The communist dictatorship of China has long been blasted by human rights organisations for its blanket censorship of the Internet but it seems Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy thinks it is a wonderful idea.

This week he boasted to the Senate Estimates Committee of the Rudd Government's plans to impose mandatory internet censorship on all Australians - without any option for the once free citizens of this country to opt out and make their own decisions about what they wish to read on the net.  Initially touted as a voluntary “cyber-safety” measure for homes with children the 'Clean Feed' proposals will now see Government ministers giving themselves unfettered power to decide what adult Australians can and cannot gain access to, with any site or topic they deem unsuitable blocked to all users without debate or appeal.  Subjects such as euthanasia and anorexia will apparently be the first to be censored, presumably if our own 'Open Forum' discusses such ideas in the future this website will itself go dark at the flick of a bureaucrat's switch. 

The mandatory filter will greatly slow Australia’s already derisory internet speeds, and be paid for by the very public whose access it is maiming, but the obvious technical drawbacks and international derision this will attract pale before the principle of tyranny which the Government is now wholeheartedly embracing.  The justification for this potentially unlimited state censorship?  Apparently Mr Conroy believes it will "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of (ISP) users". It's heartening to see Mr Conroy embracing the cynical Orwellian doublespeak as well as thudding technological cosh of the Chinese one party state.

That well known right wing apologist Rosa Luxemburg said that freedom was measured by the liberty of those who disagreed.  Well, Mr Conroy, while I still have access to a free Internet let me say I disagree with creating an Australian version of what Human Rights Watch, in evidence to the US Senate, called "a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it."  I think this is absolutely wrong in principle and a complete betrayal of Australia's pretensions to remaining a free, democratic country.  The day when Australians would do better travelling to newly autocratic Russia to surf the net will be a sad one indeed.  

Had the Howard Government proposed such draconian and fundamentally illiberal measures the largely pro-Rudd media would, rightly, have exploded in outrage.  It will be interesting to see the reaction of the chattering classes now.  They better be careful what they chat about online of course, if a Government lackey doesn't like the sound of it, they'll find themselves blacklisted and banned from the web. Just who is calling for their Internet access to be fettered by state diktat?  A phone-in survey on Channel 7 showed 80% of respondents were opposed to the censorship plan, but who cares about democracy once the election is won?

Australia is now aligning itself with Burma, Cuba and China, brutal dictatorships who will doubtless use Australia's embrace of Internet censorship to justify their own.  Its government is clearly stating that nanny knows best when it comes to freedom of speech, thought and debate and is already leaning on critics such as Mark Newton just as China's apparatchiks suppress their own dissidents.  Let us hope that, with the Coalition set to stand up for freedom and oppose the legislation, other independent senators find the courage to defend the right of Australians to enjoy the same access to the internet as every other citizen in every other democracy in the world.

The Great Fire Wall of Australia is doubtless being set up with the best possible motives, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Free speech is messy, inconvenient and sometimes outrageous but the alternative, this alternative, sets Australia firmly on Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".  It's up to individuals to decide what they want to read and what they want to think, just as its up to them to bear the consequences of their actions.  This government seems to want to nationalise our brains and our hearts where once they would have been content taking control of the bakers.  I'm against euthanasia in all but the most extreme situations, I'm against pro-Anorexia advocates, but I'm far more in favour of free speech.  So, while I can, I say no.  Get your hands off my keyboard, Mr Conroy.