Free Speech in Australia: There’s no Chance, and Buckley’s…

"Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us, only sky"

Imagine if I told you that I have proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a man pretending to be a woman is a predatory stalker of women with a dossier that proves it. Now imagine if that man is a ‘trusted’ paramedic. Next, imagine that that man has provided evidence in public that he has deliberately and actively abused his own child, quite possibly for his own sexual pleasure. Imagine that that man says he is a woman…

In Australia, in 2023 you have to ‘imagine’ these things, because not ‘imagining’ will get you hounded, shamed and censored by an ideologically captured government agency. So, although I can 100% prove all of my above ‘imaginings’, I cannot publicly state any of the above facts about Queensland paramedic “Jennifer” Buckley for fear of being cancelled by the Australian Office of eSafety. A very dubious and ideologically captured Federal government agency run by eSafety Commissioner, American Julie Inman Grant.

Is this male a paedophile? ”Jennifer” Buckley publicly boasted about abusing his own child.

It is a damning indictment of the collapse of the Australian political and social landscape that this situation exists. Although I have prima facie evidence that this man keeps dossiers on women that he targets, I have to merely ‘imagine’, Because even with watertight legal proof he and his ilk are a protected species in woke Australia. Their brand is dependent on the naive, the stupid and the downright greedy politicians and bureaucrats to enforce the gaslighting of women through misogynistic hatred and downright lies.

In the words of Václav Havel, the renowned Czech playwright and dissident, "Truth and love must prevail over lies and hatred. The principle of an individual's freedom of expression is the cornerstone of all human rights and freedoms. It underpins the right to know, to learn, to inquire, to question, and to challenge." These poignant words resonate strongly as we examine the current state of free speech in Australia and contemplate the peril that this current descent into the mass censorship of dissenting ideas poses to the long-term health of our society.

"Truth and love must prevail over lies and hatred. The principle of an individual's freedom of expression is the cornerstone of all human rights and freedoms. It underpins the right to know, to learn, to inquire, to question, and to challenge." - Václav Havel

Australia, which has historically celebrated being known for its democratic values and open society, has recently experienced a growing wave of restrictions on freedom of speech. Controversial subjects that demand open and honest discussion are being met with censorship, stifling the diversity of opinions and inhibiting progress.

We recently learned a disturbing story. In a world where personal stories are shared with the click of a button, an extraordinary claim by a Queensland male paramedic who poses as a woman, "Jennifer" Buckley, briefly sparked a heated debate. Buckley makes the audacious claim that he breastfeeds his child, defying established scientific facts and raising serious ethical concerns. As experts and legal authorities should be wrestling with the issue of potential child abuse and the legal implications under Australian law, an unexpected twist emerged: Buckley, who willingly made his story public, is now attempting to shut down the debate through bogus claims of his right to privacy. We will examine the fundamental concept of free speech, the moral implications at stake, and the need for expert analysis of the issue.

One of the most important aspects of a healthy society is the ability to engage in meaningful and respectful dialogue, particularly when dealing with important and contentious issues. Such discussions allow for the exploration of various points of view, the challenge of prevailing norms, and the promotion of intellectual growth. However, as the space for open debate shrinks, we risk creating an environment in which dissent is silenced, critical thinking is stifled, and progress is stalled. Buckley's decision to breastfeed as a male raises concerns about his child's safety by actively defying professional medical advice. Male lactation, according to medical experts, is biologically impossible. Buckley's rejection of scientific consensus and deliberate rejection of professional advice call into question his fitness as a parent.

Concerns about ethics loom large. According to critics, Buckley's actions, motivated by personal affirmation and possibly sexual pleasure, prioritize his desires over the child's safety and well-being. The possibility of causing harm to an innocent life raises concerns about negligence, recklessness, and even child abuse. If Buckley's actions were found to have endangered the child, several charges could be brought against him in Australia. Willful negligence, a charge encompassing the failure to provide necessary care, and reckless endangerment of a minor could potentially apply. Additionally, charges related to child abuse could also be considered if the evidence demonstrates that the child's well-being was being deliberately compromised.

While this should be an important debate involving experts, legal authorities, and concerned citizens, heavy-handed government censorship means that only those ‘in the know’ are left grappling with the moral, ethical, and legal implications of this extraordinary situation. It is hard to imagine circumstances under which an individual who is possibly getting a sexual thrill from dangerous publicised practices with a baby is being protected by governments rather than being the subject of intense scrutiny by child welfare and law enforcement authorities. While it is critical to carefully balance individual rights with the responsibility to protect the weak in order to ensure that the rights of the baby are upheld and justice is served, this is impossible due to active government censorship and interference.

The concept of free speech is central to democratic societies, allowing people to express themselves and engage in open and robust public debate. However, with freedom comes responsibility. Buckley voluntarily entered the public domain and exposed his actions to public scrutiny when he made his breastfeeding claim public in an interview with the Daily Mail newspaper. By doing so, he implicitly accepted the consequences, which included the possibility of dissent and professional criticism. 

Buckley, the Queensland State Government, and the Australian Federal Government appear to have then collaborated to silence all debate and dissent. Government agencies have attacked, shamed, and harassed experts in the field of post-natal care, particularly breastfeeding, on Buckley's behalf. Social media posts and news articles have been restricted and blocked in order to protect Buckley's "dignity"! The same man who boasted loudly about himself as some kind of ubermensch that has miraculously been able to do something no other human has ever done in the history of humanity: change his biological sex and lactate with non-existent mammary glands.

The consequences of suppressing free speech go beyond the immediate restrictions. A society that discourages the free exchange of ideas, to use Havel's phrase, is vulnerable to being manipulated by mass myths. In the absence of open dialogue, falsehoods, such as Buckley's absurd claim that men can change sex and breastfeed babies safely and effectively, can take hold and flourish, eroding the foundations of truth and undermining public trust. Democracy's very fabric becomes vulnerable to the whims of cunning hypocrites and demagogues who use dissent to consolidate power and advance their own agendas.

It is a clear violation of free speech principles to use legal privacy claims to stifle public debate on a topic introduced into the public domain by Buckley himself. Censorship and silence in response to reasonable comments and concerns expressed by professionals with relevant expertise are unreasonable. The right to privacy should not be used to avoid accountability or stifle public debate on high-stakes ethical issues.

Buckley's attempt to shield himself from public scrutiny by claiming privacy is not only hypocritical but also morally problematic. By seeking publicity and voluntarily sharing his outrageous, scientifically impossible breastfeeding claim, he actively invited public debate. It is illogical and contradictory to expect anonymity and protection from criticism after willingly exposing one's actions to the public eye. The right to privacy does not include the ability to protect oneself from the consequences of one's own actions, especially when those actions may have ethical consequences.

The ethical compass of society requires a thorough examination of all actions that may endanger innocent life. Buckley's desire for privacy and protection should not take precedence over a child's safety and well-being. When dangerous and false claims are made public that may endanger the welfare of a child, experts must thoroughly investigate the matter. The child's welfare, as well as the right to an open and honest discussion, take precedence over any individual's desire for anonymity or protection, especially when they have voluntarily made their story public.

Accountability and public scrutiny are essential components of responsible public disclosure. When a story with potential ethical implications becomes public, it invariably sparks public discussion and evaluation. Concerned individuals have a reasonable basis to voice their opinions and raise questions when actions are perceived to jeopardize a child's well-being and safety.

Buckley’s case and the ominous involvement of both federal and state government agencies raise some serious and concerning wider issues too. The long-term health of Australian society depends on its ability to address and navigate these complex challenges. By suppressing free speech, our state and federal governments hinder our capacity to tackle pressing issues such as social inequality, environmental concerns, political corruption, and human rights abuses. Without the freedom to discuss, debate, and challenge the status quo, we risk becoming an authoritarian society incapable of finding innovative solutions and trapped in a cycle of stagnation and human degradation.

A vibrant and robust democracy thrives on diversity, dissent, and the free exchange of ideas. The alternative is an authoritarian demagogy where individual citizens are persecuted for simply stating biological reality. A healthy democracy requires an environment where individuals feel safe to express their opinions, even when they are unpopular with governments and those in power. Unless Australia begins upholding the principles of freedom of speech, we find ourselves on a very dark and dangerous path to dictatorship and the crushing of dissenting voices. Free and open debate and discourse in Australia not only safeguard the rights of its citizens but also nurture an engaged and informed populace capable of shaping a brighter future for all.

As we confront the challenges of our time, let us heed the warnings of Václav Havel and recognize that the suppression of free speech in Australia threatens the very essence of our democracy and jeopardises the long-term health of our society. It is imperative that we strive to create an environment that fosters open dialogue, embraces diverse perspectives, and encourages the pursuit of truth. Only then can we truly progress, ensuring a future characterised by knowledge, understanding, and an unwavering commitment to protecting the fundamental right of free expression.

Last, but by no means least spare a moment to think about that poor baby, a mere sexual plaything in the hands of “Jennifer” Buckley…

In a world so twisted with hatred and lies, sadly, all that believers in fairness, truth and decency can do right now, is ‘imagine’…