Date 2021-02-26: Here is my response to: 2 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security/ExtremistMovements/Submissions https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c5cea09a-86aa-4e9b-839d-954daf94a865&subId=702960 > prevent acts of politically motivated violence How are you actually detecting that? When a black reads crap about how bad white people are, and then sees a white woman and decides to rape her as the apparent scum she is, does that show up on your radar? If not, whose radar DOES it show up on? Do you question black rapists to see if they view whites as scum? Isn't that "politically motivated"? > ASIO investigates extremism to identify the threat before an act of violence occurs. You can start with your own government displaying "Aboriginal" flags trying to stir up racial grievances. Are you prepared to go all the way to the top without fear or favor? > ASIO works with law enforcement agencies to prevent extremism and acts of terrorism How serious are you about "preventing extremism"? And how are you even defining this? What about a rape victim who is campaigning for the reintroduction of the death penalty in Australia to apply to rapists? Sounds extreme to me. Assuming you even have a definition, and even hypothetically you classify anti-rape as "extreme", what's the next step? You want to explain to rape victims that they should "turn the other cheek as Jesus said to do"? If you do that, you won't even bother jailing rapists. Basically I think the only sensible position you have is that "CURRENT Australian law is PERFECT and anything that diverges from that is 'extreme'". If someone wants to double the jail time for rapists, that's extreme. Halving, extreme. I don't know how many rape victims are secretly looking for an opportunity to kill either a rapist or a random man, but you won't be able to detect that. Well, theoretically you could question the rape victim at length and see if she is willing to give up her secrets. But you can never be 100% sure, and you should treat every human as potentially dangerous. On the planet. Animals too. And aliens if they ever arrive. And it's not enough to just focus on rape victims. Any woman, or even a man, can be inspired to engage in unrestrained violence in response to someone else being raped. I am one of those people. But I'm willing to give up my secrets, for free, regardless of what retribution awaits me for speaking freely. > Islamic extremism is the support for violence to achieve a > specific social, political, religious and legal system based > on an extreme interpretation of Islam. No, you're contributing to the problem by repeating that lie. It is the LITERAL interpretation of Islam. That's what the damned Quran says. If you want to stop this shit from happening, then take extreme action against this terrible book. To be consistent, you should also take extreme action against the bible. Both should be treated the same as Mein Kampf. You don't give children access to shit like this, it will screw their brains up forever. You especially don't say "God said this". At least Hitler and Marx didn't claim to be chanelling God. E.g. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 which *commands* (the word used is "shall" - that means you have to do it, not "if you feel like it") you to torture your own children to death. It is true that you can't actually convince any Christians to actually follow this passage in the bible, either extra-judicially or writing to their MP or starting their own Christian fundamentalist party. I actually don't know what is constraining Christians. Why don't you try to find out? Maybe the same thing that is working for Christianity can work for Islam. Note that although you can't get Christians to stone their own children to death (or even advocate that), they still refuse to give up the bible. I don't have an explanation for that either. It seems that Christians collectively went through centuries of "softening up" and if we wear Islamic terrorism for another few centuries, MAYBE Muslims will reform to the same extent as Christians too. I don't know. Let's recap in 400 years from now and see what progress has been made. Or find another, more direct solution. Suggest something! > Right-wing extremism is the support for violence to achieve > political outcomes relating to ideologies, including but not > limited to, white supremacism I don't know why you mentioned "whites" in particular. At least balance it with some other color, such as "black", "purple" or "yellow". > and Neo-Nazism. Ok, you haven't provided any analysis of this one at all. Are people actually reading "Mein Kampf" and saying "this shit is fantastic"? They're not being indoctrinated into it, so where is it coming from? Can't the Australian government "fisk" the book (I can't be bothered reading it myself) and when anyone says "hey, these Nazis knew a thing or two", people could just reply "groan, read www.gov.au/nazis-are-dickheads.htm". Do one of those for communism as well. Mention Bernie by name. > They see the pandemic as proof of the failure of globalisation, > multiculturalism, and democracy, and confirmation that societal > collapse and a race war are inevitable. And shouldn't someone in the government counter all those points? You don't expect ME to do ALL the work, do you? Also, can you clarify on what their proposed alternative to "democracy" is? Also can you clarify what the "race war" is about? No race speaks with one voice, and people may be mixed race, plus there are lots of ethnic subsets in both "black" and "white". Who the fuck is supposed to be going to war with who, and worldwide? I'm guessing the extremists don't actually have an agreement on that, or even have an answer to that on an individual level, so there might be an opportunity to intercept the thought process there. Note that there already WAS a race war - between Hutus and Tutsis. So is that it? It's over now? Or are we going for some sort of "last man standing"? > The online environment enables unrestricted access It is curious that you didn't propose actually restricting that. I can remember an exasperated Kuwaiti saying that "Everything is blocked, and there's just so much Wikipedia you can read!". I don't think you should actually do that though. I like unrestricted access. > Many encrypted-by-default messaging applications allow subjects > of investigation to communicate securely, whether intentionally or not. I suggest doing something about this. I don't see a reason for people to be able to avoid government monitoring of communication. Can't you limit the allowed software? In fact, I would go one step further. In any communication, government agents should be able to jump in and say "that's bullshit". Like Twitter added warnings to many of Donald Trump's posts. Please don't censor any speech though (Twitter didn't either, not one single word, until they banned Trump altogether). And places like Facebook, instead of banning QAnon proponents, should require that all QAnon proponents must add a disclaimer to every one of their theories with: The government requires me to say "this is all bullshit, and the correct information can be found at www.gov.au/correct-info.htm". If they don't add that disclaimer (themselves) THEN they get banned. That way neither Facebook nor the government needs to spend any effort correcting misinformation. I think bank PIN numbers should still be encrypted though. I don't trust government employees THAT much. > ASIO becomes involved only where IMGs support or seek to use > violence for a political outcome I think you should clarify non-state violence here. There's nothing wrong with advocating violence to be used against Saddam or anyone who stood in the way of the ADF going to Iraq to arrest him. Nothing wrong with the Australian government using violence against Australian rapists etc either. I think you need to explain to people that nothing except state violence is actually effective. Nobody bothered to ask Timothy McVeigh what his political opinions were with the thought of adopting government policy to prevent another attack. The various terrorists don't even have a consistent thing they are trying to change anyway. Thankyou for the good work you guys do. You didn't propose violating anyone's freedom of speech or other human rights.