The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Government judge and jury on censorship? > Comments

Government judge and jury on censorship? : Comments

By Morry Schwartz, published 22/7/2005

Morry Schwartz argues there is a tension between national security and democracy, with government the arbiter.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
"What's that sound i can hear". Tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,
tat,f,tat,u, rat,c,tat,k,e,d,tat,tat anyway,tat,tat, democracy,
tat,tat,tat,rancitas,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,
tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,rancitas,tat,tat,rat,tat,tat,tat,tat,
tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,think,tat,
tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,
tat,rat,tat,tat,tat,ttttat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,
tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,trivalise,sorry,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,
tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,notfunny,tat,isto,tat,tat,
tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,arts,tat,course,dumb,amnot,tat,noculture,tat,
tat,death,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,tat,weepingmother,tat,tat,jump,
tat,tat,tat,suicide,tat,tat,Liberal,tat,tat,cause,tat,many,cry,laugh,
trainslate,tat,tat,tat,tat,funny,sad,terror,nation,strength,fear,bars,
tat,tat,tat,dad,at,war,for,tat,nothing. "A train coming?" "A carpenter on speed." "Don't worry it is just those enthusiastic ASIO
lads fighting for our freedom." They've ,tat,f,tat,u,tat,c,tat,e,tat,d,tat it now. What the PC, no freedom of speech. Rancitas is leaving the blogging.
Posted by rancitas, Friday, 22 July 2005 5:25:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Morry

Thank you for a most interesting article! You have given me a lot to think about given the current political, Islamic focussed, and terrorist climate. I will say a couple of things now, go away and have another think and get back to you later.

I would prefer that Governments should "move in" and take hold of terrorist material - such as is the case in Sydney and Melbourne Islamic bookshops (one in each city I understand).

Having said that I question what happened to your company and the author. Hardly democratic! But then It could be argued that if your lawyer had not breached your and the author's trust, the Government may have not literally used the hammer? Even so, it could be further questioned that publiisher's have an obligation to ensure principles of national security for the community?

I will be most interested in others' comments - since I have not heard of you and your company before - so I am naive as to any hidden agenda on your part as the first poster may have been implying.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 22 July 2005 7:23:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The concept of balance is something I personally believe should be applied to all aspects of legislation. It is unfortunate that we do not have a 'Central' party in Australian politics that does not pigeon-hole itself as Right or Left, but takes the best of both and balances the two. This would create a truly flexible party, with no specific demographic as its voter base, (except the Australian people!).

The underlying principles of this article are an excellent model for a new poitical force to grow from. I commend the article's rational yet principled argument, for both this specific issue, and any other issue for that matter.
Posted by Count Butterworth, Saturday, 23 July 2005 5:17:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interestingly people :) the CTF pastors had to spend $300,000 to justify their claims that such things were going on in Melbourne,
the bookshops and the material were put foward as evidence of the validity of their claims, Mark Dhurie did extensive research into the matter, as an expert witness, the judge concluded the Pastors were 'sneaky' not reliable, Mark Dhurie was 'less' than a qualified expert witness, etc.. etc...... (Marks research on Islamic education is VERY illuminating with a lot of links to Wahabist scholars.)

Well, I hope judge Higgins is looking over his shoulder at the news :)
Them pesky chickens are a commmmmin home :)) to roost.

Kay, keep up the warm and compassionate manner :) we need you to balance my 'hysterical extremism' to quote 'other' posters :)

On topic, they do have a bit of a point, but governments are responsible to catch things early if they can, so I don't worry if things are handed in if they are suspect.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 23 July 2005 8:30:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Articles or books which blatantly create hate and violence have no place in a civil society. However, books which seek to investigate the machinations of a government in whatever area oughtn’t to be banned. Governments whether Liberal or Labor become tired after winning a couple of elections and become complacent. Rigorous investigative reporting in book form or reports in newspapers or television should be given a freehand.

The situation clearly is more difficult in relation to spy agencies such as ASIO. It is rather a convenient argument for a government to invoke “for the National Security” or whatever. This often means we don’t want to get caught out.

However, the use of violence is a crime; and to encourage the use of violence if not criminal, verges on it. People will do dastardly things given the right religious, psychological, or territorial climate.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 23 July 2005 10:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of relevance to Australian intelligence systems would be the recent article “Insider claims intelligence bias”

“THE Australian Government had bullied and destroyed the careers of intelligence officers who did not back its political agenda, a television program will report tonight. On ABC's Australian Story, Lieutenant Colonel Lance Collins, speaks out about cover-ups in the system and recriminations faced by officers who oppose the Federal Government's view. The problem with our intelligence system is it's the politicians that choose or approve the choosing of bureaucrats that run it," he says. The system is very heavily weighted to produce a certain answer that is acceptable to a certain political party and its agenda rather than the nation and its wellbeing."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16039194-29277,00.html

So personnel within an intelligence agency have become confused as to what information can be reported, (and what can’t), so as to support a particular political party.

This has occurred countless times in many countries, and the system can also be such that an individual can collect information on others, so as to gain more personal power. An example would be J. Edgar Hoover, who collected information on so many other people, that nearly everyone was afraid of him, and they had to wait until he died before they could destroy his files.

The Patriot Act is being reveiwed in the US, and apparently it is so huge, only someone with specific training in law can really understand it, so few people will know their individual rights.

Eventually, an individual will not know what they can read, and what they can’t, what they can say, and what they can’t, who they can associate with, and who they can’t, what persons in government they can contact, who they should not contact.

All done to ensure “democracy”.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 25 July 2005 12:11:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What im interested in is what measures/organisations will the government create to enforce the censorship of hateful material and how effective will they be? I've heard some who believe that censorship merely drives those who are interested to seek their material from new places eg internet and blackmarket. Perhaps this is similar to the drugs operations police carry out in drug saturated suburbs.
Posted by examinee, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 8:51:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy