Australian MP accurately details the totalitarian nature of new ‘misinformation’ bill

First, thank you to the reader who sent in this tip. It was at the end of an EIGHT HOUR video of an Australian Parliamentary session. I cannot imagine the tedium of having to watch all that to get to this. It would be a lot like mining for gems I guess, where you spend all day in the muck hoping to pull something bright and shiny like this,

For non-Australians, the key is to look at bills like this in effect even if the name of it is more, well dialectical I guess or more tailored to the local culture. But the effect, making counter-revolutionary speech illegal, would be the same.

Canada has more than I can keep track of at this point. The ones under reading in the house now are C-63 and C-637 which jointly seek to criminalize wrong-think and make it retroactive.

A dialectically titled bill would be one in NEW-SPEAK. Like, “Child affirming Care” for cutting their genitals off or out and removing body parts and replacing them with Frankenstein like, inoperable nothings, sometimes actually made from dead people. They call it an “Allograft” because calling it Franken-plasty would be a little too honest.

More directly, making it a criminal offence for parents to suggest to their own child not to have these procedures done is called the “Anti conversion therapy” law, while talking children into having this done is not an offence. Conversion therapy was a practice of some organizations, I think mostly Churches to try and turn gay men straight using some kind of pavlovian methods. It had some minimal success but I don’t know how much people who underwent it volunteered, or were coerced or forced. In any case, the Conversion Therapy Bill, I think it’s C-4, has nothing to do with it except using the name to justify this one-way authoritarian law where the state now has massive control of the children.

(One might notice that Trudeau banned all the guns in a OIC/’executive order’ before he started this series of totalitarian bills. Anyone think that’s a.coincidence?)

The language this MP uses shows he has a pretty clear vision of the purpose of this bill. Something like: ‘…criminalizing government narratives’.

RAIR post on this speech here.