{"id":164959,"date":"2025-11-16T07:34:52","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T15:34:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=164959"},"modified":"2025-11-16T07:36:52","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T15:36:52","slug":"we-must-restrict-democracy-to-save-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=164959","title":{"rendered":"We Must Restrict Democracy To Save It!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Law professor Rosalind Dixon writes in the Sydney Morning Herald<\/a>: <\/p>\n

Police could have \u2013 and should have \u2013 done more to challenge the protest outside NSW\u2019s Parliament House this month. This could have involved seeking an order that the protests were prohibited, and hence not protected from charges being brought under the Summary Offences Act. Or it could have involved more robust use of their powers to move on protesters once the threat of intimidation became clear.<\/p>\n

But the current law gave them the power to balance rights to protest with legitimate public safety and public interest concerns.<\/p>\n

Our party registration laws, in contrast, do little to restrict the formation of extremist parties with a hate-based political platform. Instead, they are largely procedural laws that require parties to adopt a constitution, sign up sufficient members and avoid using offensive or misleading words and symbols.<\/p>\n

It is therefore urgent that we revisit these laws and give Commonwealth and state electoral commissions express power to ban parties that espouse racial hate and vilification as founding policies and values.<\/p>\n

Rosalind Dixon is Anthony Mason Professor and Scientia Professor of Law at UNSW Sydney. She is also co-director of UNSW\u2019s new Resilient Democracy Lab.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ChatGPT says: Every democracy eventually hits a moment where an openly anti-democratic faction tries to use democratic rules to hollow the system out. The instinct is to clamp down, but the danger is obvious: the cure can rot the host faster than the disease.<\/p>\n

A few clean points.<\/p>\n

I. Democracies always face the \u201cparadox of tolerance\u201d
\nYou can\u2019t sustain a system of equal citizenship if you allow organized groups whose stated aim is to eliminate equal citizenship. Every country that\u2019s lived through fascism or sectarian meltdown knows this. Australia isn\u2019t unique. Germany has the strongest version of this logic baked into its constitutional order.<\/p>\n

II. The danger is not the tiny number of neo-Nazis
\nIt\u2019s the pathway they\u2019re trying to exploit. They\u2019re not trying to win 51 percent. They\u2019re trying to gain institutional status as a registered party so they can<\/p>\n

recruit,<\/p>\n

launder their brand,<\/p>\n

access public funds,<\/p>\n

claim repression when pushed back,<\/p>\n

and attach themselves to larger populist grievances.<\/p>\n

If they get a foothold inside the civic infrastructure, they get leverage far bigger than their numbers.<\/p>\n

III. Banning parties is the nuclear tool
\nIt can work, but it cuts two ways. Once the state has a clean legal standard for banning a party on the basis of \u201chate,\u201d \u201cundemocratic values,\u201d or \u201cincitement,\u201d the definition can drift. The same powers that deal with a fringe neo-Nazi group can also be used to remove less fringe groups when the political climate shifts. This has happened in places like
\n\u2022 Turkey
\n\u2022 Thailand
\n\u2022 Rwanda
\n\u2022 post-coup Egypt
\n\u2022 pre-Merkel Germany (extremism bans weaponized against leftist groups)<\/p>\n

These aren\u2019t theoretical concerns.<\/p>\n

IV. Australia\u2019s problem is administrative design, not courage
\nThe current party-registration regime is procedural, not substantive. You sign up 1500 members, pick a name that isn\u2019t misleading, adopt a constitution, and you\u2019re in. The law treats \u201cparty\u201d as a technical category rather than an entity with moral stakes. That\u2019s the blind spot.<\/p>\n

To fix it without sliding into autocracy, you need:<\/p>\n

A high evidentiary bar. The state must show clear, direct advocacy of racial expulsion, violence, or elimination of equal citizenship.<\/p>\n

Independent assessment by a body insulated from partisan control.<\/p>\n

Judicial review with real teeth.<\/p>\n

Regular sunset or review periods for bans.<\/p>\n

A way for the group to legally challenge the verdict and demonstrate compliance.<\/p>\n

This is closer to Germany\u2019s model. It\u2019s the least bad blueprint we have.<\/p>\n

V. You don\u2019t stop extremism by just banning the logo
\nYou can outlaw a party and still lose the terrain of culture. If the grievances that fuel extremist recruitment remain untouched, you just drive the movement underground and give it martyr energy.<\/p>\n

A real strategy blends:
\n\u2022 targeted criminal prosecution when members cross legal lines
\n\u2022 heavy pressure on foreign funding
\n\u2022 online environment interventions
\n\u2022 deradicalisation programs that have actual teeth
\n\u2022 a statewide response to youth recruitment funnels
\n\u2022 community-level inoculation (education, counter-messaging, peer support)<\/p>\n

VI. The tough truth
\nDixon\u2019s piece is right that you can\u2019t let a party openly calling for racial expulsion enjoy the full neutrality of the democratic system. But she underplays the danger of giving the state a free hand to decide who counts as \u201cextremist.\u201d Every faction thinks its enemies are the extremists. Once the standard is moralized rather than tightly defined, it becomes a political weapon.<\/p>\n

The future of democracy isn\u2019t \u201cmore bans.\u201d It\u2019s smarter line-drawing.
\nDefine the red lines: advocacy of violence, forced expulsion, elimination of equal citizenship.
\nRequire high evidence.
\nRequire independent review.
\nBuild off-ramps and oversight.<\/p>\n

Otherwise you \u201csave democracy\u201d by quietly hollowing it out.<\/p>\n

What happened<\/p>\n

About 60 members of the neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network (NSN) gathered outside the New South Wales Police Force-approved rally outside the New South Wales Parliament on Macquarie Street, Sydney. They held a banner reading \u201cAbolish the Jewish Lobby\u201d and chanted slogans including Hitler-Youth-style chants. <\/p>\n

In the aftermath, two female MPs who publicly condemned the rally\u2014Allegra Spender and Kellie Sloane\u2014reported death threats and rape threats. <\/p>\n

Jewish community groups and other political actors are outraged, calling the event a serious breach of public norms and raising questions about police authorisation and response. <\/p>\n

The state Prem\u00adier, Chris Minns, said the state would review the approval process and consider giving the police more power to shut down such hate-rallies.
\nWhy the reaction seems intense<\/p>\n

The imagery is stark: black-clad men, Nazi slogans, targeting a minority group (Jewish Australians). These are historically loaded symbols.<\/p>\n

It challenges the assumption Australia is largely free of overt neo-Nazi public displays of this kind. The contrast triggers alarm.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a sense of hypocrisy: protest restrictions are stricter for other groups, yet this rally was allowed. Jewish groups say there’s a double standard in policing.
\nThe Guardian<\/p>\n

The threats to elected officials amplify fear. It\u2019s one thing to stage a provocative rally. It\u2019s another to intimidate democratic representatives.<\/p>\n

Media framing uses words like \u201cskin-head\u201d, \u201cneo-Nazi\u201d, \u201cwhite-supremacist\u201d, which heighten emotional response and make calm debate harder.<\/p>\n

What the \u201chysteria\u201d critique gets right<\/p>\n

Some of the response is emotional rather than analytical. When the word \u201cNazi\u201d appears in a headline, instincts kick in: rally strong condemnation, propose urgent laws.<\/p>\n

Policymakers now talking about expanding police powers and banning symbols\u2014these are big actions fast, and some will argue due process might be sidelined.<\/p>\n

Because the event\u2019s visuals are dramatic, they overshadow nuanced discussions (e.g., about root causes, prevention, online radicalisation).<\/p>\n

The use of blanket terms (neo-Nazi, fascist) may blur differences between fringe provocateurs and more conventional political protestors, which can muddy the legal\/political response.<\/p>\n

What the nuance requires<\/p>\n

It\u2019s important to distinguish between a small group staging a provocative event and a mass movement. The attendance (~60) suggests small scale for now.<\/p>\n

Identify if the rally violated existing law. Some symbols and chants may be illegal; others may not yet be adequately defined in law. <\/p>\n

A broader strategy beyond policing is needed. Experts say you can\u2019t legislate fascism out of existence\u2014radicalisation, recruitment, ideology dynamics all matter.
\nThe Guardian<\/p>\n

Consider the wider context: anti-immigration politics, social alienation, digital radicalisation are bigger fertile grounds for these groups than just one rally.<\/p>\n

Why this matters politically<\/p>\n

The right-versus-left culture war: This rally gives the left cause for strong state action; the right may respond by pushing back on free speech concerns.<\/p>\n

Immigration and multiculturalism: The event feeds into anxieties about national identity, race and belonging in Australia.<\/p>\n

Law and order: With calls to expand police powers and ban symbols, this becomes a test of civil liberties, protest rights, and state capacity.<\/p>\n

Far-right visibility: Even a small event that gets big media traction raises the profile of extremist groups and may embolden them.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s how this terrain-resilience frame is going to be weaponized in the next decade across politics, culture, and policy. It\u2019s already underway, but it\u2019s about to get much clearer.<\/p>\n

I. Health care
\nThis framing lets the right split the system into two camps.<\/p>\n

Fragility medicine
\nHospitals, public health agencies, pharma, insurance companies.
\nThey profit when people stay weak, medicated, and dependent.<\/p>\n

Resilience medicine
\nFitness, nutrition, metabolic health, preventive care, physical competence.
\nCheaper. Decentralized. Harder for bureaucracies to control.<\/p>\n

Terrain rhetoric gives conservatives a way to talk about health care as a sovereignty issue:
\nMake yourself harder to kill so you owe less to a system you don\u2019t trust.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s an end run around the standard universal-care debate.<\/p>\n

II. Education
\nTerrain talk will shape the culture-war fight over schools.<\/p>\n

The message becomes:
\nStop teaching fragility. Start teaching capability.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll see pushes for:
\n\u2022 Physical competence as a core curriculum
\n\u2022 Mental toughness training
\n\u2022 Less therapeutic framing
\n\u2022 More responsibility, discipline, and real-world risk exposure
\n\u2022 \u201cStrong kids, not safe spaces\u201d politics<\/p>\n

This resonates because it contrasts with the current academic trend of shielding students from stress.<\/p>\n

III. Public health
\nThis is where the biggest political shift will hit.<\/p>\n

The new right will argue:
\nThe next pandemic won\u2019t be won with lockdowns and mandates.
\nIt will be won by metabolically healthy adults.<\/p>\n

Expect pushes for:
\n\u2022 National fitness programs
\n\u2022 Tax incentives for metabolic health
\n\u2022 Less funding for pathogen hunting
\n\u2022 Strict limits on virology labs
\n\u2022 A narrative that bad health is a national-security vulnerability<\/p>\n

Terrain theory becomes a national-strength doctrine.<\/p>\n

IV. National identity
\nHere\u2019s the deeper layer: the right will use terrain framing to define what a \u201creal American\u201d looks like in the 2030s.<\/p>\n

Self-disciplined.
\nHardy.
\nStrong.
\nResilient.
\nNot dependent.
\nNot panicked.
\nNot medicated into numbness.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a vision of citizenship built on capability, not credentialing.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the opposite of the therapeutic state.<\/p>\n

V. Masculinity and gender politics
\nYou\u2019re already seeing this online, but it will get more explicit.<\/p>\n

Terrain framing gives the right a socially acceptable way to revive an older masculine ideal without sounding like cavemen.<\/p>\n

It centers:
\n\u2022 Strength
\n\u2022 Calm under threat
\n\u2022 Leadership under stress
\n\u2022 Physical readiness
\n\u2022 Capability over emotion<\/p>\n

The subtext:
\nThe future belongs to the robust, not the domesticated.<\/p>\n

VI. Climate and environment
\nTerrain talk will enter the climate fight in two forms.<\/p>\n

Anti-apocalypse
\nA resilient population doesn\u2019t fear the future.
\nThis undercuts catastrophic climate narratives.<\/p>\n

Adaptation over control
\nThe message becomes:
\nYou can\u2019t control the world.
\nYou can only control your readiness for it.<\/p>\n

This reframes climate politics from \u201cstop emissions\u201d to \u201cstrengthen the nation.\u201d<\/p>\n

VII. Tech and AI
\nTerrain framing will influence tech skepticism.<\/p>\n

It will say:
\nIf you outsource cognition, memory, decision-making and risk assessment to machines, you weaken your own adaptive abilities.<\/p>\n

People will start talking about \u201ccognitive terrain.\u201d
\nThis is already happening in the focus on:
\n\u2022 Screens
\n\u2022 Dopamine
\n\u2022 Attention collapse
\n\u2022 Neural atrophy
\n\u2022 Over-automation<\/p>\n

The right will push a \u201cstay sharp, stay human\u201d ethos.<\/p>\n

VIII. Immigration
\nTerrain framing gives the right a more subtle line on immigration.<\/p>\n

Not:
\nWe dislike immigrants.<\/p>\n

But:
\nA nation with fragile public health and high chronic disease can\u2019t absorb large inflows without breaking its health system.<\/p>\n

The subtext becomes:
\nStrength first, generosity second.<\/p>\n

IX. The deeper evolutionary appeal
\nTerrain theory taps into something ancient:
\nA tribe survives through fitness, cohesion and discipline, not by outsourcing safety to a managerial priesthood.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why the right feels instinctively drawn to it.
\nIt isn\u2019t modern.
\nIt\u2019s primal.<\/p>\n

X. The political trajectory
\nExpect a full shift from:
\n\u2022 Freedom vs control
\nto
\n\u2022 Robustness vs fragility<\/p>\n

It\u2019s cleaner.
\nIt\u2019s biologically grounded.
\nIt\u2019s morally satisfying.
\nAnd it gives the right a unifying identity that isn\u2019t nostalgic.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Law professor Rosalind Dixon writes in the Sydney Morning Herald: Police could have \u2013 and should have \u2013 done more to challenge the protest outside NSW\u2019s Parliament House this month. This could have involved seeking an order that the protests … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[182,4272],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia","category-nazi"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t