A fellow academic wrote to me yesterday "too many [in government] dismiss [my] commentary as divorced from the reality of the public policy process." This is a type of muzzling so I'm going to address it. /1

First, it is most likely a counterfactual statement. He has no way of knowing what he has so confidently asserted. Too many? Did he do a survey? Did his friends tell him and how many friends does he have in government?/2

Second, what exactly is the reality of the public policy process? Is it the same thing as the government's publicly available policies and procedures (law, ministerial directions, health orders, procedures) or is it some secret stuff only those in government know? /3

I critique mainly what the government has made public. That is the reality I see. My critiques are not "divorced" from that reality. They are focused on it. One can disagree with my critiques but that does not mean they are unfocused. /4

If the reality he is referring to is some illuminati shit the government is pulling behind the scenes, then that is obviously not the target of my critiques. But I'm not sure why he thinks that stuff deserves reverence. /5

Secret government business does not represent any inherent truths. Government is not synonymous with truth. They can't demand respect by default. They have to earn it. /6

This colleague condescendingly "IMPLORED" me to read up on the public policy process. If it's public, I have (at least in relation to what I critique). If it's secret, then how can I? Indeed, how has he? /7

He also told me he does not want to call me out publicly on it. Jeez, thanks but please do. If he can articulate it, I can respond to it. As I have done now. /end

P.S: He also stated that many in government read me everyday. Again, probably counterfactual. But if true, why do they keep reading if my critiques are not their reality? Why have they not told me this themselves?

PPS: Who appointed this colleague the informer and gatekeeper?