> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # This Is What We’re Reduced To - URL: https://goodoil.news/this-is-what-were-reduced-to/ - Published: 2026-10-01T03:00:18.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-01T03:00:17.000Z - Description: Actual white supremacists are leading the fight for liberty. - Author: Lushington Brady - Tags: AUS Politics, Law, Free Speech Professor **Anne Twomey** is a rare beast in the field of Constitutional law: she actually bothers to argue based on what the Constitution says (and doesn’t say). Most of the judicial and academic class prefer to peddle ‘progressive’ activism by simply pretending the Constitution is nothing more than a blank whiteboard for them to scrawl their ‘progressive’ nostrum *du jour* all over. So, when it comes to the [current High Court challenge](https://goodoil.news/free-speech-for-me-but-not-for-thee-is-free-speech-for-no-one/) by the White Australia Party, Twomey doesn’t simply clutch her pearls and declare the nasty young men in black shirts wrong by default. Instead, she asks: *Well, what does the Constitution have to say on this?* Like it or not, she concludes, the White Australia Party has a pretty good case – at least when it comes to the constitutionality of a left-wing government trying to banish them from the public square by fiat. At the heart of this constitutional imbroglio lies a rather audacious piece of legislative overreach. Canberra has cooked up Part 5.3B of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, an instrument designed to let the police minister whisper into the ear of the governor-general and have any pesky political association designated as a “prohibited hate group”. > [Once a group](https://theconversation.com/could-the-white-australia-party-succeed-in-challenging-its-ban-291352?ref=goodoil.news) is prohibited, it becomes a serious criminal offence to be a member of it, to direct its operations, to fund or train it or otherwise support it. The penalties are high, with maximums ranging from seven to 15 years’ imprisonment. One might imagine that such draconian penalties – rivalling those doled out to hardened syndicates of narcotics traffickers – would at least require the minor inconvenience of an actual trial, a conviction, or even an unlawful act. Not so under this wondrous modern regime of managerial governance. > The minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in conduct constituting a “hate crime”, or been associated with a hate crime. For example, this could be by preparing, planning, assisting or advocating engaging in such conduct. The minister in this case being **Anika Wells**, who thought it perfectly reasonable to [treat herself and her family and friends](https://goodoil.news/her-snouts-wells-and-truly-in-the-trough/) to an endless roster of taxpayer-funded holidays and sporting events. Wells confirmed in an interview that the decision to ban any political party comes to her own ‘I Just Reckon’. Doubleplusgood, comrades. No pesky jury, no rules of evidence and certainly no tedious requirement that an actual crime has been committed. The executive gets to play judge, jury and executioner based on vibes. Like them or not, the White Australia boys have taken their grievances to Canberra’s highest bench, resting their case on a tripod of solid legal arguments. First, they point out that federal parliament possesses no general police power to outlaw organisations simply because their political aesthetic causes indigestion in the taxpayer-funded salons of the ABC. The Commonwealth, desperate to salvage its handiwork, leans heavily upon the external affairs power, claiming that international treaties obligate them to stomp out anything resembling racial disharmony. It doesn’t end with trampling on the most basic principle of nationhood: that the government of the nation is sovereign, not the globalist elite. As Twomey notes, the legislation is remarkably slippery. It does not actually criminalise the advocacy of racial hatred itself; instead, it hands the minister arbitrary discretion to manufacture constitutional triggers out of whole cloth. We’ve been down this road before, with the Menzies government’s clumsy attempt to outlaw the Communist Party back in 1950, a manoeuvre rightly given short shrift by the High Court because mere ministerial whim cannot conjure federal power where none exists. Whether the proximate target is communists or their fascist cousins. > When the Menzies government tried to ban the Communist Party in 1950, its legislation was struck down. This is because mere executive assertions – such as that Communists engage in subversion – were not capable of bringing a law within constitutional power. The second pillar of the challenge involves that mystical creature of judicial invention, the implied freedom of political communication. Canberra’s legal defenders will argue that silencing dissidents is a ‘legitimate purpose’ designed to stave off hurty ethnic feelings and social friction. Yet the jurisprudence draws a sharp line between preventing genuine material harm and merely insulating delicate sensibilities from meany-mean opinions. > To be justified, its laws must be directed at preventing “material harm to the Australian community or a segment of that community”. It would not be sufficient if only “the feelings or sensitivities of the Australian community or a segment of that community would be hurt or adversely affected”. Thirdly, there is the separation of powers: the quaint notion that the executive ought not be in the business of summarily executing political parties through administrative fiat. While the subsequent criminal charges would technically be heard in a court, the initial act of liquidation is pure executive punishment without trial. The progressive commentariat will no doubt foam at the mouth, framing the entire affair as a morality play about the existence of the White Australia Party itself. But that is merely the shallow water at the edge of the pool. The deeper waters concern the unchecked expansion of executive muscle and the erosion of fundamental liberties. If the state can eradicate one politically inconvenient group today through administrative decree, what stops a future government from deploying the exact same mechanism against any other inconvenient faction tomorrow? As Twomey rightly observes, the ultimate verdict of the High Court will reach far beyond the immediate litigants. It will settle vital boundaries for everything from regional speech restrictions to federal racial vilification laws, serving as an indispensable bulwark against the creeping authoritarian impulses of our modern managerial state. When the actual racists are on the side of liberty, you know the governing class have completely lost the plot. --- 💡 ****If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.**