10 May 2010
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
Dear Prime Minister
I write at a time of stress for Labor and you, with dropping support and coming up to an election. I too am disappointed with Labor. You did well with the GFC, but then you had no debts leading into it, and that was a product of Howard’s year (damn that man). You did well with the Apology and Kyoto, but they were easy. You’ve since dropped so many of your commitments, even the “greatest challenge of our time”. Conviction politician? Don’t think so. Practical politician. Yes, clearly. A politician who can argue a case, lead a country when the need is great and evident? Clearly not that. Despite the articles in the Monthly and the corny down to Earth language.
My vote has been ignored
I am of the centre left, quite moderate. I am reasonably informed and interested. My vote has been ignored – Labor has always expected it in a two-party preference. And you know what? You’ve always had it. But to avoid being taken for granted (for my electorate, for my 2nd preference, etc) I must take a stand.
Now I take a stand
Labor will not get my vote, second preference or otherwise, without these changes below. Neither will Liberals. Perhaps no-one will and it will be wasted. So be it.
Labor will not get my preference in the Senate, either. That’s important to you, because my vote may be worth something there.
Labor will get my vote if …
CLIMATE CHANGE -- Labor must present a committed and intelligent response to Climate Change. This is most likely a carbon tax, but more is required. Read James Hansen or other. This does not mean rolling over for industry. It does mean some interim limited pain, but it avoids greater pain for all our children, and establishes a long-term sustainability. Read Nicholas Stern. Disastrous change is that close.
INTERNET CENSORSHIP -- Labor must cease the dangerous move to censor the Internet. I attach a letter I sent previously to the minister, the PM, Greens and Liberals, and for which I didn’t receive one receipt. (How poor are our manners these days). I heard on the radio today Conroy saying he would come out against abused censorship. What a stupid statement. He is building the infrastructure for abuse, by him or others. I don’t care what he wishes. I care what opportunities for abuse that he establishes. This is the short end of a dangerous straw.
There are a string of other matters, too. Human Rights Act; workplace relations; immigration; poor administration (insulation, schools); school league tables; many more. But you will get my vote if you satisfy me on those two issues above: Climate Change and Internet Censorship.
If you present policies I can believe, I may give you even first preference, but it’s not looking likely.
I write as only one, but I am not alone.
10 May 2010
19 April 2010
Freakout!
I've been reading the latest book by the climate change guru, James Hansen. These quotes were new to me and hit me with the proverbial sledgehammer. 1,000 breeding pairs? That is virtual extinction and we've been there once already. It's the sort of intensely frightening scenario that I've heard James Lovelock suggest on ABC Radio National's Science Show. What have we got awaiting us, given we're doing nothing much about it.
“Twenty thousand years ago, sea level was 110 metres … lower than it is today, exposing my of the present continental shelves. The rate of sea level rise can be rapid once ice sheets begin to disintegrate, About 14,000 years ago, se level increased 4 to 5 metres per century for several consecutive centuries – an average rate of 1 meter every 20 or 25 years” p.38
“The decent our of Eemian warmth into ice age conditions must have been stressful on humans, even though it took thousands of years. Indeed, the final descent into full ice age conditions 70,000 years ago was rapid and coincided with the one near extinction of humans; as few as one thousand breeding pairs are estimated to have survived during the population bottleneck.” p.39
Storms of my grandchildren / James Hansen. London : Bloomsbury, 2009
“Twenty thousand years ago, sea level was 110 metres … lower than it is today, exposing my of the present continental shelves. The rate of sea level rise can be rapid once ice sheets begin to disintegrate, About 14,000 years ago, se level increased 4 to 5 metres per century for several consecutive centuries – an average rate of 1 meter every 20 or 25 years” p.38
“The decent our of Eemian warmth into ice age conditions must have been stressful on humans, even though it took thousands of years. Indeed, the final descent into full ice age conditions 70,000 years ago was rapid and coincided with the one near extinction of humans; as few as one thousand breeding pairs are estimated to have survived during the population bottleneck.” p.39
Storms of my grandchildren / James Hansen. London : Bloomsbury, 2009
05 April 2010
Censorship
I just wrote this letter to Senator Stephen Conroy who is proposing a mandatory block on certain Internet content. Here I release it as an open letter. For more information on campaigns against this censorship, visit Electronic Frontiers Australia
5 April 2010
The Honorable Senator Stephen Conroy
Parliament House, Canberra
Dear Senator Conroy
I am writing to request that you withdraw from your intention to censor the Web.
The arguments are clear and have been cited in many places
it can be bypassed (proxies and other non-Web paths)
it won’t stop really dangerous activities (paedophile pickups online)
it won’t stop groups who will find other mechanisms (paedophiles, terrorists)
it will slow down the Net (you have only tested with huge bandwidth and minimal usage, and are even admitting it will slow major sites like Wikipedia and Google)
it will inevitably block innocent materials
the secrecy of blocking lists and mechanisms breeds suspicion
But my main concern is with freedom of speech, and establishing a mechanism for this to be abused. This may not be your intention. But we see bending of rules and misinformation aplenty in otherwise democratic countries, both by the public and by government, and egregious examples in states that have introduced Internet bans like this. The incentives and the supporters are there for a closed society, for one reason or another (business, morals or whatever). We don’t have a Bill of Rights or any formal safeguards against blocking of freedom of speech (other than some limited rights implied from the constitution). This is a dangerous action and it establishes the system for major abuses in future.
I am not the only one arguing against a filter. I note today’s Canberra Times editorial (Tread carefully on web censorship, in Canberra Times, 5 Apr 2010, p.8), and the recent reports of concerns at the US Department of State and the widespread concerns amongst the ICT community. And I suggest you take heed of this for another generation of voters. They already know Howard Liberals for the benign economy of the time. Now they also equate Labor with censorship. I am a parent of young adults and I know this to be the case. This is a major issue to that community as well as others and will help to set voting expectations for a generation. I warn you to take care to align with conservative Christian bodies. Australia is the product of a Christian tradition, but it’s an easy-going one and open to secularism. The conservatives are loud but they are also short-lived and often just plain wrong.
You can still make a tactical withdrawal. Perhaps change your message to support the existing blocking mechanism (Howard was sensible enough to withdraw from this hornets’ nest) and publicise the blocked list or at least provide a decent audit mechanism. On the other hand, the Liberals may still save you from yourself by not passing the legislation on the basis of freedom of speech. But it’s a strong argument and embarrassing to be on the wrong side of it.
Let me tell you this story to illustrate my concerns. I run a website and blog, and I put a lot of voluntary work into it (...). It is respected and is valued enough to be archived by the National Library of Australia. But if I try to send a link in a Facebook message, I get a refusal and a message that some of my content is “abusive”. So I am locked out of that path, and totally without justification. You may not plan to limit speech, but it’s inherent in your actions.
Freedom of speech is a foundation right and essential for the protection of other rights.
Your path is very dangerous and I implore you to reconsider.
[Name withheld for Internet publication]
5 April 2010
The Honorable Senator Stephen Conroy
Parliament House, Canberra
Dear Senator Conroy
I am writing to request that you withdraw from your intention to censor the Web.
The arguments are clear and have been cited in many places
But my main concern is with freedom of speech, and establishing a mechanism for this to be abused. This may not be your intention. But we see bending of rules and misinformation aplenty in otherwise democratic countries, both by the public and by government, and egregious examples in states that have introduced Internet bans like this. The incentives and the supporters are there for a closed society, for one reason or another (business, morals or whatever). We don’t have a Bill of Rights or any formal safeguards against blocking of freedom of speech (other than some limited rights implied from the constitution). This is a dangerous action and it establishes the system for major abuses in future.
I am not the only one arguing against a filter. I note today’s Canberra Times editorial (Tread carefully on web censorship, in Canberra Times, 5 Apr 2010, p.8), and the recent reports of concerns at the US Department of State and the widespread concerns amongst the ICT community. And I suggest you take heed of this for another generation of voters. They already know Howard Liberals for the benign economy of the time. Now they also equate Labor with censorship. I am a parent of young adults and I know this to be the case. This is a major issue to that community as well as others and will help to set voting expectations for a generation. I warn you to take care to align with conservative Christian bodies. Australia is the product of a Christian tradition, but it’s an easy-going one and open to secularism. The conservatives are loud but they are also short-lived and often just plain wrong.
You can still make a tactical withdrawal. Perhaps change your message to support the existing blocking mechanism (Howard was sensible enough to withdraw from this hornets’ nest) and publicise the blocked list or at least provide a decent audit mechanism. On the other hand, the Liberals may still save you from yourself by not passing the legislation on the basis of freedom of speech. But it’s a strong argument and embarrassing to be on the wrong side of it.
Let me tell you this story to illustrate my concerns. I run a website and blog, and I put a lot of voluntary work into it (...). It is respected and is valued enough to be archived by the National Library of Australia. But if I try to send a link in a Facebook message, I get a refusal and a message that some of my content is “abusive”. So I am locked out of that path, and totally without justification. You may not plan to limit speech, but it’s inherent in your actions.
Freedom of speech is a foundation right and essential for the protection of other rights.
Your path is very dangerous and I implore you to reconsider.
[Name withheld for Internet publication]
Godswallop
Ah, there are times I get so annoyed that I think I should start up old AginSpin again. I'm too busy, but I thought a post was required for this nonsense. The Christians are getting uppity, and they are appearing everywhere. Sadly, it's not the type that I admire and respect, but the conservative and noisy wing. Here's a Catholic contribution:
"Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating. Nazism, Stalinism, Pol-Potism, mass murder and broken relationships: all promoted by state-imposed atheism or culture-insinuated secularism".
So is quoted Archbishop Anthony Fisher for Easter (Sydney Morning Herald, 2-4 April 2010, p.1). I guess Easter is a time of emotion for the good church hierarchy, but this is perhaps a bit over the top. Godlessness = mass murder and broken relationships? I don't want to waste time responding, but just register my annoyance and displeasure. Make what you will of it, but remember the Crusades and the church's current problems with paedophilia.
Is the conservative wing promoting his own, I wonder? A very sad commentary on the divided church. I prefer church members with less conviction and more compassion - they are around, just less well reported and more humble.
As quoted so solemnly by Jacob Bronowski on the Ascent of Man: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken / Oliver Cromwell.
"Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating. Nazism, Stalinism, Pol-Potism, mass murder and broken relationships: all promoted by state-imposed atheism or culture-insinuated secularism".
So is quoted Archbishop Anthony Fisher for Easter (Sydney Morning Herald, 2-4 April 2010, p.1). I guess Easter is a time of emotion for the good church hierarchy, but this is perhaps a bit over the top. Godlessness = mass murder and broken relationships? I don't want to waste time responding, but just register my annoyance and displeasure. Make what you will of it, but remember the Crusades and the church's current problems with paedophilia.
Is the conservative wing promoting his own, I wonder? A very sad commentary on the divided church. I prefer church members with less conviction and more compassion - they are around, just less well reported and more humble.
As quoted so solemnly by Jacob Bronowski on the Ascent of Man: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken / Oliver Cromwell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
