Tag: australia

Australian Prime Minister Albanese Proposes Tougher National Gun Laws After Mass Shooting in Sydney

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday proposed tougher national gun laws after a mass shooting targeted a Hanukkah celebration on Sydney’s Bondi Beach, leaving at least 15 people dead.

Albanese said he would propose new restrictions, including limiting the number of guns a licensed owner can obtain. His proposals were announced after the authorities revealed that the older of the two gunmen—who were a father and son—had held a gun license for a decade and amassed his six guns legally.

“The government is prepared to take whatever action is necessary. Included in that is the need for tougher gun laws,” Albanese told reporters.

“People’s circumstances can change. People can be radicalized over a period of time. Licenses should not be in perpetuity,” he added.

At least 38 people were being treated in hospitals after the massacre on Sunday, when the two shooters fired indiscriminately on the beachfront festivities. Those killed included a 10-year-old girl, a rabbi and a Holocaust survivor.

The horror at Australia’s most popular beach was the deadliest shooting in almost three decades in a country with strict gun control laws primarily aimed at removing rapid-fire rifles from circulation. Albanese called the massacre an act of anti-Semitic terrorism that struck at the heart of the nation.

He pledged swift change, planning on Monday afternoon to present his gun law proposals to a national cabinet meeting that includes state leaders. Some of the measures would also require state legislation.

“Some laws are commonwealth and some laws are implemented by the states,” the Australian leader said. “What we want to do is to make sure that we’re all completely on the same page.”

Christopher Minns, premier of New South Wales where Sydney is the state capital, agreed with Albanese that gun licenses should not be granted in perpetuity.

Minns said his state’s gun laws would change, but he could not yet detail how.

“It means introducing a bill to Parliament to—I mean to be really blunt—make it more difficult to get these horrifying weapons that have no practical use in our community,” Minns told repoters.

Keep reading

Iran’s Response to Australia’s Bondi Beach Terror Attack Raises Questions

The mass-casualty terror attack targeting a Hanukkah gathering at Sydney’s Bondi Beach was the predictable outcome of a global environment in which antisemitic incitement is normalized, rationalized, and, in some cases, actively encouraged by state actors.

In the hours following the attack, attention has turned to Iran—not because Tehran immediately claimed responsibility, but because of how Iranian officials, state media, and regime-aligned commentators have responded.

Iran’s reaction follows a familiar pattern. There has been no direct praise for the murders.

Instead, Iranian outlets have worked to reframe the attack as an understandable—or even defensible—reaction to the Israel-Hamas war, while redirecting outrage toward Israel and the West.

This strategy allows the regime to distance itself from operational responsibility while sustaining the ideological climate that fuels antisemitic violence worldwide.

Iranian state media coverage was notably clinical on the surface. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Tehran’s official media, reported the basic facts: a shooting at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration, multiple fatalities, and ongoing investigations by Australian authorities.

Missing, however, was any moral condemnation of the attack or recognition of antisemitism as a motivating factor. Instead, IRNA quickly pivoted, characterizing Israeli reactions as “harsh” and “unprecedented” and situating the massacre within the broader narrative of Gaza.

Iranian coverage repeatedly emphasized claims about civilian deaths in Gaza, citing figures from Hamas-run authorities and presenting them as uncontested fact.

The implication was clear: violence against Jews abroad should be understood through the lens of Israel’s military actions, rather than as terrorism targeting a religious minority.

By embedding the Bondi Beach attack within a Gaza-focused narrative, Iranian media effectively shifted blame from the perpetrators to Jewish collective identity itself.

That narrative was taken further by regime-aligned commentators. Lebanese journalist Hadi Hoteit, who identifies himself as a correspondent for Iran’s state-run Press TV, posted on social media questioning whether the attacker should even be labeled a terrorist.

Keep reading

Father and son terrorists were armed to the teeth with SIX guns when they launched their deadly Bondi Beach rampage, killing 15 and injuring dozens more – as police reveal they were ALL legally-owned

The father and son terrorists who opened fire onto a crowd of innocent people, killing 15 at Bondi Beach had six guns with them at the scene, police have said.

The older gunman Sajid Akram, 50, was shot dead by police while his son Naveed Akram, 24, suffered critical injuries and remains in hospital under police guard following the horrific shooting at a Jewish Hannukkah celebration on Sunday night.

NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed the 50-year-old, who is yet to be formally identified, held a gun licence and all firearms registered to him were legally owned. 

Police have since seized all six firearms linked to him which are understood to have been at the scene of the terrifying shooting.

‘He has six firearms licensed to him. We are satisfied that we have six firearms from the scene yesterday, but also as a result of the search warrant at the Campsie address,’ Mr Lanyon said.

‘Ballistics and forensic investigation will determine those six firearms are the six that were licensed to that man, but also they were used in the offence yesterday at Bondi.

‘We will continue to investigate this matter thoroughly.’ 

ASIO has also admitted that one of the shooters was on their radar.

Keep reading

Let’s talk about…the Bondi Beach attack

Earlier today, two gunmen allegedly opened fire on attendees of a Chanukah by the Sea event on Bondi Beach in Sydney.

So far, authorities have claimed 12 people are dead, eleven civilians and one gunman, with a further twenty nine in hospital, includ8ng the second alleged gunman.

One suspect has been named as Naveed Akram, a 24 year old living in Sydney. Authorities also claim to have discovered an “explosive device” in a car “linked to” the attacker.

It’s only been a few hours, but the Independent has a personal opinion piece headlined:

Bondi was my safe haven – after today, Australia will never be the same

This is a common sentiment. Surprisingly common.

That feels like narrative talking point to me. But, assuming this is psy-op on some level, what might the final aim be?

It can’t be guns, because Australia’s guns are long gone.

If it’s about anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s a finely modulated game since one of the heroes of the hour is also a Muslim immigrant.

Keep reading

Substack expands censorship to Australian users

Last week, we noted that Substack had caved into the UK censorship regime and was restricting the content that UK users can access unless they verified their age with either a selfie or a government-approved ID.

Age verification is not about keeping children “safe,” it is about control: age verification online is increasingly being integrated with digital ID systems, particularly through government-backed digital identity wallets, and is becoming a foundational component of digital ID systems with several countries, including the US, European Union member states, the UK and Australia, advancing digital ID frameworks where age verification is a core function. 

For example, the GOV.UK Wallet is under development and will be used for identity verification, with age verification being a key application. And in Australia, the Digital ID Act 2024 established the Australian Government Digital ID System, allows users to prove identity online.

The example we used in our previous article to demonstrate the type of content being censored for UK users on Substack, unless we comply with the rolling out of the digital ID agenda, was the article ‘UK’s open border policy is not normal; nor is it acceptable’.

Along similar lines, yesterday, a Substack user re-stacked our article ‘London Primary school teacher is banned from working with children for telling a Muslim pupil that Britain is a Christian country’.  Substack has censored the article for non-paying users who have not complied with age verification.

Keep reading

Australia launches youth social media ban it says will be the world’s ‘first domino’

Can children and teenagers be forced off social media en masse? Australia is about to find out.

More than 1 million social media accounts held by users under 16 are set to be deactivated in Australia on Wednesday in a divisive world-first ban that has inflamed a culture war and is being closely watched in the United States and elsewhere.

Social media companies will have to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that under-16s in Australia cannot set up accounts on their platforms and that existing accounts are deactivated or removed.

Australian officials say the landmark ban, which lawmakers swiftly approved late last year, is meant to protect children from addictive social media platforms that experts say can be disastrous for their mental health.

“With one law, we can protect Generation Alpha from being sucked into purgatory by predatory algorithms described by the man who created the feature as ‘behavioral cocaine,’” Communications Minister Anika Wells told the National Press Club in Canberra last week.

While many parents and even their children have welcomed the ban, others say it will hinder young people’s ability to express themselves and connect with others, as well as access online support that is crucial for those from marginalized groups or living in isolated parts of rural Australia. Two 15-year-olds have brought a legal challenge against it to the nation’s highest court.

Supporters say the rest of the world will soon follow the example set by the Australian ban, which faced fierce resistance from social media companies.

“I’ve always referred to this as the first domino, which is why they pushed back,” Julie Inman Grant, who regulates online safety as Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, said at an event in Sydney last week.

Keep reading

Australian Leaders and Legacy Media Celebrates Launch of Online Digital ID Age Verification Law

It was sold as a “historic day,” the kind politicians like to frame with national pride and moral purpose.

Cameras flashed in Canberra as Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stood at the podium, declaring victory in the fight to “protect children.”

What Australians actually got was a nationwide digital ID system. Starting December 10, every citizen logging into select online platforms must now pass through digital ID verification, biometric scans, face matching, and document checks, all justified as a way to keep under-16s off social media.

Kids are now banned from certain platforms, but it’s the adults who must hand over their faces, IDs, and biometric data to prove they’re not kids.

“Protecting children” has been converted into a universal surveillance upgrade for everyone.

According to Albanese, who once said if he became a dictator the first thing he would do was ban social media, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 will “change lives.”

He described it as a “profound reform” that will “reverberate around the world,” giving parents “peace of mind” and inspiring “the global community” to copy Australia’s example.

The Prime Minister’s pride, he said, had “never been greater.” Listening to him, you’d think he’d cured cancer rather than making face scans mandatory to log in to Facebook.

Keep reading

The Encryption Double Life of Canberra

The Australian government is quietly relying on encrypted messaging to conduct sensitive business, even as it hardens its stance against public use of secure communications.

While the public faces increasing surveillance and legal pressure for using end-to-end encryption, senior officials are steering policy conversations into private digital spaces, shielding them from scrutiny under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

Since midyear, ministerial staff have been advising lobbyists, peak bodies and industry groups to avoid email altogether and submit reform proposals through the encrypted messaging app Signal.

Some of these exchanges have been requested using disappearing messages, ensuring there is no record retained on government systems.

Several sources confirmed to the Saturday Paper that this guidance is now common across a number of policy areas.

In addition to Signal, stakeholders have been encouraged to use phone calls for detailed conversations and limit the content of any written communications.

In at least one case, after a formal meeting, the follow-up came in the form of a verbal summary rather than the usual written recap sent by email.

While the government has maintained formal channels for official submissions, a secondary mode of policymaking is taking shape.

This mode operates out of reach of archiving protocols and public oversight.

One participant in this informal process described it as an effort to protect the early phases of policy development from outside scrutiny, arguing that “fluid thoughts and ideas” should be exempt from public record.

Yet the effect of these practices is to create a shadow layer of government consultation that leaves no trace and falls outside the accountability mechanisms intended to safeguard democratic participation.

Keep reading

Australia: Meta begins deactivating accounts ahead of 16-year-old minimum social media age limit

Meta has begun removing social media accounts belonging to Australian children under 16 years old from its platforms, Instagram, Facebook and Threads.

The tech giant has started notifying users aged 13 to 15 years old that their accounts would cease to exist on December 4th. Starting December 10th, social media companies will face fines up to A$49.5 million ($33million USD) should they fail to take steps to halt children under 16 years old from owning accounts.

Australian eSafety Commissioners will send major platforms notices on December 11th demanding statistics about exactly how many accounts were removed from their sites. Additionally, monthly notices are planned for 2026.

It is estimated that 150,000 Facebook accounts and 325,000 Instagram users will be terminated. 

“The government recognizes that age assurance may require several days or weeks to complete fairly and accurately,” Communications Minister Anika Wells reported.

“However, if eSafety identifies systemic breaches of the law, the platforms will face fines,” she added.

Google sent out a notice on Wednesday stating that anyone in Australia under 16 would be signed out of YouTube on December 10th and will lose features accessible available only to account holders, such as playlists.

Google states it determines YouTube users’ ages “based on personal data contained in associated Google accounts and other signals.”

“We have consistently said this rushed legislation misunderstands our platform, the way young Australians use it and, most importantly, it does not fulfill its promise to make kids safer online,” a Google statement reported.

Users over 16 years old who were wrongfully revoked account access have the option to verify their age through government-issued ID or a Video selfie, per Meta.

Platforms such as X and Reddit contacted underage users, suggesting that they download their posted pictures and freeze their accounts until they become of age.

The Australian government claims the ban will protect children from the harms of social media. However, critics say this decision may isolate certain groups who depend on the platforms for connection and push children to other, potentially more harmful corners of the internet.

Keep reading

YouTube says it will comply with Australia’s teen social media ban

Google’s YouTube shared a “disappointing update” to millions of Australian users and content creators on Wednesday, saying it will comply with a world-first teen social media ban by locking out users aged under 16 from their accounts within days.

The decision ends a stand-off between the internet giant and the Australian government which initially exempted YouTube from the age restriction, citing its use for educational purposes. Google (GOOGL.O) had said it was getting legal advice about how to respond to being included.

“Viewers must now be 16 or older to sign into YouTube,” the company said in a statement.

“This is a disappointing update to share. This law will not fulfill its promise to make kids safer online and will, in fact, make Australian kids less safe on YouTube.”

The Australian ban is being closely watched by other jurisdictions considering similar age-based measures, setting up a potential global precedent for how the mostly U.S. tech giants behind the biggest platforms balance child safety with access to digital services.

The Australian government says the measure responds to mounting evidence that platforms are failing to do enough to protect children from harmful content.

Keep reading