Question - when people talk about "God-given Rights"; what does that mean? Where has it been decreed that people have 'rights' bestowed upon them by God?
For all I am aware of is God's commandments to follow. Responsibilities to take on board. These are very different to 'rights'. And I don't have a problem with this. I would be happy to write a 'Bill of Responsibilities' and suspect a greater deal of respect and honesty would follow compared to a 'Bill of Rights'.
Don't get me wrong - I have a great deal of respect for the U.S. Bill of Rights, however 'Rights' in the hands of people who have degraded to an immoral position are like any tool in the wrong hands. Whereas Responsibilities... The responsibility to protect Free Speech for example. The responsibility to protect Freedom to Defend oneself from an attacked. These bring about more positives than what 'Rights' could ever do.

Interesting idea. The biggest problem with "rights" as I see it is that demagogic politicians and all those with a socialist bent have a habit of elevating the purported rights of "society" above the rights of the individual.

They objectivize "society" and make it like a person. This is the essence of collectivism, which is an ideology very prevalent in communist systems.

In Cambodia the communist Khmer Rouge promoted the collective into a quasi religious entity called "Angka". Angka's rights always superceded those of the individual. Angka may require anything of them, including offering up their life for the greater good. Suffering, injustice and the deliberate killing of innocent humans was sometimes demanded by Angka. Under their system, anyone who previously worked in a white collar job was marked for slow extermination in their death camps. Angka needed to purify society, while extracting every last ounce of value from these "degenerates" by using them as slave labour. The individual was considered fundamentally worthless aside from serving Angka.

The people who established this horrific ideological framework were well educated. 

This is the kind of future that may be in store for us if the current trends continue.

When group rights trump individual rights, the group can make statements about what is true or false and what must be done through mouthpieces that are unassailable, such as "medical officers". Anyone who dissents - regardless of their qualifications - is denounced as some kind of deviant, heretic, counter-revolutionary, conspiracy theorist or "anti-vaxxer".

So yeah, I'm supicious of "rights" too...

And despite being four years old, I've only just watched this video now (though I have heard Peterson talk about Responsibility before, which is what triggered my idea):

https://youtu.be/NX2ep5fCJZ8

TheRevolutiLeni asks: "Question - when people talk about "God-given Rights"; what does that mean?"

I agree with Winston - who seemed to suggest that the emphasis on "human rights" is a leftist obsession. and linked to collectivism.    

Leftist progressives tend not to emphasize the corollary of "human rights", namely "responsibilities". 

Conservatives - who tend to value traditional post-Enlightenment wisdom -  are normally a bit stronger on "responsibilities".

Jesus, the founder of Christianity, did not emphasize rights, but he sure emphasized responsibilities - as for example aid down in the Ten 
Commandments (that you mentioned).   

And tradition says that the Ten Commandments came from God.  That is because there is no objective, scientific proof of the truth and falsiby of moral judgements.  So that leaves authority.  And their is no hight authority than God.   The idea of "sin" is strong in Christianity, and that, it is taught, separates the sinner from God.      

You mentioned Jordan Peterson.  Yes he has carved out a huge following of young men.  He tells them to forget about their leftist victimhood narrative and their rights, grow up, and concentrate on their responsibilities,   

Peterson of course rejects the Social Justice world view that everything is about power, and there  exists a majority oppressor class and a bunch of oppressed minorities. 

I agree with Winston that you raise a very pertinent question.

I noticed the left have come up with the concept of "collective responsibility" as opposed to "individual responsibility" as preached by Peterson. 

In the latter, each of us can take responsibility for our health decision such as mask wearing and vaccination injections.    Whereas with the "collective responsibility" idea we must all comply with whatever the government tells us to do to keep us "safe" 

Collective Responsibility (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collective-resp…    

.  

yeah, I can see why that comment from a Rumble video about futility resonates with you, as an expatriate Australian. 

As you see from my explanation & experience with incitement law, I believe Monica cannot win in the courts.

The approach - a long shot - might be to try to win in the court of public opinion.  However election results indicate that this could also be futile. 

|Australia could now have reached what is described in the attached graphic as the 'the point of ne return'.  If so, poor Monica is in a no-win situation on any front, legal or public opinion.   

Therefore - provided they have not confiscated her passport - a logical move would be to escape Australia with her laptop and phone - to some suitable country that will take her.  Then carry on from overseas.   She did say in one of her emails that "RDA is going international".   

She is headed to becoming another Julian Assange and may face extradition orders as a result.  I think this case is very big, of historical proportions.  Australia cannot take the moral high ground now, preaching to the CCP about these authoritarian big-brother tactics affecting a person's right to engage in political agitation.

Remember the famous legal opinion of the late high court judge Lionel Murphy, often quoted: "Me Neal is entitled to be an agitator". 

What this Monica Smit case is demonstration is that the days of one's right to agitate in Australia are over, because they have re-defined "agitation" as "incitement" borrowed from anti-discrimination law,    Very clever.  It needs to be exposed. 

Note -it was TheRevolutiLeni who introduced us to this Tytler cycle of democracy, in some past discussion.         

Re: "Mr Neal is entitled to be an agitator"  

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/mrnealentitedbeagitator…

As I understand it, she can plead guilty to the current charge and pay a fine, with no criminal record. This may also allow her to avoid the warrant for handing over her private communications. 

What they want most is the guilty plea, as that prevents any new caselaw being established that would protect future dissidents.

She's unlikely to be extradited if she pleads guilty then heads overseas, in my opinion.

Mexico looks like a good choice for Aussies. If she's able to get into the US, Florida or Texas would be a great base with many like minded people around. She's young, and has a handsome fiancee. I don't want to see her in some rotten prison surrounded by criminals.

Exile looks like the best of a bad set of options. 

Much like the Academy of Ideas videos suggest, the best option anybody has is to live in the most freedom thriving way possible, whilst developing a parallel society.

Monica is unfortunately trying to live and fight in the existing totalitarian society. She can't win. She is wasting her time. But she probably doesn't realise it, possibly because she has a core belief that "democracy" will save her, when in fact democracy is what's put her in the position she is in.

Yeah, I think that the preferential voting system in Australia coupled with effective media brainwashing of the masses ensures that we will always have a 2-party duopoly.

The success of the Greens in this election is a result of the orchestrated green brainwashing which has been happening for 20 years. The populace is greenwashed. It's all very clever, as the Greens are really an arm of the globalists, using the camoflage of "environmentalism" which is actually adisguised form of collectivism. The Greens are 100% in favour of the bio-medical tyranny of lockdowns and forced vaccination, because their colelctivist ideology tells them that these things are for the "greater good" along with carbon taxes and a forced drop in living standards.

I can't see how the system can be fixed without a violent revolution, and violent revolutions don't usually work and only harm the innocent.

There are only bad options now. 

Winston: "[Pleading guilty] may also allow her to avoid the warrant for handing over her private communications"

That is a tall order!   

The attached search warrant forced by son to flee Australia in 2007, never to return.   He would have got 5 years jail if they found information on his computer that breached section 60C of the Crimes Act