Australian Greens Demand Public Access To Cloak and Dagger Anti-Piracy Meetings 93
Fluffeh writes "Continuing the recent stories on the secret, closed door, FOI blocked talks, the Australian Greens have filed a motion in the Senate requesting that the Government release documents regarding its closed door meetings on Internet piracy which the Attorney-General's Department has blocked from being released under Freedom of Information laws. This morning, Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam filed an order in the Senate that the Government disclose details of the most recent meeting. 'The Government refuses to reveal almost any information about the attendees, the substance or the outcomes of the meeting,' he said in a separate statement. 'A Freedom of Information request from a journalist looks like it's been met with maximum resistance.'"
At last... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:At last... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's the point of having political parties! They are out to serve their own agenda, and if enough people feel served by this agenda too, they will elect them. If you don't feel their agenda fits your goals, then don't elect them.
Instead of ranting, maybe some democracy 101?
Re:At last... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is indeed the point of democracy, but it is also a flaw in the idea of political parties. The Romans used to consider that politicians banding together into parties was a very dangerous trend in a democracy, obscuring the merits or flaws of the individual under the combined policies of the party.
It leads to linking concepts that should have nothing to do with one another, such as "If you care about the environment, then obviously you also support the welfare state, it couldn't be otherwise." or "If you believe tax on business should be lowered in sectors X, Y and Z, then obviously you also want massively increased military spending."
In order to serve their own agenda and be able to compete, political parties have to be as large as their opposition, which means they have to absorb sufficient numbers of groups that can support them, all with their own issues and interests.
Re:At last... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:At last... (Score:5, Interesting)
Both sides here in the states
We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".
You know why our voter turnout is so low here? The above explains it. Rather than choosing between eating a shit sandwich and poking yourself in the eye with a stick, they just stay home.
The Dems and GOP want to put some of your friends and family in jail for an innocent, harmless activity. Someone you love smokes marijuana. Why are you voting for candidates who want to incarcerate your loved ones?
I'm not sure about the CPs, but neither the Greens nor Libbies want to put your dope smoking son in law in prison. I'll be voting GP this November, as I did last election.
Re: (Score:2)
Voice your dissent. Vote 3rd party. Only good things can result from that. Either we elect a 3rd party candidate, which I suspect would be less susceptible to corruption, or the first party candidates wake up a bit and realize they have to pay attention to the electorate. Either way, the people win.
Also, vote in primaries. The first parties tend to have at least one candidate that isn't atrocious, but they don't seem to win primaries very often. I suspect voter apathy is the cause here as well.
If you
Re: (Score:3)
Both sides here in the states
We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".
You know why our voter turnout is so low here? The above explains it. Rather than choosing between eating a shit sandwich and poking yourself in the eye with a stick, they just stay home.
I reject the "might as well stay home argument". If are not part of the solution, in this case, you are definitely part of the problem. Especially when there is a mechanism that could remove the "wasted vote" problem. It's called an instant run-off election. Get involved, make it a reality in your area, and stop wasting your vote.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a media problem. It's a problem with our plurality voting system. Each voter gets a single vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. That's been mathematically proven
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the candidate you vote for isn't one of the top two finishers, you have wasted your vote.
That makes no sense, can you explain? It isn't the olympics with a gold and silver medal, there is one winner and four losers. What difference does it make if your candidate finishes second or fifth? You still voted for a loser.
Re:At last... (Score:5, Insightful)
Came here to say this, but not as eloquently. This is why I wish the two party system in the USA could be busted.
- Jasen.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty difficult for the two party system in the USA to vanish unless the US changes the way it conducts voting. The US (it's actually up to individual states, but they pretty much all do it the same way) works on a "one man, one vote, for one candidate" simple plurality system. Each person gets one vote which they cast in favor of the one candidate they want to win. Naively, this seems like a good system. In fact, it's the perfect system... when there are exactly two choices (also when there's one or zero
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why countries with a proportional voting system often have "single issue" parties, like greens, social democrats, christian conservatives, liberals (they would be called libertarians in the U.S.), which then have to negotiate a coalition to get a majority in parlament. Thus you can vote for whatever issue you consider most important to you, and if you think the schools in your district are bad, in the next district elections you will vote for social democrats, and if you think the taxes are too high,
Re:At last... (Score:5, Informative)
Liberalism and liberterianism are not the same, and liberals in countries with proportional voting systems are definitely not the same as libertarians in the U.S.
Most liberals want to government to give people equal chances in life, while most libertarians want to either abolish government or keep it as small as possible.
Let me Wikipedia that for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism [wikipedia.org]
Actually liberal parties in Europe have quite a lot in common with the democratic party in the US, in terms of what they want to achieve. Except they're typically considered right of the center in Europe.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the Liberals in Australia are right-wing phoney Libertarians (ala the US Republicans). They tend to spend just as much as the socialist Labor party, so they aren't strictly libertarian, but they get a lot of the libertarian vote.
It's not that simple (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.
When Churchill said the above, he very much meant liberal as in libertarian. The point was that when you're young and idealist, you think that free economy/people/etc. lead to the best results... and after you've seen a bit more of the world (and grown a bit more cynical), you end up thinking that regulations and the like have their place.
So... while the term "liberal" appears to be synonymous to cultural liberalism [wikipedia.org] to those who reside in the USA, it can mean either cultural or economic liberalism or any combination of those here in Europe. It all depends on what kind of rhetoric the party wants to use... For example, here in Finland we have a Libertarianist party (which doesn't have much support) under the name of "Liberals".
Re: (Score:1)
Wasn't Winston Churchill a Conservative at twenty and a Liberal at forty? He was involved the process of reforming the Liberal party away from being libertarian at the time though.
Is there any evidence he ever said that?
That's a bit complicated, too (Score:2)
I'm not expert but from my understanding (which seems to be supported by Wikipedia) he truly was more or less liberal/libertarian in early 1900s and became more conservative by 1920s. Quoting wikipedia on his early political career
Churchill stood again for the seat of Oldham at the 1900 general election. After winning the seat, he went on a speaking tour throughout Britain and the United States, raising £10,000 for himself (about £800,000 today). In Parliament, he became associated with a faction of the Conservative Party led by Lord Hugh Cecil; the Hughligans. During his first parliamentary session, he opposed the government's military expenditure and Joseph Chamberlain's proposal of extensive tariffs, which were intended to protect Britain's economic dominance. His own constituency effectively deselected him, although he continued to sit for Oldham until the next general election. After the Whitsun recess in 1904 he crossed the floor to sit as a member of the Liberal Party. As a Liberal, he continued to campaign for free trade. When the Liberals took office with Henry Campbell-Bannerman as prime minister, in December 1905, Churchill became Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies dealing mainly with South Africa after the Boer War.
So he was briefly associated with the Conservative Party but he opposed military spending, wanted lower tariffs, campaigned for free trade and switched to liberal party. Twenty years later (1924) he rejoined the conservatives.
What you say about him reforming liberal party to bec
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe reforming is going a bit far as I think there were still quite a few Gladstonian liberals in the party when churchill left, but he and David Lloyd George (coalition Prime Minister 1916-22) were behind the foundations of the welfare state, high taxes for the rich and an experiment involving a nationalised brewery in the town where I grew up. The liberals (later Liberal Democrats) would end up spending most of the next 80 years between the centrist option between Labour and Conservative, then the last 1
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice summary!
Here is an interesting quote on liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
Guess who said that and when !?
From interview published in Reason (1 July 1975)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan [wikiquote.org]
--
The solution to politics is to remove ALL money -- if parties want to be kept then they can pool their lobbying funds so that EVERYONE gets an equal chance to buy off the public with the pros / cons of their position.
Re: (Score:2)
This collides definitely with the terms "liberal" and "conservative" for instance in Germany.
Here, conservativism means "no experiments", keeping the structure in society as close as possible to a perceived christian-catholic ideal, even if it means that a "working husband, homebound wife" family is heavily subsided by the government, while alternate attitudes to life and society are strongly disencouraged. A "small government" approach is frowned upon, and "there ought to be a law" (and a police to execute
Re:At last... (Score:4, Informative)
In Australia, neither Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Conservatives or Liberals are single-issue parties, and Liberals are most definitely not Libertarians. The single-issue parties are the ones like "Shooters and Fishers Party", or "Help End Marijuana Prohibition".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because as I understand the concept, their desire for any part of government being huge would disqualify them from actually being Libertarian in the strict sense (also their social policy is not compatible with small government at all, they support several "moral issue" bans that like al
Re: (Score:2)
The Social Democrats have not to my knowledge ever held the balance of power (in fact I'm not even sure if that group exists?, I know there are
Re: (Score:2)
For the tl;dr crowd
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MicKTV0pN9c [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dw
Re: (Score:2)
Both the LPA (Liberal Party of Australia) and ALP (Australian Labor Party) are social democrats. Both the LPA and ALP run welfare states. The LPA is opposed to publicly owned utilities (because it's apparently better to have private companies overcharging everyone while running down infrastructure than public ones paying their union members too much), but supports public welfare, so they are social democrats. The ALP is more or less socialist, supporting publicly owned utilities.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Democrazy 101
Now students we will learn about tyranny by the majority and why not to get suckered into this form of government...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a representative democracy, which is also a republic.
Re: (Score:1)
What a completely uninformed response! The Greens have strongly supported an open internet and an open govt as a key policy principle. It was the Greens who sunk the internet filter despite the efforts of your mob.
Re: (Score:1)
They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.
They didn't and they don't. The bill wasn't even brought up because the Greens and the Liberals agreed to block it, rendering it dead on arrival.
Who told you otherwise?
Re:At last... (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and the Greens website [greens.org.au] both say they oppose censorship.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
IN Europe it is the Green/Pirate Party alliance that has been fighting ACTA. Here is a quote from a response i got from my SNP MEP: 'My group in the European Parliament, the Greens/European Free Alliance,
has commissioned two very important studies regarding ACTA which may be
of interest to you. One is on the compatibility of ACTA with the
European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights (http://rfc.act-on-acta.eu/fundamental-rights) and the other is
in relation to Access to Medic
Re: (Score:2)
You really have no clue what the Greens are like in Australia, do you?
Re:At last... (Score:5, Informative)
They have no interest in maintaining the openness of the internet in Australia. They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.
The Australian Green Party [wikipedia.org] do not support internet censorship [greens.org.au], and in fact are opposed to internet censorship [greens.org.au]. Do you have a reason for your opinion - or are you perhaps you're thinking of the Laboural Party of Australia? They seem to love censorship.
Their policy manifesto would make Kim Jong Ill proud.
Wow! You're a fucking idiot aren't you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! You're a fucking idiot aren't you?
The problem with fucking idiots is that they are too stupid to figure out how to use contraception and their numbers swell as they breed and pass on their moronic approach to life.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
An Aussie political party with some cojones.
As a result, they are the most hated and reviled party in Australia.
I'll admit it, I voted Green last election. I did so for two reasons.
1) I'm under 40 with no kids, who in the major parties cares about me.
2) They are the only party in Australia with an interest in rights and freedoms.
The Greens at least have a public friendly agenda and some healthy fear of the electorate.
Now I'm waiting for the inevitable hate barrage from angry Liberal (Big L) supporters. I've got my environmentally friendly
Re: (Score:2)
I've gone one step further, I have become a member rather passive of course but I do provide funding support. The Greens seem to be the only party who to stand up against corporations, not bow to foreign governments and adhere to their stated principles.
To me the Greens seem more honest in their being conservative, seeking to conserve the environment, conserve resources and conserve the people.
I can't get over how the psuedo conservative parties get away with calling themselves conservatives, when they
Governments are no longer 'for the people'. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they never were.
if democracy could change things, it would be outlawed.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they never were.
if democracy could change things, it would be outlawed.
And yet, quite strangely it would seem, many that share your opinion want a larger, more powerful government.
Not saying you, personally, do. I just find it to be a major reality-disconnect when people who complain about the government expanding it's powers, spying on the domestic populace, commonly employing military-style strike teams on individual civilians not convicted or suspected of a major/violent crime, and taking away their rights and abusing them in general, turn right around and vote for those po
Re: (Score:3)
What makes mob rule so much worse then a rule of corrupt politicians? Both will disregard the wishes of anyone outside 'their' group, and at least when you're trying to bribe the mob you have to give something to most of the nation, rather then just a few individuals.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd dare say that mob rule is often even more dangerous. Especially when the mob is emotional.
Re: (Score:2)
Historical note: It was "mob rule" that removed Charles I (by decapitating him) when he attempted to usurp legislative power from Parliament (hence to remove legislative power from the People) in 1649.
It was "mob rule" that caused the Government to repeal Poll Tax (although they got their own back by calling it something else) in 1990.
"Mob rule" is merely the intimidation of legitimate authorities (notwithstanding the lawfulness, or lack thereof, of their actions), used as a perjorative form of majoritarian
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather be ruled by nobody but myself - Government is there for the good and interests of the People; the second that it ceases to be that (eg by removing rights to gather, to speak one's mind, or to restrict travel wherever and however, whenever), it needs to be removed. Be that a "democratically" elected Government, a constitutional Monarch, or whatever. Charles I was a tyrant who saw Parliament as a threat to his supreme power over his subjects, the People saw this and Cromwell was the only person in
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather be ruled by nobody but myself
I agree, I know how to comport my self properly. it's everyone else I'm worried about. I takes an iron fist to keep stupidity in check, even then it frequently fails to do so and we are saddled with the consequences of the attempts as well as the proliferation of maroons.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps society needs a little chaos. It seems to me that most western republics seem stuck. What you call a coherent policy is little more than ensuring the status quo. The only things that seem to matter are ensuring the politician's re-election. Which principally means keeping the big donors happy by making sure laws favor them.
And sure, people have the chance to elect someone else every 4 years or so. But who can they choose from? Only a small pool of candidates with enough money to get on TV. And after
Re: (Score:2)
What makes mob rule so much worse then a rule of corrupt politicians?
Well, that's sort of the point, then, isn't it?
First, citizens allow government size and power to grow which results in corruption, then the mob rises up and kills the corrupt politicians and cronies, then the mob's attentions run wherever the mob-rage of the moment takes them. That's been the historical pattern.
And yet, many people are screaming to expand the size and power of the government even more, resulting in corruption becoming correspondingly worse, and bringing on the mobs and widespread violent a
Re: (Score:2)
Crap!
Sometimes I think that there may be people in government working towards this as a way to somehow seize power & control, and that they imagine that they will somehow be able to tame the mobs and use them to their personal ends.
Sorry.
Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Actually, they never were."
Except for roads, electrification, water and sewage, healthcare (outside the US), and the social safety net??? To say government doesn't govern at least somewhat in the interests of the people is a lie. The issue has always been the people do nothing to change things until the proverbial shit hits the fan (great depression).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Government was acting in the best interests of the People at all in the lead up to the Great Depression. Particularly given that it was Government policy at the time that banks could operate uninsured (so when the 9,000-odd banks failed during the 30's all the accounts disappeared without trace), coupled with the consolidation of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury and their legislated authority to print unbacked debt notes, the legislated high tariffs on imports causing artificially redu
Re: (Score:2)
Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, viniculture, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
PFJ Member: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace? Shut up!
Re: (Score:3)
It is very easy to say something outrageous and stereotypical. I think Estonian or Fin would disagree with you. They certanly don't sing hymns for their goverments, but they that they're trying their best.
Problem with UK and US citizens that they are weaklings - they are mirroring their "lobby democracy expierence" to rest of the world, and think it's unbeatable. Because ohh, life is too short, and you're already one payement short for your house loan. Run, critter, run.
Guess what, it all takes to just stop
let me guess: public interest immunity? (Score:3)
If it involves stifling creativity, removing our rights, or otherwise telling us that we can't do what we previously *could*, then it most certainly does not warrant PII.
How to assist this (Score:2, Interesting)
Who do we petition or write to to make this a reality?
Re: (Score:2)
That article does not seem to touch on optus' recording and streaming free to air tv. Do you nave any other info that does indicate that they wil also be legal changes to roll back betamax?
By the way, I agree with you about the situation here. This is a simple contact dispute between AFL and telstra. The AFL sold telstra something they did not possess - an exclusive right to stream football video to mobile devices. The government is not involved in that and that is how it should stay.
Re: (Score:2)
government is so corrupt
I'm sure to be marked as flamebait on a piracy-friendly site like Slashdot, but doesn't it strike you as a little bit ironic that you're making this comment on a story which is all about political responses to citizens who are doing illegal stuff?
Re: (Score:1)