As with the old political adage, ‘one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter‘, or ‘one man’s terrorist is another’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize‘; well similarly, one person’s hate speech is another’s free speech. It’s all relative and subjective. Mass Murderer Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 and Palestinian terrorist Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. Barrack Obama won it in 2009 for just being US president after nine months.
Hatred is just intense disapproval. It’s about opposing cultural values. Many in politics intensely disapprove those holding different politics. Free speech is expressing that intense disapproval. Those the subject of free speech, label the criticism as hate speech, because they disapprove.
For instance, many Ordinary Australians perceive Islam and Sharia Law to be offensive to Australia’s decent civilized values. Most intensely disapprove of (i.e. hate) the Islamic behaviours and practices that Sharia Law prescribes in the Quran as written in the Dark Ages to 632 AD – This includes the condoning of pedophilia, forced marriage, polygamy, halal and female genital mutilation. Stating such disapproval is free speech, which may be perceived by Islamists as hate speech. But if censorship prohibits public criticism, then the cultural values of foreign social deviants are being allowed to run counter to Australia’s mainstream societal values without challenge. It becomes a slippery slope.
Citizens of any nation have a right to defend their rights against invaders. It’s termed an ‘inalienable right to self-determination‘.
Without free speech and the freedom to express disapproval (criticism of a behaviour or practice), authoritarian censorship prevails, as enforced in totalitarian states like China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Uzbekistan. The commonality of these nations? Backward cultures anathema to Australia’s open First World society, and state imprisonment of political opponents of whom the state disapproves.
Disturbingly, censorship of free speech is playing out in Islamified Turkey by its Muslim President Erdoğan who has imprisoned hundreds of his political opponents, journalists, university rectors, military officers, and aid workers – all on trumped-up charges and fabricated evidence.for daring to express their disapproval of his government.
The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, Australia’s High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Australian Constitution in relation to political and government matters.
“The implied freedom acts to restrict the powers of the executive and legislature and is not a personal right granted to individuals. It includes not only speech, but also non-verbal communication regarding political and government matters, and its application is not confined to election periods.” – Leanne Griffiths, James Cook University, 2005.
Such local and legitimate reassurances are a tad more contemporary and relevant than some foreign barbaric scripture written in a desert cave in 632 AD. However, Australia is at risk of becoming increasingly Islamified by a thousand cuts under the euphemism of ‘multiculturalism’ and its creeping anti-discrimination legislation, state by state. Multiculturalism pragmatically is discriminatingly transferring mainstream rights steadily over to minorities and newcomers – many of whom hold decidely anti-Australian cultural values.
This is dangerous for mainstream Australians, who are beginning to recognise that their presumed and entitled democratic rights are being undermined. All it takes is censorship legislation to undermine free speech to join the totalitarian backward states.
Consider censorship legislation in Australia. Labor’s PM Gough Whitlam’s totalitarian Racial Discrimination Act 1975 Section 18C prohibits and criminalises any behaviour in the public domain that another perceives to be offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating that is claimed on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
Then in 1986 Labor’s PM Bob Hawke legislated a state enforcer, setting up the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allowing anyone to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission from the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Penalties range between 6 months and two years imprisonment and or a fine of $5000, plus considerable legal representation, court costs and months of delayed process.
No White Australian has ever been successful in bringing a case against a non-White relying upon the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 through the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Both are prejudiced against White Australians.
Consider the state of Victoria in Australia. Under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. Under Section 25, prohibits and criminalises any conduct (in public or in private) that intentionally incites hatred and threatens physical harm towards another on the ground of the religious belief. Penalty is 6 months imprisonment or a $6000 fine.
Threatening physical harm is a separate matter already dealt with in Victorian under the Crimes Act 1958, Section 21 ‘Threats to inflict serious injury’ in which it is a serious criminal offence for a person to make a threat to inflict serious injury on another (intending that another fears would be carried out). Penalty is 5 years maximum imprisonment.
This makes the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, Section 25 in relation to threatening physical harm, redundant by duplication.
But inciting hatred is subjective, remembering that hatred is a perception of intense disapproval.
Three Australian patriots have been charged by the Victorian police for participating in a non-violent political demonstration.
Members of the United Patriots Front carried out some ‘street theatre’ in which they mocked those Islamic extremists who cut the heads off their enemies; they used a fake knife to cut the fake head off a fake dummy, with fake red blood (food dye) spurting out. It was early Sunday morning, the council chambers and the shops were closed, and no-one else was present at the time.
In a video on Facebook, Blair Cottrell (leader of the United Patriots Front) stated that:
“I made a statement before two of my colleagues, with plastic knives, beheaded a dummy made out of pillows. The act was intended to be a political statement against a mosque development in the local area, Islamic immigration, and that particular Islamic practice.”
It was a political demonstration in which some patriotic Australians publicly showed their opinion of Islam, an opinion which they are perfectly entitled to hold and express in a democratic society.
Unfortunately, Australia is no longer a democratic society; it has become a land of Political Correctness, run by Multiculturalist ‘fascists’ who hanker to lock up those who publicly disagree with the ruling ideology of Political Multiculturalism.
In the aforementioned Facebook video, a Victoria Police document was displayed, which shows that Blair Cottrell has been charged as follows, under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, section 25 (2):
“That Blair Cottrell at Bendigo on the 4th October 2015, on the grounds of religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, namely Muslims, knowingly engaged in conduct being the participation in the making of a video with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.”
The “informant” for this charge is stated to be one Detective Senior Constable Erin Ross (34952) of the Bendigo Crime Investigation Unit.
The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 is a farce, as is similar legislation in other States and at the Federal level. It is a political law designed for a political purpose; the intent is to silence criticism of the realities of Multiculturalism. It is a broad-reaching law, whereby anyone can be charged for “inciting . . . severe ridicule” of a person or persons of any race or religion; it is an incredibly subjective law that could be used to fine or jail just about half the country. Anyone could be charged by the police for making a comment against Islam, Scientology, or even Satanism. You could even be charged for telling an Irish joke. These Multiculturalist laws are anti-democratic, but the Multiculturalists don’t care.
Muslims are not a race. Islam is not a religion, but a political ideological cult – because outside mosques Islamic sharia prescribes strict unquestionable laws governing human behaviour, ritualistic practices, human interactions, social order and relations, and duties in every aspect of life: personal, familial, religious, social, moral and political
Under the Multiculturalism laws, the police are being used as political tools to suppress political opposition; this is typical of authoritarian regimes. Whilst the police in Australia have not reached the anti-democratic depths of the KGB and the Gestapo, they are heading down that slippery slope by engaging in political persecution of political movements.
Multiculturalism is an intrinsically authoritarian ideology, as it creates divisions within societies, the result of which is that Multiculturalist governments subsequently bring in laws against free speech to muzzle the voices of their opponents. Multiculturalism is invariably bound up with Third World immigration into Western societies, spawning a myriad of social problems, which in turn creates political opposition to those immigration policies; to suppress public opposition to such policies, Multiculturalist politicians and anti-national activists demand that the police be used in harassing, fining, and jailing patriots. Simultaneously, anti-national activists in the media and education system brainwash young people into the Multiculturalist ideology; these anti-national activists serve the establishment by indoctrinating students into the ideology of the state.
Multiculturalist regimes want any staunch patriots, who have the temerity to criticize Islam, to be silenced. They want to stop free speech in Australia.
Multiculturalists like to dress up any speech they disapprove of such as ‘hate speech‘, but that is just a political con. Anti-Islam opinion becomes ‘hate speech‘, whilst anti-Christian opinion is ‘free speech‘; views against homosexual marriage become ‘hate speech‘, whilst views against traditional marriage are ‘free speech‘; those who express hate against capitalism, patriarchy, and patriotism are all practising ‘free speech‘, but not ‘hate speech‘.
Notice a trend here?
If you are a sensible traditionalist or a staid conservative, you are automatically deemed to be a “hater”, but somehow the most rabid hate-filled anti-traditionalists and anti-nationalists are not called “haters”.
Leftist Third World migration advocates pollute the pool outside Australia’s Parliament with red dye (and abseil on the building) yet avoid prosecution. Any different to red dye on a footpath outside Leftist Bendigo council? Rules for some?
Laws against so-called “religious and racial vilification” and “race hate” are all about word-play and spin-doctoring, not about justice. These laws are all about the intended political suppression of opposing views; they are an anathema to any true democracy.
The rabid Multiculturalists don’t give a brass razoo for the continuance of democracy in Australia. Our forebears worked and fought to create a free society, but the Multiculturalists are intent on destroying it. The true blue Australians who fought for our nation would be rolling in their graves if they could see the state of things today.
The Multiculturalists are not real Australians; in fact, they hate real Australians, and they long for the death of real Australia. On one hand the Multiculturalists work towards the demographic destruction of our nation, and on the other hand they work towards the dismantling of our democratic freedoms.
When the Australian nation was founded, it was founded as a free and democratic society. If the Multiculturalists get their way, it will never be so again.
Real Australians need to support the Bendigo victims of Multiculturalist ‘fascism’, as it is part and parcel of supporting all freedoms in Australia.
Australians should have the right to free speech on all cultural, economic, historical, and social matters; if we do not, then we are not free.