James 1:19-21My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
=== ===
Some people know a lot about fighting the devil. They got themselves bible quotes and grim determination based on tough pasts. They will let you tell them about yourself up until the first fault they find. Then they will rapid fire skewer you with quotes and corrective advice. So, where is the love? The community? Family building? Respect? Confidence? Where is the recognition of salvation? Righteousness? Humility? Is a diverse community incompatible with a life of devotion?
I feel more is to be said in favour of those who serve the Lord and resist the devil. Clearly it is not desirable for ones daughter to dress herself as Baal worshipper with rings and tattoos skewering multiple body parts. but that doesn't make her less of a daughter, less in need of salvation, God or love. Or when a friend does something you don't like, or feel is right; do you have to tell them directly and threaten to unfriend them?
Fighting the devil may well be a fool's errand, with the belligerent ending up dancing to his tune. Serving the Lord is not mutually exclusive, but rhetorically, it is better to serve the Lord, keeping one's attention on doing what is right and being righteous in failure, resisting the devil, than grabbing at weapons to fight the devil. Don't worship the weapon, worship the Lord.
=== ===
Imagine the Lord materialising before his people and calling them to account for what they have done ..
Follower: Lord, I realised the world was getting too hot, so I moved to limit the population. I stopped people from burning fossil fuels and instead got them to rely on sun light. And wind. I promised them things I couldn't deliver, but they weren't good for them anyway. I saw they didn't respect your creatures, so I made sure your creatures had protection. I saw some were very rich. So I took some of their money. I gave lots to hospital administrators because doctors and nurses were so expensive. I found your poor and struggling. So I made sure they had a bit more. I lied, Lord, but it was for a good reason.
Her single "I Will Love You" appeared in the Variety T.I.P.S. (Tune Index of Performance and Sales) Top 100 in 1961. She has been a singer in several movies including, Snoopy, Come Home ("Do You Remember Me?" (Lila's Theme)) and The Rescuers. Among the songs she performed for The Rescuers, "Someone's Waiting for You" was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Song in 1977.
In an April 1995 interview Joni Mitchell recalled that when she began making the rounds of the folk open mic circuit she wanted to sound just like Shelby Flint.[1]
She attended public schools in Van Nuys California including Valerio Street Elementary, Robert Fulton Jr High and Birmingham High School where she graduated from in 1957.
Theodor George Henry Strehlow (6 June 1908–3 October 1978) was an anthropologist who studied the Arrernte (Aranda, Arunta) Australian Aborigines in Central Australia. He was considered a member of the Arrernte people, by dint of his ritual adoption by the tribe. He married twice, to Bertha James, in Prospect 21 December 1935, with whom he had three children, Theo, Shirley and John, and Kathleen Stuart in 1972, with whom he had a son, Carl. === An important article about an important Australian academic. So the following change is important?
m (change to wording to remove implicit sexism. To say a woman bore a man's child is inaccurate (she had her own child).)
Previous listing ..
'''Theodor George Henry Strehlow''' (6 June 1908–3 October 1978) was an [[anthropology|anthropologist]] who studied the [[Arrernte people|Arrernte]] (Aranda, Arunta) [[Australian Aborigine]]s in [[Central Australia]]. He was considered a member of the Arrernte people, by dint of his ritual adoption by the tribe. He married twice, to Bertha James, in [[Prospect, South Australia|Prospect]] 21 December 1935, whoborehim three children, Theo, Shirley and John, and Kathleen Stuart in 1972, whoborehim a son, Carl.
New listing
'''Theodor George Henry Strehlow''' (6 June 1908–3 October 1978) was an [[anthropology|anthropologist]] who studied the [[Arrernte people|Arrernte]] (Aranda, Arunta) [[Australian Aborigine]]s in [[Central Australia]]. He was considered a member of the Arrernte people, by dint of his ritual adoption by the tribe. He married twice, to Bertha James, in [[Prospect, South Australia|Prospect]] 21 December 1935, withwhomhe had three children, Theo, Shirley and John, and Kathleen Stuart in 1972, with whomhehad a son, Carl.
===
The change seems no more correct, but a lot less precise. Can one have children without bearing them? My step mother did.
EACH time Julia Gillard is asked about a union corruption scandal involving her then-boyfriend and client, she gives the same non-answer.
The Australian got it last week: the Prime Minister “was not involved in any wrongdoing and has dealt with these allegations previously”.
Same from her yesterday on Sky: “I am not dignifying all of this scurrilous campaigning by going through these things point by point ... We are talking about matters 17 years ago, which have been dealt with on the public record for most of that time.”
Actually, they haven’t been dealt with - and Gillard’s evasions are no longer good enough.
The Australian’s Hedley Thomas asked similar questions of the Prime Minister - but with some very telling detail from what seems to me a detailed knowledge of her 1995 interview with Slater and Gordon. Read them here.
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard is facing new leadership concerns among key cabinet and caucus supporters over the revival of an alleged 17-year-old union slush fund scandal involving her former boyfriend…
Those fears were compounded yesterday during a fiery interview on Sky’s Australian Agenda, when Ms Gillard refused to address allegations raised against her…
Slater & Gordon late yesterday released a short statement, claiming to have been given permission by Ms Gillard, confirming it conducted a review into the AWU/Wilson affair…
“The review found nothing which contradicted the information provided by Ms Gillard at the time in relation to the AWU/Bruce Wilson allegations and which she has stated consistently since the allegations were first raised.”
Allegations were raised at the weekend by a former partner at the firm, Nick Styant-Browne, suggesting Ms Gillard may have acted improperly in helping set up a slush fund for Mr Wilson…
Mr Styant-Browne said yesterday that he stood by the article and the claims made....
“I am not aware of any denial by the PM or her spokesperson of any specific allegation about what she said in the Slater & Gordon internal interview,” he told The Daily Telegraph.
Late yesterday, the firm’s managing partner, Andrew Grech, issued a statement that was elaborately qualified, as only the best lawyers know how. It stated that the firm was commenting “on the basis of records it now holds”, as none of the individuals then involved remains in the employment of Slater & Gordon.
Grech stated: “Upon the Slater & Gordon partnership learning of what has been described as the AWU/Bruce Wilson allegations in August 1995, it conducted an internal legal review, as it would do, and has done, whenever any such allegations might be made. Ms Gillard co-operated fully with the internal review and denied any wrongdoing. The review found nothing which contradicted the information provided by Ms Gillard at the time in relation to the AWU/Bruce Wilson allegations and which she has stated consistently since the allegations were first raised.”
The tone is different, but when you boil it down all of that from Grech is consistent with what Styant-Browne said. But Grech omits that as a result of the internal probe, according to Styant-Browne, the partnership “took a very serious view of these matters and accepted her resignation”.
Moreover, to say the information Gillard provided is consistent with what she’s said since is not to say Slater & Gordon endorsed what she did.
UPDATE
But Slater & Gordon’s carefully worded statement is enough to convince Michelle Grattan that all was sweet:
Fellow Fairfax reporter Phillip Coorey goes even further:
JULIA GILLARD’S former employer Slater & Gordon has cleared the Prime Minister of wrongdoing following claims she left the law firm due to an internal investigation into legal work she did for her then boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, a union boss accused of corruption.
That’s a very odd way to paraphrase what Slater & Gordon actually said:
The review found nothing which contradicted the information provided by Ms Gillard at the time in relation to the AWU/Bruce Wilson allegations and which she has stated consistently since the allegations were first raised.
UPDATE
The Financial Review is less eager than Grattan, Coorey, Insiders and Peter van Onselen to excuse and move on:
An agitated Ms Gillard yesterday sought to shut down questions about the matter, claiming it was dealt with on the public record 15 years ago. She said that she would not dignify a scurrilous and malicious internet campaign against her, arguing that the issue had nothing to do with her responsibilities as Prime Minister today…
But as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott noted yesterday, the issue has bubbled to the surface following comments made in federal Parliament two months ago by former attorney-general Senator Robert McClelland and reported by The Australian Financial Review…
Contrary to Ms Gillard’s protests, the media has not asked enough hard questions about her matter.
...it’s impossible to ignore new statements by a former partner at Slater & Gordon. Nick Styant-Browne says Gillard resigned from the law firm after an official internal review of her work for allegedly corrupt former Australian Workers Union leader Bruce Wilson – her then boyfriend as well as her client.
This clearly challenges Gillard’s reputation for personal and professional integrity. Given the focus on union corruption after the Health Services Union scandal, it’s going to arouse a lot of attention....
But Gillard’s fundamental problem has not been the campaign, no matter how vicious. It’s the detail of the allegations and how that comes across to most voters and her own party....
Despite her angry insistence yesterday that these allegations are “nonsense” and have been dealt with previously, Styant-Browne’s version was both new and news.
PARTNERS in law firms who undertake work for clients without opening a file are embarking on a course of action that could cause friction with their partners.
Senior law firm partners have warned that unless files are opened on new matters the risk-management procedures used by most law firms can be bypassed—potentially exposing other partners to damages claims.
This could also result in the loss of major clients because most firms usually had strict protocols in place that prevented files being opened until a search had confirmed there was no conflict of interest, they said.
These consequences have been outlined by partners at several firms ... after it was revealed in The Weekend Australian that Julia Gillard left law firm Slater & Gordon 17 years ago after the firm learned she had undertaken work without opening a file. Ms Gillard, a salaried partner at the time, left the firm after an internal investigation into that work, which was undertaken for her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson, a union boss accused of corruption.
The Prime Minister repeatedly has denied that she was involved in any wrongdoing.
The interview went like this: PK: “Well, I think when accusations are made about the integrity of a prime minister, going to the professional position she had before she came into politics, surely that is relevant?” JG: “And, Paul, I did nothing wrong. Are you challenging that?” PK: “No, I’m just asking questions.” JG: “Well, and this is the issue, isn’t it? Because I understand you are being asked to ask questions today.” PK: “No, no, I’m sorry. There’s no one asking me to ask questions.” JG: “Right. Well, that wasn’t my advice from a little bit earlier before this show.” PK: “I’m sorry, Prime Minister. I ask my own questions.”
Kelly does not ask anyone’s questions but his own.
Van Onselen yesterday explained Gillard’s staff simply misheard Kelly:
Now it seems Gillard’s staff actually misheard van Onselen, too:
Both he and Kelly let one of the PM’s staffers know before the interview that “we have to ask the PM about this”, referring to her time at Slater & Gordon and her relationship with former union official Bruce Wilson. Somewhere in transmission “have to” came to mean “told to”. “Telling the PM’s staffer was meant as a courtesy,” says van Onselen. “It was on Page 1 of The Weekend Australian, so of course we were going to ask about it.”
Nick Styant-Browne, a former equity partner of the firm, broke a 17-year silence yesterday to reveal that the firm’s probe included a confidential formal interview with the Prime Minister - then an industrial lawyer - on September 11, 1995, which was ”recorded and transcribed”.
In the interview, Ms Gillard stated that she could not categorically rule out that she had personally benefited from union funds in the renovation of her Melbourne house, according to Mr Styant-Browne.
On Sunday:
On Monday:
Does Gillard’s permission extend to the recorded and transcribed record of her interview with Slater & Gordon’s partners in 1995, and can the firm please release it?
Story 1 - statement today from Andrew Grech, Managing Director Slater & Gordon:
Ms Gillard worked in the industrial department of Slater & Gordon in 1988 through to 1995....
Upon the Slater & Gordon partnership learning of what has been described as the AWU/Bruce Wilson allegations in August 1995, it conducted an internal legal review as it would do, and has done, whenever any such allegations might be made.
Ms Gillard co-operated fully with the internal review and denied any wrong doing.
The review found nothing which contradicted the information provided by Ms Gillard at the time in relation to the AWU/Bruce Wilson allegations and which she has stated consistently since the allegations were first raised.
In September 1995 Ms Gillard took a leave of absence from Slater & Gordon in order to campaign for the Senate.
Ms Gillard’s resignation from the firm became effective on 3 May 1996 when, Slater & Gordon understands, she commenced employment with the then Victorian Opposition leader as an advisor.
Story 2 - last week:
JULIA Gillard left her job as a partner with law firm Slater & Gordon as a direct result of a secret internal probe in 1995 into controversial work she had done for her then boyfriend, a union boss accused of corruption, The Weekend Australian can reveal.
Nick Styant-Browne, a former equity partner of the firm, broke a 17-year silence yesterday to reveal that the firm’s probe included a confidential formal interview with the Prime Minister - then an industrial lawyer - on September 11, 1995, which was “recorded and transcribed”.
In the interview, Ms Gillard stated that she could not categorically rule out that she had personally benefited from union funds in the renovation of her Melbourne house, according to Mr Styant-Browne.
She said in the interview that she believed she had paid for all the work and materials, and had receipts, which she later produced.
The firm’s probe revolved around Ms Gillard’s work since mid-1992 for the Australian Workers Union and her then boyfriend - the AWU ambitious leader at the time, Bruce Wilson - as well as her direct role in establishing the AWU Workplace Reform Association for Mr Wilson…
I love the book "Jurgen: A comedy of justice" it is deep and funny and wise. I don't subscribe to the protagonists beliefs, Jurgen goes on a journey to do the 'manly thing' and win back his wife whom he accidentally wished away. On his journey he seduces Satan's wife, Guinevere, Helen of Troy, a goddess, a Hamadryad, A Vampiress, and numerous others. All lovingly described .. in the dark .. before making the ultimate discovery. He also meets the God of his grandmother .. and here the writing shows its superiority .. because it describes God's nature from an antagonists viewpoint ..
"And how should I know whether or not I speak the truth?" the God
asked of him, "since I am but the illusion of an old woman, as you
have so frequently proved by logic."
"Well, well!" said Jurgen, "You may be right in all matters, and
certainly I cannot presume to say You are wrong: but still, at the
same time--! No, even now I do not quite believe in You."
"Who could expect it of a clever fellow, who sees so clearly through
the illusions of old women?" the God asked, a little wearily.
And Jurgen answered:
"God of my grandmother, I cannot quite believe in You, and Your
doings as they are recorded I find incoherent and a little droll.
But I am glad the affair has been so arranged that You may always
now be real to brave and gentle persons who have believed in and
have worshipped and have loved You. To have disappointed them would
have been unfair: and it is right that before the faith they had in
You not even Koshchei who made things as they are was able to be
reasonable.
"God of my grandmother, I cannot quite believe in You; but
remembering the sum of love and faith that has been given You, I
tremble. I think of the dear people whose living was confident and
glad because of their faith in You: I think of them, and in my heart
contends a blind contrition, and a yearning, and an enviousness, and
yet a tender sort of amusement colors all. Oh, God, there was never
any other deity who had such dear worshippers as You have had, and
You should be very proud of them.
"God of my grandmother, I cannot quite believe in You, yet I am not
as those who would come peering at You reasonably. I, Jurgen, see
You only through a mist of tears. For You were loved by those whom I
loved greatly very long ago: and when I look at You it is Your
worshippers and the dear believers of old that I remember. And it
seems to me that dates and manuscripts and the opinions of learned
persons are very trifling things beside what I remember, and what I
envy!"
"Who could have expected such a monstrous clever fellow ever to envy
the illusions of old women?" the God of Jurgen's grandmother asked
again: and yet His countenance was not unfriendly.
"Why, but," said Jurgen, on a sudden, "why, but my grandmother--in a
way--was right about Heaven and about You also. For certainly You
seem to exist, and to reign in just such estate as she described.
And yet, according to Your latest revelation, I too was right--in a
way--about these things being an old woman's delusions. I wonder
now--?"
"Yes, Jurgen?"
"Why, I wonder if everything is right, in a way? I wonder if that is
the large secret of everything? It would not be a bad solution,
sir," said Jurgen, meditatively.
The God smiled. Then suddenly that part of Heaven was vacant, except
for Jurgen, who stood there quite alone. And before him was the throne
of the vanished God and the sceptre of the God, and Jurgen saw that
the seven spots upon the great book were of red sealing-wax.
Jurgen was afraid: but he was particularly appalled by his
consciousness that he was not going to falter. "What, you who have
been duke and prince and king and emperor and pope! and do such
dignities content a Jurgen? Why, not at all," says Jurgen.
So Jurgen ascended the throne of Heaven, and sat beneath that
wondrous rainbow: and in his lap now was the book, and in his hand
was the sceptre, of the God of Jurgen's grandmother.
Jurgen sat thus, for a long while regarding the bright vacant courts
of Heaven. "And what will you do now?" says Jurgen, aloud. "Oh,
fretful little Jurgen, you that have complained because you had not
your desire, you are omnipotent over Earth and all the affairs of
men. What now is your desire?" And sitting thus terribly enthroned,
the heart of Jurgen was as lead within him, and he felt old and very
tired. "For I do not know. Oh, nothing can help me, for I do not
know what thing it is that I desire! And this book and this sceptre
and this throne avail me nothing at all, and nothing can ever avail
me: for I am Jurgen who seeks he knows not what."
So Jurgen shrugged, and climbed down from the throne of the God, and
wandering at adventure, came presently to four archangels. They were
seated upon a fleecy cloud, and they were eating milk and honey from
gold porringers: and of these radiant beings Jurgen inquired the
quickest way out of Heaven.
"For hereabouts are none of my illusions," said Jurgen, "and I must
now return to such illusions as are congenial. One must believe in
something. And all that I have seen in Heaven I have admired and
envied, but in none of these things could I believe, and with none
of these things could I be satisfied. And while I think of it, I
wonder now if any of you gentlemen can give me news of that Lisa who
used to be my wife?"
He described her; and they regarded him with compassion.
But these archangels, he found, had never heard of Lisa, and they
assured him there was no such person in Heaven. For Steinvor had
died when Jurgen was a boy, and so she had never seen Lisa; and in
consequence, had not thought about Lisa one way or the other, when
Steinvor outlined her notions to Koshchei who made things as they
are.
Now Jurgen discovered, too, that, when his eyes first met the eyes
of the God of Jurgen's grandmother, Jurgen had stayed motionless for
thirty-seven days, forgetful of everything save that the God of his
grandmother was love.
"Nobody else has willingly turned away so soon," Zachariel told him:
"and we think that your insensibility is due to some evil virtue in
the glittering garment which you are wearing, and of which the like
was never seen in Heaven."
"I did but search for justice," Jurgen said: "and I could not find
it in the eyes of your God, but only love and such forgiveness as
troubled me."
"Because of that should you rejoice," the four archangels said; "and
so should all that lives rejoice: and more particularly should we
rejoice that dwell in Heaven, and hourly praise our Lord God's
negligence of justice, whereby we are permitted to enter into this
place."
=== I keep coming back to this writing. When I first read it, 1992, I was a young Christian and had been handed it by a committed atheist. I was impressed with the art, but not the theology. It puzzled me why I had ever been an atheist and had fallen for the arguments like what Cabell seems to have stumbled on. Years later, I tried to show the book to my dad, whom I'd always known to be an atheist. He told me his father had tried to share it with him too. He didn't read it, but returned the copy I had given him. A decade later, he died. I was estranged from him most of my life, and at the time of his death. Recently, I reread this book. And still this passage stands out for me. And thanks to the internet I can post it here. But thanks to God, I can prayerfully read this work, and it enriches my life. I am not turning away from my God, as when I weaken, he holds me tighter.
Political commentary with the base of the poem "Going to see the Rabbit" by Alan Brownjohn. I look forward to the day the honorable gentleman is Prime Minister of Australia.
Address to the Institute of Public Affairs, Sydney
Posted on Monday, 6 August 2012
FREEDOM WARS
Right now, Australians are understandably and necessarily impressed by China, a country which has liberalised its economy without liberalising its polity. Lifting several hundred million people from poverty into the middle class in a single generation certainly is one of the great economic transformations in human history.
China’s success, though, need not mean that liberal democratic freedoms are merely an optional extra for countries that take nation building seriously. The communications revolution is affecting China no less than everywhere else, despite official misgivings. The blogosphere and tweeting could soon give even China the “question everything” mindset that has been so important to other countries’ creativity and weight in the world.
Then there’s India which has achieved a scarcely less remarkable economic transformation while largely preserving democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech. Two decades after Francis Fukuyama jumped the gun to proclaim the end of history and the triumph of liberal democracy, it would be equally presumptuous to conclude that western civilisation’s moment has largely passed. History’s lesson is still that countries are stronger, as well as better, with democratic freedoms than without them.
Freedom of speech is not just an academic nicety but the essential pre-condition for any kind of progress. A child learns by trial and error. A society advances when people can discuss what works and what doesn’t. To the extent that alternatives can’t be discussed, people are tethered to the status quo, regardless of its effectiveness.
Freedom of speech can’t be absolute. A persuasive case can be made to limit people’s freedom to publish material that might breach national security, prejudice a fair trial, or deliberately mislead consumers about the performance of a particular product; but there is no case, none, to limit debate about the performance of national leaders. The more powerful people are, the more important the presumption must be that less powerful people should be able to say exactly what they think of them.
Parliamentary speeches have always been privileged against defamation suits because it has been taken for granted that MPs had to be absolutely unmuzzled if parliament was to do its job. On matters of the greatest moment, all that should ever gag individual MPs is their own judgment. They should face criticism, censure, loss of office and electoral defeat if they misuse their freedom but they should never be legally constrained from expressing what they think the national interest demands.
Freedom of speech is an essential foundation of democracy. Without free speech, free debate is impossible and, without free debate, the democratic process cannot work properly nor can misgovernment and corruption be fully exposed. Freedom of speech is part of the compact between citizen and society on which democratic government rests. A threat to citizens’ freedom of speech is more than an error of political judgment. It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the give and take between government and citizen on which a peaceful and harmonious society is based.
At an even deeper level, free speech is essential to human integrity. It enables us to express who we are and what we believe. Freedom of speech empowers Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, environmentalists, climate change sceptics, conservatives, socialists, gays, gen Ys and gen Xs, baby boomers, veterans, everyone and anyone publicly to affirm whatever it is that is important to their identity. They can do so free from fear of a knock on the door in the middle of the night or a subpoena from a tribunal in the middle of the day.
It’s human nature, of course, to support free speech as long as it’s agreeable. The trouble is deciding which opinions can be censored. The danger is that a government that can censor a free press is quite capable of censoring a free people.
The price of free speech – ¬which we must be prepared to pay – is that offence will be given, facts will be misrepresented and lies will be told. Truth, after all, only emerges from such a process. Thanks to free speech, error can be exposed, corruption revealed, arrogance deflated, mistakes corrected, the right upheld and truth flaunted in the face of power. On issues of value, purpose and meaning, there is no committee, however expert, and no appointee, however eminent, with judgment superior to that of the whole community which is why the best decisions are made with free debate rather than without it.
Free speech can be restrained at the margins but only in order to secure other important rights. As my colleague, George Brandis has noted, there are “exceptions to this rule” but never counterweights. Free speech shouldn’t be restrained just to prevent hurt feelings and it should never be restrained in order to protect poor performance.
This might normally be regarded as a statement of the obvious. Imagine the reaction, for instance, had the Howard government sought to gag naval personnel after “children overboard”. It badly needs re-affirmation now because of the current government’s attempts to bully critics into silence.
When roof batts routinely catch fire, damaging hundreds of homes and killing four installers; when $16 billion has been spent building school halls that could have normally been constructed for less than half the price; when more than $50 billion is being spent on a National(ised) Broadband Network that the government originally claimed could be done for a tenth the cost; when more than 20,000 illegal boat people have arrived because the government assumed there was no longer a problem and dropped the policy that worked; when a carbon tax that the Prime Minister said would never happen has been introduced to save her political hide; when a well-respected speaker of the parliament has been forced to resign to protect the government’s parliamentary numbers; and when the system of justice seems incapable of dealing swiftly with an MP who’s clearly ripped off union members, the ability to be critical of government is more important than ever.
Yet instead of ruefully conceding that criticism under these circumstances is only a fair cop likely to spur better performance, the current government’s response has been thinly veiled intimidation of critics masquerading as proposals for better regulation. Instead of mounting a better argument, this government’s inclination is to disqualify its critics. Its instinctive response to criticism is to bully people rather than to reason with them.
This is not a government that argues its case. Mostly, it simply howls down its critics using the megaphone of incumbency. There’s the jihad against mining magnates for daring to question the government’s investment-sapping mining tax. There’s the claim that Gina Reinhart is a “danger to democracy” because she dared to buy an interest in a newspaper group and refused to endorse the Fairfax group’s existing editorial culture. There’s the assault on mum-and-dad anti-carbon tax protestors in Canberra as the “convoy of no consequence” or even the “convoy of incontinence”. The ferocity of this government’s return of serve often goes way beyond reasonable counter-argument to become a form of state-sponsored bullying.
Late last year, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy accused the Sydney Daily Telegraph of a deliberate campaign to “bring the government down”. The Prime Minister had a screaming match with former News Ltd boss John Hartigan over an article about her prior-to-entering-parliament dealings with a union official. The government’s Green allies have been consistently critical of those whom ex-Senator Bob Brown tagged the “hate media”. The prime minister personally insisted that News Ltd in Australia had “questions to answer” in the wake of the UK phone hacking scandal even though she was not able to specify what these might be. It seems obvious that her real concern was not Fleet Street-style illegality but News Ltd’s coverage of her government and its various broken promises, new taxes and botched programmes.
To Justice Ray Finkelstein’s credit, there’s no specific “get News Ltd” vendetta evident in the report of his “Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation”. Still his recommendation that a powerful News Media Council should “set journalistic standards”, “enforce news standards” and “have power to require a news media outlet to publish an apology, correction, or retraction” looks like an attempt to warn off News Ltd from pursuing anti-government stories.
The “community, industry and professional representatives” that Finkelstein wants appointed to the new regulator are unlikely to be truly independent of the government that will fund it. We know the current government’s attitude to tough reporting from people such as Steve Lewis and Kate McClymont because it is constantly complaining about it. Perhaps the most shameless example was Senator Doug Cameron accusing the “Murdoch press” of actually “fabricating stories” stories about the prospect of a Rudd challenge – for which he was, himself, one of the numbers men!
Especially in the hands of the current government, any new watchdog could become a political correctness enforcement agency destined to suppress inconvenient truths and to hound from the media people whose opinions might rattle Phillip Adams’ listeners. It’s easy to imagine the fate of Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones, for instance, at the hands of such thought police. Their demise, you understand, wouldn’t be because the government didn’t like them but because they’d persistently breached “standards”.
In response to a strongly worded critique of the Finkelstein recommendations, the government has just replied to seven media CEOs saying that it might not proceed with a new regulator if the media were to establish more effective forms of self-regulation. In other words, “censor yourselves or we will do it for you”. Any government that demands changed behaviour from the media under circumstances like these is not trying to raise journalistic standards but to lower them to the long-term detriment of our country.
The Coalition rejects the Finkelstein proposals and calls on the government to do likewise. The Coalition opposes any coercion towards greater self-regulation and calls on the government to repudiate it. The Coalition rejects calls for the introduction of a public interest test or any other “suitability” test for those for those with a stake in our media and calls on the government to do likewise.
Australia does not need more regulation of the mainstream media but we do need a new debate about freedom of speech because it’s important for the current government to reveal its true colours. So far, a hung parliament hasn’t made this government more responsive. Instead, the constant struggle to survive has brought out its authoritarian streak.
It is not the role of government to manage the day-to-day practices of journalism; to dictate who can and who can’t control Australian media outlets; or to “score” media coverage against unavoidably subjective standards of fairness. The job of government is to foster free speech, not stifle it. It’s to increase the number and the range of people who can participate in public debate, not reduce it.
Additional regulation is one current threat to free speech in Australia. Another is the operation of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits statements that “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” another person or a group of people on grounds of race or ethnicity.
At the time of its introduction, oblivious to its Orwellian overtones, the then-minister, Nick Bolkus, said that it was designed to prohibit “speechcrime” over and above the traditional tort of defamation. Making the likelihood of causing offence to a group the test of acceptable behaviour goes way beyond the time-honoured remedy when a particular victim has been brought into hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Let’s be clear: insulting, humiliating or intimidating others on any grounds, racial or otherwise, is deplorable. It should be everyone’s goal to elevate the standards of public debate, not lower them, and to demonstrate respect rather than disdain for the various components of our community. Still, a “hurt feelings” test is impossible to comply with while maintaining the fearless pursuit of truth which should be the hallmark of a society such as ours.
As Sir Robert Menzies declared in one of his “Forgotten People” broadcasts: “The whole essence of freedom (of speech) is that it is freedom for others as well as (for) ourselves … (It is) a conception which is not born with us, but which we must painfully acquire. Most of us have no instinct at all to preserve the right of the other fellow to think what he likes about our beliefs and to say what he likes about our opinions… (But) if truth is to emerge, and in the long run be triumphant, the process of free debate – the untrammelled clash of opinion – must go on”.
The article for which Andrew Bolt was prosecuted under this legislation was almost certainly not his finest. There may have been some factual errors. Still, if free speech is to mean anything, it’s others’ right to say what you don’t like, not just what you do. It’s the freedom to write badly and rudely. It’s the freedom to be obnoxious and objectionable. Free speech is not bland speech. Often, it’s pretty rough speech because people are entitled to be passionate when they are arguing for what they believe to be important and necessary. Speech that has to be inoffensive would be unerringly politically correct but it would not be free.
If it’s alright for David Marr, for instance, to upset conservative Christians, in his attempt to have them see the error of their ways, why is it not alright for Andrew Bolt to upset activist Aboriginals to the same end? The rallying cry attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it", should have been invoked to defend Bolt, no less than it has been to justify robust speech from different points in the philosophical compass.
The Coalition will repeal section 18C in its current form. Any prohibitions on inciting hatred against or intimidation of particular racial groups should be akin to the ancient common law offences of incitement and causing fear.
Expression or advocacy should never be unlawful merely because it is offensive. It ought to be inconceivable that a commentator offering an opinion should fall foul of the law rather than a wave of criticism. This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Bolt. It’s a matter of an expansive or a repressive view of the right to free speech.
It won’t just be the current government that the debate over new restrictions on free speech will test. It will be all the commentators and organisations that have ever thundered in defence of free speech but find their indignation highly selective when it’s their commercial rivals or philosophical opponents who are in the dock.
The Australian left has long cited the Menzies government’s attempt to ban the communist party as an egregious assault on freedom. What will they make of any Gillard government legislation to restrict freedom of speech? Menzies, it has to be said, sought to restrict freedom in order to defend the country. The Gillard government, by contrast, seeks to restrict freedom in order to defend itself.
The Coalition is often tagged the “conservative side of politics” and John Howard has rightly pointed out that the Liberal Party, in this country, is the political representative of both the liberal and the conservative traditions. Essentially, we are the freedom party. We stand for the freedoms which Australians have a right to expect and which governments have a duty to uphold. We stand for freedom and will be freedom’s bulwark against the encroachments of an unworthy and dishonourable government.
I want to thank you for your service and commitment to the Lord, yours has been enlightening for me during dark days. As a result of your letters I have made commitment to more fully embrace the Lord. I have been receiving your letters for some years now, and accepted your innovations, but recently I have been removed from your lists. I don't know if that was by your will for some transgression on my part, or if I'm being targeted by enemies. I am a whistleblower (by accident) and have enemies, so I am asking you if I have transgressed on your end?
Greetings from Bible Gateway!
Thank you for contacting us about the disruption you've experienced with your subscription. We apologize for the delay in responding to your email.
We've checked your account and are seeing that you have been unsubscribed since July 7th, 2012. You can immediately sign up again by visiting the following page where you can review and subscribe to the newsletters, devotionals and/or reading plans of your choice.
All of our subscription resources and the process to subscribe are available through this page. Be sure to click on SIGN UP to complete the process.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please let us know.
God bless your day,
===
Clearly, from their response, they don't claim to be the reason for ending my subscription. However, my subscription has been cut twice recently. So that has not happened by accident.
You did it! Thanks to all your help and efforts, Congress has passed the renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act (BFDA). Because of your phone calls and emails, Congress recognized that much more needs to be done to ensure genuine democracy, national reconciliation and human rights for all in Burma by renewing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.
The passing of the renewal of the BFDA shows that Congress agrees with you; that looming problems in Burma still need to be addressed. Even today, there are hundreds of political prisoners still behind bars. The violence and cruel treatment against ethnic minorities, predominantly carried out by the Burmese military, is as prevalent as ever. In anticipation of foreign investments, land confiscation cases are on the rise, leaving many villagers and farmers without land or a home. The passing of the BFDA signifies that Congress recognizes the need to maintain some leverage in Burma in order to ensure genuine democracy, national reconciliation, human rights, justice and accountability for all the people of Burma.
Thank you for helping us to take steps to fight for freedom in Burma and for speaking out for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Give Me Some Space 'Nebula' - Poster (24"x36") The spectacular Helix Nebula, 700 light-years from Earth, makes a gorgeous 24” x 36” wall poster that reveals the nebula in all its colorful glory. The photograph in this poster was taken by the powerful Hubble Space Telescope.
