Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

Reality estrangement

High Court judges have attacked the Federal Government over their taxpayer-funded advertisements for their 'workplace reforms', comparing them with communist propaganda, and even arguing the adverts are 'divorced from reality'. There are signs of reality estrangement elsewhere in Man of Steel's cadre - for instance in the (former) Immigration Minister's response to a humanitarian recommendation for a detained child's urgent release. A Doctor giving evidence to an inquiry into the matter told the court Mr Ruddock declined to intervene, adding: "the word 'bucklies' (sic) appears to be in his handwriting" on the memo that outlined options to release the family into the community. The child in was question 5 years old when he and his parents were detained, and remained in detention while suffering a serious psychological disorder, against expert medical advice.

In today's SMH Ruddock is paraphrased as saying 'Free speech [is] an important consideration but [is] not a licence for groups to say anything they liked':

"The precise form of words you might use or what conduct you are seeking to include [in anti-terror laws] is a matter for which we have not concluded our deliberations, but we have said that it is an issue that we think is appropriate for us to consider"

Notice that rather than a 'right', free speech is relegated to "an important consideration"; many Australians would likely regard 'free speech' as meaning just that, the right to say 'anything they like'. Ruddock and Howard are also contemplating banning the 'advocacy' of terrorism. This will criminalise merely holding or voicing political opinions, as well as actions related to terrorism. This amounts to penalising "thought crime."

Earlier this month Ruddock reportedly told the ABC that, if a Muslim cleric's recent comments 'did not breach any current laws, they could prompt a review of free speech laws'. In other words, new laws will be tailored to ensure that certain 'comments' become illegal. The reference to 'free speech laws' is astoundingly disingenuous: there are no such laws in this country, there are no constitutional provisions specifically to deal with free speech. In fact the only legal basis for Australian free speech, outside Common Law, is a recent High Court finding that provides for the right to 'free' political commentary: a fact that the Attorney-General would surely recognise.

Ruddock is also known for wanting changes to Defamation law to allow corporations and the dead to be able to sue for defamation - hardly championing the rights of individuals to their opinion.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 9:50 am ::