Essential Liberty

And those who would trade it for the promise of temporary safety...

(Image: Substack AI)

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

~ Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Joel Bowman with today’s Note From the End of the World: Buenos Aires, Argentina...

Tide flows, tide ebbs...

In yesterday’s Note, we relayed with a heavy heart the sorry state of affairs in our birth country of Australia... where the tide of Free Markets, Free Minds and Free People appears to be rapidly receding...

Following the tragic events of last weekend’s Islamic terror attack on Sydney’s iconic Bondi Beach, in which a father and son killed 15 people and injured 42 more who were peacefully celebrating Hanukkah, the Australian government has (all-too predictably) met the craven violence of the few... by vowing to crack down on the rights and freedoms of the many.

That means further erosion to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right “privilege” of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

Ah, but what kind of fool would rise to defend such essential liberties, dear reader, at a time when the promise of a little temporary safety is on offer?

“This kind of fool!” we answer the call, forever sympathetic to lost causes and die-hard errands...

The Back of Burke

First, the battleground before us. From The Guardian:

New hate speech laws cracking down on ‘dehumanising’ rhetoric will go to constitutional limit, Tony Burke says

The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, says new hate speech laws will be drafted to the limits of the constitution to capture the “completely dehumanising” rhetoric deployed by so-called “hate preachers”.

But while Burke said he believed protesters chanting “globalise the intifada” was “horrific”, he couldn’t confirm whether the phrase would be outlawed under legislation to be fast-tracked in the wake of the Bondi beach massacre.

The comments came as the independent MP Allegra Spender, whose electorate includes Bondi beach, urged the government to widen the hate speech crackdown to capture vilification of other minorities, including LGBTQ+ people.

Astute readers, only too ready to see the back of Mr. Burke, can already sense the problem here. Some will recognize it as the “thin edge of the wedge”... others the “incremental erosion” argument... and still others as the good ol’ slippery slope fallacy.

That is, when governments appoint themselves the final arbiters of what you can – and cannot – say, all speech becomes contingent upon their fickle whims. And when everyone is silenced, fear and hatred are allowed to fester all the more...

Today, while fevers run understandably hot, it’s antisemitism people want outlawed. Tomorrow, it’s remarks deemed “Islamophobic.” Next week, it’s Trans, Queer and “+” communities whose feelings need protecting.

And perhaps that all seems fair enough, as far as it goes...

But what about people who are “weight disadvantaged” (fat)? How about the feelings of “justice-involved individuals” (criminals) and “people experiencing unhousedness (hobos)? What of “neurodivergent individuals” and “persons with diverse abilities” and our gender non-normative two-spirit brothers, who used to be sisters but who are now definitely brothers, every other Wednesday?

Don’t their feelings deserve special protection, too?

And let us not forget the raft of other hate-filled transgressions, which vex the modern, enlightened mind. We (dare) speak, of course, of “misgendering,” “deadnaming,” “whitewashing,” “mansplaining”, “stereotyping”, “dog whistling,” “profiling,” “tokenizing”... and too many more to call by their name…

Pretty soon, nobody is quite sure what they’re “allowed” to say... and what remarks might run them afoul of the speech police.

The Trojan Horse

But wait... doesn’t Australia already have laws on the books regarding speech deemed to be “incitement to harm, violence, or crime”?

Why, yes!

Under Section 11.4 of the Criminal Code, a person who “urges the commission of an offense” can be found criminally liable. That applies, by the way, to any offense under federal law (not just violent crimes).

And doesn’t Australia, which proudly boasts no absolute constitutional right to free speech, already have laws against “advocating for terrorism”?

Yes again! (See Division 80 of the Criminal Code. The same goes for speech considered to incite sedition.)

And doesn’t Australia already have laws pertaining to anti-discrimination and racial incitement?

Unsurprisingly, yes!

Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to “do an act reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race, colour, or ethnic origin.”

The law covers “speaking in public (e.g., speeches or spoken comments), communication of words or sounds, written material published or shared publicly.”

Sooo.... what is this renewed “crackdown” on speech really about, then? And why, when asked pointedly about how tougher speech laws will be applied, are Australia’s leaders so unable to get the words out?

Witness Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, whose moral fortitude has all the structural integrity of a wet paper bag, squirming and worming in the face of that most formidable of adversaries... a direct question:

“Well, er... ah... I, I, I... er, ah...”

Are Aussies really ready to hand more of their precious and fast-dwindling freedoms over to this dribbling idiot and the rest of the unlettered halfwits in federal and state governments? (Have your say – while you still can – in the comments, below…)

Wrongthink Police

Alas, Australia’s so-called “leaders” are not the only pigeon-hearted pollies on the planet. Far from it. Indeed, large swathes of “The West” are already in steady retreat... if not entire capitulation... when it comes to defending their most precious liberties.

According to the figures published by The Times in London, law enforcement officials in Britain made more than 12,000 arrests over “offensive” social media posts in 2023. The paper reported that “police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts online.”

For comparison, the Chinese government made ~1,500 arrests during the same period... Russia made ~400... France 54... and the Kingdom of Saud, that renowned bastion of civil liberties, 15. Here’s the breakdown, from World of Statistics:

And yet, tempting and expedient though it may seem, the way to combat barbarism is not to lower one’s own cultural standards, much less unalienable rights, to those of an uncivilized world. One does not surrender one’s own freedoms to curtail another’s... to dig one’s own grave with the hope his enemy might stumble in afterwards.

For then, neither will he deserve his essential liberties… nor count them among his blessings.

Next week, your perennially optimistic editor will take a look at some parts of the world where, mercifully, the tide of liberty is in fact rising, including in the most unlikely of places.

Stay tuned for more Notes From the End of the World...

Cheers,

Joel Bowman

P.S. As always, we are grateful here at Notes for the generous support of our members, who value independent writing and are happy to be part of the pushback against the legacy media’s ceaseless claptrap.

Here’s what a few kindly benefactors have to say about their membership…

Thanks again to ALL our dear members. If you are not already among their noble ranks, but would like to join our growing community of radical libertarians, skeptical independents and unapologetic free speech advocates, please consider becoming a Notes member, here…

We’re currently in the Top #40 in World Politics. The higher we rank, the better our visibility across the Substack network. By supporting our work, you help us reach more readers, delivering the message of Free Markets, Free Minds and Free People, far and wide. Cheers ~ JB