The Loss of Free Speech in Australia
Bro. Michael Ireland
I was reading my local newspaper today, when I came across an interesting article, about the loss of free speech in Australia. Naturally, the headline wasn't that dramatic, as it would show that we have freedom of the press, which, in my opinion, we do not. However, the headline for this article does give an indication of the group that was behind the removal of Rights for Whites, who still make up the majority of this country. It is a small article, so, I shall repeat here :
Win for the Jews
The Morning Bulletin, Wednesday, 18/09/2002.
"SYDNEY - Australian Jews yesterday won a landmark court case after a judge ruled material published on the internet by a Holocaust revisionist was insulting and racially motivated. In what is believed to be the first case involving the internet and the Racial Discrimination Act, Federal Court Justice Catherine Branson ruled Adelaide Institute director Fredrick Toben acted illegally by publishing his claims."
Wow ! Someone was sentenced by a Federal Court for publishing an historical analysis ! Now, we can't have that now, can we ?? After all, why would we want independent historians to publish their findings ?? Is it not to discuss and improve our understanding of things past that we publish such articles in the first place ??
So, let me give you my opinion of what I have determined from the above short article, to see if you agree with me :
Now, this is what I think that anyone can see in the above article - after all, it is not myself that has said that the Australian Jews were a separate race, but the judge's interpretation that historical articles about the Holohoax .. sorry, Holocaust, is racially discriminatory, thus, Jews must be a separate race from the norm of Australian society.
That Australian Jews also do not support free speech is quite obvious, as they took this historian to court for publishing an article which does not support their own views. Now, if someone has made a mistake in an article published, they should be given an opportunity to either prove their claims, or, be shown where they made a mistake. If they can prove their claims to the standards that are to be expected, and they made no mistakes, then if you do not support their claims, tough! However, if you believe in free speech, you are quite willing to be able to publish your own article refuting the other historian's claims, subjected to the same standard as you did to theirs.
So, for example, if I was to publish an article on the internet saying, oh, let me see, that all Jews are lying, double-dealing, ugly parasites who only want to suck the finances of a country for their own greed and religious beliefs, then you would expect me to prove these claims. If I do not, then you should ask me to withdraw the article and apologise, not to the Jews, but for making an academic error, in not proving my sources. However, if I could prove that the Jews are such parasites, then you would not attack myself or my article, but my sources, and see if they are accurate.
This is commonly called : academic debate.
This leads to my third opinion, that publishing controversial articles is now illegal.
Being a scientist, I have read some very doubtful articles in respected science magazines and journals, and, while I do not necessarily believe in them, I do respect the right of the person, who made the claims, to write and publish the articles, if he can prove them. One of the more "interesting" articles I have read is that oil and gas fields are not produced from the process of decaying organic matter but from granite bodies many kilometres underground. The fact that the only person that I know that believes this is the actual author, it doesn't charge me with going to court with the author, to get the courts to say that he should apologise for writing such an article. It does allow me to check their sources and see if they stand up to scrutiny.
In my honest opinion, what we have read in the above article, is the death knell for public debate on historical matters. It has become so politicised now, that to even doubt the totality of the alleged Holohoax .. sorry, Holocaust, is to be in breach of being called a racist. Does that mean the Australian Jews are racist towards the ethnicity of Fredrick Toben ?? It could be inferred that this is so. They obviously couldn't debate the article he wrote, but that he wrote about the alleged duplicity of the Holohoax .. sorry, Holocaust, which as we are told over and over and over again, was Hitler's determined destruction of the Jews, the Australian Jews made it into a race issue.
So, want to debate about the alleged Holohoax .. sorry, Holocaust, forget about coming to Australia. The Australian Jews have made it illegal to discuss an issue of which there is much to discuss about. They have made it illegal to show any side of the debate, except the Jewish side.
That is what I call the death of freedom of speech in Australia.