/cont
The latest moves on the climate front are to be expected. The alarmist and anti-capitalist groups have long ago decided that the best way to win the climate debate was to not have it. Just declare that the "science is settled". The current claims about the efficacy of the 62%-70% targets go unrebutted among the political leadership even within the Liberals, because there is no longer any way to have a rational climate debate. Just on climate censorship, everyone should see how the science is done these days to see how the truth is being suppressed.... http://tiny.cc/v4xs001.

The pendulum was always going to swing back to the right, to the family, to Christianity especially as times got increasingly hard for the working class in the US under the globalist elite. Of course the pendulum got an almighty push from Trump. Australia doesn't have a Trump and is unlikely to produce one. So the pendulum will take a little longer to swing back. But back it will swing.

Hi Paul,
"Agree, but where do you draw the line on extreme 'hate speak', incitement to violence, scapegoating, disinformation, distortions and untruths designed to engender hatred towards others within society."

I'm not convinced that everything others claim to be hate speech actually is, I think many issues have merit and are worthy of serious discussion, but some terms seek to stifle discussion, frame a narrative and ensure issues are never dealt at all with adequately.
- And both sides of the political aisle seem to have their own extreme members and viewpoints and are as bad as each other.

'incitement to violence' - I will stand against any outright 'calls for violence' against any group or individual but 'incitement' (to violence or hatred) might be a more grey area depending on the particular issue.
I'm not sure I'd oppose anything considered incitement, if that thing was a part of seeking a serious discussion and seeking a better outcome, for example a discussion on immigration numbers might lead to those who oppose such a discussion because it goes against their interests to argue that said discussion incites hatred of immigrants, but this doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't be had.

"One danger with this Charlie Kirk assassination is the runaway train invoking Christianity, God, patriotism, with the extreme conservatives calling for blood as a necessary action to cleans society of undesirable elements."

- They are a dying breed becoming irrelevant, by their own hand, and maybe because of immigration a little too, I doubt many Christians are immigrating to Australia.
Blind support for Israels atrocities exposes them as hypocrites unfit to hold opinions that cherish and value human life.

mhaze,

You’re right that the reaction to Kirk’s death feels like an inflection point, but only because of how quickly it’s been mythologised and weaponised. We still have no confirmed motive. Declaring Kirk a martyr or historical turning point is premature at best, political theatre at worst.

The "outpouring of grief" has been matched by a wave of dangerous rhetoric, including Trump’s call to "beat the hell out of radical-left lunatics." That’s not mourning. That’s mobilisation. And those cheering the job losses of a few insensitive left-wing posters are the same ones howling when Jimmy Kimmel was axed for mocking Trump.

That’s not a defence of free speech, it’s just wanting it both ways.

Your reference to "Flyrod riots" and BLM violence is familiar but misleading. According to multiple independent reviews, 93% of BLM protests were peaceful, and right-wing extremists have committed the vast majority of ideologically driven murders in the US over the past decade - and, by some measures, the past century.

As for censorship, protecting children online doesn’t mean outlawing anonymity. We already restrict access to gambling and pornography. Requiring some form of age assurance for adult content isn’t a conspiracy to unmask everyone, it’s just basic digital safety.

And climate? The only people trying to shut down the debate are those demanding equal airtime for long-debunked myths. “The science is settled” doesn’t mean “no more questions.” It means the burden of proof has shifted, just like it did with tobacco. Debate continues, but it’s evidence-based, not PR-driven.

You say the pendulum will swing back to the right. Maybe. But if you need to distort data, pre-empt motives, and frame every safeguard as tyranny… maybe it’s not the pendulum swinging.

Maybe it’s just the narrative you’ve chosen to believe.

Dear Paul,

«where do you draw the line»

For me it is clear: one should be free to say anything whatsoever - but only to those who consent to listen to them:
the freedom not to hear should override the freedom to speak.

Public channels should be especially careful not to air anything that may be controversial, just bare-bone facts, limited to what they are supposed to report. One should be able for example to listen to the weather forecast on the radio, or find whether there are any new laws affecting them, without having to also hear what the American Mr. Trump said (or any Australian politicians for that matter), nor about crimes or sports. Those who want to hear such things may tune to dedicated channels.

"We still have no confirmed motive."
- Seems the partner transitioning from male to female was a factor in the shooters mindset.
Enraged trans defender?

"We already restrict access to gambling and pornography."
- You can't stop kids accessing pornography, who are you kidding?

"According to multiple independent reviews, 93% of BLM protests were peaceful"
- They're obviously not that independent because BLM were lunatics rampaging, smashing and looting.

When the left constantly talk about Trump et al being Hitler or fascist, its inevitable that someone is going to draw the implications that it would be admirable to eliminate 'Hitler'. After all, who wouldn't want to have stopped Hitler before he really got started? (There's an interesting counter-historic book by Stephan Fry called "Making History" that explores the unintended consequences of eliminating the actual Hitler.)

This rhetoric leads to two direct attempts on Trump's life, the Kirk assassination, attacks on Rand Paul, Scalise and Kavanaugh, among others.
The thing about the "civil War" rhetoric is that it is the right that hold all the cards if a hot civil war broke out. We don't have such a war because the right is more civil than warlike.

There have been attempts to link the right in Australia to fascists (I recall Abbott being branded a 'Hitler') but these have largely failed, mainly because the right is so insipid and the left is much more civilised when they are running things. The real test will come when that pendulum reverses.

Through it all, freedom of speech must be protected from the censors of the left. The internet was the great democratiser of information and the elite doesn't like that they've lost control of the narrative.(Elon's purchase of Twitter was a seminal moment). Hence their attempts to get control back. If speech can be protected in the US, it will be easier to protect it here.

______________________________________________________________________

"Mostly peaceful"

25 dead. At least $US5 billion in damages and losses. Yep...peaceful protest.
http://tiny.cc/abxs001