Free Speech Attack

The EUSSR is about to destroy the internet

It’s odd that Australia has no bill of rights, no general right to free speech, & only a weak ‘implied’ right to freedom of political speech. For all of America’s troubles, there’s nothing that beats the First Amendment.

Australia Does Not Have Freedom Of Speech

“Free speech” is often raised as a defence in the court of public opinion, particularly when people are called out by their ideological opponents. “You’re attacking my right to free speech!” However, either through forgetfulness or ignorance, many Australians don’t appear to realise free speech is not a legal right they hold.

“A step too far”

The NSW Government has sought to strengthen the state’s “ineffective” anti-hate speech laws.

Miranda Devine thinks the laws are a step too far.

“I find it quite shocking that a liberal government would bring in laws that criminalise speech,” she says.

In other news:

Muslim population in Australia soars to 600,000 as religion becomes the nation’s second-biggest – a 77% jump in the past DECADE, according to Census

The latest census figures reveal the Muslim population in Australia has soared to more than 604,000 people, overtaking Buddhism as the most popular non-Christian religion.

The number of Muslims living in the country has almost doubled from 341,000 in the the 2006 census.

The surge in the number of Muslims comes as the Census revealed an additional 2.2 million people registered as having no religion – surpassing Catholicism as the country’s most popular religious affiliation.

Data from the 2016 census, released on Tuesday, shows 30 per cent of Australians identified as having no religion, compared with 22 per cent in the 2011 census and almost 19 per cent in 2006.

The latest census figures reveal the Muslim population in Australia has soared to more than 604,000 peopleThe latest census figures reveal the Muslim population in Australia has soared to more than 604,000 people

That’s 604.000 too many.

Al-Qaeda Bomb Maker Caught Near Downing Street Had ‘Message’ for UK’s Leaders

Al-Qaeda Bomb Maker Had ‘Message’ for UK’s Leaders

A message from Muhammad, the messenger…

Merkel Implicated in Migration Agency Scandal Where 46 Radical Islamists Were Granted Asylum

Merkel Migrant Scandal: 46 Radical Islamists Granted Asylum

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The real numbers are in the thousands….

DELINGPOLE: ARCHBISHOP WELBY HAS A BAD CASE OF BREXIT DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

WATCH: Latest Terror Threat from Gaza – Attack Balloons

 Latest Terror Threat from Gaza – Attack Balloons

Newt Gingrich to ABC’s ‘The View’: Our Government Is Corrupt

…Gingrich on ‘The View’: Our Government Is Corrupt

D’Souza: I Was Targeted by ‘Narcissistic’ Obama

Media Begin to Hold Bill Clinton Accountable — When It No Longer Matters

When Bill Clinton Says He Is A Victim Of The Monica Lewinsky Affair – Don Jr. Gets Out The Flamethrower 

Amnesty Int’l Suggests U.S. War Crimes — On ISIS Capital

Professor: The Left Wants to Use Conversion Therapy on Men with ‘Toxic Masculinity’

Professor: The Left Wants to Use Conversion Therapy to Stop ‘Toxic Masculinity’

Amanda Yeo

Australia Does Not Have A Bill Of Rights

The right to free speech has come up frequently in recent times, as the political climate both in Australia and abroad continues to draw heated debate. In the US, individuals often cite their First Amendment rights when they feel they have been censored. Setting aside an analysis of US law, Australia does not have any equivalent. Unlike the US, Australia does not have a bill of rights, and in fact is the only Western liberal democracy not to have one.

There has been some debate regarding whether Australia needs a bill of rights. Arguments for a bill include that by having a reference point, people will be able to more effectively enforce their rights. Arguments against a bill include that by defining rights we would by nature be limiting them. In Kruger v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, Dawson J stated, “The framers [of the Constitution] preferred to place their faith in the democratic process for the protection of individual rights.”

The Australian Constitution does not expressly guarantee many rights or freedoms, though it does guarantee a small handful (such as freedom of trade between the states in s 92). Freedom of speech is not one of them.

Australia Does Have An Implied Right To Political Speech

While Australia does not have an explicit freedom of speech, it does have an implied freedom of political speech. Freedom of political speech was first recognised in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1, the High Court of Australia finding this right was implied in Australia’s Constitution. It is the nature of a democratic society to require freedom of political speech, as if the country is to be led by the people (or individuals representing the people’s interests), then the people must be heard, and be able to develop informed opinions.

This cannot be used as a claim to the right of free speech generally. The High Court of Australia subsequently ruled that this implied freedom only protects against laws that infringe upon political speech, which is restricted to matters that may influence voter’s decisions at the poll.

In the case of Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520, former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange sued the ABC for defamation, and the ABC raised the implied freedom of political speech as a defence. In a unanimous decision, McHugh J said, “Those sections [of the Constitution that imply freedom of political speech] do not confer personal rights on individuals. Rather they preclude the curtailment of the protected freedom by the exercise of legislative or executive power.” Therefore, the implied freedom of political speech cannot be used as a defence to defamation.

Though the Australian government generally cannot legislate to restrict or burden freedom of political speech, there are exceptions. Laws can be made restricting political speech where the law serves a legitimate purpose (in that it is compatible with the maintenance of a representative and responsible government), is suitable to achieve its purpose, is necessary (there is no less restrictive alternative), and the importance of its purpose outweighs the weight of the restriction. If a law fails any of these tests, it is invalid.

However, this is the extent to which the implied freedom of political speech provides protection. It does not protect from an acquaintance shutting you down in conversation, a forum administrator deleting your comments, or an event organiser denying you a platform to speak due to your subject matter. Even if your statements concerned political matters, you are not being rejected due to a law restricting your speech, so your implied right of political speech is inapplicable. You can say what you want, but others are under no obligation to listen or give you a platform.

The Australian government cannot legislate to restrict your freedom of political speech, but you cannot use “freedom of political speech” as a defence.

Australia Does Not Have An Enforceable International Obligation To Uphold Freedom Of Speech

Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrines freedom of opinion and expression at Article 19. However, the main consequence Australia would face were it to ignore the treaty is international condemnation. As demonstrated by Australia’s apparent indignation at international condemnation regarding its treatment of asylum seekers, Australia could, in theory, disregard the treaty and restrict such expression with little tangible repercussion.


Though “freedom of speech” has become the rallying cry for those who feel that their opinions are unfairly vilified, there is no clear law that Australians can point to regarding a right to free speech. In fact, Australians are subject to a variety of laws restricting free speech, including defamation laws, hate speech laws, sexual harassment laws, and laws against threatening others. While desirable in theory, truly free speech would open up vulnerable people to intimidation and attack. Some restriction upon speech facilitates the operation of a representative and responsible democracy by fostering an environment in which marginalised people feel safe to speak up.

So the next time your obnoxious uncle comes to visit and starts in on a racist rant, kindly remind him that free speech isn’t a thing in Australia. And regardless of the state of Australian law, you’re still well within your rights to kick him out of your house.

7 thoughts on “Free Speech Attack”

  1. The latest census figures reveal the Muslim population in Australia has soared to more than 604,000 people” [sic]

    That’s 604,000 too many.” [sic]

    Even ONE islam is TEN to many
    … anywhere
    … everywhere !!!
    (as is ONE islamophile) !!!

    Take heed you Traitor/Seditioner/Subversive aiders assistors and abetters of the islam invasion !!!
    (Stop islam immigration and start clearing out the islams) !!!

    OR THE ISLAMS WILL KILL YOU … then us!!!

    1. Cure the plague that is islam spread by islams !!!
      (eradicate) !!!

      … firstly
      by the Treasonous/Seditious/Subversive marxist islamophiles aiding assisting and abetting the islam invasion and the criminal African tribal diversification – being Removed and Permanantly “incarcerated !!!

      … secondly
      by the immigration of invading islams and diversifying criminal African tribals being STOPPED and the ones who are resident in Australia – being swiftly and permanently REMOVED !!!

  2. It’s facile to suggest that, if only Australia had a Bill of Rights, then we would all be much more free, and our freedoms would be well protected. We wouldn’t, and they wouldn’t. A Bill of rights involves judges in making value judgments, rather than in deciding cases in accordance with the law. A direct consequence of this is that overtly political appointments to the Bench become even more blatant – witness Obama’s appointment of two ‘progressive’ women – Justices Kagan and Sottomayer – to the Supreme Court bench, and the screams from the Left over President Trump’s appointment of the allegedly Conservative Justice Gorsuch. A Bill of Rights, of itself , is meaningless. Many of the world’s bloodiest dictatorships have Bills of Rights in their Constitutions. The question is how a Bill of Rights is to be interpreted. For example: In America, I understand that the freedom of religion provisions have been construed so narrowly against Christians that many now talk about ‘Freedom from Religion,’ not ‘Freedom of Religion. And for a long time slavery was held quite consistent with a Bill of Rights. Slaves were seen as chattels, not persons. Personally, I am totally opposed to giving our unelected and (broadly speaking) unaccountable judiciary any more power, together with an untramelled right to give full rein to their personal prejudices from the Bench (unless, of course, those personal predjudices happen to align with mine – and that very rarely occurs). Oh, and maybe it’s also a bit facile to quote the census, to establish that there are 600,000 Muslims living in Australia. My understanding is that answering the Census question on religion is still optional. So we have no way of knowing how many Muslims there are in Australia. Personally, I think its probably a hell of a lot more than 600,000, given the proliferation of Muslim majority areas popping up all over the place.

    1. There are more than a million, surely. All western governments have been fudging the figures.

  3. Canada, too, only has a purported right to “freedom of expression” in it’s Turdeau-liberal-made “Charter of Rights and Even More Rights” (Charter of Rights and Freedoms – i.e: from responsibilities)!

    Canadians do not, however, have an explicit right to own or defend property.

Comments are closed.