Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" laws invite the State to become the arbiter of what a citizen may, or may not, claim is in the public interest. This is having, and will continue to have, disastrous consequences for the citizens of Australia.
By providing the absolute defense of acting in the public interest, the State is establishing its own authority to dictate to the public what it may, or may not, consider to be in the public interest; because it is the State which decides whom to prosecute and for what alleged offenses, and it is the State which has granted itself the authority to determine for the public what it may, or may not, discuss as being in the public interest. The State has also created its own authority to quash dissent against the State's mandated views by harassing citizens with prosecutions and subjecting citizens to the State's determinations of what the citizen may, or may not, express in public. Even if a defendant is successful in his her defense against a prosecution under these laws, the State merely by means of bringing charges against an individual has caused the individual harm and has intimidated others from following in the defendant's footsteps for fear of inviting a similar attack by the State.
The existence of these laws serves as a deterrent to open and uninhibited public discourse and affords the State, not the public, the means to suppress any and all dissent against those groups whom the State would arbitrarily and with its bias shield from criticism and thereby privilege and protect. History affords us many examples of the dangers of these Australian laws. For example, the Roman Catholic Church once held both clerical and profane powers and used those powers to mandate views and censor public discourse. The Nazis immediately enacted such authoritarian and totalitarian laws under the titles of Ermächtigungsgesetz and Gleichschaltung by means of which the State exercised complete control over the public debate. The Bolsheviks practiced Lenin's "Democratic centralism" as a means to suppress dissent not only over the public, but also among State officials. These authoritarian laws have contributed to the mass murder of tens of millions of human beings by the State, and have shackled the citizenry and inhibited its means of self defense and means to safeguard the public interest from the arbitrary and biased interests of the State.
The Australian government has invited itself to become the judge of what a citizen may, or may not, think and say as being in his or her own interest and in the public interest. The mere existence of this law overreaches the constitutional authority of any democracy and makes the otherwise free citizen instead a subject of the authoritarian and totalitarian control of the State.