Home Page - No Woke - Weird Hate Speech Law

I had been telling people that those who took our free speech away should be jailed longer than a thief due to the damage it can be done to a nation. They must have listened, and since they see that the Eureka Q is strong contender to rule the continent currently known as "Australia" in the future, and since they see the Eureka Q is dead serious about holding those who violate free speech accountable, they made extra efforts to ensure the new hate speech law of Australia won't violate free speech, because they deliberately made it unenforceable. 

Violence, violence violence... They certainly didn't make mistake on this one: to be punishable criminally you must incite violence, this is the standard worldwide. Thanks to the insistence of many political expert, the government won't penalize you even if the speech is false or offensive on the new law, so you must threaten violence to get arrested.

Except, you will also get into trouble if you threaten "force". What is this and why?

A lot of us certainly remembered the political stances of the "National Socialist Network", that they want to deport all non-white people from Australia. Deportation is a "force" so the law makers certainly want to stop them advocating mass deportation.

Personally, I am not a big fan of mass deportation, since last time I checked my skin colour isn't as white as that of Mr Thomas Sewel. Yet that is still free speech to be fair. Even violent speech should be protected, since without it, a country would lose the capability to mobilize its people to join military to defend its country during time of the war.

Even worse, people cannot advocate the so called "African gangs" to be deported even if they continue to commit crimes on the streets, that doesn't sound right.

So the law makers deliberately made the law unenforceable by two means:

Firstly, they prohibit threatening force against a group because of their political opinions.

Secondly, the person is guilty only if he threatens the "good government" of Australia.

These are rather far stretched points in a law.

For the first point you pretty much cannot say anything about terrorists, because if you want them jailed, that's hate speech: Terrorists did their thing due to political opinions, this is the definition of "Terrorist Groups", even if they are violent. Now imagine that when the politicians holding a meeting instructing the police to raid some terrorists' homes, but the politicians are arrested because they threaten force against these people. Another more common example would be, you cannot advocate violent antisemitic attackers to have a mandatory jail sentence anymore. Antisemites are a very large group of people with a clear political opinion. Most of them are peaceful, but some of them have tendency of committing violent acts, just like any other very large groups of people.

So how did we get here? We all remembered that some politicians had been on hype about recent difficulties the Jewish community is facing, so they want all anti-jewish "attackers" to be jailed for years, even if you just threw an egg and missed. That is certainly not right, no groups shall have such a privilege over other people. Those politicians' words were not making the situation any better for the Jewish community, some may even suspect they are doing "false flags", since they are making Australian people to hate Jews even more.

So, they made the law, include groups with political opinions to be protected, make sure those deranged politicians will not be calling for any political groups to be jailed even if they had committed violent acts. This is a positive thing, and if we the people utilize the law properly, it will stamp out all kind of political persecutions utilizing the judicial system.

Except the guy who designed this law think this is still not enough, so he made it even more obvious, that the "hate speech guy" is guilty only if he threatens the "good government of Commonwealth". Mate, you can't make this up, this is indeed the original words in the law. So not only the prosecutors have to prove that the speaker threatened the federal government, not just the local ones; but also the prosecutors need to prove that the federal government is a good government. As for the speaker, he, in front of the jury, only need to cast a reasonable doubt that the government is not very good. He doesn't need to prove it, he just need to cast some reasonable doubt on at least one juror, then he will never be found guilty.

I would emphasize on the wording of the law, that the law said, "good government", not "good governance". That means as long as the government was suspected to be "bad" on any of its functionalities, this law will be nullified. As a result, this law is already nullified, and you don't have to be a guru of my website to know why.

I have told many people that the fall of a government always start with creating laws that it is not capable to enforce. So, the fall of the government certainly had started quite some time ago, and now we are seeing government workers deliberately making the law dead on arrival: When a country is going down the hill, someone need to sit on the driver seat, and step the peddle to the metal.