In lieu of the results of the small poll i’ve left up over the last week I’m going to start updating regularly. I’ll be updating once a week. Sundays AEST. Which tends to be a Saturday for North Americans.
That said, I may update with greater frequency if something comes up I just can’t wait to publish.
Thanks, I look forward to my next post on Sunday.
Tim.
There is a seemingly instinctual, hair-trigger reaction from a lot of voters and policy makers alike, to support this concept of protectionism. Limiting exports, import tariffs, and other such policies in response to growing international competition, foreign exports, and as a weapon with which to combat child labour and corruption in third world nations.
This is indeed prevalent in nations suffering poverty and, more to the point, ones with a high rate of child labour.
My goal is to disprove the common misconception that child labour is fought through protectionism, like for example, the ‘Harkin Bill’ which caused trouble in Bangladesh. Which I will get to further on.
Before beginning my arguments I would like to acknowledge two things. Firstly, that I am assuming Child Labour is a bad thing that must be reduced (because I know not everyone here probably thinks that) and secondly, that free trade isn’t perfect, nor is globalisation. They don’t fix everything, and reduction of the importance of borders can sometimes also mean bad things, e.g. growth of sex tourism and other such things. However, this argument will be focussed on Child Labour specifically.
There will be three parts where I briefly examine an argument and base it off of a study. They will be (in order)
-Liberalisation encourages Growth, Growth reduces Child Labour
-Sanctions from First World Nations don’t work.
-Poor Credit Accessibility means Poor Education Opportunity
Lastly, I want to acknowledge ‘In Defence of Globalization’ by Jagdish Bhagwati to be the most persuasive and useful piece of literature to which I formed my position on the matter. Also, the original source from where I was able to find the studies I quoted.
Let’s begin.
[size=18][u][i][b]Liberalisation encourages Growth, Growth reduces Child Labour[/b][/i][/u][/size]
I am going to start by quoting an abstract from a study done at Dartmouth by Eric Edmonds and Nina Pavcnik on the relationship between child labour and market liberalisation. Most important parts are bolded.
[quote]This paper considers the impact of liberalized trade policy on child labor in a developing country. While trade liberalization entails an increase in the relative price of the exported product, trade theory provides ambiguous predictions on how this price change affects the incidence of child labor. In this paper, we exploit regional and intertemporal variation in the real price of rice to examine the relationship between price movements of a primary export and the economic activities of children. [b]Using a panel of Vietnamese households, we find that reductions in child labor are increasing with rice prices.[/b] Declines in child labor are largest for girls of secondary school age, and we find a corresponding increase in school attendance for this group. Overall, rice price increases can account for almost half of the decline in child labor that occurs in Vietnam in the 1990s. [b]Greater market integration, at least in this case, appears to be associated with less child labor. Our results suggest that the use of trade sanctions on exports from developing countries to eradicate child labor is unlikely to yield the desired outcome.[/b][/quote]
[url=http://sccie.ucsc.edu/conference/2002/Pavcnik_Paper.pdf]Entire Source Here[/url]
The basic idea is that poor agricultural workers, particularly farmers, who do not profit well off their rice produce must supplement their income by having their children work. When demand for rice goes up (thanks to exports, for the duration of this study Vietnam doubled its Rice export to 3 million tonnes) and the workers profit further from their sales, they no longer need their children to supplement their income. To further quote the study;
[quote]An increase in the relative price of rice (potentially stemming from liberalized trade policy) enhances rural household income. [b]Households appear to substitute the extra income captured by household landholdings for income previously earned by children.[/b] This extra income appears to particularly benefit older girls who experience the largest declines in child labor and the largest increases in school enrollment. [b]Hence, child labor declines even though globalization also raised the potential earnings of children. In this way, our evidence suggests that greater integration of unskilled labor abundant developing economies into world markets can be associated with less child labor.[/b][/quote]
So we can see that child labour demonstrably goes down in correlation to liberalisation of agriculture markets as families no longer need their children to work to help the family survive.
[size=18][u][i][b]Sanctions from First World Nations don’t work.[/b][/i][/u][/size]
Some argue that placing sanctions on countries that utilise child labour is a humane method of trade that forces third world nations and any countries allowing child labour to change for the better. The perfect example of this is when Democrats Senator Tom Harkin proposed a bill in 1993, known as ‘U.S. Child Labor Deterrence Act’ (or the ‘Harkin Bill’) which would prevent the USA from importing products which utilised Child Labour at any stage of production.
In Bangladesh, which has a large Child Labour workforce (12%, see source below) and whose garments were threatened by this bill, the results were very different to the intentions of Harkin and his supporters.
A study by Mohammad Mafizur Rahman, Rasheda Khanam and Nur Uddin Absar published in the December 1999 issue of the Journal of Economic Issues reviewed the reactions of Bangladeshi families.
Quoted below;
[quote]Unfortunately, the supporters of the bill mistakenly presume that if children are not allowed to work, they will attend school. Considering the socioeconomic realities of developing countries, this is far from the truth. For most of these children, school is not a choice, and work itself may be needed to sustain life. In Bangladesh, studies conducted by local NGOs and UNICEF[b], following the initial publicity of the bill have shown that children displaced from garment factories in January 1993 did not rush to school. Most of them found alternative, less secure, and less lucrative employment in the informal sector.[/b] Common occupations for children in this sector include working as ticket collectors or tempos and/or as lunch boys ferrying heavy tiffin carriers from office to office. Girls have found work as domestic servants or flower sellers [Sobhan 1994, 6]. [/quote]
[url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5437/is_4_33/ai_n28747994/]Source available here.[/url]
According to economist Jagdish Bhagwati (‘In Defence of Globilization’, P71) this included prostitution work for the girls. The amount of children displaced from formal work could have been as high as 50,000.
[size=18][u][i][b]Poor Credit Accessibility means Poor Education Opportunity[/u][/i][/b][/size]
As discussed in the Bangladesh and Vietnam examples, it was demonstrated that poor families supplement income needs with having their children work. It is interesting to note that poor families in first world nations do not make the same decisions. Not least of all because of the laws involved, but also because of the developed financial systems, or more specifically, access to credit.
This time I will quote a study by Rajeev H. Dehejia and Roberta Gatti based on the relationship between Child Labour and access to credit.
[quote]Our results show a strong link between child labor and access to credit even when these factors are accounted for and a range of estimation techniques is used. This relationship appears to be particularly sizeable in the sample of poor countries, which have both less developed financial markets and greater child labor and, as such, are in general of greater policy interest. Moreover, [b]we find that income variability has a sizeable impact on child labor in countries where financial markets are underdeveloped, suggesting that households resort to their children’s work to cope with income shocks[/b]. This is not the case though when financial markets are developed, which suggests that [b]access to credit might effectively cut households’ demands on children’s time.[/b][/quote]
[url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/economics/discpapr/DP0102-69.pdf]Full Source Here.[/url]
The study, which is an interesting read, establishes that with an access to credit poorer families are more likely to keep their children out of work and in school. Which is a better long term strategy as the child increases their education, and subsequently their ability to earn capital.
Lack of access to credit institutions is something that can be fought through globalisation, as foreign banks are able to make loans. Not only this, programs like Microfinance and make credit more available and thus increase the flexibility that poorer third world households have.
[size=18][u][i][b]In Conclusion.[/u][/i][/b][/size]
Child Labour is a product it would seem, of poverty. As it is prevalent namely in countries suffering poverty and stuck in the third world. It is not a formal or cultural issue that can be solved by sanctions by first world nations as demonstrated by the implications and real reactions of the Harkin Bill in Bangladesh.
Furthermore, it is apparent that third world families do not want their children to work, but feel it necessary, as Child Labour goes down when their labour (such as Rice agriculture) becomes more valuable, or when they have access to credit (and more advanced, more accessible financial institutions).
So, what do you think of my arguments? What do you think is a good, comprehensive policy for First World countries in order to commit to reducing Child Labour?
Yes indeed ladies and Gentlemen, the great United Kingdom, whose head of state is “Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc” spans Europe and Australia both.
There is a common misconception out and among the world, that Australia is independent of her mother country, that she is her own, independent state.
To them I ask, when was the independence established?
Do you argue that it was in 1901, the year of federation?
Why my merry friends, you would be wrong, the ‘Federation’ of Australia was a mere act of parliament, to be repealed at any time the British parliament felt so inclined. Australia’s ‘independence’ is actually a facade, permitted by the London elite, by the downing street crew and hinging on their generosity. Furthermore; at the time of federation, the Governor-General was appointed by those same British elites, and State governors on advice of British Officials. A rampant and hearty lie it is to say the least, that Australia was independent in 1901!
So when else, might you bring it upon yourself to argue that the British kingdom had voluntarily just rescinded her own personal continent?
Could it be the Statute of Westminster, 1931 and adopted in 1939 where the Australian federal (but not state!) parliament may find in it the power to alter British legislation affecting Australia?
While indeed it is true that from that date, British parliament in relation to the Australian constitution was no longer the authoritive force, the British parliament could still theoretically legislate on Australia, and more to the point, Prime Minister Robert Menzies (QC) acknowledged as Britiain declared war on Germany –Australia was bound to the decision. In other words –Australia, even as far as WWII, did not have the power to declare is own wars or abstain from Englands’. Certainly, the Statute of Westminster did not seperate the continent of Australia from her motherland.
Then, what else could possibly have signified Australian independence? May it be you believe the ‘Australia Acts’ of 1986, where the Australian government no longer had a constitutional link to Great Britain, and where the British Parliament finally surrendered its right to legislate on Australia. Even with all these new freedoms (repeal-able!) though, a British monarch still sat atop an Australian throne. Indeed, Australia was not independent.
To elaborate. The original copy of the Australian constitution sits in London.
Also, and importantly, the Australian constitution remains an act of British parliament. Although, by section 128 it can be altered by the vote of Australian citizens, the source of federal power remains in the firm hands, of the children of Princess Sophia of Hanover. Yes I know, you’ve never heard of her have you?
So ladies and gentlemen. The United Kingdom, in its grandeur, spans two continents.
Thank you.
One of the many problems we have faced in the modern day is the one that essentially, Cats are overpopulated and when they breed, it can lead to many strays, and many left in cages at the vets and other similar things.
However! The good folks have PETA have come up with a brilliant plan to save cats. I recently discovered thatCats actually live at sea! Yes! It is amazing really, who would have thunk it? These so called, sea kittens, are apparantly dying out too.
So here is my plan. We shall take the excess cats, and throw them out to sea! This shall solve our problems. The sea kittens can repopulate, and the land ones can find a new home away from the terrible cages at the vets, away from struggling to get by in the city as a stray.
Source: http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/
Do your part to save the sea-kittens, and the cats, and dump a cat near you into a beach near you. PETA is counting on you!
That’s right. Wherever the individual may have come from, if they spend a length of time in forced sex slavery within the borders of another country they definitely deserve to be allowed to stay should they wish it.
The Australian published an article on it, here;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24757554-28737,00.html
So far the Department of Immigration, which often discovers the potential victims, has come across 258 women suspected of being victims of trafficking. But only 17 women have been granted temporary witness protection visas, which last for three years. After that, a permanent visa will be granted if the woman satisfies the Government’s criteria, including the belief that they would be in danger if returned to their homeland. Until now, none of those have been granted. Seven women have been granted other visas, including humanitarian visas.
The Howard government spent millions of dollars fighting trafficking and in 2004 introduced a new trafficking visa framework.
But as a policy proposal put to the Rudd Government by the Catalyst Advocacy Network earlier this year argues, the visa framework should be dependent on whether the woman is a genuine victim of trafficking, not on her ability to give witness evidence.
It is absolutely unacceptable that individuals who have suffered so much in our own country have such a small chance, seven in two-hundred and fifty-eight, to get a permanent visa. I understand that there are concerns, such as using it as a loophole to get into the country* or the background of the individuals who were slaves here before their time as a slave, and even the risk of them simply falling back into prostitution.
*One woman who had worked as a prostitute in Thailand for 10 years before coming to Australia to to work in the same industry, admitted that she had told lies about being locked up as a sex slave.
But, do we not owe these indivuduals some sort of compensation? No, we did not capture them, but we did let the smugglers get in. No, we did not force her to have sex against her will, but we did purchase her services. Then, when she gets out of the hell hole that is sex slavery, we kick her out unless she has the courage to prosecute the same men who spent who-knows-how-long beating and raping her?
Things like this are very, very unfortunate, and I hope that the Rudd government improves on Howards policy.
Also, I’d like to take the opportunity to applaud the following;
But in a significant win earlier this year, the High Court upheld the conviction of a Melbourne madam who became the first person in Australia found guilty of sexual slavery. It was a landmark judgment that defines the conditions of modern-day slavery. The decision meant former Brunswick brothel owner Wei Tang, 46, was returned to jail to finish the 10-year sentence she received in 2006 when convicted of keeping five Thai women as sex slaves.
Although, I feel ten years is far too little for sex slavers, I am glad that people will be brought to justice for such oppression.
First of all an apology for the late publish of my normally Sunday article.
What is the point of having a government?
Well, different people will tell you different things such as ‘promote equality’, ‘Protect the nation’, ‘Promote opportunity’, ‘Protect a culture’, etc. Personally, I would describe the purpose of government as having to unfailingly serve the people.
The reason the government should unfailingly serve the people is rather simple; The government receives all of its benefits, without exception, from the people. It exists through the support of the people, it protects itself with the help of the people, its economy grows thanks to the people, its successes and failures, inevitably, are tied to the status of the people. Thus it is in a permanent debt to the people.
So how do we create a government that unfailingly serves its masters?
This is achievable through a few methods. Importantly, I think one of the methods is democracy. If the majority of the people that serve the government want something, what right does the government, who owes the people to its existence, have to say ‘no’? Actually, I would go so far as to say that the only reason the government can refuse the desires of its people, is if the government is protecting other people that it owes a debt too. Which makes the supreme court absolutely imperative to responsible government.
Also, I’d like to add compulsory voting. A controversial subject, but in my experience as an Australian, and comparison to examples of voluntary voting (we could draw on the Gore-Bush 2000 election bungle as a prime example) we see that only through compulsory voting can a government successfully address the desires of the people, and be responsible to it.
Transparency is the final major issue I’d like to bring up as the purpose of government. Apart from issues of serious national security and each individuals’ right to privacy, it is absolutely necessary that a government remain as transparent as possible. This means that the people will truly know what is going on with their powers, and furthermore, holds the government accountable to all of its actions.
So, what then is the ideal government? It is a democratic one, with compulsory voting and a high degree of transparency. Only through this will the government be truly a servant of the people. Lacking even one of these gives it routes and ways to overcome or ignore the desires of the population.
Yet, pragmatism is required. For when the government answers the people, and as the people listen to the media, the media then has total (as opposed to substantial) control over the government. For this reason, I question my ideal in the current world context.
Read on another blog, here: http://ourcognitivesurplus.com/2008/11/25/no-bipartisan-support-for-internet-censorship/
and they also link to the Liberal Party website, here: http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=2155
That Conroy’s plan to censor the internet will almost certainly either fail, or be reduced to something negligible (say, opt-in) thanks to Senator Minchin settling on opposing the plan.
So in this I celebrate. Forgive this blogger for the self-reference.
Slightly old news, but I decided to give my piece on this particular development in British politics.
Indeed the exposition of British National Party membership lists has caused a lot of controversy, including here in Australia, and led to the sacking of a British Radio host, and it also became known British MX1 motocross champion Billy McKenzie was a member.
Now, I’m no supporter of the stench of racism that surrounds this party, nor am I a supporter of the far right by any stretch of the imagination, yet I find the public witch hunt absolutely tasteless.
In free speech countries, that is, truly free speech countries, people are accepted of any denomination. As unfortunate as it is that an angry, anti-immigration party like the BNP not only exists, but thrives as a major player in Britains third tier of political parties, it is none the less evident of serious troubles facing the Western Nation, and probably the world. To condemn the BNP and kick them to the backwaters because they have skinhead positions is to commit the same crime they wish to; to discriminate.
The perhaps best comment I could find on the story was by The Australian newspaper, a preferred source of mine, here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24686179-2703,00.html
Here, the information provided suggests that Gordon Brown is going to legally allow unions to ban BNP members from their organisations because they belong to the BNP. It’s frightening, disgusting, even, that someone in a modern western nation faces persecution for belonging to the far right.
So, joining in the public condemnation of the paranoid policy of the BNP, I must instead side with it on the case for its place in politics. For even if it is trerribly, terribly wrong, the British National Party deserves to exist in a nation of free speech.
So today I’ll try and tackle one of those big and messy issues. I do so because this was one of the questions on an exam I had recently (Solving world poverty 
) and it got me thinking, this is the fruits of my research and formulation of opinion. This happens to be especially long, but I invite anyone to read any or all of it and respond accordingly, I’d like to have this position fleshed out well before I start throwing it about whenever the topic gets brought up.
Overview & Introduction-
First of all, can I say that I am of the opinion that though noble, charity organisations can often find themselves squandering money on pointless things, or things that only benefit the poor temporarily, or losing money to corruption (especially when it is simply given to a target poor nation). Also, I am of the opinion that though noble, the microfinancing organisations, Grameen bank being the key leader, it is essentially a for-profit organisation, and many families that take the microfinance option often find themselves in debt traps. The best example of this opinion I could find is perhaps Sudhirendar Sharma who takes this position here: http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2002/09/25/stories/2002092500810900.htm
He articulates well the troubles faced by the Grameen Banks clients.
On to the solution. Now, it may seem blatantly obvious, however, countries with the least poverty are actually ‘rich’ countries. Countries that have a high GDP (e.g. the United States), countries whose citizens are richest (e.g. Norway) and the like, are countries whose population are least suffering of poverty, and have the highest living standards alike. Following with this theory, countries that are poor (African nations, especially Zimbabwe) and Corrupt (Zimbabwe again serves as an ideal example) as well as lacking a free market (USSR until collapse, North Korea, etc) are the highest in poverty.
So why then have the main efforts to reduce world poverty been intrinsically tied to the grassroots of the perverse world. Charities, who provide on-the-ground relief, onl provide the poor with the food to survive, not the intellectual property to prosper, or the money to invest, and microfinance only consolidates the debt that the poor recieve.
Instead, the best option to tackle world poverty would be the elimination of corruption and the opening of free trade. Yes, the worlds poorest nations have a funny problem, most of them rely on the infamous, and heavilky protected agriculture industry. The only country I can think of which relies heavily on its agriculture and still made it to the first world is the rather uniquely positioned Australia, Perhaps you could also count the USA.
Elimination of Corruption-
When you ask people how to correctly establish a transparent, honest government into power, you will mostly get two groups. The Cold War dubbed these groups ‘Hawks’ and ‘Doves’, people who provide War as a solution, and people who provide peace as a solution.
The residual Hawks have dominated the US government since they claimed victory against the Doves for Reagans toughness policy collapsing the USSR, and the modern ‘Hawk’ is perhaps the Neo-Conservative, or at least the individual who supports either or both Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It is this plicy which attacks corruption with brutal force, followed up by the installation of a new government friendly to the army that installed it. Yet this policy has proven rather fallacious. We can see that forcefully installed governments lack popular support and often find themselves in dire straights. That is, if we look at Soviet Hungary, or Yugislavia for that matter, we can see unpopularly enforced regimes tumbling down thanks to the Hawk-like nature of their establishment.
So what’s wrong with Doves? Doves, unlike Hawks, advertise negotiation and the application of soft power in order to promote the goals of the nation the Dove supports. Doves brought about Nuclear Proliferation treaties, Doves brought about cease fires during wars, but when do Doves actually remove a corrupt government? Dove solutions make inroads, but eliminating world poverty does not require inroads, Dove solutions require concessions too, and making concessions to corrupt governments is not the best way to appear like the infallible good guy. If the North Korea experiment taught us anything, it was that concessions are not always adhered too, either.
So here is an idea. An idea neither dove nor Hawk, though arguably Hawkish in nature.
As history has proven, the most successful governments, the ones found most popular, most supported, and most likely to work for the good of the people, are the ones backed by the people. Albeit Marxist, the best solution for eliminating world corruption, is to let the corrupt governments topple when their people revolt. The astute United States President does not need to trample down the doors of Hussein’s fort while heroically yelling ‘I’ll save you!’, and nor does it need to timidly ask for the right to inspect the corrupt governments institutions or elections. When the people, the population within the borders of the corrupt government get sick of being stomped on, sick of the Orwellian style oppression, they will inevitably mass together and rebel. This is the chance for the USA, for the UN to act. Capitalise on the peoples movement and fund them, back them, even provide troop support for them (if they want it and only if) but there is absolutely no need to start the war for them. We can see how these revolutions work. The Georgian Rose Revolution, the East Timor rebellion, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the establishment of the United States after civil war. All of them were inevitably successful thanks to the popular backing of the people, all were distinctly lacking in corruption (Though Georgia admittedly has its own significant problems). So why should we not adopt a strategy not of ‘Push the domino’ but ‘help it fall’.
Note though, that the most troublesome aspect of this policy is that ideology is a risk. When governments choose to back or counter a popular revolution for ideological reasons, trouble always ensues. The Nicaraguan Contras vs Sandinistas civil war is an ideal example of this. The ‘Contras’ which means ‘Counter’ in English I believe, committed as many atrocities as their popular opponents. So ideally, but it is probably well beyond any reasonable expectation, it would be the responsibility of the honest governments to support the popular movement, and not become the ideological warrior.
Further, casting ideology-based embargoes around like there is no tomorrow does not work either. Popular leaders Hugo Chavez and Fidel (now Raul) Castro have4 proven the resilience of popular governments, no matter how significant the economic pressure is. Thus, when adopting this strategy, the applicant must be patient, focussing punishment on unpopular governments only.
Post-Corruption-
After the despotic governments are removed, there is a significant development to acknowledge. When a new government is formed, they will always succeed if they are backed by the most powerful governments, no matter who surrounds them. Israel is the perfect example of this. So, every time a revolution is undertaken and succeeds, whatever the popular movement replaces the corrupt previous government with, reward them. Lift agricultural trade barriers, open them up to offers of forgetting debt, etc, and the new government will thrive. It’s proven to work. This leads to a richer country. A richer country, when not corrupt, as logically concluded earlier, is less in poverty.
Thus Free Trade arrives as the next step. We, as people, need to lift trade barriers to the new, non-corrupt nations with popular backing, thus allowing the new nation, or new government to thrive in its existence.
Conclusion-
Ultimately, I find this to be the best way to solve world poverty. Focussing on the core functions of soft and hard power and using them only in tandem with popular movements rather than either busting down doors, or timidly approaching the corrupt individuals, and opening up trade only after corruption is eliminated, rather than offering lowest-level support which does nothing, or offering them even greater albeit consolidated debt cycles.
For those who are not painfully aware, the newly elected Australian Labor Party government has a platform. The platform of course, is ‘introduce a global, unavoidable internet censorship filter to Australian Internet’. The Labor party, which censors its own members from publicly speaking out against the party, has decided that its policy might work on Australia as a whole, I suppose.
Like all who strip freedoms from people, Conroy and Rudd have hidden behind the morals card, saying that Child Pornography is the basis of the filter, yet even as the Greens question him in parliament he has to qualify this with ‘and other undesirable content’.
Senator Conroy, what is ‘undesirable content’ ?
An interesting article was brought to my attention, and serves to illustrate just how pointless this idea of ‘internet filtering’ is. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald, and is referring to Managing Director of iinet Michael Malone.
Link Here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/11/11/1226318639085.html
Michael Malone, managing director iiNet, said he would sign up to be involved in the “ridiculous” trials, which are scheduled to commence by December 24 this year.
…
But Malone’s main purpose was to provide the Government with “hard numbers” demonstrating “how stupid it is” – specifically that the filtering system would not work, would be patently simple to bypass, would not filter peer-to-peer traffic and would significantly degrade network speeds.
“They’re not listening to the experts, they’re not listening to the industry, they’re not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help,” he said.
“Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we’ll be publicising it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we’ll be publicising it.”
Malone concluded: “This is the worst Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed.”
That’s right, consumers, experts, and the industry are telling Conroy to bugger off, telling him it will slow the internet down by as much as 83%, telling him that tax payer money is going to be wasted, that the filter is unworkable, flawed, telling him to let us opt in if we want rather than not be able to opt out at all, telling him that the Australian internet has more important problems to fix. Yet senator Conroy every day speaks out in favour of this plan, ignoring the criticism, ignoring the opposition, the facts, the people, the experts. What has happened to the so called working class party, the so-called Labor Party?
Disaffected with them, I turned to the only man who can stand in this bills way now. Senator Nick Minchin. I sent him an email that implored, nay, almost begged him to oppose it. In typical Liberal style, and with the populist strategy adopted by the Liberal party in mind, Senator Minchin uttered this feeble dodging response:
Thank you for your email in which you express your views in relation to the
Federal Government’s plans to introduce a mandatory internet filtering
system in this country.
There are many concerns in the community both about the effect of this
measure on system performance and the manner in which a blanket arbitrary
determination about web content will be imposed by the Government.
Internet Service Providers are also understandably concerned about the
impact that Labor’s scheme will have on business.
The Coalition fully supports guarding our children from being exposed to
inappropriate internet content, and is of the firm belief that parental and adult
supervision and guidance should be front and centre of all efforts.
We also believe that in relation to criminal conduct online, our nation’s law
enforcement bodies should be adequately resourced to monitor and
investigate unlawful activity.
On 28 July, the Government announced it was seeking expressions of interest
for participants in a live pilot trial for its filtering concept after conducting
limited laboratory tests.
The Coalition will monitor the progress of this trial with great interest and
make a considered assessment based on its outcomes. This will include
analysis of the specifications and performance of the filtering methods tested.
Thank you again for taking the time to express your views on this issue,
which will be taken into account when the Coalition makes its final
assessment of the Government’s plan.
Yours sincerely
NICK MINCHIN
This was the Minchin position as of the 24th of October. Today, I sent another email to Malcolm Turnbull, who no longer has just emerged as leader and can no longer simply disregard my queries as too early for him to say due to his newly attained position. I fear however, he is more interested in hammering the Labor party for the blank-cheque support it gave to Australian Banks rather than a meagre internet censorship policy.
All I can do now, all the Australian people can do now, is wait for these ‘tests’. Wait for Minchin to put his glass of water down and speak up. I can only hope he isn’t in the pockets of some evil anti-freedom group, like say the Australian Christian Lobby, who decided that ‘illegal hard-core material’ needed to be removed by restricting the Internet.
Source: http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=25174
Bah. At least the Greens have spoken up about it. That means Labor will only pass the bill if the Liberal Party passes it. I hope it fails, and I hope the resounding message ousts Conroy at the next senate elections. I hope.
