Government, You Are the Problem

How freedom became the enemy and government our saviour.

In my submission to the government’s combatting anti-Semitism bill, I wrote that tragedy politics in our country reminds me of an old saying about repetition and insanity. We continue ramping up our hate speech (an unhelpful and forever mutating term, but as it is common parlance I shall use it here) and gun laws to no avail. Our masters need to realise it is their parasitical, overreaching government that is the problem, not too much freedom.

Even before Bondi, we had a raft of civil and criminal hate speech laws at the state, territory and federal levels. I do not need the Minns Government’s (yet to be released so it must be hiding something good) report on hate speech to know this approach has been a colossal failure.

You cannot banish the hatred from people’s hearts by making offense, phrases, or salutes, illegal. I am not even making the argument that such measures push certain attitudes underground: anti-Semitism was very public and common in the two years before the Bondi massacre.

I am arguing such approaches are futile. No one who is willing to commit or advise murder is going to be concerned about a hate speech law under the purview of some human rights bureaucrat.

All these laws have done is weaponise the worst attributes of snitches and authoritarians. We have seen broadcasters, cartoonists, ministers, and university students railroaded for non-woke approved opinions or jokes.

Likely, these laws have made society worse because issues like Muslim integration, and Aboriginality, could not be openly and honestly addressed. You do not make society safer by telling people some opinions or words are so dangerous that to utter them will land you in court.

Hate speech laws have become an easy scapegoat for governments. They can ‘be seen to be doing something’, while not addressing difficult topics like immigration. As Chris Minns has already said, we do not get freedom of speech because we chose multiculturralism, and apparently with that, social cohesion delivered with a jackboot.

One of the justifications you will hear from the pro-hate speech enthusiasts is that we do not have the right balance in the laws, or they do not cover enough attributes, or phrases. Pray tell, what are the right laws? No one can say. It always seems to be more. We need more powers, more of your freedoms, more of your rights, then you will be safe.

Safety was supposed to come with the National Firearms Agreement (written about at length by David Leyonhjelm in Liberty Itch and his book Gun Control). It did not stop the Bondi massacre, the Lindt cafe siege, or any other shooting, whether it was‘inspired’ by a religion of peace or some garden variety nutter.

If ordinary citizens were armed, Bondi likely would not have happened or would have been over much quicker. Look at what some people were able to achieve with only their fists; firearms, pepper spray, or knives would have made a significant difference.

But alas, we banned guns in the past after a tragedy so we must do it again.

As Gerardine Hoogland’s piece The Case for “Liberty” Epigraphs, recently asked, “What has happened to our free press and their once fervent support for the freedom to speak and write?” Such a question could be posed about our universities, schools, workplaces, and government.

Freedom is now seen as a threat; something to be managed by our bureaucratic betters to ensure social cohesion. Government has fully taken on the role of the oedipal mother, and is promising eternal safety in exchange for eternal submission. Many, I am afraid, are happy to take that bargain.