20 Comments
Apr 26Liked by Rebekah Barnett

I continue to interpret e-safety messages through the lens of ‘safe and effective’ saturation advertising over the last couple of years by governments, politicians and official agencies. It is now abundantly clear that these messages demonstrated misinformation and disinformation on a grand scale, and the level of hypocrisy of those same people attacking free speech is, well, breathtaking.

Expand full comment
author

The Bible verse about removing the plank from your own eye before commenting on the speck in someone else’s comes to mind. Hard to take gov seriously with a plank wedged in its figurative eye.

Expand full comment

Exactly Barry, the ‘safe and effective’ messages were gross misinformation and disinformation from politicians, bureaucrats, the medical and scientific establishment, and the mainstream media. And also reinforced by the legal system, which failed to protect people from mandatory medical interventions, i.e. COVID-19 vaccination.

Is this what the misinformation disinformation bill is really all about, protecting the rotten system, considering: 2.1.4 Excluded content for misinformation purposes (Clause 2), specifically:

QUOTE

Authorised government content in Australia

Content authorised by the government of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a local government area will be exempt from the powers. For example, this could be social media post from a State’s transport department about an upcoming road project or health campaign.

END OF QUOTE

Is this action being taken to possibly retrospectively try to protect governments that told a tissue of lies in the past...e.g. re Covid?

* https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2023-guidance-note-june2023_2.pdf

Expand full comment
Apr 26Liked by Rebekah Barnett

After finally finding the time to listen to Julian Gillespie’s interview with Dr John Campbell, my conclusions are this was malevolent disinformation by pharmaceutical companies.

Disinformation by govt bureaucrats who should have known better & criminally negligent misinformation by politicians that were too gullible & scientifically illiterate to know any better.

Those same politicians are now frantically trying to cover their behinds by denying, obfuscating & labelling any true information as mis/dis information.

https://youtu.be/nbh_NB6LNaI?si=rnBIE23icd9ewvmN

Expand full comment
author

This one’s queued in my listening list!

Expand full comment

Well worth it.

Expand full comment

Tomaraki, for some background on the diabolical situation that unfolded in Australia, particularly re vaccine mandates and the trashing of voluntary informed consent for COVID-19 vaccination, see:

- Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination:

https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates

- The destruction of voluntary informed consent via mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. "A political decision, not a health decision":

https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/the-destruction-of-voluntary-informed

Expand full comment

Thank you Elizabeth. Will read both. I lived it in Dan Andrews’s Victoria.

Expand full comment

Elizabeth – you rightfully ask:

“Is this action being taken to possibly retrospectively try to protect governments that told a tissue of lies in the past...e.g. re Covid?”

I would say Yes! - definitively Yes! However - I suggest that the ‘tissue of lies’ phrase you have used to describe the lying politicians and ‘health’ bureaucrats is far too soft. A much more accurate description would be “an orchestrated litany of lies”.

This phrase has become famous in the aviation world as a descriptor of officials and corporate apparatchiks who lie to the public to hide their guilt. The term was first used in the wake of a shocking accident in 1979 in which Air New Zealand Flight 901 crashed into Mount Erebus in Antarctica with the loss of all 257 persons on board. The aircraft was full of tourists on a sightseeing flight over Antarctica.

The New Zealand Government’s official accident report released by the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents cited ‘serious pilot error’ as the main cause of the accident. (Air New Zealand was owned by the NZ Government and was a flagship symbol of New Zealand’s national competence). As you can imagine, the loss affected a very large number of families in New Zealand and many of the bereaved felt that pressure had been brought to bear to deflect blame by misidentifying the true cause. Historically, dead pilots have always made a good repository for attributing blame.

Public demand led to the formation of a Royal Commission into the accident. The judge appointed to head the Commission was a Justice Peter Mahon (1923-1986). He produced his report in April 1981 – 17 months after the accident. He cleared the crew of blame for the disaster and found that the major cause was the reprogramming of the aircraft's navigation computer without the crew being notified. Mahon claimed that after the accident, Air New Zealand executives had engaged in a conspiracy to whitewash the original inquiry, covering up evidence and lying to investigators. Mahon concluded that they had told "an orchestrated litany of lies". His subsequent book, ‘Verdict on Erebus’ - an account of his inquiry, won book awards.

But the NZ Government officials & politicians would not rest – they subsequently appealed the matter in the U.K. Privy Council. (The archaic law at the time allowed them to take this ridiculous step). The British Privy Council effectively disallowed Justice Mahon’s findings on what could only be described as bullshit legal technicalities. Peter Mahon was subsequently hounded by ‘the system’ and retired from the High Court bench in 1982.

He died suddenly and prematurely in 1986 at the age of 62. Many in the airline pilot profession regard Peter Mahon as a hero – and suspect that he was hounded to his death. In 2008, he was posthumously awarded a Memorial Award by the Airline Pilots Association for exceptional contributions to air safety – “in forever changing the general approach used in transport accident investigations worldwide."

I tell you all this because there are lessons to be learned from the sad tale of ANZ Flight 901 about how government officialdom and politicians are already moving to deflect blame from themselves for the soaring ‘all causes’ Covid vax deaths. As just one example – the government authorities in Britain have a lot of explaining to do about what are now being described as ‘The Midazolam Euthanasia Murders’ of many 1000’s of old people in U.K. nursing homes early in the pandemic, and the false attribution of their deaths to Covid. But it appears that the British state is moving to throttle any real investigation. That ‘lack of interest’ has also been our experience here in Australia thus far. The only action available to us at the moment is to pressure our elected representatives into calling a proper inquiry. A good place to start would be the politicians who were in charge at the time.

Expand full comment

Re “Even the Human Rights Commission, which completely dropped the ball during Covid…”

How interesting to discover that someone associated with the World Economic Forum was the Australian Human Rights Commissioner during the key years of ‘Covid’ - Edward Santow who was Commissioner from 2016 to 2021.

According to his bio, Edward Santow was recognised as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2017.

Santow is a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Human Rights and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

His areas of expertise include human rights, public law and discrimination law. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law, a Visiting Professorial Fellow at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), and serves on a number of boards and committees.

How many others associated with the World Economic Forum have infiltrated our institutions and parliaments?

Reference

https://humanrights.gov.au/about/commissioners/human-rights-commissioner-mr-edward-santow

Expand full comment
Apr 26Liked by Rebekah Barnett

Yet child pornograhy and trafficking is still available

Expand full comment

Beautifully written analysis Rebekah. I had no idea the misinformation bill had been shelved. But as the saying goes, never waste a crisis. Love the “we’re not safe till we’re all safe”. Lord where will all this end. Every day brings a new crisis/issue to frighten us into submission. Thankfully we have voices like yours to balance the narrative.

Expand full comment

This e Safety lady churns out many reasons delivered in her American accent for her ideas on e Safety but fails to consult or connect with ordinary people How or why is she holding down her questionable job Public need good & bad subjects to judge for themselves what they believe in or seek seek using their brains to decide to watch or support anything Australians are not subservient fools imbibing all information Might be okay in America but not hre

Expand full comment
author

They do consult, they have a youth council and they conduct research including surveys. But I think you’re suggesting eSafety is out of touch with everyday Australian values on the issue of policing opinions and if that’s what you meant then I agree!

Expand full comment

Is there good poling on these issues?

The research they conduct might be a good start, but will have some of the biases of "push polls". The censorship-industry will do research justify it's own existence and so will fish for polls that give friendly results.

Expand full comment
author

I’m not sure but they publish the research online so you can take a look https://www.esafety.gov.au/research/australians-negative-online-experiences-2022

Expand full comment
Apr 28Liked by Rebekah Barnett

Thanks Rebekah for making this point and backing it up so well. I'm gonna spruik my own post where I make a similar point (but with less detail and rigour than Rebekah): https://www.amphobian.info/p/remaking-rights-australias-censors

It's frustrating how fair-minded, but deluded, neutrals (and Dutton is probably one of them), automatically assume this video is harmful even though hundreds of others are routinely shown to Australians. The only difference, is that *this* video is the one that the Commissioner picked.

That's why it's asinine for Dutton to claim that Twitter “see themselves [as] above the law”. The Online Safety Act essentially means that the Commissioner's word is the law. And politicians are lining up behind her even when she exceeds her statutory authority.

Expand full comment
author

I didn’t realise the video was still available on FB! I don’t agree with the call to abolish eSafety tho. Unless there’s a solid proposal for who should manage the issue of child abuse content online? I would prefer that esafety’s remit be curtailed.

Expand full comment
Apr 28Liked by Rebekah Barnett

Child abuse content can be was suppressed by the police and platforms without the Online Safety Act.

The reason for having someone like the Commissioner do it is that you want to send removal orders without the burden of having to prove something criminal. I am cautiously open to arguments for that.

P.S: I don't have FB and can't confirm the 2GB report myself. Things might have changed since that report.

Expand full comment

With all this manufactured hoo ha over a manufactured event, I wonder what is going on behind the scenes? Could the stabbing psyops be distraction to cover something else?

Expand full comment