To keep speech free let's no-platform the law-mongers

The libertarian version of free speech wants no conditions, no boundaries and no apologies to anyone. The conservative right claims to champion free speech - but everyone seems to have their own version of it – usually one that enables an attack on actions of those on the left. The left is not bound by such principle at all – leaving them free to attack the speech of others through censorship, legislation and recently no-platforming.

No-platforming is the practice of preventing someone from their expressing ideas usually through a speaking event or some sort of public forum.

Recently, no-platforming attacks have successfully shut down speaking events in Australia by anti-Islamist activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in America by conservative commentator Ann Coulter.

As much as I would love to join our conservative media in defending liberty by shaming the no-platformers I cannot. For when you spend as much time thinking about these things as I do you realise that this is about emotion not reason.

“It's so sickening when a radical thuggish institution like Berkeley can so easily snuff out the cherished American right to free speech.” - Ann Coulter

Well it sickens me too Annie, but to shout louder than another is not denying them freedom of speech. Intimidating a person into cancelling a speaking tour comes closer, but does not either. Burning flags, burning cars even burning books does not. These are attacks on freedom of speech to be sure, but they have not and will not take away your ability to speak and subsequently to be heard. These are just provocations and punishments meted out by one tribe to spite another.

In the People's Republic of China where I once lived there is no such thing as free speech and there has not been for at least 60 years. This blog could not exist there. The authorities would have blocked it from the first post and warned me not to write another. Had I persisted they would have come around to my house and taken me away and put me in a cell for as long as they saw fit - perhaps forever. To speak of freedom is illegal.

I remember after a typically boozy business lunch in China when a few of our younger associates became relaxed enough to start complaining that the government was keeping them poor. My interpreter shot to her feet and said it was time to go and we left. Not only is it dangerous to speak, it's dangerous to listen.

There was a gay pianist who played in the lobby of the 5 star hotel where I worked in Shanghai. Over time his demeanor went from mildly effeminate to being flagrantly camp until one day he pushed it too far and they took him away.

This is what it looks like to have no freedom of speech. No freedom of expression.

Thankfully, it is very difficult to shut down free speech in the modern western world. You can read books, magazines newspapers and blogs, watch television and youtube, listen to podcasts and the radio all day and night. You will find Hirsi Ali and Coulter prominent in all of them.

No-platforming really only imposes geographical limits on speech. It does not stop you from speaking, just from speaking here. You are free to speak over there.

Even in America where free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment we know that such geographical conditions do not infringe constitutional rights. How? Well thanks to the Westboro Baptist Church.

Between 2006 and 2012 state and federal laws were passed to counter the picketing of funerals by it's hate-mongering members. First Amendment protection of the church's extreme hate speech was confirmed by the US Supreme court in 2011. So to comply with the constitution laws were made that excluded any kind of protest from within 300 ft of a funeral service. You can scream that “God hates Fags” over there, just not over here.

Proof that no-platforming is not only ineffectual but counter-productive is brought to us by the irrepressible Milo Yiannopolous. Right wing media personality Milo has been banned from Twitter, fired from Breitbart News, dropped by his publisher and blocked from speaking at universities in US and Britain. Earlier this year Milo's speech at Berkely UC was shut down by violent protesters. All of which have added to his fame and expanded his audience to make him the new Justin Bieber of the Internet (though as his recent comments in favour of sex with 13 year old boys has seen him branded a paedophile - free speech may well be the undoing of Milo).

In Australia we have no constitutional right to freedom of speech. So lawmakers are free to make whatever laws they wish. Here lies the real danger. Scream loud enough and some populist law-monger will want to criminalise no-platformers or the people they wish to silence. The civil courts could then be used to force institutions into hosting controversial speakers and be accountable for their safety. Or the speakers could be taken away by police for illegal “hate speech”.

Then their tribesmen would congratulate themselves for striking a blow for freedom and justice, when all they have done is throw those things away - forever and a day.

Making laws won't make you free. There are no safe spaces out on the street. Free speech in the public arena is, and always was, a fuck-off all-in brawl.

Let's keep it that way.

R U R Free

Two small steps to freedom (and perchance to happiness )

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

that all men are created equal;

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;

that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thomas Jefferson

I would love to tell you that freedom equals happiness but I cannot.

The author of the fine words above sought not to either. But he did say that happiness could be achieved by being free to pursue it - though of the outcome one can never be certain.

So often we exercise our freedom of choice by choosing to be miserable. We bend to the will of others not because we are compelled to, but because we choose to. We employ our freedom of speech to say nothing, and our freedom of association to be alone.

All the while others may exercise their freedom to attack our way of life, to police our thoughts, to exclude us from the political arena and to make us question our relevance and worth in society. They demand laws that criminalise our choice of lifestyle and marginalise our forms of expression.

Freedom does not equal happiness.

What I can tell you is what got me started on the road to happiness. It is what I call the two stages of acceptance. Make of it what you will, but it works for me.

The first stage of acceptance is the acceptance of you. You are who you are and can never be anyone else or anything else, other than a corpse. You have total control over what you do but not over whether or not you are you. You are stuck being you for the rest of your life. Hopefully you are happy being you. Ideally you love being you. But when you look in the mirror there you are, regardless of how you feel about you. So you might as well get on with it and make the best of being you. Be a wiser, faster, fitter, stronger, funnier you. Be the best you that you can be. Or not (that's up to you).

The second stage of acceptance is that everyone else in the world is not you. As most of the people on this earth don't know you exist and never will they do not want to be you. Because they are not you they do not and will not ever think like you do. Or look like you or behave like you do. Concern yourself with them no more than you wish them to be concerned with you. You will never be able to make them like you, nor be like you. So stop trying to force yourself upon them.

My father is 80 years old and has never been a happy person. It was only quite recently that he accepted himself and became at least more contented than he has ever been. Leaving the behind the anger that comes from the fierce envy of others and the suffering that comes from desire to be someone better than himself - he is almost free.

But the second stage has so far eluded him.

Why? - he asks me constantly. Why do they do they think that way? How could they believe that? Why do they vote for them?

The answer is always the same and needs no elaboration. It's because they're not you, father. They are not you.

He hears me and he believes me and it silences him for a while but it does not last. Some small part of him holds out and I suspect will do so until he is no more. But that's him. He is not me.

In accepting ourselves and others we can be free of the need to govern the lives of others and concern ourselves only with governing of ourselves. To be the captains our own ships, to master our own fates without the interference of others seeking to re-make us in their image.

Remember you are free to be happy (or not, it's up to you)

Strange ways indeed (most peculiar markets)

Australia is not some banana republic backwater any more. We are a big fat rich nation of big rich fat people who will fork out $2000 for their kids to see Justin Bieber if they have to. But they don't have to – they choose to.

If you want a ticket to see Jerry Seinfeld's sold out show in Sydney it will cost you about $500 for a ticket that was bought by a scalper from Ticketek for $100.

While everyone bangs on about the unfairness of it all - am I the only one who wonders why the tickets are so cheap in the first place? $100 is four packs of cigarettes. It is two cases of beer or less than two tanks of petrol.

The actual market value of the ticket is $500.

Imagine a car dealer inexplicably selling you a new car for $6000 that is for sale at the dealership down the road for $30,000. Wouldn't you stop and think that something was a little odd about that? (Then Nick Xenophon comes along and yells, STOP THIEF!! when you try to re-sell the car for what it's actually market value.)

Inexplicable also is how Tiketek chooses to allow this kind of scalping when it clearly doesn't have to. Tickets to my local festival Splendour in the Grass are not scalped despite overwhelming demand for tickets means they sell out in 12 hours or less. Their agent Moshtix simply does not allow direct re-sale of the tickets. Each ticket is booked in a person's name and address which cannot be changed. Unwanted tickets can only be sold back to Moshtix minus a fee of $20.

For the same reason Jetstar air tickets are not scalped - despite that they release small quantities of tickets at very low prices from time to time. Jetstar uses the same “paperless” ticket as Moshtix but allows you to change the name of the passenger. There are deadlines for name changes though and the fee they charge will negate much of the profit from scalping. Their tickets are not refundable. And as Jetstar handle the changes they will know what you are doing and can easily shut you down and bar you from flying with them – forever.

So why does Tiketek choose to do business in this way? Why don't they just sell the tickets for what the market will pay? (These questions are not rhetorical, by the way, if you can answer either of them please do).

But the cat is now out of the bag and we all know what riches await us if we can just get out hands on one of these golden tickets. If Nick Xenophon were to get rid of those damn ticket bots then you and I could become home-grown scalpists. Even if I'm limited to purchasing only four tickets per show, by investing $400 I can make a profit of $1600 - then I'm in and you should be too.

'Cause you're free to do what you want (any old time).

Freedom vs market interventionists, scalperbots and Adele

Serial market pest Senator Nick Xenophon is at it again. Poker machines again? No it's ticket scalping prompted by Australian politicians' bi-partisan love for Adele and the fact that a ticket to see her recent show cost as much as $5000. 

Put simply - this is because only a small number of tickets are available to the public and the bulk of those seem to be snapped up by scalpers who go on to sell them for huge profits via the internet. 
 

This is an example of supply and demand economics - when demand outstrips supply prices go up. As profiteers move in prices go up some more. This has been a feature of the free market economy for some time now and is well understood by Year 10 students everywhere.

However, this being 2017, scalpers are thought to be unfairly aided by software 'bots' which are conveniently taking the heat for the situation.

Being a federal Senator and a market sceptic Nick's solution is, of course, market intervention through federal legislation. Firstly by following the US which last year passed the Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) Act and banned these digital daleks.

Ticket bots are basically hacker's tools that can be downloaded from the internet. Banning them would be like banning a virus, or outlawing hacking. Or banning crime.

There is so far no evidence that this legislation has affected ticket prices. No one has been charged let alone convicted under the Act.

Nick has his own ideas though none of them could be described as bright. Such as allowing tickets to be re-sold only when where a ticket holder has a legitimate reason to do so and dis-allowing tickets to be resold for more than 10 per cent profit. Really, Nick? Do you really think such nonsense could be made law?

If it could - we would end up with is a taxpayer funded Fair Ticket Pricing Commission. The Federal Police will need a Ticket Scalping Strike Force with offices in every state. Teams of hackers would be employed by the government to fight the scalperbots in cyberspace. All paid for by you and me. Would it affect ticket prices ? Unlikely. But even if it did, you and I would be subsidising concert goers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. 

Luckily for us all - Nick Xenophon speaks softly and carries a small stick – for he is just a Senator and cannot put forward a bill to Parliament. He can only put forward a motion which is a statement that other Senators can agree or disagree upon, and that's it. Such motions carry as much weight as the belligerent utterances of a drunk as he slides off his barstool to the ragged cheers of rival barflies.

Xenophon is, and always was, a cheap populist hack.

Politicians commonly branded as populists, like Trump and Hanson, actually have ideas about society and government – big, weird ideas that make them saviours to some and devils to others. Nick Xenophon is a true populist in that he keeps to the centre to please as many voters as possible and kindly offers to legislate against anything that might vex them.

But those who seek to make laws purely to increase their popularity are the enemies of liberty. Every law they make takes away our freedom. And as we only have the right to do what is not prohibited by laws – our rights are taken away too.

Government interventions into the energy market have stuffed it up, particularly for those in Nick's home state of South Australia. Nick's solution – more interventions to stuff up the old stuffed up interventions.

To do this he waved his little stick at a weak government and took tax reform hostage to force his interventions upon us. Tax reform meaning - the lowering of our taxes. His little stick just got a little bigger.

So don't encourage him. Don't vote for him. Don't fall for his populist bullshit.

Remember you are free.

More on the complex issue of ticket scalping to come. In the meantime check out,

 

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/a-ticket-scalper-explains-the-rip-off/8344484

Mixing beer, religion and politics (may result in a hissy fit)

Last week a promotional video was released online by The Bible Society  featuring two Liberal Party MPs discussing gay marriage while drinking Coopers Light Ale. The video titled "Keeping it Light" sparked a backlash against Coopers, though the Bible Society has stated that the brewery had nothing to do with the content.

The first I heard of Coopersgate from everyone’s best mate Graham Richardson in The Australian. Richo reckons that the big Gay/Green hissy fit and threat of a boycott of Coopers beer was “blind insistence against free speech” and “cruel as it was anti-democratic.”

Cruel, my word – but was the Cooper family denied their right to free speech? No. Quite the opposite in fact. They were given a free public platform where they could have exercised the hell out of free speech. We would have hung on every word. They just decided that the profits from selling beer are more important than going to the mattresses over marriage equality. And good luck to them.

Anti-democratic? No way. Democracy is a system where citizens elect representatives to form a government. Not under attack here, Richo.

Over on page 12 the delectable Jennifer Oriel (my current conservative crush) jumped aboard the freedom train under a heading of Gay censors don't want us thinking for ourselves and talked about a “grim week for freedom of expression”.

She did go on, however, to nail the issue squirmingly to the wall,

“ In their campaign for gay marriage, some activists have developed a regrettably totalitarian strategy. It is to target dissenters, gay or straight, and silence them through persistent bullying. 

They dislike civility and public reason because it exposes their intemperance.

… the video celebrated public reason on the question of marriage, which is an issue the PC class wants to monopolise. It targets dissenters, regardless of whether they are gay, bisexual or straight. The aim is to shut down all debate to create absolute ideological conformity.”

I agree (and I love your hair). But until the activists actually succeed in their aims to shut down all debate - this story is about bigotry and bullying.

Bigotry (intolerance towards those holding different opinions) is lawful in Australia and does not necessarily affect freedom of speech. A bigot's mind is closed to the speech of others. In a totalitarian state a bigot might achieve a position of power and use the forces of the state to silence dissenters. But Australia is not such a place.

Bullying is something we forbid in schools, regulate in workplaces but encourage in politics. Bullies are often admired for their ability to get shit done. Kevin Rudd was a notorious bully who became Prime Minister (twice). Mark Latham, Peta Credlin and Tony Abbott - all highly successful bullies. Outside of the schoolyard and the workplace – you can lawfully bully the hell out of all and sundry so long as you cause no physical harm to your victims.

The gay activists were exercising their lawful freedoms of expression and action whether we like it or not. They can use such freedom to campaign for or against anything they please. And so can you, so can we.

Bullies always pick the softest target - so Coopers Brewery became the focus of the attack because Liberal MPs and religious organisations are too hard to get to. Coopers however is a public company that relies on retailers to sell their product to the public making them susceptible to a boycott.

However, freedom of speech triumphs in the end by giving these bigots plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. In this case - the activists' actions will harden the hearts of the conservatives they should be wooing. They will alienate gay allies such as Liberal MP Tim Wilson who appeared in the video as an advocate of marriage equality.

And they alienate me.

And that matters because I am for marriage equality too – but simply because I cannot insist on freedom for myself but not for others. That would make me a hypocrite and no-one would take me seriously. As a libertarian I have to champion marriage equality and I will – but the intolerant shrieking of pack of bigoted bullying bastards ain't making it any easier.

As a libertarian I am seriously attempting to frame important issues from a perspective that is not Left or Right, that eschews identity and instead looks for common ground between warring parties. That common ground is freedom. I seek to persuade you that the irresistible force of freedom just might be able to shift some seemingly immovable objects. I do this by writing my most persuasive arguments in this blog – not by pissing in your beer.

If the hearts and minds of conservative people and politicians must be won for gay marriage to pass – then so be it. Bullying and beer boycotts will not persuade them - it will push them further away.

Instead, try inviting them aboard the freedom train (I'm sitting next to Jennifer).

Associations vs Commissions (Pink Ladies vs pinko ladies)

Having put the free and fair bullet into Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, it's time to take aim at the reason why 18C became so contentious in the first place which is the controversy surrounding the recent actions of the Human Rights Commission.

The HRC is a government agency that works independently of government (to be sure). It mostly investigates complaints and prepares reports to give to the Attorney General. It's basically a human rights ombudsmen.

Unlike laws, human rights are not proscribed, they are consensual hallucination. You cannot be prosecuted by the HRC or anyone else for breaching a person's human rights because you don't specifically have any. You need to have broken a criminal or civil law to be prosecuted by anyone.

The HRC mostly concerns itself with discrimination and the federal acts which might make it unlawful - which is nice. My problem with it is that it is $22 million dollars a year worth of nice. $16 million of that being salaries. Nice work if you can get it.

Well someone's got to do it, you might say – and yes other folks do it too. In my state the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW spends another $4.5 million per year of our cash doing it – and each Australian state has a similar organisation that mirrors the federal one. And then there is the Legal Aid NSW Human Rights Committee (which keeps it's budget to itself).

At least $60 million dollars are thought to be directly spent each year on human rights monitoring agencies in this country, that is to say this figure does not include funding for NGO's. So $1.2 million per week spent on listening to folks complaining is money well spent?

I have nothing against human rights or the lawyers who make them their business. I can live with political bias from HRC President Gillian Triggs, even the questionable ethics and poor judgement that have marked her tenure. She is only human and there is no doubt she is better qualified to do the job than I am.

I just don't want to pay her $418,000 salary.

Because by paying the salaries of various Human Rights Commissioners I become an accessory to their bias, to their poor judgement and dishonesty. I am complicit in their failure to uphold free speech and treat others fairly. By all means be social justice warriors. Damn the government and signal your virtues - I don't care as long as I am not funding your folly. In fact, I don't want to fund HRC at all.

Maybe you do. And that's fine too. So you pay for it. 

How? By abolishing the Commission and replacing it with an Association. A non- government not for profit no-nonsense organisation devoted to all the same stuff. Funded by you. Or not.

If it is so damn important that we be constantly monitored and reported on in case we discriminate against someone then good men and women will rise to the challenge and answer the call to arms and get the job done for free. Don't believe me?

For more than 26 years, Refugee Legal has been providing free legal advice and casework services for asylum seekers, refugees and disadvantaged migrants in the community and in immigration detention across Australia.

Since 2014, as those arriving in Australia without visas are unable to access legal aid unless considered "exceptionally vulnerable", so Refugee Legal has relied on philanthropic grants and donations to fund their services. Migration agents, law students, paralegals and corporate lawyers from a dozen firms work at their clinic free of charge to directly assist more than 12,000 people last year.

Then there is the Human Rights Law Centre, Liberty Victoria, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Amnesty International and others. Associations not commissions. Citizens serving a public cause. Getting the job done and not a six-figure salary in sight.

Admirable, yes - but does this sound fair to you? Public servants making their fortunes in the discrimination industry while the private sector works for free?

I'm a public servant too - I work part-time in a regional hospital in NSW. For the last few months we have had a serious shortage of the IV pumps that regulate the drip that goes into a patients arm. They cost about $500 each and we urgently need half a dozen more.

Meanwhile, Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane is so under-worked that he has called for Australians to complain to the Commission about a cartoon. For this we pay him $340,000 per year. If Tim was to instead work part time for 3 days per week and we reduced his salary accordingly - that $136,000 would get us three nurses for a year, or 272 pumps.

 

And Tim would have $204,000 per year and 2 whole days each week to devote to the welfare of the community - perhaps as a volunteer for Refugee Legal. Or the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association, Surf Life Saving NSW or his local Hospital Auxiliary (formerly known as the Pink Ladies). 

Keep the state agencies if you must – at least we know where the money will be spent and we know that Legal Aid persecutes no-one and actually does something other than write reports.

But the federal Human Rights Commission should go – or rather, we should set it free.

Remember you, also, are free.

Offend, insult, humiliate (and die)

One hot November day back in 2004 Cameron Doomadgee was arrested on the streets of Palm Island in Queensland. Cameron was drinking beer and full of cheek on a Friday morning, probably looking forward to the weekend as heavy drinkers do. Inside the bucket he carried a mud crab waited patiently for oblivion. Who would have thought it would outlive the man who had caught it?

Sergeant Chris Hurley of the Queensland Police Service was having a tough morning dealing with drunkenness and domestic violence common to the community in which he served.

Sergeant Hurley was in the company of a man named Lloyd - a Police liaison officer on the island. Cameron taunted Lloyd by singing “Who let the dogs out” and had a go at him for helping the Hurley “lock up his own people”. Cameron ended up swearing at both officers for which he was arrested. Offensive language - usually a $100 fine.

A struggle took place at the cop shop and to cut the story short – Cameron was severely beaten by Hurley and died 40 minutes later alone in a cell.

The autopsy report was a ridiculous attempt to cover up the killing. The locals rioted. The police station and barracks, the courthouse and Hurley's house burned when word passed around that Cameron had been “murdered” by the police.

A state of emergency, 28 arrests, a second autopsy, three coronial inquiries, several criminal trials, Supreme Court appeal, a suicide, resignations and incarcerations followed.

In 2006, a coroner found that Cameron was killed as a result of punches by Sergeant Hurley. Four of his ribs were broken and driven into his liver with such force that it tore it apart.

Two legal questions arose from the death. Firstly was the arrest of Cameron lawful and secondly, whether the injuries that killed him were intentionally caused by Sergeant Hurley.

Yes the arrest was lawful and no, Hurley was not guilty of manslaughter.

The years of controversy focused on the second question which was never really resolved to the satisfaction of all. Controversy swirled around the actions of the police, the police union, the state government, the coroner and other agencies as some sought to protect Hurley while others wanted him hanged.

And then there was the issue of race. Cameron Doomadgee was a blackfella and Chris Hurley was white. As a result the case became about Aboriginal deaths in custody – an issue which has haunted Australia for the last 50 years at least.

In all the drama the importance of the first question was overlooked. Perhaps because it was never really disputed that a cop can put you in a cell for offensive language. In fact, in Queensland a magistrate can theoretically put you in one for 6 months.

But it was not race that set these two men on a collision course. It was a law designed to ensure that we all be nice to each other in public.

Criminalising common behaviour unleashes the forces of the law upon ordinary people who may not deserve it and may not have the strength and resources to withstand it. And it can gets rough out on there on streets, in the emergency rooms and the lock-ups. Tempers flare, bones break, bodies bleed. In my time on the front lines I have hurt people too. Some quite badly, though never intentionally. My ribs too have broken by punches and I have broken the ribs of others.

So before tweeting your tribal war-cries and quaffing your pinot noir. Before you go signalling your virtues and superiority to others with your big-hearted concern for the feelings of minorities - you might consider what Cameron Doomadgee's position might have been on offensive behaviour laws as he lay dying in that cell. Ask of his ghost if he and his people felt protected by such laws as his body cavity filled with his own blood. Ask him if it was worth an agonising death that others should not be offended by his conduct. And ask yourself if you have given any real thought to the consequences of such laws at all.

If you really care about people like Cameron Doomadgee – then don't let the dogs out.

And remember you are free.