Government Overreach on Free Speech

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ~ Voltaire

"Freedom of speech has been described as ‘the freedom par excellence; for without it, no other freedom could survive’.
Freedom of speech is ‘closely linked to other fundamental freedoms which reflect … what it is to be human: freedoms of religion, thought, and conscience’.
The rationale of the common law right of freedom of speech; how this right is protected from statutory encroachment; it promotes the self-fulfillment of individuals in society.

Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate.
It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country.
The efficacy of representative government depends also upon free communication on such matters between all persons, groups and other bodies in the community"

Australian Law Reform Commission.

The above quotes from The Australian Law Reform Commission is what most of us grew up believing. It is what our forefathers fought and sacrificed themselves for, and it is purported to still be the foundation of all civil rights in this country and all western democracies. But these implied freedoms have eroded since 2001 after the September 11 attack, and most people are none the wiser.

The Two Faces of Australia

2020 brought with it major changes in the world for all who reside in it. Besides the actual pandemic, the most noticeable change was the lockdowns. Freedom of movement was curtailed against the constitution of the right to travel unhindered, under State mandates (recommendations). Freedom of speech was suddenly censored and fact-checked by the media thought-police and new legislation was passed that stole your freedom and civil liberties.

Most glaring was the loss to freedom of speech supported by new legislation sliding in under the cover of darkness without people noticing - laws which go beyond any pandemic and silence anyone who speak out and question what the hell is going on in this country.

Laws that eroded every single sacrifice our Diggers made for freedom from oppression and tyranny in WWI and WWII. Do our Leaders of this and all other western nations see this sacrifice as a joke, because they certainly have demonstrated that they DO NOT respect our Diggers and what they stand for.

A slap in the face to their memories and our history. Lest We Forget? The parliamentarians sure have, and the good citizens of Australia, veterans included, became the enemy of the State, treated like terrorists and extremists for simply standing up for their civil rights, as is implied in the Constitution, fought for and won by our forbearers.

Some may argue that our Diggers didn't fight for freedom at all, that this is just a fairytale told to them and us, when it was really all about gain of wealth and control for the Australian and Allied coffers. Most of us know these days that war is rarely (if ever) entered into via the position of moral duty, defending the weak, or fighting against oppression and tyrannical dictators. However, it is presented as such to us sentimental fools who like to think our country is contributing to the 'hero' narrative on the global stage. This is not intended to be disrespectful to the serving men and women, past or present. If you think the purpose of involvement in wars has changed from financial and power gains to morally-driven action, from the time of The Roman Empire until now, you would be mistaken.

The Uncomfortable Truth

"The tyranny of the many would be when one body takes over the rights of others, and then exercises its power to change the laws in its favour." ~ Voltaire

There are only ever three sides: Offensive, Neutral or Defensive. Inflicting shock-treatment on much of the country, the Australian Government intrinsically acted offensively within its own borders during the last 3 years towards her own. While the Australian Government happily sends our troops off to fight for the freedoms of others, it has failed to fight for its own citizens rights. And they got away with it with support from a small proportion of the country gleefully turning upon their own in the most vile of manners, encouraged through propaganda from the unethical mainstream media and State figureheads.

'Unless we can stop the trajectory of silencing the truth, we will become a more or less totalitarian regime with a sunny climate'

'Everybody needs to stand up against what’s going on in Australia, because if you put the good people in gaol, we won’t have too many more good people in the future'.

Former ADF lawyer David McBride.

"Beware of the words 'internal security', for they are the eternal cry of the oppressor." ~ Voltaire

Feb 2022: "The Australian Government are secretly bringing in laws regarding covert surveillance of Australians.  Since 9/11, the government has passed over 90 national security bills." (Sydney Criminal Lawyers)

August 2021: Passed by both Houses, the Morrison government rushed these laws through parliament in less than 24 hours. The Identify and Disrupt Bill rolled out a three-tiered warrant system that allows agents to gain control of a communications device or an online account to not only search through it, but further to add, copy, modify or delete any information within it.

"Shoebridge asserts that it is this lack of rights protections at the federal level that has led both major parties when in power to have passed this plethora of national security laws since the turn of the century that “massively empowers the executive as against citizens”.

“One of the lessons we should take from this is how important it is to entrench fundamental rights into our constitution, because without them, these laws only go in one direction,” he concluded, “more and more centralised power, more and more covert surveillance and fewer and fewer rights.”

"It’s about marginalising the role of courts, limiting traditional rights to privacy and empowering the executive to reach into our personal lives.”

NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge

"That's NEVER going to happen", they said

April 2018: "There is no plan for the Government to extend the powers of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) so that it could collect intelligence against Australians, or covertly access private data," Former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said.

"There is no such plan. (We've all heard those lies uttered before)

"I don't see any national security gap, and I certainly believe the current laws safeguard the privacy of Australians but also keep Australians safe."

"In the ever-changing world of cyber security as officials we should explore all options to protect Australians and the Australian economy", the statement said.

"We would never provide advice to government suggesting that ASD be allowed to have unchecked data collection on Australians — this can only ever occur within the law, and under very limited and controlled circumstances."

ABC News - Australia

The plan to introduce the Bill discussed above was leaked in 2018 by an News Corp News Journalist as a warning to us all, in the public's interest. That journalist's home and office were subsequently raided by the AFP. Now that this legislation is in place, what are the circumstances that justify the spying on and control of average Australians' communications?

METADATA RETENTION LAWS

Passed in 2017, the Meta Data Retention under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, is yet another piece of legislation that tightened the noose around the privacy of Australians. From 2014, when Ex-Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, preambled the Data Retention Laws, the media and civil rights advocates started warning us then what this meant for everyday Australians, and how it provides immunity to authorities who target innocent and not-so-innocent people. Most of you may shrug your shoulders and say, "well, I have nothing to hide, this is only for terrorists and criminals", but having nothing to hide is not the point.

The laws can target average citizens, and they sit hand in hand with the Identify and Disrupt Legislation, meaning that ANYBODY's online activities can be tracked, monitored and even tampered with by remote alterations made on a social media post, for example. You would never be able to prove that it wasn't you who wrote it. This is what is termed a SET-UP, and a dirty tactic which creates guilt by design.

The point is that these draconian laws can be implemented on innocent people who do not even have criminal intentions, and on those who simply voice an opposing opinion to governmental policy implementation.

You SHOULD be very concerned about these laws, for they mean in a very real sense that each citizen is regarded as a threat to national security; a quasi-person of interest and a citizen without rights, eroding privacy and undermining any freedom you thought you had.

The pre-emptive surveillance of every single Australian is way outside the boundaries of legitimate government action in a free country

"Collectively, the government’s staggered package of new laws poses a serious danger to personal freedoms and liberty, and the new metadata laws are the pedestal upon which that threat is mounted.

As outlined, law enforcement agencies could selectively use meta-data to press serious criminal charges based on limited information.

ASIO can then carry out raids and other ‘special intelligence operations’ without fear of civil or criminal penalties, giving you little recourse against officers where you believe that there has been some mistake or some unauthorised use of power."

Sydney Criminal Lawyers - Two part series on Metadata Laws

Five Eyes

During WWII, intelligence officers from Britain and the U.S. would crouch over radio transmitters listening in on crackling enemy exchanges.

Intelligence gathering is far easier in the digital age. Despite the changes, it is the same agreement that still governs the sharing of Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) between Britain, the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada – known in shorthand as the “5-Eyes” countries.

"This organisation called Five Eyes Alliance is really just Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada giving up their sovereignty to the US.

There is no way that Australia will ever step up for Julian Assange even though it’s the right thing to do. They are effectively owned, as far as foreign policy goes, by the United States.

But once you join Five Eyes, it means that the US government is pulling the strings in any questions of national security.

We no longer have Australian national security policy, we just have a US national security policy, which we kowtow down to".

Former ADF lawyer David McBride. (Sydney Criminal Lawyers)

Did you know you can be detained or arrested for speaking out against
your government?

Sounds like Communism? The Counter Terrorism Act has normal citizens in its sights:
Legislation: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004

ASIO spies on citizens whose political views and 'conspiracy theories' and beliefs are 'not in favour of AUTHORITY', or are deemed as anti-government views. These may be classed as extreme even if they are not.

LAW & PENALTY FOR PUBLICLY INCITING OR THREATENING VIOLENCE IN NSW

Section 93Z of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) prohibits anyone from making public threats or incitement of violence on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex or HIV/AIDS status.

Sounds generic doesn't it? However, it can also apply to those who promote or attend peace rallies or protests, especially protests questioning the degradation of civil liberties.

On the other hand, rallies for pro-racism such as Black Lives Matter, or rallies for the inhumane murder of fully developed foetuses via full-term abortion can go ahead. Young children, supported by their parents, can wag school to go on climate change rallies. Do these groups get arrested for 'inciting violence' when there is non-violence? Indeed, it seems only certain ideologies are acceptable if they align with government supported propaganda.

LAW AND PENALTIES for speaking against the government, even if they act in a criminal manner against the people

"A maximum 5-years jail sentence is attached to the offence of intentionally urging another person or a group to use force or violence against a person, and where he/she does this intending that force or violence will occur and does so because of his/her belief that the other person targeted is a member of a group in circumstances that the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion. (section 80.2B(2) Commonwealth Criminal Code).

Where the above occurs, where the use of force or violence would also threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, the maximum penalty is 7-years jail."

https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/

A prime example of the abuse of these laws happened in Melbourne, Australia in 2020. Pregnant mother, Zoe Buhler, was arrested in front of her children for sharing a Facebook post dissenting against repressive restrictions imposed by the Andrews Government. Zoe was charged with inciting violence by sharing the post. Police thuggery and brutish tactics attracted international condemnation against the Victorian Police, and a plethora of complaints against the Andrews Government were made. Those charges against the young mother have now been dropped - it appears that perhaps the authorities knew they overstepped the mark. The one and only good thing that came out of that was that Australians got to see the draconian laws being actioned against non-criminals. They realised that their freedom of speech and right to protest was well and truly under attack.

Does this mean that citizens cannot speak freely in criticising the government or express concern regarding the erosion of civil rights? It's a sad state of affairs when people of a democratic country cannot speak up in opposition to flawed laws and governmental wrongdoings. Petitions are ineffectual, and writing to MPs and Federal Ministers is ignored. There are virtually no opportunities to have a say on bills or legislation, and the few referendums we do have, appear to be rigged, as do elections.

People in the community are whitewashed and silenced if they oppose or question the narrative. Community consultation on plans are also dismissed if it opposes what the government intends to implement. The government and the parliamentarians who SERVE the people, are often flawed and must be held to account by the people who pay them. Yet, the Government pass laws which effectually negates this from happening, making the government IMMUNE to accountability and democratic process. It will be illegal to think independently before we know it! We are on a speedy trajectory to mimicking the civil and human rights track records of China or North Korea.

The Immunity of the Commonwealth and its public servants is criminal in itself. The Law acts more as a communist regime than a democratic country in which the Commonwealth is MEANT to SERVE the people.

Anyone speaking out against or criticising government policies, legislation or emergency mandates, is labelled an enemy of the state by politicians, mainstream corporate media, funded universities, woke academics and the judiciary. Ludicrous and vile accusations are hurled against the citizenry of this country, who clearly see Australia going down the toilet with direct drain-access to the swamp of the World Economic Forum and the UN. The media encourage the lynching of anyone who dares question the narrative.

These are some labels used by politicians and the media in regard to regular folk who speak out against what they are seeing. It is a narcissistic bullying-tactic to get the public to do their dirty work for them, by causing division and inciting hatred towards regular nans, pops, mothers and fathers who are NOT a political faction, who are NOT extremists, and who are NOT intellectually too lazy to question the path of their country:

• Anti-government

• Right-wing

• Extremists

• Violent Protestors

• Domestic Terrorists

• National socialists or Neo-Nazis

• Radicals

• Conspiracy Theorists

Lockdowns apparently caused extremism in conspiracy theorists - a term used to denigrate and dissociate those who opposed the lockdown methods and fascist-style coercion to have a medical procedure against their will. The media labelled people anti-vax, anti-social, anti-democracy and granny-killers. Anti-vax does not apply to those who chose not to have a mandated 'experiment'. Just because people chose not to have it does not mean they are anti-vax, as most citizens have had vaccines for the tried and tested injections (i.e., for tetanus, diphtheria, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc). They were instead vilified for not wanting an experimental jab, which incidentally is STILL not 'officially' classed as a vaccine.

Those who did not wear a mask or partake in the unproven jab were treated like the Jews in Germany. The Media and Parliamentarians were inciting division and the destruction of social and family connections by spreading divisive rhetoric, which of course played into the hands of the new Legislative Acts which had these peaceful citizens labelled as domestic terrorists. Extreme conclusion? Not at all, for it is exactly what has happened. See the video below.

This private, personal medical choice would NEVER had been an issue in the past. However, thanks to the corporate media, State Premiers and State MPs, suddenly a person's PRIVATE medical choices and information became public knowledge. This was a BREACH of federal laws including the Privacy Act and Biosecurity Act.

Radio National have a series of podcasts worth listening to. The embedded podcast below - Who Runs this Place? - refers to security agency based legislation, including Data Retention Laws and over 90 new Legislation Acts that deal with the war on terror, but which have everyday-Australians in their sights. Part 1. Related content is at 21.18 -32.24 within the podcast.

This article was written in the Public's Interest.