Thursday, November 26, 2009

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" Laws Establish an Authoritarian and Anti-Democratic Government

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.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" Laws Violate Several Fundamental Human Rights and Due Process of Law

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law is so vague as to fail to notify a citizen of what conduct is proscribed by law. The Australian statute proscribes conduct intended to create animosity towards any "racial group" and vaguely defines "racial group" as follows:

"racial group means any group of persons defined by reference to race, colour or ethnic or national origins"

No set of unambiguous definitions inform the public as to what are the "races", "colours", "ethnic origins" or "national origins" intended by this law. Since the citizen has no standard by which to judge his or her conduct, no proscribed conduct in this law is sufficiently defined as to enable the citizen to know which conduct is criminalized. In addition, the police and courts may arbitrarily define that which is left undefined by the statute, inevitably and necessarily resulting in discriminatory and abusive selective enforcement of the law.

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law criminalizes normal conduct. It is human nature to vilify villains. Nothing prevents any group of human beings from being villainous, and therefore no group of human beings may be made immune by law to vilification. Human beings have always engaged in criticism of ethnicities, races, colors, and nationalities, and doing so is normal human conduct throughout all of recorded history. The entirely selective and arbitrary ex post facto determination of which human groups constitute "races", "colours", "ethnic origins" or "national origins" by the police and prosecuting officials and the courts taking place in Australia has, and is intended to have, a chilling effect on the healthy and entirely normal conduct of political, religious and public discourse. Such a chilling effect on free speech and public discourse is detrimental to the public good, and is abusive of individual rights.

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law violates the right of self defense. When a group of persons holds to a belief system, and/or engages in conduct, which harms, degrades and/or discriminates against any individual or other group, all members of society have not only the right, but also the duty to protect themselves from said villainous group. One means of self defense is to vilify the villainous group. The law not only violates an individual's right of self defense, it works against the public's general best interests by muzzling watchdogs and granting immunity to villains.

Australia's "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" law violates all citizens' fundamental rights to equal protection under the law, for where a "racial group" by its creed, its conduct, and/or its self description commits "Racist harassment and incitement to racial hatred" towards others, this group is granted immunity for its offensive conduct, while those who would criticize it for its offensive conduct are barred from doing so by law. In this manner a privileged class and a subservient class are arbitrarily and for the first time established by law and only by law, which is illegal. The criminal is immune to criticism and the watchdog is muzzled and imprisoned for sounding an alarm. While the law establishes several absolute defenses, those defenses depend on subjective mental states and arbitrary definitions left undefined by law, which unlikely sanctuary under the law encourages those who would otherwise speak out in defense of themselves and the nation to remain silent or leave their fate uncertain and in the hands of the State to arbitrarily determine and with bias that cannot be exposed or criticized for fear of additional prosecutions.

The violations of freedom of speech and political freedom will be addressed in additional articles as time permits.