Hello.
It's been a while, but I've been taking a break over Christmas.
I decided to write when I read some of the comments on the two YouTube videos about the collision between a Japanese whaling boat and the Sea Shepherd boat the Ady Gil. The links for those videos are here.
I disagree with whaling on a moral level. This position is partially due to my feelings about animal welfare, and partially about the hunting of animals, some of which fall into the 'endangered species' category.
(Personal note: I'm not a vegetarian. I like steaks too much to be a vegetarian. I do not think that this makes my position hypocritical, but I understand from reading the YouTube comments that some believe that my position is hypocritical.)
I know too little about the practical mechanics of boats of these two sizes to make an informed comment on who was at fault. Unlike many of the other people commenting on this issue, I will not make a judgement as to who was at fault in terms of the collision.
One thing that did strike me as noteworthy that doesn't seem to have been noticed by others watching/commenting on those videos is that the Japanese vessel, after the collision with the Ady Gil, used its water cannons on the boat. The Ady Gil was visibly damaged after the encounter, but the Japanese boat still fired its water cannons at the vessel. The Japanese vessel did not stop to render assistance after the incident.
Next point: The Ady Gil is registered in New Zealand. The incident happened in, as I understand, Australian Antarctic waters, but that Japan disputes our jurisdiction over this area. While I applaud the Greens for bringing this incident to the attention of the Australian Government in the only arena they pay attention to - the politico-media arena - I do not necessarily believe that this is the Australian Government's fight.
Any other opinions?
- Amy
Friday, January 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
On the 'Clean Feed', and R18+ Games.
Like many young, internet literate Australians, I am opposed to the 'Clean Feed' being proposed by the Rudd government. I've been looking at Twitter, and am seeing that I'm not the only one. #nocleanfeed is #4 on the 'Trending Topics' list.
Today, Sen. Conroy made a statement in which he stated that "[t]he Government will introduce legislative amendments to...to require all ISPs to block material rated Refused Classification...RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use."
Before anyone says it, I find child pornography reprehensible, and I believe that child abuse is the most sickening crime any person can commit. It is not my aim, by opposing the Clean Feed, to make child pornography more accessible to paedophiles. To say otherwise is simply untrue.
Censorship is not the right option. This is what the 'Clean Feed' is. It is the Federal Government, via ACMA, telling me what I can and cannot see on the internet.
This includes pages that instruct people how to commit crimes, as stated today by Conroy. This sounds fine, in theory, but it means that I would be unable to access websites on euthanasia. Additionally, abortion remains in the Crimes Act of many states. Does that mean that someone seeking family planning advice online would be unable to? What about a woman in Victoria seeking information online, given that abortion has been removed from the Crimes Act in this state? What about the websites seeking names for those people willing to commit civil disobedience in order to protest the appalling lack of political will on climate change? What about websites such as Wikileaks, which publishes leaked documents? The thing I find scariest about this are the unanswered questions.
Some of the material blocked in the trial run included such dangerous material as "lingerie", "adult", and "gambling", according to one source. Given that gambling is legal, as is being an adult and wearing knickers, how does the Government or ACMA justify blocking these sites?
Ranting on blogs and Twitter isn't going to do anything. You need to write (as in physically write) a letter. It's very easy to hit 'Delete'. Don't abuse the politicians. State calmly that the 'Clean Feed' is something that you are opposed to.
On another note, today the Government called for submissions on the proposal to allow R18+ games in Australia. These are currently RC, and are unavailable to buy unless they are edited - see Left 4 Dead 2. Again, this is about the Government and ACMA telling me what I can and cannot see. As we allow R18+ movies and television shows to be sold in Australia, why the double standard with video games?
Kudos to Rudd - get the Twitterverse and commentariat riled up over the 'Clean Feed', and hopefully everyone'll miss the public statement saying that submissions are now welcomed on the issue of having an R18+ classification on video games.
More later as the story develops,
- Amy
P.S.: As a Greens supporter, I handed out fliers for Clive Hamilton in Higgins, knowing that he supports (and is, in fact, one of the leading voices for) a 'Clean Feed'. This Crikey article, written by Hamilton, is one example. I don't think that this is hypocrisy. I think that the Greens are the party that best represent my views on most issues. I don't pretend to be in mental lock-step with each and every other Greens supporter and politician.
Today, Sen. Conroy made a statement in which he stated that "[t]he Government will introduce legislative amendments to...to require all ISPs to block material rated Refused Classification...RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use."
Before anyone says it, I find child pornography reprehensible, and I believe that child abuse is the most sickening crime any person can commit. It is not my aim, by opposing the Clean Feed, to make child pornography more accessible to paedophiles. To say otherwise is simply untrue.
Censorship is not the right option. This is what the 'Clean Feed' is. It is the Federal Government, via ACMA, telling me what I can and cannot see on the internet.
This includes pages that instruct people how to commit crimes, as stated today by Conroy. This sounds fine, in theory, but it means that I would be unable to access websites on euthanasia. Additionally, abortion remains in the Crimes Act of many states. Does that mean that someone seeking family planning advice online would be unable to? What about a woman in Victoria seeking information online, given that abortion has been removed from the Crimes Act in this state? What about the websites seeking names for those people willing to commit civil disobedience in order to protest the appalling lack of political will on climate change? What about websites such as Wikileaks, which publishes leaked documents? The thing I find scariest about this are the unanswered questions.
Some of the material blocked in the trial run included such dangerous material as "lingerie", "adult", and "gambling", according to one source. Given that gambling is legal, as is being an adult and wearing knickers, how does the Government or ACMA justify blocking these sites?
Ranting on blogs and Twitter isn't going to do anything. You need to write (as in physically write) a letter. It's very easy to hit 'Delete'. Don't abuse the politicians. State calmly that the 'Clean Feed' is something that you are opposed to.
On another note, today the Government called for submissions on the proposal to allow R18+ games in Australia. These are currently RC, and are unavailable to buy unless they are edited - see Left 4 Dead 2. Again, this is about the Government and ACMA telling me what I can and cannot see. As we allow R18+ movies and television shows to be sold in Australia, why the double standard with video games?
Kudos to Rudd - get the Twitterverse and commentariat riled up over the 'Clean Feed', and hopefully everyone'll miss the public statement saying that submissions are now welcomed on the issue of having an R18+ classification on video games.
More later as the story develops,
- Amy
P.S.: As a Greens supporter, I handed out fliers for Clive Hamilton in Higgins, knowing that he supports (and is, in fact, one of the leading voices for) a 'Clean Feed'. This Crikey article, written by Hamilton, is one example. I don't think that this is hypocrisy. I think that the Greens are the party that best represent my views on most issues. I don't pretend to be in mental lock-step with each and every other Greens supporter and politician.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Why the Coalition needs to function.
This is not going to be an essay about who should be leading the Coalition. Nor is it going to be about my personal views on Liberal of National party policies.
If you have been even vaguely politically aware in that last week, you will know that there is a leadership question hanging over the Coalition, driven (in theory, at least) about the current leader's position on KRudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The CPRS is not going to be the focus of this essay.
Rather, I want to look at what this one piece of legislation seems to be doing to the Coalition.
At the moment, it appears that the Coalition are so busy expending their energies tearing each other to shreds than actually forming a cogent opposing argument to Labor policies. In short, I believe that the Coalition (especially the Liberal party) are failing in their role as the opposition.
There seems to have been more mention of the Coalition leadership dramas in the media than of the actual content of the CPRS. This is borderline criminal. The CPRS is a major piece of legislation that deserves a true discussion between the Government and Opposition. The infighting is damaging any credibility to criticise Government policies, and damaging the party's credibility in general.
The Coalition needs to be able to function as a true opposition. Elect who you want, ladies and gentlemen, but don't sell the public short. We deserve better than the petty infighting that is crowding the airwaves, the web and the papers.
- Amy
If you have been even vaguely politically aware in that last week, you will know that there is a leadership question hanging over the Coalition, driven (in theory, at least) about the current leader's position on KRudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The CPRS is not going to be the focus of this essay.
Rather, I want to look at what this one piece of legislation seems to be doing to the Coalition.
At the moment, it appears that the Coalition are so busy expending their energies tearing each other to shreds than actually forming a cogent opposing argument to Labor policies. In short, I believe that the Coalition (especially the Liberal party) are failing in their role as the opposition.
There seems to have been more mention of the Coalition leadership dramas in the media than of the actual content of the CPRS. This is borderline criminal. The CPRS is a major piece of legislation that deserves a true discussion between the Government and Opposition. The infighting is damaging any credibility to criticise Government policies, and damaging the party's credibility in general.
The Coalition needs to be able to function as a true opposition. Elect who you want, ladies and gentlemen, but don't sell the public short. We deserve better than the petty infighting that is crowding the airwaves, the web and the papers.
- Amy
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
..."did you write the book of love; and do you have faith in God above; if the Bible tells you so"
(With apologies to Don McLean)
Reading Crikey again this morning I saw that Fred Nile, everyone's favourite Australian Evangelical *ahem* nutjob, has sent out a survey to the people of Bradfield. Bradfield is Nelson's old seat, and there will be a byelection there on the 5th. It's a inner suburban seat, in the Upper North Shore of Sydney.
Check out the survey.
It is a lesson on how not to structure questions on a poll. The questions are a prime example of push polling at its crudest.
Additionally, some of the CDP's policies seem to be against the law. For example, "[p]riority should be given to refugee applicants who are...being persecuted for their Christian faith", and "CDP proposes a 10 year moratorium on Islamic immigration as starting point for a serious national discussion on this issue". As I understand it, it is illegal to prioritise, or penalise, immigrants on the basis of their religion (would be interested if someone could give me exact ref for this one).
As a Green, I also object to the use of the term "Greenie" in the alleged poll. The Greens would get in serious trouble if they published a document in which the CDP's supporters and MPs were referred to as "right-wing nut-job howl-at-the-moon Jesus-freaks". The standard should be equal.
- Amy
Reading Crikey again this morning I saw that Fred Nile, everyone's favourite Australian Evangelical *ahem* nutjob, has sent out a survey to the people of Bradfield. Bradfield is Nelson's old seat, and there will be a byelection there on the 5th. It's a inner suburban seat, in the Upper North Shore of Sydney.
Check out the survey.
It is a lesson on how not to structure questions on a poll. The questions are a prime example of push polling at its crudest.
Additionally, some of the CDP's policies seem to be against the law. For example, "[p]riority should be given to refugee applicants who are...being persecuted for their Christian faith", and "CDP proposes a 10 year moratorium on Islamic immigration as starting point for a serious national discussion on this issue". As I understand it, it is illegal to prioritise, or penalise, immigrants on the basis of their religion (would be interested if someone could give me exact ref for this one).
As a Green, I also object to the use of the term "Greenie" in the alleged poll. The Greens would get in serious trouble if they published a document in which the CDP's supporters and MPs were referred to as "right-wing nut-job howl-at-the-moon Jesus-freaks". The standard should be equal.
- Amy
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Some answers
Okay.
Done some digging.
Apparently, federal laws always overrule state laws.
The National School Chaplaincy Programme was launched in an address by the GG on 23rd April, 2007. According to the (then) GG, "as we contemplate the total order, beauty and harmony of the universe, it seems to have all the hallmarks of some greater being or force responsible for, and in total control of it".
With all due respect, was the GG a physicist or astronomer? Anyone even vaguely qualified to comment on the universe?
Additionally, "...unlike plants and animals, whose biological growth is guided and controlled by the laws of nature, man I suggest has been given something else - a special quality, a divine spark which makes us different, animates us and, I would suggest, underpins our values".
So the then GG denies that evolution can shape complex behaviours such as morality. I know of an evolutionary psychologist or two that would disagree.
Hypothetically, how would a science teacher teach evolution in an environment in which the school chaplain has spoken again the applicability of evolutionary principles to the study of humans?
Also, there have been some funding increases since the institution of the Programme. According to the information available from the '07-'08 Budget (need to get newer numbers, I know) the Programme has been allocated some additional funding: 07-08 11.5$m; 08-09 24.3$m; 09-10 34.3$m; 10-11 5.0$m.
And to end, a quote from the former GG:
"I think it borders on the tragic, that young people might live their whole lives without an opportunity to participate in a faith that promises resurrection after death to a new and greater life with an eternal dimension. And that in part, is why the school chaplain is so important."
- Amy
Done some digging.
Apparently, federal laws always overrule state laws.
The National School Chaplaincy Programme was launched in an address by the GG on 23rd April, 2007. According to the (then) GG, "as we contemplate the total order, beauty and harmony of the universe, it seems to have all the hallmarks of some greater being or force responsible for, and in total control of it".
With all due respect, was the GG a physicist or astronomer? Anyone even vaguely qualified to comment on the universe?
Additionally, "...unlike plants and animals, whose biological growth is guided and controlled by the laws of nature, man I suggest has been given something else - a special quality, a divine spark which makes us different, animates us and, I would suggest, underpins our values".
So the then GG denies that evolution can shape complex behaviours such as morality. I know of an evolutionary psychologist or two that would disagree.
Hypothetically, how would a science teacher teach evolution in an environment in which the school chaplain has spoken again the applicability of evolutionary principles to the study of humans?
Also, there have been some funding increases since the institution of the Programme. According to the information available from the '07-'08 Budget (need to get newer numbers, I know) the Programme has been allocated some additional funding: 07-08 11.5$m; 08-09 24.3$m; 09-10 34.3$m; 10-11 5.0$m.
And to end, a quote from the former GG:
"I think it borders on the tragic, that young people might live their whole lives without an opportunity to participate in a faith that promises resurrection after death to a new and greater life with an eternal dimension. And that in part, is why the school chaplain is so important."
- Amy
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Quick question...
Something interesting happened today. Was checking Crikey for links to any news stories I might find interesting, when I noticed on their Pollie Twitter feed that the man himself, KRudd, had promised funding in the future for the National School Chaplaincy Programme (check it out on http://twitter.com/KevinRuddPM).
As an atheist interested in how religion works within a supposedly secular political system, I decided to check it out.
Having googled it, I found that I was not given access to the official government website for the programme: www.dest.gov.au/schools/chaplains.
I found another link to the official pamphlet for the programme.
According to this source, over 90 million dollars over three years is available to schools who want to apply for funds so they can appoint a chaplain. Both state and independent schools are able to apply for these funds.
Given that there is a clause in the Education and Training Reform Act (Victoria) which states that “education in Government schools be secular”, how can the Federal Government provide funds for a religious presence in Government schools?
If anyone knows more about politics than I do (incredibly likely), could they please let me know how the Federal Government gets around the state laws on this matter? I've been reliably assured that the other states have secular provisions in their educational laws, in similar language to the Victorian Act.
Food for thought.
- Amy
As an atheist interested in how religion works within a supposedly secular political system, I decided to check it out.
Having googled it, I found that I was not given access to the official government website for the programme: www.dest.gov.au/schools/chaplains.
I found another link to the official pamphlet for the programme.
According to this source, over 90 million dollars over three years is available to schools who want to apply for funds so they can appoint a chaplain. Both state and independent schools are able to apply for these funds.
Given that there is a clause in the Education and Training Reform Act (Victoria) which states that “education in Government schools be secular”, how can the Federal Government provide funds for a religious presence in Government schools?
If anyone knows more about politics than I do (incredibly likely), could they please let me know how the Federal Government gets around the state laws on this matter? I've been reliably assured that the other states have secular provisions in their educational laws, in similar language to the Victorian Act.
Food for thought.
- Amy
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Who I am, politically.
Hi.
I'm not going to be talking about myself after this post, but rather the politics.
However, I think it would be useful for people reading this blog to understand where I come from, in a political sense.
In terms of social issues, I'm definitely to the left of centre.
Marriage: I believe people should be able to marry who they want, and I include polygamous and polyandrous marriages in that definition. As long as everyone's above the age of consent, and is aware of what they're getting into, who am I to stop them?
Life and Death:
I'm pro-choice. This is an emotive issue, and I don't want to get bogged down in this one aspect of my beliefs. I'm not saying that everyone has to get an abortion, I'm just saying that anyone who does not want a child should be able to seek a safe abortion. On that note, I am for wider use of mifepristone as an alternative to surgical abortion.
I'm pro-euthanasia. I deserve, as a rational being, the ability to choose the method by which my life comes to an end. Additionally, I believe that doctors should be able to act to end the life of a patient who is suffering, but is not of sound mind in order to request euthanasia of their own account. We should ask people how they want their lives to end, so we know their beliefs when it comes to the end. Again, I believe in choice.
I'm opposed to the death penalty. Death is too simple, and it's very hard to un-kill someone if further evidence comes forward proving their innocence.
Environment: Global warming is happening. It's our fault. We need to do something now. What we also need to do is realise that we're probably too late to delay or stop global warming from happening. We need to start looking at what happens when (not if, when) the climate goes to hell in a handbasket, and start finding contingencies. We need to start preparing for worse bushfires, the loss of tourism when the Great Barrier Reef gets bleached into oblivion, the loss of arable land, leading to food shortages to go with our water shortages, and we need to put in place plans to deal with climate change refugees.
Economics and Finance: Like many people, I find the nuances of finance incredibly boring. I personally have very few opinions on financial policy. One thing I know for sure is that our understanding and application of capitalism has to change in the light of what we now know about the environment. Capitalism was founded in an era when there was no idea that resources were finite. Our understanding of capitalism needs to change in in the light of what we now know about the environment in a similar way to how our understanding of public health has changed since the advent of germ theory.
Political views: The views I've put forward so far are my philosophical takes and opinions on life. Politically, I tend to vote for the Greens, partially because of my social and environmental views. Mostly, however, I vote Greens because I believe it is incredibly important to have a viable third party in politics. I think having a viable third party (and some independents) holding the balance of power increases the probability that compromise will be reached, and that more points of view will be listened to.
Before I close the gate on talking about my own political views, does anyone have any questions they'd like to ask?
- Amy
I'm not going to be talking about myself after this post, but rather the politics.
However, I think it would be useful for people reading this blog to understand where I come from, in a political sense.
In terms of social issues, I'm definitely to the left of centre.
Marriage: I believe people should be able to marry who they want, and I include polygamous and polyandrous marriages in that definition. As long as everyone's above the age of consent, and is aware of what they're getting into, who am I to stop them?
Life and Death:
I'm pro-choice. This is an emotive issue, and I don't want to get bogged down in this one aspect of my beliefs. I'm not saying that everyone has to get an abortion, I'm just saying that anyone who does not want a child should be able to seek a safe abortion. On that note, I am for wider use of mifepristone as an alternative to surgical abortion.
I'm pro-euthanasia. I deserve, as a rational being, the ability to choose the method by which my life comes to an end. Additionally, I believe that doctors should be able to act to end the life of a patient who is suffering, but is not of sound mind in order to request euthanasia of their own account. We should ask people how they want their lives to end, so we know their beliefs when it comes to the end. Again, I believe in choice.
I'm opposed to the death penalty. Death is too simple, and it's very hard to un-kill someone if further evidence comes forward proving their innocence.
Environment: Global warming is happening. It's our fault. We need to do something now. What we also need to do is realise that we're probably too late to delay or stop global warming from happening. We need to start looking at what happens when (not if, when) the climate goes to hell in a handbasket, and start finding contingencies. We need to start preparing for worse bushfires, the loss of tourism when the Great Barrier Reef gets bleached into oblivion, the loss of arable land, leading to food shortages to go with our water shortages, and we need to put in place plans to deal with climate change refugees.
Economics and Finance: Like many people, I find the nuances of finance incredibly boring. I personally have very few opinions on financial policy. One thing I know for sure is that our understanding and application of capitalism has to change in the light of what we now know about the environment. Capitalism was founded in an era when there was no idea that resources were finite. Our understanding of capitalism needs to change in in the light of what we now know about the environment in a similar way to how our understanding of public health has changed since the advent of germ theory.
Political views: The views I've put forward so far are my philosophical takes and opinions on life. Politically, I tend to vote for the Greens, partially because of my social and environmental views. Mostly, however, I vote Greens because I believe it is incredibly important to have a viable third party in politics. I think having a viable third party (and some independents) holding the balance of power increases the probability that compromise will be reached, and that more points of view will be listened to.
Before I close the gate on talking about my own political views, does anyone have any questions they'd like to ask?
- Amy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)