An update from Australia about the COVID situation here and recently circulating stories.

Over recent months, a huge amount of misinformation about Australia has been circulating on Freerepublic. In most cases, the person sharing it probably didn't know it was misinformation - they were sincerely and honestly passing on things they'd been told were true. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of misleading material is being shared and a false narrative is being created that Australia has turned into some sort of neo-fascist state. I've attempted to provide accurate information, and I know I'm not the only Australian doing so, but it's a deeply frustrating uphill battle.

Please note - I am not saying everything has been or is rosy in Australia. In my state of Victoria, the socialist state government has been significantly oppressive - because of the way Australia's constitution works, state governments have control over dealing with anything that is considered to do with public health, while the Commonwealth government has very little power in this area and cannot overrule the states. Peculiarites in Victoria's specific constitutional conventions (peculiarities, incidentally, that American conservatives would likely support without understanding how they'd be implemented here) means that under cover of a public health emergency, the state Premier, Daniel Andrews, has been able to act in a rather dictatorial fashion - there are powers that can be used to reign him in, in extremis, but he has, so far, been careful, not to actually trigger those - the threshold for such intervention is very high. There are real issues in parts of Australia. Unfortunately, though, when these things get exaggerated or things are made up, it becomes harder for us to actually get the real issues dealt with. We have to waste so much time on false information.

Examples of some of these false claims - "Australia is under martial law." This, simply, is not true. It hasn't happened. "There are mobile forced vaccination squads". Completely untrue. Nothing like that exists. "Police have shot and killed a protester in Melbourne." Not true - the man who was supposedly killed doen't remember exactly what happened to him, but believes he was drunk and tried to rob a liquor store, and was injured during his robbery attempt - not by police, but by somebody else. And he's definitely still alive. I could list a lot of false information that is being spread.

I could also list more of the real problems that have happened, but frankly, don't have the energy right now to properly describe them in a way that's likely to be easily understood by people outside of Australia.

Why is so much false information circulating. My theory - and I admit it's a bit conspiratorial - is that Australia is currently the victim of a propaganda campaign that is being waged by the government of Communist China. It's not at all conspiratorial that China doesn't like Australia much at the moment for various reasons. Among those reasons is Australia's close alliance with the United States. China would love to split Australia and America, and doing so by making Americans think Australia is something different than it is, would make sense to them. I should say, that I think the same is happening in reverse - Australians are routinely being fed biased misinformation about America - recent examples include the narrative that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist murderer, for example. Again, I won't go into all of that - but I do think it is happening in both directions.

It also may have the advantage for China that if they can make it look like a liberal democracy is engaged in widespread human rights abuses when it isn't, it helps mask what goes on in China. And I have seen here on Freerepublic, quite a few people saying things like "Australia is worse than China."

Now, the reason I've been driven to post this message is because I'm really concerned about a lot of posts I've seen recently about a particular incident in the Northern Territory of Australia. Now, this incident is, at its core, real. The basic facts are true. But that doesn't stop it being used in a way that promotes propaganda. Leaving out context, and spinning the story towards a particular slant, makes a big difference.

There are specific reasons why what has happened in the NT has happened there. If these are understood, I think there's a very different complexion on what is going on. So I'm going to try and explain that context.

The basic facts - yes, indgenous people (Aboriginal Australians) from a number of small isolated communities in the Northern Territory who either have COVID or have been exposed to COVID have been moved to a facility just outside, Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory. They were not given a choice in this (well, at least, most of them weren't - there may be exceptions). Three boys absconded from this facility for a brief period before they were captured and arrested. That's all true.

But what is left out of that is the reasons these things happened. Now, it's perfectly legitimate to think that there are no reasons that could justify this - I don't agree. I think that's a pretty extreme position. But it's a valid one. If after reading what I'm about to explain, you still feel that way, fair enough - that's your right. But I do think the context makes a lot of difference.

I'll start by talking about the Northern Territory. The name matters in this case - Australia is made up of eight*, mostly self-governing jurisdictions. There are six states, which were the six original colonies that federated in 1901 to create a single nation - all these six states were already mostly independent, mostly sovereign nations before 1901 (they were still technically colonies of the United Kingdom, but the UK had devolved virtually everything except defence and foreign relations to local control - and even after federation, the UK kept control of those things). The two self-governing territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have a slightly more limited form of self-government than the states - the NT has been offered statehood but didn't want it.

The reasons, NT is a territory not a state are relevant here. It's down to the fact that it's a very large area of land, with a relatively small population. We're talking about a quarter of a million people living in an area a little under twice the size of Texas. 150,000 of these people live in Darwin, and there's only about three towns besides Darwin that have more than 10,000 people. The population of the Northern Territory is about 30% Aboriginal Australian (I'm going to use the term indigenous from now on to refer to these people, as it's the currently preferred term - Aboriginal isn't offensive, but it's generally seen as a little old fashioned - technically speaking, not all indigenous Australians are Aboriginal, but nearly all of those in NT are).

Like a lot of countries, Australia's historical treatment of its indigenous people contains some negative features and that still has an impact on some things today.

But today, most policies are based on respect for these people and for their rights. And that is actually part of what is going on here, contrary to the spin.

It is now accepted that indigenous people should be able to continue to live on their ancestral lands if they choose to. In the past, there were policies of rounding people up based on race and sending them wherever governments wanted them to go, that disconnected people from their country. That has not been acceptable for a long time.

But one of the results of this is the Northern Territory, which has a much higher proportion of indigenous people than the rest of Australia is spotted with tiny indigenous communities that are really not viable in a normal sense. They are too small and isolated to be normally functional communities.

And these are the types of places that these people who've been moved to Howard Springs come from.

I'll be blunt. These places are slums. Governments built standard Australian three or four bedroom homes intended to house families of five people - but the indigenous people choose to have twenty people living in them. This is their choice. We do not stop them doing it.

Overcrowding and poor sanitation means these places are not places where any civilised society would leave sick people. It has been long understood - by the indigenous people themselves - that if they become sick, they will be moved to a place where they can be treated. While, in this specific case, because of quarantine rules, they don't always have a choice, it's routine to move people like this voluntarily. It's expected. The indigenous people would be outraged if we didn't do this under normal circumstances because it would basically mean leaving sick people in the desert to die. That's what used to happen. Indigenous health groups - made up of indigenous people - are supporting the actions of the NT government in doing this. If they objected, their objections would be taken into account - but they are not. They want this done. They would go nuts if we didn't do it, and would paint it as white Australia neglecting indigenous people - that would be a human rights violation.

So moving these people to where they can be treated is, in my view, absolutely defensible and reasonable. What's the alternative? Building a world class health facility in every little 200 person village in the desert for occasional use?

This is how rural Australia works - for whites as well as indigenous people. One of the most sacred institution is the Royal Flying Doctor Service that was specifically set up so people in isolated areas could be moved when they needed it.

Other relevant factors - partly because of history, indigenous Australians have a much higher level of a wide variety of medical problems than non-indigenous Australians. They are at particular risk of complications from infectious disease. These are medical facts. This makes it even more important that these people get help when they need it, but it also means that in a community where 30% of people are indigenous, governments do have to be particularly alert to the risk of contagious disease spreading.

The Northern Territory - the entire Territory - only has about 20 ICU beds. In normal times, this is all they need, but at the moment, it means that if they have any type of large COVID outbreak, their hospital system is likely to be rapidly overwhelmed. So far, they have avoided that - there's been less than 300 cases of COVID in the Territory over the entire pandemic. In this situation, their isolation is an advantage that most places don't have. This is one of those places that realistically does have a very good chance of keeping the spread very low. But it wouldn't take much for that to fail.

Now, they've moved infected people from isolated communities, hundreds of miles from any large city to a location on the edge of the only large city they have. Again, I think it's perfectly understandable that measures are taken to stop these people who are either infected themselves or who were living in the same house as infected people - because that's who has been moved - infected people or their primary close contacts) just being able to get out into a city of 150,000 people who they could infect. Yes, these three kids have currently tested negative. I hope they stay negative. Statistically though, that's unlikely. They may not get seriously ill, but it's very likely they've been exposed and will develop the disease while in quarantine.

They are being kept in good conditions. Howard Springs isn't a holiday resort, but it's certainly not a slum - nor is it any sort of concentration camp. Our Olympic athletes quarantined there after returning from Tokyo and Australia pretty much worships its athletes.

Now, you may have read all this and still think it's unjustified. You may feel any restriction on any thing any time is unwarranted for all I know. Fair enough if that is your position.

But personally I don't see it that way. My mother was one of Australia's more prominent Aboriginal rights activists back in the 1960s - she had to tone it down a little because it had the potential to damage my father's military career, but she was still pretty active. And I became so myself - I started being an advocate for their rights when I was about ten and have been consistently ever since. I've spent time in some of these communities. I'm involved in trying to get kids from these communities access to decent education (and just like health care, sometimes the only practical way of doing that involves taking them away to school - I went to boarding school myself... it's not that bad). I'm a strong advocate for helping indigenous people. If I thought these people's rights were being violated in a serious way, I'd say so. As it is, I would regard not doing what's being done currently as a greater violation. Maybe we could do better - maybe we could have hospitals in every tiny community, for example. Doesn't seem practical to me, but maybe it would be better than taking people hundreds of miles to protect them.

But even if that's the case - we don't have that system now and we can't magically create it. We have to do the best we can with what we have.

* it's actually a little more complicated than this - but the additional complexities are totally irrelevant here.

“...because of the way Australia’s constitution works, state governments have control over dealing with anything that is considered to do with public health, while the Commonwealth government has very little power in this area and cannot overrule the states...”

Too bad y’all signed on to the filthy John Coward’s National
Firearms Agreement when you had the power to tell him to shove it up his ass.

How much did the Deep State pay you to say that!?!?

LOL Just kidding.

Thank you for the first hand account.

I actually have been hoping an Aussie FRiend would get the truth to us.

Have a great day, or wait, you’re already on tomorrow….now I’m confused.

” Indigenous health groups - made up of indigenous people - are supporting the actions of the NT government in doing this. If they objected, their objections would be taken into account - but they are not. They want this done. They would go nuts if we didn’t do it”

Very collectivist. If the health group (paid by government) rubber stamps it, then you are absolved of listening to the INDIVIDUAL? When you are arresting an Abo who objects, do you tell him, “well, the health group says it’s ok?”

How would you feel if they came to YOUR door today and wanted to take you away, and you objected and they said “Well hey, we have the permission of the local government health people”?

You guys are screwing up.

RE: We did. We don’t anymore. But as you say, it was being done by police.

1. If it was ( past tense ) being done by police, then what is it IN EFFECT? You don’t want to use the word but it still is martial-law like.

And what redress do you have in your democracy to prevent the police from doing this unscientific and illogical act? We can file a lawsuit here and you can bet your a** they will lose and pay.

2. You said “we did”. Which means it is in the past.

I like to know why not anymore.

If it is because those in government fear the backlash from the people, I have hope that Victorians are not the compliant sheep being painted by those outside the state.

But if those in government did away with it because of their “royal” benevolence and not because of fear of being thrown out, then you’re no better than being under a dictator.

In a Democracy, the government should fear the people, not the other way around.

“Australia is now in a fascist style lockdown. There are concentrations camps holding people for “their protection”.”

I’ve heard that rationale used for the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. The country was so fired up to ‘fight the Japs’ that they simply weren’t safe in regular American society.

As with your past posts on happenings in Australia, I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to provide such a detailed description of events there.

Please stay well!

USC

Bottom line, consent of the individual is the North Star. There are a lot of pretty words explaining why Australia has decided to incarcerate people against their will.

I know the white man’s burden is hard, but the way to lose that burden is to simply put it down. If they live in squalor and even possibly die, that is -their- choice. The problem is the people who can’t let go caring for them as though they are imbeciles or children.
That makes it unimaginable to get consent. And THAT is where the bad old days came from.

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

C.S. Lewis

Thanks for the report, but I am still a no on concentration camps. You have a problem in two small communities. You could A) Send doctors and maybe a mobile hospital. People who actually need an ICU could be evacuated. Or B) Round up everyone and send them to a concentration camp where the sick and the healthy will be kept under lock and key and guarded day and night. They are not in a hospital or at home but in a prison without a trial or a judge or a jury. That is not a world I want to live in.

Quote
They are being kept in good conditions. Howard Springs isn’t a holiday resort, but it’s certainly not a slum - nor is it any sort of concentration camp. Our Olympic athletes quarantined there after returning from Tokyo and Australia pretty much worships its athletes.

The fence these escapees had to scale was obviously too small..
Build higher fences, Australia

Very collectivist.

Yes, in some ways. Because that's what indigenous people have consistently they have wanted for more than fifty years now.

It's not what I'd choose for myself but I'm not going to be the rich white guy who tells them how they should choose to live.

If there were significant indigenous protest against this, I'd listen. But what I'm seeing is support.

I don't come from a tribal culture that dates back tens of thousands of years. So my views on this probably aren't going to be the same as theirs as a group.

That was me you where talking to.

I gave you a link to this video about the camps
Pointing out the NAZI's told their prisoners the first day they were there for a medical checkup.
There has never been a Tyrant in history that hasn't done their actions for altruistic reasons.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QpMUXyYjm26a/
These people that test negative for covid are being "quarantined" Those that escaped will likely face maximum fines.

The Aboriginal Australians are claiming this is a land grab. What happens when they can't pay their fine? Will they lose their lands?
A ‘penalty unit’ is $222 under Commonwealth law, multiplied by 300 (maximum units) equals $66,600
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020N00061

you claimed the maximum fine for extremely poor people living in large communes was $5000. <<--- media propaganda and misinformation.

Thank goodness for Jim! for Freerepublic. I was JUST banned from twitter for "misinformation based off the CCP run organization WHO" after complementing Jean-Claud Perez for identifying covid antigen was Plasmodium over a year and half ago. Only now has other scientist starting to figure it out with their report on CD147 Basigin receptors.
https://portlandpress.com/clinsci/article/doi/10.1042/CS20210735/230273/The-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-protein-disrupts-human

The essence of all of this is that Australia thinks that it’s legitimate to go after them, chase them, arrest them, and confine them for their own good. That’s depraved and shows you guys are really still back in the “rabbit proof fence” days.

No, it doesn't.

First of all, Rabbit Proof Fence, though loosely based on fact, is largely fiction. It doesn't accurately represent what existed at that time. Some of it was better. Some of it was worse.

But it's totally different to what happens now - in fact, in most ways, it's the exact opposite.

Indigenous people have self determination. For the most part, government implements what they want with regards to their welfare.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.