Nationalist Alternative @ the Internet Censorship Rally, Perth, WA

By James Smith

Members and supporters of Nationalist Alternative WA attended the stopthefilter.org, internet censorship protest held in Perth at Forrest Place on Saturday the 6^th of March 2010.

The rally was a public relations disaster for the assorted communist groups who were attempting to hijack a public censorship rally for themselves whilst censoring others.

This activist report also details the unsuccessful attempt by ‘Resistance’ and the Socialist Alliance to force opposing viewpoints from a rally held to represent all of our concerns. Our banner which was just one element of our attendance was displayed prominently for a decent period of time and new contacts were made whilst leafleting, gaining signatures and promoting the spirit of the rally.

Why did Nationalist Alternative attend? We like the majority of Australians do not wish for a nanny state to dictate what we can and can not view, read or experience online. Nor do we buy Kevin Rudd’s “thin edge of the wedge” excuses for why.

Nationalist Alternative attended the rally in good faith simply as one group opposed to censorship of the internet, we had our censorship article uploaded on our site, signed petitions, walked petition boards around the crowd to obtain signatures and handed them back to the organisers. If a rally is the sum of its disparate parts we like the individual members of the public and other groups with or without a political basis such as “Anonymous” or the Socialist Alliance were simply another participant.

We embrace true free speech which is the entire spectrum including those views we at Nationalist Alternative may vehemently disagree with. If a viewpoint or concept or vision is flawed then through debate and open discussion it will become obvious.

Those that seek to: outlaw, make illegal, introduce oppressive legislation with jail terms in the hope that they can scare their populace into restricting their thoughts, provide no platform, physically harass, alter history books and curriculum’s and censor the ideas of others onlydisplay their own intolerance. Ultimately it is a personal fear that their own agenda and beliefs are flawed and the public will realise so when presented with articulate opposing views.

One of the most hypocritical streams of pseudo ‘alternative’ opposition in Australia is the tired and bedraggled assortment of Trotskyist, anarchist and communist groups who are not ‘left’ at all but proponents of a future totalitarian system like George Orwell’s 1984 nightmare. Say goodbye to individual and national rights, environmental concerns, diversity, a balance of private enterprise and state ownership, private property rights etc. Their opposition to the current liberal democratic censorship courtesy of labour and liberal governments is purely selfish and deceptive so they themselves can gain ‘the upper hand’ and imprison Australia with their own nanny state and iron control.

Fortunately their delusions are limited to 1^st year arts students and a small bitter rump of older members too proud or dogmatic to admit they are wrong. Their complete failure in Australia over the decades to ever gain a significant foothold leads many to believe the state today continues to allow them to run a muck publicly as ‘useful fools’ which explains the low levels of arrest or police attention these often violent thugs and their organisations receive.

Why ‘useful fools” ? what better way to ensure the continuity of the corrupt liberal democratic internationalist system then to present to the public a delusional bunch of fellow internationalists the communist clowns, as their only opposition? Of course people will be happy to stick with what they consider the ‘lesser of two evils” – hence change never comes and the oppression continues.

With most public issues, socialists around Australia attempt to hijack and control them all and force people to view it through their sole prism of understanding. The socialist attempt to monopolise political speech and action, so as to be seen as the only alternative to the status quo. Whether it is gay rights, or the rights of indigenours peoples elsewhere, the socialists oppose and attach any other political stream which speaks up on these issues, even if they are in agreeance.

Evidence of the apathy these fools cause on the general public is illustrated below. What follows are a few quotes from members of the public commenting on forums after attending the rally.

“What a disappointing rally.

The majority of speakers talked more about socialist talking points than the internet filter. We were filmed at all times by a spook from resistance.org, and the organisers were the worst hypocrits ever.”

“I’ve seen large amounts of socialist propaganda everywhere lately, why don’t these people go and live in a socialist country to see what it’s like before trying to enforce this crap on us.”

“Those Socialist Alternative guys are really annoying. They are like the westboro baptist church of Australian politics. Whenever people try to organise to protest a genuine issue these idiots turn up and try to brand it as a “socialist” demonstration.

They are the worst at Uni.

Pro-tip for SA: If I actually wanted to talk to you I wouldn’t look the other way and avoid eye contact at all costs.”

What you see in the below video is these “useful fools”, in action. After obtaining signatures for the petition, listening to various speeches we decided to unfurl our own banner to add to the diversity of outlooks present at the rally. No different to the ‘Resistance’ group which had a huge red banner beside the stage proclaiming their name and slogans related to their own beliefs without any direct connection to the actual rally.

Within about 10 minutes a few rabid socialists ran up to the second level to DEMAND we withdraw our banner and presence from this public rally. Grabbing the fabric banner and trying to rip it unsuccessfully they resorted to holding on as tightly as possible in order to cause an assault charge by the waiting police on our members if we were to pry and twist their little fingers and arms from the fabric.

Readers will be amused by the deranged women in red whose foul language and death threats “kill these 3 kunts” is obvious. Note also the attempted headbutt of a NatAlt camera man which only left her forehead imprinted with a lens cover. Contrast this to the calm, stoic and non violent behaviour typical of NaAlt supporters who simply endured this all too common scenario whilst not falling into the violence trap.

The state was of course happy to allow this violence to occur, due to the already mentioned “useful idiots” concept. It is often the case the police intervene only when nationalists rightfully defend themselves. Such is the straitjacked situation of the average decent policeman who more often than not, privately acknowledge their support for uThe police or at least their political masters are clearly more interested in ‘defending the peace’, rather than ‘defending free speech’ and take the easy option of taking action against the few victims, rather than against the more numerous (for now) violent perpertrators.

Embarrassingly for the Socialist Alliance, during this banner scuffle the speaker on the stage looked up and noted

“it looks like there is some censorship occurring right before our eyes”

Nationalist Alternative Attendance at the Perth “Stop Internet Censorship Rally”

After their unsuccessful attempt, despite our members being outnumbered at forcing us from the rally we continued down to the groundlevel handing out our “political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets and conversing with the public. Many individuals in the crowd were disgusted at the attempt by the ’socialists’ at censoring another group at a censorship rally of all things.

One of the excuses obtained by a roving citizen journalist after the banner incident from the lady in red was that

1. Our banner was unrelated to the protest.
2. Discussions on immigration and its effects on water, congestion, the environment and our culture was not something to be discussed anywhere.
3. They decide the spectrum of allowed free speech

To which we answer the following

1. What could be more in the spirit of a NO to censorship rally than the presence of various groups and individuals with different viewpoints who whilst united in opposition to censorship also present their various concerns!!  It is exactly ‘freedom of speech” in action at a rally calling for the same thing.
2. Why then did she not pull down the huge red ‘Resistance banner” next to the speakers stage you see above which also had zero direct connection to the stop-the-filter rally. This banner simply proclaimed their name and slogans related to their own beliefs.
3. Is it not a fact that Socialist Alliance members canvassed in large numbers the entire public attempting to sell their magazine, hand out their leaflets up and down the 100m line of people queuing up to sign the petition ??
4. Our good faith attendance is proven by the following
   1. Researching and uploading an article on internet censorship on our website and also advertising the rally
   2. Signing petitions and walking petition boards around the crowd for the organisers obtaining further petitions.
   3. Handing out our “Political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets which directly relate to censorship given that PC is the academic concept used by the government to justify many of their laws and proposals.
   4. Standing quietly and calmly not interjecting speakers nor accosting any other attendees at the event.

Editors Note

This is not the first time that the far left have hijacked an internet censorship rally to try and kickstart their own socialist revolution.  An internet censorship rally in Melbourne in 2008 saw other groups whose members were sporting nothing more than apparel with their logo being ejected simply for joining the rally.  Members from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation Australia had little choice to to accept this gross violation due to collaboration with the bullyboy Socialist groups.  Unfortunately, computer user groups and other digital rights groups are not aware as to how their cause is hijacked and manipulated for socialist ideals.

In another incident a group of ‘young liberals’ people Nationalist Alternative have core idealogical disagreements with, neo-conservatism being the first, setup a table at Latrobe University during the orientation week. Given it is a public asset this is an opportunity for ALL beliefs to represent their views in calm conversation and debate. The Socialist Alliance tore down on their table, spitting in females faces, pushing the table and leaflets over and physically hounding them off the campus.  If their were no Liberals on the day then the Labour table would have been next and if no labour presence then the greens. All people we have fundamental misgivings about but still maintain the right for them to join the public debates, counter protesting is one thing but outright censorship is another.

Nationalist Alternative call on organisations fighting for digital freedom and for free speech to carefully consider any ‘help’ from such groups and consider how events such as the one in the article not only make those who fight for free speech seem hypocritical but how it also hurts the cause.  Bad publicity (such as people being censored at such a rally) will set back the cause and portray important causes such as this in a more negative light.

It is highly likely most communist and socialist groups if in power would follow China in setting up a giant ‘intranet’ across Australia rather then an open internet.

Nationalist Alternative will continue to support freedom of speech both on the internet and in the public domain.

Stop the Filter Rally!

today, Saturday 6th of March, 12pm in Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Nationalist Alternative reviews the Australian Government’s Internet Censorship Proposal.

By Stephen Wilson

After a one year internet “filter” trial, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced on December 15, 2009, that

Australian ISP providers must block content which has been refused classification overseas. Legislation will be  introduced into Parliament in 2010 and once passed, the internet “filter” will take 12 months to implement. An  “independent body” will determine a list of Refused Classification (RC) blacklisted sites for Australian internet users.  Senator Conroy has made assurances that the filtering will be transparent, including notifying websites that they have been blocked, as well as measures to appeal blocked websites.

However one of the fundamental tenets of our society and the pillar and supposed cornerstone of Liberal Democracy, is  that of the free and robust exchange of ideas. A “marketplace of ideas” in which debate, free speech and criticism are welcome and tolerated. In fact, in a healthy “marketplace of ideas”, dissent is welcomed and those of different political/religious persuasions are permitted to engage in vigorous discourse.

Now imagine the Orwellian nightmare straight from the mind of the 1984 author George Orwell. Speech is suppressed, dissent is stifled and creativity and individualism are crushed.

In March 2002, Electronic Frontiers Australia undertook extensive research into the status of laws and  Government policy outside Australia. They were unable to find any indication that any other country broadly comparable  to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has introduced, or intends to introduce internet  censorship laws, particularly laws as restrictive as the existing Commonwealth legislation and proposed laws.

The internet has since its inception been utilised by persons of all persuasions for all manner of purposes. From on-line shopping, email, to communication and networking of like minded individuals. t has until recently been mostly self regulating and has on the whole, been of tremendous benefit to commerce, private and public companies and individuals. However the  Australian Governments recent attempts to impose mandatory internet filtering for “objectionable content” severely undermine one of the most fundamental rights of Man. To seek out information that may be unpopular, critical of  institutions or considered challenging. This in and of itself would be an unjust and reprehensible intrusion into a citizens  right to communicate with others and inform and entertain themselves. However given the fact that the Government is  maintaining a database that is inaccessible to outside scrutiny, is not able to be viewed by citizens and is COMPLETELY  SECRET!! The fact that this database is being maintained by the very same Government that refuses to cooperate with  freedom of information requests, harangues civil servants who leak information embarrassing to the Government and  shields itself deep within the cloak of bureaucratic invisibility, should only serve to arouse the deepest suspicions of all  freedom loving people wherever they may reside.

Indeed one would have thought that in conjunction with industry experts, interested parties and ISP’s that a series of concrete criteria and benchmarks would have been established to measure the efficacy of the blocking of “objectionable” material. On the contrary, the Department of Broadband,Communication and the Digital Economy (the department responsible for the administering of the trials) has actually stated that NO criteria were established in order to measure the effectiveness of the censorship trials. The whole process is  being shrouded in great secrecy with no-one permitted to question the motives of the Australian Government no matter how benign they may seem. The pretext that has been given for the internet censorship trials has (ostensibly) been  preventing persons from accessing “illegal” and “refused classification” material (see child pornography).

This argument is  fundamentally flawed on several different levels.

Firstly Child Pornography as reprehensible, disgusting, exploitative and incorrigible, will never be stamped out by the censorship of the internet. The reasons are complex and mostly outside the scope of this article. I n a nutshell however, the VAST majority of internet child pornography is through peer to peer networks. These are basically private file sharing networks that allow users to share content (music, files and more). However these networks are akin to an exclusive club, if you aren’t a member, you can’t gain access. These evil networks are a closed haven for like minded individuals and are generally speaking quite distrusting by nature. If you don’t know where to look, and you’re not a member, the files (pictures of children) are inaccessible. It’s an underground network beneath the internet. Secondly, most aspiring paedophiles are hardly stupid enough to type “Kiddy porn” into a search engine.

So if internet censorship will not have an impact on the very thing it has supposedly been created to  prevent, why on earth would the Australian Government insist upon this course of action? Why is the “blacklist” of  “illegal” sites kept secret? What is on this list and do you trust the Government to determine what YOU as a law abiding Citizen may view? I would suggest that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. If we look back some 6  months ago, a minor furore erupted when a copy of the blacklist was released on Wikileaks and other areas of the internet (Ironically the internet censorship blacklist was leaked on-the internet). The list of sites that were banned were rather innocuous. A Brisbane dentist was on the list as well as several Adult bookstores, a mechanics webpage and  several fetish sites which are 100% LEGAL to view as an Australian Citizen of the age of maturity. More disturbing is the  fact that because you cannot access the list, you have no way of knowing what is and what isn’t on it.

Given the fact that  only EIGHT small ISP’s and Optus (on a limited basis) agreed to participate in the trials, there can be no statistically  significant data to be gleaned from this totalitarian exercise of thought control and oppression. Not surprising iiNet  (Australia’s third largest ISP) withdrew from the Governments internet censorship trials in early 2009, saying it could not  “reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility”. Indeed all available data indicates that the  only effect that censorship will have on the internet is to turn it into an unwieldy (and slow) creature. Speeds will plummet, commerce and trade will suffer and costs will soar in order to pay for the ineffective filtering. Perhaps a more insidious force is at work, one that is attempting to stifle and suppress free speech, dissent and protest. When the Government is able to determine what sites you are able to visit, what you are able to post online and with whom you  associate in the digital realm, this really should ring alarm bells. Are you an anti war protester attempting to find a forum  with like minded individuals? A political activist trying to organise a meeting or simply a father sending an email to a child living overseas? How will you ever know you are restricted from accessing sites if they are simply omitted from your  search results. When “page not found” is displayed on your monitor, has the site been removed or blocked due to Government interference?

The fact that the results of the trial have been delayed and pushed back after repeated calls for  Senator Stephen Conroy to release the censorship trial data seem to be indicative of the difficulties the trial has  encountered. If things have been going swimmingly, why aren’t the results being vaunted and championed to the public  after spending 5 million dollars of taxpayers money?

Nationalist Alternative sincerely hope that the internet censorship plan dies a quiet death and slinks off into the night. A remnant of an era that should have died with the demise of the Soviet  Union and the KGB. If this plan is implemented the impact on the free exchange of ideas, political view and discourse of  all kinds will be severely impeded and crushed. I do not welcome the thought of an Australia where I fear a knock on the  door in the dead of night from the Peoples Secret Police for a blog entry or website search that aroused the suspicions of  those in power.