The threats of standing armies

They used these powers to attack people who questioned Covid rules and the loss of freedom, selectively arresting those who protested. Moreover, much of this was done with a degree of thuggish enthusiasm that would be familiar to any of the last century's dictators. Peelian Principles were nowhere to be found.

By any measure this was intended to suppress dissent. And the only reason it was possible was that the ADF provided assistance.

This also occurred in the context of the steady militarisation of the police. This includes the wearing of military camouflage, the use of military weapons, the acquisition of equipment such as armoured personnel carriers, references to the public as civilians, and the ridiculous claim that the police place their lives on the line every day.

When they see themselves as soldiers in a war, it is not surprising that police see no problem with suppressing dissent. Clearly, they do not see themselves as part of the public.

We cannot pretend the lessons of history do not apply in Australia; indeed, failing to learn from them makes it more likely they will be repeated. As they were two hundred years ago, standing armies continue to be a threat to freedom. And that includes police which emulate the military.

In 2025, Australia not only has police which fail to respect human rights, but a standing army that facilitates them to do that.