Looks like the great firewall of Australia is going to go ahead. But it's okay, it's only blocking what we don't need to see anyway. Maybe no longer would we have to face the scourge of the hidden link to meatspin or lemon party, or nervously laugh at the contents of Encyclopedia Dramatica. And when a friend links to a disturbing video, we can be safe in the knowledge that it will be a dog eating its own faeces as opposed to two girls.
Maybe.
There's no doubt that the internet is has some pretty disturbing content. The seedy underbelly of a liberal society on display for anyone to see. And that seems to be the problem. While most of us can get by just fine without knowing what it's like to view the most vile disgusting behaviour humanity has to offer (I for one will die happy never seeing Paris Hilton naked), there's always someone who is willing to push the limits.
While some of the content proposed to be filtered I would love to see gone, I just can't support such a proposal as what is on offer. Beyond all else it is invasive and invasive to the freedom of adults to choose what is right for them. The principle of liberty, that the freedom to swing my fist ends when it connects with your mouth, this is what is at stake.
Taking on child abuse, rape, murder - where the liberties of one is being violated by another - maybe there's a case to be had. As there may be a case for voluntary filtering to assist parents. But mandatory filtering for all? No thank you. Helping parents to prevent a child from seeing a penis penetrating a vagina is different from banning the image for all.
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. A society is a society of law, and the law must be upheld to maintain society. By having products where one can subvert the law, it makes a mockery of democracy. So I hope that Mr Conroy will speak to the transport minister about implementing the same technology in motor vehicles.
Cars, trucks, motorbikes can sometimes do in excess of 200km/h! Now where on any of the roads can anyone do more than 110? What I propose is that all vehicles be fitted with devices that cut off the engine whenever a car exceeds 120km/h. It's the speed limit +10. Now I know that's risky, as it will give people the ability to drive up to 10km/h outside the law, but it's a good start.
Though it doesn't need to be only that way. With this new GPS technology around, we could stop speeding once and for all. The technology is there now to enforce the mandatory speed limit all over the country. It could stop many accidents and many lives!
After all, there's no reason why cars should go higher than the fastest that is permissible on the roads. And such measures to my mind would be much more beneficial than putting a filter on the internet. Yet why isn't such a device being proposed? Or for that matter, devices that ensure that anyone behind a wheel is sober? Maybe it's the cost of such a system.
More likely methinks is such a system is unnecessarily intrusive. And in this matter, it's actually directly relevant to the law. The internet filter is not going to do that, and any harm it does prevent is merely incidental. Instead it's just something the government can look to be doing in order to "help" in raising children. Though how blocking the internet of everyone will do that remains to be seen. If Joe-sixpack has no children or Joe-computernerd can protect his system up, then does it matter so much that they might enjoy trolling on 4chan? Or if they are into fetish porn, who am I to say they can't watch that just in case my hypothetical children might stumble across "Adam and Steve in Extreme Anal Bondage 7"
What the internet shows is an insight into humanity, and one that it seems that some can't stand the sight of. It's paradoxically simultaneously in ones home and for everyone to see. And if it turns out that society is not as "moral" as it was perceived to be, then obviously the disconnect needs to be blamed on something. And while any real evidence of the dangers of the internet or the effectiveness of a filter are lacking*, such empirical shortcomings don't stop in the way of hijacking sensationalism.
It seems odd that such a situation would be preferable to actually helping spread awareness or offering parents support. That the government is being misleading by pointing to other western countries as justification, conveniently omitting the optional nature of such filters, just goes to show that once again the group pushing for the moral high-ground are pushing moral bankruptcy. The least one should be able to expect on issues of ethical significance is openness. Cherry picking data, talking up the dangers that present to children and misleading the public about the nature of the systems are not something a liberal democracy should do.
There may be an issue to explore, there may be legitimate concerns, the interest of protection of some content in regards to the safety of individuals. But this is not playing out this way, sensationalism and the grab for morality is what is on offer; highlighting once again what an ineffective and weak opposition means in a democracy. No pressure to get this bill right, no means to keep this bill accountable - not that I expect the Australian conservatives to be any better sadly.
The paradox of the internet leaves it in a different situation from other media we consume. It's not just consuming, but also contributing. And because of the interactivity, that is reason alone to step very carefully around the technology. It does have privacy in a way that other media doesn't. It's an open forum, one that companies are spending much energies to make as safe as possible for children. Long story short, the net will give what people put into it. So much for free will...
*to my knowledge
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Monday, 1 December 2008
Internet Censorship
Australia is going down the path of China, well sort of. It's not enough that Australia is bedfellows with such an oppressive regime, it now seems we are going down the path of the great firewall. Okay, I'm being a little extreme here. It's not going to be that bad, though the argument that those opposed to the censorship are enabling child pornography is a far worse slander. Clive Hamilton recently weighed in with his opinion, blasting the libertarian mantra on the issue. Here's a non-libertarian reply.
Won't someone please think of the children?
The may Dr Hamilton has constructed his argument makes for a sound rebuttal of the absolute libertarian position. That notion of absolute individualism is at odds with society and the restrictions we have when we play in it. But I can't help here to think his argument is a straw man, that by equating the libertarian argument to the protection of children he's making the same fallacy as anti-drug advocates do. You'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who would be against a voluntary filter, it's that it's mandatory where the problem lies.
Herein lies the false dichotomy presented by Dr Hamilton, it's either everything is permissible to everyone or the government should be allowed to censor for everyone. In writing his condemnation of the selfish individualists who are vehemently opposed to censorship, he's neglected the most fundamental principle of a liberal democracy: choice. There is a big difference between a voluntary and a mandatory system, and a voluntary system gives choice to those presented. It allows the government to help out the parents who need help, not everyone has the technical ability to censor their own system. But not everyone is a parent, not everyone needs to have their internet censored to protect children.
In Australia's film and literature classification system, we have grades depending on the content. There are certain films that are adults only and as a consequence only adults can view them. Arguing that the internet needs to be censored for all is like arguing that adult films shouldn't be allowed because children could watch them. The same argument too is against the R rating for computer games, the double standard in our society is explicit. There are plenty of exceptions that are made for adults, adults can drink, smoke tobacco, and they can gamble. They can read and view material that children can't. It's important to remember that even the opt-out option will still block material that's available to buy in certain stores.
Having the government help out having parents make informed choices should be part of a liberal democracy. Hamilton is right to rebuke those who argue that paternal responsibility doesn't have some social responsibility. This to me sums up his argument in a nutshell:
Technical feasibility
There are several factors to take into account: how many false positives there are, how many false negatives there are, the overall loss in bandwidth, and how easy it is to bypass the filter. Is having a browser based filter a better overall solution than a ISP-based filter? How can one objectively measure such claims? To me, if even a single legitimate page is censored then the filter is not doing it's job. But others would think differently and see that if a recipe containing chicken breast being blocked so a child doesn't see an exposed breast then the sacrifice was worth it. There's no way to objectively measure the effects of technology without appealing to some idealism. Freedom of speech and expression have been long touted as examples of Australia's freedom, so surely as an ideal it needs to play some role in being a base on which to make an objective measure.
Other technologies to consider are the different protocols that will not be affected at all by the filter. Peer-to-peer networks, cryptographic networks such as Freenet. There are plenty of cryptographic technologies and mechanisms to hide one's online identity. To push more users into these kinds of technologies will make a mockery of any filter - for not only will people have access to otherwise restricted content, there will be no way of having any enforcement. The open system allows for the catching of those who do view dangerous material like child pornography.
The internet is a global communications network, and Australia is but one hub on the network. Our laws can't control what is put on elsewhere in the world, but it's still accessible. Like companies that take advantage of tax breaks in other countries, the laws of one country can be bypassed by setting up shop in another. I wonder how politicians would feel about preventing the practice by banning any company from trade that goes offshore for tax breaks. I'm betting the take-up would be quite low. After all money talks. The point is that we operate on a global network every day including with unfavourable nations and business practices. China buys our iron ore and we turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses there, again money talks.
In the end, it all comes down to on an ethical level the best way to serve the interests of the vast majority of the population. The compromise between freedom and security is at the heart of this issue, how much freedom do we need to trade in to protect us from ourselves? More so, how much freedom do we need to sacrifice of ourselves for the security of others? How many people are on internet connections that do not need such protection? How many people do need protection and to what extent does that need to be there? Here it seems to be that mandatory censorship is problematic, it seeks to bypass asking those questions by giving a blanket effect on the ban. And if that mandatory filtering is going to have a false positive rate of 3% and reduce speeds by at least 11%, is it the best way for society to go for those who don't need such a ban?
The Infocalypse is nigh
Former Intel engineer and crypto-anarchist Timothy C. May talked of the Four Horsemen Of The Infocalypse: terrorists, paedophiles, drug dealers and money launderers. These horsemen are demons in our society that can be used to gain public support. In this debate, Stephen Conroy has invoked the horsemen "paedophiles". The tactic for using these horsemen is as follows.
All I'm hearing when I read through Clive Hamilton's prose was Mrs. Lovejoy off The Simpsons screeching "won't someone please think of the children?"
Won't someone please think of the children?
The may Dr Hamilton has constructed his argument makes for a sound rebuttal of the absolute libertarian position. That notion of absolute individualism is at odds with society and the restrictions we have when we play in it. But I can't help here to think his argument is a straw man, that by equating the libertarian argument to the protection of children he's making the same fallacy as anti-drug advocates do. You'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who would be against a voluntary filter, it's that it's mandatory where the problem lies.
Herein lies the false dichotomy presented by Dr Hamilton, it's either everything is permissible to everyone or the government should be allowed to censor for everyone. In writing his condemnation of the selfish individualists who are vehemently opposed to censorship, he's neglected the most fundamental principle of a liberal democracy: choice. There is a big difference between a voluntary and a mandatory system, and a voluntary system gives choice to those presented. It allows the government to help out the parents who need help, not everyone has the technical ability to censor their own system. But not everyone is a parent, not everyone needs to have their internet censored to protect children.
In Australia's film and literature classification system, we have grades depending on the content. There are certain films that are adults only and as a consequence only adults can view them. Arguing that the internet needs to be censored for all is like arguing that adult films shouldn't be allowed because children could watch them. The same argument too is against the R rating for computer games, the double standard in our society is explicit. There are plenty of exceptions that are made for adults, adults can drink, smoke tobacco, and they can gamble. They can read and view material that children can't. It's important to remember that even the opt-out option will still block material that's available to buy in certain stores.
Having the government help out having parents make informed choices should be part of a liberal democracy. Hamilton is right to rebuke those who argue that paternal responsibility doesn't have some social responsibility. This to me sums up his argument in a nutshell:
This argument for mandatory internet filters is in principle the same as the argument for the film censorship system. In the libertarian world where individual rights overrule social responsibilities we would have no film censor and kids could go to the cinema to watch whatever they liked. The film censorship system is pretty good at balancing the variety of viewpoints in the community.It's possible to be in favour of the ratings system and still want to be able to see R-rated films. The argument he is giving is that adults should not be able to see R-rated films because children can't either. By censoring the internet, you are taking away an adults ability to go and see an R-rated film. Parents can still buy or rent R-rated DVDs, and children could still watch them if they are unsupervised. What's to stop a child from watching an R-rated film that their parents have a copy of? It does come down to parenting in the end, and while the government can assist in choice, ultimately whether a child watches an unsuitable film is an element they can't control.
"The whole principle is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." - Robert Heinlein on censorship
Technical feasibility
We need a community debate on the question of whether we should do it before we consider the question of whether we can do it because too many internet libertarians and industry spokespeople cover up their refusal to countenance any sort of regulation by insisting that it won't work.From an ethical perspective, maybe this idea has some validity. From a pragmatic perspective, it's a pointless discussion if it can't be done. Prohibition of alcohol is pointless because of how easy it is to make your own (I have some brewing right now.) To me the discussion is tied to the practicality of the measures, there's no point in talking about building an electricity grid on the assumption of superconductivity if there are no room temperature superconductors. So in that any argument for or against censorship on a practical level can only be done in the boundaries of what is possible.
There are several factors to take into account: how many false positives there are, how many false negatives there are, the overall loss in bandwidth, and how easy it is to bypass the filter. Is having a browser based filter a better overall solution than a ISP-based filter? How can one objectively measure such claims? To me, if even a single legitimate page is censored then the filter is not doing it's job. But others would think differently and see that if a recipe containing chicken breast being blocked so a child doesn't see an exposed breast then the sacrifice was worth it. There's no way to objectively measure the effects of technology without appealing to some idealism. Freedom of speech and expression have been long touted as examples of Australia's freedom, so surely as an ideal it needs to play some role in being a base on which to make an objective measure.
Other technologies to consider are the different protocols that will not be affected at all by the filter. Peer-to-peer networks, cryptographic networks such as Freenet. There are plenty of cryptographic technologies and mechanisms to hide one's online identity. To push more users into these kinds of technologies will make a mockery of any filter - for not only will people have access to otherwise restricted content, there will be no way of having any enforcement. The open system allows for the catching of those who do view dangerous material like child pornography.
The internet is a global communications network, and Australia is but one hub on the network. Our laws can't control what is put on elsewhere in the world, but it's still accessible. Like companies that take advantage of tax breaks in other countries, the laws of one country can be bypassed by setting up shop in another. I wonder how politicians would feel about preventing the practice by banning any company from trade that goes offshore for tax breaks. I'm betting the take-up would be quite low. After all money talks. The point is that we operate on a global network every day including with unfavourable nations and business practices. China buys our iron ore and we turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses there, again money talks.
In the end, it all comes down to on an ethical level the best way to serve the interests of the vast majority of the population. The compromise between freedom and security is at the heart of this issue, how much freedom do we need to trade in to protect us from ourselves? More so, how much freedom do we need to sacrifice of ourselves for the security of others? How many people are on internet connections that do not need such protection? How many people do need protection and to what extent does that need to be there? Here it seems to be that mandatory censorship is problematic, it seeks to bypass asking those questions by giving a blanket effect on the ban. And if that mandatory filtering is going to have a false positive rate of 3% and reduce speeds by at least 11%, is it the best way for society to go for those who don't need such a ban?
The Infocalypse is nigh
Former Intel engineer and crypto-anarchist Timothy C. May talked of the Four Horsemen Of The Infocalypse: terrorists, paedophiles, drug dealers and money launderers. These horsemen are demons in our society that can be used to gain public support. In this debate, Stephen Conroy has invoked the horsemen "paedophiles". The tactic for using these horsemen is as follows.
How to get what you want in 4 easy stages:
1. Have a target "thing" you wish to stop, yet lack any moral, or practical reasons for doing so?
2. Pick a fear common to lots of people, something that will evoke a gut reaction: terrorists, pedophiles, serial killers.
3. Scream loudly to the media that "thing" is being used by perpetrators. (Don't worry if this is true, or common to all other things, or less common with "thing" than with other long established systems - payphones, paper mail, private hotel rooms, lack of bugs in all houses etc)
4. Say that the only way to stop perpetrators is to close down "thing", or to regulate it to death, or to have laws forcing en-mass tapability of all private communications on "thing". Don't worry if communicating on "thing" is a constitutionally protected right, if you have done a good job in choosing and publicising the horsemen in 2, no one will notice, they will be too busy clamouring for you to save them from the supposed evils.All I'm hearing when I read through Clive Hamilton's prose was Mrs. Lovejoy off The Simpsons screeching "won't someone please think of the children?"
Friday, 25 July 2008
Censorship Fallout
As yet another high profile game fails to meet the censor's stringent requirements, us gamers are left to befoul the most draconian censorship platform of games in the developed world. It's beyond a joke that Australia doesn't have an R 18+ rating for games, it stems from a complete misunderstanding of the medium as an entertainment source. The average age of a gamer in Australia in 2006 was 28 years old, and over half of gamers are over 18. This is fairly consistent with trends from elsewhere. Over 88% of Australians support an R rating for games. These are telling factors, yet there are still hurdles to overcome: namely attorney generals who have no clue about modern culture. The desire to protect children is one thing, to cut off the majority of the market in order to protect children is another.
Protecting children
On the show Q&A, a member of the audience asked a question about why we don't have an R rating. One thing that amazed me is how often the response is that it's about protecting children. "I have kids who play games" came up more than once. It's completely missing the whole point of the debate. The R rating is a means of restricting children from playing the game. To give certain games an R rating would remove it from the hands of children, much like doing so with films does so, much like making alcohol restricted removes it from the hands of children. Of course it's not perfect and kids still watch R rated films, just as kids still drink and smoke. The problem here is consistency, if parents can determine what is best for their children in terms of films, why can't they do the same with games?
The next point in the line of protecting children (keep in mind that R ratings are for adults only) is that interactive media is so much worse than films or books. And what evidence is there to support this? Turns out there is none. The studies on this field are scarce. But from the studies there are, there is nothing to suggest that violent games have any more effect than television. What is different about clicking a button to make violence happen than watching it? Most of the time, we don't passively watch films. If the film is engaging, we are actively taking part. Same goes for a good book. Games are no different to any other media in this respect, making minor choices in the direction of the media surely couldn't make it stand out.
The final point seems to be the idea of harm minimisation in society in general. And I agree with this point. If a particular medium causes enough social harm which greatly outweighs it's benefit then it shouldn't be allowed for sale. This goes for drugs including alcohol, gambling, extreme media like snuff or rape films. If there is a severe negative impact which is detrimental to society then it should be reviewed. So lets examine games under a critical eye:
Consistency
Democracy can show it's flaws at times, the fallibility or ignorance of individual politicians on matters they have authority over is astounding. The bureaucrats who write the guidelines are sometimes so ignorant of the legislation they pass that even the most hardened supporter of the democratic process would be disillusioned. Gaming is a new medium, and while we now have a generation that grew up with games, it's original place as a niche market means that there is a generation gap between those who saw it's conception and the mainstream entertainment source we have now. As it's acceptance as a valid form of entertainment is kept at bay by ignorant commentators using the art form as a scape goat, the doubt in peoples minds is constantly part of the media spotlight.
A ratings system only works if it's consistent, and in Australia we don't have consistent guidelines. What good reason is there that sex can be shown in M rated films (and sometimes even PG) but the slight bit of sex in a game makes it unusable? Same goes for drugs. Fallout 3 was banned because it references the drug morphine, yet we can see the effects of drugs in M rated films and television. Some of the violence in games is deplorable, yet it's given an MA rating where the equivalent film would be rated R. Is this because it's interactive games are meant to be worse? It's those inconsistencies that make ratings irrelevant. It's those inconsistencies that confuse parents. For adults like myself, the rating is already irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if a movie is G or R, just like it doesn't matter for a game. I'm not a parent.
And that's the core issue in the end. As much as we want to protect children from harm, which is a noble aim, the bottom line is that entertainment mediums are there for everyone. Just like films such as Pulp Fiction or Hostel, there are games that cater for that adult audience. Having parents allowing their children to play a game like Grand Theft Auto would be around the same level as letting them watch something like Saw. But children aren't the only users of the medium. It's up to parents to protect their children from harm, and society as a whole shouldn't be deprived of the freedom of choice because of a few bad parents. What point is a ratings system if the government doesn't trust the population to use it properly?
Protecting children
On the show Q&A, a member of the audience asked a question about why we don't have an R rating. One thing that amazed me is how often the response is that it's about protecting children. "I have kids who play games" came up more than once. It's completely missing the whole point of the debate. The R rating is a means of restricting children from playing the game. To give certain games an R rating would remove it from the hands of children, much like doing so with films does so, much like making alcohol restricted removes it from the hands of children. Of course it's not perfect and kids still watch R rated films, just as kids still drink and smoke. The problem here is consistency, if parents can determine what is best for their children in terms of films, why can't they do the same with games?
The next point in the line of protecting children (keep in mind that R ratings are for adults only) is that interactive media is so much worse than films or books. And what evidence is there to support this? Turns out there is none. The studies on this field are scarce. But from the studies there are, there is nothing to suggest that violent games have any more effect than television. What is different about clicking a button to make violence happen than watching it? Most of the time, we don't passively watch films. If the film is engaging, we are actively taking part. Same goes for a good book. Games are no different to any other media in this respect, making minor choices in the direction of the media surely couldn't make it stand out.
The final point seems to be the idea of harm minimisation in society in general. And I agree with this point. If a particular medium causes enough social harm which greatly outweighs it's benefit then it shouldn't be allowed for sale. This goes for drugs including alcohol, gambling, extreme media like snuff or rape films. If there is a severe negative impact which is detrimental to society then it should be reviewed. So lets examine games under a critical eye:
- Gaming is becoming more and more a social medium. Anti-social behaviour is one of the biggest factors people cite in the need to censor games.
- Violent crimes in recent years has gone down. While correlation does not equate to causation, if there were a link between violent games and violent behaviour, then as game sales rise, then a trend showing the opposite shouldn't be there.
Consistency
Democracy can show it's flaws at times, the fallibility or ignorance of individual politicians on matters they have authority over is astounding. The bureaucrats who write the guidelines are sometimes so ignorant of the legislation they pass that even the most hardened supporter of the democratic process would be disillusioned. Gaming is a new medium, and while we now have a generation that grew up with games, it's original place as a niche market means that there is a generation gap between those who saw it's conception and the mainstream entertainment source we have now. As it's acceptance as a valid form of entertainment is kept at bay by ignorant commentators using the art form as a scape goat, the doubt in peoples minds is constantly part of the media spotlight.
A ratings system only works if it's consistent, and in Australia we don't have consistent guidelines. What good reason is there that sex can be shown in M rated films (and sometimes even PG) but the slight bit of sex in a game makes it unusable? Same goes for drugs. Fallout 3 was banned because it references the drug morphine, yet we can see the effects of drugs in M rated films and television. Some of the violence in games is deplorable, yet it's given an MA rating where the equivalent film would be rated R. Is this because it's interactive games are meant to be worse? It's those inconsistencies that make ratings irrelevant. It's those inconsistencies that confuse parents. For adults like myself, the rating is already irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest if a movie is G or R, just like it doesn't matter for a game. I'm not a parent.
And that's the core issue in the end. As much as we want to protect children from harm, which is a noble aim, the bottom line is that entertainment mediums are there for everyone. Just like films such as Pulp Fiction or Hostel, there are games that cater for that adult audience. Having parents allowing their children to play a game like Grand Theft Auto would be around the same level as letting them watch something like Saw. But children aren't the only users of the medium. It's up to parents to protect their children from harm, and society as a whole shouldn't be deprived of the freedom of choice because of a few bad parents. What point is a ratings system if the government doesn't trust the population to use it properly?
Monday, 14 July 2008
Catholic Tourist Week
A poor play on the title World Youth Day I know, but it's a far more accurate description of the event befalling Sydney in the coming week. Maybe the title is the church's way to delude itself into thinking it's still relevant, maybe they are genuinely trying to touch the youth of the world in a non-paedophilic way, maybe the misnomer of the title comes from the international and diocesan differing in the range of events, I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public money to facilitate an archaic and nutty belief system is detrimental for society and the planet as a whole.
The cost of belief
I know I'm going against the majority of secularists on my views, but I wasn't completely opposed to the public funding of this event. There's a good part of our population who is Catholic and it's a major event that could showcase Sydney as an ideal tourist location. State governments help fund major events all the time that can't financially support themselves, the Formula 1 race in Melbourne each year is an example. There is a need to promote tourism, and having a city host glamorous events really puts it on the world stage. It may not be a financial winner right now, but if it goes well it could help attract tourists in the future. Though the same was said about the Olympics but Australia's location meant we didn't cash in like other cities that host the Olympics did. In any case, potential for the cities reputation and the local businesses looking to reap in tithes.
There is a grave concern over the separation of church and state. Now while it's impossible to keep the two completely separate, the financial independence of the two is well established. Religious organisations (and any corporate offshoots) don't pay taxes and in exchange the government staying away from the affairs of the church. So to have a church, one of the richest organisations in the world, receive funding after paying no tax is a violation of that financial boundary between the two institutions. This not only bodes poorly for having a secular government but opens the way for other religions to do the same with public money. How long now until Hillsong demand 10's of millions of dollars to bring a Ted Haggard out from the US? How long until some Muslim's demand the same to bring some radical cleric out to address the Islamic masses in Sydney? Or the Scientologists gaining public funding to bring out Tom Cruise?
It must be recognised that by giving money to one religion that others will ask for the same handouts to host similar events. And that is exactly the reason why there is a need for separation of church and state in a multicultural society. We can't have a government promoting one religion over another, nor can we have the government promoting religion over non-religion (or vice versa). Part of the reason there is a separation of church and state is to protect the church from state influences, so while it may seem like a helping hand from the government can do no harm it weakens the church's position of independence. Of course for an organisation that is of the size of the catholic church, being in bed with the government is a subversive means of keeping power it has otherwise lost to a liberal democracy, and that is something that should be a concern to anyone who wants a secular government. That's the real cost of publicly funding a religion, the cost of the freedoms that are lost.
I'm annoyed, where's my $5,500?
Above all else, the biggest concern out of world youth day is the annoyance laws brought in to stop protesters from harassing the pilgrims. Of course this was done in consultation with the church, though the erosion of civil liberties seems to be something that recent governments have no problems with. Maybe the ridiculous fines are a means to offset the spiralling costs of world youth day, because if it's a reduction in protests and harassment of WYD patrons that was the aim of the legislation then they have gotten it horribly wrong.
World Youth Day has been treated with a lot of apathy, people were indifferent to the concept apart from the fact it would be disruptive in the Sydney CBD. Now the laws are in, it's painting the protesters as the victims instead of those being harassed, which will lead to more widespread support of those protesting and it will lead to more people protesting who wouldn't have before. There is now a market for anti-WYD t-shirts, people trying to be as offensive as possible, people are now going to go out of their way to show civil disobedience. All that is fantastic because it's drawing focus towards the problems of the catholic church. It's anti-gay, anti-contraceptive, draconian message is being exposed for what it is, and it's no longer being hidden under a veil of religious tolerance.
The Catholic Church has had influence over our society and affairs for a long time. And as is always the case with power, comes corruption. As with all dogmatic systems (whether they be religious or otherwise) the rationalisation for the corruption becomes a part of the dogmatic systems. The stance on contraception in Africa means that over 100,000,000 people are at risk of AIDS, the stance on protecting paedophiles has meant that not only have kids been molested but those doing it have been afforded the opportunity to do so again and again as they are moved to different areas. The church has been more worried about protecting it's image than seeing those priests brought to justice for committing heinous crimes. Those who have been affected both directly and indirectly deserve their chance to protest, just as those who want to preserve the freedoms afforded by the separation of church and state. It needs to be known that the Catholic Church is fallible, that is has problems, and it's causing problems with the only rationalisation of that methodology being faith. Using the law to ensure the corruption and underhanded tactics of the church goes unnoticed is a grave concern.
A question of resource distribution
Paedophile-protector George Pell recently came out and defended the commercial aspect of world youth day. With over 40 different shirts, around 13 different hats, Guy Sebastian CDs, this event is really going to be a money spinner for a church. This is on top of the estimated $160 million that the state and federal government has put in to ensure this event would happen. Is the commercial aspect there to pay back the state government's generosity? I hope so. But sadly I think it'll be used to help line the church's coffers. One Sydney catholic priest came out critical of the event, saying the money could be better used to help the homeless. And with that comment, I could not agree more. The church's backbone in society has been it's ability to help those in need, and right now having a grand parade of sycophants flocking to the pope is not going to help with that image. The Catholic Church is an archaic institution daring people to show it's irrelevance in modern society, where it has the power to show it still has relevance; but that is being ignored in favour of promoting it's own grandeur. No wonder Catholics are lapsing in their faith and chuch attendance is lowering. Cease to be relevant and face the consequences.
The cost of belief
I know I'm going against the majority of secularists on my views, but I wasn't completely opposed to the public funding of this event. There's a good part of our population who is Catholic and it's a major event that could showcase Sydney as an ideal tourist location. State governments help fund major events all the time that can't financially support themselves, the Formula 1 race in Melbourne each year is an example. There is a need to promote tourism, and having a city host glamorous events really puts it on the world stage. It may not be a financial winner right now, but if it goes well it could help attract tourists in the future. Though the same was said about the Olympics but Australia's location meant we didn't cash in like other cities that host the Olympics did. In any case, potential for the cities reputation and the local businesses looking to reap in tithes.
There is a grave concern over the separation of church and state. Now while it's impossible to keep the two completely separate, the financial independence of the two is well established. Religious organisations (and any corporate offshoots) don't pay taxes and in exchange the government staying away from the affairs of the church. So to have a church, one of the richest organisations in the world, receive funding after paying no tax is a violation of that financial boundary between the two institutions. This not only bodes poorly for having a secular government but opens the way for other religions to do the same with public money. How long now until Hillsong demand 10's of millions of dollars to bring a Ted Haggard out from the US? How long until some Muslim's demand the same to bring some radical cleric out to address the Islamic masses in Sydney? Or the Scientologists gaining public funding to bring out Tom Cruise?
It must be recognised that by giving money to one religion that others will ask for the same handouts to host similar events. And that is exactly the reason why there is a need for separation of church and state in a multicultural society. We can't have a government promoting one religion over another, nor can we have the government promoting religion over non-religion (or vice versa). Part of the reason there is a separation of church and state is to protect the church from state influences, so while it may seem like a helping hand from the government can do no harm it weakens the church's position of independence. Of course for an organisation that is of the size of the catholic church, being in bed with the government is a subversive means of keeping power it has otherwise lost to a liberal democracy, and that is something that should be a concern to anyone who wants a secular government. That's the real cost of publicly funding a religion, the cost of the freedoms that are lost.
I'm annoyed, where's my $5,500?
Above all else, the biggest concern out of world youth day is the annoyance laws brought in to stop protesters from harassing the pilgrims. Of course this was done in consultation with the church, though the erosion of civil liberties seems to be something that recent governments have no problems with. Maybe the ridiculous fines are a means to offset the spiralling costs of world youth day, because if it's a reduction in protests and harassment of WYD patrons that was the aim of the legislation then they have gotten it horribly wrong.
World Youth Day has been treated with a lot of apathy, people were indifferent to the concept apart from the fact it would be disruptive in the Sydney CBD. Now the laws are in, it's painting the protesters as the victims instead of those being harassed, which will lead to more widespread support of those protesting and it will lead to more people protesting who wouldn't have before. There is now a market for anti-WYD t-shirts, people trying to be as offensive as possible, people are now going to go out of their way to show civil disobedience. All that is fantastic because it's drawing focus towards the problems of the catholic church. It's anti-gay, anti-contraceptive, draconian message is being exposed for what it is, and it's no longer being hidden under a veil of religious tolerance.
The Catholic Church has had influence over our society and affairs for a long time. And as is always the case with power, comes corruption. As with all dogmatic systems (whether they be religious or otherwise) the rationalisation for the corruption becomes a part of the dogmatic systems. The stance on contraception in Africa means that over 100,000,000 people are at risk of AIDS, the stance on protecting paedophiles has meant that not only have kids been molested but those doing it have been afforded the opportunity to do so again and again as they are moved to different areas. The church has been more worried about protecting it's image than seeing those priests brought to justice for committing heinous crimes. Those who have been affected both directly and indirectly deserve their chance to protest, just as those who want to preserve the freedoms afforded by the separation of church and state. It needs to be known that the Catholic Church is fallible, that is has problems, and it's causing problems with the only rationalisation of that methodology being faith. Using the law to ensure the corruption and underhanded tactics of the church goes unnoticed is a grave concern.
A question of resource distribution
Paedophile-protector George Pell recently came out and defended the commercial aspect of world youth day. With over 40 different shirts, around 13 different hats, Guy Sebastian CDs, this event is really going to be a money spinner for a church. This is on top of the estimated $160 million that the state and federal government has put in to ensure this event would happen. Is the commercial aspect there to pay back the state government's generosity? I hope so. But sadly I think it'll be used to help line the church's coffers. One Sydney catholic priest came out critical of the event, saying the money could be better used to help the homeless. And with that comment, I could not agree more. The church's backbone in society has been it's ability to help those in need, and right now having a grand parade of sycophants flocking to the pope is not going to help with that image. The Catholic Church is an archaic institution daring people to show it's irrelevance in modern society, where it has the power to show it still has relevance; but that is being ignored in favour of promoting it's own grandeur. No wonder Catholics are lapsing in their faith and chuch attendance is lowering. Cease to be relevant and face the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
