So why do we think this is terrible for Belarus but don't care that Australia has the same rules?
So downvotes because you think Australia's rules don't count because they're nicer and speak english? I'd venture to guess the official reasons behind both bans 'public good'. By which we mean the state.
Most western democracies pride themselves on “having governments of laws, not men”. Australia has a rather more transactional view of freedom and very limited judicial review.
Just this weekend it was announced that people with welfare debts would be blocked from flying overseas. That might be fair, but blocking people from travelling seems to be at the whim of civil servants and politicians. There wasn’t much of an uproar, since the ends justify the means, and no one likes cheats, despite this amounting to extrajudicial punishment.
The minister proposing this encryption crackdown has used his vast discretionary powers to do immigration favours for the politically connected, with impunity, while ignoring arguably more deserving cases.
The land of roos, barbies and golden beaches has a rather well-developed authoritarian streak behind its carefully constructed facade.
We are... as an Aussie living overseas I am still amazed by these laws, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be a lot of protests/action against them. Maybe protests have been banned as well?
Because Australia, by necessity, has been run by corporations and companies and non-state actors since its inception, and its current government is extremely pro-business in its desire to build the national infrastructure, exploit the massive resource treasure of the land, and construct a 'next generation' society built on principles its learned from other failures through contemporary history. Australia influenced Marx, it influenced Stalin, and during the period of the modern era has provided corporate elite with an industrial playground in which policies can be tested, adjusted and improved. The Australian people are very eager, culturally, to play that role.
This makes me quite happy to be moving to Estonia in February.
It's not just this, it's a pattern of behavior in general by the Australian government. It's not even a single action, I don't play games that often anymore and the lack of an R18+ classification has almost no effect on me, there are many data points in Australian political actions though which reflect a deeply troubling underlying truth, the government perceives it's citizens as children.
My reasons for leaving are many, but the two big ones; primarily the above, but secondarily that I can't help thinking in a large amount of cases with regards to aforementioned citizens, the government is not entirely wrong.
Excuses. If the state really wants to do something, they can. It is just a question of the costs.
NZ is not a state, but instead has a precarious relationship with the USA and other countries, which can ban-hammer us for things it really shouldn’t have any say in.
A better example: “Since Canberra pointedly demanded an investigation into the origins and spread of the coronavirus, the number of Aussie businesses being squeezed in China has exploded. Crates of Australian rock lobsters have been left to rot at a Chinese airport, and mountains of coal have been stuck in Chinese ports. Beijing turned the screw again, hitting Australian wine exports with punitive tariffs of up to 212 percent, essentially closing off a US$1 billion market.” “Australia's virus-weakened economy is being targeted for political retribution and the two countries may be sliding into a shadow trade war.”
Your phrasing there is not the clearest, but if I am understanding you correctly, would that not then be the 'fault' of the Australian government? A country can write whatever laws they want, but it's ultimately up to the country hosting those individuals to determine whether those laws mean anything. For a contemporary example the several Mueller indictments of Russian nationals are completely meaningless. They will never face a day in court because the Russian government does not tend to yield to US influence. There's 0 reason that e.g. the Australian government could not behave similarly, if they so wished. It comes with political and other risks, but so is the same with all decisions people make.
Australia is quietly incredibly authoritarian. The rules are really important, and government is encouraged to solve social problems by creating new laws.
Australia is often used as a testing ground since it's part of five eyes and a) people there don't have many legally enshrined rights (no bill of rights) besides stuff like right to political expression and religion, and b) the population is complacent and won't kick up a fuss about the immoral crap the government enacts.
This isn't a random government. It's the government of the host country of an international event. Just because it's an international event it doesn't invalidate the sovereignty of the host nation. In this case Australia is rightfully enforcing it's border rules.
You might disagree with Australia's policies but they are created by lawfully elected representatives of the Australian people. Attempting to ignore or bypass these policies is actually impinging on the freedom of ordinary Australians to have their voices heard and their safety protected by their elected government.
The thing I find so surprising about all of this is that I would never expect a "normal" country like Australia to have censorship issues. China, North Korea, Iran... Australia? Is the Australian government simply too powerful for its people's own good?
Australia is a nanny state and it manifests itself in many laws and regulation, that's how Australians like it. Everything requires licensing, endless regulations, lockdown, bicycle helmets, draconian alcohol laws, the works. If there is a doubt Australia will always err on the side of more rules and limits. If you value freedom Australia is not the place, the beaches are nice though.
Similar, yes, but the key distinction is that neither Australia nor France are governed by an autocratic regime with a history of using such laws to exert political control.
For example, let's say a group is organizing and advertising a demonstration on a social network, and the odds are good that the protest will result in a police crackdown. Might this be excessively risky behavior? The Kremlin's answer would likely depend on the group, and whether the ruling party has a political interest to clamp down.
There were people arrested for posts on Facebook during COVID lockdowns. We had police on the ground hassling every person in sight. Multiple friends of mine were fined for taking a momentary pause on their 1 hour of allotted outside time per day. Police were checking whether coffee cups were indeed full of liquid. We had statewide man hunts for people who sneezed in lifts that they were the only one in. Protests against the draconian measures were violently suppressed by the state government. It was one of the most important and impactful government decisions in the history of the country, affecting the lives of every person and dissenting political demonstration was banned.
The Federal government passed a law requiring a backdoor for all encrypted communication in the country and the press was completely silent. We ban drawn Japanese porn for some unknown reason while allowing real porn which unambiguously provides greater risk of harm. Prior to internet distribution of video games, many were simply banned for import on the whims of a parental advisory board. Australia is a nation obsessed with prohibition and there's nothing Australians love more than collective moral outrage followed by a cathartic wholesale ban.
I'm Australian and whenever I see valid criticism of the country on the internet I soon find an upset Australian replying. They never really refute the underlying point, they'll reply with a non-sequitur or talk about how it doesn't affect their lives. The reality is most Australians don't even feel the noose around their neck because they've never stepped out of line in any way. Most protections on liberty are for extreme and unusual circumstances, you don't notice their absence until it's too late. The vast majority of Chinese people trust their government, and believe the various restrictions on speech and liberty are in the best interests of the nation. Their curbs on liberty are too invasive of course, ours are necessary.
So downvotes because you think Australia's rules don't count because they're nicer and speak english? I'd venture to guess the official reasons behind both bans 'public good'. By which we mean the state.
reply