John,

"The first quote you provided is actually just Michaelia Cash paraphrasing Megan Davis, who later clarified the matter confirming that the Uluru Statement is indeed one page"

You can view the original instances where Megan Davis and Pat Anderson claimed the Uluru statement was a lengthy document, as I have. The paraphrasing was accurate. The Uluru Statement obtained by Sky News from the NIAA via an FOI request was also a lengthy document:

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Document-14-1.pdf

The clarifications that the statement was a single page all came after cult leader Albo made his silly claim in parliament and contradict what was said until that time.

As for dredging up the infamous RMIT "fact check", note that RMIT did 100% of their checks against claims of "No" campaigners. This is in contravention of the International Fact-Checking Network’s (IFCN) Code of Principles, to which RMIT is a signatory. According to an IPA report:

"These principles mandate that
signatories uphold commitments to fairness and
impartiality including that they ‘not concentrate their
fact-checking unduly on any one side’."

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/IPA-Research-The-Arbiters-of-Truth-Analysis-of-biased-fact-checking-organisations-during-the-2023-Voice-Referendum-FINAL.pdf

I have just been reminded that Albanese’s legislation represents the third attempt in Australia, once under the Morrison government and now twice under the Albanese government, to ‘regulate’ digital platforms using the threat of fining them into bankruptcy; to coerce them into censoring anyone who doesn’t toe the official line.

We should pray the there will be no 'third time lucky' for this rotten legislation. And pray is all we can do. No referendum this time. No opposition worthy of the name.

ttbn,

Thanks for starting the discussion. I found it interesting and useful. Further, it led me to a great publication on the matter by John Storey and Margaret Chambers through the IPA. The conclusion included a succinct warning:

"Far from the Voice referendum campaign being
dominated by the misinformation of the No case,
a key feature of the debate was the unprecedented
attempt to silence one side. This process was led and
championed by fact checking organisations, whose
codes of principles explicitly require that they act in
a neutral and unbiased manner.
Correcting this narrative is important. The federal
government has proposed radical new censorship
laws in the form of the Communications Legislation
Amendment (Combatting Misinformation
and Disinformation) Bill 2023. This law would
empower a government agency, the Australian
Communications and Media Authority, to
punish social media platforms that fail to censor
‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. It is likely that
the blame attributed to misinformation for the failed
referendum will give impetus to censorious new laws.
But the referendum should instead be a cautionary
warning against such laws. The fundamental
problem with censoring ‘misinformation’ is deciding
who determines truth and falsehood. In the case
of the referendum, organisations that purported
to be neutral, and to whom responsibility was
given to determine truth and falsehood, acted in
a demonstrably one sided and biased manner. If
organisations like these were empowered to censor
online communications, the damage done to free
political debate in this country would be profound."

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/IPA-Research-The-Arbiters-of-Truth-Analysis-of-biased-fact-checking-organisations-during-the-2023-Voice-Referendum-FINAL.pdf

Fester,

So far, it seems that bureaucracy ACMA will decide who can be heard and who cannot, and who will be punished.

But the High Court might have something to say about that, and I have a dim memory of constitutional lawyer, Professor David Flint, saying at the time the HC inertervened in the Giles/detainees fiasco saying something like 'don't knock it because the High Court might be handy if the government brings out its censorship Bill again'.

Like everything Albanese does (e.g the Voice) there is a lot of secrecy and unknowns about this Bill. What would expect from a regime that wants to interfere with the right to free speech and opinions?

Dear John,

«My point was that the world just isn’t that exciting.»

A new topic then, OK, let me reflect on this, there are many facets to it.

«Personally, I would find it exciting if, say, the Jews really were plotting a New World Order, or if...»

Personally, if I were looking for more excitement in my life then politics and world-affairs would be one of the last places I would be looking for it.

«Some conspiracy theorists actually find comfort in ‘New World Order’ conspiracies»

While others find sexual satisfaction in BDSM - each to their own...

«The idea that no one is at the wheel terrifies them more than evil cabals.»

Since God is already, figuratively speaking, at the wheel, I am neither concerned that this wheel remain unattended, nor welcome others who attempt to mess around with that wheel.

But then, each to their own pleasures, each to their own beliefs and each to their own fears.

«No, I wouldn’t inform the police even if it were against the law to have relatives send you plastic bags from overseas.»

Much appreciated, thank you!

«That’s why I said “rationally justified”.»

I was aware of it and nearly related to this adverb, but then as I was approaching my 350-word limit, I didn't.

Essentially, "rationally" is a relative term which depends on one's prior premises, both conscious and otherwise: Even when one's logic is perfect, should one dig persistently enough into their rationalisation, one is bound to arrive at its underlying irrational roots.

«This is irrelevant nitpicking because my answer would be the same either way.»

My answers to both questions is different:

Who are bills presumed to benefit? Everyone, including myself.
Who do bills actually benefit? Long answer, but not me anyway.

Some short-term benefit? Some temporary comfort perhaps?
But that would not be worth my later suffering which I would experience should I let myself gain benefits/comforts/pleasures from the suffering of others.

If nothing else, enforced laws bring fear. Would I like to benefit from the fear of others? Personally, my answer is 'NO'.

[continued...]

[...continued]

That fear which governments instil in their subjects, is NOT IN MY NAME.
I do pray that God help me and give me the strength, should I somehow find myself in that place (i.e. in parliament), not to act like present legislators, doing unto others what I would have hated being done unto myself.

«It's more practical than philosophical - those who benefit from roads, healthcare, and security inherently accept that they are part of a larger social system.»

So "social-contract" is not a contract, just a name containing the word 'contract', referring to something so nebulous, so vague "part of a larger social system" that we cannot really say anything about it.

That we are all inter-related? Well of course, agreed, but HOW EXACTLY related? - not by contract anyway.

«The social contract doesn't require that everyone shares the same worldview (chaos vs cosmos), but that we agree on some basic rules to allow society to function.»

Even while in reality many do not agree with these "basic" rules?
As the wolf told the lamb before swallowing it: "Your logic is excellent, that you live downstream and therefore cannot contaminate my drinking water... yet I'll eat you anyway!".

«participating in a system of shared governance where we can challenge laws, influence policy, and protect our freedoms.»

Yes, we can challenge till we are hoarse.
I have no influence whatsoever and yes, I tried, I issued petitions on issues painful to me, but usually I don't even hear back, except once when a government-minister exclaimed "interesting!", and that was it.

Anyway, I do not wish to share governance or make laws in the first place, making myself a dictator over others and taking away their freedoms instead of them taking away mine.

«it’s a balance of interests»

So no principles? No right or wrong? Just might-is-right?

«participating in the system also gives you the tools to change it through voting, advocacy, or protest.»

Straight from the signage in Orwell's "animal farm".
I thought we were having a serious discussion...