Brave Chinese citizens have yet again risked imprisonment challenging their country’s regime.
They took to the streets to fight the Chinese Communist Party’s prolonged and inhumane lockdown, a policy which caused residents trapped in their high-rise apartment building in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, to be burned-alive.
In scenes from the security state rarely accessible to the world, Chinese people gathered in the Shanghai streets and chanted ‘CCP, step down. Xijiping, step down!’ The chanting showed the citizens’ barely concealed contempt and dissatisfaction with their government, seemingly well beyond just its strict COVID measures.
The whereabouts of the protest leader you see in this video is unknown.
His family were eye-witnesses to him being handcuffed and unceremoniously bundled into a van. There is no official paperwork of his arrest. His family reported that three days after the arrest, there is still no trace of the young man.
He was simply ‘made to disappear.’
China is the world’s most heavily surveilled country. Intrusive facial recognition software, a tool used to thwart human rights and civil liberties, is now being routinely exploited by the Chinese Police State. Facial recognition systems log nearly every single citizen in the country, with 372.8 cameras per 1,000 people.
Chinese authorities have reportedly begun tracking-down people who took part in the demonstrations. Students are always the weakest and easiest to pick off. Others who attended the protests are being rounded-up without scrutiny from international media.
This wasn’t sufficient intimidation for the despotic regime. The Chinese Government immediately made its military presence felt more publicly as it rolled-out armoured tanks on the street.
Unlike the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, the Government now has the technology to corral freedom-activists more secretly to avoid the world’s condemnation. The Chinese Communist Party, with all the apparatus of a surveillance state and growing superpower, seemingly acts in fear of its own defenceless citizens.
These actions are a continuation of well-documented brutality evident in the 2019 Hong Kong protests. (Warning: the next video depicts graphic violence on an unarmed civilian. Viewer discretion recommended.)
The Iron Curtain referred to the boundary separating the Soviet Union and some European countries from the Western world. It became not just of a physical border but a symbol of the ideological distinction between communism and liberal democracy.
As is well known, the Soviet regime was authoritarian and repressed individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. In fact, all aspects of life were controlled by the Communist party.
The Soviet regime was the very definition of authoritarian
We can draw comparisons between current restrictions on free speech in the West and the suppression of free speech in the Soviet Union.
Often the first sign of a society moving down a totalitarian path is the imposition of restrictions of freedom of speech.
The Soviet government heavily restricted media including print, radio and television. All were state controlled and heavily censored to ensure they were not critical of government. Currently the West is imposing restrictions on certain kinds of speech, such as speech considered discriminatory or harmful to certain groups. There are also rules against “disinformation” and “misinformation” and attempts to limit speech that is deemed to be false or misleading.
Media Censorship
Western governments have been accused of controlling and pressuring media to report on public interest matters to suit a particular narrative. We have witnessed this during the Ukraine conflict. The European Commission silenced Russian state media outlets Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik and prohibited European Union operators from broadcasting any of the content of RT and Sputnik. This move is reminiscent of the Soviet governments radio jamming during the Cold War, where transmissions of Western radio stations were blocked to “protect” Soviet citizens from Western “propaganda”.
This move to block Russian state media coverage of the Ukraine conflict was criticised by the European Federation of Journalists as “disproportionate and arbitrary interference by the EU with the right to freedom of expression and information regardless of frontiers as protected by Article 10 ECHR and as a denial of the freedom of the media as guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights”. (Dirk Voorhoof, Human Rights Centre Ghent University).
Surveillance
Another control tactic used by the oppressive Soviet regime was surveillance. The KGB monitored all forms of communication and utilised informants who reported dissenters.
Social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google not only censor content that is considered inappropriate or offensive, but also gather data on their users which can be used to monitor and influence their behaviour. Such forms of surveillance can be used to suppress and silence dissenting views. The tech giants have been accused of suppressing the free speech of those with whom they disagree, particularly conservative or right-wing commentators.
Punishment
The Soviet government punished those who criticised or opposed the state with punishments including torture, forced confessions and the deprivation of liberty in gulags.
We have seen people in Western countries punished for speaking out against the government including journalists such as Julian Assange and whistle blowers. Punishments include imprisonment, de platforming and cancel culture. Social media companies also punish users who violate their policies by suspending or banning accounts, another method to silence voices who do not support the government narrative.
Julian Assange. His ongoing detention without trial is illiberal.
Libertarians recognise the importance of freedom of speech as a bedrock principle of democracy and do not seek to limit the speech of others. In a free and democratic society, the media is supposed to operate independently of government control, to inform the public about matters that are in the public interest, and to hold governments accountable.
One must ask why our governments censor information and limit access to information. Regarding the Ukraine conflict, the government and media are displaying their contempt toward citizens in not allowing them, as free-thinking human beings, to decide for themselves which information they will consume and what conclusions that they will draw from that information. There is only one narrative that they will allow – the one that they control. Is the West drawing a digital iron curtain?
Soviet journalist, dissident and former political prisoner Alexander Podrabinek wrote that “Free speech is what digs the grave for despotism, while suppression of free speech is the trademark of dictatorship”. (Totalitarianism and Freedom of Speech, 24 June 2014, Institute of Modern Russia). Podrabinek went on to argue that the collapse of totalitarianism always began with the assertion of freedom of speech.
The Soviet regime’s suppression of free speech had a terrible effect on its citizens and is viewed as one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history. But brave freedom fighters spoke out against the regime, circumvented restrictions on radio broadcasting and other methods of control, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed.
Freedom begins with free speech and the free exchange of ideas. It is vital to our democracy. We must remain vigilant against the creep of totalitarianism to protect our personal freedoms. We must continue to use our voices individually and collectively to push back against any attempt to curtail our right to free speech.
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.
Ted HuiKevin 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.
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.
The public health industry is a menace and remains a threat to Australia.
It comprises people who believe we all require their guidance because, unlike them, we are incapable of making the right choices for ourselves. We must be nudged, cajoled, taxed, and supervised to ensure we get it right. And if that doesn’t work, compelled by force of law.
The Covid pandemic exposed this in stark terms. The authoritarian wave that engulfed us, while mostly authorised by spineless politicians, originated from the public health people behind them. And in almost every case, they got it profoundly wrong.
The result was countless businesses failed, careers ruined, relationships destroyed, and education missed, with worse health outcomes than Sweden. Even the current inflation is primarily a consequence of propping up the economy with borrowed money whilst “flattening the curve”.
In terms of sheer ineptitude, it is difficult to go past the Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) in the states and Commonwealth. Paraded as experts and fawned on by the media, they proved to be foolish control freaks.
Kerry Chant. NSW Chief Health Officer.Brett Sutton. Vic Chief Health Officer.Jeannette Young. Qld Chief Health Officer.Andy Robertson. WA Chief Health Officer.
CMOs ought to be expert at public health, since their focus is on the health of everyone rather than individual patients, and up-to-date with both the scientific literature and international developments. While not necessarily researchers or experts themselves, they should be well aware of who the researchers and experts are and how to contact them.
Yet repeatedly, the policies they recommended and endorsed were contrary to science, to experience, or both.
It started on day one. Australia’s rational and proportionate pandemic plan was simply abandoned in favour of China’s panicked lockdown model.
Covid-19 is a respiratory corona virus, a well-studied category. It was well known that these viruses are highly vulnerable to sunlight and short-lived outside the body, relying on person-to-person transmission. Outdoor transmission was never likely, yet beaches and parks were closed, and gatherings prohibited. As for indoor spread, what was all that “deep cleaning” about? And why is ventilation only being mentioned now? It’s a no-brainer in the veterinary world.
Once it was obvious that only the elderly were in danger, it was unconscionable to maintain the pretence that everyone else was. Children were never at risk, except from vaccine side effects, yet schools were closed and parents terrorised.
In early 2021 when, contrary to expectations, it became apparent the Covid vaccines did not prevent either transmission or infection, the campaign to vaccinate everyone should have ceased. A statement from a CMO that the unvaccinated presented no danger to anybody else would have ended it. Yet vaccination certificates acquired the status of internal passports in the Soviet Union, and countless people lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated.
Ivermectin was being used to treat cases in multiple other countries with clear evidence of its value, yet it was banned from therapeutic use in Australia. How many lives might have been saved if CMOs had learned from what was happening overseas?
From the very beginning, the CMOs knew masks were useless at stopping respiratory viruses. Even Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Adviser to the US President, said as much. Yet despite zero data to prompt a change, they somehow became a symbol of compliance; a sign that we were worshipping at the Covid altar. Even now there are poor neurotic souls who continue to wear them (and even some medical facilities that still require them.) The CMOs simply allowed the stupidity to continue.
Their advice was at times foolish, even idiotic. The Chief Medical Officer in South Australia, for example, told spectators at a football match to avoid touching the ball. And South Australia was put into lockdown based on a rumour that a man had contracted Covid from a pizza box.
South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier
The Covid panic might be over, but the public health industry remains unscathed. The bureaucrat behind Melbourne becoming the world’s most locked down city, where playgrounds were closed and fishing banned, curfews imposed and all manner of other idiocy imposed, was made Victorian Of The Year despite his state recording the highest Covid death rate in Australia. In Queensland, where closing the border with NSW caused enormous suffering, the CMO was promoted to governor.
Much of the harm resulting from the Covid control measures could have been minimised, if not avoided entirely, if the CMOs had stuck to the science. Even if they had thought they were doing the right thing, they could have published their advice to governments so that others with relevant expertise could comment. Of all the CMOs, only Nick Coatsworth has showed any signs of regret.
It is only a matter of time before we are again subjected to their mindset. Even if there are no more pandemics, they will continue to impose their views on issues like smoking, alcohol, sugar and obesity.
The public health industry perpetually worries that we might enjoy ourselves in an unapproved manner. Having succeeded far beyond their expectations with Covid, they remain a clear and present danger to society.
Efforts to damage reputations and careers
Cancel culture is an online phenomenon involving a collective shared public response, with the intention of holding individuals or...
