UNHERD

UNHERD

Will We Look Back In Anger?

WHEN WE LOOK BACK AT 2020/2021 HOW ARE WE GOING TO FEEL ABOUT OUR POLITICAL CLASS, OUR SUBJUGATION AND OUR SUBMISSIVENESS? CAROLINE DI RUSSO PONDERS

WE ARE finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. It’s a dim, flickering, light but it’s there. I know that’s cold comfort for those currently hanging for a beer or a haircut, but a cold brew and a trim are, relatively speaking, just around the corner. And for those home schooling their kids – the cavalry is on its way.

Fingers crossed, by the time this piece is published, we would’ve returned to some semblance of normal. Melbourne should’ve shrugged off their evening curfew and Sydneysiders may even be soaking up some sun in Fiji. Unfortunately for WA and Qld, substantive change remains unlikely.

But, I wonder, once we are on the other side, how we will look back at the shitshow, which has been the last 18 months. How will we view government overreach, the much-vaunted health experts, and the subjugation of our rights?

Are we going to be comfortable with the sweeping and oppressive government restrictions, which were ushered in without so much as a squeal, the sidelining of compassion, and the politicisation of our police forces?

For the initial months of the shutdown, I went along with it like most people – I didn’t want Australia to end up like Italy. But it soon became apparent that we were not, in fact, all in this together but rather there was ‘one rule for me and one rule for thee’. We have seen restrictions binned or bent for sports people and celebrities and yet everyday Australians have been separated from their families and denied spending final moments with loved ones. It’s as though COVID-19 could not be transmitted to or by the elites, rather it was a disease of the socially unconnected.

It has been surreal to watch the gradual incursion on our rights, the blooming of hypocrisy, and the rabid distain directed at those desperate to earn a living. It’s as though we’ve either been in collective denial or felt it was futile to speak out. Many are still enjoying the warm insidious embrace of their taxpayerfunded Stockholm Syndrome. Others, like me, have been raging against the machine for some time. I suppose we will all arrive in our own time, and some, not at all.

I worry that, as a country, we will struggle to look the next generation in the eye. How can we justify selling out their education and mental health due to a virus we had a 99% chance of surviving because we wanted to work from home in our jarmies? How do we tell them that we were the generation that let hard-fought freedoms be incinerated by government overreach because we didn’t want to take a position that would see us excluded from dinner parties? And how do we justify saddling them with billions of dollars of debt because we didn’t save for a rainy day?

We look weak. We look dependent. And we look irrationally selfish.

While we are partly to blame, the remainder of the responsibility rests with the total failure of government transparency around health advice and the proficient use of the politics of fear. I wonder if 2021 would’ve been different if the NT and Qld electorates hadn’t rewarded their respective governments back in 2020 for their harsh COVID-19 responses. Were those election results a political carte blanche to state governments to ratchet up overreach under the guise of keeping us safe?

A scared population is a malleable one. I mean, who wants to die, right? This brings me to my final question: does the fun-loving larrikin Australian psyche every recover from this? Or are be permanently altered?

I actually don’t know the answer. At this stage, I’m just looking forward to returning to the good ol’ days of not knowing the names of the state chief health officers. I long for these people to return to political irrelevance.

I will revisit this last question in a year or so.

A scared population is a malleable one. I mean, who wants to die, right?

UNHERD

Strangers, Facebook And Defamation

AUSTRALIAN DEFAMATION LAWS TURN INNOCUOUS STATEMENTS INTO MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION BY INFLATED LEGAL BATTLES WRITES DAMON MILES

IF you thought the state of online discourse was bad in the US, you’re clearly unfamiliar with Australian defamation lawsuits. In Australia, one innocuous statement posted online could lead to $60,000 in legal fees. And a recent High Court decision to hold websites liable for user-generated comments is only going to make matters worse. Australians can kiss free speech goodbye.

Defamation laws in Australia are already abysmal. The cost of defamation cases are routinely blown out of proportion compared to the damages a court may award. An NSW bill noted that for $10,000 in damages, a person should budget $80-90,000 in legal costs.

And the bar to action a lawsuit is far from high. As long as the accuser can prove that someone has actually said something about them, they can sue. From that point onwards the burden is on the accused to prove what they said was true or within the public interest. The accuser bears no burden at all to prove the statements were false or that they dealt significant damaged their reputation.

Under the new ruling, the high costs, the low threshold for litigation, and the lopsided burden of proof all fall to websites and page owners. The effect of this will be that Australians have to be constantly vigilant for any statements made on their posts to protect themselves from defamation lawsuits.

The High Court’s ruling described social media pages as buildings in a public square: Anyone can post anything they want on them, but to permit someone to post defamatory content on your building meant you were aiding and enabling the content to be published.

The question is, where does the liability for these building owners end? The limits of this newly established liability are unknown in the context of social media. The historical point of law was used as an analogy served a realistic purpose. With tighter communities and public gathers at squares, to post defamatory content on a building in the public square would have a real impact on the community with real connections between people.

Forget about the building analogy. The reality is: anyone can comment on any post from any period of time on any public account. The burden of moderation for any page or poster on social media now has increased to an impossible level – and worse yet, barely anyone knows this principle has even come into effect across Australia.

We have no idea how media companies and social media sites will handle this new burden. It’s likely the cost of defamation lawsuits will far outweigh any social benefit of allowing speech on their platform. Social media users in Australia can wave goodbye to free speech.

Unfortunately, this is a natural progression for defamation law. With the area of law growing throughout 20th and 21st century, it’s not surprising the court has taken the action this way. High level cases have only strengthened the ability to silence people engaging in free speech not only through the law, but through the exorbitant cost that drives individuals into bankruptcy.

With the decision being made in the High Court, it’s now solidified throughout Australia. The only way to reverse this decision going forward is to implement law through parliament – which may be the silver lining needed. There have already been discussions and legislation proposed to require serious harm before suing defamation to reduce the bankruptcy rate and excessive suing.

This is a drop in the ocean for the amount of reform needed. It’s up to both the voters and politicians to ensure this inequitable law is left with a small legacy.

The burden of moderation for any page or poster on social media now has increased to an impossible level

Damon Miles is a Business Law graduate from Curtin University and Mannkal Economic Education Foundation Alumni. He is currently completing his Juris Doctorate at the University of Western Australia.

UNHERD

Liberals Long Drift From Menzies

THE LIBERAL PARTY’S GONE FROM BAD TO WORSE SINCE JOHN HOWARD. NO WONDER MENZIES NAME IS NOW INVOKED AS IF SUMMONING A GOD, WRITES ALEXANDRA MARSHALL

POLITICAL movements need a figurehead. Sir Robert Menzies is the wooden sculpture lashed to the bow of the Liberal Party vessel, breasts crashing against the waves.

Conservatism and classical liberalism are more difficult to define than Labor’s trade unionism. Hence, it’s typical for a Liberal leader to pad out election campaigns with past achievements.

Spreadsheets work for the Canberra bureaucracy, but politics requires a sense of theatre to win elections. Look at the rise of Trump and success of Farage who unchained Britain from the European Union.

There are very few in history whose memory has elevated beyond the sum of their actions. Menzies is not only the longestserving prime minister, he’s the ideological template of the Liberal party. When struggling for relevance, Liberal MPs dredge up Menzies’ words hoping to profit from their echo. His name is invoked as if summoning a god.

The problem is: words can be worn as camouflage. Too many seat-warmers and careerists have infiltrated the party. Their existence is protected by the unshakeable dominance of the party.

Australia’s extended period of peace has eaten away at the Liberal soul. The electorate pay little attention to those in power, voting for parties – not candidates.

John Howard, arguably the last true Menzian, was also the architect of the party’s destruction. His mistake was an act of desperation, not malicious intent. While Howard cleaned up the economic cataclysm left by Keating, his party room bickered over factional power. A few gangrenous lefties shuffled mates into safe seats until real conservatives were sidelined in favour of Labor-lite MPs. Howard was forced to accept this factional shift.

By the time the Liberal Party elected Turnbull, there wasn’t much to salvage. Liberal-in-nameonly MPs were knifing each other long before China sneezed and Australia caught communism. To be fair, our defences were down; two decades of neo-Marxism made it the perfect incubator.

Menzies fought communism, attempting to have it outlawed – momentarily betraying his love of liberty in the face of a threat he considered mortally dangerous to Australia.

A Liberal Party that understood its role on the political spectrum would have held firm against demands of unelected, international bureaucracies cowering under China’s will. Under no circumstance would Menzies be herded into a twotiered caste system of segregation, discrimination and bullying. He stared up from the depths of global war and fought against his own party’s desire to curtail freedom in the name of safety. He noted with horror the only true limit of political control over the people of Australia was the ethics of the prime minister.

Scott Morrison is not a man of ethics. His position on fundamental principles flips about like a clickbeetle. When the law tells him ‘no’, his first instinct is to bend the law to his will.

The net result is a Liberal Party crowding Labor’s territory.

Liberals demonising innocent workers as a solution to selfinflicted pandemic strife are discriminating against Menzies’ forgotten people.

Minor parties have rushed to scoop up voters bleeding out of the Liberals on all sides, creating an unofficial conservative alliance. These aren’t stragglers; they’re the beating heart of blue ribbon Liberals, carrying the passion lacking in Morrison.

The United Australia Party’s Craig Kelly, swelling ranks of the Liberal Democrats, and the enduring counter-force of One Nation act as tide markers, exposing how far the Liberals have receded from their values. They are the Menzian Renaissance; tearing the Liberals to shreds.

Menzies made citizens believe in themselves. His enduring message was one of government empowering people through liberty. Morrison’s legacy will be fear mongering, political desperation, and a population divided in a betrayal of the Australian spirit.

Menzies made some bad calls. As with most legends, the details of the man are not important – only the idealised vision he left behind.

This leaves us with a question; is Menzies dead?

Spreadsheets work for the Canberra bureaucracy, but politics requires a sense of theatre to win elections

UNHERD

Superman Is Now Bisexual. And No One Cares.

FORGET FOR A MOMENT THAT HE’S NOT REAL, SUPERMAN IS NOW BISEXUAL AND IT’S ALMOST AS IF NO ONE GIVES A FUCK, WRITES

CORRINE BARRACLOUGH

WHEN Superman first appeared in 1938, it was the first comic book ever devoted to a single character; Batman made his debut sometime later.

During World War II, Superman was censored by the US government as any mention of nuclear weapons drew the government’s ire, so Lex Luther was in trouble.

Eighty-three years later, the most important thing about Superman is, apparently, his sexual orientation.

As a species, we really are in trouble if we call this progress.

Of course there was predictable applause from the woke, virtue signalling, nodding head PC crowd when DC Comics announced that the new Superman, Jon Kent, son of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, will come out as bisexual in an upcoming issue of the superhero’s 21st century story. In November, he was pictured in a same-sex relationship with his friend, reporter Jay Nakamura.

The PC mob claimed it to be a “bold” and “brave” move. There is another word beginning with the letter “b” that sums up this ridiculousness, and it ends in “ollocks”.

In today’s world there is plenty of real, substantial, horrific evil and corruption. Switch on the news, it’s everywhere.

Superman is supposed to be the most powerful superhero in any comic. How thoroughly depressing that he is more concerned with his sexuality than tackling any of the genuine issues facing society.

Seriously, can we not put him to better use?

Is there nothing bigger we can find for him to focus his energy on?

Can we not find a more challenging job for him than, shock horror, daring to kiss his male friend?

Series writer Tom Taylor has claimed this coming out extravaganza would have been difficult 10 years, even five years ago.

May I suggest that 10 years ago, even five, we didn’t care or fixate on sexuality to the ludicrous extent that identity politics obsession means we do today?

In August, DC Comics published an issue in which Tim Drake, aka Robin, Batman’s loyal sidekick, also came out as bisexual.

So, Superman is not even original these days, he’s just a copycat?

If I were trapped in a burning building, I would want someone strong and brave to come and rescue me. I wouldn’t care what gender that person was, who they were kissing, shagging, or what pronouns they used in their social media bio. If they could fly, it may well prove to be a bonus.

And, funnily enough, if I had a few moments to speak with them and thank them for saving my life, it would not cross my mind to ask them what they liked to do in bed.

Superman: I simply don’t care who you’re kissing, I don’t care what positions you like in bed, or what your safe word is.

Now, because social critiques are so entirely predictable these days, it’s been claimed, “right-wing fan boys have been clutching their pearls over the announcement”.

Well, I have news for you. I’m neither right wing, nor a fan boy, neither do I own any pearls, but I’ll tell you this is an absolute nonsense.

If it’s brave for Superman to come out as bisexual (not even gay FFS), what hope does the Average Joe – who doesn’t have a magic cape and can’t fly – have? Surely, you don’t normalise something by claiming you need to be a superhero to do it?

What’s also weird is that Jon Kent’s Superman will find comfort in Jay’s arms after he’s totally wrung out from trying to save the world. So, it’s a man who comes to Superman’s rescue rather than a woman? So, even consoling a tired man is now a man’s job?

Yeah, I’m thoroughly unconvinced that’s a good thing. Did anyone think this through?

As ideas go, I’m pretty sure this is a fizzer.

Superman: I simply don’t care who you’re kissing, I don’t care what positions you like in bed, or what your safe word is

passion elegance tradition

Tomich Wines - Adelaide Hills - SA

Proudly distributed by: Festival City Wines Bidfood – SA, VIC, QLD & NT Under the Covers – NSW For more information visit tomich.com.au

Chloe

Anastasia

Chloe

How would you describe beaches on the west coast?

Incredibly blue water and white sand. We have hidden beaches around every corner and you can always find that peaceful spot to sit and watch the day go by.

What’s your favourite?

Being from down south, I love Greens Pool and Elephant Rock in Denmark, WA. I also can’t get enough of snorkelling around Rottnest Island.

When you’re at the beach, where can we find you?

At sunset with my umbrella, takeaway, and sitting with my friends, partner and my dog Rhemy!

INSTA: @__chloekate

Anastasia

Are there any hidden West Coast gems we should know about?

It’s so hard to pick just one, but I adore the north west coast, especially Ningaloo reef. I love snorkelling there and seeing the diverse marine life.

What do you love about the beaches in WA?

Nothing beats watching the sun go down over the water.

When you’re at the beach, where are we most likely to find you?

While I love being in the water, I probably spend most of my time on the sand soaking up as much sun as possible.

INSTA: @anastasiasinclair

Ayshia

What’s your favourite spot on the west coast?

My favourite beach would definitely have to be a secluded and untouched beach I was lucky enough to visit up North of Perth in the Port Hedland area on a private station called Mundabullangana.

Do you prefer the sand or the water?

When I’m at the beach you will definitely find me in the water looking for shells, or just enjoying the feeling of the waves and salt water. I have always been a water baby and absolutely love the feeling of swimming through the ocean.

INSTA: @ayshialeigh

Maddy

What’s the best thing about the beaches in WA?

The sunsets are to die for. I’ve never seen anything like it.

What’s your favourite beach on the West Coast?

I love Point Perron down in Rockingham. The beach is absolutely stunning and there are many coves and little nooks that are perfect for picnics and photoshoots. It’s always peaceful and hardly anyone ever goes there so it’s always a tranquil experience.

What’s something you always pack in your beach bag?

A picnic blanket and some tanning oil for sun baking.

INSTA: @maddy_woodroff