Offensive censorship proposal

The Leftist Australian goverment seems to be modelling itself on Communist China: The proposal is a bigger obscenity than the obscenity it is allegedly trying to control

Why is some faceless bureaucrat to be given the same powers to censor our internet access as a prison screw has over the perversions of an uncontrollable pedophile? The mechanics are different but that is the ultimate result of the Federal Government's ill-considered and illiberal plan to filter the internet. We learnt this week that the Government has a blacklist of 10,000 sites which will be added to 1300 already identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority to be filtered out of our consciousness.

Just what might we be protected against? The ACMA list is said to be mainly of child pornography sites but Broadband and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy cannot even define the grounds for restricting the 10,000, although they are supposed to contain "illegal and unwanted content". "Will the minister provide a definition of unwanted content and where we might find a definition of unwanted?" asked Greens Senator Scott Ludlum. The answer was: "No."

Call me suspicious but I find it sinister and arrogantly offensive that the Federal Government has a blacklist of banned sites even before it has established any definable criteria for censorship. We are supposed to presume they are all violent or child-porn nasties but can we be sure?

The Vatican got away for two millennia with a library of forbidden books - the Index Librorum Prohibitorum - but I don't know that a government in a modern society is entitled to such presumptions of literary, artistic and political infallibility. The Catholic Church had the good manners to suppress its list in 1966 but at least its list had some definable purpose - the prevention of the contamination of the faith or the corruption of morals through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books. "Erroneous and immoral" doesn't sound a world away from "illegal and unwanted".

Without a workable (and legally disputable) definition of what is "unwanted", the scope for government intrusion seems unlimited. Given Australia's sorry history of censorship, petty misuse of power, presumption of moral authority and political exploitation of secrecy in war and peace, is the alleged protection of children (and the deprivation of deviant sexual material) really worth the dangers to a society that should be travelling down a road towards transparency and honesty?

Somebody wise (me, in fact) once wrote: "The web is one of the greatest innovations of the late 20th century, probably the ultimate expression of the communications revolution that began with movable type." The Rudd Government, stampeded by moral crusaders, seems to have embarked on a counter-revolution to turn back the clock. It not only wants to make a massive withdrawal on a bank of freedoms we have built up since the Magna Carta, it seeks the biggest blank cheque since the Howard government asked us to trust it on national security.

Source






Vampire Leftist government in NSW

The donors give their blood freely for the benefit of all at the moment. If this change leads to commercial donations, the vampires may find that this costs them more than it gains

Ruby Russell is the latest victim of a cash-strapped State Government that has plummeted to a new low by forcing private hospital patients to pay for blood. The Government's latest grab for cash runs the risk of jeopardising the entire donor system, already struggling with a lack of blood donors. And last night it emerged Premier Nathan Rees sacked senior bureaucrat John Pearse - the longest serving state treasurer secretary. And for the first time in Australia, the Rees Government will collect money from private hospitals instead of supplying the blood products free. The move which will net the Government $8 million annually.

Lifelong donors have threatened to stop donating if the Government makes money from their blood.

Insurance giant Medibank has also warned that patients will ultimately have to buy their own blood, as the cost will be passed on from hospitals.

Sydney mother Jane Russell is outraged the Government could stoop so low by taxing blood. For the past few months she has been encouraging Avalon residents to donate blood to help her seriously ill daughter Ruby, who needs regular transfusions of immunoglobulin. "It is unfathomable, really," she said.

Under the current arrangement, the State Government picks up the bill for all blood supplied to private and public hospitals. Each year, it places its blood order with the National Blood Authority - which is funded by all states and the Commonwealth - who contract the Australian Red Cross Blood Service to collect and distribute the product. Yesterday NSW Health confirmed it would no longer cover the cost for private hospitals.

The Government's woes continued last night with the shock sacking of Mr Pearse just days after he handed down the mini-budget on behalf of the government. It is believed Mr Pearse was disillusioned with the new administration. Sources inside Treasury revealed that a number of senior Treasury staff including Mr Pearse believed that their own credibility was being harmed by the Government's handling of the economy.

In what insiders claim was a "appalling dismissal, Mr Pearse found out about his sacking after being phoned by associates. Mr Pearse then contacted Treasurer Eric Roozendaal to confirm his dismissal and was told it was true. Mr Roozendaal then turned around and asked Mr Pearce if he would still stay on for the interim and go to New York on behalf of the Government to argue the case with ratings agencies. Mr Pearce said no. He will be replaced by former head of Sydney Water Terry Schott.

Source





Police thugs in Queensland again

Queensland police face disciplinary action after they held down and tasered a 16-year-old girl who had defied an order to move on because she was waiting for an ambulance to treat her sick friend. The Crime and Misconduct Commission and police ethical standards unit are investigating the April incident - during a year-long trial of tasers - which has drawn a strong rebuke from a magistrate of the Brisbane Children's Court.

The girl, who cannot be named, had a charge of obstructing police dismissed after the Children's Court yesterday ruled one of the two officers involved did not give adequate directions, under police move-on powers, before he and two private security guards held the slightly built teenager down, shot her in the thigh with the taser and then arrested her, initially on a charge of assaulting police.

Magistrate Pam Dowse also criticised the police officers for over-reacting to the teenager's refusal to leave her unconscious friend, a girl, before the ambulance arrived. The teenagers were alleged to have been involved in an earlier altercation with another group of tourists. Ms Dowse said it was not unreasonable for police to have allowed the group of about six to remain until the ambulance arrived, given that the number of adults present appeared to have the situation under control. "It didn't seem to be a crisis requiring such a stern response," she said.

The Weekend Australian was initially refused access to the court proceedings, following an objection by police prosecutors. Access was later granted after undertakings were given not to identify the defendant, any of the police involved or the location of the incident.

The Bligh Government has been widely criticised after this year announcing the full-scale arming of more than 5000 frontline police with the 50,000-volt tasers - barely six months into the year-long trial. According to police guidelines, a taser should not be used on juveniles "except in circumstances where there is no other reasonable option to avoid the imminent risk of injury".

In the hearing yesterday, the police officer - who said he believed at the time that the girl was between 16 and 20 - conceded he may have breached guidelines. "In hindsight, I can say yes, but at the time I didn't know she was a juvenile," he said.

A CMC spokeswoman last month said it had concerns the use of the taser had been "inappropriate and excessive". "We have have made some preliminary inquiries into the matter," she said. "We will await the outcome of the court proceedings before deciding whether further action is warranted."

Source





State Labor Party leaders opposing federal Labor over greenhouse plans

Premiers are in revolt over Kevin Rudd's plans for an emissions trading scheme, urging changes to the proposed formulas for compensating export industries to ensure they are not pushed offshore. The premiers of South Australia and Tasmania have written to the Prime Minister raising specific concerns about the design of the scheme, its impact on major industries and expressing fears that the ETS will spark major losses of jobs and revenue. Queensland, Victoria and the West Australian Liberal Government have raised concerns about the effects on emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries.

The concerns come as one of the world's largest petroleum companies warned that a $7billion gas project could literally be floated out of Australian waters to avoidthe impact of the Government's ETS. Woodside chief Don Voelte said the company would consider locating a floating LNG plant in Timor Leste waters to process gas from its Sunrise fields rather than pipe it to Darwin. "Carbon leakage; we'd be the first project that Australia could lose," Mr Voelte said.

Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett yesterday launched an extraordinary attack on the scheme, saying Mr Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong had "got it wrong" because they were penalising companies that used renewable energy. He also stepped up pressure on the federal Government to deliver on an election promise to introduce mandatory renewable energy targets.

Mr Bartlett told The Australian he wrote to the Prime Minister this week, requesting changes to the scheme to ensure global smelting giant Nyrstar did not close the doors of its Hobart zinc smelter. The company, which employs about 3000 people, warned on Wednesday the ETS would wipe $70 million a year off its bottom line, threatening the future of its operations in South Australia's Port Pirie as well as Hobart. "I wrote to him about the carbon pollution reduction scheme and the potential for perverse outcomes on Tasmanian trade-exposed industry such as Nyrstar," Mr Bartlett said.

He said he had urged the Prime Minister to reconsider the compensation formula, which was based on emissions per unit of revenue, as it failed to account for the "materiality of the carbon cost impact" on companies like Nyrstar. He also asked that companies receive recognition for using renewable energy sources, which were prevalent in Tasmania.

SA Premier Mike Rann revealed he had made submissions to the Prime Minister a month ago asking for "special exemptions" for Nyrstar. "We've made submissions to the federal Government to see if we can get some special exemptions for Nyrstar and I'm sure that will be sorted out," Mr Rann said. "The federal Government doesn't want to export jobs to another country. What it wants to do is to see companies transition to become much more energy-efficient and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Senator Wong attempted to hose down concerns about Nyrstar and other trade-exposed companies, saying consultation on the scheme was still continuing. "The Government has considered and will continue to consider the views put to us by industry and by state governments," Senator Wong said. She has also been pressured from those within her party to change the ETS compensation formula. Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs Duncan Kerr, whose electorate takes in Nyrstar's Hobart smelter, said he had raised the company's concerns with Senator Wong, including "their argument about the metrics of (the compensation formula)", but the Government was still "some distance" from finalising the scheme.

Victorian Premier John Brumby warned the states expected to be fully consulted on the design of the ETS. "Our Government has made repeated and strong representations to the commonwealth on behalf of Victorian industries," a Brumby Government spokesman said. He said the Brumby Government had argued for one-off assistance to existing coal-fired generators and transitional assistance for trade-exposed businesses.

Source