation; some of the most unaffordable housing in the world, feminism gone mad, a loneliness epidemic and lack of community, and mass migration (Australia supposedly let in 1.1 million just in 2024, making it arguably the most extreme case of mass migration proportionate to its population in the entire world).

IMPORTANT: DIALECTICAL DECEPTION

This is crucial; this recent attack on free speech has - ironically - exemplified exactly what I have been writing to you about for years. Namely, that the dialectical control of our political system in the west is the downfall of the populists.

In the leadup to the elections in the UK, I noted how a Starmer victory would actually - in the final analysis - be a good thing, since it would further alienate the establishment from the populace. I also noted that at the same time, people cannot forget that the Tories are essentially the same group with the speed brakes on.

Luckily, the situation in Australia is far more black-and-white, especially after the passing of this bill. The facts speak for themselves; despite the coalition proudly pushing back against the so called ‘misinformation bill’ last year (this would be their ‘dialectical opposition’), the very same politicians then immediately fell back into line, and - without any resistance at all in the parties - voted unanimously for the most damning bill arguably ever passed in the country. And what was the common denominator - the common issue that needed censoring and addressing now of all times - that united the coalition with their so-called enemies on the left in this time of apparent ‘urgency’? Well, I think know (but can’t say).

Australia’s coalition are only really matched by the Tories and the German centre-right coalition, in their ability to do absolutely nothing to benefit conservative or nationalist citizens. As with most of these moderate ‘centre right’ parties (I would argue they are centre left at this point, and this bill exemplifies why) they will only ever cede ground to political enemies and hostile foreign forces. The coalition from my analysis - however - seems to have slowly abandoned any attempt to mask this false dialectic. Even publicly, coalition politicians are essentially rehashing neoliberal or neocon talking points, appealing to basically no one, without even bothering to play the part of the ‘conservative’. Again, their openness to rally support around this recent hate speech bill was shocking, and has shown once and for all that this is all a façade to advance foreign interests and censor criticisms, concerns, and free speech as a whole.

But here we come to an impasse; so long as Australians - and Englishmen and Americans and so forth - continue to view politics through a purely dialectical lens, we will all continue to lose. In Australia, the coalition government has shown its true colours, unlike any other time in history. While there are a select few politicians who I think are good, the overwhelming majority will always default to acting as the dialectical opposition; arguing over nothing, and then aligning with the other side of the aisle on the actual critical issues.

Here is what must be understood regardless of what western country one resides in; fundamental regime issues will always receive unanimous support. Those issues are almost always the same, and without fail both left and right leaning politicians will fall into line when they are presented. Everything else is filler.

There are still many people who are against what is happening but will blindly vote for their establishment Conservative party. Remember; these parties or coalitions will never offer meaningful resistance to our cause, they will either slam on the brakes, only to let go again in a year, or they will slowly and with deceptive words cede political and social power to the left or to neocon elements on the right wing.

ANY WAY OUT

Only time will tell as to how Australia can combat this insane attack on free speech. There is no clear way out of this mess, since the entire political apparatus has been weaponised against the standard citizen.

Australia has federal elections in the near future; many will invariably vote for the ‘right wing’ Coalition, yet as anyone with any semblance of awareness will tell you, this may arguably be worse than allowing the left wing to win again. The Coalition are actively at war with their population in a way not too dissimilar to the left wing, always ceding ground to those who dislike Australia having a distinctly English heritage and culture. Luckily, the current Coalition has basically given up any attempt to ‘play the dialectic’ as the ‘Conservative party’ and has basically gone all in on stuff like mass migration, censorship (the current head of the party is a former federal police officer) and so on. It makes Sunak’s Tory government look good! Thus, I believe Australians will invariable become dissatisfied with the major parties and may turn attention towards the smaller parties— or perhaps they’ll just increase pressure on the current regime to drop or reverse legislation.

Things are looking grim in Australia; however, I do have some hope. Australians seem to be one of the most pacified peoples in the west, yet if both laws (hate speech and online restrictions) really come into play in a big way (banning social media for teenagers and sending people to jail for saying anything deemed hateful), something will likely shift. People must understand that our right to speak freely is - as it has always been - a fundamental necessity in a civil society. Without free speech, Australia - and indeed any other western country - will cease to be a civil society.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien