Darkness at Noon

Man, was I wrong:

The Federal Government has used its numbers to ram its tough new terrorism legislation through Parliament’s lower house and reject changes demanded by Coalition MPs.

I think a little bit of what is left of our democracy died today.

Thought I’d give these guys a plug as they’re doing a mighty fine job:

Well the Coalition-led parliamentary committee has “attacked key elements of its new anti-terrorism legislation.” It seems to me that it would be impossible for there to be any other outcome.

I particular:

The Senate committee has urged a new sunset clause, making the laws expire after five years instead of 10, and wants the contentious sedition provisions removed completely until they have been publicly examined by the Australian Law Reform Commission.

I’m also reassured by people like Justice Kirby (login required):

High Court judge Michael Kirby has urged courts around the world to maintain a “business as usual” approach to all cases before them as tougher anti-terrorism laws are introduced.

Justice Kirby said democratic societies were entitled to protect themselves against fundamentalism of all religions. But they also had a duty to afford suspects basic protections, and courts had to uphold these laws too.

“Nothing fundamental has changed. Indeed, the fundamentals remain in place. Constitutionalism and the rule of law prevail. Judicial and constitutional review are crucial attributes of liberty”, he said.

I was talking with a friend the other day about Gary Foley and Robbie Thorpe, two pretty ‘hard line’ indigenous activists who are heading up the Black GST campaign (one I think we should all get behind). The ‘G’ stands for Genocide. Yes, this is the more aggressive side of the debate. However what I was discussing with my friend was that by providing this position so far to the left, you free up the space for people left of centre to state their case, instead of being stuck in the Right’s frame of reference.

What I fear is that this is what John Howard has done here. He’s provided the extreme position and, after the Senate inquiry, conceded some ground so that he is now in the position he wants to be. It’s a pretty shrewd tactic but I think it will work.

Violence against women will only cease when men join with women to put an end to it.

In the computer world there is a big push for standardisation of formats, particularly amongst the Open Source movement.

The idea is that you create standard formats (HTML is a good example) so that everyone can see the code and therefore make software that can read it. It’s a simple idea that democratises the information and reduces the cost for innovators. Brilliant.

So Microsoft have never been particularly keen on the idea. They lose control and therefore profits. So all your Office documents are a closed, or proprietary format that people can’t read and is therefore incompatible. Microsoft has essentially got away with this because it is monopolistic.

So Open Office (bless them), on releasing version 2, also release Open Document Format (ODF) which is being considered as an international standards format by the International Standards Organisation (ISO). So the Government of Massachusetts has decided that every document it has will use the format which means that it is freely available and, unlike Microsoft products, will still be accessible in 10 years time (many of Microsoft’s older document formats can’t be read on current versions of Office).

So Microsoft, at least for now, refused to use ODF as it interferes with its monopoly. However their hand is somewhat forced on the issue. So what does Microsoft do?

Microsoft is seeking to standardise the document format used for its Office products, partly in response to concerns that documents stored using its proprietary technology may be difficult to access in years to come.

The company’s proposal to Ecma International, a Geneva-based industry group that develops and publishes technical standards, would make Microsoft Office Open XML an international standard.

It’s clever trick because other “office packages” will ultimately be forced to adopt this format, but at least Microsoft are starting to acknowledge the importance of open, standardised formats.

(via William Burroughs’ Baboon)

However, instantaneous death rarely occurs.

If the inmate has strong neck muscles, is very light, if the ‘drop’ is too short, or the noose has been wrongly positioned, the fracture-dislocation is not rapid
and death results from slow asphyxiation. If this occurs the face becomes engorged, the tongue protrudes, the eyes pop, the body defecates, and violent movements of the limbs occur.

Surely this is reason enough for us to oppose Nguyen’s fate.

The thing that I’ve been hearing too much of late is that the death penalty is wrong because humans are fallible. As good an argument as any. However the implication here is that if you can be 100% of someone’s guilt then it is ok. This is where I start to twitch a little.

The death penalty is an abuse of one’s human right. None should be executed. To execute someone lowers what it means to be a human.

Amnesty say it better than I do.

The Centre has a couple more pages up in our Resources section.

The include Intellectual Property and Alternative Media.

If you’ve any thoughts or comments on either of these or have any further suggestions to be added to them please leave a comment.

I’m finding the debate over RU486 both ethically sickening and plainly illogical.

I don’t think I can really say anything that hasn’t been said around the place already with Liam, Flutey and Kate already making many fine points.

I guess for me it boils down to the fact that abortion is legal in Australia, so why make women suffer more than they need to? The only explanation I can find is that Abbot hates abortion so much and is so overwhelmingly sexist that if he can’t stop abortion he wants women to suffer as much as is possible. It’s like allowing people to undergo surgery but then ban anesthetic.

The next question is that of a conscience vote. Again, for the reasons stated above, I think it’s absurd to have a conscience vote. It’s not about abortion. Abortion is legal (that’s something I can’t seem to stop saying). It’s about a drug which will minimise someone’s suffering. They will have the abortion anyway.

I suspect Howard’s pushing s a conscience vote because he actually opposes abortion himself (at least he seems to imply this). So it’s his way of wiping his hands of the issue without getting Abbott off-side (who I suspect is his preferred heir apparent). However, I also suspect that with a conscience vote the ban on the drug will be lifted. Once again, abortion is legal. As the time it was a conscience vote and abortion was legalised*. I don’t think Howard has drawn us that far back into the dark ages and there are enough people in the Liberal party that have no problems with abortion to get the drug over the line.

So for all of it – the Machiavellian in me says bring on the conscience vote.

*Actually, abortion is still a state matter, however in most states a conscience vote was what legalised it.

Sexpo is in town again. I’ve never been but I thought this article was interesting and feminism seems to be on the agenda at the moment.

The slogan of Sexpo is ‘Lighten up, sex is fun’. I couldn’t agree more. However I’m still uncomfortable with porn. Why? I think this quote from porn star Silvia Saint sums it up for me:

“On the last trip to Melbourne, a fan followed me all along Collins Street before he came over with a camera saying, ‘Is that you, is that really Silvia?’ before he asked for a photo,” she says, pronouncing Silvia as S-iii-lll-v-iii-aa.

“For a lot of people, it seems really hard for them, because they’ve seen me in a film, to accept that I’m real. It’s almost like they would prefer me to stay a fantasy in their head and not be a person.”

I think porn disassociates people. It makes people objectify others – mostly women. However this is just as damaging to men.

To complicate matters further, Sexpo Organiser David Ross tried to make sexpo a space where women can feel comfortable and not threatened. This is good. Sex is good. Sex toys are fine with me too. But what about women buying porn? Enjoying porn? Gay porn? Lesbian porn for (god forbid) Lesbians.

I think porn is problematic for the reasons outlined above. But to be truthful, I don’t really care. If you watch porn, good luck to you.

It’s a difficult thing to draw a line on. The worst thing you could possibly do is ban it. This is all worth thinking about a little further in the context of Sexpo because ultimately context is key – which is why ALL porn will be problematic in a consumeristic and patriarchal society.

We’ve been getting a lot of spam lately so I’ve checked the box that says: “Comment author must have a previously approved comment”.

Sorry if this inconveniences anyone – I’m just trialling it at the moment.

Of course if anyone knows a good spam-blocking method, or better still, plug-in for Wordpress, please let me know.