Stop Internet Censorship...

Last night I attended the #sicbne (Stop Internet Censorship Brisbane) meeting to get an idea about what was going on with this whole internet censorship thing that is being bandied about.

Truth be known, I didn't know all that much about it before the meeting. I knew that the bill had been introduced and that it had something to do with limiting access to illegal content online, but I didn't understand the depth of it prior to the meeting last night.

As I understand it, the government have introduced legislation which they say is designed to stop access to child pornography on the web. However, the design of the legislation is such that it prevents access to all content which has been 'refused classification'. In the main, this is made up of material that 'the government' deems 'inappropriate'. I don't have definite statistics on it, but my understanding is that approximately 18% of this is illegal content (such as child pornography), but the rest of it is material which has simply been refused classification, but is legal to view, possess and own in Australia. Examples are things such as Phillip Nietsche's 'Exit Australia' website which is designed to provide information about euthanasia. Also restricted are selected texts of an Islamic basis.

If this legislation is passed, Australia will be the first developed country to have such restricted access to the internet. Other examples of countries that have such restricted access are Iran and China. And we all know the reasons why the government want to control their access - to control their people.

An excellent point was made last night - sure, we like the Rudd Government okay, and they're probably doing it for the right thing. But allowing the legislation to cover all 'refused classification' content leaves the door open for some politician way down the line to use it to restrict our rights even further.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for cracking down on child pornography. The abuse of children is a subject dear to my heart, and one of the reasons I'm going back to study human rights.

And if the filter was able to only restrict access to these sites, then I would be all for it. But, the way I understand it (and remember, I'm just a dumb lawyer, not an internet genius), this is not possible. It's kind of an 'all or nothing' thing.

The way I see it, Australia is a free country. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to view and learn about and possess any information that it is legal for me to possess. My passion is in human rights, so as a result, I want to know everything there is to know about human rights. And it's my right as a citizen of this country to do so.

What happens if sometime down the track the government strikes up a deal with the (now non-existent) government of the Sudan, who compels the government to deem information about the Darfur massacres 'inappropriate' and refuse it classification? This is clearly information that I am entitled to, and necessary for me to be able to do my job properly.

Sure, some of the information that has been refused classification is not in the mainstream interest. But then, neither is the nitty gritty of the abrogation of human rights. I know lots of people interested in it, and sure, people aren't against it, but the majority of people in this country do not spend their spare time researching it on the internet.

This is not a debate about child pornography. This is a debate about our rights - our rights as citizens of this country to be allowed access to all information that it is legal for us to possess. This is a debate about who gets to determine what is 'appropriate' content for us to view. Kevin Rudd? Stephen Conroy? Any number of those other politicians who tell us that they have our best interests at heart?

I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in them telling me what is 'appropriate' for me to view. I am an adult of sound mind - it is up to me to determine what is appropriate for me to view. When I have children, it will be my responsibility to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. It is not the government's job to tell me what is appropriate for me or my children to view - they have enough power already.

Can you imagine a world where you watch the news and there is nothing on there about the war going on on your border? Where during that day you witnessed a violent protest involving thousands of people, but are unable to access any information about that protest, because it is deemed 'inappropriate'? Can you imagine a world where your children don't learn about the nitty gritty of the way the world works, because the government has decided that it would rather your children grow up in a fantasy world where the government makes no mistakes than allow them access to information that gives them the power to make informed choices?

I can. It's called China.

That's where this legislation leads us. Do you want to go?

Response by Michael Johnson, MP

I was surprised today to receive a response from Federal Member for Ryan and Opposition Whip Michael Johnson MP to my email of 5 November 2009.

The contents of his letter are not surprising. As a member of the Liberal opposition party, Mr Johnson (or whoever wrote the letter) takes a party line stance against the Prime Minister and Labor government. I am, however, encouraged by his comments at the bottom.

I have today written the following response:

24 November 2009





Dear Michael

RE: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S POLICY ON REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

Thank you for your letter of 21 November 2009. I was very pleased to receive a reply to my email of 6 November 2009, which raised my concern about the government’s stance on asylum seekers, particularly those who were aboard the Oceanic Viking at the time.

I found your letter educational, if somewhat propagandised. I certainly appreciate the Liberal Party’s view on the government’s approach to immigration and refugee issues, and I plan to take the issue up directly with the government’s representatives. Unfortunately, comments such as ‘As ever, Mr Rudd is all talk, no action’ do not compel me to the Liberal Party line and, if anything, detract from the (as I see it, worthy) arguments you make about of the softening of border protection laws encouraging people smuggling.

Of most interest to me, however, was your personal note that you believe that Australia should increase our formal refugee program from 13,000 to 50,000. This is precisely the kind of progress that is required for international human rights to prevail. I take this opportunity to challenge you to raise this as an issue with your colleagues, and build it into the political platform upon which you stand.

What needs to be addressed is the ideology of that (I hope) minority of people chanting words to the effect of ‘Go home – we’re full!’. I wonder how these people would feel if their family of 14, including elderly grandparents, aunts, uncles and children, were crammed into a one room apartment where they lived in fear of reprisals from insurgent leaders. Australia is, geographically, a huge country. Whilst most of the interior is uninhabitable, and the urban centres are begin to suffer from overpopulation, there are certainly ‘boundless plains to share’, as our national anthem espouses.

Mr Johnson, this is not an issue that only refugees and families of refugees care about. Every day Australians such as myself continually ask why our government refuses to share the privileges of ‘the lucky country’ with those less fortunate than ourselves. In your letter, you state ‘Labor’s policies are not tough or hardline. They are not fair or humane ... The Prime Minister must take responsibility for his failed policies and move immediately to end this debacle’.

You are correct. The government must immediately and radically alter the legislation in respect of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants to reflect the just and humane attitude of every day Australians. Those who seek entry to our shores by means other than the correct processes must be afforded every protection of the law, including conventions on human rights.

However, as an elected Member in Opposition, it is your obligation, your responsibility to challenge the government on these issues in order to catalyse the change that is necessary to grant freedom and opportunity to humanity.

Thank you again for taking the time to listen to my concerns.

Yours faithfully,

Politics and Sex Scandals - who gives a flying f***?

I have Google set as my homepage, and like any good interwebophile (is too a word!) I have it customised to my tastes. This includes a black and white backdrop (very sophisticated), clocks for around the worldand news headlines.

Apparently today's top story here in Australia is the so called 'sex scandal' of the Premier of South Australia.

Quick lesson in government for those non-Aussies out there: the Premier is the head of state for Australian states (eg. Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia). Whilst there are six territorial 'states', there are only six Premiers, because the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory are technically not 'states'.

Mike Rann, now Premier of South Australia (SA), has been accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman working as a waitress in Parliament House a year after he became Premier. He was not married at the time, although it appears that the woman, Michelle Chantelois, was. She accuses him of asking to kiss her, asking him for her measurements so that he could buy her underwear, and having sex on his desk.

Unsurprisingly, Premier Rann denies the allegations. He is now married and admits to a friendship with Ms Chantelois, and that his now wife knew about the friendship at the time. But he does not admit to any further relationship between himself and Ms Chantelois.

Again, unsurprisingly, Ms Chantelois has sold her story to the media. Two media outlets known for their 'hard hitting coverage' (read sensationalised BS) have paid for her story, which apparently today has hit news stands.

Each time I've opened up my browser today (which admittedly, is more than a few times), a new development in the saga has occurred. 'SA Premier to address allegations'. 'Rann arrives for meeting admist sex scandal'. Play by play, Premier Rann's day is being broadcast to me in one liners.

And each time I read a new headline, the same question crosses my mind:

Who gives a flying f***?

I understand that when you go into public office, your private life comes under scrutiny. The higher the office, the closer people look at you. The public will generally forgive you many things, because (generally) they understand that even politicians are human (or human-like spawn of the underworld). But they are held to a higher level of accountability and a higher standard of morality. And woe betide the politician that lies - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

But come on. Six years ago Mike Rann was a 50 year old divorcee. If the allegations are true - he met a woman who he liked, and he attempted to woo her. Sure, if she was married, and he knew she was married, it perhaps wasn't the best choice on his part. But he's only human.

How does this impact on his ability to do his job? So what if he shagged her in his office? If my sources are correct, this happens on a daily basis across the globe. Right now some high powered politician, businessman, lawyer, engineer, accountant or someone is shagging his/her wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/lover/mistress/toyboy on the desk. Rumours abounded in my school that it was happening between my principal and deputy principal regularly. Did it make my principal any less of a principal? No. Probably it made him a bit of a legend to the boys at school - the deputy was thought to be a bit of a hottie. But our school was still one of the most prestigious government schools in the state, maybe even country, and much of that success was attributed to the principal.

Ultimately - why should any of us care what happened between Mike Rann and Michelle Chantelois six years ago? If it impacted or continues to impact his ability to do his job, then yes, we should care. If he lied about it then or continues to lie about it now, then yes, we should care. But if it's just a bit of gossipmongering, why pander to it?

What would you say if a complete stranger came up to you, pointed to a random guy on the street and said 'Oh my gosh, you'll never believe this, but six years ago that guy had sex with me in his office'. I know what I'd say.

'Good for you love, but I don't give a flying f***.'

Nor should we all.