Freedom of Association

Home Personal Liberty Freedom of Association

Labor Betrays Doc Evatt And South Australians

For all my life, Australia has been a place where freedoms were safe.

In fact, Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, a Labor man of letters, youngest ever High Court justice, Opposition Leader during the Menzies era  and a not so distant relative of mine, led an Australian delegation to the brand-new United Nations and pushed through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So passionate was he to have such a statement of our basic freedoms that he later became President of the United Nations General Assembly.

Dr H.V. Evatt. Author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That declaration enshrined the basics we’ve come to know in the West as underpinning our way of life:

and many more.

Doc Evatt, the very essence of what Labor was at its most noble, would be turning in his grave today that his own Party in South Australia has decided to dismantle what he stood for.

The Malinauskas Labor Government in South Australia had a blank canvass on which to correct the wrongs of the previous Liberal government. That government was as illiberal as any Australian administration as I have seen in my lifetime, barring the Andrews and Gunner Labor Governments of Victoria and Northern Territory respectively.

Peter Malinauskas. Premier. South Australia. Labor.

Instead, Malinauskas South Australian Labor has covered the snow-white canvass in tyrannical excrement.

I am so ashamed to be South Australian.

Its rushed Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill 2023 is a disgrace.

The freedoms we have come to rely on:  freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition the government, and the freedom of speech and expression, are now under direct attack.

Labor be damned.

It was bad enough that we had multiple Freedom Rallies in Adelaide in opposition to a government deaf to our calls for freedom from Covid coercion. At least, we then had a change of government. But to what?

The new Government is now increasing protestor fines from $750 to $50,000 and you can be jailed for three months.

Rushed through the House of Assembly after protestors made their presence felt against Santos, this Labor Government swiftly did the bidding of big business.

Citizens must be free to protest. Citizens must be free to express themselves.

I’ll have no truck with the conservative voices I’ve heard on this. They said “You’re taking the side of the Extinction Rebellion. They’re ratbags. These are the same people who throw soup on artwork.”

If protestors damage property, the rule of law must prevail and property rights must be protected.

But you don’t achieve that by throwing out other rights we’ve come to expect from a liberal democracy.

No.

So what if left-leaning organisations have condemned Labor for this erosion of our freedoms?. Amnesty International, the Australian Services Union, Extinction Rebellion and the South Australian Council of Social Service are correct on this issue. It’s not a partisan matter. It’s about liberal democracy itself.

Sarah Game MLC, One Nation, is appalled by this Bill. She is correct.

The Hon. Sarah Game MLC. One Nation. South Australia.

You know something is not right in the state of Denmark when Extinction Rebellion and One Nation band together.

Where are the South Australian libertarians on this matter? Where are the Nationals? Where the United Australia Party? Where Family First? Where Shooters, Fishers and Farmers?

And where are those lukewarm Liberals? Michelle Lensink MLC: you’re being outflanked by One Nation on a matter of civil liberties. You were a philosophical liberal when we were both on the Federal Executive of the Young Liberal Movement. What happened to you?

If you’re reading this, speak up! If you’re a Liberal Party member, get on the phone to your MLCs now. If you’re a Labor Party member, turn up to your MLC’s office now.

The freedoms to assemble, protest, speak and petition the government are not negotiable.

Doc Evatt, exemplar of the civil rights that Labor used to cherish, would be pulling his hair out today because of his own party.

And of all places in our Commonwealth, South Australia was the freest historically.

No more.

Act.

Laughing In The Face of Tyranny, $1 Million Bounty On Their Heads

Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.

Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?

As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.

If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.

The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!

Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.

When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.

Hong Kong Handover. 1997.

Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.

In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.

Liberty Itch has covered Mr. Hui here and here.

Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.

These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.

These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.

The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.

In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”

Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”

The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.

It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.

If you don’t, who will support yours?

Citizen Journalist Videos Police Collusion With A Violent Mob

I was flattered to receive an invitation from Liberty Itch to join the team of writers.

They asked that my début article be something of an introduction: explaining how I came to notoriety, so here it is.

On 25th March I filmed trans activists rioting in Auckland’s Albert Park, preventing British women’s rights campaigner Posie Parker from speaking. I used a 360° camera attached to a three-metre-long selfie-stick so the footage is overhead, from the middle of the crowd. These cameras film in all directions concurrently and from it, flat clips can be exported.

That evening on the nightly news and over the next two days the ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful. They used sound bites such as “peaceful protest,” “pure trans joy” and “an outpouring of aroha [love.]”

I knew the footage I had directly contradicted this false narrative so I started publishing it.

The following day my life changed.

Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”

I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it!

I used Twitter to post infrequently about my interests, stuff people weren’t particularly interested in. But oh boy, were they interested in this. On the morning of the 28th I woke to twenty notifications per second, requests from major news organisations for syndication (accepted) and for interview (declined.)  By the end of the week millions of people around the world had viewed the material.

Then I started receiving requests. Primarily from assault victims, some of whom remain traumatised. With a 360° camera I’m seldom looking in the direction of pertinent material. People came to me with requests for flat exports at a certain time in a certain direction so the footage could be evidential in police complaints and subsequently prosecutions. 

Of course, I agreed. And kept publishing, clip after clip, each more damning of the official narrative than the last. This didn’t endear me much to the authorities or the rainbow community, nor their left-wing supporters and the domestic mainstream media. In a small country I’m no longer a private citizen.

People came to trust in my integrity. And I’ve become something of a clearing house for information: witness statements, responses to Official Information Act requests, footage from other photographers wishing to remain anonymous and so on. Publishing this material helps to keep the pressure on the authorities (who very much want all of this to go away) to do the right thing.

Which brings me to the New Zealand Police.

On the day of the riot the police withdrew to the outskirts of Albert Park, allowing the rainbow community to get stuck into the women who were there to speak or listen. In a frenzy the rioters broke through metal barriers to get to them. Whilst this was occurring the police were in constant contact with the rainbow organisers. Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”

I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it, and I’m in possession of the OIA responses and independent witness accounts that corroborate it.

This was -at best- a significant operational failure on the part of the police. Some might go so far as to say collusion with a violent mob. It is contentious enough for the Independent Police Conduct Authority to launch an investigation. At the insistence of several victims the IPCA interviewed me two weeks ago, which of course I published, and you can listen to the testimony at my YouTube channel.

To coincide with a court hearing concerning one of her alleged assailants, Posie Parker was due to attend another speaking event in Auckland on 20th September. She cancelled because the New Zealand authorities refused to guarantee her safety. It offends me greatly that anyone is prevented from speaking in public and I am ashamed that my country is not a safe place for her to visit. The event went ahead in her absence.

Which brings me to the power of photography.

The ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful.

The police and the rainbow community are deeply cognizant of the damage the Albert Park footage has done respectively to their reputation and their cause. To discourage violence, hold police accountable and above all keep women safe I formed a team of volunteers to film the event. We achieved these objectives.

Other photographers regularly hit me up to back them up in tricky situations, typically demonstrations. Pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, anti-co-governance, whatever. I do so because I want to prevent harm coming to anyone and for the truth to be told.

Now I’m notorious, these are increasingly dangerous situations. Demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, media, police. People I’ve never met address me by name.

Some are not fans.

Unions And Religion

Unions and libertarians disagree about almost everything. However, they do both share one core tenet – the right to “freedom of association”.  Well, maybe not so much anymore.

Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals. It also happens to be a right incorporated in international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  Freedom of association stands as a cornerstone of a free society.

Unions rely on freedom of association for their very existence. Unless workers are free to associate, there can be no unions. 

Finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith.

However, a piece of recent news begs the question as to whether this right is still valued, or maybe even understood, by the union movement.  Or perhaps the left’s war on Christianity gets precedence over one of the union movement’s foundation principles.

Unions are now lobbying the Federal government to legislate to prevent religious schools from hiring teachers on the basis of faith.

For many Christians it is their faith that has led them to libertarianism – for reasons discussed elsewhere on Liberty Itch.  I won’t revisit here that any attack on Christianity is also an attack on our civil liberties.

Not all libertarians are church goers of course (albeit they should seriously consider becoming so). Secular libertarians should be alarmed, nonetheless. The debate over proposed religious discrimination laws in Australia presents a significant point of contention, particularly concerning the principle of freedom of association.

The union movement’s position on this is riddled with hypocrisy.

Firstly, the right to freedom of association also extends to religious organizations, allowing them to maintain their faith-based hiring practices. By pushing to restrict these schools’ hiring autonomy, the trade unions risk undermining the very freedom of association they hold dear.

Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals.

Second, trade unions, which typically advocate for workers’ rights, appear to disregard this idea when it comes to religious schools’ hiring practices. This raises concerns about the consistency of their stance and whether they are applying the same standards to themselves.

Third, while the unions bemoan discrimination implicit (they say) in hiring based on faith, by limiting faith-based schools’ hiring autonomy, they may discriminate against religious individuals who want to work in environments aligned with their beliefs, thus contradicting their own principles of non-discrimination.

And finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith. Limiting their ability to hire staff who share their beliefs homogenises the educational landscape and limits diversity of educational options, which is contrary to the principles of a free and open society.

Let’s call it what it is: the trade union movement’s call to prevent faith-based hiring in religious schools is at best the “politics of envy”, and at worst an unprincipled and hypocritical attack on Christianity. Let’s see if state and federal governments have the courage and integrity to resist this push.

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Argentina Elected A Libertarian Leader, And It Could Happen Here

1
But it probably won’t. Argentinians recently voted in Javier Milei to be their President. Milei has good policies, and he will probably be able to implement...

Full House?