What is scary is that our Governments of the West send delegates to this World Economic Forum whose goal is total control! ‘The great reset has a hidden agenda of Implementing Communism across the Globe.’ https://rumble.com/vb9fzz-the-great-reset-agenda-2030.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JustAnotherAnon&ep=2
Education
Sleepy Joe said in a debate with President Trump that Antifa was only an idea and not a real organization. USA Today which is NOT a friend to conservatives says ‘Of the many quotable statements from the first presidential debate on Tuesday, Sept. 29, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s assertion about the anti-fascist movement antifa was especially memorable.
“His own FBI director said … antifa is an idea, not an organization,” Biden said, referring to President Donald Trump and FBI Director Chris Wray.’ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-quote-attributed-biden-antifa-missing-context/5885435002/
The Ruben Report picks this theme up by saying ‘In September 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray outlined Antifa as more of an ideological movement than an organization. “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement, or an ideology may be one way of thinking of it,” Wray explained, accepting that Antifa does have “small groups,” or “nodes.”
Though Ngo explained that Antifa is “more than an idea. It’s also a movement.” They have networks of organizations and some of them are organized into formal groups, Ngo said.’https://www.blabber.buzz/blab/pop/1024219-andy-ngo-infiltrated-antifa-is-now-exposing-their-innermost-desires-designs-must-see-video?utm_source=c-alrt&utm_medium=c-alrt-email&utm_term=c-alrt-Yahoo&utm_content=8e0lXJvKt7m9-iFPWB-AulM4McaR5P0GH5I_xuULJmMY.A
1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
‘One of the most frequently asked questions when I appear on a radio phone-in program is whether there is a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis chapter 1. Some people have been taught that a gap of millions of years between the original creation of the Earth and the Earth we know today can explain the fossil record and the millions of years proposed by evolution.
Also called the ruin-reconstruction theory, this idea says that an earlier creation existed that was judged by God. Those who believe in this theory usually place Satan’s fall, dinosaurs and so-called “cave men” into this earlier creation.
The gap theory was first proposed about two centuries ago by Rev. Thomas Chalmers as a response to the growing popularity of long evolutionary ages. It was widely spread among Christians in the notes that first appeared in the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917.
The gap theory, however, does not satisfy evolutionists; neither does the Hebrew of Genesis support it. Most importantly, the Bible teaches us that death first came into the world when humans began to sin. The Bible repeats many times that sin and death began with Adam and not before. This is such an important point that the Bible links the beginning of sin and death with the first Adam … and the victory over sin and death with Jesus Christ, spoken of as the Second Adam.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/is-there-a-gap-in-genesis-one-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-there-a-gap-in-genesis-one-2&mc_cid=1694c3ee35&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
When interpreting the Scriptures one should always remember that when plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense lest it result in nonsense!
‘Billionaire Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, has lately been busy spending money on causes apparently near and dear to his heart: first he gave $100,000 to the Biden campaign, and $35,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) – and then funded a study that claims Big Tech is not biased against conservative views.
The New York University Stern School of Business study appeared on Monday and was put together with the goal of disproving long-standing claims of creeping anti-conservative bias on social media, that culminated around the US presidential election.
But those “studying the study” have now found evidence that the paper, entitled, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives,” was bankrolled by Newmark, a major Democratic Party supporter. This cast doubt on the credibility of the claims.
And the results are as the title suggests: that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook made “reasonable decisions” when they banned President Trump, and that Twitter was right to try to suppress the Hunter Biden story that broke on the New York Post (although Twitter itself seemed to disagree when they eventually opted against silencing investigative journalism.)
Above all, the narrative and justification behind much of online censorship in recent months and years has been the declarative need to control “misinformation”; the study now proclaims that those finding bias in Big Tech’s behavior are themselves spreading misinformation for thinking and expressing this.
“The false bias narrative is an example of political disinformation, meaning an untrue assertion that is spread to deceive. In this instance, the deception whips up part of the conservative base, much of which already bitterly distrusts the mainstream media,” says the study, seemingly promoting the idea of establishing accepted political truths that cannot be challenged, and of mainstream media as the only acceptable distributor of these “truths.”
Another point that the study’s authors Paul M. Barrett and J. Grant Sims made the need to set up a “Digital Regulatory Agency” whose job would be to institutionalize what one might call “the war on wrongthink” on social media.
Meanwhile, the assertion that conservative voices do not suffer online bias is based on the study’s authors citing web traffic that conservative news sites continue to receive from Facebook.
But, as a Facebook exec told Business Insider last summer, “conservative sites perform well in terms of engagement” – but liberal ones “outperform in terms of ‘reach’” – i.e., in how many Facebook users actually see their content on the platform itself.’ https://reclaimthenet.org/bias-study-no-anti-conservative-bias-social-media/
‘Who leads the way in Australia when it comes to hating on Christians and Christianity – someone who does so regularly, habitually, and as a matter of course? One could think of plenty of likely candidates here. But we can certainly nominate one Victorian politician who has turned anti-Christian bigotry into an art form.
I refer of course to Australia’s most flagrant misotheist and Christophobe, Dan Andrews. This socialist left premier has spent most of his adult life waging war on Christianity and its beliefs and values. The list of his many hateful actions against the faith gets longer each passing month, and I have regularly written about this antichrist leader.
Too often I have had to document his many acts of infamy and villainy over the years.
Whether it is the radical abortion and euthanasia laws he has pushed through; his undying support of the diabolical “safe schools” programs and the like; his promotion of all things homosexual and trans; his attempts to throw into prison praying Christians who dare to help those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction; and even his war on Christmas carols – to name a few examples – this guy is Pharaoh, Herod and Nero rolled into one.
Just how far can this guy go in his anti-Christian zeal? What has possessed him to keep this war against Christianity on the top of his priority list? Just why does he feel he must personally destroy the faith of millions of Victorians? Needless to say, I would have answers for all of those questions!
But consider his latest ugly outrage: his ongoing war against Australia’s – and the world’s – greatest ever tennis player, Margaret Court. Of course she has been under attack for years now, for the simple reason that she dares to be a Christian, dares to have a church in Perth that is faithful to the gospel, and is committed to standing up for biblical values in a pagan world.
So the hate-filled secular left have been hating on her quite some time, and have even sought to get the Margaret Court Arena renamed in Melbourne. On and on it goes. Their vile poisonous hatred knows no bounds. And Andrews is leading the pack here.
The most recent episode involves the news that she is about to be awarded an Order of Australia honour on Australia Day. That has got Andrews and the other Christophobes foaming at the mouth. As one news item put it:
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said he [was] “quite sick” of discussing Ms Court after being asked about the backlash toward her during a press conference on Friday. “I’m quite sick of talking about that person every summer,” he said.
“I do not support that but I don’t give out those gongs, that’s not a matter for me, that’s for others.” Andrews stated Court’s views were “disgraceful and hurtful”, adding they “cost lives”. “Calling out bigotry is always important. This bigoted quackery costs lives.”
Dan Andrews just could not contain his irrational hatred. As he said on Twitter:
“I don’t want to give this person’s disgraceful, bigoted views any oxygen. But when others insist on rewarding them with this country’s highest honour – I think it’s worth saying again: Grand Slam wins don’t give you some right to spew hatred and create division. Nothing does.”
Good grief. Talk about a deplorable rant filled with falsehoods and furphies. Talk about showing your true colours. For leftist thugs like Andrews, those who dare to hold opposing points of view are not allowed to speak. Freedom of speech is only for those who hold the “correct” positions on contentious issues. All others must just sit down and shut up. Thanks for that strong stand for freedom and democracy Dan.
And believing what the overwhelming majority of mankind has always believed throughout human history is not bigotry. To simply affirm the truth that marriage is between a man and a woman is not spewing hate. You are the one spewing hate Andrews. You are the one causing division.
Court has done more good for more people – including homosexuals – than Andrews has ever done. Her church food distribution program alone – which serves everyone without partiality – has provided so much help to so many. Court loves all people and wishes the best for them. She even wishes the best for Andrews and prays for him.
And for Andrews to claim that her views were putting people’s lives at risk was utterly bizarre. Indeed, that is a bit rich coming from a guy who is directly responsible for causing the deaths of over 800 innocent people in his spectacular failure to manage the corona crises and the hotel quarantine programme.
Court is doing all she can to help save people’s lives – physically and spiritually. But all Andrews can do is keep pushing his ugly hatred, animosity and bigotry. What a loathsome political leader he is. As Sky News host Rowan Dean said about his remarks:
“In the petty, petulance stakes, nothing of course could match the spoilt, meanspirited, arrogant, virtue-signally narcissism of the premier of Victoria parading in front of his sycophantic press groupies.”
Of course Andrews was not alone in this hateful, bigoted reaction – there are plenty of other Christophobes out there who have been just as bad in their comments. Hardcore God-hater Phillip Adams was also quick to condemn her: “Margaret Court gets an AC – Australia’s top gong – in next week’s Honours List? Far worse than Bettina Arndt’s AM. Or Tony’s knighthood for the Duke. A disgraceful, shameful, tone deaf decision.”
Lesbian activist Magda Szubanksi was quick to comment: “Largely, to be honest, I think she’s irrelevant. We have marriage equality now. There are still many things that need to be worked on … but really I think let her wither on the vine.”
And then fake Christian Father Rod Bower of Gosford Anglican had this to say on his infamous outdoor signpost: “When homophobia is honoured everyone s dishonoured.” Give it a rest Rod. One day you will stand before the Lord to give an account of how you have for so long dishonoured God by your apostasy.
Other Labor big wigs also chimed in with their venom. Anthony Albanese said this: “Margaret Court has already been honoured for her tennis prowess. She’s already an Officer of the Order of Australia. I think it’s clear for everyone to see that making her a Companion of the Order of Australia has nothing to do with tennis.”
Labor Shadow Health Minister Chris Bowen agreed: “(Ms Court has) caused great hurt and anguish for many, many Australians and in my very strong view have not reflected mutual respect and respect for people’s beliefs and respect for people’s sexuality that is an important part of being a modern Australian.”
Wow, the haters sure are gonna hate. But pride of place certainly goes to Andrews. His demonic contempt for this wonderful woman of God is just so frightful to behold. And he always carries on like this when anyone dares to stand for biblical truth and values.
Just like Bower will one day face the one true and living God, so too will Andrews and his ilk. They need to repent now before it is too late. Keep them in your prayers. They sure need it.’https://goodsauce.news/calling-out-australias-most-shameless-christophobe/
‘Things are getting a little weird over in Europe with the Norwegian Nobel Committee that decides on who gets the Peace Prize every year. Yeah, the prize became a completely joke when it was given to Barack Obama for doing absolutely nothing. It wasn’t clear whether the bar would be kept that low forever but it looks like we’ve got our answer here in the Year of Our Weirdness, 2021. We should have known that The Lightbringer’s taint wouldn’t be that easy to wash away.
It started to get ridiculous last week when Black Lives Matter was brought into the faux Peace Prize lunacy, which Matt wrote about:
You read that correctly. I assure you this is not a satire piece from the Babylon Bee… except it was… last year.
In August of last year, the Babylon Bee published a prophetic article titled, “BLM Rioters Awarded Nobel Peace Prize.” It was hilarious. We laughed. How absurd! Obviously, it was too absurd to be taken seriously.
Except now it’s come true. For real. No joke.
And it’s no longer funny.
The Black Lives Matter movement, which is quite literally responsible for dozens of deaths and billions in property damage, has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize.
It really can’t be funny anymore once it becomes true.
The Black Lives Matter movement was nominated by Norwegian MP Petter Eide, who credits the movement with forcing countries outside of the United States to address racism within their own societies. Or something.
Black Lives Matter is an anti-law-enforcement domestic terrorist organization and nothing more. You know that. I know that. Something seems to have gotten lost in the translation to Norwegian, however.’https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2021/02/02/the-morning-briefing-maybe-peace-means-something-completely-different-in-norway-n1422348
And we wonder why the government is as far left as it is?
‘A new survey found that “The Communist Manifesto” is among the Top 10 most assigned books in Ivy League institutions and the top-ranked public colleges in the nation.
The book, written by Karl Marx in 1848, was ranked as the top-fourth text assigned at public colleges and universities, and the seventh-most assigned at Ivy League institutions.’ https://www.thecollegefix.com/communist-manifesto-among-top-10-texts-assigned-at-ivy-league-and-top-public-colleges-survey-finds/
A boy is a boy and a girl is a girl! A male is a male and a female is a female! Now, you know I am smart but I am not politically correct and neither is a Christian organization that mentioned Rachel Levine really being born a male! All I can say when I look at his/her photo is that he/she is ugly!
‘A Christian organization has been suspended from the Twitter social media platform for stating Dr. Rachel Levine’s, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), biological sex.
In recent weeks tech giants like Twitter, Facebook, and Google have been censuring mostly conservative voices on social media platforms, including former President Donald Trump and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell.
“You can now add Focus on the Family’s The Daily Citizen to the list,” Jim Daly, president of the organization, wrote in a blog last week.’https://thepatriotwatchdog.com/breaking-twitter-suspends-christian-group-for-telling-the-truth/
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
‘“Eco-anxiety” is now a popular term. It is being increasingly used in the media to describe an anxiety condition resulting from the fears about the coming environmental destruction.
Climate Xchange for example, defines Eco-anxiety as a “feeling of stress, grief, helplessness, and fear of uncertainty associated with the grim outlook for our climatic and ecological systems if business continues as usual.” The American Psychological Association defines Eco-anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom.”
In essence, it is a psychological condition wherein people are anxious about earth’s future and the changes in climate due to burning of fossil fuels. The mainstream media has been harping around the idea of eco-anxiety for quite sometime now. Interestingly, it has been associated more with the climate fears of the school-going generation.
The coverage of the student climate strike movement and dramatic speeches by celebrity child activists like Greta Thunberg has only added momentum to the eco-anxiety phenomenon among the younger generations.
A survey of 2000 children in the UK found out that 58 percent of them were worried about the impact of climate change on their lives. It also revealed that 1 in 5 of those children had nightmares about climate change.
The root of the eco-anxiety condition is the belief that the climate system is doomed because of anthropogenic global warming, a belief which depends entirely on predictions about the future state of climate.
But how much of these supposedly trustworthy predictions are actually trustworthy? Can eco-anxiety be justified and promoted on the basis of the available evidence?
Greenhouse Gases: Earth’s Temperature Control Knob, or Are they?
Among the various Greenhouse Gases (GHG) blamed for climate change, carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the key gases. Climate doomsayers believe that CO2 emission from anthropogenic energy sources are driving temperatures to dangerous levels and are likely to cause global catastrophe if CO2 emissions are not reduced.
However, this popular belief has failed to stand the test of time. While it is true that human GHG emissions do impact atmospheric temperatures, the extent to which they do is still unclear to scientists.
The world’s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose rapidly between 2000 and 2019. But the change in Global Average Temperatures (GAT) did not follow the same rapid pattern. Instead, satellite temperature measurement show that GAT has remained largely stable since the year 2000, increasing at a rate that is much slower than the warming rate displayed between 1979 to 2000.
What Do We Know About Climate Predictions
The discrepancies between CO2 concentrations and the anticipated warming rates led scientists to admit that their computer climate models are faulty and incapable of reflecting real world temperature changes.
The models were originally designed to be highly sensitive to the increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and therefore consistently predicted higher than actual temperatures. Scientists term this as “hypersensitivity” of models to CO2.
The faulty nature of computer climate models (and their hypersensitivity) were testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology in 2017. More recent analysis in 2020 revealed that these models exaggerate the warming rate by 4 to 5 times higher than the actual observations (1998 to 2014). Some models show a warming rate that is as much as 10 times higher than the actual warming rate.
These are the very same models that the alarmists and mainstream media use to scare us about the future warming. In fact, the model predictions are the primary justification used for the climate doomsday theory.
Unfortunately, the models have not been corrected for their errors in the past decade, and remain highly faulty. Even the next generation of climate models—known as CMIP6—are highly inaccurate with their prediction, exaggerating the warming rate similar to levels of their predecessor models.
Other False Fears about Climate
Though central to the climate doomsday movement, temperature has been just one of the many issues that the alarmists want us to be anxious about. Their scare-mongering has been centered around other factors that are influenced by climate. But sadly, they too do not stand a chance against ground reality.
Melting Poles: It is often said that the on-going global warming is melting the Arctic and Antarctic at unprecedented rates. But the truth is that the ice extent at both the poles are currently at some of the highest levels for the 10,000-year period. Besides, multiple claims about Arctic being ice-free did not come to pass and the fake news peddlers continue to deceive the masses.
Dying Polar Bears: When it comes to the emotional claims about the extinction of various species, it is again evident that illegal hunting and encroachment have been responsible for the decrease in population numbers, and not climate change or seasonal variations. Through conservation efforts, various popular species like Tiger and Polar bear have made a comeback in the wild.
Extreme Weather Events: Contrary to media lies, there has been no significant increase in extreme weather events owing to climate change. The United Nations—considered to be the chief authority on climate change—says that there is no significant correlation between temperature increase and extreme weather events.
Almost all the major scare-mongering about the climate and the ecosystem are false. If anything, the world has become a better place in the past 100 years, with unprecedented improvement in energy, agriculture, technology and management practices which has enabled us to efficiently utilize the natural resources for the benefit of society.
The notion that we are in a climate emergency or that we are headed towards a climate doomsday is completely unscientific and amateurish. Unfortunately, it has resulted in mass hysteria about climate, plunging millions of children and uninformed adults into an anxiety conditions that could have been averted.’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/10/15/eco-anxiety-a-dangerous-and-unscientific-doomsday-construct/
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Thankfully there are those in the law profession that see the lockdowns that have been imposed upon those of us here in Australia are a violation of our individual rights. Therefore, take some time to read what Professor Augusto Zimmerman has to say.
‘As a constitutional lawyer and legal theorist who appreciates our classical liberal tradition of constitutional government I have been against the imposition of the draconian measures to fight COVID-19 since they began. I believe they are arbitrary and ultimately a gross violation of individual rights.
Of course, there never was an emergency that could justify the use of such extreme measures. Politicians have justified the incredible harm they are causing to the Australian people by getting completely drunk on their own sense of self-righteousness. Full of themselves, they proudly warned that we face a great threat but their policies have saved us from the spread of a deadly virus. The privileged members of our political class are therefore able to block our peaceful protests because they think they know better what needs to be done, and even if we are eventually oppressed, silenced and destitute as a result.
A reasonable concern for our well-being is one thing, but the actions taken by politicians during this pandemic have gone well beyond the extreme. What is happening is unacceptable and it gives new meaning to the phrase, ‘a cure worse than the disease’. Of course, some of the worst crimes against humanity have been committed by individuals who believed they were simply doing a ‘great good’. Listening to their patronising remarks brings to mind a famous quote by Christian apologist and novelist C.S. Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive… Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”[1]
The political philosophy of John Locke is particularly relevant to our understanding of the matter. Locke is known as the ‘Founder of Liberalism’ due to his immense contributions to political philosophy. In the constitutional struggle of parliamentary forces against the Stuart monarchs in 17th Century England, Locke elaborated a theory in which the primary justification for civil government rests on the preservation of our fundamental rights to life, liberty and property. Locke’s main concern in his political writings was the elaboration of a legal-political philosophy to underpin the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Locke developed a distinctly Western political tradition based on the idea that everyone is endowed by God with inalienable rights, and that no government must ever violate these basic rights of the individual. More importantly, Locke distinguished what is legitimate political power from a situation in which the exercise of power becomes despotic and/or paternalistic. As Locke himself pointed out:
“The great mistakes about government have … arisen from confounding this distinct power [political power] with another [paternal power]”.[2]
Hence, as noted by Dr Kalle Grill, “paternalism is opposed by the liberal tradition” of limited government under the law.[3]
According to emeritus professor of government Geraint Parry, one of the primary purposes in Locke’s political theory, “was to separate political power from despotic power and paternal power – in other words, to deny that there is any analogy between the political relationship and the relationships which exist between either masters and slaves or father and children.”[4] Accordingly, the paternal leader is the political ruler who does not distinguish the difference between such relationships and limits the liberty of the people with the supposed intent of promoting “their own good” regardless of their personal will. Such an attitude displays a profound disregard for the will of other individuals and it involves behaviour that reveals an attitude of superiority coupled with profound arrogance and self-righteousness.
The Australian Prime Minister is a typical paternal leader. Morrison says he is quite happy that his subjects are behaving well. He is thinking about rewarding us for our “good behaviour”. Meanwhile, he warns that there will be “many more [restrictions] in front of us before [the government] can even possibly contemplate the easing of restrictions.”[5]
“There’s got to be a reward for all of this great effort that’s going in, and there will be, but we’ve got to make sure that’s done at the right time,” the Prime Minister told Sky News.[6]
Morrison recently urged his ‘faithful subjects’ to download a phone app that allows the federal government to trace our every move. His government was initially aiming for a 40 per cent take up of control of ‘people’s movements and the people they come in contact with’.[7] While the app that the federal government developed apparently is voluntary, its introduction naturally raises concerns of such measures becoming more permanent in the future. It also raises serious privacy issues and concerns that the app will later be used for permanent surveillance. The app presently monitors people’s daily interactions using GPS. It uses Bluetooth technology to record contact with other people even if they do not know each other.[8]
Although people under 60 have an extremely small chance of dying from coronavirus, the Prime Minister strongly believes that 95 per cent of the population must take the vaccine against such a virus. His first instincts are always inherently authoritarian and he appears to have developed a visceral distrust of the Australian people. That being so, he initially wanted the vaccine to be as mandatory as possible.[9]
“I expect that it would be mandatory as you can possibly make it,” he said, adding that he is, “talking about a pandemic which has destroyed the global economy and taken the lives of … 430 Australians”.[10]
First of all, what has really destroyed our economy is the behaviour of incompetent leaders such as Morrison himself. There were far better and more efficient ways to fight this virus apart from savage bans and gross violations of fundamental rights being inflicted on the people. Second, the Prime Minister appears to ignore that Australia is a country in which the State has been conceived as deriving from the law and not the law from the State.[11] The Morrison government has no more valid powers than those explicitly granted by the Australian Constitution.[12]
Morrison’s comments about vaccination follow the signing of Australia’s first vaccine deal with drug maker AstraZeneca.[13] This vaccine has been rushed through trials and has never been successfully produced for a coronavirus: it might do more harm than good. Of course, this is the same government that told us that roughly 150,000 Australians would die from COVID-19. It is also the government that unreasonably banned therapeutics such as hydroxychloroquine/zinc, which numerous health experts say “could be our best cure” in the fight against the coronavirus. [14] Furthermore, the Morrison government has miserably failed to protect nursing homes where the highest incidence of victims of COVID-19 has occurred.
During this coronavirus crisis, our politicians seem to be driven less by a reasoned, evidence-fueled strategy of limiting the spread of the disease and the disorganisation of economic life, than by an urge to be seen to be taking action. As a result, countless people are losing their jobs, particularly in the entertainment industry. Inevitably, job losses will lead to far more homelessness, with financial pressures leading to more marriage breakdowns and a dramatic growth in crime, which always increases in times of economic crisis.
What is happening here is nothing short of deeply tragic because, in many ways and on many levels, Australians have been miserably betrayed by their own federal and state politicians. Remarkably, Locke famously argued that governments have no other end, “but the preservation of these rights, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects”. If a government exceeds the limits of its legitimate power, citizens have the fundamental right to resist.
As Locke famously put it:
“Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the rights of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”[15]
We should not be too hasty in dismissing Locke’s advocacy for fundamental rights and the traditional concept of lawful resistance against political tyranny. This is our classical liberal tradition and it firmly communicates that there cannot be one rule for some and another for the rest of us. Federal, state, and territory leaders in this country have been exposed for their authoritarian behaviour as there was never an emergency that could possibly justify the exercise of such arbitrary powers.
The Australian people have a lawful right to resist such acts of tyranny and demand from their ruling political class the lifting of arbitrary restrictions and full restoration of our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Dr Augusto Zimmermann PhD, LLM, LLB, DipEd, CertIntArb is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Perth/WA, and Professor of Law (Adjunct) at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney campus. He is President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), and former Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, from 2012-2017 (appointed by then state Attorney-General Christian Porter). Dr Zimmermann was chair and professor of Constitutional Law at Murdoch University from 2007 to 2017.
[1] C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (William B. Eerdmans, 1948), 74.
[2] John Locke, The Second Treatise, (Cambridge University Press, 1960), para. 169,
[3] Kate Grill, ‘Paternalism’, in R. Chadwick (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2nd ed., Elsevier, 2011). <http://kallegrill.se/texts/Paternalism%20preprint.pdf>
[4] Geraint Parry, ‘Individuality, Politics and the Critique of Paternalism in John Locke’, (1964) 2 Political Studies 1, 1.
[5] Malcolm Farr and Daniel Hurst, ‘Australian Government Plains to Bringing in Mobile Phone App to Track People With Coronavirus’, The Guardian, 14 April 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/14/australian-government-plans-to-bring-in-mobile-phone-app-to-track-people-with-coronavirus>
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Andrew Probyn, ‘Coronavirus Lockdowns Could End In Months If Australians Are Willing To Have Their Movements Monitored’. ABC News, 14 April 2020. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-14/coronavirus-app-government-wants-australians-to-download/12148210>
[9] Richard Furgason, ‘Future Vaccine Should Be Mandatory, Says PM’, The Australian, August 19, 2020. <https://www.australian.com.au/nation/coronavirus-australia-live-news-fears-grow-of-sydney-hotel-breach-outbreack/news-story/cf35fb9ae2901600276fa78ee89a2dc5>
[10] Jade Gailberger, ‘Coronavirus Vaccine Should Be Mandatory: PM’, PerthNow, 19 August 2020, <https://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/coronavirus-vaccine-should-be-mandatory-pm-ng-fc7dc9cd495bcc7332487c07731b4c98>
[11] W A Wynes, Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers in Australia (Sydney: The Law Book Co, 1955), vii.
[12] For instance, whereas Section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution allows for the granting of various services by the federal government, this should not be to the extent of authorising any form of civil conscription. This means that no government in this country, or those acting on its behalf, is constitutionally authorised to make the Australian people take any medicament against their best will, or force children to be vaccinated in order to maintain benefit payments.
[13] Jade Gailberger, ‘Coronavirus Vaccine Should Be Mandatory: PM’, PerthNow, 19 August 2020. <https://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/coronavirus-vaccine-should-be-mandatory-pm-ng-fc7dc9cd495bcc7332487c07731b4c98>
[14] Andrew Bolt; ‘I must call Prime Minister Scott Morrison to Account’, Sky News, 10 August 2020. <https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6179768424001>
[15] John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government [1690] Ch 19, Sec 222.’https://goodsauce.news/its-time-to-resist-the-paternalistic-oppression-of-australias-politicians/
whatyareckon 