The government destroys everything it touches. This is true always and everywhere. There are no exceptions.

Crime is out of control because the government said, “Hey, we’ll take care of that with their laws and with their police and with their courts.” And now, thanks to our laws, our police and our courts, law-abiding victims of crime are disarmed while violent criminals rule the streets.

And everywhere else you look from education to healthcare to the roads and frankly everything. You see that the government promises to fix it. But the government is the reason why it’s broken. And sadly, human rights are no exception. The moment government began to get involved in protecting human rights. You just knew that it was only a matter of time before the Human Rights Commission would be a threat to our human rights in Australia. And guess what? Today’s the day.

Uh the human rights commission under its president Hugh de Kretser have said that they want to outlaw certain misinformation about climate change specifically in the interest of protecting your human rights of course. So the Australian Human Rights Commission is now launching a direct assault on your human right to freedom of speech and to the implied rights of political communication which is recognized by precedent in our high court in Australia. Seeking to trash those rights in the interest of enabling swift and decisive action against climate change.

The government destroys everything it touches. The government cannot be trusted.

And this claim being made by the AHRC to the Australian Senate should be all the evidence needed to declare the Australian Human Rights Commission unfit for purpose and to have it be abandoned immediately. But that won’t happen, of course, because the AHRC is just one part of this swamp. The murky and confusing blob of bureaucrats and agencies and non-governmental agencies which so often still seem to be sucking on the taxpayers teat. And all of those survive by staying in the good books of the politicians and government of the day. Which means that for the most part, they’ll tell these politicians whatever they want to hear. And they’ll give it the appearance of gravitas thanks to their name, their stamp of approval. Oh, but this came from the Australian Human Rights Commission, so we have to listen.

This is the trust the experts lie in weaponized form. The simple fact is that the Australian Human Rights Commission are not experts on climate change. And based on the comments they’ve made to the Senate, as quoted in this article in the Australian, I’d say that they’re not experts on human rights either. So, in this video, I’m going to untangle this mess, at least a little bit, covering the human rights side of things, but also shining a little light into the swamp and the perverse incentives that always seem to result in the government destroying everything it touches.

My name is Topher Field. This is the Topher Project, and I help busy people like you to make sense of the nonsense that surrounds us. I am 100% viewer supported. So, if you appreciate me being bringing you stories that matter with perspectives that make a difference, then please buy me a coffee via the button at topherfield.net. And if you like my videos, then you’ll love my books about government, power, human rights, and civil disobedience, which you’ll find along with my DVDs, t-shirts, and hoodies at goodpeoplebreakbadlaws.com.

Now, let’s read a little bit from this Australian article to get the picture of just how dangerous the Australian Human Rights Commission has become as they seek to directly violate our human right to freedom of speech and political communication in the interest of protecting the climate change religion. The Human Rights Commission has told the Senate that regulation is necessary to stop what it calls misinformation on climate change that is delaying green action and denying Australians the right to a healthy planet. The AHRC has claimed that it would only want to muzzle false narratives about climate change to the point it does not interfere with freedom of expression. But the coalition says the government would use green censorship laws to protect itself from critics of its climate targets.

And top marine scientist Peter Ridd warns that it would silence anyone who questions the government and the academic world’s orthodox view on the environment.

Now, side note, I’ve interviewed Professor Ridd in the past and I’ve reached out to him and invited him back on to discuss exactly this topic. So, do make sure that you’ve subscribed so that you don’t miss that interview. Professor Ridd is a great example of exactly the kind of genuine expert who would be gagged under these sorts of laws so that his expertise is no longer an impediment to the rush to destroy our quality of life for the sake of saving us from a climate doom that isn’t happening.

But back to the article, the AHRC’s latest intervention said swift and decisive decisive action is essential to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. The right to a healthy environment is an important aspect of human rights protection. It said as climate related risks continue to grow, there is a need for timely and coordinated action to reduce environmental harm. Strengthening Australia’s response to climate change can help safeguard public health, protect ecosystems, and ensure that all people can enjoy a safe, clean, and sustainable environment.

Well, that claim is highly debatable, but actually becomes complete nonsense in the context of a world where CO2 emissions are continuing to climb at a rate that makes whatever Australia does completely irrelevant. But let’s not get into the climate change science. Let’s just stick with the human rights side of things. What they’re trying to do is pretend that climate change is a human rights issue and is therefore within their remit in the first place. Then they’re trying to pretend that because both speech and climate are now human rights issues, that therefore they can play one off against the other, sacrifice one to protect the other. You understand?

But I’m sorry. No matter how much you might wish otherwise, climate change and in fact the environment as a whole is not and never will be a human rights issue. I’ve spoken at length before about the distinction between what are called negative human rights, which are the real human rights. These are ones that protect us against actions and restrictions of others that violate our freedoms versus what a are so-called positive human rights, which are not human rights at all. Because what they actually do in reality is force other humans to do things against their will. They violate the rights of others.

For example, the right to freedom of speech is a human right. No one has the right to stop you from saying what you believe or what you want to say. But that doesn’t mean you can force others to listen. Because then you’d be violating their right to freedom of movement to walk away, freedom of association, their freedom of speech to call you an idiot, their freedom of thought to think this guy’s an idiot, etc. so-called positive human rights, things like the right to an education, which is in fact the right to force others to educate you, or the right to not be harmed by climate change, which is in fact the right to force others not to put CO2 plant food back into the atmosphere.

These so-called positive human rights are a fraud.

They’re not human rights at all because they don’t protect human freedom. They in fact require human slavery, the enlisting of others, the controlling of others in order to make them happen. They’re not human rights. They are a power grab for bureaucrats and politicians. So, they can use a false pretense of concern for human rights to actually just reshape and control the world in the ways they like.

Now, I go into a lot of detail on this in my first book, Good People Break Bad Laws, discussing where human rights come from, what they are, and how we can discern what is a human right and what isn’t. But let’s get back to the article and watch as the Australian Human Rights Commission tries to play both sides of the fence, appearing to be concerned about freedom of speech whilst simultaneously laying the framework for censorship. Let’s read.

However, it said climate misinformation and disinformation could delay this action by sewing doubt and confusion and erode public support and undermine trust for evidence-based climate policies. This can slow necessary action to address climate change. The AHRC nonetheless said this urgency must not be used as a justification to categorize legitimate questions or concerns about the best way forward as misinformation and disinformation.

Calling controversial opinions misinformation or disinformation to shut down discussion or making quick decisions without proper consultation can damage public trust. It said it also risks creating policies that don’t meet the needs of all communities, especially those most affected by climate change. Now, it sounds like what they’re saying is that dissent should still be allowed. Therefore, freedom of speech is not being violated.

But the key words in there are the words about the best way forward. All that stuff they say about controversial opinions being allowed, well, you’re only allowed to have a controversial opinion if it’s about the best way forward, not if it’s, “Hey, I don’t think climate change is a problem in the first place.” The Australian Human Rights Commission is saying that if you exercise your human right to freedom of speech in a way that expresses skepticism about climate change, then you are now a human rights violator.

But it gets even better. In an act of breathtaking arrogance, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner have has tried to claim that allowing people to actually debate climate change would violate other people’s human right to free expression and participation in public affairs. As cited in this Australian article, in a submission to the Senate committee, the AHRC told Labor, “False narratives on climate change distort public understanding, erode trust in science and institutions, and delay urgent climate action. Misinformation and disinformation undermine not only the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, Hmm, but also rights to free expression and participation in public affairs.”

As the commission said, the watchdog said misinformation and disinformation had a negative impact on informed public debate and environmental advocacy.

Did you catch that? If you exercise your free speech in a non-approved manner, then you’re a threat to free speech. So, we should take away your free speech or something. In any sane world, such a human rights commission saying such a thing would be abolished immediately, especially given that they claim to be defenders of human rights. But sadly, Australia is no longer part of the sane world. Now, thankfully, there are people calling out the hypocrisy of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and I’ll be watching this story closely as it develops in case they try to actually do something with this hair brain idea. Because in this crazy upside-down world that we find ourselves in, it is entirely possible that the government will gleefully use the Australian Human Rights Commission to strip us of our human rights to freedom of speech.

And if that happens, then once again we will see that the government destroys everything it touches and we will understand that the only solution therefore is to get the government out of everything that matters. My name’s Topher Field. This is the Topher project and I help busy people like you to cut through the crap and make sense of the nonsense that surrounds us. I am 100% viewer supported and you can help me to stay on top of this story and to keep the Topher project going by buying me a coffee via the button at topherfield.net.

And if you found this video valuable and you’d like to understand more about the swamp, perverse incentives of politics and where human rights really come from, then grab my books from goodpeoplebreakbadlaws.com. And while you’re there, check out my DVDs, t-shirts, and hoodies as well.

Thanks for watching all the way to the end. Please like, comment whether you think the government will actually try and use the Human Rights Commission as a pretext to stifle dissent on climate change. Do make sure you’ve subscribed so you don’t miss a future interview hopefully with Professor Ridd, but also updates on this story.

And as always, think free.