(Thanks to definatalie for salvaging this blog post that I accidentally deleted – Nicholas)

Newly elected Premier Anna Bligh has come out fighting today in an attempt to crack down on the evil scourge of Australia, the Bikie Gangs! Reports of her announcement should ring alarm bells for any ordinary Queenslander with news that the new laws will strike “to the heart of the right of association.” This should worry you deeply.

“Why”? I hear you ask? “Won’t this just affect the criminal bikie gangs and not little ol’ me?” Wrong!

You’ve never heard of scope creep, have you?

Scope creep is where you have laws in place for one thing but through small changes in laws they morph into something else. Look at the internet censorship laws as a case in point. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 brought into law that any content held overseas that was either Restricted Content or X18+ was prohibited (note: not illegal). Anything R18+ was fine – the ACMA could not add these sites to any blacklist.

Thanks to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Services) Act 2007, R18+ content now falls into this ‘prohibited’ category. Did you hear Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy running around mentioning that during the election? No. Did they even mention it during the Senate Committee inquiry/report for the bill? No. What about in the Explanatory Notes? No! (Graham 2009)

So what is to stop similar things happening with the new Bikie Gang laws? I don’t imagine Anna Bligh as a tyrant but what if someone else gets in who is? We have a unicameral legislature – that means we don’t have an upper house to play the important role of checking what happens in the lower house. We have just one legislature and what they pass is law. (Well, the Governor’s accent is needed, but that’s not really a problem if you can select your own Governor).

We need to crack down on the crimes that these Bikie Gangs are committing, not on stopping groups from congregating. So perhaps I could get into power and add the CWA to the list? If in a powerful enough position, any premier could do such a preposterous thing so easily with these laws in place.

That is far fetched, but lets extend it to terror groups. Should we ban groups of Muslim men from gathering together? What about Christian men who are considered a threat? Could we see political groups or other hardcore political groups sidelined through these laws? All it takes is another ‘crisis’ and we have the need to modify the legislation oh so slightly.

Once passed, it’s harder to get them off the books. We must stand up now – our rights are on the line. Together as a state and say NO to restricting our right to associate. You cannot nanny us, Anna Bligh and the ALP.

References

Graham, Irene 2009, Libertus.Net, Brisbane, accessed 30 March 2009, http://libertus.net/censor/netcensor.html

Some sections of the media are reporting that a majority of Australians support mandatory Internet filtering. This is misleading, quoting a biased survey from a biased source.

ABC radio ran a story yesterday on AM reporting on the planned rallies against mandatory Internet filtering (link is to the transcript).  In this story they spoke to Professor Charles Hamilton, Vice Chancellor at Charles Sturt University and former Executive Director of The Australia Institute. Here is part of the transcript:

DAVID WEBER: Professor Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University commissioned a study into the issue when he was with The Australia Institute.

He says there’s wide support in the community for a mandatory filtering system.

CLIVE HAMILTON: We found an extraordinarily high percentage of parents, 93 per cent, said that they would support that proposal for mandatory filtering.

This statistic was also included in the story run on ABC News in Brisbane last night without any reference to Professor Hamilton.

Since information without a source isn’t valuable, I looked into this a bit further. My research has found some rather concerning information on both Professor Hamilton and The Australia Institute’s role in promoting mandatory Internet filtering.

A 2003 media release from the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) discusses this exact survey quoted by Professor Hamilton. So did 93% of Australians support mandatory Internet filtering in 2003? Only if adults could opt-out.

The question put to survey respondents was “Would you support a system which automatically filtered out Internet pornography going into homes unless adult users asked otherwise?” Quite clearly this is different to the proposal being presented by Senator Conroy and the Australian Government.

Now in the transcript for the AM story it notes that the survey was commissioned while Professor Hamilton  was the Executive Director of the Australia Institute. However this was not mentioned on the ABC News in Brisbane. Until I researched this I thought that this was perhaps an independant survey.

Neither story mentions Professor Hamilton’s or The Australia Institute’s support of the internet filter, which could leave those unaware in the dark. If you’ve never heard of the Australia Institute’s proposal, I suggest you read the EFA’s comments on their proposal and their suggested methods of implementation.

It is misleading to suggest that 93% of Australians support the mandatory Internet filter. It is even more misleading to report this fact without any background information on the survey or even mentioning that the survey is five years old. Poor work, ABC.

(Reposted from another online forum)

I’ve been stewing on this for a bit but I think it needs to be said.

In my opinion, a major error with today’s rallies (and it seems not just the Brisbane one) is the connection to other political parties/agendas. I’m glad that there are many groups interested in this as an issue, but as soon as you bring the Socialist Alliance, The Greens, or the Raelians you’ve lost Joe Public.

And what of this Digital Liberation Coalition? “The Digital Liberty Coalition (’DLC’) is a non-profit grass roots community driven coalition of organisations who are standing up for free speech online.” (Always love a good quote)

So why is there very little information on which groups came together? Shouldn’t people who are signing up for membership or donating money know exactly where this money is going? Why so little transparency on their website? I’m sure it is innocent enough. Just like blocking child porn through a mandatory filter seems like a good idea.

Joe Public is sceptical of the ‘Commies under the bed’ or ‘the bloody Greenies’. On the Raelians, I’m sure some people will take the jump from Intelligent Design to Scientology as well. Do we really need to be fighting an uphill battle before it started?

What is needed to get the ear of all voters is a truly independent effort. Whatever our colour, creed and political/religious beliefs, we should be united about this one issue and have no others jumping on the bandwagon for the ride.

Selling the “Green Left” (and other publications) in the middle of the speeches? Tacky and an unneeded distraction.

I attended the Mandatory Internet Filtering protest held in Brisbane today. Here is my thoughts on the rally.

There was a good turnout of people considering the heat and humidity around at the time. 11am isn’t the best time for anything in Brisbane in summer, but when is a good time? I handed out some of the flyers and it makes me happy to know that others are interested in being informed on the issues.

The ABC and Brisbane Times (edit: updated link)have picked up the story, however it is a shame that the Courier-Mail (or as I like to call it, the Curious Snail), hasn’t as yet run anything. Shame, Courier-Mail. Shame.

It was a shame that some of the speakers were not heard by all due to megaphone issues — the megaphone wasn’t so mega. There was a good cross section of the community at the protest and considering it is hard to get a gathering of geeks in a place without connectivity it is a good first step.

I’ve read on Twitter that there was concern at the use of in-jokes on placard and how this does not have any meaning to the general layperson. However I think it is important to have this issue to relate to all. The in-jokes help some people feel included. Having a mix would be a good solution, and keeping in-jokes out of official flyers is good.

Where to from here? That’s for another time.

If you are into protesting of the peaceful kind, why not consider attending your local internet censorship protest. I will be at the Brisbane event. You could come and say hi, but that would be kinda creepy. Plus who would you say I to? I could be anyone.