Unexpected developments from the pandemic

Before I get into this topic, I want to comment on something I was told during my public health engineering lectures at uni in the late 1970s:

mosquitoes are infected by malaria as well as humans, so if we could keep every infected mosquito separated from every infected human for 28 days, malaria would die out.

Obviously, that is impossible, but isolation for a period of time is a long standing medical practice - in fact, the word quarantine comes from the 40 day isolation of ships from plague-infected nations introduced by Venice in 1377, which became generalised to any compulsory isolation in the1670s. The current use of isolation to address the COVID pandemic is an important step, but vaccination is also a must have to learn how to live with this, just as we have learned to live - with varying degrees of success - with other zoonotic diseases such as rabies, malaria, and Ebola. 

The problem we have had, of course, is that: 

• short-sighted self-interest and xenophobic dismissiveness of too many governments has led to a situation where poorer nations have been unable to deal effectively with COVID,
  
• economic and political interests in richer nations have impeded effective medical management, and 
• global interconnectedness has recycled infection, reinfection, and rapid transmission of new (and old) variants, 

and we've all suffered as a result. (This is something that is well described and assessed in Simon  Dalby's book "Anthropocene  Geopolitics", although that is in the context of the climate crisis - another situations where the response has been crippled by the same fatal flaws).

We have, as a result of the pandemic and attempts to manage it, become aware of: 

• the problem of excessive focus on economics and self-interest; 
• the fundamental flaws of patriarchal valuations of jobs, which has undervalued and thus under-invested in what are now being termed frontline workers - health care workers, supermarkets workers, etc - and associated issues such as adequate supplies of resources for transport; 
• the downside of international interconnectedness (although THAT one has been warned of for decades - see, for instance here [1995 film], here [2011], here [2002], here [1971], here [1964], this 2016 film about a 2014 real world outbreak of Ebola, - and these real life warnings here [2014], here [2019 - who wrote a book on this in 1995], and here, here, here, and this far-sighted 2013 bill from the Philippines [not adopted] ); 
• the importance of community and support; and 
• the stupidity of some of our decisions around work.
  

On that last one, probably the most noticeable effects here is the growth and likely permanence of work from home (see here and here), but there have also been a few "tree/sea changes" and, perhaps overseas more than here, what is being referred to (and possibly over-emphasised) as "the Great Resignation" (see here, here, here, and here - and note this). 

It is terrible that it has taken millions of deaths and the devastation to billions of lives of a pandemic for people to make such fundamental realisations. 

I sincerely hope we remember these lessons, and stop being so short-sighted, ultra-competitive / macho, and economics- & growth-addicted, and continue to put people first and foremost in our thinking, decision-making, planning, and governance.

More positive commitments against nuclear war

Almost one year ago, the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which Australia's Nobel Peace Prize winning  ICAN played a key role in formulating, "came into force". 

From my post on that: 

That means it is, as of this day, a part of international law. It is now illegal to (and I am simplifying here - text is here) develop / test, manufacture, have, transfer, receive, threaten to use or use nuclear weapons (multi-language version at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf).

Now, from this media report:

China, France, Russia, the UK and the US have agreed that a nuclear war "cannot be won and must never be fought." 

There was also affirmation that "nuclear weapons — for as long as they continue to exist — should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war."

This (will also included a commitment to support ongoing efforts against proliferation) is a major commitment ("to pursue negotiations in good faith") between a key set (but not all) of those nations with nuclear weapons, and that these parties, some of whom have strong divisions on other matters, issued this as a "rare" joint declaration is VERY encouraging. 

It doesn't remove nuclear weapons, and thus doesn't fulfil the requirements of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but it is a major step towards that. 

See also here, here, and here.

The text of the full statement, from here, is: 

"The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities.

We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.  As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.  We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.

We reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats and emphasize the importance of preserving and complying with our bilateral and multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control agreements and commitments.  We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

We each intend to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorized or unintended use of nuclear weapons.  We reiterate the validity of our previous statements on de-targeting, reaffirming that none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.

We underline our desire to work with all states to create a security environment more conducive to progress on disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all.  We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all.  We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns."

 

As an example of the problems to be overcome, there is also this, from my coming weekly human rights post: 

Iran is threatening retaliation against #45 and others over the killing two years ago of one its military leaders by the USA unless there is a "fair" international trial
(a "fair" trial is likely impossible - for a start, any insistence on sharia law, for instance would be unacceptable: the ICC is the only "fair" international venue for trial of individuals, but the USA will not give up one of it's own for any international trial.
Any retaliation by Iran, however, is unlikely to involve missiles as their current material suggests [they don't have the range/orbital capacity, although that may change eventually, and I doubt North Korea would want the risk of allowing Iran to use its locale/submarines and missiles - apart from the certainty of a US response, it would anger China, which North Korea still depends on for many of its survival needs],
but might involve a "dirty" bomb [they have expertise at violent extremism [terrorism] and some nuclear materials] against US interests, but unlikely on continental US territory or Hawaii.
I hope those in possible target areas will be properly protected [travel warnings etc may be issued], and that the international community effectively manages the situation with Iran [which might require an attack of rationality - or at least management of its RWNJ "hawks" on the part of the USA] );

A review of the last half century by former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich

I came across a video yesterday by former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich giving his thoughts on the political changes of the last half century, and what has to be done to undo the damage that has been done. As always, I found the presentation engaging and thought provoking, and, for all that its US-centric, I consider it well worth a look and a think.

A lot of the general trends apply to my nation (Australia) as well - the growth of the evil of neoliberalism in particular.

However, there are a few other major items of damage that can be blamed on the evil and despicable John Howard, including: 

• enshrining racism and xenophobia - as I wrote here:
  "The debate and ranting in reaction to this legislation have, however, hardened the once shallow fault lines that Howard identified and then incised deeply into the bedrock of Australian society."
  
• start of the trend towards harshly abusing refugees aka "asylum seekers" (although the initial problem started under the ALP; see here, here, here [on the fundamental misconception], here, here, and here - and more recently, just as our racist "White Australia" policy contributed to South Africa's apartheid, so too now does our policy of punitive abuse threaten to drag other parts of the world down [see here and here]) and a more widespread contempt towards and disregard of international law, beginning with the "Tampa affair" (see here, here, here, here, and here) and continuing with the deceit and outright lies of the "children overboard" scandal (see here, here, here [the comments about the "backfire model" are particularly worth considering], and here); and
  
• perverting ordinary, everyday Australians into neoliberals who want to be rich IPOCs. As I've written elsewhere,
  "a home is for living in, not feeling, becoming or being rich or a “better” class than others"
  However, as the fictional character US President Josiah Bartlet says, in the Season 3 episode (no. 3) “Ways and Means” of the TV series “The West Wing” (at 40 min 29 sec):
  "It doesn't matter if most voters don’t benefit. They all believe that someday they will. That’s the problem with the American dream. It makes everyone concerned for the day they're gonna be rich."
  That's poison infected Australia's soul largely through the evil of John Howard, and his attempts to, in effect, buy votes.
  

I see racist Howard is still refusing to accept that the apology by PM Kevin Rudd had to be given - and, incidentally, it is the response of the Rudd Government (see here, here, here, here, and, for good measure, here) that prevented the GFC being as much of a catastrophe here as it was elsewhere.

PS - see also https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-2001-how-securitisation-became-a-mindset-to-dominate-australian-politics-for-a-generation-172056.

Some (mostly) human rights links and thoughts - Friday 31st December, 2021

Some human rights (including significant, relevant links in other fields - such as geopolitics, democracy, or authoritarianism) links: 

• more refugee drownings in the Mediterranean (are nations involved doing what they are obliged to under IHL relating to refugees [which is based on the displacements caused by World War Two]? ); 
• Russia has further raised concerns about its apparent suppression of freedom of expression by fining an online tech company; 
• Poland's "President Andrzej Duda [has] . . . decided to veto a bill that would have forced the US media group Discovery to give up its controlling stake in Polish broadcaster TVN. Duda said he recognized that the bill was unpopular with many Polish citizens and would have been a blow to his country's reputation as a place to do business"; 
• "Russia's Supreme Court [has] ordered the closure of Memorial International, one of the country's most prominent NGOs. . . . Opposition groups, however, believe Memorial prompted the ire of the government by gathering information on millions killed by the state under Soviet dictator Josef Stalin"; 
• the CCP is continuing its suppression of dissent; 
• Ethiopia has taken steps towards "a national dialogue" (will that be enough to address the conflict in Tigray?);
  
• "India's main opposition party [has urged the Indian] diaspora to condemn anti-Muslim hate speech";
  
• serious concerns about India's proposed laws which are allegedly about privacy protection (but are actually, the article suggests, about government commercialisation of private data);
  
• an LGBTIQ+ refugee has been arrested on an international police warrant about which there are considerable misgivings (that the refugees' prominent family may be behind it) before she could travel to Australia. At least rights elsewhere have advanced; 
• a staggering example of blatant - and illegal - sexist discrimination in the finance sector (which the company concerned has taken action on);
  
• as expected, the misogynistic violent extremists in power in Afghanistan are tightening their clampdown on women's rights . . . and released prisoners are threatening to kill the judges who jailed them; 
• the misogynistic rebels who have power over parts of Yemen have said that they will allow aid flights to resume after a stoppage they blamed on Saudi airstrikes;
• "the problem with 'cripping up' and why casting disabled actors matters"; 
• "a man has successfully sued [a neochristian church] after a court found it had vicarious liability for sexual abuse he says he suffered from a notorious priest 50 years ago";
  
• concerns that Iran may be executing up to 100 children a year; 
• Sudan's woes now include the collapse of a "defunct" (presumably, "closed") mine, with over 30 fatalities; 
• a reminder that, whether a signatory to the convention or not, refugee protection is a global responsibility;
  
• ten concerning conflicts to watch next year - which I will also do via here, here, and here.
  

Annual Review of Posts in Year 2021

These are the five posts that have been most popular over the last 12 months:

• Climate change (denial) and corruption; 
• Naïveté; 
• Information and thinking; 
• The evil of Edmund Bernays; and 
• Changing career.
  

And these are the five posts which don’t show up in the list of top posts that I consider are worth a further look: 

• Democracy needs human rights; 
• Victim blaming on mental health problems in workplaces; 
• What if China attacked Taiwan ... and lost?; 
• On the alleged "fragility" of democracy; and 
• The seemingly "little" things matter.
  

Also, one of the aspects of blogging that I find most fascinating is where people view my blogs from. This year, the main views have come (from most to least) from France, the USA, Australia, Turkey, and Portugal.

 

The passing of Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Yesterday saw the passing of Archbishop Desmond Tutu - a widely respected man who had an instrumental role in the ending of apartheid, and had a long history of promoting inclusivity. I had the honour of hearing him speak in my home city of Melbourne back in the 80s, and was very impressed. Others have written eloquent tributes to this genuinely Christian Archbishop: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for instance. 

RIP Archbishop Tutu - you are respected, your legacy is good, and you will be missed.

Some (mostly) human rights links and thoughts - Saturday 25th December, 2021

Some human rights (including significant, relevant links in other fields - such as geopolitics, democracy, or authoritarianism) links: 

• despite a notoriously backwards president, Brazil has shut down "illegal logging schemes in the Amazon that involved hundreds of companies";
  
• the genocidal military junta in power in Burma have used illegal  airstrikes against a village on the border with Thailand, causing thousands to flee;
  
• Russia has decided to abuse foreigners using medical xenophobia as a cover excuse; 
• a sporting event was - quite rightly, IMO - abandoned due to racist abuse by some spectators;
  
• confirmation that hormone therapy saves the lives of TGD kids as a US school's transphobia leads to $4 million damages, a sport changes its name to distance itself from a notorious transphobe, and a judge in India who admitted his bias and addressed that, has ordered "the Indian government and states to ban conversion therapy and to act against any person trying to "cure" homosexuality". Meanwhile, "the French first lady plans to sue over fake news that she was born male.";
  
• neochristian schools want to sack LGBT teachers and divorced women - and STILL have failed to introduce protections for LGBT students as was promised years ago;
  
• as China gives women some rights, sexism in India is causing death by suicide amongst housewives - and one Indian company is taking legal action against women who have protested against gig work rules that will reduce their income;  
• the USA has banned "imports from China’s Xinjiang over human rights abuses"; 
  
• so-called "security" forces in Sudan are reported to have raped and gang raped women and used live ammunition on protestors;
  
• criticism of Universities for their role in colonialism, neoliberalism, the climate crisis, etc - and how to change that . . . and a criticism of the way neoliberals have "directed" research; 
• "press freedom in Africa has suffered in 2021 due to growing authoritarianism and insecurity, especially in East Africa — the region most hostile to journalists on the continent";
  
• a call for Japan to stop militarily aiding the genocidaires in Burma;
• police in South Sudan are being trained in human rights, and community "collaborative policing" is happening in some African cities;  
• the European Union has started "new legal action against Poland over [the] rule of law";
  
• concern that human trafficking may surge as borders ease;
  
• the US Congress has "imperilled" human rights by not passing the "Build Back Better" bill; 
• food aid in Yemen is being cut to inadequate levels as funds run out; 
  
• Saudi Arabia is continuing its religious bigotry as Islamophobia continues to grow in Sri Lanka; 
• a Reuters exclusive reports that concerning allegations that violence and threats of extended incarceration are being used to force prisoners in Thailand to do harmful, unpaid labour to support for-profit companies are being investigated;
  
• "experts call for [the] immediate release of [a] Kashmiri human rights defender"; 
  
• a report on the fifteen year delay in closing money-laundering loopholes - which is pushing up house prices; 
  
• "a Victorian man and two companies have been charged with more than 250 animal cruelty offences over the deaths of dozens of koalas during a land clearing operation" (while appalling cruelty has undoubtedly occurred, to prevent potential abuses of power persons charged are presumed innocent unless proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in a court law).
  

Cross posting: Post No. 2,113 - reflections on end-of-year reflections

This was originally posted on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/12/post-no-2113-reflections-on-end-of-year.html. 

*** 

The company I work at for my day job is having their end of year reflections / announcements, and they have been pretty much as expected - the difficulty of working under pandemic conditions (although what was not acknowledged was that the difficult was worse for those not comfortable with online communications rather than face--to-face - which more of a problem for extraverts than introverts), and ho much growth we'd made and how big the company was. 

I have to admit there were times when I was pleased to be able to get a big project "under my belt" / "on my CV", but those times are a couple of decades ago now, and I have never lost my enjoyment of being able to use my skills to help the smaller clients who often struggle because no-one cares or even thinks about them - the retirement village that is overwhelmed by having to deal with having an on-site wastewater treatment plant because they are outside any water authority's area but are subject to new environmental regulations, the landfill operator who wants to produce an extremely high quality of treated water but doesn't realise how expensive and difficult that it, or the small business who wants to do an environmentally sound expansion. 

We're not a charity, so I am expected to make a profit or at least not make a loss, but my manager helps me do as much as I can for these people - especially people like the retirement village (and I quite like the charitable organisation we have - I raised the issue of sending aid to the Philippines, where we have quite a few staff, following the recent typhoon and they were already onto that). 

But, in many key ways, the company's thinking reflects that of much of society - the "bigger is better" misconception. 

Unfortunately, this sort of "thinking" (it's really more of attitude, given the lack of awareness - especially around how much of this is unevaluated absorption from parents/key figures) is responsible (at least partly, and often to a significant degree) for many problems - including: 

• empires ("our city/nation/empire/religion must be bigger than theirs to ensure we survive" * , or "we must have more land to live in" * ); 
• the Industrial Revolution ("we can make more things than doing the old way" * ); 
• addiction to economic growth ("all living things grow, so the economy thing should as well" * ); 
• this; and 
• population growth ("our city/nation/empire/religion must be bigger than theirs to ensure we survive" * ).
  

The problems are not just the direct problems, there are flow-on problems as well - such as the suicides caused by the "space race", the paranoia and loss of transparency caused by the Cold War's arms competition ("we must have more nukes than them" * ), and the classism, fear of crime, and mistaken view that houses are a way to accumulate wealth rather than live securely that goes with wanting bigger houses and other material possessions. 

The one I have been thinking of particularly is population growth, which is commented on in some of the books I've been reading of late.

I've long had concerns about population growth, which causes problems such as: 

• clearing land (none of the advocates for allowing population growth that I've spoken to have made the connection that when you have more people, you need places for them to live, and that causes clearing and other environmental problems that these same people often object to); 
• environmental impacts (as well as finding places for them to live, you also need to feed them [historically, that need has also contributed to problems such as "slash-and-burn agriculture"]) which are far worse for those people living industrialised lives (and those raising this as a justification for allowing population growth never cut back their lives to the levels of environmental impact that they consider acceptable); and 
• overcrowding (which is rarely acknowledged as an issue by extraverts, people with no lived experience of [or even exposure to] discrimination against minorities, and people with an unacknowledged and unmanaged fear of being alone).
  

That last issue gets into the biggest problem here: our species' history of being genocidal ** . That deplorable, appalling history makes talking about population growth as a problem almost impossible - and yet, in terms of managing our impact on the planet and leaving it survivable, it is crucial to do so.

There are some encouraging signs. such as the decline in birth rates in a South American nation when characters on a soap opera decided to limit themselves to two children, but there are also examples of what doesn't work (such as China's one child policy, which was responsible for corruption and human rights abuses [see here, here, and here]) - and then there is the ever-present problem of so many people in the economics field advocating for growth. (Ironically, if we get away from our devastating addiction to economic growth, we are going to have to live with balanced budgets and no deficits - one of the main reasons people seem to be sanguine about debt now is that the debt becomes insignificant when measured against the size of a future, bigger economy . . . which will no longer happen under the scenario just mentioned.)

What is the solution? How do we talk about and avoid human rights abuses? 

I don't know. 

What I DO know, is that population growth and overpopulation are problems that we are not properly acknowledging or considering - and that failure to do so could be part of the killing us.

 * this is an example of the sort of stupid "bigger is better" attitudes mis-described as thinking that I despise. 

 ** see, from https://gnwmythrsglossary.blogspot.com/2021/12/human-rights.html: 

• http://lemkinhouse.org/about-us/life-of-raphael-lemkin/,   https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/coining-a-word-and-championing-a-cause-the-story-of-raphael-lemkin,   http://genocidewatch.net/2013/03/14/raphael-lemkin-defines-genocide-2/,   and   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin;
  and
  https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml,   https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide,   http://genocidewatch.net/2013/03/14/raphael-lemkin-defines-genocide-2/,   and   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide;
  and
  https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml,   https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cppcg/cppcg.html,   https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx,   https://www.history.com/topics/holocaust/what-is-genocide,   https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml,   and   https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1949A00027;
  

Democracy needs human rights

Democracy is a system that ensures - or should ensure - that those without social power/influence have as equal a say in how they are governed as the powerful. 

This is intended to be accomplished through the "one person-one vote" principle - to me, that is the essence of democracy. 

However, some places undermine this by actions such as: 

• sexist or racist restrictions on who can vote (the original  forms of democracy excluded, for instance, slaves and women, and imposed other conditions - such as military training, or ownership of land - necessitating long struggles for voting rights [see here;  here, here, here, here, & here;  here, here, and here;  here, here, and here] );
  
• imposing qualifications that favour certain sections of society over others - as the USA has a history and current trend of doing (see here, here, here, here, here, and here); 
• or, in my opinion (IMO), giving businesses votes (see here, here, and here). My concerns with the latter are that (a) businesses, particularly large corporations, already have massive economic power (although individual small businesses don't), and (b) they are not people. 

(For others' thoughts on the topic, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are also some points on the justification for democracy here and here, some criticism here, and useful thoughts on the evolution / development of democracy in this, this, this, and my post here [including the many links]. )

Democracy depends on a few aspects. Those that I wish to raise here (there are others - see the links in the preceding italicised paragraph) are:

• adequate education on democracy of voters - they need to know fundamentals such as: 
• elections are held, 
• the purpose of elections is "W" (usually, to elect representatives of the voters), 
• the rules around elections are "X",
• the duties / expectations / accountabilities / rules applying to elected representatives are "Y" (this also needs to cover what elected representatives and governments cannot do), and 
• when things go wrong, what can be done is "Z"; (this where an independent judiciary, which Geoffrey Robertson writes on clearly in this and this, becomes essential);
  
• Voters need to be capable of making reasonable decisions - which is not decisions that agree with others nor what others consider reasonable, but some sort of mature decision making process . . . and that validly be based on emotional reactions.
  
  This effectively means some people will be excluded from elections - for instance, the young (although there is debate about how low the voting age should be [a cut off no higher than military service, for instance - or perhaps the age at which criminal responsibility can be assigned would be appropriate . . . ], no-one would suggest a babe-in-arms or a toddler should be allowed to vote) or the clinically mentally incompetent, but must NEVER be judged on the basis of an FBU or FoC type reaction (the 1987 film "Nuts" illustrates some useful points on this).
  
  It should also be kept in mind that such cut offs can be arbitrary - I know young teenagers who are better able to decide who to vote for than I was when I started voting and who are better than many older, rigid thinking people (see also here and here).
  
  Other aspects of this are: 
• Voters need to be protected against undue influence - which is where the benefits of the secret ballot (see here, here, and here) become, IMO, self-evident. This is also one of the arguments against having a voting age that is too low - the risk that at least some children will not vote as they consider best, but as instructed by their parents . . . which is also a problem in some workplaces (I have heard managers say people "should" vote in a certain way) and some militaries (I have seen video of soldiers' ballots in an overseas nation being checked by their commanding officers).
  So this is an important principle, but one that needs to be universally respected, ensured and protected. 
• Voters also need access to accurate information.
  Typically, this is where a free press gets a guernsey, but . . . some parts of the free press shoot themselves in the foot (by either lurid gossip and personal abuse, or active proselytising of one political position) and that destroy the credibility of all the press.
  Social media is a mixed bag - it can spread rumours and conspiracy fantasies, but it can also aid in breaking through misinformation or bias from governments. 
• That last point also raises the issue of the way public debates are held on issues - e.g., the so-called postal vote on Equal Marriage (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here ) allowed - as expected - unconscionable conduct (overwhelmingly on the side of the haters) and created massive divisions, and appears to have been about the neoliberals' intention to give neochristian and similarly religiously motivated haters a big public voice to shout down and actively attack a minority who outnumbered the haters. That created massive divisions in our society - for instance, there are places, groups, and people I will avoid because of the vehement vitriol - rabid outpourings that were really about wanting people in all the LGBTIQ+ communities dead.
  

I am now convinced more than ever that we need strong human rights laws - they enable some protection against populism, and they also protect against discrimination (on that, we have no Bill of Rights in our constitution because most of the old white men who wrote it wanted to be racist against Chinese people). 

It also provides protection against rabid hate seen during the so-called postal vote, and other forms of direct  and  indirect discrimination (see also here, here, here, here, and here) against minorities - currently seen most clearly in conservative states in the USA.

On this, see also https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/14/human-rights-are-key-democracy.

Those who are discriminating against others on the basis of inherent characteristics (such as gender, sexuality, race, etc) or reasonable / benign and lawful choices (such as a non-harmful religion) are: 

(a) committing acts of active harm (equivalent emotionally to an "active shooter") that infringe on the freedoms of other people and rob society of the contributions of those people; 

(b) making gross mistakes (or "thinking" and emotion) that are at the babe-in-arms / toddler level of human evolution / development.

Now, people who have emotionally and mentally evolved through those basic levels also make mistakes, but those mistakes tend to be (i) subtler, and (ii) less damaging. They will still make mistakes - for instance, a political policy may be flawed - but they don't commit pogroms, massacres, and genocides, not create ghettoes nor slavery.

Those people making the gross mistakes are bigots - that term's generally disliked, but it means "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance ". [See PS]

The term fits, as does the reality of the harm they are doing. 

And that is where laws and an effective justice system come in. In the words of the great Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.:

It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.

A legal / justice system is about ensuring that the powerful and/or bigotted do not inflict harm on minority groups, and that no other interference to the existence and efficacy of democracy (such as corruption or interfering with voting or any other key aspect of democracy [such as free press]) is permitted to occur. This covers more than only human rights violations, but our laws, here in Australia, are weakest on the human rights aspects, which is why I am raising the topic here.

There are a couple of other aspects I wish to touch on. 

Firstly, as Martin Luther King also said: 

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We need to be active in ensuring justice occurs everywhere, much as we need to ensure the COVID-19 pandemic is properly managed everywhere, or the problems will affect us as well. This, it is good that we finally have a Magnitsky-style Act, but we now need to start using it. 

Secondly, there some other Martin Luther King sayings that merit consideration: 

Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity.
(The bigots are haters, and they are harming themselves.)

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
(Don't hate the haters - which is difficult when one has been deeply wounded or scarred by them.)

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
(The struggles for improved suffrage and improved rights are not over, but we are better off than we were . . . say . . .  two centuries ago.)

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral. Returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, add deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
(Use of the legal system, and legitimate political activism and community education is the best - the only - long term solution.)

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
(We need to ensure others get the benefits of justice and of genuine democracy as well - and we need to be effective allies along the way. No-one is safe against the current pandemic until everyone is safe - likewise with democracy and human rights.)

Finally, a court case against our Premier, who I consider has done a very hood (not perfect) job of getting us through the pandemic as a community as safely as possible, had a court case brought against him by an individual. 

The case has been thrown out, which I consider the correct decision, but it illustrates the following:

• the person was able to bring the case, which is an example of freedom; 
• the article mentions another person, completely separate to the person bringing this case, who has been declared a vexatious litigant because of their use of multiple court cases of little or no merit against public figures. The fact that it was considered that a law enabling such declarations to be made, along with the implementation of anti-corruption, anti-discrimination (including our newly minted Magnitsky-style Act), and similar laws shows that our democratic system is not perfect: it needs to continue emotionally and mentally evolving.
  

As do we. 

PS - since writing the above, which also drew on this and this, I have come across the concept of "the left brain interpreter" in Grant Cameron's book "Contact Modalities". This is a possibly plausible explanation for the mental rigidity of both bigots and pseudo-sceptics - for more on that, see here, here, here, here, and here.