Down Under | ||
Australia's peak civil rights body votes against free speech at annual general meeting | ||
2024-10-29 | ||
[LettersFromAustralia] Australia’s peak “civil liberties defender” voted to reject freedom of speech as an important civil liberty at its annual general meeting on Wednesday. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties meeting began with a speech by NSW Surveillance Devices Commissioner Don McKenzie on the procedural technicalities of how police get warrants to spy on you. The meeting then proceeded until the opportunity arose for motions without notice. I requested the following motion: “That the NSW Council for Civil Liberties recognises freedom of speech as one of the most important civil liberties we have, and that it’s under attack right now - the worst attack we’ve seen in a generation - and that the NSW Council for Civil Liberties will do its best to try to support freedom of speech.” Censorship laws now before the Parliament directly threaten everything you can hear, see, share or say on the internet, especially independent media such as Letters From Australia on Substack. Take a minute now, before you go to crazy town, to watch the most entertaining defense of free speech ever made, below.
Eyes widened, heads wobbled, the elderly awoke: it was on like Donkey Kong. A group of Council members, led in opposition by Treasurer Stephen Blanks and his former intern Josh Pallas (a former Council President), voted it down, 18 to 12. It’s ironic that Stephen Blanks was the most vocal opponent to free speech, speaking the longest against it, because his executive bio on the Council’s website says it is his special interest, having once defended a publisher bullied by a NSW Government agency. The agency was writing to major booksellers, telling them not to sell the publisher’s book, his bio says. Here is a Bill that seeks to censor the entire internet - the largest book fair the world has ever seen - through social media platforms (akin to his booksellers), and now he loves it. Stephen Blanks said he is favour of censoring the internet as long as that power is shared by ACMA with the courts, based on a European model. Individuals could claim to be harmed by “misinformation” (being wrong) and apply to the courts for even more censorship than is now on the table. He calls this “democratisation” of the censorship. Note that “democratisation” here means “sharing power with other institutions” not “giving power to the public as expressed by vote”. It would mean rich people, institutions and political gangs would game the court system to erase your dissent. Here he is on October 17 telling the Senate Committee how important it is to censor “misinformation” (being wrong) on a European model. His former protégé Josh Pallas is a University of Wollongong law graduate studying a PhD in “preventive detention and supervision laws” at the University of Sydney. He was put in the Council by the University of Wollongong Law School as an intern under Stephen Blanks, his bio says. Josh Pallas opposed free speech, on the grounds that the Council are “unashamedly not free speech absolutists” and have had a “carefully considered approach since 1963” which is “nuanced”. Translated for normal people, that means: “we’re the experts, shut up.” A spirited defence was mounted by long-time council member Billy Field who said free speech is the only protection against despots and tyrants, and that the very purpose of the council’s existance is to stand up for these important rights. Journalist David Southwell spoke powerfully, reminding the room that governments lie regularly and that to submit to any arbiter of truth is to abandon free speech and its defence. What follows is an unofficial transcript of the entire episode. At bottom are links to the Council’s new submission on the censorship bill so you can read for yourself how they support expanding this new 2024 assault on free speech, and how they reference a weak and bogus academic study riddled with errors. As this censorship bill legally formalises what the government was already doing during covid, I have also uploaded a copy of vaccine-injured support group Coverse’s submission at bottom so you can read precisely how it will devastate medical science and punch down on those already injured by the mandated gene-vaccines. Read on for how a simple support for free speech was obfuscated, dismantled, and defeated by Australia’s peak “civil rights” body.
| ||
Link |
-Land of the Free |
The Two Christophers |
2022-09-20 |
[FrontPage] Or the importance of second thoughts. September 16, 2022 by David Horowitz PREFACE Christopher Hitchens was a unique and, in many ways, irresistible individual, and eventually a friend. I say “eventually” because we started off as ideological antagonists, he, a lifelong admirer of Leon Trotsky and member of the destructive left, and I, a “second thoughter,” who had become a dedicated antagonist of the movement he never left. The fact that we were friends is a tribute to Christopher, who had a graciousness and humanity that made our friendship possible. I have never encountered another leftist who didn’t allow their political prejudices to strip them of their humanity and decency when dealing with human beings whose opinions differed from theirs. As Christopher was dying unbeknownst to me, I was writing an essay which was both a portrait of him and an attempt to confront the inconsistency of his ideas. I called it “The Two Christophers, Or the Importance of Second Thoughts,” and consider it one of the best things I have written. The article appeared 12 years ago in Frontpagemag.com, but when I went to locate it on the Internet I discovered it had been “removed” for violating the political standards of the fascists who control the WayBackMachine, who have erased the existence of Frontpagemag.com by removing its archives from the web. What has been done by the tech fascists to bury their political opponents on Wikipedia, Google – and all search engines – is a national tragedy, and ominous portent for the future. Had he lived, Christopher would have been nauseated and horrified by what his political friends have done in the fraudulent name of “social justice.” This is what Christopher thought he was fighting against as a radical all his life. Unfortunately, he could not have been more wrong. THE TWO CHRISTOPHERS (I had just finished the draft of this essay when I heard the terrible news that my friend Christopher had a cancer whose prognosis was dire. My heart and thoughts go out to him, as they would to a brother. I have known Christopher as a man of great courage and decency and have an affection for him that is not adequately disclosed in the intellectual argument that follows. As an argument Christopher I am sure will welcome it as a test of his mettle and a testament to the way in which he has – and will continue – to challenge us all. —DH) I first met Christopher Hitchens in 1970 when I was editing Ramparts Magazine, which was then the largest publication of the left. Christopher was ten years my junior and fresh out of Oxford, embarking on his first adventure in the New World. When he stopped in at my Berkeley office looking for guidance, one of the questions he asked me in all seriousness was, “Where is the working class?” Only the devout left — the “holy rollers” as I by that time thought of them – could still think this mythical entity was an actual social force in a nation where social classes were relics of the past, and populists had declared every man a king. But rather than make an issue, I directed my visitor to the local Trotskyists, who were true believers, failing to realize that Christopher was one of them. Our next encounter took place a dozen years later and was not nearly as pleasant. By then I had rejected most tenets of the leftist faith, although I had not publicly abandoned its ranks. We met at a small lunch with Nation editors Victor Navasky and Kai Bird, and one or two others. Before long the conversation turned to the Middle East and I found myself confronting what we referred to in those days as a political “gut check.” What was my attitude, Christopher wanted to know, towards Israel’s invasion of Lebanon? The Israeli offensive was designed to clear out PLO terrorists who had entrenched themselves behind an international border in southern Lebanon and were shelling towns in Israel (while destroying Lebanese society in the process). Good leftists already were regarding Israel as an “imperialist” pawn of the United States and oppressor of Palestinians and therefore were opposed to Israel’s effort to protect itself. I rose imprudently to Christopher’s provocation: “This is the first Israeli war I have supported,” I said, thereby ending any fraternal possibilities for the remaining conversation. Two years later, my co-author Peter Collier and I voted for Ronald Reagan, and three years after that we organized a “Second Thoughts” conference bringing together other former radicals who had become advocates of the anti-Communist cause. Christopher came to the conference with his Nation cohort Alexander Cockburn to attack us. In the column he filed after our event, he described our suggestion that second thoughts might be superior to first ones as “smug,” and singled out my remark that supporting America’s enemies should be considered treason, as “sinister.”[1] He subsequently elaborated his feelings about second thoughts in the course of a brutal article on the writer Paul Johnson, sneering at his “well advertised stagger from left to right,” which Christopher regarded as the venal maneuver of someone “who, having lost his faith, believes that he had found his reason.”[2] (And why not?) But times change, and subsequently Christopher himself became associated – not entirely correctly — with a generation of post-9/11 second-thoughters. Revising some of his attitudes towards the left and its loyalties, he had vaunted a patriotism towards America he would once have thought of as, well, sinister. A climatic moment in this odyssey – or so it should have been – was the publication of an engrossing memoir of his life, which has been heretical at both ends, and which he called Hitch-22. Among its other virtues, the book provides a fertile occasion for those of us who preceded him to take a second look at our own second thoughts, and measure the distances that we, and our one-time antagonist, had come. The above is only a tenth of what was written. Read the rest at the link |
Link |
-Land of the Free |
The deep swamp: 1 year ago |
2018-11-05 |
![]() Those who agree to serve the power couple’s blind ambition invariably find themselves corrupted. Take, for instance, the Democratic National Committee. After Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2008 primaries against Barack Obama, Team Clinton made sure that such a mishap would not be repeated. In August 2015, we are now informed, Hillary Clinton effectively bought the services of the DNC, the very organisation meant to ensure the primaries were on the level. Bernie was burned, but then fair is foul and foul is fair. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for her part in rigging the primaries in favour of Clinton, had to resign in disgrace as chairperson of the DNC in July 2016. Her interim replacement, Donna Brazile, was later sacked by CNN when WikiLeaks exposed her having emailed Hillary the questions to be used in a town hall debate with Sanders. Donna Brazile’s confession of guilt, after months of denial, sounded like something straight out of Hillary Clinton’s playbook: ’The DNC, a political party committee dedicated in part to defending free and fair elections, was attacked by the Russians while the Republican nominee for president openly encouraged it.’ In other words, how come John Podesta’s computer was hacked and not the chairman of Donald Trump’s campaign? Julian Assange, who continues to insist that the source of his pre-election WikiLeaks revelations was not Russian but American, had this to say about the identity of Podesta’s hacker: ’John, you used "Runner4567" and "p@ssw0rd" as passwords. Are you sure it wasn’t Barron Trump, a blind dog or a plate of lobster risotto?’ |
Link |
-Obits- | |
Hugo Boss: What I learned about Hugo Chavez's mental health when I visited Venezuela with Sean Penn | |
2013-03-06 | |
| |
Link |
Home Front: Culture Wars |
Christopher Hitchens dies aged 62 |
2011-12-16 |
Celebrated journalist, writer and unshakeable secularist has died from complications of oesophageal cancer The writer, journalist and contrarian Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62 after crossing the border into the "land of malady" on being diagnosed with an oesophageal cancer in June 2010. Vanity Fair, for which he had written since 1992 and was made contributing editor, marked his death in a memorial article posted late on Thursday night. The reactions to Hitchens's illness from his intellectual opponents which ranged from undisguised glee to offers of prayers testified to his stature as one of the leading voices of secularism since the publication in 2007 of his anti-religious polemic God is Not Great. The reaction from the author himself, who after a lifetime of "burning the candle of both ends" described his illness as "something so predictable and banal that it bores even me", testified to the sharpness of his wit and the clarity of his thinking under fire, as he dissected the discourse of "struggle" that surrounds cancer, paid tribute to the medical staff who looked after him and resolved to "resist bodily as best I can, even if only passively, and to seek the most advanced advice". |
Link |
Science & Technology |
The Great Global Warming Fizzle |
2011-11-30 |
h/t Instapundit How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can't kill what wasn't there to begin with. Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what. Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen. As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit. |
Link |
Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
Flotilla activists fail smell test |
2011-07-05 |
By Christopher Hitchens |
Link |
India-Pakistan | |
From Abbottabad to Worse | |
2011-06-08 | |
Hating the United Stateswhich funds Islamabads army and nuclear program to the humiliating tune of $3 billion a yearPakistan takes its twisted, cowardly revenge by harboring the likes of the late Osama bin Laden. But the hypocrisy is mutual, and the shame should be shared.
| |
Link |
India-Pakistan | |
Our Man in Pakistan, or Sane Countries Respect Anyone With a Diplomatic Passport | |
2011-03-01 | |
The dreadful treatment of Raymond Davis is a reminder of how dysfunctional By Christopher Hitchens In October 1985, after the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean, an act of open piracy that culminated in the rolling of a disabled man, Leon Klinghoffer, from the vessel's deck into the sea, the organizer of the "operation" was apprehended and taken into custody by the Italian police. But Abu Abbas was not inconvenienced for long. He was released when he was found to be carrying a diplomatic passport--an Iraqi diplomatic passport as it happened, though he was by nationality a Palestinian and had never been accredited to any overseas mission. These cases were far more murky and gruesome, and involved much more serious breaches of local and international law, than the decision of Raymond A. Davis to use deadly force against men he believed to be his assailants in Lahore, Pakistan. But this does not in the least alter the main element of the case, which is that Davis is "our diplomat," in the president's own words and that the Pakistani authorities have no right either to detain him or to put him on trial. But Pakistan is not a "normal" country. It is a failed and rogue state, where Davis would have had to know that his assailants might very well be working for the forces of law and order. Not to mince words, then, Davis is a hostage.
| |
Link |
Home Front: WoT | |
Is Barack Obama Secretly Swiss? | |
2011-02-26 | |
By Christopher Hitchens This is not merely a matter of the synchronizing of announcements. The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting--and perhaps helping to bring about--American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive.
| |
Link |
Home Front: Culture Wars |
The "Ground Zero mosque" debate is about tolerating intolerance |
2010-08-24 |
By Christopher Hitchens From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that: He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution--to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law. Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic. I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either? |
Link |
Great White North |
From Islam's defence to rejoicing in cancer |
2010-08-17 |
Mohamed Elmasry's campaign against Islamophobia in the media has been fought on many fronts, from libel claims in court to failed hate-speech complaints at three human rights commissions. But the most unusual legacy for the retired head of the Canadian Islamic Congress is on the Internet, where his Canadian Charger website has, after a year of operation, found its place as a weekly clearinghouse for everything from poetry, cartoons and reflections on Islamic cultural history, to wildly paranoid conspiracy theories about Americans and Jews. It has run articles titled "The Holocaust Old and New," comparing Israelis to Nazis; "Israel in Ottawa," which documents the influence of Canada's Jewish lobby groups; and "Americans, the Murderers." An editorial in support of Israeli Apartheid Week was illustrated with a picture of a dead baby in a diaper with a bullet hole through its chest. And when an NDP MP recently apologized for wrongly describing the historical origins of Israel, the Charger said she had nothing to apologize for, because "Canada, like the U.S., is an occupied country where the Israel Lobby is the chief arbiter of truth. Anyone who undermines Zionist dogma can expect to be savaged by the Lobby's media thugs." This week, though, as it solicited donations in honour of its first birthday, The Canadian Charger went one step further with an article that gleefully rejoiced over syndicated columnist Christopher Hitchens' recent diagnosis of throat cancer. As it did, the website that was created to refute cheap shots at Islam took perhaps the cheapest shot imaginable, arguing that Mr. Hitchens, a one-time leftist who has moved to the right, deserves his sickness because of his political beliefs and writing about Iraq. In doing so, the Charger raised questions about whether such alternative online media, with their famously low costs and wide reach, are capable of holding itself to common standards of decency. The cancer is "something to be celebrated" and a "boon for humanity" according to the Charger's top story on Monday, "because it deprives the war propaganda machine of one of its most erudite apologists." "As I was contemplating this revelation, I couldn't help feeling that the neoconservative armchair warrior was getting his just desserts," wrote Joshua Blakeney, a Masters student at the University of Lethbridge, where he studies under a prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Prof. Anthony J. Hall, who is quoted in the story and is also a Canadian Charger contributor. "It is fair to say that if cancer is good enough for babies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and soon Iran, then it is good enough for [Mr. Hitchens]," he wrote. In an interview on Monday from Egypt, Prof. Elmasry, who teaches microchip design at the University of Waterloo, said the Charger "had in mind to be a voice for all those Canadians who could not express their views in the profit-driven Canadian media." He gathered respected academics and writers to lend their names and submissions. He wrote his own wide-ranging and erudite columns on such topics as "What if Europeans Had Not Discovered Africa?" He wanted to promote social justice, and to speak for marginalized groups like blacks, natives, immigrants and Muslims. "We did not mean to be so left wing," he said. "This is not by design." He said the political slant is an artifact of the submissions they received, not his intentions. He said the name, meaning a war horse, was "carefully selected to be very expressive," as was the logo of a white steed, taken from a painting by Canadian artist Ibrahim Shalaby. He said the Canadian Charger was designed for battle. Prof. Elmasry rejected the impression the Hitchens article scored cheap rhetorical points by rejoicing in his cancer. "I don't think so. Nobody will feel happy about somebody else's misery, especially striking a man with cancer. But I think the point in that article was that he was a warmonger, to use that expression, in the last number of years, and the fact that he did not respect the life of the "other" including women and children who have been suffering from cancer because of American involvement in depleted uranium," Prof. Elmasry said. "Perhaps he's tasting how these babies suffered, and their mothers and families, and are still suffering. You have to really read the whole article to put things in perspective." |
Link |