Anti-government extremism is not one coherent ideology or organisation. It can encompass sovereign citizens, conspiracy theorists and others who come to see government institutions as fundamentally corrupt, illegitimate or actively working against ordinary citizens.
(emphasis mine) shit cuz they’re onto me :p
Our research points towards an approach known as procedural justice. “Procedurally just” governance is about how governments exercise their authority. It means treating citizens with respect, making decisions fairly and without bias to prevent benefiting one special-interest group over another, being transparent about motives for legislation or new government processes. It also means giving people meaningful opportunities to have their voices heard.
Importantly, our study found that when people perceived government as more procedurally just they reported lower levels of anger and were less likely to perceive the government as illegitimate.
This relationship was evident among both conspiracy believers and non-believers. It means procedural justice shouldn’t be dismissed as merely good public relations. It potentially forms part of Australia’s strategy for preventing violent extremism.
[…]
Rather, governments need a two-track response. They need to identify and disrupt people moving towards violence. But they also need to reduce the conditions that can make that violence attractive in the first place. These include alienation, anger and a belief that public institutions exercise power without listening to people or treating them fairly and equally.
I thought this was a good and thoughtful piece to have been put out so soon after what appears to be an attempted political assassination of a politician who, near as I can tell, wanted more government transparency and accountability.
Not really a great sign of the times. With government building out some of the largest surveillance machines in the world I suspect we can conclude what the response will be. As the author highlights though, restoring trust and a sense of justice is more important to get back to a society where we feel our concerns can be dealt with non violently.
30 years ago, the US created “section 230”, which was used to indemnify platforms from what was written on those platforms. Attach that to an algorithm which promotes certain things while suppressing others, and now American companies can publish by proxy. They don’t need to write vile stuff, just promote it to create danger for people who don’t agree with them.
Australia does not have this rule but instead of using that fact to fight against rampant misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Labor have created a framework to ostensibly “protect children”, but actually to create a real name policy on web platforms. The reason is because fighting a Google is much harder than fighting some guy who posted something in support of Palestine.
This creates fertile ground to construct the case violent action against politicians, almost always on the left*. Labor need to understand that this is not a “bipartisan” thing, or “simply good regulation” or whatever. ONP goons will happily kill people (or allow people to be killed) in the ALP (among others). You can see this in the horrifying rhetoric making light of Jacqui Lambie’s injuries. While the Libs might not, the Nats absolutely will stand by and watch someone murder left wing politicians at the behest of far right US platforms.
It’s time to hold these platforms to account through truth in advertising laws which are extremely popular, not to mention as publishers of illegal material (which Facebook for example is absolutely doing).
*Note: This isn’t about who commits the action, but about who the action is against.