Free Speech
Intellectual Tribalism
With successive waves of migrants, it is natural for people of the same group to coalesce around the same place for mutual support. This is a prevalent self-organising method for first generation migrants. By the time the second generation participates in the labour force, this geographic gathering dissipates quickly. This process doesn’t imply tribalism and doesn’t result in long-term entrenchment of economic ghettos. The success of multiculturalism so far has been a two-way street. The migrants themselves wanted to integrate in Australian society. From Chinese to European to Indochinese and other migrants, Australia has achieved one and a half century of positive change. But this should not mask the challenges for any country to absorb large numbers of new entrants who hold strongly opposite value systems.
There are broadly two types of migrants that can integrate easily – those coming from a similar free market open society and those fleeing for their lives from a monolithist regime. These types have no intellectual or practical reasons to resist integration. The Chinese diaspora is a fine example for how to be great migrant citizens in the West. Fleeing war, persecution and poverty at home in the 19th and much of the 20th century, they spread to Hong Kong and Southeast Asia, then the rest of the world. They represent some of the most resilient people on the planet. Like the Jews, diaspora Chinese could build a livelihood in one adopted country, face discrimination, lose that livelihood, move to another country and re-build their fortune successfully. They usually worked in family businesses to start with, contributed to society and moved on. Second and third generation diaspora became professionals but maintained their parents’ connections with their previous land. With Deng Xiaoping’s modernisation of China in the 1980s, the diaspora reconnected with the homeland to facilitate trade between old home and new home countries. Part of the rapid rise of China could be attributed to the diaspora. The Chinese are well connected to each other but not tribal as they can work with other groups with ease. They are highly effective commercially and tend to rely on trust rather than written agreements given a background of informal business dealings. Their integration into Western society was successful due to their own effort, coping with older generation racism pragmatically while building support networks and raising children with clear meritorious expectations.
Post-war European and other Asian migrant waves have had similar experiences to the Chinese, although facing diminishing instances of discrimination as time went by. The least traumatic would have been the Vietnam War refugees who arrived in Australia when “White Australia” had been discarded, and well-coordinated social support services run by the Churches and government were facilitating early-stage integration. Overall, the diaspora Chinese, post-war European and more recent Asian waves have been successfully integrated because of one common thread – Individual Liberty. They had suffered persecution or discrimination at home and looked at Australia as the Promised Land. Their value system is the same as locals so there has not been much effort needed to sell Australia as is to them.
The tribalism that is detrimental to Australia is not the early migrant congregation tendency – mistaken for migrant ghettos – but a mindset that is so exclusionary that is antithetical to Australia’s. This can be about race, religion, ideology, class, category, gender, income, perceived inequity, what has been described as “identity groups”. These trapped value-cultural separatists are the true drivers of ghettos. If such exclusionary mindset carries grievance that goes hand in hand with the belief that the current system is beyond redemption, then it can pose a major risk to liberal society. Once someone has cast the free market liberal democracy as unsalvageable, they give themselves justification to use violence to damage the status quo. If the anti-establishment tendencies have a companion, a group, to share thoughts and belong to, then we have radicalism in the making. This is the standard-bearer monolithist that would coalesce in packs to obtain new identity and fight for a cause or cause trouble.
In the general population, however, intellectual tribalism is a whole lot more dangerous to Australia than migrant cohorts. At least, with known groups that Home Affairs would have profiles on, dealing with them shouldn’t be too onerous. What the West faces is a whole generation of mild to serious cases of monolithism that populate society. Australia has not escaped this trend. The convenience of being a monolithist is that they don’t have to argue about their cause. It is a neat trick that has been adopted by subterfuge by last century Marxists and today’s fringe intellect groups who have been caught up in symbiotic relationships with foreign agents eager to drive wedges in Western societies. In the U.S., they have been pushing Critical Race Theory, Modern Monetary Theory, Slavery Reparations and whatever thought bubble that happens to soothe their perpetually affronted souls.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a school of thought that seeks to dig up and invent more problems related to perceived racism in America. Not satisfied with visible racism, these scholars have tried to look at the “intersectionality” between race and other spheres and “isms” of society, particularly the legal system. This is designed to challenge the solution that the U.S. has found following the Civil War, that the way to eradicate racism is to make everyone equal under the law. Since America has undergone a wholesale rewriting of the legal system for over a century to ensure no racial discrimination is present in legislation, social activists are looking elsewhere for elusive answers to their perceived racism. They look for causes of unequal outcome, as if outcome equality could ever be attained anywhere, much less in a free market open society. CRT purports to examine social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism. A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals. In the proponents’ eyes, this means casual human interaction and objective institutional occurrences should be subject to government legislation, monitoring and control. Would this include compelling people what to say and how to say it? Where to start and what is the limit?
The issue with these modern-day purveyors of social conflict is that they have nothing new to add. Almost a century before the American Civil War, William Wilberforce, together with compatriots like Thomas Clarkson, was already fighting for the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. Their work culminated in the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. This development influenced U.S. abolitionists such as John Qunicy Adams, the 6th President, and Stephen Decatur, who provided intellectual and political momentum for the anti-slavery movement across the Atlantic. Today, social engineering and social constructionism continue unabated in the mind of monolithists and their ideologies are being used by charlatans to garner financial contributions and political support. They elevate storytelling over evidence and reason, reject the concepts of truth and merit, and oppose Basic Freedoms being exerted in our society. Australia needs to be vigilant to keep this type of subversive propaganda in check in classroom curricula by providing proper intellectual grounding and discourse on Western civilisation. The risk to free market open societies is in the citizens’ tolerance for differences and diversity that encourages the fringe dwellers to take centre-stage with their hubris. When maturity clashes with infantile tantrums, maturity tends to retreat in forbearance. Given a wide berth, the infants lash out for more, attacking keepers of law and order. Defunding the Police washed through the U.S. like a plague until the charlatans that had been egging the thugs to wreak havoc on urban society called the Police to safeguard their own gated estates.
In Western society, we are bifurcating in Sowell’s unconstrained and constrained visions in more ways than one. Absolutists believe in the all-encompassing righteousness of human beings (always themselves) and have no qualms about indoctrinating followers of the rules by which humans (ie, others) are expected to live. Such indoctrination always ends in demanding, mandating, persecuting, injuring, torturing and murdering the non-conformists. They view themselves as ruling saints burdened by a legacy of social guilt, and any moral hazard should result in severe punishment for others and never for themselves. There is no comeback for this kind of society once presumed saints turn into the devil. Those who do not adhere to monolithist ideologies, those who are honest with themselves, find it difficult to entrust any single individual, group or party to be gatekeepers and political shepherds without question. Especially when the gatekeepers also get given the monopoly on violence. The rights of reply to free speech, free assembly and free contest for political power are inalienable. We set up society with a written legal document, the Constitution, because we know we are fallible instead of perfectly saintly or evil. We have a humane society as a result.
The spectacle that the U.S. has gone through in the last decade, which Europe is going through, could only arise due to this conflict of visions. Those believing in systemic checks and balances to avoid catastrophic failures due to the extreme tendencies of human beings holding absolute power have defended liberal democracies. Those who believe in absolute moral high ground that they possess are constantly pushing society to be re-engineered to their fixations. The former belief system is consistent with the rationale of the ever-evolving free market open society. The latter matches the Final Solution of absolutist ideologies of Fascism, Marxism and Caliphatism. The quiet majority have started to speak up in social media and street protests against monolithist groups, who are versed in revolutionary tactics one way or another such as calling people names, accusing them of evil intent and threat to democracy, online tactics that caused civil society to pull back into its sensible zone, not keen to venture out. People vacated the public square to maintain peace. And here was where certain absolutist elites met the infantile thugs, joining hands in a corrupt political machination aimed at bringing down the West’s legacy while being bereft of ideas on how to progress humanity to the next phase of civilisation.
Parts of the political class protected the business oligarchs in return for financial and media support, which enabled the former to buy the thugs to keep the populace under control. In the U.S., politicians established crowdfunding for criminals to stay out of jail on bail, and to avoid monetary bail altogether, providing a “safety net” to criminals that smashed and looted department stores and torched Tesla cars and showrooms. The circular protection racket swept up all sorts of actors, industries and practices. The average taxpayers paid for them all, urban damage and riot police and what not, feeding the monsters that have kept them mentally coy. It would be a mistake to think these U.S. and European states of mind haven’t arrived in force in Australia.
Australians have been letting the authorities deal with thugs and interference agents. But in doing so, they may have sent the wrong signals to government that they would not protest draconian measures to keep them quiet. We have seen the Canadian government using excuses of social unrest to lock up peaceful protestors’ bank accounts, the U.K., Germany, and other countries’ governments persecute citizens for crimes of speech (and now even of thoughts) to repress the tensions that arose from failure of value integration. Their ploy is “pre-emptive” crime control, scanning social media posts for any anti-government views to label people “potential terrorists”. Such CCP-style social credit score means a sorry mark on people's career. If we think that can only happen to those who “deserve it”, we’ll be in for a surprise. To preserve our Basic Freedoms, we must pay requisite attention to the size and roles assumed of government, and to unity of purpose. We must require our government to vacate the town square for us and to use our taxes to protect the public safety of that square. We must take back the agenda for content and have total freedom and security in public communication, online or otherwise, to remind people and advance the philosophical and cultural roots that anchor our economic and political freedoms. Any activity that goes against the fundamental tenets of free market capitalism or transparent open society should be nipped in the buds. This is the only way to keep away tribalism and to maintain an inclusive, unified Australian identity while allowing ourselves to disagree with each other to our hearts’ content.
Law and Order
To help shield the public in the West that harbours a rich tapestry of non-violent beliefs and harmless traditions, who are moderate and just want to carry on with their lives, strong, effective law and order response to radical troublemakers – CCP paid protestors or Islamist activists or radicals or whoever else – should be pursued and be seen to be pursued with vigour. The book should be thrown at cultural extremists of all shades for any crime against individuals from any walk of life. Increased social unrest in America and Europe caused by violent monolithist groups, many of them paid by supranational adversaries of the West, has led to serious political backlash against innocent citizens. Anti-refugee and anti-Muslim sentiments have surged and legislation is being introduced in both continents against all forms of immigration. The pretend practice of indiscriminate prayer time and location in public space is a threat to civil society so European governments are looking at forbidding it, the same as most countries of Europe have banned the niqab or burqa in public places for security reason. It will not be long before blanket bans on impromptu outdoor public praying anywhere are introduced for traffic safety or peace disturbance reasons. The more hubris activists try to display, the more likely the rest of the community suffer from general loss of freedom. This is part of their scheme of causing friction within society to collect unwitting disaffected followers. Australia should try to pre-empt such fake outrage and potential public backlash by keeping the cultural pendulum from swinging away from traditional Western societies’ mores and traditions, which is the least that can be asked of all citizens. We don’t want erosion of freedom. We want hubris to stop and violence prevented. Strong immigration policy and law and order that treats every citizen equal under the law – within the framework of Basic Freedoms – is a critical element of this pre-emptive strategy.
The main problem in the E.U. (and U.S. until recently) is lax border policy and lack of visible law and order. The dysfunction in foreign (and by implication, immigration) policy is due to the arms-length relationship between the people of member state countries and E.U. policymakers, who have powers to dictate continental policy. The latter have either chosen to ignore the public as they are too busy reengineering European society or are confident that member state governments are on their side. If so, it is the responsibility of the public in member states to demand policy change at the ballot box.
In the U.S., the Biden administration brought in 15-20 million illegal migrants to beef up the Democratic Party’s voting base. To convey a sense of anarchy during the 2020 Presidential campaign, Democrat state governments saw fit to allow city wide riots and looting by withdrawing police intervention, playing base politics at the public’s expense. Among the activities was the 100-day siege of a courthouse and abandonment of a police precinct in Portland, Oregon, where both Governor and Mayor were Democrats. Such ideological gross negligence over social and political violence has done a huge disservice to the black community, who is tarred by the same brush as Black-Lives-Matter and Antifa, the latter being considered for domestic terrorist organisation designation following public testimonies.
In Oct 2025, during violent clashes in Melbourne’s CBD amid the “March for Australia” rally (protesting issues like immigration and government policies), the Victoria Police Northwest Metro Region Commander publicly blamed “issue-motivated groups on the left” for most of the attacks on officers. The statements effectively named and shamed those left-wing activists as the primary “troublemakers” responsible for hurling rocks, glass shards, and other projectiles at Police. Two officers were hospitalised, and Police described the day as “appalling” and a “bad day for Victoria Police.” The broader Police response was equally strong. The Victoria Police Association Secretary called the attackers “dirty, filthy, disgusting animals” intent on “havoc and anarchy,” likening the scenes to 1970s Northern Ireland. No specific names of individuals or groups were publicly released by Police, but the attribution to “left-wing” actors was explicit and unprompted. Such clear attribution of violence and extremist behaviour to the correct source is much needed clarity from leadership in a society that is subject to constant political double-talk and moral relativism.
In agreeing with this Police response to violence in the streets, we should clarify that non-violent protest that doesn’t disturb the peace or breach local regulations should always be welcome. This is part of freedom of speech and lawful assembly. Politicians sometimes make inane utterances like “freedom of speech does not extend to being divisive and hateful”. Divisive to whom and hateful of what? The law already frames speech that can be made and speech that cannot, and “divisive” is not one of them. Politicians make speech aimed at divide-and-conquer all the time.
We can disapprove of someone’s speech, but we must defend their right to make the speech. Freedom of speech is implied from our system of representative and responsible government established by Sections 7 and 24 of the Australian Constitution (which require direct choice by the people and responsible ministerial government). The current test as refined in 2024-25 cases confirms protection of communication on political or governmental matters, though it is not absolute. A law limiting free speech will be invalid if it fails the following three-part test (McCloy v New South Wales 2015, reaffirmed in LibertyWorks v Commonwealth 2021 and subsequent cases):
Does the law effectively burden freedom of political communication (in its terms, operation, or effect)?
Does the law have a legitimate purpose that is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of government?
Is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted (ie, proportionate) to achieving that purpose?
This involves assessing suitability, necessity, and adequate balance.
If the law fails step 2 or 3, it is unconstitutional to the extent of the invalidity. In general, what Is protected:
Communication about federal, state, or local government or political matters
Includes criticism of politicians, public officials, policies, elections, referenda, and the functioning of government
Covers almost any medium (speech, writing, art, protest, online posts, etc).
What is not protected by the Implied Freedom:
Purely private or commercial speech
Hate speech, racial vilification, or incitement to violence (these can be regulated by statute)
Defamation (Australia has strong defamation laws; truth alone is not always a defence)
Offensive language, obscenity, or blasphemy in some states
National security, counterterrorism, or foreign interference laws that restrict political communication (eg, the 2018 Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme and Espionage and Foreign Interference Act have been upheld).
Practical Reality in 2025:
Australia consistently ranks lower on press freedom indices than the U.S. and other Western countries (Reporters Without Borders 2024: Australia #39)
There is no general “right to free speech” in workplaces, schools, private property, or on private platforms
Political speech enjoys stronger protection than in the past (especially since the 2020-23 High Court cases striking down parts of Victorian and Tasmanian anti-protest laws), but the freedom remains narrow and is subject to “reasonable limits”
In short, Australia has a constitutionally implied (not express) freedom of political communication that is subject to proportionate legislative restrictions. It is narrower than the American First Amendment understanding of free speech.
There is a risk faced by the Australian public in the way free speech can be curtailed into fear speech as witnessed in the U.K. and E.U. and through the size and deliberate reach of our government. Even though the Westminster system protects our civil rights through prompt Parliamentary accountability every three years, there is a case for Australia to consider adopting the U.S. First Amendment in a Bill of Rights with minimum qualification. This is to deter potential gross infringement of our Basic Freedoms.
