Below you will find a copy of a letter I sent my local member for parliament. I deem such letters to be ineffectual and their only purpose is to get something off of your chest. The letter is about the proposed filtering of the intire internet feed into Australia. And you can keep tabs on it by visiting the No Clean Feed website - whose image I've used here.===
RE: Government Censoring of The Internet
Dear Mr. X:
Prior to writing this letter I had called your office (Oct 27) requesting further information on the subject at hand – the Australian Government's plans to censor the Internet. It was already being reported in newspapers in the U.K. and in computer magazines, but the mainstream Joe-worker media was (and, strangely, still is) silent. I was promised a reply by your staff. I am still waiting.
As an Elected Member your mandate is to Represent the people and not Lord Over the people. Not to dictate things to them. As you so rightly put in your first speech to parliament “I have come here to represent my local community”. And as my representative, my voice, I'd like you to Object to this Internet Censoring for a variety of reasons...
Reason # 1: It removes freedom of information.
I know, whenever someone has mentioned this, Senator Conroy's reply has been “Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road. If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the government is going to disagree”. But those who mention freedom of information are Not the one's equating it with watching child porn, Senator Conroy is the one doing that. Senator Conroy's repeated use of the two together is trying to create a Link in people's minds that his Censorship is all about Child Pornography – and - those against censoring thus want Child Porn. But it's not. And I'll come to that in a moment.
As we both know, Child Porn is already vehemently pursued by the likes of Interpol, Australian Federal Police, F.B.I. and various other policing agencies around the globe. And those who engage in the distribution of such material already do so outside of Website Channels. That being the case, saying it's all about Child Pornography is merely a tact to play on people's emotions, while simultaneously being completely non effective in curbing the distribution of such material. This is plainly obvious to anyone who can think.
No, Mr. X, freedom of information is exactly that. The ability to access Information – written, visual, audible – about a wide range of topics. For the purposes of Education and Debate. For Research and the pursuit of Knowledge.
For example: France banned people in the country from viewing auctions of Nazi-related items. Thus, anyone interested in researching Nazism is now limited. It doesn't stop the Neo Nazis from being Neo Nazis. They'll be that any way. But it certainly prevents research into the Culture of Neo Nazism. And for what? An image of an inanimate object.
And this falls into the realm of Senator Conroy's added censoring of “Unwanted Material” - about a broad a term as can be used, right?
When someone goes down the Unwanted road, they are now leaving it open to the arbitrary adding of items simply because They deem them to be Unwanted. Other items which could easily be deemed unwanted include...
=> Anti ALP webpages. After all, no govt Likes to have negative stuff written about it in the press or elsewhere.
=> Alternative health webpages. We already see the influence of the large pharmaceutical companies on health legislation. They certainly do not like anything that infringes upon their profitability.
=> Anorexia websites. No longer can people visit such sites to Counsel those who visit such sites. Or research the problem. No longer could they debate those topics – the same applies to euthanasia.
=> Truth revealing websites. Those which show the Dark side of Islam – such as exposing the blaming and stoning of women who are raped. No more discussion over things like the new Fatwa to be released about Malaysians not being allowed to Practice Yoga because it's not Islamic enough. No discussion about the Australian Aboriginal Community and their alcoholism and child sexual abuse. Why? Because such websites would be deemed Racist in some way and certainly Unwanted. Even if they are Truthful and discussing Real problems and issues.
When you remove a person's ability to get information, you are removing from them the ability to make informed decisions. You become no different than a Cult who restricts information not deemed Cult Worthy. No different to the dark ages of centuries past.
Reason # 2: It removes responsibility from the individual.
The Government exists to protect the citizens from foreign military invasion and to uphold the citizen's individual property rights. It does Not exist to tell us what we, as adults, can and cannot view, listen to or read about. It's is Not our Nanny. It is Not Big Brother.
If a parent is concerned about their children seeing things They don't want their children to see, let Them take the steps to filter their own Internet. Already, right at this moment in time, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) offer a porn filter to parents. One phone call to the provider and the parents can have Pornography filtering.
Already, at this moment in time, there are numerous content filters available for parents to install. If they want to filter the Internet, let Them take the steps to do so. Let them do and be what parents of the past were... responsible for how they raise their children.
As a child, I am sure you were not allowed to watch certain things on the T.V. Things deemed unsuitable for you to see. And deemed that by your parents. I am sure there were movies you wanted to see at the cinema, but which your parents denied you due to their deciding those movies were not suitable for you at that moment in your life.
Leave parents to be responsible for the raising of their own children. And leave us adults to be responsible for viewing, listening to and reading that which we, as individuals, deem suitable for us.
Reason # 3: Internet censoring is not wanted.
Through various polls conducted on the subject, overwhelmingly, the people have said they do NOT want to have the Internet censored. As a Representative of the people, it is your Duty to uphold that. Not to let your own personal views sway you, but to do as the people want and not do as they do not want. (You are the Representative of the people, Not the Overlord of the people.)
You already said you believed in not longing for some utopian New Jerusalem. And didn't like how people were subject to the ideological obsessions of the previous government. You also said, “I believe in civil liberties” - censoring the Internet is infringing upon the civil liberties of ALL Australians.
So not only do the people not want the censoring, going by your own Words, you should also oppose it – if you have integrity and are true to your words and not just saying what you think people want to hear.
These reasons alone are ample enough to reject any notion of filtering the Internet. But honestly, I hold little faith in you, Sir, to even object to this censoring, let alone Do anything about it. I feel, my letter will be replied to (if at all) with a Form Letter which simply tries to convince me of the wonderfulness of the censoring as you bow down and toe the party line.
And as Trials are already scheduled to begin, I hold even less faith in the censoring being rejected. Because, as is seen time and time again, trials always lead to implementation down the road. And it's a road no other Western country has gone down.
If the government wants to censor all Internet access by government-owned computers (govt offices, schools, libraries, etc.), that is fine. Because that is government doing with government property as it sees fit. But controlling and censoring the Internet for all Australians, is a civil liberties infringement of the highest order! It will sit us along side the repressive governments of Communist China, Islamically Controlled Iran, Communist-Socialist-Dictatorial Cuba and Communist-Socialist-Dictatorial North Korea. It demeans us as a nation and it is offensive to our belief in a fair go.
===
While the above letter had been sent to my local member for parliament, I was recently contacted by his staff to ask my permission for them to forward it on to the Minister in question so he could read it and respond to it himself. They said they thought it was that good the minister himself should read it. I granted my permission while also informing them I expected nothing but a form response like he has already been giving to others - but - I would give him a chance. We shall see.
IF I get a reply, I predict it will bestow the virtues of the consorhip + tell me the Banned and Unwanted Material will be Decided on by some form of Committee - so no single person has the say. Decision by Committee - the Australian Labor Party method for dealing with everthing, so it's not any one person's fault and all can pass the blame as such. Again, we shall see.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment