News of the Australian Labor Party positioning itself to become Australia’s “single source of truth” is being slammed as an authoritarian power grab.
George Christensen, one of the first to protest the dangerous draft, said the proposal “threatens to plunge the nation into an Orwellian nightmare.”
The ALP looking to outlaw “misinformation” and “disinformation,” without properly defining terms is daft, the former Coalition MP, turned One Nation candidate warned.
“Vague definitions are open to interpretation and abuse,’ which implies the government are planning to guillotine ‘the near absolute right to freedom of speech,” he argued via Caldron Pool (sign Christensen’s petition here).
Titled the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) 2023, the 64-page bill includes in its list of definitions the word “harm.”
Six points loosely define harm as, hate speech, disruption of public order, harm to federal, state, local government, harm to public health, the environment, and economy (p.10).
To reinforce the validity of Christensen’s concerns, define harm.
Point (a) “hatred” is to be read as hate speech, which generally only applies to any truth or anyone the Leftist hegemony hates.
Point (b) “disruption” could be read as disagreement, debate, and/or dissent.
Point (d) would make it a crime to ask questions or criticise a public health order, health mandate, and/or health bureaucrat’s iron fist.
Point (e)? Well, “how dare you” post a photo of sacred Uluru, native title beach, or question Saint Greta, and the climate catastrophe cult with unfiltered, science-based facts!
Adding his voice to a growing list of Australians criticizing the ALP proposal, former NBL player, Andrew Bogut said:
“Left, Right, Labor, Liberal, Greens etc etc. I trust none of them with a bill like this. None!”
Craig Kelly – a politician booted for dissent from social media during lockdowns – stated:
“Labor’s attempts to establish a ‘Ministry of Truth’ with the power to censor anything they deem as ‘misinformation’ is a frightening proposal befitting North Korea.”
Bernard Gaynor, another Australian keenly aware of the dangers, highlighted how the bill exempts approved news organisations, and parliament, writing:
“The Albanese Labor government wants to stop you from speaking while exempting its own communications from ‘misinformation’ regulation – even when they aren’t true…”
United Australia Party senator, Ralph Babet, also spoke out, damning the draft as a “direct threat to our democracy,” Babet posted a formal written response on Twitter, part of which read:
“Freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, are non-negotiable in a free society.
“Any effort to curtail [these freedoms], no matter how worthy the end-goal, will only result in the curtailing of human freedoms.
“[The bill] ought to be opposed at every turn by a freedom loving people.”
Patent attorney, Chris Baxter, who rigorously examined the bill, remarked:
“If the new Misinformation and Disinformation Bill is passed into law, controversial public speech will be limited to mainstream news media. For others it will effectively be forbidden.
“[This is] end game stuff for digital freedom of speech.
“Rigged elections will take a whole new meaning and it will be practically impossible for any non-woke political party to ever hold power again. Perhaps that’s the idea.”
One of the few politicians to stand in agreement with Christensen publicly, Senator Alex Antic (LNP), told Sky News:
“Blind Freddy can see what’s coming down the pipe. We’re seeing it all over the West. It started in the U.S. We had the Twitter Files scandal there. We’ve seen government departments in the Netherlands, the U.K. and New Zealand, have decided that they are the arbiters of truth.”
Christensen, Kelly, Gaynor, Babet, and Antic’s insights are on target.
Labor’s proposed bill should be opposed en masse.
The legislation would bestow on the government the absolute power to silence political opponents.
Doing so limits reach, resulting in an unfair advantage to those not silenced by the legislation.
Additionally, the bill would hinder informed consent.
Any destructive one-eyed projects, like the “Voice” could be sold to Australians without recrimination.
Note how the ALP are pushing to unnecessarily elevate an already loud enough Indigenous “Voice,” while actively proposing a bill to silence yours.
If an E-Safety department, policy, and procedures have to exist, the laws should be pre-existing, proportionate, and properly contained.
E-Safety should only be concerned with:
1. Protecting children online from sex predators.
2. Stopping online scams.
3. Restraining provable foreign enemy psyops and disinformation.
4. Protecting free and fair elections, as well as freedom of speech.
5. Keeping Governments accountable.
Operating outside these parameters negates its reason for existence.
You must be logged in to post a comment.