Archive for the ‘Australia’ Category

Sydney Children’s Hospital steps on its own dick

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

A charity event at the Sydney Children’s Hospital fell apart after hospital officials rejected one of the exhibited works by artist, Del Kathryn Barton.  The offending piece is a photograph of the artist’s six year old son naked from the waist up.

While the decision cost the hospital a $200,000 from the proceeds of exhibit, the real stunner is that the hospital embarrassed itself so thoroughly in front of the entire world by abandoning the exhibit to begin with.  The degree of paranoia associated with child nudity has soared way beyond the bounds of rationality into the land of utter lunacy.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Tamara Winikoff, the executive director of the National Association for the Visual Arts, said decisions such as this were ”absurd and tragic”.

She said that since the Henson scandal, when photographs of youths and children by Bill Henson, one of Australia’s most famous artists, prompted media outrage and a police investigation, authorities were scared to associate themselves with any images of children.

”In our zeal to protect children we are erasing them entirely,” she said.

She said nudity was being conflated with pornography, even though representations of nudity had been part of Australia’s artistic tradition throughout history.

I posted briefly about Australia’s reaction to Bill Hensen back in January, 2010 (3rd item down).

The Henson scandal came after similar incidents during the previous two decades in the US where groups – often Christian – attacked artworks, which prompted failed police actions.

Christian groups in the U.S. attacking art?  I’m stunned!  I guess they must only believe in the part of the First Amendment that pertains to their religious proclivities.

New fears about Australia’s internet filter

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

I have written much in the past about Australia’s plan to filter content from the internet that has been “refused classification”.  Over the past several months, the scheme seemed to be all but dead.  Support for it was dropped just prior to recent elections and it has seemingly fallen off the international news radar.

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Stephen Conroy, the plan’s foremost advocate has suggested it could not be implemented at the national broadband level.

“The filter doesn’t work through the wholesale network, it works through the [internet service providers] or [retail service providers (RSP)], the Telstras, Optuses, Primuses, that’s the level that it works at,” he said.

“It’s not technically possible for the filter to be applied at the National Broadband Network level, it can only be applied at the RSP level.”

While that may be true, the government could still bring pressure to bear on ISPs and RSPs to accomplish the same end:

But David Vaile, the executive director of the University of NSW’s Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre, said the government could still use its ownership of the wholesale fibre-optic network to “lean on” ISPs.

“If you have a commercial relationship when you’re the monopoly supplier, the terms you set are the terms people must follow,” Mr Vaile said.

“They’re re-nationalising the internet and to a large extent the telephone system as well.

This could mean that the government, rather than caving in to public complaints about the filtering have just decied to take a more circuitous route to accomplish the same end:

Mr Vaile said announcements in July that telcos Telstra, Optus and Primus had agreed to voluntarily block online child pornography material were classic examples of indirect pressure being applied.

“Telstra and Optus have voluntarily agreed to implement a form of the blacklist already, without legislation or any form of transparency,” he said.

“That’s pure persuasion and leaning on.”

And while the official pretense has been about blocking child porn, the fact is that the Australian black list goes beyond child porn sites into the realm of blocking political content.

Is Australia’s planned internet filter dead?

Friday, September 10th, 2010

According to the Sidney Morning Herald,  Conroy still persists in promoting the idea, but it doesn’t change much chance of ever becoming law:

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, is ploughing ahead with his internet filter policy despite there being virtually no chance any enabling legislation will pass either house of Parliament.

In fact, there is some perspective that the filtering scheme has been something of a political disaster and might be best forgotten.

University of Sydney Associate Professor Bjorn Landfeldt said, given the catastrophic election result after only one term in government, it was “remarkable” the government was “pushing the very issues that undermined their credibility, rather than focusing their energy on important societal issues”.

“One may wonder exactly what underlies this relentless pursuit of a mirage, given that there is just about zero support outside the cabinet,” said Landfeldt.

“Surely it is no longer a matter of believing that the policy would benefit the general public.”

If anything is true of politics, its that bad ideas have a way of repeatedly returning until they are enacted into law.  Only time will tell if the filter will die or be revived in another fit of child porn hysteria.

U.S. urges Europeans governments to open criminal investigations against Wikileaks founder

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

According to The Daily Beast, the Obama administration is actively campaigning to bring a criminal charges against Wikileaks  founder Julian Assange.  They are not only pressuring Europena countries to open criminal investigations, but officials are also contemplating criminal charges in the U.S.

Officials tell The Daily Beast that the U.S. effort reflects a growing belief that WikiLeaks and organizations like it threaten grave damage to American national security, as well as a growing suspicion in Washington that Assange has damaged his own standing with foreign governments and organizations that might otherwise be sympathetic to his anti-censorship cause.

I think what the U.S. is worried about is the embarrassment caused by the disclosure of information that contradicts official public reports.  Despite all the lofty rhetoric to the contrary, government concerns over the loss of life in any war are generally limited to how casualties might affect public support of the war.  There is no shortage of examples that illustrate the willingness of the U.S. to engage in war, so it’s more than a little disingenuous to point the finger elsewhere when it comes to endangering anyone’s life.

Democracies require an informed populace.  Wikileaks is working to that end while Western governments are becoming more secretive.  While Obama made transparency a campaign promise, it has not been forthcoming and despite all the objections voiced by Democrats in response to Patriot Act secrecy requirements, little to no action has been taken to roll back those infringements on Constitutional protections.

If anyone is risking American and Afghan lives it isn’t Julian Assange and Wikileaks hasn’t been promoting a decade long war in and occupation of that country.

Australia’s contribution to the war against censorship.

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

I post a lot of bad news about Australia’s war on internet freedom so, to be fair, I would like to point out that Australia has also contributed to the fight against censorship in the form of Julian Assange.

If you’ve been watching the news lately, you’ve seen Mr. Assange on TV as the face of Wikileaks which has stunned the world by releasing some 90,000 classified documents related to U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

I think the general attitude inside most democratic governments is this:  “We try and let our citizens have as much information as we feel we can trust them with.” They see the release of documents as a favor they do for the public.  In a democracy, where  the citizens are ultimately responsible for what the government does, information is not a luxury.   The public’s first inkling that another country’s population is angry shouldn’t be when they start crashing airliners into buildings.

The U.S. is now actively engaged militarily in three countries, with troops in many more.  Where we used to measure peace by how long we went between wars, we now measure it by how many wars we’re waging at one time.

Wikileaks is not the enemy and, as we learned so vividly when this happened once before, information is the friend of democracy.  Without it, government no longer answers to the people.  I have to wonder if the U.S. government will eventually declare Wikileaks a terrorist organization, which would essentially nullify the civil liberties of any American citizen having anything to do with them.

Australia: The Cartoon

Monday, July 26th, 2010

The more I read about Australian censorship news the more surreal and comical it seems to become.  According to a piece in The Register, Australians not only censor obscenity, they ban anything that contains a link to outlawed material.  That, of course, is about as close as you can get to banning the mere discussion of censorship.  Indeed, if the material being blocked can’t even be referred to, then what would a discussion about its censorship look like?

Censorship in a democracy is nonsensical at the core since you’re actually depriving the public of the information it needs to make informed voting decisions.  But, this philosophy of outlawing even a reference to the banned material is like taking the names of the candidates off the ballot.  Nothing expresses fear of an idea like banning it.  Censorship is always among the first used and most potent tools of oppressive governments.

Any country with state sponsored censorship has succumbed to the temptation of restricting the very core ideal that permits the population to determine the country’s destiny.  To say, “Well, it’s only porn”, is meaningless before it leaves your lips because it clearly isn’t and never has been “just porn”.  Censorship, by definition, extinguishes any discussion about what is being banned, because it’s no longer available to discuss.

Censorship is the government saying, “Trust to us to manage the single most important power that guarantees your freedom and we promise to take extra special good care of it”.  That’s not just letting the fox guard the hen house.  That’s more like serving up the barbecued chickens on a silver platter.

A related postscript to the story paints even a more disturbing image of a government that has become completely disconnected from the principle that free access to information is the foundation of democracy.

Meanwhile, under the heading “you couldn’t make it up”, the Australian Government has now censored some 90 per cent of a document released under Australia’s FOI laws on the controversial topic of what data ISP’s are going to be asked to keep when snooping on their customers. The reason for keeping the answer under wraps? Apparently there were fears that the document could cause “premature unnecessary debate”.

Sadly, this mentality is not limited to Australia, but has become a growing trend among all western democracies that see the free flow of information on the  internet as a threat that needs to be reined in.  Rhetoric to the contrary not withstanding, the U.S. will be traveling the same path as the others.

Community in Australia wants to legalize prostitution.

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

According to the Portside Messenger, the city council of Port Adelaide Enfield in South Australia is petitioning the state government to legalize prostitution.  The problem?  The hookers look so much like “ordinary people”*, that you can’t tell them apart. So what’s the big deal, you say? Well, for one thing, customers looking for sex have to solicit any number of women before they connect with one in the business.  Secondly, vigilante moral crusaders who are desperately trying to make the world a better place, don’t know who to target with their eggs and rocks, so they sometimes accidentally attack non-hookers.  I know, I know.  God’s hammer of righteousness is bound to cause a little collateral damage now and then.  I’m sure they mean well. Sex workers do have some representation in the issue.

eSex Industry Network manager Ari Reid said the group favoured decriminalisation over legalisation. “We think the sex industry should be treated like any other business,” she said.

She probably didn’t get the memo that all prostitution is involuntary and therefore slavery.  If liberal feminism were a church, I’m quite sure Ms. Reid would have been excommunicated by now.

Prostitution is not prohibited in South Australia by law, but almost every activity that facilitates it is illegal which is essentially the same thing.

*  In the first paragraph, “ordinary people” is in quotes for a simple reason.  Prostitutes are themselves really ordinary people like the rest of us.

Australia pauses in it’s headlong rush toward the internet censorship abyss.

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

According to broadbandbreakfast.com, Australia is halting the rollout of its internet filtering program.

Australia will stop the rollout of their controversial ISP filtering program. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy has stated that the program is currently being re-reviewed.

Being utterly impervious to the idea that people should be free to choose what information they want to view, Stephen Conroy has been the censorship plan’s most ardent promoter.

From what I gather, the filtering scheme is far from dead, but has been put on hold for a year.  It remains to be seen what impact the filtering plan will have on how voters cast their ballots in next month’s elections.  As history has shown, freedom is more often given away than taken away.

The government as a parent.

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

News.com.au brings us an interesting perspective out of Australia which is leading the way in clamping down on internet freedom.  Capitalizing on cyberbulling stories, Professor Matt Warren, the head of Deakin University’s School of Information Systems says, “It will just need a government to make a hard decision to say this has to stop.”

A pilot study into teaching ethical behaviour on the net has been under way in 150 schools nationwide since last year.

Recommendations on how it fits into the national curriculum will be put forward after the election.

One proposal would see schools given the right to respond to student’s activities on the net outside school hours.

Great.  Parents will have to share jurisdiction with the government over what their children can and can’t do in their own homes.   My guess it would only be a matter of time before the government also lays down the rules on what they can watch on TV as well.

Dr Helen McGrath – also a Deakin colleague of Prof Warren’s – was a contributor to the Commonwealth Government’s Cybersafety Joint Committee in June last year.

She said it was unrealistic to expect parents to monitor their children around the clock and that the onus was on schools to give kids the tools to protect themselves.

“It’s all very well telling an 11-year-old they can’t have a computer in their bedroom, but when they get to 14, it’s like saying you have to make all your phone calls in front of us,” she said.

Unlike her colleague, Dr McGrath doesn’t believe content filtering has any role in educating children about the dangers of the internet.

Uh-oh.  Sounds like McGrath thinks kids have a brain.  What a novel concept.

It has  has become common in Europe and the Americas, any law that is deemed to do more good than harm is automatically assumed to be a good law.  You hear it everywhere: “If it only saves one child, it will be worth it.”  Well, guess what.   A law is not necessarily good simply because it will help some people.  And shielding people from everything that can harm them does not make them better or safer.  It makes them weaker and dumber.  And, as I said, Australia, with its enthusiastic embrace of internet filtering, is proudly leading the free western world down the weaker and dumber path.

World’s most feared free speech hero visits Oz

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

When I say feared, I mean feared by those who advocate government control of free expression.  Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is visiting Australia, but the government there didn’t exactly welcome him with open arms.

For a brief moment at Melbourne Airport, he had his passport confiscated, then returned, then warned he would “lose it soon”.

Assange has been critical of Australia’s soon-to-be internet filtering scheme and brought embarrassment and ridicule to Australia’s government when Wikileaks published their” black list” of banned websites which shows the broad range of content to be prohibited.

He said such moves by the Government were not just damaging for the Australian people, as it was being used by other countreis to justify much harsher oppressive measures.

Indeed the degree of internet freedom schizophrenia exhibited by western democratic governments would qualify them for psychiatric commitment if it were committed by a single individual.

“How can we say China is wrong to have a national censorship system, the “great firewall of China”, for what they say is reasons of “national security” when we say having one for mere porn is justified,” he said.

Assange also had a few choice words for freedom-conflicted Steve Jobs:

Concerns have been raised over the process by which apps can be classified as suitable for viewing on the iPad.

Apple was forced last month to re-examine an application it had rejected – on the grounds it contained objectionable content – by US political cartoonist Mark Fiore.

It admitted it had erred in rejecting the app – but only after Fiore had won a Pulitzer Prize for his work.

“Centralised distribution by Apple of journalistic content, according to US laws and Apple’s profits, is obviously a journalistic own-goal,” Assange said.

Finally, Assange addressed a topic that I’ve had strong feelings about for years.  If you want any kind of objective unfiltered news in the U.S., the last place you’re going to find it is on television which is where most people still look for it.  Not only is the news reporting becoming increasingly biased and speculative, it is universally screened to remove content that challenges the coping skills of anyone beyond the third grade.  In fact, they ceremoniously brag about their self-censorship as if they’re doing a public service, but they also know that viewers will go to the internet to get the same story without the editing.

When Iranian, Neda Agha-Soltan, was shot and killed last year, most network TV news initially refused to show the video unedited.  Later, as it became apparent that people were going to the internet to see it, they relented and broadcast it with a strong warning of its graphic nature.  It has become so routine for government and commerce to make themselves the sole arbiter of what’s good for people that the concept of truly free access to information totally confounds them.

He hoped one day to see a fundamental change in journalism, with news online presented in its raw form, allowing the audience to “inspect all angles”.

“Profit motives work against it, but if we can have the audience understand that most other forms of journalism are not credible, then it may be a forced move.”

Let’s hope that raw news will remain available online because, at this point in time, that is the only place it can be found.  Will there be a lot of bad reporting mixed in with it?  Of course!  But people are a lot smarter that the mainstream media give them credit for.  The reason people are flocking to the internet is because they’re being repelled by the bad smell they’re getting from more traditional news outlets.