You're listening to a podcast from News Talks B. Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio. It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all the information, all the debates of us now the Leighton Smith Podcast powered by News Talks B.
Welcome to podcast two hundred and fifty four for September four, twenty twenty four. The last two podcasts have brought forth a substantial number of email comments that reflected various views on those interviews. Firstly it was Stephen Rainbow, the newly announced Chief Human Rights Commissioner, and then last week in two five three it was Jill Ovans from the Women's Rights Party.
Now.
One of those emails suggested that my criticism of Justice Bromwich, who featured in the case Tickle and Giggle in the last week's podcast, was incorrect and out of line. It was a good letter. I just didn't agree, so I thought that it was worthy of investigating at a shall we say, a more elevated legal level. Enter Professor James Adam Canadian who taught for a number of years at the University of Otago now at the University of Queensland, and let me tell you. I think it was a
very very very good discussion and it follows shortly. But first there's another matter I want to attend to. It seems of late that I'm getting an increasing number of letters asking for advice on books at associated matters, and I don't mind that at all, but I have to admit to have dropped behind a little in my correspondence. So for those of you who might be waiting for a response, it should still be coming. If it doesn't turn up soon, then let me know. But I'll give
you all the advice that I possibly can. But referring to one book that I have reviewed and done an interview, or to actually two interviews with one of the authors, Climate Actually, ought to bring you up to date. Climate Actually is a New Zealand book. It represents more than four years of research. I'm quoting from the Amazon Australia commentary.
Climate Actually represents more than four years of research respectively by three lay authors, where they considered the scientific concepts and evidence surrounding the current narrative of climate alarmists anthropogenetic global warming. Now, for those who have missed the debates, this is the claim that man made activities producing resultant excess emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide CO two, methane H four, and nitrous oxide N two, are principally
responsible for catastrophic global warming. The authors have been assisted by some of the most qualified academics available worldwide, whom they prevailed upon to provide a truthful explanation of what the claim of global warming is actually about from a
scientific point of view. They produced an easy to read publication for all interested people to read a more likely scenario, devoid of any biased media interference, and with the goal to show future generations that in the twenty first century we were not all gullible to climate alarmist doctrine. The truth is the actual science shows that the culprit is water vapor. This is the most significant greenhouse gas GHG
by orders of magnitude, but it is never mentioned. Our authors deduce the only possible reason for the emission of water vapor as a greenhouse gas is because no one has yet devised a business plan to tax rain. There is a universe uall misunderstanding that weather is climate. What's more, global warming is not climate. CO two is not carbon emissions, and CO two is not toxic, but is the elixir of life. The planet is actually in a CO two drought.
We need more CO two, not less, which will make the planet greener, plants more drought resistant, and food sources much more plentiful. Ever heard that before? Since the Industrial Revolution there is an estimated thirty percent increase in crop productivity, and yet the alarmists are trying to remove the very basis on which survival depends. Though, if you need a scary story, reducing CO two concentrations below one hundred and fifty parts per million will bring on the sixth global extinction.
Plants cannot photosynthesize at that level and will die if they do that. How is oxygen to be produced, which we do we all depend upon for survival. You've never heard that before. Either. Climates has changed for the last countless millennia and will continue to do so despite humans.
This book is written in simple language to assist everyone to understand the complex true science, and it is a must to follow the money, including to the Greenhouse Fund administered by the UN's Paris Accord, into which all emissions trading systems taxes are payable. Why are our children in New Zealand And elsewhere school about climate change according to a curriculum that compulsorily requires them to be taught only
the incorrect doctrine of the climate alarmist. For anyone who is curious about any or all of this, this book is a must read. At best, you'll get the picture. At worst, you'll do your own research and the results will astound you, as they did the authors. Now, the book is authored by Andrew Hollis, whom we interviewed on two occasions, Mike Sanke and Alan Trotter. And I think I'm right in saying that Alan Trotter was the driving force. But nevertheless they've all done a very good job. Now
it's available from Amazon Australia. The price is very respectable and you'll get it in a very quick time for five six days. And that's volume one. Of course, volume two which at this point is available on kindle if you want the If you want the book form, you have to wait a little longer. Now coming up next, Professor James Allen. There are essential fat nutrients that we need in our diet as the body can't manufacture them.
These are Omega three and Amiga six fatty acids. Equism is a combination of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a formula that provides an excellent source of Omega three and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil
that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the deep sea sardines Anchovisa macrol provide essential Amiga three fatty acids in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins. Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed to be sold. Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so important to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health.
Equisine can support mood, balance and mental clarity and focus in children, all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus, brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equisine is a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose oil to be taken in our addition to a healthy diet and is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always read the label and users directed and if symptoms persist seeing your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland, Professor of Law
the University of Queensland. James Allen is well known to this podcast audience and he is much appreciated and it's great to have you back on the podcast, particularly on
this particular topic. Jim. I realized that after last week's podcast and the interview with Jill Evans, the national secretary of the Women's Rights Party, I realized that we needed to do some more on it, and there was only one person who I thought was appropriate for that, and that was some I say, with the best of intentions you.
Well, thank you for having me on Lighton, and thank you for mimicking what the sort of thing my mother would say.
So I appreciate I think you said that last time, but that's all right. Your mother was Your mother was worthy of it.
You know that old Eisenhower joke when he used to get introduced, he'd say, I was a fabulous introduction. My dad would love to have been here to hear it, and my mom would have believed it beautiful.
From Jill Evan's press release, I want to quote we stand with CEL on this fight as it heads toward the High Court in Australia. We also encourage New Zealand women and meant to take a stand against adding a gender identity and expression into our human rights legislation, or
we will find ourselves in the same boat. Online submissions to the Law Commission's review close five September, so this is going to This is going to air on the fourth of September, So we're pretty much out of time, but not too late if you were, if you want to involve now. When I ranged Jim and asked him to come on, he was certainly agreeable. What he didn't tell me was that he had penned the column for
the Spectator on this. It didn't surprise me when I found out this morning that he'd done that, and I read it and I thought, that is exactly how I wanted to approach this with him, This particular case of tickle versus giggle, which is he says in the headline is no laughing matter. You also say that it is a woke judgment. How would you like to get from the beginning of this to the outcome of woke judgment?
So you know, when you're writing an op ed column you have to generalize, So you know, obviously you have a limited number of words. But as I said, the gist of the criticism sort of goes in this ranked order. The first problem or the politicians on the right side of politics, so they never it seems like this is a generalization, but basically the left comes in and they
make these amendments. Some of them are part of a sort of culture war amendments, and then when ours, the right of center, comes into power, they never repeal them. They never repeal them. So one of the things is that back in twenty thirteen, the Gillard Labor government here amended the Sexual Discrimination Act and added the gender identity as one of the protected sort of heads. So it had been sex and a bunch of other things race,
but they added gender identity. And so we come forward eleven years and as listeners may know, you had this women's only app was called Giggle, and a gentleman who had or was in the process of transitioning his slash her I'm going to use the biological pronouns. His name was Tickle, so you get this fantastic British farce case name of Tickle and Giggle, And so he wanted onto
the app. The women's only app, and to make it workable, the organizers of the app had sort of computer software based on I think was a photo I don't really know. They would make an initial take and if you didn't like the take, then the woman who organized it would herself look at your photo. And I think he got through the first thing, but then she had a look
at the photo and he was excluded. And long story short, eventually goes to the Human Rights Commission for not being able to access this women's only app, and of course there's no conciliation, and so it goes to a federal
court action basically claiming discrimination. And this was a first instance judgment by a federal court judge, of course, one appointed by the Liberal party, the right of center party former Attorney General George Brandis, whose other judicial appointments included choosing the wife of the retiring High Court judge to be replacement in a world first that's never happened anywhere else in the world. So it's firstly a political problem. Our side just never does anything, and never they just
don't fight back. And then what I also said was if you read the judgment often not often, but sometimes you read a judgment where you look at the law and you say, look, you could write a plausible judgment either way, so you can't really excoriate this judge. It's plausible, but it's also plausible that he could have gone the other way. Predictably, he didn't. He sided it with Tickel, and he ended up awarding ten thousand dollars in damages
and fifty thousand dollars in costs. So that's what Grover, that's what Miss Grover has to pay. The legal materials would have allowed the judge to decide for Giggle in an equally plausible way. But if you were a predicting going in, he would say he's going to decide with the transgender person. So I can run you through the basics if you want. I'm not sure what you're looking for, Laton.
I am. I am looking for it. I want to want you to tell us, explain to us how this process worked. Why the judge. You say that he had a choice, and that and and that was my gut reaction right at the very beginning, that he did not have to as somebody suggested it to me in a letter, he wasn't confined to ruling the way that he actually did correct.
Well, I agree with you. So it's just it's a it's an anti discrimination type piece of legislation, the Sexual Discrimination Act, And basically the goal of this legislation, most of it comes out in what the eighties and nineties around the englishphere, and it's it's sort of to take groups that you are perceived to have been historically disadvantaged, women and to pass a statute that you know, blocks discrimination.
And so you have the normal sort of category, so you can't discriminate against women, so you think of, you know, equal pay for jobs, that sort of thing. And this piece of legislation also has a what they call the Special Measures provision. But basically you in effect you can discriminate if your purpose is to achieve substantive equality between
and one of the groups is men and women. And then when they made this, they made this amendment to Labor Government twenty thirteen, they also included gender identity as a protected head and so you could also discriminate for the purpose of the substantive equality between different gender identities, and so it doesn't count as discrimination if that's your goal. And so that's the sort of basic setup of the of the case. The basic argument for the applicant was
I was discriminated against based on my gender identity. They responded effectively as saying something along the lines of, well, you were discriminated against, but you were discriminated against because of your sex, not your gender identity, and that's protected. That's protected by I think I can't remember section sevent d or something like that same statute. So that's those are the arguments. The judge says, well, look on its
ordinary meaning sex is changeable. Well that's laughable, right, But he points to case law, and in a way, the judge is sort of signaling that, you know, I'm not deciding this based on what I think sex is. I'm deciding it based on case law. What he doesn't say is the cases he cites are to do with pensions and marriage, not the Sex Discrimination Act. I'm not really this isn't really my area. But quick flip and it
looks like, to some extent context matters. The judge also says, look this a skillered amendment in twenty thirteen that added gender identity clearly points to a win for the applicant Techo. The judge rejects the special measures defense. The section seventy special measures. Defense to the argument by the respondent is this is to achieve some sort of male female equality
so we can have our own spaces. And then you get some constitutional arguments that relate to Australia's written constitution about whether the federal government could do what it did with the twenty thirteen Amendment. And one of the issues that comes up tangentially is whether the International Convention on Civil Emploical Rights Article twenty six. In Australia, the High Court has basically gone crazy on federalism matters and basically it lets the center legislate on anything. So we have
the most centralizing top court in the federalist world. Things happen in Australia. It would never happen in Canada, Germany, the US, any Switzerland, any country with real federalism. And it's not because of the original design of our constitution we just copied the Americans. It's because we have one hundred years of High Court decision making that gives power
to the center at the expense of the states. And two of the most egregious cases one was called Tasmanian dam And so normally with a federal system you look at the heads of powers, and you say, is there any sort of head of power that allows the central government to do this, or in Canada's case, allows the provinces to do this, And in the American and Australian constitutions, if it's not in the head of power list for
the Center, that stays with the states. Anyway, this Tasmanian Damn case gave power to the Center because of the external affairs power. So basically, if the federal government enters into a treaty with another country on some topic, the topic in the treaty allows the federal government to legis this is ridiculous. It just destroys any sane notion of federalism. And secondly, in the work choice, this case a bad, bad sort of foray into destroying federalism by John Howard,
who was a centralist at heart. The High Court decided that you could use the corporation power to give the Center power over labor relations, even though labor relations had not explicitly not been given to the Center, and even though two constitutional referenda had said the Center doesn't get this power. So long story short, the judge, and I don't blame him for this part says, well, look, yes, the Center did have the power to pass this law.
I'm skeptical about the claim that the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights gave the power to the Center on the gender identity because that article twenty six of that treaty that doesn't actually mention gender identity. So the judge says, well, it falls under other status. You know, it lists all the things it doesn't list gender identity. So what is going on is how how do you
approach the reading of a written text. And I'm originalist, I think as with ordinary language, and you know most legal linguistic philosophers agree with this, meaning is static, it doesn't change. So if you say I'm going to meet you at the cinema to your friend and you lose yourself on you mean, her job is to try to figure out my meaning, and she's her job is not to sort of put the words in their most favorable light and pick the cinema that has the reclining seat
and the nice glass of wine. My meaning was the cinema I meant. And if she can't get a hold of me, her job is to try to figure out what I meant. And fifty years from now, it was still the cinema that I meant. And that's bog standard outside of law, you know, that's but it's it's lawyers don't like that. They prefer to adopt a sort of what sometimes called a living tree, or you know, the text can change over time, the meaning.
And it always changes in their favor.
Yeah, and so the judge said, on its ordinary meaning, sex is changeable, well, on its ordinary meeting, almost no one believes that, except for ten percent of activists. But as I said, he pointed to the case law and he said, you know, there's a thirty years of case law, but it's it's more complicated than that. These were sort of pensions cases and marriage cases.
All right, so what you what you what you're telling us is that there is a history of case law, but it has nothing to do with gender issues.
Well, it does have to do with gender issues, but it doesn't have to do with the Sexual Discrimination Act. You know, it's more pensions and stuff like that. And on the on the twenty thirteen amendments, if you you know, he said, you know, the he sort of suggests there was an overt intention to redefine sex. But I don't
think that's true. If you look at answered to that amendment, there's no mention of overtly redefining sex, and they explicitly didn't do that as regards the special measures exclusion, and in fact, the explanatory memorandum to that amendment said that these new grounds were to be subject to the existing provisions for special measures. In other words, you can discriminate in order to achieve this sort of substantive equality between
men and women. So one of the underlying issues is do these amendments apply So where you bring in gender identity, do they apply to discrimination matters but not to special measures or do they apply to both? And the judges sort of assumes the answer to that question. I think it's just as plausible. And in fact, if you look at the intention of the Act back in twenty thirteen, almost I think they almost zero of the submissions took this amendment to have the meaning the judge gave it.
And so if you think that what the measure meant was locked in in two thousand and thirty teen, and again that is bog standard linguistic philosophy. But you know, many judges, when it comes to constitutional matters, think that in the course of updating constitutions, think the actual meaning can change over time, which I think is almost incoherent.
You're not bound by what the understanding was in twenty thirteen, but the understanding overwhelmingly was these amendments aren't going to apply to the special measures, which is between men and women. And back in twenty thirteen, it's pretty clear what the meaning of sex was. And again when they put in gender identity, they didn't explicitly deal with the special measures, which is indicative of something. Anyway, I think a judge
had plenty of material to decide for a giggle. Now, are there other ways you that prover could have dealt with this? Yes, she could have taken the app offshore and you know, based it in the US, and then dared dared the sort of government here to deal with an offshore app. There's some scope to think you might have played around with how the sort of winnowing was done. Maybe have an app that anybody can sign up to and then invite applications based on I don't know your
chromosomes for sort of a club like status. Because if the app is for the public, and that's what the judge held and that's plausible, then you're bound by the Sex Discrimination Act, no exemption. But if it's like a private club, there's an exception for private clubs. So that's why you can have men's only private clubs and women's only private clubs. I mean, there might have been ways to set this up that would have made it harder for Tickle, but even the way they did set it up.
And to some extent, this is a political battle because the reaction over here has been vociferously against what they're doing, or sorry, vociferously against this judgment. And you know, you wonder to what extent are they are they running a political battle here to simply embarrass people who want to say that women can't even have an app where they can just talk to themselves. Some man who is transitioning so that he can be deemed whatever you call a
transgender woman, you can't keep them out. And I think if you pulled the public on this, it would run eighty five to ninety fever of giggle.
I think, I think, I think you're right. I want to I want to just take a sidebar here, Holly law and Smith. Do you know the name? Yep, Holly Lawfin Smith. I didn't know anything about her until until today, to be honest, But she she was a she's a Kiwi and she's been what she's been studying and graduating from Australia after the University of Otago, and she is a where it an associate professor in political philosophy at the University of Melbourne and she deals in areas and
a number of areas political philosophy, feminism, climate ethics. Love to have a battle with her on that and sex and gender. Now that fairly well tells me what her richests are and what her views views are, except she is This is a case of strange bedfellows that I run into sometimes and I'm always amused by it, where she has pender piece along the same lines that you have, maybe using slightly different arguments, but is definitely against the decision.
Now she is a feminist and an active feminist, so one presumes that it's like coming almost a full circle with promoting women and there and their progress in life and their security and the financial arrangements and all of the stuff that we're familiar with and finding that that's already is now under assault and has toy group.
So you do get strange bedfellows I mean when people, when people's views are based on principle, sometimes you'll get to an agreement where you wouldn't normally expect it. And I have heard her speak, and I have also been in a room where what you might describe as a radical lesbian said, the only allies we have are conservatives, And she said, I find out you hard to believe, but it's true. So if you think that sex isn't well,
let's put it this way. If you go back to the famous Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume, he wanted to distinguish between things that are imposed on you by the external cause of world right, it's not mine dependent. You can't wish it into existence like gravity. You know, you might be in a class with a French deconstruction as he says gravity is socially constructive, but you got to the eighth and they never jump. So we all believe
that some things are imposed on us. And if you think that sex is imposed on us by the external world right, and it's a function of millions of years of billions of years of evolution. Really now, of course I want to leave aside the very very very small number of cases where you're talking about intersex and xx Y chromosomes or x y where the y chromosome doesn't fire properly and so the person has the other reproductive organs.
Those are all Leave those aside. They're complicated. Although I wouldn't let them participate in the Olympics just as on a really utilitarian basis. So those are all very sad.
Leave those aside for people transitioning. You know, here's the question, do you become a woman because you take lots of drugs that only have been invented in the last thirty years, and then you have you know, invasive surgery that takes the you know, that cuts off your reproductive works and sort of mimics what you know the other sex has. And you know, the basic answer on the left of politics these days, and with lots of people on the
right is yes. Now for most of us who think that how you want to be seen doesn't matter, it's a function of a fact about the external cause of world. You know, here's the thing. If you were a seventeen year old and you wanted to play twelve and under rugby because you identified as a twelve year old, no one would let you do that we would say, Look, you might want to be a twelve year old, you might see yourself as a twelve year old, but you're seventeen,
and that's a fact about the world. Or if you were a Caucasian and you wanted to be a Black American or let's say Elizabeth Floor and a Cherokee Indian, what you want and how you see yourself as neither here nor there. There's a fact about the world. And for some reason, when it comes to sex, the transgender lobby, which is effectively saying and it uses these sort of I won't call them a you, but these sort of opaque, amorphous masking sort of slogans, I'm trapped in the wrong body.
What does that even mean? And what does it mean to say that how you see yourself in your soul is sometimes trumping external reality. Well, you know, I don't believe it, and there's a lot of people who don't believe it. I don't care personally how someone lives their life once you're eighteen, do what you want. I just don't care. I'm a mom to live and let live
sort of guy. But when you start wanting to force your way onto women's sports teams, or you want to start forcing your way onto women's only apps, then the facts of the world matter. It's like the ridiculousness around the anguish er these things. We're letting male rapists identify as female and sending them to female prisons, and that is happening. It's ridiculous, right, So that's the core question. And so at some point the truth the imposed on
all of us humans. Truth about the world trump's, however sad, it might be how someone sees him or herself. So you know, I'm a living, live god. I don't really care how people live. But if someone tells me what pronoun I have to use, I won't do it. I won't do it because they're asking me to lie about the world, and I'm not prepared to lie about the world. I'm prepared to be nice. I'd higher though I don't really care. I don't care how they dress. I don't
care about any of that stuff. But if they start forcing themselves onto groups, then you know, you have to make a call about how you see the world. So I agree with the Lawford Smith's and the sort of In some cases, you know, hardline lesbian feminists, they are correct. These are you know, for the purposes in which we're
talking about, these are men. And if you want a sports example, the American women's soccer team, which one you know, historically was winning most of the world championships, well, if you go back five or six years, they were just basically undefeated. Well they played a Dallas boys high school team, I think it was fifteen and under and they go, they got crushed. You know, so biologically speaking, it's a fact about the world. Statistically, men are bigger, faster, stronger,
and that's just true. Now. You know, if you take the outlawers at each end of the distribution, you can find women who are stronger than men. But the best man crushes the best woman at any sort of physical activity. And so it's completely unfair to let men who've had the advantage of testosterone and you know, faster muscle twitch, who transition and have a lifetime advantage anyway, you can't
let them play women's sports. You get these ridiculous results where where you know, women have spent their whole life training and some guy who's he's not even a good male athlete, you know, moves over to the women's petition and cleans up. It's laughable, and no one would have believed it twenty years ago. And so it's in that vein of thinking. I think that the claim that on its ordinary meaning, sex is changeable, which the judge said,
is just false. Now you know, he underlines it by saying, well, I'm sort of controlled by this case, love. But I think that's debatable, and I think it's debatable whether the special measures exemptions back him up. I think the way he approached the Article twenty six of the ic CPR, which linked to the constitutional question, I think, you know,
that looks wrong to me. So again, I'm not saying that there was no legal materials for this judge to come to the view he did, and again I would have bet he would, because you know, the lawyerly cast is very left wing these days.
Let's let's just say that you would you were appearing for the defendant in this case, would you have handled it any differently? Would you have would you have would prod the judge? I?
I don't know. I mean, it depends what the brief is. If the brief is too you never criticize. I don't want to criticize the way any anybody runs the case. I think they had a case that that you know, the judge as they ran it could have decided for them. Could you have run the case in a different way that might have upped your odds probably, but maybe they
didn't want to do that. Maybe they partly this is a political battle, and you know, they have illuminated for all of us the craziness of what's going on right now. And it is crazy. And well, here's the question. Here's the question when when you know, if Peter Dutton wins an next election, when he comes into power, he going to amend the Sex Discrimination Act and get rid of gender identity.
Which would won't Well, you got a bloody sight more chance of that happening under Dutton than you did under underto in the Morelson.
Yes, that's true, and maybe that's right because I think after the Voice referendum over here the Federal Liberal Party has got just the you know, the traces of a backbone. But there is a political battle going on as well as as the sort of case law. What people need to remember is that fifty years ago lawyers as a cast, the sort of median lawyer was significantly to the political right of the median voter, and today it's way worse
the other way. So you know there's data in the US because donations to the political parties is a public matter, and they just know that the lawyerly cast, so lawyers as a group are significantly to the left of the median voter. We saw it in Australia with the Voice proposal. Almost all of the retired top judges came out in favor of it. The Law Society is the Bar Council.
This was a proposal that was it's sixty one thirty nine no. There were one or two ex judges, including a former High Court judge, who came out for no. But then there were other High Court judges that came out for yes, and most judges came out for us, and all of the lawyerly bodies and so lawyers who have been subjected to twenty years of legal education that
is incredibly politically correct and basques and identity politics. Not surprisingly, the lawyers that they are producing, on average are pretty left wing, and not left wing in the old fashioned Dennis Healey sort of redistribution of wealth sense. You know, that's the old fashioned labor. I have a bit of sympathy for that. I think they get comparative advantage wrong and things like that, But I have sympathy for that.
This is the sort of human rights brigade, social justice iteration of the Labor Party, where they don't really care about the working class. What they care about are basking in social justice self righteousness, and lawyers lap that up. And one of the things it also does is it tends to give unelected judges a lot of power, and so you know, I it's pretty predictable what way most judges are going to go. It's a little different in the US because there's still it's such a big country.
There's you're still able to pick some some conservative judges and lawyers. They're pretty they're pretty minority, but there's enough of them to staff the federal circuit courts, and in some states in the South there's lots of them. It's a lot harder in Australia to find those people who are there, but they're harder to find, and I imagine in New Zealand it's desperately hard to find those people. When I look at your top court, it's just it's just I just be in despair over there.
What you would be in despair. I've shopped around a little and found some found some fellow travelers. But there's plenty of people from people. There are plenty of the individuals from from the side that you're discussing. You mentioned pronouns a moment ago. Two things. One is I understand that there was a discussion of the sporting on the radio.
I didn't hear it. With regard to kids, kids, little kids going into not sure where there were school libraries, probably it was, but into the libraries, the public libraries anyway, and being asked what pronouns they wanted to be referred to or by these are little kids, it's just nuts. The other did you want to comment.
Yeah, well, you know, I went to State schools in Toronto and we spent about three years from about grades four to seven learning real grammar. It was incredibly boring, but you had to underline every word in every sentence and say what it was. And Jeron's participles, you know, I knew more at grammar when I was eleven than I know now. Probably I may know a lot. So when we learn pronouns, we learned them as an item of grammar. Today, the kids you'd come to, you know,
the best law school on Queensland. The overwhelming preponderance of them don't know any grammar, so it seems weird that the only way they get exposed to this idea of pronouns is in a sort of social justice activist sense. I mean, so they go to the library, they don't they probably don't even know what a pronoun is in terms of grammar, but they can trot out the sort of him whatever. I mean, everyone knows what you are
when they look at you pretty much right away. And so you're again you're asking people to deny a fact about the external cause of world to further a political agenda or not to hurt someone's feelings. But at some point, hurt feelings lose to truth about the world. And as long as people are just you know, going on and leading the lives they want, leaving me alone, I don't really care about their They can lead the life however
they want. I'm a pretty lazy for a guy, not going to lie about the world for them, and I'm not going to let them do things that are unfair in terms of sports or you know, I think women should be able to have a women's only space. I mean, I watch sports with mostly guys, that's a sort of a men's only space. So I don't really think it's too much to ask, and so I tend to agree with it, as you said, bizarrely with the sort of hard line some of us, I think, would.
You when would you say the current pronoun game came into.
Play, I don't know. I mean you go back ten years, I don't really remember. I remember people used to joke about the next thing. You know, they're going to want men to be able to use women's toilet, Like twenty thirteen, I was on sabbatically the US lastcome. Everyone political left, political right. Everyone joked, you know, but they meant it as a this is satire to show you know that this couldn't possibly happen. But this this is a sort
of a joke, And now it's true. It's true because people won't say, look, women don't want you to come into the washroom toilet with them, And the fact that you know this is going to hurt yourself image is neither here nor there. So we live in a culture where hurt feelings are taking of offense.
Well, while you.
Were your own subjective sense in yourself, Trump's truth, and I just think we have to fight back against that.
While you were talking, I made my way two steps too. I got a long lead on the headphones to the bookcase and pulled off a book that I bought a few years ago, The Secret Life of Pronouns. What Our Words Say About Us, published in twenty eleven, so I would have bought it in about twenty twelve in Sydney. It wasn't around them this, I mean, this is a straight up book on pronouns, real profound, you know, and since then that book is virtually relevant anyway.
Leaving it, I mean, I agree with you. I mean, I'd be happy if if we actually had an education system in Australia that, you know, the the latest results are appalling. We used to, oh my god, here we were sort of below Kazakhstan, and now we aspired being below Kazakhstan. And I off the cuff, I would bet that Australia does better than New Zealand. One of the things that I hate it when I lived in New Zealand was that I can't even remember what you call it,
n C whatever. Then yeah, they just the continuous assessment and it's just all fluff. And so you know, I doute New Zealand.
Does well under the under the current administration, they're making positive moves in that in the direction of fixing fixing that that's goods. Maths is the first is the first subject to get a hiding. There's one thing that you didn't mention when we were talking about the case, and that was Justice Bromwich gave leave to the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner to appear as a friend of the Court and then basically and then basically did all of her submissions on the interpretive questions.
Yeah, so you know that that that happens in cases. People can apply to to be amicus curia friends of the court and h But as soon as the judge did that, I suspect that everyone knew which way the decision was going to.
Go, of course, And that's the that's the part. It was only two weeks ago that we had on this podcast the newly appointed brand newly appointed. He hasn't yet taken up the position Stephen Rainbow, who was the new Human Rights Commissioner, and there's a new there's two other two other new commissioners on the on the board and there was a lot of feedback from that that particular discussion.
In fact, I think we set a record with incoming emails on it and people people can see the same thing happening.
And so is this newly appointed person going to take a sort of moderately interpretively conservative approach? I doubt it, But I don't know. I don't know the person, I don't know the appointment.
But I'll tell you that here, sorry on.
Well here in Australia, the Human Rights Commission is appointed by the federal government, and during COVID, every single commissioner had been appointed by the Liberal government. So these are
all supposedly seen conservatives appointed. Of course they weren't. They couldn't find a single thing to complain about during the lockdown, thuggery and authoritarianism, what Jonathan Sumption, the UK retired Supreme Court judge, said were the worst infringeing infringements on our civil liberties and three hundred years they couldn't find a single thing to complain about. But get a case like tickle and giggle, Oh my lord, they they you know,
they can't wait. Now. The new Sex Discrimination Commissioner, I have to say, was appointed by labor, but you know, the bulk of the commission is still liberal appointed. And that's one of the weird things about the world when when conservative governments come into office, they just seem to be unable to appoint actual conservatives any top positions that are appointed positions. Douglas Murray writes about this in the UK, Labor appoints hard left and we appoint soft left, and
they just they're just too embarrassed. I mean here in Australia, I would appoint Andrew Bold, who's a real sort of feisty political comment I would appoint him to run the ABC. That would teach them a lesson. But you know that will never happen. They don't want they don't want to take on anybody, so they just point, if you're lucky though, appoint a centrist. That's the best you can hope for, yes.
And that just makes it easier for the for the left when they yeah, yeah exactly, So discalidice that exists. How do we have a comment?
Well, I think part of what you what's happening around Europe, not here, not in New Zealand, and not in Britain, but if you look around Europe and the US, you're seeing that the old fashioned coalition of interest that went into making up a right of center party is completely broken down. You're seeing a lot the left wing media, which is like ninety percent of it, they call it populism, But as far as I can tell, nobody really knows what the labeled populism means other than people who win
elections with policies we don't like. So they're winning elections, and they're winning elections based on taking positions that the two established parties won't talk about, like unrestrained immigration or massive government spending or not fighting the culture wars. And these parties are winning all over Europe and lots of places. And in a way, this is what Donald Trump has done in the US. He's basically destroyed the old Rockefeller Republican Party, the party of George W. Bush and Romney
and McCain. And whether Truck wins or not, the old Republican Party is never coming back because Trump has remade it into what critics on the left would call a populist party. But it's a party that wants to significantly cut back on immigration, and it's a party that wants to deal with the you know, the power of the bureaucrats in Washington to see all sorts of things that the old Republican Party support it. You know, Trump doesn't want to go to war. He didn't have a single
war when he was president. You have to go back to vote Herbert Hoover to get that. So he has an unusual combination of interest and it's much more palatable for working class people. And one of the things you're seeing around the anglosphere is that conservative parties are now
the party of the working person, and rich people vote left. Again, this is a generalization, but I think in twenty sixteen Hillary Clinton took the hundred wealthiest counties and in Britain, you know Boris in twenty nineteen, he didn't any of the rich London constituencies. Rich people who have the money on social issues identify with this sort of social justice human rights brigade version of the left wing party, and
they vote left. In Australia, you know, half the people who vote Green are incredibly wealthy because they don't pay the costs, whereas working class or poorer or lower middle class people do. So the new alignment of right of center parties includes sort of rural areas and suburbs, and you know that's the majority of the population it's the
kind of people who voted no on the Voice. It's hopeless to try to win in Toronto or London these days, and it's helpless for conservative parties to win the rich, inner city constituencies. Those people don't vote for the sort of conservative package of views. And again i'm generalizing, of course, there's many wealthy people who are conservative, but by and large, if you go to a uh, you know, a top lawyers event on an issue after issue, the majority of the room is pretty left wing.
It's it's frustrating, is my simple way, simple way of putting it. A couple just a couple of things before we wind before we wind up. What you've what you've basically told us is that there was no you tell me if I'm wrong, no binding legal authority that made made Rummich rule the way that he did right or wrong.
Well, almost never in a case, is it. If you go to a lawyer and they say, look lighton, there's the statute is dead clear, and there's one hundred and fifty presidents right on this one point, there's no way you can lose. Those cases never get litigated. I mean, so there's always some there's almost the kind of cases that make it to a court that don't settle are ones where there's usually an argument on both sides. You know, Herbert Hart wrote this magisterial book called The Concept the Law.
He calls these open texture or penumbero cases. Most cases aren't. That's why most people never go to court, and you can have a legal system the majesty of the law, he calls it, where most people can have different interests in life, they can pursue those interests and they never have to litigate. You know, if I drive into the car in front of me, I know I'm at fault, even though it's an Octageneian who stopped for no reason,
and so the rules are usually pretty clear. In this case, the idea that there was no scope for the judge to decide the other way, I think is wrong. And I think, you know, if you go back and look at the explanatory memorandum or answered to the twenty thirteen amendment, no one, virtually no one at the time thought that they were legislating to achieve the sort of outcome we
saw in this case. Now you can take a view that when you interpret legal texts, the text can stay the same, but the meaning of the text can change. That is a highly controversial view. I know that it's the majority view and constitutional interpretation in the anglosphere, but there's awful there's an awful lot of people who don't agree with that view. And outside of law, almost no one believes that, you know, the meaning of the meaning of a speech or a text can change over time.
And it actually judges when they want you to read their judgment. You know, they don't think my judgment is a living tree and what I said yesterday has changed its meaning. That they implicitly take the same view that you know meaning is locked in and what they meant is what they meant, the same sort of thing that applies in everyday life or if your wife gives you a shopping list. And so there's that sort of debate going on in the background to this case as well.
So again I as I said in my Spectator article, you know, there were legal materials that gave the judge ample room to come to the conclusion he did. And if you were a betting person, you would have bet for the case that any judge appointed by the Liberal party our Conservative party would be sort of sufficiently touchy feely to deliver that result.
Thinkger without Conservative Party.
Yeah. When I say that, I mean it to be in quotation marks. But there's also plenty of scope for someone to write a very plausible judgment that would have given Giggle a win. And the problem is that we're not appointing enough judges. You take that of I mean, people tend to think that the law interprets itself, and in many cases it does. It's so straightforward that the rule applies. Again, those cases don't end up at the
High Court of Australia or a top court. Very seldom is it the case outside of you know, some prisoner appealing because he prefers to do that and stay in his cell. So leave those sort of criminal cases, the kinds of cases where both sides are prepared to spend
an awful lot of money. Here cases where the rule it tends to be in the number of the rule or rules where there's a plausible argument ways, and in those cases, as Heart famously said back in nineteen sixty one, when it comes to the judges, they have a discretion. I think he said something like all that succeeds is success at the end of chapter seven. And if you say, does it matter who you're appointing to the bench in
those cases, you bet it does. That's why Americans fight over Supreme Court appointment because they know they know it matters. And so if your letter writer was saying, you know, brom which his hands were tied and there was nothing he could do but decide for Ticko, he's wrong. In my view, he doesn't know. The letter writer doesn't know
what he's talking about. If he had said, you know, there were an ample scope to decide either way, and this particular judge decided that way, you know, I sort of buy that, But again that's just a problem with who were who we as conservative governments, are appointing to the bench.
Well the letter writer, well, his letter will be in the mail room. Which follows onto on the back of this interview with Jim. But you mentioned the Supreme Court, strangely enough, the US Supreme Court. Strangely enough. That was my last question line that I wanted to discuss with you, as briefly as the UK two. How influential do you think the US Supreme Court is outside of the US, but specifically in our two countries.
So the Australian Constitution is basically the world's closest copy of the US Constitution. They you know, whenever they had a choice back in the late eighteen hundreds. But so between the Canadian version of federalism where the American they picked the American we have bicameralism. New Zealand doesn't. Canada effectively doesn't because the upper house is appointed. Britain effectively doesn't.
There's only really three democracies in the world with a strong upper house, like really strong, and that's the Americans, Australia and Italy, and the Italians are trying to get rid of theirs. And so it's a very American constitution Australia has that was stuffed into the mold of a Westminster British system. It's got elements of both. And so in the early days the High Court of Australia certainly
paid attention to American cases. Of late, around the common law world there's less and less interest in what the Americans are saying because the Americans still have top judges who are you know. Originalism is really a proxy battle in some ways. So in Australia we fight over whether to adopt a bill of rights. Once you've got one, there's no hope that any conservative government would ever repeal it or you know, un entrenched it from the Constitution or try to. And so the battle then is how
to interpret this document. With a Bill of rights, you just have a list of moral entitlements that are really vague and wooly. And the question is always to what
extent will unelected judges overrule the elected legislature. And the more you are bound by the intent of the people, the intentions and what people at the time understood the document to mean, the less you're taking off the democratic table, and the more you treat words of sort of alive, whatever that means, or as always expanding their scope, the more willing you are to see unelected judges second guests
and overrule the elected branches. You know, Roe v. Wade was the most implausible decision ever, whatever you think about abortion, they just made it up right. And so in Dawbs what they effectively did the recent Supreme Court cases they said, look, this is a matter for the elected legislatures at the state level, because it's a federal system. And so this is one of the big issues in the current American election.
But what most Americans don't seem to realize is since DAUBS, which just leaves it to the elected legislature, which is how abortion was handled in New Zealand and not Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, just about everywhere France. Since they've done that, the number of abortions in the US I
think has gone up. What it just means is that in some US states it's harder to get an abortion Mississippi, Alabama, and in some US states has actually become easier because you know, the legislature in the state of New York and the state of California. You know, in California they don't even want to have limits on you know, having an abortion for a kid that's a day away from being born, which you know, I don't really care about abortion.
Maybe that's because I'm a man, but I certainly not allow an abortion in the last few weeks before, you know, if you haven't pulled the trigger by then, it's too late, you know, really you my view.
Have you read the what I presume is the editorial in the Same Spectacle this week?
Yeah, I I you know I'm going to say this. My editor, Rowan Dean of The Spectator Australia is in a very brave editor. He writes the editorials. And you know how many people in the journalistic world took the anti lockdown line from day one. That row indeed that he you know, he should be winning an award, so he did that, and he's taken a brave line on net zero and just about everything. And he wrote, you know, very good editorial, but that I tend to agree with
Rowan on on just about everything. And I admire his courage because I can tell you he's come under immense
amounts of attack and pressure, especially during lockdowns. Can you imagine in New Zealand a weekly publication that said that to Sinda our durn's getting everything wrong and that she's making mistake after mistake, and that the long term costs of the lockdowns are going to dwarf the benefits not and he means in terms of lives, long term lives, not just you know, blunted, you know, impoverish children's results because they closed the school as well.
It answered to you a question about New Zealand. You remember the guillotine. Yes, well that's where you would have ended up if you tried, if you tried what he done here, and.
She would have been Madame Lafarge knitting as you as you went to the guillotine, would have just sent there a durn.
So you're right, yes, oh dear, I'm I'm debating whether I'll read that that editorial or not. But it's called for those who want to find it for themselves. It's called dead Babies, and it's a shocker.
Yeah, yep, Jim.
As always, we are most appreciative of your time and your import and your intellect, and I can only I can only say thank you in as most most meaningful way as I can.
Well, let's you know again, very kind and uh you know, let's keep pushing the new government in New Zealand on to sort of start standing up to the judiciary and tackling them a bit, because we need to do that. I think I think there's some people in New Zealand who are trying to fight that fight, some really top quality lawyers. So let's hope they have a bit of success. Indeed, appreciate it, right, thank you very much, late light and Smith.
I went to the mail room for number two hundred and fifty four, missus producer. How are you Layton?
I am fantastic, Thank you, just walked eight k's along the beaches, happy, happy me.
Eight k's, and you didn't get rained on No may I go first? Look do I've recently had the pleasure of catching up on your episodes in one big burst as a small business owner, I took a break from how the labour greens think think that I spend my time, for example, diving into my swimming pool full of gold coins a Scrooge McDuck, or skiing in Switzerland while profiting off the backs of my staff, and instead worked all night all weekend trying to catch up on the workload
and keep the business afloat. This, however, gave me plenty of time to get through the backlog, though I admit that I did at one point have to take off my monocle top hat and three piece suit. At one point it was mentioned that dear Leader Jacinda was attending the DNC, the Democratic National Convention in the US, to
support Scarmala. My first thought was I wonder who paid the air fare, But then I had a good juggle when it occurred to me that in the US, her vast collection of red based dresses, blouses and pantsuits that she'd amassed at the taxpayer's expense would now be worthless up there, and she'd have to go for a nice shade of gasp national blue. Oh the humanity, I think you mean the humility, Oh the humility. Thank Heavens for
life's little moments. Now, on a second note, many years ago, I was in the performance business and was always known as having a head for script and being good at remembering lines. On my first reading, I'm sorry, Caroline, but the lets you read from the person sitting on in a rooftub at thirty degrees then flying home at thirty thousand feet didn't ring any bells at all. So, despite your voice being one of the highlights of each podcast, I'm unfortunately going to have to throw you under the
bus on this one and agree with Leyton. The good news for you, though, Carolyn, however, is that the bus that I threw you in front of is run by Auckland Transport, So not only will it definitely not be there on time to run over you, there's a good chance that it's a complete no show. That's funny. Thanks again for all you both do, Adrian, Great Letter.
Great Letter. Chris says the choice to bring a child into the world is the greatest vote of confidence in the future, Yet at times the future seems to be at odds with hope. One of my greatest delights is in home educating my children. It is very inefficient and I get almost nothing else done. There are countless other calls on my time that simply go to voicemail. But by avoiding the inefficiencies of working and letting someone else educate my kids, I get to pass on the hope
that I have. Although there are more efficient ways of educating my kids, I am privileged to have the time with them and hopefully leave a lasting legacy of both hope and a personalized education program that plays to their strengths. Your podcast continually reminds me that the choice to homeschool is a worthwhile investment. And then Chris says, just a little background. I self studied my way through university and
past first time. With the democratizing of education through the Internet, I can see university education going the way of horse drawn carriages, i e. For novelty value only.
Chris, Chris, thank you. Here is the letter that featured today without being aired, but featured today in the interview from VIC, he says, as a longtime listener and very rare commenter. It is not often that I disagree with your podcast content, However, there is always an However, I strongly dispute your characterization of Justice Robert Bromich as an idiot and a moron. His reference to sex being changeable in his summary related to case Lawn, not his belief.
He was very careful to rule according to the law as it stands in Australia, and I suspect also in New Zealand, Charlatan Tickle is legally a woman. Justice Bromwich had no choice and had he ruled against Tickle, he would have been guilty of interpreting the law, just like those that rule here with respect to the foreshore and seabed. I don't hold out any hope of a successful appeal, but keep up the good work. Regards VIC. Don't take this personally, but because I said before you wrote this
was it last week? I said, I don't mind having some critical comment. In fact, I enjoy it and I took it on board, and I wonder if you've changed your mind at all after what you heard from Jim Allen. But thank you, and I do it, I seriously, I appreciate it. But if you've got any other thoughts on it after what you heard, then fire arf mate.
Leighton Chris says, with AI in full swing and it can be a handy tool. The reason the real question is is it unbiased? The answer is a resounding no. You can see this with the now well known Trump question chat GPT paraphrase. Write an article showing all the good things about Trump. It couldn't or wouldn't, but would and could talk about anyone on the left. So AI is in fact not an artificial intelligence, it's artificial information.
In the near future, I think everyone will be forced to accept all information from these bots, and computer hubs like Google are the only source of truth. Your guest, Stephen Rainbow almost endorsed Noah Harari, and that's a worry. Harari is one sick puppy in my personal opinion. I also found the fact doctor Rainbow was constantly preceding his statements with as a gay man a bit contradictory when stating the majority should take precedents in society while leaning
on this is emphasis being a minority. I do agree with that statement absolutely, but hope he's not doing a Kamala Harrison. Joe Biden and saying one thing while intending to do the complete opposite. I may be completely wrong, and I do hope so, but history tells me a lot of people feeling important positions like this get there for a particular reason. Enough said, keep it coming. All the interviews are great, and that's again.
Another good one. Still during your podcast, I smile during your in of view with Jill Ovans when she commented that God could be a woman. My comments would be that God has given as his preferred pronoun so she should respect it. And if God is a woman is she would first have to define what is a woman, given her association with the politics of the Labor Party. As always, I look forward to your next podcast.
Ladon Peter says, thanks for highlighting, perhaps indirectly, but certainly for me, the ease with which some people such as Stephen Rainbow can slide into yet another public service job after a long life of doing nothing other than apparently sucking on the public teat. I guess his appointment to the Human Rights Commission is his reward for excelling in the art of wokeness and for avoiding a real job for most of his life. I didn't know much about
him till I heard your podcast. This prompted me to google the man, which gave me just enough MFO to draw the conclusions expressed above. He is a man who has spent a lifetime cultivating the art of avoiding expressing an opinion. He does that extremely well. That's from Peter. He does give his opinion very well.
He does, he does. I think that we covered that toward the end of the interview. Actually, I was thinking that's what Jim Allen was referring to, If not specifically, then generally he was referring to that sort of approach. Nevertheless, well said Jill Evans. Women's Rights Party website states three key principles the party runs on. First, sex is binary. Secondly, human beings cannot change sex. Thirdly, women are adult humans
of the female sex. And just like that, they've answered three existential questions the leftists just refused to answer today, being what is gender? What is human? What is a woman? Who would have thought that idiot Australian judge Robert Bromwich would attempt to wipe out the meaning of gender, humanity and women all in one go in the tickle versus giggle case when he ruled it sex is interchangeable. Declan Mansfield from the Spectator Australia explained the flawed cisgender logic
in Tickle the Big Tickle and Giggle. But the way it's going to pick that up with Jim, the time that I spent in law school will be it restricted. But it was a couple of years we were taught that it's not and I know this varies around the world, but we were taught that it's not versus that it's not tickle verse. In spite of the b not tickle versus giggle, it's tickle and giggle. Now I don't know too many other people that refer to it that way,
but it's stuck with me all the way through. I'm just explaining myself this producer.
Thank you for being so exact.
Now I haven't finished yet. Decland Mansfield from The Spectator Australia explained the flawed cisgender logic in Tickle and Giggle perfectly when he said, what will ensue from the acceptance of cis gender as a rational category and the judgment in tickl and Giggle is an ever shifting horizon of infantilized irrationalism. Masquerading as reasonable thought Australia. What the hell is going on with you? First Raygun and now Tickle
and Giggle, all in a space of weeks. More importantly, our very own idiot Law Commission now wants to introduce hate speech laws around the entire spectrum of gender theory, and we need to stop them. Any idea what else we can do besides signing the Free Speech Union's petition against hate speech laws? How do we get these sons of the devil of our planets? Well, it's find something to ponder.
Laden Mike says. I'm a long time listener, both via the airwaves and the podcast. It goes without saying that the insight that you bring in a crumbling media landscape is highly valued and must be continued for the foreseeable future. Please, After all, it is apparent that the volume of topics needing your objective analysis grows by the day. I was hoping for a recommendation from you with respect to news sources. I have been forced to stop reading The Herald due
to their consistent failure to report without bias. They are the best of a bad bunch, and I'm sure they think they do a good job but they, like most media, live in an echo chamber of ideology, which either justifies the slant or makes them completely blind to it. Either way, the Herald is not for me. The problem is that this leaves me an avoid Can you advise if you had to pick a couple of sources for local and international news, what would there be?
Keep up the great work from mid Mike. I will give that some consideration. And I've got your address obviously, so I'll do my best to get back to you. You will notice, of course, that The Spectator Australia gets a lot of mention on this podcast. Why because it's damned good? Why because it presents when you heard what Jim Allen said about the editor and singing his praises, and he's quite right, Layton.
I in defense of the Herald, I just want to sort of say that I always pick the journalists that I read because there are some mighty fine ones, you know, just check the byline and make decisions that way.
Thank you, missus.
Producer Laighton excellent interview with Jill Ovans from the Woman's Rights Party. She certainly appears to speak from a place of truth and common sense. Also good to hear a non confrontational interview with mutual respect for the view of what the other had to say.
Where a nurse. Did you hear that?
Yeah, not on this poe.
I was pondering the the echo chambers and the bias of some sources, et cetera. And most of it's true, most of it. We all have our biases, every single one of us.
Gosh, I'm going to put that on a loop.
It's it's just the case with human nature. Can't you can't help it.
That's it from me later.
So we shall possibly see you next week.
Are you will definitely see me next week?
Or you know what number it is?
Two five four two five five two five five unbelievable.
You help the time pass.
I'm pleased to hear it.
Now.
The morning of September four was one of those times that I mentioned where there is so much useful and interesting material available that it is nothing short of frustrating, even very frustrating. Those days seem to be increasing rapidly. Some matters a new Some are developments in those areas that we already devote a lot of attention. Freedom is at the forefront of matters, and free speech is arguably
the most assaulted. David Sachs, a politically active venture capitalist, has penned an excellent read on the global struggle against authoritarianism, in which he points out hypocrisy displayed by Western nations during key moments in recent history, as well as the new Iron Curtain. The new Iron curtain targeting anyone in support of secure borders or freedom of speech in the global struggle against authoritarianism. The West's real enemy is itself,
he writes. American politicians speak constantly about the indispensable role of the United States in leeading the free world against authoritarianism. If that is true, why is the White House so silent in the face of new global threats to free speech. In January, American citizen Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian prison for posting YouTube videos. The state departments did not lift a finger to help. Last week, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France for the crime of insufficient
content moderation. Now Brazil has banned x for resisting the dictates of a tyrannical judge who salibates over the possibility of jailing Elon Musk. The EU is one step behind with bureaucrat Tiri Breton pursuing a criminal investigation against the Elon for platforming disinformation, which Breton defines to include a conversation with Donald Trump. Imagine if in this country leading politicians of the government tried doing something like that. Is
it impossible to believe? In the UK, the government of Kiostama imprisons critics of open borders with more zeal than it prosecutes violent crime. In Canada, Justin Trudeau crushed a trucker protest against vaccine maddates by asserting sweeping new powers to freeze bank accounts. Hello, at no point has the White House expressed concern about this new iron curtain that
seems to be descending across the West. Quite the contrary, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the Biden Harris administration repeatedly pressured Meta to censor during COVID. Worse, the FBI primed Facebook to censor true stories about the Biden family corruption by suggesting that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation, even though
the FBI knew it was authentic. Barring court intervention, TikTok will shut down in the US on January nineteen, twenty twenty five, thanks to a new power authorized by Congress to ban websites and applications that the president determines are subject to the influence of a foreign adversary. X may not be far behind if liberal elites and deep state apparatics like Robert Reich and Alexander Vindmann get their wish. They have called for the US to adopt Brazil's and
the EU's approach and reign in elon musk. Remember Alexander Vindmann, he was the Ukrainian who dumped on Trump when he was president. I think was over the phone call, was it not? And it was a load of bs. He is a miserable little fill in the space. Hypocritically, the same voices demanding this crackdown are also the loudest in proclaiming the West to be engaged in a war on
authoritarianism against countries like Russia and China. But whatever their sins, Russia and China are in no position to deprive American citizens of their free speech rights. Only our own government can do that. Similarly, if Western leaders truly wanted to prevent authoritarianism, the easiest place to start would be at home,
protecting the civil liberties of its own citizens. Instead, they seem obsessed with deflecting the public's attention onto foreign enemies, as all well depicted in the Two Minutes Hate in nineteen eighty four. As this battle over free speech heats up in an election year, where do the candidates stand. Donald Trump has declared his support for free speech, whereas Carmela Harris has said nothing and can be expected to continue her administration's policy of tacit approval of creeping censorship.
The word creeping has variations on it. In just two months, America will decide do we actually lead the free world in standing up for free speech or do we accept the authoritarianism we claim to detest? So much pretty good peace from David Sachs. And it was only a couple of days ago that I was talking to someone and made mention of the fact that the Free Speech Union is bringing yet another free speech speaker to the country later in the year, and I thought, well, I didn't
just think I commented to this. I commented to the person I was discussing this with has suggested maybe they were over cooking it a bit, just bringing too many people to the country. You read things like that and others that I've got here, and you think maybe they're under cooking it. Maybe there's room for more. The only question I have is how much of it is impacting on those who know nothing about it or very little.
It's a very good question to contemplate, so to another part of the world, and I'll do it this way. I'm quoting. When I grew up, Great Britain was exotic. There were red telephone booths, Buckingham Palace, black cabs, and of course the Bobbies and the beef eaters. England was the land of Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth the First and Henry the Fourth. For me, says the author. Britain was history incarlate. Obviously,
says the author, whose name is Vince Coiner. And I'll give it to you now, Vince Coiner Coyne R. Because some some of you will to look this up. So if you google Vince Coyner you'll most likely get it. Obviously, part referring to Britain was history incarnate. He goes on. Obviously, part of that comes from the fact that as Americans, we share a great deal of history with the British.
Not only did we split from Britain in seventeen seventy six, but our history continued to stay close until modern times, from the US joining Britain and the fight to end slavery, to fighting two World Wars together, to the British invasion earned in the nineteen sixties that brought us the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and the Kinks and put pay
to Elvis Presley and Bobby Ridell. I added that modern England largely dates back to ten sixty six, when William the Conqueror across the English Channel and put the finishing touches on a unification that had been evolving since the Romans abandoned the island in four to ten AD. The thousand year span since has seen Britain, like the rest of the world, evolved, always however haltingly in the direction
of freedom. This journey began with the Magna Carta, agreed to by King John in twelve fifteen, a watershed event in Western culture. It limited the king's powers and declared that he was subject to the law, guaranteed church rights, access to an impartial system of justice, and limited taxes. And so it goes on. This, by the way, is a four page is a four page article. But I
believe I didn't tell you the title. Britain, which burst American ideas about liberty, has embraced despotism, and therein and therein lies a very interesting discussion. I move forward a little and give you a couple more quotes. The genesis of today's dystopia began almost three decades ago, when immigration took off in the late nineteen nineties and early two thousands.
The number of non EU immigrants averaged over two hundred thousand a year for a decade, then skyrocketed after twenty twenty. A nation of fifty five million in two thousand is today over sixty five million, with almost all of that growth coming from immigration, a majority from non EU nations, particularly from the Middle Eastern Africa countries that do not share British culture or importantly, religion. It's also likely that many of the ostensibly EU immigrants originated in those non
EU countries. As a consequence, London, home to twenty percent of Britain's As a consequence, London, home to twenty percent of England's population, has gone from approximately eighty percent native white British in nineteen ninety one to approximately thirty six percent in twenty twenty one. The native population has surely shrunk more since then. The results of this transformation of Britain from a largely British nation to something else has
been monstrous. And then the author runs through a list of events that have happened over a period of time. Specifically, more recently, Britain, which birthed American ideas about liberty, has embraced despotism. It's worthy of your attention, I think also by Vince Coiner c y n Eer via Americanthinker dot com. And at the top, you know how they put quotes from famous people. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction from the greatest president of well for
a long time, Ronald Reagan. And that will take us out for podcasts two hundred and fifty four. If you would like to correspond with us, and do I repeat it again, we love getting a correspondence Layton at Newstalks AB dot co dot nz or Carolyn at newstalksb dot co dot nz. And again I'll say, if you being critical, don't hesitate, go for your life. If that's what you think, what you think is honest, then I'm very happy to accept it and consider it so latent at newstalks AB
dot co dot nz. As always, we shall return very shortly and as always, thank you for listening and we will talk soon.
M M.
Thank you for more from News Talks at B Listen live on air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio