Down Under Australia - Underdog or pawn?

[Jones]

Underdog or pawn, seems to be heading towards the latter. The following from Sydney Criminal Lawyers:

Albanese Has Agreed to Australia Being Designated a US Domestic Military Source in Law​

Since PM Anthony Albanese graced San Diego with his presence to announce the details of the close to half a trillion dollar AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal in March, discussion over whether the federal government is eroding Australian sovereignty to the benefit of the US has raged.

This debate has been ongoing since the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap began operating in 1970, and has been rising since the 2014 Force Posture Agreement officially established an escalating US local military presence, with ever-growing interoperability between the forces of both nations.

As AUKUS is imposed upon the public as part of a US military build-up against China, and the mainstream media posits Beijing the aggressor, it’s actually Washington vying for war in an attempt to stifle Chinese economic growth, with Australia set to blindly follow as it always has since Korea.

Indeed, our nation is increasingly becoming a US vassal state. A constant marine presence has been established, the US has access to local bases, which it can take control of at times, while the sub deal sees billions handed to the US and UK, as our allies turn the country into a frontline attack base.

Yet, unbeknownst to most of the nation, Albanese and US president Joe Biden released a 20 May statement to enhance the alliance between nations, which, amongst other measures, explains that the White House is attempting to class Australia as a US domestic source for military production.

Vassal state status​

Biden plans to ask US Congress “to add Australia as a ‘domestic source’ within the meaning of Title III of the US Defense Production Act of 1950, the statement reads, adding this would streamline tech collaboration, accelerate the AUKUS deal and provide the US with access to Australian minerals.

And it further adds that this process should speed up Japan’s involvement in local force posture initiatives, so that Tokyo will also have a permanent military presence here, along with the US, and now the UK, as the AUKUS deal involves establishing a joint US-UK submarine presence by 2027.

Title III of the DPA provides the US president with a range of financial measures to establish purchase commitments that will “improve, expand, and maintain domestic production capabilities needed to support national defense and homeland security procurement requirements”.

The May briefing note adds that the aim is to prioritise “improving information sharing and technology cooperation mechanisms required to advance our defence and security collaboration, including through AUKUS”.

But, under the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations regime, which aims to restrict and control export of its capabilities, any information a foreign entity shares with it becomes US property and is subject to export restrictions, even to country of origin, unless the White House permits it.

And just for good measure, Albanese has also agreed to the establishment of a new Australia-based NASA ground station, under the Artemis Accords, which will see “the controlled transfer of sensitive US launch technology and data while protecting US technology”.

Volatile arrangements​

As stated, the intent to turn us into a US domestic military source, will also provide it with access to critical minerals, including lithium. Australia supplies 53 percent of lithium globally, and this deal will have the knock-on effect of eroding China’s dominance in acquiring and refining the mineral.

After Australia carries out early refinement, China then further treats it for technological use. But the New York Times recently outlined that the Albanese government is purposely attempting to break Beijing’s hold on processing and instead, conduct this at home and then sell it to allies like the US.

The final refinement stage makes it possible for the substance to be used in batteries and defence capabilities. And under recently established US law, Australian companies can obtain loans or subsidies to develop their capabilities, which will then impact the Chinese economy significantly.

The government has outlined that it wants to produce 20 percent of the world’s refined lithium in this country by 2027, which is a process that would further strain Canberra’s relationship with Beijing, as lithium exports are a key part of it.

Our nation now has two lithium refining plants, with the largest a joint venture between US chemical maker Albemarle and Australian mining company Mineral Resources. And it’s also opening the path for further US and European investment in the local industry.

But cutting supply of lithium to China will be a major source of tension between our nation and its largest trading partner. And Australian resources minister Madeleine King has recently stated this shift is designed to weaken Chinese dominance.

The war machine down under​

For Australians who are concerned with the weakening of Australian sovereignty, as the White House continues to make inroads militarily into this country, the classification of our nation as part of the US domestic sphere, should sound alarm bells.

A large community meeting in Sydney’s Marrickville Town Hall in March saw speakers spelling out to those gathered that the Australian public is being lied to about the threat China poses, and the US is primarily interested in crushing Chinese economic power to prevent it surpassing its own.

The build up to war with China, commenced with the Obama administration’s 2011 Pivot to Asia, which signalled that the US was winding down its two decades old warring on the Middle East project and that the Indo Pacific was now central, with China being the target an open secret.

The US economy runs on constant war, as its military-industrial complex is so strong that without launching attacks on other nations under whatever pretence it can contrive, its economic dominance would fall flat.

And regrettably, as hawkish Australian defence minister Richard Marles released the Defence Strategic Review 2023 in April, along with the government response, it seems our nation is set for a massive expansion of its military industry, which will increasingly see us turning to war for profit.

Then about the Marrickville meeting in March where speakers gathered to put forward the idea that the Australian public is being lied to about China:

Packed Marrickville Peace Meeting Says, ‘No to AUKUS and War on China, Mr Albanese’ ​

A crowd of concerned community members packed Marrickville Town Hall last Sunday afternoon, 19 March, to mark 20 years since the beginning of the war in Iraq and reflect on how lessons learnt from lies told then, might inform current debate around the build-up to war on China.
The turnout on one of the most oppressively hot days of the passing summer was testament to the strong opposition to any such war with the nation’s largest trading partner.
Indeed, the hundreds packed into the sizable hall were indicative of many more in agreement but not in attendance.
Planned since January, the meeting brought together by Marrickville Peace Group convenor Nick Deane had been made all the more pertinent by the announcement of the details of the AUKUS enhanced security arrangement on 14 March, which has left many shocked over its implications.
The AUKUS (Australia, the UK and the US) pact involves our nation acquiring nuclear-powered submarines (SSN), which will serve to prop up the US and UK arms industries, will result in the need to dispose of radioactive waste and will have an offensive, rather than defensive, purpose.
And the message from speakers was clear: similar to the lies about weapons of mass destruction that led Australia into the war on Iraq, a falsehood about an increasingly aggressive Beijing is being employed to lead us into war with China, whilst the real purpose for the hostility remains hidden.

Former foreign minister Bob Carr suggests intelligence agencies are behind the “China panic” reporting in the media

Securing US imperial power​

The Marrickville War or Peace meeting commenced with veteran Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis interviewing Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to US state secretary Colin Powell, who went on to become a key critic of the US war in Iraq and the lies that led to it.
Wilkerson, who was chief of staff over 2002 to 2005, outlined that advice coming from sixteen US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, led the US to war with Iraq via their October 2002 national intelligence estimate, “which was pretty firm on weapons of mass destruction”.
In discussing the US as an imperial power, Wilkerson stated that US “security and foreign policy today… is to make sure the United States has no challengers in the world” and he added that his nation is “perfectly prepared to use military power to stop” any such challenge.
According to the colonel, the assertion that China is threatening democracy in the self-governing territory of Taiwan being the official reason for the US contemplating a war, conceals the real reason for Washington’s aggression, which is Beijing’s economic might having surpassed that of the US.
And with China now having become a superpower, just like the US, Wilkerson suggests that what the world needs is for the pair to work together, especially in the face of rising climate and nuclear threats. And he added that any attempt by the US to regain lost power in the Indo Pacific is futile.

“China panic” in the media​

The US invasion of Iraq “was based on the same fatal focus that is directly American foreign policy in Asia today, 20 years on”, said former Australian foreign affairs minister Bob Carr. And he elaborated that the focus of the US, then as now, has been on “primacy”.
“America’s goal is to see that no power can challenge its primacy in the world and that was the spirit that drove the invasion of Iraq,” the Labor politician continued.
Carr then said that in 2017, he began to notice a shift in government rhetoric about China, with then PM Malcolm Turnbull suggesting the US needed to bolster its military presence in Asia, while then foreign minister Julie Bishop had remarked that China would never be a democratic nation.
This shift has since been followed by years of media reporting that supports the idea of a more aggressive China, which Carr referred to as “China panic” coverage, with stories regarding Chinese students spouting ethnonationalism and an alleged move to build a Chinese base in Vanuatu.
“A deliberate China panic in the media. Where was it coming from? Who was driving it? Why were some journalists being favoured?” Carr asked.
“I believe that the biggest factor in this China panic – driving this consistent massaging of the Australian media – were people in the Australian security agencies, who believed their counterparts in Washington were disappointed and fearful that we may not go all the way with the US in China.”

Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR) president Dr Alison Broinowski is calling for the decision to go to war to be made a whole-of-parliament decision

Selling out to the States​

The latest China panic reporting, and the most aggressive, is the Sydney Morning Herald’s Red Alert series that consists of the masthead having brought together a panel of experts, who are all China hawks, and on inquiry, finding that they consider Beijing might attack Australia within three years.
AUKUS consists of Australia acquiring eight nuclear-powered submarines, three bought from the US and five more built in collaboration with the UK, which, as former PM Paul Keating explained at the National Press Club, are designed to attack China and are not for defensive purposes.
“We are standing here… to recall one of Australia’s worst days, the day when we started a war of aggression,” said Australians for War Powers Reform president Dr Alison Broinowski. “We joined a small Coalition to invade Iraq and we left that country in physical, social and economic ruin.”
“No Australian government has inquired into why we did it or reported on what we did,” she continued. “We could do it again.”
Broinowski then made clear that Australians don’t want “another expeditionary war”, which we would lose, “with or without the United States or Japan”, and she further raised the point that the US has unfettered access to many local bases, including capacity to store six nuclear-capable B-52s.
And the former diplomat delivered three demands to government: to cancel the AUKUS agreement, to “restate our commitment to international law and treaties that prohibit the threat or use of force against other countries” and to not join any US-led coalition into war against China.

Senator David Shoebridge identified the need for a national peace movement

Hardwired into the US war machine​

In ending the proceedings, Greens Senator David Shoebridge explained that as the group in the Marrickville hall were gathering together, “the most powerful forces in the media, the weapons industry and the political class” are joining together in “baying for war”.
The Greens justice spokesperson underscored that as the recent AUKUS announcement has shown, Canberra is right now at risk of following Washington into war against China based on lies, in a similar manner to the way that our government followed the White House into the conflict in Iraq.
“The Albanese Labor government is seeking to permanently handcuff us to the United States military’s aggressive war fighting plan,” remarked Shoebridge. “It’s AUKUS-in-handcuff for the Australian treasury, the Australian people and the Australian military.”
“We are being taken to the next war, paid for by us, at the unquestioning direction of the United States.”
The 2014 Force Posture Agreement between this nation and the US has already resulted in a permanent rotation of up to 2,500 US troops in the north of the country, along with having provided enhanced interoperability between the two countries’ air forces.
And the AUKUS agreement further provides that the US and the UK will have established a permanent nuclear-powered submarine presence in the west of the country by 2027.
In referring to what Deane had said on opening the meeting, Shoebridge suggested that the crowd use the Marrickville meeting as a launchpad for a nationwide peace movement.
“What we can say in five years’ time is, ‘Yes. I was at that meeting. I was there when we started the campaign that not only knocked off the AUKUS subs but changed our national direction from war to peace,” Shoebridge said in conclusion.
“Because the New York Times ultimately apologised for its warmongering in the leadup to the Iraqi invasion. And 20 years on, we need an urgent reminder of that lesson.”
“We don’t want another apology. We need to stop another war.”

 

[Jones]

The latest episode of The Aussie Wire was cancelled by YouTube within 2hrs of being loaded apparently.

Topics covered:
- Some highlights of the national tour that hosted Dr Aseem Malholtra - the cardiologist from the UK who is calling for covid jabs to be stopped. Other speakers include Julian Assanges father, ex Black Rock employee Ed Dowd speaking about covid jab death trends, and Naomi Wolfe.
- Joanna Nova, climatologist, talking about the expansion of frost windows in Aus.
- Senator George Christensen on the Born Alive Bill that seeks to have medical care and support given to babies who survive abortion.

The vid is now on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1668600559602110465

 

[Jones]

Looks like the ministry of truth is coming to Australia. There's a bill before parliament to combat misinformation and disinformation.

This Act is the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Act 2023

From the exposure draft - simplified outline:

The ACMA has a graduated set of powers in relation to misinformation and disinformation on certain kinds of digital platform services. The ACMA may make digital platform rules requiring digital platform providers to keep records and report to the ACMA on matters relating to misinformation and disinformation on digital platform services. The ACMA may obtain information, documents and evidence from digital platform providers and others relating to those matters. The ACMA may publish information relating to those matters on its website. Bodies or associations representing sections of the digital platform industry may develop codes in relation to measures to prevent or respond to misinformation and disinformation on digital platform services. If the ACMA registers a misinformation code, digital platform providers in the relevant section of the digital platform industry must comply with the code. Where there is no registered misinformation code, a registered misinformation code is deficient or there are exceptional and urgent circumstances, the ACMA may determine a standard to provide adequate protection for the community from misinformation or disinformation on digital platform services. Digital platform providers are required to comply with misinformation standards that apply to them.

Excluded content:

excluded content for misinformation purposes means any of the following: (a) content produced in good faith for the purposes of entertainment, parody or satire; (b) professional news content; (c) content produced by or for an educational institution accredited by any of the following: (i) the Commonwealth; (ii) a State; (iii) a Territory; (iv) a body recognised by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory as an accreditor of educational institutions; (d) content produced by or for an educational institution accredited: (i) by a foreign government or a body recognised by a foreign government as an accreditor of educational institutions; and (ii) to substantially equivalent standards as a comparable Australian educational institution; (e) content that is authorised by: (i) the Commonwealth; or (ii) a State; (iii) a Territory; or (iv) a local government.

Exluded services for misinformation purposes:

For the purposes of this Schedule, the following services are excluded services for misinformation purposes: (a) an email service; (b) a media sharing service that does not have an interactive feature; (c) a digital platform service specified by the Minister in an instrument under subclause (2).

7 Misinformation and disinformation (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, dissemination of content using a digital service is misinformation on the digital service if: (a) the content contains information that is false, misleading or deceptive; and (b) the content is not excluded content for misinformation purposes; and (c) the content is provided on the digital service to one or more end-users in Australia; and (d) the provision of the content on the digital service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm. (2) For the purposes of this Schedule, dissemination of content using a digital service is disinformation on the digital service if: (a) the content contains information that is false, misleading or deceptive; and (b) the content is not excluded content for misinformation purposes; and (c) the content is provided on the digital service to one or more end-users in Australia; and (d) the provision of the content on the digital service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm; and (e) the person disseminating, or causing the dissemination of, the content intends that the content deceive another person. Note: Disinformation includes disinformation by or on behalf of a foreign power. (3) For the purposes of this Schedule, in determining whether the provision of content on a digital service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm, have regard to the following matters: (a) the circumstances in which the content is disseminated; (b) the subject matter of the false, misleading or deceptive information in the content; (c) the potential reach and speed of the dissemination; (d) the severity of the potential impacts of the dissemination; (e) the author of the information; (f) the purpose of the dissemination; (g) whether the information has been attributed to a source and, if so, the authority of the source and whether the attribution is correct; (h) other related false, misleading or deceptive information disseminated; (i) any other relevant matter.

And for the purposes of the above, the definition of harm given:

harm means any of the following: (a) hatred against a group in Australian society on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability; (b) disruption of public order or society in Australia; (c) harm to the integrity of Australian democratic processes or of Commonwealth, State, Territory or local government institutions; (d) harm to the health of Australians; (e) harm to the Australian environment; (f) economic or financial harm to Australians, the Australian economy or a sector of the Australian economy.

That's a selection of points, the full draft is here. The bill outlines both civil and criminal penalties for those breaking the code. The usual suspects are speaking out against it - Antic, Babet, Rennick, Roberts, Kelly. Strange when insanity starts to feel normal!

 

[Ryan]

Excluded content:

Yeah, I saw this. Notice how most of the 'excluded content' is produced by government regulated or approved organisations. Somehow, I think there's going to be an explosion of "entertainment, parody and satire" online in Australia!

 

[Jones]

Somehow, I think there's going to be an explosion of "entertainment, parody and satire" online in Australia

Ha! Was thinking the same thing. Doesn't take too much prompting to bring out the larrikins!

 

[Jones]

Senator Claire Chandler on the mis/disinformation bill:

Who do you trust to determine what is true and what is false? To determine which news and opinion is allowed to be published, and which should be banned to “protect public health and safety”?

It’s a fair bet that Twitter, Facebook, the media and the Government aren’t at the top of your list. Yet last week, the Albanese Government released a Bill gifting itself and big tech new powers to censor information it doesn’t want online. According to the Minister for Communications:

“Mis and disinformation sows division within the community, undermines trust and can threaten public health and safety. The Albanese Government is committed to keeping Australians safe online.”

There are many red flags raised by this bill. Perhaps the biggest is the fact that Albanese has exempted anything from his own government or the media from being considered ‘misinformation’.

Yet anything said in response to the government by the opposition or another political party, or by any member of the public, can be considered misinformation and censored.

For example, if a Minister of the Government made a clearly deceptive claim such as that the Voice would never campaign to change the date of Australia Day, and the media uncritically published stories about this on social media, that can’t be considered misinformation. But if you comment on that post and point out the Voice would be free to lobby government on any matter it chooses and that some of the Government’s top advisers on the Voice have been denouncing Australia Day and calling to change the date for years, you may well find your post tagged as misinformation.

In the lead up to this Orwellian ‘combatting misinformation’ Bill being released, “misinformation” suddenly became Labor’s new buzzword for any opposition to its divisive Voice referendum. In February this year, a carefully coordinated media drop from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Sydney Morning Herald read:

“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will link the growing international wave of misinformation to the campaign against the Indigenous Voice to parliament, saying he is optimistic Australians will look past a confected culture war and support the referendum.

“In an attempt to discredit his critics, Albanese will on Sunday claim that democracy is under threat…”

So on one hand, Labor says stopping misinformation is about “keeping Australians safe online”. On the other hand, the Prime Minister says misinformation is people who don’t agree with his divisive proposal to embed a new bureaucracy in our constitution.

For left-wing governments and commentators, “misinformation” has become the new “hate speech” – terms used by the left to justify legal punishment against any opposing views.

Let’s not forget that social media companies have been happily censoring and banning those who criticise left-wing ideologies for years. It’s an ominous sign that the Albanese Government demands still more censorship and wants to give itself powers to enforce it.

The inevitable result of the Labor Government threatening massive fines against social media if they don’t censor content further is that those companies will block content and debates they know left-wing governments don’t like. Albanese’s Government has cunningly drafted its legislation to ensure that when your posts are censored or your account is banned as a result of his laws, there will be no right of appeal to the government, and they’ll be able to blame the social media platforms.

Everybody knows that the internet is full of false information. A good government should trust the public they work for to process and critique what they read and see online accordingly. The best remedy to misinformation is free and open debate, supported by a fair media which doesn’t simply regurgitate the fashionable opinions of the day from social media because it’s cheap and easy journalism.

Instead of that liberal and democratic approach, the Albanese Government is choosing the path of censorship and suppression. Government which appoints itself and fellow elites as the arbiters of truth is the worst possible response – one which authoritarian regimes have chosen since the beginning of recorded history.

The 'yes' campaign for changing the constitution to give a Voice to Parliament for Aboriginals seems to be very heavily funded - probably to do with ESG's and D.I.E - but it seems that so far the 'no' campaign is holding it's own.

Funnily enough, along with questioning what is happening to all the funding currently directed towards assisting the Aboriginal community that doesn't seem to make it towards that goal, Pauline Hanson has also questioned checks and balances where identifying race on govt forms is concerned. Apparently anyone can answer in the affirmative to the question 'are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander decent' and there is no follow up to confirm if that is true or not.

 

[Jones]

A Rebekah Barnett article on the mis/disinformation bill.

Australia on ‘Dangerous Ground’: Is the New Misinformation Bill a Threat to Democracy?

THE AUTHOR​

Rebekah Barnett is a freelance writer and volunteer interviewer for Jab Injuries Australia. Read her work at Dystopian Down Under.

A contentious new bill to crack down on misinformation and disinformation has drawn criticism for its potential to restrict free expression and political dissent. Notably, the government will be exempt from the proposed laws. Censorship will be an inevitable outcome, but will likely exacerbate the problem it is intended to solve. In a move signalling the expansion of the Australian Censorship Industrial Complex, the government is seeking new powers to set and enforce industry standards to combat misinformation and disinformation online.
Under new draft legislation, digital platforms will be required to share information with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on demand, and to implement stronger systems and processes for handling of misinformation and disinformation.

ACMA says it will not have the power to request removal of individual posts from digital platforms or to read encrypted messages. Instead, it will have a “graduated set of tools” to nudge platforms into erring on the side of safety (and in the digital world, ‘safety’ means ‘censorship’). Such tools include infringement notices, remedial directions, injunctions and civil penalties, including fines of up to $550,000 (individuals) and $2.75 million (corporations). Criminal penalties, including imprisonment, may apply in extreme cases.
Controversially, the government will be exempt from the proposed laws, as will professional news outlets, meaning that ACMA will not compel platforms to police misinformation and disinformation disseminated by official government or news sources.

This is troubling in light of the discovery earlier this year of a co-ordinated effort by the Australian Government, in partnership with Big Tech platforms, to secretly surveil and censor online speech throughout the pandemic. In the US, where free speech is protected under the First Amendment, a District Judge recently blocked the US Government from the engaging in the exact same behaviour.

The nub of the issue is how true information will be determined from misinformation (false) and disinformation (false with malicious intent). ACMA says that it will have no role in adjudicating truthfulness, leaving it to digital platforms to engage with industry bodies, fact-checkers, and AI to arbitrate what is true.

This is a major point of concern for Liberal Senator Alex Antic, who has played an instrumental role in exposing the government’s underhanded tactics to censor online speech. Earlier this year, documents obtained by Senator Antic under Freedom of Information uncovered the bombshell that the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) had requested the censorship of 4,213 COVID-related social media posts during the pandemic.

A subsequent release of documents from Twitter’s internal files showed that posts flagged by the DHA for take down included true information, jokes, memes, and posts from accounts with as few as 20 followers. While the ACMA bill exempts humorous content produced in ‘good faith’, an allowance that is intended to protect freedom of expression, one wonders if the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

“The ‘truth’ is whatever comes down the bureaucratic conga line. When the medical regulator, AHPRA, censored doctors from expressing legitimate concerns about the COVID vaccines – where did they get their information from? The TGA and ATAGI,” says Senator Antic, referring to the national drug regulator and vaccine advisory body. “So the information makes its way down the line, to be enforced as ‘truth’ by these big platforms. Contradictory information gets branded as misinformation.”

This is a plausible take. For example, YouTube’s definition of ‘medical misinformation’ is information that, “contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.” Last month, YouTube cited this policy as grounds for removing MP John Ruddick’s maiden speech to the New South Wales Parliament from its platform.

The potential for such an arrangement to result in the censorship of true information and valid expression is obvious. Nevertheless, ACMA says its proposed legislation is necessary to counter the threat posed by misinformation and disinformation to, “the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as our democracy, society and economy”.

Misinformation researcher Dr Tauel Harper agrees that the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation online is a problem that needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. “If you can’t trust shared information, and you can’t come to a collective agreement on what is real, then you’re not going to be able to coordinate a response to any great social challenge,” Dr Harper told Umbrella News.

“The rise of things such as weaponised disinformation and deep fakes means that something needs to be done to help the public decide between good and bad information in order to continue to build social trust.”

However, Dr Harper says that outsourcing the adjudication of information to digital platforms and industry bodies is not an ideal scenario. “Having a sea of disinformation, policed ad hoc by corporate bodies according to cultural fashions and mores will exacerbate the polarisation of disparate groups,” he says.

Rather, Dr Harper suggests that charging a “trustworthy authority” such as ACMA or the ABC with diligently and transparently judging the veracity and reliability of information would improve public debate and increase social trust.

“Such an organisation should be separate from government under their own charter and subsidised by ISP services or by quarantined public broadcasting funds that can’t be interfered with by the government of the day,” says Dr Harper.

Misinformation researcher Dr Tauel Harper believes attacking the freedom of speech of those with differing viewpoints may exacerbate their existing feelings of political alienation.

Social trust is developed through the process of negotiating what is ‘true’, explains Dr Harper. “There are benefits in exposing illegitimate claims, false representations and faulty arguments in public debate.” However, this is best achieved through open collaboration rather than by top-down censorship.

In fact, censorship can have the opposite effect, pushing users out of mainstream shared spaces and onto the fringes of debate, where they are more likely to become entrenched in their beliefs.

“Our research into online behaviour during COVID in Australia showed that attempts to censor vaccine sceptical messages and groups correlated with a significant increase in people subscribing to vaccine sceptical sites and news services. This would suggest that attacking the freedom of speech of those with differing viewpoints may actually exacerbate their feelings of persecution and political alienation,” says Dr Harper.

Conversely, when the government came clean about the clotting problems with the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, Dr Harper’s research team observed a significant decrease in the rate of subscription to vaccine sceptical media. Dr Harper raises a word of warning about potential for the ACMA bill, if enacted, stifle political expression.

A shopping list of potential threats posed by misinformation and disinformation is detailed in the bill, including: identity-based hatred; disruption of public order or society; harm to democratic processes; harm to government institutions; harm to the health of Australians; harm to the environment; economic or financial harm to Australians or to the economy.

“The definition of ‘disrupting public order’ as a serious and chronic harm could be used to stop the organisation of legitimate and necessary political protests,” says Dr Harper.

“The very nature of political speech is that it might disrupt the public order – so this could certainly be used to clamp down on legitimate political speech and protest that should be part of a functioning democracy.”

A spokesperson for the Federal Department of Communication, under which ACMA is housed, states,

“The proposed powers are not intended to impact on individuals or groups right to peaceful assembly or protest. Harm that is disruption of public order or society in Australia, would need to be reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious disruption of public order in society… An example of this would be misinformation that encouraged or caused a group of people to destroy critical communications infrastructure.”

Yet the erosion of protest rights during COVID lockdowns is example of the malleability of terms such as ‘serious disruption.’ Recall that the right to protest was effectively suspended in some states during lockdowns, with Victorian police using unprecedented violence and issuing charges of incitement to deter protestors.

Moreover, the involvement of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in censoring online speech in the US, and in particular, its framing of public opinion as ‘cognitive infrastructure’ demonstrates how policies designed to combat ‘threats to infrastructure’ can be subverted as a means clamp down on ‘wrong-think’. Senator Antic doesn’t mince words. “This is the expansion of the Censorship Industrial Complex in Australia. I think we’re on dangerous ground.”

ACMA is seeking feedback on its proposed Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.

Make a submission by 6 August to have your say.

 

[987baz]

It seems we've switched gears from the physical "don't kill grandma mask, to the new don't talk about the fact that the "don't kill grandma mask" was a complete load of BS .. yay for Australia ... oh and the irony of "the voice" shouldn't escape us either! we certainly are living in clown world, because clowns don't talk they just honk their big red noses and wear funny clothes, I'm gonna need to buy more popcorn for this

 

[Jones]

Talking about larrikins, maybe Hanson was ahead of the 8 ball by using cartoons.

 

[Jones]

The 'yes' campaign for changing the constitution to give a Voice to Parliament for Aboriginals seems to be very heavily funded - probably to do with ESG's and D.I.E - but it seems that so far the 'no' campaign is holding it's own.

Australians have answered the referendum with a resounding 'No'.

However, it seems that South Australia had already established a voice to parliament back in March, and passed legislation to govern it.
First Nations Voice Act will continue to be in force. I get the sense by reading it that it seems to be that it will be like an additional level of government.

Hanson had pointed out that anyone could claim to be Aboriginal and that claim was taken as fact without checking. The relevant section of SA's Act:

FIRST NATIONS VOICE ACT 2023 - SECT 4​

4—Meaning of " "First Nations person"


(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person will be taken to be a "First Nations person" if the person—
(a) is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; and
(b) regards themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (as the case requires); and
(c) is accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person by the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person will be taken to be of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent if the person is biologically descended from the persons who inhabited Australia or the Torres Strait Islands (as the case requires) before European settlement.

Then today, apparently Palaszczuk has said that she will go ahead with a voice to parliament for Queensland despite 2/3rds of Queenslanders voting against it in the referendum. More states might follow as there is a well published outcry from the Yes campaigners.

 

[Jones]

Here's a deconstruction of the question proposed in the voice referendum:

Directions to voter.
Write "YES" or "NO" in the space provided opposite the question set out below..

A PROPOSED LAW:
To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

DO YOU APPROVE THIS PROPOSED ALTERATION?

Discussion:
Person 1: Was thinking of you when I read the wording of the ballot. To me it seemed as though there were three different matters mentioned, but there could only be one answer.

1. To amend the Constitution.
2. To recognise the First Peoples of Australia.
3. By giving Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders a voice.

Be interested in seeing your deconstruction of that. Why would they say First Peoples at point 2, then refer to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders at point 3?

Person 2: Really interesting question ladies. I would be guessing at the govt's ultimate intentions for the questions but here are some of my thoughts.

First we have to remember that this referendum was for a very legal action, given that the yes vote would have acted to change the most superior document in governance for the people of this country. So countless hours of research, discussions, considerations, analysis, investigation, etc, etc, etc would have been carried out before the final questions would have been fixed in place. And I am not guessing at that, that is a basic fact. (At the original framing of the Constitution, a series of meeting were held in each of the colonies where other countries constitutions were discussed and each word and sentence was dissected to ensure that the intent was clear and binding. Two men, Quik and Garran, attended each of these meetings and recorded the discussions. That resulted in the original edition of the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia which ran to over 1200 pages so wording of legal proposals is considered very carefully)

If the question had been "To amend the Constitution TO recognise the First People of Australia," then it would bind the amendment to just that point.

Keeping the request for an amendment on its own, meant the details of the amendment were a separate issue. Therefore while govt might have wanted the reader to read without critical thinking and assume that the amendment referred to the First People, it did not state that.

Govt simply asked for permission to amend the Constitution.

Now, we were asked to "recognize" the First Peoples. Who are they? Considering that we have all been trained to recognize the Aboriginal / Torres Strait Islander people as indigenous, we would assume it was them who were being referred to as First Peoples. However, the reference is to the First Peoples of Australia, and the term "Australia" did not exist officially until colonisation or thereabouts, so a critical thinker could conclude that the explorers could be the First People.

Don't forget - highly legal document - has to be extremely correct and factual.

So, clearly and unequivocably - which First Peoples are we to recognize?

Now the word "recognize" is a humdinger. It means to 'identify someone or something, to acknowledge it or them, etc. All the things we would all assume it was meant to mean.

However, lovely ladies, this recognition is going into the most lawful governmental document we possess and as such it means this:

"an official act by which one state acknowledges the existence of another or of a new government."
"Official acceptance of the national status of a new government by another nation."
"(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) formal acknowledgment of a government or of the independence of a country"
"In the context of government and politics, recognition refers to the formal acknowledgment of a government or the independence of a country by another government or international organization"
"It is an official act by which one state acknowledges the existence of another state or government, or of belligerency or insurgency."

It does not matter which (legal) dictionary I go to - the meaning of recognition, when used by a government, remains the same.

In essence, we, the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, were being asked to recognize the existence of the government of the First Peoples (identity unidentified.)

Question 3: To give Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders a voice.
What does Voice mean? Most people would turn that around and say it means to allow those people to be "heard".
However, when you refer to a body of people having a 'voice' - the meaning changes slightly. The Voice becomes "an instrument or medium of expression" - fair enough.
It becomes a "wish, choice, or opinion openly or formally expressed," and it becomes "an influential power".

That 'influential power,' was to be 'enshrined' in our Constitution.

To be 'enshrined' is to "preserve (a right, tradition, or idea) in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected."

So the influential power of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders was to be protected and respected forever. On the surface of the wording, I have no real problem with that, except for the fact that the ONLY race of people in Australia who have a protected voice, would be the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.

And that protection would be enclosed in a document that the people of the Commonwealth of Australia have amended only twice in its history, to remove racial wording.

I also considered the dilemma of the titles. Where is it documented that these Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are related to or are OF the heritage of the First Peoples? Who are they in legal fact? Why have govt taught us to call them Indigenous. Why then does the question not refer to Indigenous Australians?

So from those three referendum questions - incredibly analysed to create the intention desired by govt - we are left with questions too.
1. What or Who was the amendment going to benefit?
2. Was the intention of recognition to include IN our Constitution, another body of Government IN the Commonwealth of Australia
3. Why did Government want to add a focused and specific influential power to an unidentified minority of people living in this country?
There's a lot more thoughts ladies, but those are my first ones when I read the wording.

Then later:

Person 2:
Actually, when I read my reply to [........] again, focusing on the key elements, I can't help but consider that the government was using the aboriginal folk to take over our Constitution.

They have taken us to referendum twice to try and get us to ditch the Constitution and bring in a republic - and twice we said no.
If we had said Yes to this, we would have been allowing govt to use the aboriginal 'voice' and the First Peoples 'recognition' to give the government a supreme power IN our Constitution to amend, ie republicanize it, from the inside out. So blessed the people are a lot smarter than the government of this country.
-------------------------------------------------------------

So, that could give an idea of why the Yes campaign was receiving so much funding from corporate, national and international interests - apparently something like $400 million was spent on the referendum and it isn't clear whether that figure includes corporate and interantional donations to the Yes campaign.

 

[Ryan]

Unsurprisingly, there's more to the "humanitarian evacuation" deployment of the ADF in the Middle East than meets the eye.

A price paid in blood: Australia secretly deploys to another Middle East war - Pearls and Irritations

Will Australia invovle itself in another war in the Middle East, more destructive and damaging to Australia than our previous misadventures?

johnmenadue.com

A price paid in blood: Australia secretly deploys to another Middle East war​

By Cameron Leckie
Oct 31, 2023

Will Australia involve itself in another war in the Middle East? One that promises to be far more destructive and damaging to Australia than our previous misadventures.

It is really rather difficult to comprehend the epic chasm between the real challenge of addressing the many pressing domestic concerns facing Australia and the grave and immediate risk that our Government has placed us in. A grave and immediate risk which the Albanese Government has unnecessarily taken, either through gross ignorance or more likely because of our alliance with the United States. A decision that entails enormous risks; yet has been taken for unclear purposes without any debate or media attention and for which the entire nation appears to be blissfully ignorant but also entirely unprepared.

Australia could once again, find itself at war in the Middle East in coming days or weeks. A regional war that could see the primarily Islamic nations of the region pitted against Israel and its allies. A regional war that could see the United States and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. A regional war that could see much of the oil trade through the Middle East cease. A regional war that could see NATO’s largest Army (Turkiye) on the opposite side to other NATO countries. A regional war with the potential to become a global war.

Into this incredibly unstable situation resulting from Israel’s 16 year blockade and occupation of Gaza and Hamas’ subsequent deadly terrorist attacks on Israel, the Australian Government has made the decision to deploy a ‘significant’ but unspecified number of Australian troops and three RAAF aircraft to an unspecified location in the Middle East, ostensibly for the purposes of the evacuation of Australian citizens. As is so often the case in the Orwellian world we live in, it appears that a humanitarian veneer may have been applied to mask the underlying reason for this decision.

Outside of the immediate fighting in and around Gaza, there is a huge build up of military force in the Middle East/West Asia. The United States and NATO has more than 70 warships in the Mediterranean, including four aircraft carriers from the United States. Ground based fighter aircraft and air defence systems have been deployed with further troops issued ‘prepare to deploy orders.’ It is unclear what the real purpose of this force is.

After a series of rocket attacks against US troops occupying parts of Syria (which in itself is a clear contravention of international law, according to the Syrian Government the occupation has resulted in over US$100 billion lost revenue from the oil, wheat and other commodities which have effectively been looted) President Biden ordered air strikes (another violation of international law) against allegedly ‘Iranian backed’ targets in Syrian territory, strikes which have “nothing to do with Israel” but are a warning to Iran.

Russian troops are also based in Syria, at the request of the Syrian Government. There has been fighting between Hezbollah (which may have as many as 130,000 rockets/missiles as well as a much greater military capability than Hamas) and Israel.

Whilst the world watches in horror as Gaza is pummelled by Israeli firepower resulting in huge numbers of mostly civilian casualties, there is the very real possibility that either through design, miscalculation, opportunism, or decision making based on emotion rather than logic, the current tinder box in the Middle East/West Asia could well be set alight with the potential for devastating human and economic destruction.

This is the environment into which the Australian Government has deployed Australian Defence Force (ADF) troops.

Given Australia’s war record in the region (Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria) and embarrassingly subordinate relationship with the United States, it is deeply concerning that the Government has taken the ‘unusual’ step of withholding information on the deployment location and number of troops. At a time when maximum transparency should be the order of the day to prevent misunderstandings, it would not be surprising if other countries read into this announcement that there is more to Australia’s deployment than simply supporting the evacuation of Australian citizens from the region. It would be reasonable to assume based on the vagueness of the announcement that in addition to the troops required to maintain and operate the RAAF aircraft, that a Headquarters and special forces or other ground forces may be deployed in preparation for greater Australian involvement in a potential regional war.

It is time for our elected representatives, the media and the public to start asking hard questions of the Government as to what Australia is potentially getting itself involved in.

Here is a short list:

• Where are these forces deployed? Could they not be deployed to lower risk areas such as southern Europe?
• What forces elements are being deployed to the Middle East? Are there any forces over and above that required to conduct evacuation operations? If so, why? What is their purpose?
• Where are these forces deployed? Could they not be deployed to lower risk areas such as southern Europe?
• Is the withholding of information on ADF deployments a new norm to condition Australians to be kept in the dark in the future?
• What is the command-and-control relationship between Australia’s deployed forces and those of other countries, particularly the US, NATO and Israel? Are the Australian forces operating independently, or have they been subsumed into an allied command and control structure?
• If the conflict becomes regional, how will Australia respond? Will Australia send further forces? Or will we withdraw? Who will we be fighting against? What is the strategy? What are the objectives? What are the risks?
• What happens if ADF personnel become casualties as a result of this deployment? Will that be used as an excuse to increase Australia’s involvement?
• Why are Australia’s diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions and end the conflict so, to put it bluntly, pathetic and hypocritical? The claim from the Foreign Minister that it is difficult to ‘judge from afar’ Israel’s actions in Gaza is not credible in light of the evidence nor in the ready judgement she casts on Russia in Ukraine. Australia’s abstaining on the vote at the UN General Assembly on a resolution for an immediate truce highlights once again that our alliances are more important than the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.
• How does the rest of the world, outside of the collective West, view Australia? How does our region view Australia? What impact would Australian involvement in another Middle Eastern war have on our relationships in the region?
• What role does US domestic politics play in this unfolding crisis? With US elections next year, the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the colossal failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive (and Ukraine all but disappearing from the news cycle), the Biden administration cannot afford another defeat or disaster, yet the present crisis may present an opportunity to target Iran and Syria (again), a long time ambition of the neoconservatives whose original plan was to take out ‘Seven countries in five years.’
• Why do we focus on proximate issues rather than root causes, whether that be Hamas’ attacks on Israel rather than the failure to implement a two-state solution, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine rather than NATO expansion? After all it is the root causes that need to be addressed if we actually want to solve conflicts.
• Is Australia prepared for oil prices to soar, or even worse an inability to import sufficient oil if a regional war sees the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or the OPEC nations implement embargoes against countries perceived to be anti-Muslim via their support to Israel? The economic pain from any such disruption could make the ‘cost of living’ crisis facing Australia exponentially worse.

And finally, when will the Parliament get a say as to whether Australia involves itself in another overseas armed conflict?


Cameron Leckie served as an officer in the Australian Army for 24 years. An agricultural engineer, he is currently a PhD candidate.

 

[Arwenn]

Given Australia’s war record in the region (Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria) and embarrassingly subordinate relationship with the United States, it is deeply concerning that the Government has taken the ‘unusual’ step of withholding information on the deployment location and number of troops. At a time when maximum transparency should be the order of the day to prevent misunderstandings, it would not be surprising if other countries read into this announcement that there is more to Australia’s deployment than simply supporting the evacuation of Australian citizens from the region.

Of course we send our troops to join in the fray, Australia is very much a puppet/vassal state of the West. Our politics is an absolute clown show- maybe not as bad as in the US & Europe, but still, not great. And as for transparency, one only needs to look at Senator Rennick’s questions asked of the TGA & the OGTR (Office of Gene Tech Regulator) regarding Covid vaccines, to realise just how much obfuscation & lack of transparency there is between govt. bodies & the Aus public.

With all the predictions from psychics/remote viewers , & astrologers for the West mentioned recently in other threads, it’ll be interesting to see where Australia ends up. Interesting times ahead, especially between now and April.

 

[Lorraine]

Yes it saddens me that we don’t stay neutral
Lets rephrase that not following their commands.

 

[Ryan]

The decline of the empire seems to be a fact slowly sinking into the minds of the Australian foreign policy analyst crowd. This author seems insightful enough to note the influence of domestic politics as the primary driver for obsequious Australian govt attitudes to the US, and how changes in the international political climate will force changes in foreign policy as a matter of domestic self-interest. This is consistent with the laws of ponerology, osit.

Australia’s International Agency: “Deputy Sheriff” or “punching above its weight”? - Australian Institute of International Affairs

A more independent foreign policy would help to reconcile Australia's political and economic configurations with emerging international changes. How such a policy and identity shift may come about is yet to be determined, but it is clear that America's decline and Chinese regional impact are...

www.internationalaffairs.org.au

Australia’s International Agency: “Deputy Sheriff” or “punching above its weight”?​

08 JAN 2024
By Professor Derek McDougall

A more independent foreign policy would help to reconcile Australia’s political and economic configurations with emerging international changes. How such a policy and identity shift may come about is yet to be determined, but it is clear that America’s decline and China’s regional impact are likely to influence what comes next.

A constant theme in discussions of Australian foreign policy is the question of how much influence Australia has in the international environment. Does the country exert an influence beyond what one would expect or is it generally subordinate to its “great and powerful friends,” meaning the US in current times? Is Australia essentially “deputy sheriff” to the US? Or does it play a more independent role as a “middle power,” focused not just on its own interests but acting as a “good international citizen” in support of a better world?

These themes feature in recent books on Australian foreign policy, such as those by Clinton Fernandes and Michael O’Keefe. In Sub-Imperial Power: Australia in the International Arena (Melbourne University Press, 2022) Fernandes argues that the key to understanding contemporary Australian foreign policy is Australia’s subordinate position in relation to the United States, allowing also for Australia to have its own “imperial” role in the South Pacific. For O’Keefe in Australian Foreign Policy: Relationships, Issues, and Strategic Culture (Bloomsbury Academic, 2023) the emphasis is on strategic culture, with the historical “fear of Asia” leading to a concomitant dependence on a major power protector, primarily the US since the 1940s.

With both interpretations the focus is on Australia’s dependence, not excluding some independent role, but minimising it. What has the reality been, and how might one explain it?

Historically, the Australian colonies increased their weight in the British Empire by federating as the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, there was no question that Australia would support the “mother country.” Australia contributed to the failed British strategy to force open the Dardanelles, and then provided a useful component of British forces on the Western Front in France. From the perspective of global histories of World War I, however, Australia was a very minor player. The entry of the US into the war in April 1917 was far more significant. Similarly, Prime Minister Billy Hughes, representing Australia within the British Empire delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, had some minor influence. At the time, Australia advocated for a harsh peace with Germany, while offending Japan by successfully opposing the inclusion of a racial equality clause in the Covenant for the League of Nations. Within the Imperial context Australia had more influence because of its war effort.

While Australia’s international role gradually expanded in the interwar period in contexts such as the League of Nations, by the time Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies was ready to state that, as Britain had declared war on Germany, “Australia [was therefore] also at war.” While Australian forces contributed to Allied campaigns across Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and later in the Southwest Pacific, again the Australian role in World War II taken as a whole was minor. Labor Prime Minister John Curtin was able to assert Australian priorities by insisting on the return of Australian forces to the country and the adjacent region in 1942, concurrently turning to the US for support. Australia became one of the bases for the US in its campaign to defeat Japan. This did not give Australia significant influence with the US, with the entrée for Australia always remaining better in London than in Washington. The Canberra Pact (ANZAC Pact) of 1944 was a plaintive cry by Australia and New Zealand for greater influence in the South Pacific.

While Australia’s role as an independent actor advanced in the context of World War II, the perception that Australia had to pursue its interests in conjunction with its “great and powerful friends” remained. The United Kingdom continued to be significant in this respect until at least the late 1960s (especially in relation to Malaya/Malaysia and Singapore), but clearly the focus shifted to the US, with the ANZUS Treaty of 1951 being symbolic. Over the postwar period Australia looked more and more to the US, supporting its ally in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The US alliance became a central pillar of Australian foreign policy. It should be noted, however, that in various contexts (the Vietnam war being a good example) Australia tried to influence the US to pursue policies in Australia’s interests rather than simply following the Washington line. From a global perspective, however, Australia’s role vis-à-vis the United States in these contexts was relatively minor. Some Australian leaders have differed with the US, with Foreign Minister Herbert Evatt campaigning for greater recognition of the small powers at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco in July 1945 being a good example. More recently, climate change issues have seen differences between centre-right governments in Australia and Democratic administrations in the US (Howard’s differences with Clinton in the late 1990s most obviously).

While Australia has mostly followed the lead of the US in the postwar period, its subordination in that respect has been self-imposed rather than coerced. That subordination has coexisted with a willingness to try to influence the US in Australia’s favour and at times to pursue policies that are different from those of the US.

How do we explain the dynamics?

Recalling the interpretations of Fernandes and O’Keefe, the former draws attention to ideology and the economic underpinnings of the imperial system, whereas the latter focuses on attitudes particularly as reflected in strategic culture (similar to Fernandes’s argument about ideology). In my view, perceptions as played out through domestic politics are central. This means giving due attention to the key domestic political actors in government, including the bureaucracy, noting also the way in which any one actor’s influence relates to the broader society. Structural factors such as the configuration of the economy and the role of the media come into play here. The international context, in turn, is an influence on the outcomes reached in the domestic political context. The US as Australia’s major ally is most important here, but Australia is also influenced by (and tries to influence) international developments.

While I have been critical of any “big noting” of Australia’s role in international politics, that does not mean that Australia should not try to maximise its influence. Factors that are important include the quality of the country’s diplomacy (including leaders who can contribute on the big international issues), having defence forces that are fit for purpose, and the ability to translate Australia’s economic power (ranked 20th in the world by GDP with the PPP measure) into influence, not just on the world economy but on broader political issues. As well as giving due attention to the “great and powerful friend,” Australia needs to work with other like-minded countries, both great and small, both bilaterally and multilaterally (including the United Nations). It also needs to engage with countries where there are significant differences.

I favour a more independent role for Australia. In terms of my own argument and that of the authors to whom I have referred, a shift in this direction would entail a modification of currently prevailing attitudes. I am not sure whether this is likely to come about through changes in the domestic environment. More likely, perhaps, is that Australia will have to respond to significant changes in the international environment, especially the shift to a more pluralistic world order, the decline of the US, and a stronger international role for China.

Derek McDougall is a Professorial Fellow at the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence and may be republished with attribution.