The Trojan Horse of Harm Censorship- AP

My latest article for Australian Presbyterian (here) looks at the current fuss about censorship in Australia….

The Trojan Horse of ‘Harm’ Censorship

When we are given a choice between “a billionaire going to court fighting for the right to sow division and show violent videos” or ‘common decency and obeying Australian law”, it’s obvious which side most of us would come down on. Who wants to sow division or show violent videos?  If that were the choice then you would hope that most Christians in Australia would come down on the side of the angels. It was the Prime Minister who said these words against Elon Musk and then argued that “Musk, the owner of Twitter, is so out of touch with what the Australian public want.”

But as always, the devil is in the detail – and I would want to suggest that rather than just a spate between a Prime Minister, supported by the opposition, seeking to prevent a ‘narcissistic billionaire’ from exploiting the tragic stabbings in Sydney last week, what we are seeing goes much deeper. Indeed, it is a potential existential threat to freedom of speech and thus to freedom of religion.

Now before this descends even further into the gutter, can I ask anyone reading this to avoid the immediate drawing up of cultural/political battle lines and the pejorative language that always follows – “Far Right!”, “Communist!” etc?   We should be able to think rather than just emote according to our feelings at the time.  And therein lies one of the main problems here – the government seems to be struggling with the concept of us being able to think and judge for ourselves.  They believe they should protect us and keep us safe so that we do not get disturbed by these horrible realities.

Let’s ask some questions.

Why does the E-Safety commissioner think that the images of the Bondi victims are ok to show on social media, but the video showing the stabbing of the bishop is not?

I have seen that video and whilst it is horrific because of what is going on – it is not nearly as bad as much of the violence we see on the Internet – which the e-safety commissioner seems happy to allow.   For example, I have seen much more horrific images coming out of Gaza and the Ukraine.  Why are these permissible?

I note in passing another issue here.  There does seem to be a double standard.  The response to the stabbing of the bishop included a riot.  The police stated that they would prosecute everyone involved and so far, they are making good on their word, identifying and arresting several individuals.  And yet there has not been one single arrest from the evil demonstrations at the Sydney Opera House where chants of ‘kill the Jews’ (if not gas the Jews) meant that Jews were actually banned from entering the CBD at that time.  Why no arrests for that?  Or for the preacher who hoped that Jews would drown in the spit of their enemies?  Or the one who asked whether the price of a Jew’s life was worth the price of a knife?  Not one arrest.   Are there no cameras in the CBD?   The Assyrian Christians, many of whom have fled from Islamic persecution in their own countries, have every right to ask why they are the ones being targeted?

In the same way we need to ask if the E-safety commissioner is now going to demand that all images of 9/11, or the Bali bombings, or the Lindt café shooting, or numerous other violent events involving Australians, should be taken down?   What about the death of George Floyd – circulated endlessly throughout the world, inciting riots and causing great harm to ‘social cohesion’?      Why only this one?

The answer comes in that dreadful phrase – ‘social cohesion’.   The trouble is that the video being shown could incite division between Assyrian Christians (and others who have fled Islamic persecution) and the Islamic communities in Australia cities.  So, the government wants to put a lid on it.  They are prepared to allow violent images from other contexts because they do not think that affects the public so much.

‘Social cohesion’ is the term that the Chinese government uses to censor its own people.   Why are we seeking to copy the Chinese in this authoritarian illiberal measure?

Government minister Tanya Plibersek went much further when she said that this ban was to protect the Australian community from the harmful impact of showing this terrible stuff on social media.  Well, it is terrible stuff.  As is a lot on social media.  And there is a great deal that is harmful.  For example, the transgender cult which is swamping so many of our young people is largely social media driven.  Will the E-Safety Commissioner seek to prevent that harmful content?  We all know the answer.

The problem is not in terms of wanting to prevent harm – who would not want that?  The problem is who defines what is harmful?  Likewise, the problem is not in terms of wanting to prevent misinformation – but who gets to determine what that misinformation is?   I think the devil is the father of lies and anything that distorts the Bible or goes against it is ‘misinformation’ – but that does not mean that I want to see all militant atheists or people from other religions silenced!   I prefer to counter harm by speaking truth.  I don’t want a new blasphemy law – but that is where Scotland, Ireland, Canada and perhaps Australia are now heading.  Anyone who blasphemes any of the State’s new doctrines will be considered harmful.

In Scotland there are those who think that the new hate crime law is specifically designed to discourage criticism of Islam.   It was more than a little disturbing that a number of Australian news outlets ran comments and articles along the lines of the bishop being a ‘bit of an extremist, who spoke against Islam’ – as if that justified to some degree the stabbing.   Are we moving to a situation where we will be told that anything which could upset Islamists could be considered ‘harmful’ and ‘detrimental to social cohesion’?

The trouble is when the State decides that only it can state what harm is, or indeed what the truth is!   Ironically in seeking to prevent misinformation in this authoritarian way – they end up in promoting it – because they drive it underground where it is much harder to be contradicted – especially when the State itself sometimes ends up being a purveyor of misinformation.

Scotland with its hate crimes bill, is about to be trumped by Canada with its even more extreme version.  In the words of the Canadian bill, you can be prosecuted and fined $50,000 for saying anything “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group’.   On that basis I could personally, or on behalf of the church – sue countless individuals!  But of course, we all know that the law will not be applied equally.  This is only what the government considers to be harmful.

As Australia moves in that direction  the definition of hate online will largely be determined by the governments E-Safety Commissioner (or Censor in Chief), Julia Inman Grant, who before becoming Commissioner worked in the US Congress and Microsoft (for 17 Years) and well as Twitter in its pre-Musk years – and was also appointed one of the Agile50 – the world’s most influential leaders revolutionising government by the World Economic Forum.  If you made this stuff up, you would be accused of misinformation – but the truth remains that Australia’s freedom of speech is now largely dependent on a WEF appointee!   Someone who is well acquainted with a global wave of censorship which is seeking to prevent anyone who goes against ‘the narrative’ from being able to speak.

It is ironic that Julia Grant also said that Elon Musk does not dictate here what we are doing domestically with our laws when she is the one demanding that no footage of the Sydney bishops stabbing should be permitted to be shown anywhere in the world!  In other words, an American Big Tech employee in Australia gets to determine what can and cannot be said throughout the whole world!  For her it must be a dream job – after all, as she pointed out in one video – Australia doesn’t have a First Amendment!

And therein lies the problem.  Personally, I did not share the image of the bishop being stabbed.  Nor do I share the violent images I see from Gaza, Ukraine etc.   But I want to be able to say that a Christian bishop was stabbed by an Islamist – if a Christian bishop was stabbed by an Islamist.   Without The Ministry of Truth telling me that I cannot do so because it would be perceived to be harmful.

In the history of the Church, there have been many times when governments accused Christians of being ‘harmful’ because we proclaimed the truth of Christ.  Just think of Acts 17 where Paul and his companions disrupted ‘the social cohesion’ of the communities in Thessalonica and Berea – causing riots and ‘turning the world upside down’.    Or the Scottish Covenanters who disrupted the social cohesion demanded by the King, because they refused to go along with the State-sponsored religion!

But some will argue that we are not in that situation. Agreed.   But it could end up being a lot worse.  Neither Caesar nor King Charles had the technical resources nor worldwide powers that our governing elites have or are seeking.    Fighting for freedom of speech and freedom of religion is no use when they have gone.  We need to fight for them while we have them and whilst there is still some semblance of equality before the law.     This is not to argue for an absolute free speech or the right to show violence on the internet…. but it is to argue that the government should not get to limit our speech in the name of ‘social cohesion’ or get to create a law which does not apply to all equally.  These are dangerous times.  It is ever more necessary to pray “for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).

Why an anti-conversion Therapy Bill in Australia is a Huge Threat to Churches – CT

Bigotry, Anger and Confusion – AP