You have to love the irony of politicians – who let’s be honest, they make a living by cheating – who want to impose new “misinformation laws” that won’t apply to them, but will apply to the average Australian.
While the political class can continue to speak freely, even in parliament – excluded from the new laws -, propagating false narratives that suit their purposes whenever they want, the rest of society runs the risk of being hauled before a star chamber especially summoned to prove his innocence when accused. to spread falsehoods.
The ‘one rule for us, another rule for the rest of you’ nature of this proposed new labor law doesn’t end there.
The country’s elite also receive special exceptions to this legislation that limits freedom of expression.
Academics and artists may say things that you would not be allowed to respond to under the proposed law.
They could take aim at something you’ve said or done and your right to respond would be limited by law, forcing you to sit in silence while they take apart you or an issue close to your heart.
It is a shocking case of suppressing mass dissent while protecting elites.
Normally I would consider attributing the perverse results of this poorly drafted legislation to the trite “law of unintended consequences.”
Anthony Albanese’s government proposes a new law on “disinformation”
Human rights groups are concerned the proposed legislation could restrict freedom of expression (pictured by a protester in Sydney in November 2021)
In other words, good intentions that sometimes lead to bad results by mistake.
Except this legislation is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. There is nothing unintended in the results to which it will lead. I think the design of these proposed laws is deliberate.
This Labor government wants to suppress the freedom of expression of the masses, because it does not respect or tolerate mainstream opinions.
In the same way that the Prime Minister looked down on any Australian who opposed his Voice in Parliament, for example. Advocates during that debate regularly accused opponents of being guided by racism rather than impartial concerns about the wording of what was proposed.
These new misinformation laws are nothing less than an attempt to prevent average voters from expressing opinions that might challenge the views of the woke establishment or take on the increasingly suffocating nature of political correctness in this country.
Australia already has few protections for freedom of expression. A political freedom of expression implicit in constitutional interpretation, but no bill of rights that enshrines the principle.
Yet here we are, witnessing a government proactively seeking to further restrict freedom of expression through new laws that may subjectively apply to some but not others.
No wonder the opposition is opposed and civil liberties advocates are sounding the alarm.
Compounding the dysfunction, this government is in an unnecessary rush to legislate new laws, requiring them to be approved by parliament at the beginning of the year.
What is the urgency? Is it a coincidence that they face re-election soon after? Will these laws help the Labor Party eliminate critical comments about its performance?
These are fair questions, which still have no answers.
No one wants hate speech or abusive rhetoric to permeate the internet, especially when it is also defamatory in nature.
So, in principle, there is nothing wrong with trying to expand existing laws that prevent such behavior.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland would have broad powers under the proposed laws.
However, this bill goes much further.
It even grants the incumbent Communications Minister extraordinary powers to personally order hearings or investigations into disinformation.
It sounds more like the plot of a documentary about the Stasi regime in East Germany during the Cold War than a new set of rules that Labor seriously supports in the 21st century.
The biggest problem with clamping down on political comments that could be classified as misinformation is the highly subjective nature of making such assessments.
Both the left and the right often claim that their political opponents are spreading lies. Imagine giving a minister the power to endlessly probe his opponents under the protection of such a new law.
The movie 1984 may be old, but its relevance is increasing as the political class seeks to restrict rights in the way this new law is designed to do.
So we end where we started: the irony of any politician who twists and turns facts for a living to suggest new ‘misinformation laws’ that apply to the rest of us but not them is hypocrisy on stilts.
However, the extreme lack of awareness in doing so means that Labor will not even realize how hypocritical they are in defending this new law.