The West has lost its freedom of speech

[Smurf1976]

The freedom of speech is the most important value the West has developed. Whether it is in your home, out on the street, in the Town Square or on a Stock Forum. Any attack or concession on that value is detrimental to the Society that lives under it and ultimately will see its downfall.

I agree totally with the point you're making.

Pragmatically though, well as I see we're not going to fix the problem here so there's no point killing ASF, a valuable resource as a stock market forum, for the sake of making a point. I think Joe's been pretty patient thus far in that regard (and so far as I can work out he's also firmly in the "free speech" camp).

It's a practical reality though. We're not going to fix it here and if it's going to kill the forum well then that's not really helping anyone.

Looking at the whole thing more broadly, none of this is new. There were people talking about quite a bit of what's lead to the current overall situation in Tasmania during the 1980's.

Yes, Tasmania. A place that's of minimal importance nationally and of absolutely no relevance whatsoever in terms of global politics. Quite a few knew what was coming though.

Brilliant foresight? Not really no. Just that a few had realised that the train had left the station and that unless something changed, the ultimate destination was a given. Once the West started down the track of currency debasement and deindustrialisation the rest was pretty much inevitable unless drastic change occurred. You can't rip real wealth away from the masses and hollow out the entire economy without serious repercussions. Once that started, the rest was really just detail as to how it unfolded.

By about 1995 the West was basically doubling down on money printing and the Fed got going with perpetual bubble blowing. Give or take a few years for each detail it's when the whole going on holidays, bidding up house prices and watching reality TV thing was getting going and manufacturing was increasingly grinding to a halt whilst the current account deficit / surplus stopped being considered as even newsworthy whereas once it was headlines.

There was some debate on another thread on ASF about nuclear power and I pointed out that purely as a means of generating electricity for use on land it doesn't really stack up economically in Australia and that the reason to do it would be if the real aim was plutonium for military purposes and the electricity was just a convenient by-product. Fossil fuels are cheaper or if we don't want those due to emissions well then renewables with large scale storage are also cheaper.

That debate got a bit tense but somewhat surprisingly nobody mentioned the elephant in the room.

What's this assumption that we don't want plutonium? What's this assumption that Australia won't be pursuing a nuclear weapons program at some point? Don't anyone start mentioning treaties - all that sort of thing is falling apart around us so let's not pretend anything there.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the world is marching toward war at an alarming pace and that if the US falls in a heap or can't be relied upon well then realistically Australia's in a very vulnerable position. I won't be surprised at all if Australia massively ramps up its military and that includes acquiring nuclear or other "mass destruction" weapons. I also won't be surprised if such a move comes in the near future. Things are escalating rapidly and the pace of that escalation is itself increasing.

Free speech? Well I sure as hell agree there's a problem there. It's just that I can't see how stuffing up this forum is going to fix it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Free speech? Well I sure as hell agree there's a problem there. It's just that I can't see how stuffing up this forum is going to fix it.

Actually I think the debate on this thread has been pretty civil, if a bit tense sometimes, and its bought some good points to light, considering it's a General Chat thread.

What's this assumption that we don't want plutonium? What's this assumption that Australia won't be pursuing a nuclear weapons program at some point? Don't anyone start mentioning treaties - all that sort of thing is falling apart around us so let's not pretend anything there.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the world is marching toward war at an alarming pace and that if the US falls in a heap or can't be relied upon well then realistically Australia's in a very vulnerable position. I won't be surprised at all if Australia massively ramps up its military and that includes acquiring nuclear or other "mass destruction" weapons. I also won't be surprised if such a move comes in the near future. Things are escalating rapidly and the pace of that escalation is itself increasing.

I think you may well be correct.

If we are going to buy long range hypersonic weapons there seems little point in arming them with a little bit of TNT when you can make a really big bang and therefore have a bigger deterrent. I'd probably be looking for some sort of defence pact with Japan who has the nuclear technology and a similar underlying desire for a nuclear deterrent, and they are right on the doorstep of you know who.

So Australia does not necessarily need it's own reactors. We ship uranium to Japan, they process it and send back plutonium and the other nuclear material and we put this in our hypersonic weapons.

Thus we we get the benefit without attracting too much attention.

I wish we didn't have to go that far, but as you say the world is changing fast and we have to keep up or fall off.

 

[moXJO]

Twitter mobs now own speech. If they don't like it they attack your advertising revenue streams, or customers.

Shhhhh, woke mobs became "big brother".

 

[rederob]

Waste of time replying Robbie, I gave you a case where Courts overruled the law but you just can't understand the concept of Separation if Powers so I suggest you do some research on our Constitution.

All you have shown is that the court system works in a particular way.
You have proven my point that it is the COURTS which are upholding the law.
Aside from that you cannot make a valid point in relation to rights and law in keeping with your claims.

 

[SirRumpole]

All you have shown is that the court system works in a particular way.
You have proven my point that it is the COURTS which are upholding the law.
Aside from that you cannot make a valid point in relation to rights and law in keeping with your claims.

Did you even read that story I posted ?

The High Court over ruled a LAW that infringed on RIGHTS.

What part of that don't you understand ?

Of course courts uphold the law EXCEPT when those laws infringe on RIGHTS.

It's not rocket science.

 

[rederob]

Did you even read that story I posted ?

The High Court over ruled a LAW that infringed on RIGHTS.

What part of that don't you understand ?

Of course courts uphold the law EXCEPT when those laws infringe on RIGHTS.

It's not rocket science.

The High Court is a Court.
Courts uphold laws.
Where is an example that courts have infringed on rights?

 

[SirRumpole]

The High Court is a Court.
Courts uphold laws.
Where is an example that courts have infringed on rights?

You find an example. Don't try and twist the discussion.

Courts uphold RIGHTS over LAWS.

Do you understand that ?

 

[rederob]

You find an example. Don't try and twist the discussion.

Courts uphold RIGHTS over LAWS.

Do you understand that ?

I cannot find an example that agrees with your points.
Laws embed our rights.
Courts then uphold the laws.
There is nowhere that it is different in Australia.

 

[wayneL]

Don't forget the use of lawfare and the civil court system.

This is not necessarily about law, or even winning. This can be used to break someone's bank, or sully their reputation vexatiously.

We see this with our Western legal system all the time.

One step down is the use of a compliant media to trash someone's reputation and income, therefore stifling free speech via vexatious social media action, @moXJO points out.

I could point out literally dozens of cases straight off the top of my head but in respect to Joe's comments earlier, I will just leave that right out of this post.

 

[SirRumpole]

Laws embed our rights.

No it's the other way around as the Bob Brown case shows.

But continue in your ignorance if you want.

 

[rederob]

No it's the other way around as the Bob Brown case shows.

But continue in your ignorance if you want.

You cannot show that to be true, yet have repeated it time and again.
Just as you remain confused about our court system's role in upholding the law.
The High Court inter alia upholds our Constitutional rights, ie. the principles and laws of our nation, and overrides inconsistent State laws, which is exactly what occurred in Bob Brown's case.

 

[SirRumpole]

The High Court inter alia upholds our Constitutional rights, ie. the principles and laws of our nation, and overrides inconsistent State laws, which is exactly what occurred in Bob Brown's case.

I see you are starting to cotton on.

Well done, about time.

 

[rederob]

I see you are starting to cotton on.

Well done, about time.

Yes, you got it back to front, and claim a victory from behind.
So where exactly are these rights which are determining our laws, which you say is the case?

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, you got it back to front, and claim a victory from behind.
So where exactly are these rights which are determining our laws, which you say is the case?

Read the Bob Brown story again Rob, and you might understand.

 

[rederob]

Read the Bob Brown story again Rob, and you might understand.

You are saying that rights are responsible for laws and cannot show it.
Bob's case demonstrates exactly how laws embed our rights, not the other way around.

 

[SirRumpole]

You are saying that rights are responsible for laws and cannot show it.
Bob's case demonstrates exactly how laws embed our rights, not the other way around.

???

 

[rederob]

???

Rights are conditioned by what is lawful.
There are things you can freely do and say in the privacy of your home that you cannot do in public or make public.

 

[SirRumpole]

Rights are conditioned by what is lawful.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. When a law contradicts a right that is expressed or implied in the Constitution then that law can be overturned by the courts.

I've provided you with an example of where that has happened. Are you just being stubborn or can you really not comprehend this ?

I'm not going to reply further, doing so may violate the etiquette of this forum.

 

[rederob]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. When a law contradicts a right that is expressed or implied in the Constitution then that law can be overturned by the courts.

I've provided you with an example of where that has happened. Are you just being stubborn or can you really not comprehend this ?

I'm not going to reply further, doing so may violate the etiquette of this forum.

The Constitution is a statement of our laws and principles of government.
Matters which are constitutional are lawful.
We are not like America.
We do not have a separate Bill of Rights.

The Australian Constitution has properly been described as ‘the birth certificate of a nation’. It also provides the basic rules for the government of Australia. Indeed, the Constitution is the fundamental law of Australia binding everybody including the Commonwealth Parliament and the Parliament of each State. Accordingly, even an Act passed by a Parliament is invalid if it is contrary to the Constitution.​

 

[SirRumpole]

Accordingly, even an Act passed by a Parliament is invalid if it is contrary to the Constitution.

That's what I've been saying all along !