Welcome to the age of political slavery.
Free speech as a concept is dead in Australia. Culturally and legally it has become a fossil of another era, soon to be placed in a dusty museum next to the ossified skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
And while the big extinct lizard would have posed a threat to humanity, speaking the truth only poses a threat to those in charge. Nature might have ‘selected’ T-Rex for termination, but it has done no such thing with free speech. It has been unnaturally ‘selected’ out of our culture by those pursuing and protecting their own power.
Another legal commentary has been written about my case against the Chief of Defence Force, confirming the view that we now live in an age of political slavery. This time it was penned by Michael Barnes of Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers. He had this to say:
The Full Bench rejected the notion that the matter was a case of Mr Gaynor having been terminated for expressing his political opinion. Rather, the Court found Mr Gaynor was terminated for not complying with the policies and directions of the ADF.
Put in plain English, it is unlawful to sack someone for expressing personal political views. It is unlawful to pass laws silencing the expression of personal political views. But it is entirely lawful for government departments and businesses to implement ‘cultural change’ agendas silencing the expression of political views and to then sack someone, not because they express views, but because they are ‘disobedient’ by expressing those views.
Which pretty much amounts to the same thing as sacking someone for expressing political views.
As only the legal profession can, it has twisted words and meanings to come to the conclusion that black is white.
And here’s the warning for all Australians. Barnes goes on to say:
Accordingly whether you are in the Army, the public sector or the private sector, [an] employer has the capacity to set out a range of policies over issues that pertain not simply to the narrow traditional economic focus of an enterprise but to a much broader range of policy criteria including being a “good corporate citizen”.
A breach of these policy prescriptions in the workplace certainly can give rise to disciplinary consequences, but more importantly, a breach of the policy prescription by your behavior outside of the workplace, including what is said in social media, can still bring an employee to account.
Remember all those crazy people suggesting that laws legalising ‘homosexual marriage’ would hit freedom for six?
They were right.
A business can legally back the rainbow and sack anyone who might dare to offer resistance in their own private capacity. Not because they are silencing ‘free speech’.
But because the employee just happens to have a ‘disobedient’ moral world view.
This is far more than silence. It’s the forced observance of a new state-imposed religion in every aspect of your life.
And to make matters worse, the ‘policies’ that are used to sack you don’t even need to exist at all.
In my case, Defence did not have a policy requiring my silence in my personal life. Instead, it had a policy that explicitly permitted the expression of private political views on any matter.
It’s a little hypocritical.
But it should be no surprise that a nation that willingly embarks on a path to totalitarianism will necessarily need to accept that the laws and policies in place today are meaningless, in the sense that they can be interpreted any way the dudes in charge want.
The same legal system that ruled against free speech in my case is quite happy to support it in others. Last year the High Court ruled against Tasmanian laws banning protests that would hinder or obstruct businesses in a case brought by former Greens leader, Bob Brown:
At the hearing in May, Brown’s counsel, Ron Merkel, told the court the law discriminated against protesters by allowing companies to give consent to certain political activities, in effect silencing only those opposed to logging.
The message is clear.
When it comes to free speech and the law, it does not really matter what you do or who you impact. All that matters is whether you are deemed ‘progressive’. If so, you’ll get a pass. If not, you won’t.
As I said, welcome to the age of political slavery.