The first casualty

The increasing intention of western and non-western governments to censor the internet is usually put in terms of "child protection", although it is very unlikely to be affected by censorship, merely by using uncensorable techniques like Torrents. But one has to wonder if the real reason is more to do with preventing this sort of thing. It turns out that we have been lied to about civilian casualties and targeted assassinations in Afghanistan, two things that any civilised society should repudiate. Aeschylus is supposed to have said that in war, truth is the first casualty. Governments and militaries who prosecute wars do so for their own reasons, which are almost never the reason they give to their populace. Controlling information is crucial. We went into Iraq on a lie, and it looks like we are behaving in Afghanistan in ways that are contrary to what we are being told. This is not the fault of those on the ground, but it is the fault of governments. Without services like Wikilinks, we would never know these lies until it was too late to act on them. So, of course, governments wish to block access to information about the lies. I note also that Wikileaks is providing a service for whistleblowers to notify the media securely. Whistleblowers are usually well motivated individuals with a civil conscience, and so they are usually the only ones blamed and punished for the things they blow the whistle on, despite supposed protection laws. This is a marvellous idea. Media outlets can put a form to notify them on their own websites, and Wikileaks will anonymise the posts. Wikileaks is available from here. It's under a heavy strain right now, for obvious reasons, but I wouldn't put a DDoS attack out of the question either. In any even I expect that the Australian internet filter will include Wikileaks. If it does, I'll post a way around it. Think about why people are criticising Wikileaks: they are providing us, the people, with the truth about things that governments and vested interests do not want exposed. Why would anyone think that was wrong? Nobody who is open and honest could. Yes, I mean you Conroy, you weasel.

Parenting and the law

Sydney Morning Herald has a couple of well expressed opinion pieces about legal aspects of adoption by homosexual parents and on abusive fathers and the Family Law Act. Both are sensible and you should read them.

On recent developments, and a prospective

So, we have a woman PM. I'm not particularly impressed by that - we should have had equal representation in the Parliament thirty years ago and it's no great achievement to get a female executive now. We beat the US. Hoobloodyray.

But that she is unashamedly unmarried, and took the affirmation rather than the Anglican Oath, now that impresses me. I wonder how long it will take for Cardinal Fang Pell to declare that she is anti-Christian and communist, or something, followed by Archbishop Lapdog Jensen soon after. And she's Welsh! That has to mean something heretical.

So fine, a Labor female unreligious PM. This is what Labor should have delivered years back, and not merely because, as is the Labor way, a woman is appointed/anointed in expectation of electoral failure shortly thereafter. Once it was a progressive party, back in the 70s, for about ten minutes.

No, the real issue is whether we will see Labor resile from the regressive social policies that it has pursued cynically and in the expectation of cheap success. Obviously I mean the internet censorship issue, but more importantly, gay equality in marriage and adoption, and a reduction of government interference in personal lives. Once we hoped for liberty; now we just hope that the "security" excuse won't mean we get called sex offenders, terrorists or witches.

I weep for my country. I'd really love not to. Julia, don't disappoint me like those other messiahs.

On preventing illegal content

Stephen Collins of EFA has a nice post to follow up Scott Ludlam's excellent speech to Parliament, in which he notes that the filter will not prevent child porn, and that there are more effective ways to deal with it. Here's my one-line summary:

The mandatory filter is a way to avoid having to do anything substantive about porn, because that would take effort, money and not get politicians a public profile.

The way to deal with illegal content is to prosecute, after police investigation. If that content is overseas, then contact the host nation. We all have pretty much the same goals.

This takes money, time, personnel, and will not get headlines in the Murdoch press, but it is the only way to deal with these crimes. It is also the only way that has worked in the past. If Conroy and Rudd really want to do this properly, then appoint more police and fund the states to have more police aimed solely at this sort of crime. Prosecute these crimes. Enact sensible laws against them. And most of all, stop hiding behind the Censorship Board. In fact, I think we would as a community be a lot better off if we abolished the Censorship Board entirely. It has shown itself to be easily manipulated by both political and special interests for decades.

Australia has become one of the most draconian of all democracies in its paternalistic control over what we can and cannot do and say. I am ashamed of my country's placing style over substance and passing off responsibilities to government and bureaucracies that should be taken up by individuals.

Rudd to oppose ACT gay marriage laws

Just as the first legal gay marriages happen in the ACT, Rudd has decided he will block those laws.

Listen carefully, Mr PM. You. Don't. Have. That. Right.

You were elected to handle federal laws and issues, not state laws, and if a state democratically passes a law that permits Australian citizens who presently lack the same rights under law as other Australians enjoy, you do not have the right to overturn that because you happen to think differently. That has a name: it's called tyranny.

Your objections are religious, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia - you may have heard of it - states that no federal laws may be passed that favour one religion (or many religions) over another, including those who do not subscribe to your religious moral code:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

This would be imposing a religious observance. It's unconstitutional, immoral, politically outrageous and as it happens I think contrary to the ideals of the Labor movement, not that that carries much weight these days. Gay rights were introduced by Labor, and it seems Labor will take them out, just like Cosby said about fatherhood.

If you want a solution, one that doesn't break the constitution and which is consistent with our laws and principles, try this. I wrote it for Howard's government. It seems yours might do well to read it as well.

Shock jocks on radio and decency

"At long last, sir, have you no decency?" That was the question that finally brought down that weasel Joseph McCarthy in his vile campaign to make anyone who was not right wing and equally vile isolated and marginalised in the US. His success can be seen in the present American vile right wing.

So Kyle the Vile Sandilands has been suspended for four weeks. Whooptifuckingdoo. Why hasn't he been banned from being on the media? For that matter, why wasn't John Laws, and why isn't Alan Jones and why aren't all the little Lawsies and Jonesies throughout the land?

Where's ACMA? Is it too busy telling adults what they can and can't play on their computers even if it's lawful? Why haven't they censored Jones, who initiated the race riots on air? Why? Well let's not forget that these guys get politicians into power and out, and the politicians know this. It's all about lobbying for influence. It's all about money.

ACMA ought to immediately revoke the license of any broadcaster or on air personality or producer that breaches the rules of democratic decency. When laws are broken, they should be charged and if at all possible jailed. But we'll never see that in this brave new lobbocracy. They have no decency. Just money.

Scientologists want to gag anonymous criticism

This is not news, of course, because they have always tried to harrass and gag critics using legal and other means, but now they want the Australian legal system to do it for them. From here, which has some links you ought to read if you don't already know the back story.

Oppose the anti-gays on marriage

The current Senate Inquiry into Marriage Equality has just been swamped by thousands of anti-gay submissions from the Religious Right. The inquiry is just about to close for submissions. It aims to gauge the level of public support for marriage equality across Australia. Does anti-gay discrimination have any place in our secular laws? If you think not, go here and register your PoV. Hat tip to Jason Ball.

*China* is smarter than Kevin Rudd

Because they will make their internet filtering optional. You know, personal choice and freedom optional?

The Malaysia PM is smarter than Rudd

He, at least, realises that an internet filter will not work to stop child porn.

Labor compromise turns down gay marriage

As reported by the ABC. One question? Why? What possible argument against gay marriage can there be? How is it not discrimination to prevent adults from marrying who they choose? What is motivating the ALP?

There can be only one answer: religion. Yes, the ALP is now Kevin Rudd's personal religious evangelising ground.

More tales of incompetent filtering

So, the NSW Education Department put internet filters on school computers. The outcome? Students may access porn sites, but not educational or government sites.

Lesson #1: anything administered automatically can be mistyped...

Meanwhile, gay groups are waiting to see if their [legal] sites are going to be barred. They have every right to be concerned.

Lesson # 2: If bureaucrats are the ones who choose what the people may see or do, they will blindly follow badly written guidelines.

As you were...

Censordyne for a clean internet

GetUp has an amusing and pointed "ad" here. Go see it. Contribute also,

Paul Syvret nails it

At The Courier Mail no less:

It's idiocy. Offer, and that means offer not impose, filtering for children's net use by all means but let adults decide for themselves what they want to watch, play and talk about, or buy online.

When even a News Unlimited paper can say it, it's freaking obvious, right? Nah. Labor will continue as before, you watch.

Internet censorship shock! Well, not really

So the wider public have realised what the internet filter is really going to be used for - to filter out entertainment some censorship committee thinks you, as adults, shouldn't be exposed to. Games, of course, but who thinks it will stop there?

Look, the principles here are obvious: stop censorship altogether, and if people do things that are criminal, prosecute them. No committee appointed by the PM and his advisors has the right to tell me not to do something that is legal. No such committee can substitute for parental oversight or teaching. All that a government instrumentality has the right to do is prosecute those who break the law. By all means rank or classify material as a guide. But stopping me or any other adult from playing games or reading what we like? There is no basis for that.

This paternalism of Labor and Liberal alike has to stop. Australia is one of the most censored of all western democracies, with no rights assigned to individuals to speak or see what they wish. We are firmly stuck in the Edwardian morality of the federation days. It's about time we grew up into an adult nation.

I hope he was pushed

So Mick Keelty is going early and the panegyrics are starting up. I believe Keelty's spineless subjugation to the political interference of the previous government, and his opportunism in gaining "special powers" for the AFP, have been among the greatest disasters to Rule of Law in Australia, and have gone a long way to re-establishing the "special branch" mentality of the old style of policing in Australia [see also here, here and here]. The Haneef affair is only the tip of it. How much else will we hear about over coming years as the gags are removed?

I hope that he was pushed by the present government, but I doubt it. Labor is traditionally in favour of large government bodies, and they would see what he did as building a better instrument of government policy. I too see it this way. Our difference lies in thinking that it is a good or a bad thing. Although I am not a "small government" advocate, when it comes to unnecessary police powers I am as libertarian as it gets.

Here it comes...

Gird your loins, boys and girls, and strap yourself in; we're in for a bumpy ride. The Cleanfeed nonsense is spreading. Now the EU wants to impose it. Given that the agenda here is control rather than protection, I foresee an increase in censorship of the free internet over the next few years. I wonder who benefits from that? Oh yes...

Update on the "leaked list"

Wikileaks, bless them, are now saying that they have a new copy of the blacklist, and that ACMA did a massive cleanup to drop the number of links from over 2000 to around 1200. It looks like the minister was, dare we say it, lying about this. Whirlpool have the story here. They also point out how stupid it is for the minister and ACMA to threaten a Swedish site with Australian prosecution, especially when the Swedish constitution protects such acts. I wish I lived in a civilised nation too.Do you think we could convince the Swedes to invade? I can't stand that much darkness, or I'd probably try to move there.

Not "smacks of" Big Brother; *is* Big Brother

Helen Razor has a nice article in the Melbourne Age taking down Conroy's hubris, but the subeditor who put the title "Net filter smacks of Big Brother" missed the point. This is Big Brother. Helen's final line gets it just right:

Don't even try to argue with Conroy about his Clean Feed. When it comes to debate on internet safety, he appears every bit as flexible as an evangelical toothpick.

Later: The New Zealand minister is smarter than the Australian:

"We have been following the internet filtering debate in Australia but have no plans to introduce something similar here," says Communications and IT minister Steven Joyce.

"The technology for internet filtering causes delays for all internet users. And unfortunately those who are determined to get around any filter will find a way to do so. Our view is that educating kids and parents about being safe on the internet is the best way of tackling the problem."

Err, yes. Parents, if they are concerned about their kids, should educate them and monitor them until they are old enough. This is not rocket science, Conroy.

That's not the real blacklist, but you can't see what is

Really minister? We are supposed to take your word that the leaked list on Wikileaks is not the real one because you tell us there's a different number of links on the "real" list? Why would we believe you? You have steadfastly refused to countenance any criticism and have declared opponents like me to be supporters of child pornography, just because you don't want to hear us. We should take your word for it? You are a dissembler and it seems none too bright, so forgive me if I don't think that even if you are telling the truth about what you have been told, that you have the wattage to spot when you are being misled by public servants who like the control this ill-fated legislative bastard gives them.

If you want credibility, then give an independent watchdog, with community support, access to the list and the protocols for getting sites on it and more importantly off it. Like the American balls-up, the "no fly list", the default view everyone should have is that this will also be a balls-up.

And while I'm on default opinions, why are people like me called "freedom of speech advocates" by the media? Surely that's the default view, that one has the right to state what one thinks no matter who happens to find it unpleasant? That's the ground on which democracy walks. It is people like yourself who deserve a special designation. I suggest we call you restriction of liberty advocates from now on.