“Wrong Think” in Australia: When Opinions Become a Crime

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell coined the term “wrong think” to describe any thought that strayed from the ruling Party’s ideology. It was meant as a warning about the dangers of state control over speech, belief, and truth itself. Yet today, it seems that Orwell’s warning is being used as an instruction manual rather than a cautionary tale.

A striking example is unfolding in Western Australia, where 44 licensed, law-abiding firearm owners have had their licenses cancelled and their guns seized—not for breaking any laws, but for allegedly holding the wrong opinions.

The state’s Police Commissioner, Col Blanch, has declared that people who subscribe to so-called “sovereign citizen” views are not “fit and proper persons” to own firearms. His decision follows a recent shooting in Victoria, where two police officers were killed by a man reportedly linked to the sovereign citizen movement.

Blanch explained his reasoning bluntly: “My assessment of sovereign citizens is that they do not believe the laws apply to them, therefore I cannot see how they could be a fit and proper person. So under the Act, I must take the action I’ve taken.”

But this is not justice. It is punishment for thought, not action—an act of authority based on personal opinion rather than evidence, where the Commissioner has effectively become judge, jury, and executioner.

Sovereign citizens believe that government laws are illegitimate and do not apply to them. Australia has seen many such figures before, including the eccentric Prince Leonard of the self-proclaimed Hutt River Province in WA. Typically, they try to avoid paying taxes, live in isolation, and achieve little more than frustration when their pseudo-legal arguments fail in court. Prince Leonard himself owed the tax office $3 million when he died.

Despite their unconventional beliefs sovereign citizens are not revolutionaries, unlike ANTIFA terrorists and radical Islamists. They don’t seek to overthrow the government or harm others; they simply wish to be left alone. Their theories may be misguided, but history shows they are harmless.

None of the firearm owners targeted by WA Police has been charged with or convicted of a crime; nor have they promoted violence. There is no evidence suggesting they pose a greater threat to public safety than anyone else. Even in the case of Dezi Freeman, the Victorian shooter cited as justification for this crackdown, there is no proof that his alleged ideology motivated the killings. Mental illness might just as easily have been a factor.

The supposed evidence linking these WA firearm owners to sovereign citizen beliefs appears to be based on hearsay; it has certainly never been tested in court. Yet freedom of opinion, even unpopular opinion, is a basic human right protected by international law. As the Federal Attorney-General’s Department itself states, the right to hold opinions “cannot be subject to any exception or restriction.”

The Commissioner’s judgment also relies heavily on information from Victoria Police, a force proving incapable of dealing with an epidemic of violent crime in the state and still struggling to rebuild credibility after its thuggish response to COVID lockdown protests. It is not unreasonable to question the reliability of such a source, especially when the accused has not had a hearing.

Licensed firearm owners are among the most law-abiding members of Australian society. Removing their guns does nothing to reduce crime. The people who commit shootings, import drugs, and fire-bomb shops don’t bother applying for gun licenses. For those who shoot competitively, the loss of their firearms can end years of training and even destroy their chances of representing Australia. For others, it takes away the ability to hunt for food or help control pests such as foxes, pigs, and rabbits. The policy is as senseless as banning golfers from owning golf clubs.

The WA government’s broader firearms crackdown—introducing stricter limits, new health assessments, and tighter ownership rules—similarly comes with no evidence that it will improve public safety. Target shooting is one of the few sports where disabled athletes can compete equally with the able-bodied, yet these new medical requirements risk discriminating against them. Such measures are little more than symbolic gestures by bureaucrats and politicians eager to appear tough while ignoring facts.

At the heart of this issue lies a deeper question about freedom of thought. Australian Federal Police Acting Assistant Commissioner Stephen Dametto recently described “sovereign citizens” as people who say “I don’t consent” to authority or claim that public servants “work for the people.” Yet these ideas—however bluntly expressed—reflect sentiments shared by many ordinary citizens who believe that government should serve the people, not rule over them.

If holding that view is now deemed dangerous, then perhaps it is not the citizens but the authorities who are guilty of “wrong think.” Because in a society where opinions alone can get you punished, nobody is truly safe.