Is liberty taking wings, to fly away ?
Or is she to be SENT flying in S.A. ?
THE VERY LARGE BILL THAT MUST BE PAID FOR
It is with horror and something not far from amazement that one finds Victoria
greatly outdone by South Australia, not in an Act that merely invades liberty,
but in a Bill
that is to be discussed in days, this March, which makes Victoria's failure
seem almost a gifted success, by comparison.
(Cf. Galloping Events,Ch.7,.)
To give God the glory, however, one is delivered from being too amazed,
because JUST SUCH THINGS as this have been forecast, and the forecasts of the
Bible have often been considered, years ago, on this Web site (e.g. Mystery
of Iniquity,
in The Other News).
The Bill is intended, it appears, to implement with what, in Australia is
apparently necessary in such a case, that is, the provision of authority at
the State level, before the Commonwealth legislation on communication can take
full effect.
Provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games)
Act of the Commonwealth, 1995 ('the principal Act'), as developed or
amended later, are now to be implemented and individualised by each State, it
appears. (See earlier, Joyful Jottings 14, esp. pp.
101ff. and
*1 .)
By it was set up the Classification Board which defines, tags and applies. The
Commonwealth Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services)
Bill held further restrictions.
The latter developed the insistence on protection of minors by using an 'R' as
a rating to require their protection. This, in principle, to many would very
naturally seem in the right direction. However, this matter has taken on a
sinister and in terms of presentation at least, sometimes a surreptitious air.
The matter of minors has become a major restriction, vastly beyond the
question of pornography, obscenity and allies, in terms of which explanation
for the severity of the Act may at times be given. Such references cover
merely a small part of the scope of the legislative action!
To aggravate this situation, there is now to be found the presentation of the
idea (with force) of making material on the Web which gained such a tag, this
'R', this not suitable for minors, to be subject to multiple disciplinary
action under Commonwealth law, since minors (under 18 folk) could conceivably
look at it. In South Australia, added escalation is proposed.
Such teeth for juvenility! The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online
Services) Bill now before South Australians, and soon D.V., to be
debated, has further developed restrictions and specified penalties.
In fact, in January 2000, The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online
Services) Act, the Bill of 1999 became law. Flags might well have been
half-mast. The shameless seeming character of this intrusion into academic and
other presentation on the Web, so (relatively) soon after the two World Wars
appears as an insult to many who fought in them. That it should be
characterised as good, when it appears so evil in its debasement of human life
at this internet level, is not unique. Many regimes have done no less. For
Australia, however, it is a fall as from a cliff, to jagged rocks beneath.
This great land would so be reduced by so small a conception that the trade
mark, Australia Minor would be all too likely. Is this to be it ?
This Act of 2000, made provision that material not suitable for those under 18
should be restricted, and not allowed online without a filter of approved and
complex kind, to distance people who might otherwise freely have access. It
also provided for notice to be given for the take-down of material deemed
restricted, and not filtered. This appears to have been the first of the
acutely intimidatory, juvenile-constraint movements taken and able to act
against highly moral and proper material, removing the reality of free speech
and presuming to limit to youth level, in acutely compressed terms, ALL freely
available on the net.
Let us however look more particularly at what however is required
to attain the 'R' or restricted rating relative to minors. What is to be found
in this category ? Evil things, of course, horrendous or ghoulish, inroads of
evil corruption ... In the turmoils of the various references and referrals in
this Commonwealth material, one finds reasonably well-written phrasings of
undoubted evils, needing supervision, such as this:
"matters of sex, drug misuse or
addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in
such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and
propriety".
That of course gets a stern rating, but there it is, looking at legitimate
matters of concern.
While some, to be sure, might be concerned at possible misuse of such matters
for censorship, at least the drift is quite clear, and the problem being faced
quite concrete. It is precisely this which would lend some credibility to the
effort of the law makers in this respect, were it not for such nearly
incredible accessions and additions as are apparently without any shame,
inserted into it, for the simple category of 'R', restricted!
That phrasing quoted above, incidentally, is to be found in Draft Enforcement
Provisions, as it appears on the Net, "suitable for inclusion in the
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995
(NSW). " It proceeds to note: "If this Part is inserted into that Act, many
words and phrases used in this Part will have the same meaning as in the
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Acts 1995 of the
Commonwealth." Our point here is simply this, they have, and are already VERY
aware of, some reasonably good wording in a preliminary sense, to cover what
in principle are legitimate concerns, to which some censorship might be
addressed.
Is This a Reckless Rocket,
Apparently Aimed Also at those at Peace,
Poised to Charge them as it Lands to Explode in their Midst,
of being 'Reckless' ?
Or is it a Perfected Case of Adding Insult to Injury:
And of What it Stands Guilty, Uttering Condemnation ?
However, the matter has skyrocketed until it has become a space rocket, with
an enormous space left from the earth, in an aerial survey proposed now by the
Government, so that the Brave New World thought police are
becoming much less surreal by comparison. Quickly can it descend to this
earth! The sky is burdened with it, as with the Russian rocket, shortly
expected to land in many pieces, in our sector of the world.
Now the official mood has manifested itself, enlarging on the weaknesses in
the Commonwealth Acts, and beyond notable in the Draft Enforcement Provisions
as mentioned above. 'R' does not at all mean MERELY notoriously or abominably
corruptive from sources of ill-intent, or something in that direction. It
means simply what is deemed
NOT SUITABLE for minors.
The fascinating and all but incredible feature is this, that this high moral
ground, very commendable in principle, which was being taken, and is still
mouthed in reference to what appears this liberty death-yard Bill, has become
a highly immoral ground. It is now the Bill which is immoral, in this that it
brings in of its own accord, things not justly comparable to
"abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of
morality, decency and propriety."
What then is it doing ?
It is presuming to open the way to harassment and limiting liberty of
expression to an extent hard even to imagine in the wonder days of
achievement, when World War II was just finishing, and thought and ideological
tyranny was being given its due, when the value of liberty was still strong in
the popular mind! and international formulation sought better things.
That
is itself abhorrent, almost to the limit possible!
In the same draft, we find, as indeed likewise in the South Australian Bill
shortly to be discussed in Parliament, with a view to making it law in
this State, that a person may be found guilty of "recklessness" in not
foreseeing the condemnation which could come to his/her material on the
Internet. Instead of noticeable reason prevailing in enlightened discussion
about the proper status of material on the Web, there is the implicit charge
that you should have foreseen the criteria at some given point in cultural
history,
assessed it aptly, and that if you did not, instead of being given opportunity
to defend against what may well be slander or blindness or both, for
authorities are not per se angelic or enlightened, and are capable of cultural
occlusion, you are already due for condemnation, since you dared to put it up,
when doubt is assessed to have been the least possible emotion you should have
felt.
True it is 'only' $10,000 for failed insight that you are to be charged, at
the most: but this penalty for non-conformity to juvenility, and assessments
thereof, seems so near to the work of dictators in the recent past, that if it
be not thrown out at this stage, perhaps the land will deserve the next.
Almost certainly, just as this 'advance' on the Commonwealth law is being
presented in S.A., later advances will likewise come. There is a time to cease
dreaming, as if words were merely political counters, and to awake.
Let us face it simply. If a content-provider did not correctly estimate the
moral feelings of the Body which censors, this is reckless, or may be deemed
so. If a prophetic gift is not required to make such an estimate of the
rapidly changing, downwards directly mores of society, it is not far
from it! Fail and you face fine. But in what are you to fail, if you are to be
fined ? In this: that you speak on the internet in a way which would
"not
be suitable for a minor".
THAT is the explicit criterion for exclusion, and whatever its modes and
manners, this is the phrase, this is the objective as stated! FURTHER, the
material is "unsuitable…" if it is such that it "would, if classified,
be classified R…" (Part 7A, underlining added). So does classification reach
retrospectively.
You might, as is explicit, be presenting religious issues, but if it is
found by the Moral Body that you are out of the depth or scope of the minor
who might listen in, or of what the Board considers fitting for that minor,
though you may not invite: then of THIS mis-estimate you may freely be found
guilty.
You dared to act as an adult in this sphere, a MORAL adult, it may be, but
still, in this forbidden manner ... adult! Thus it appears you may become a
criminal, to the great aid of the intimidation. Doubtless, this is progress;
but the point is, it is in the wrong direction.
Anyone can lacerate liberty with comparative ease; to preserve it, however,
and yet punish crime, it is this which requires apt government. It requires it
indeed, relative to youth in its own integrity also.
THE GENTLE ART OF DEVELOPMENT
What in practice does this mean ? This, that by the time we come to the new
South Australian Bill, things have come far beyond the original emphasis of
the 1995 Law, and in some ways, that of 2000, both noted above. Thus, as we
see, it is now the case that the 'R' or restricted rating is to apply to
material not suitable for minors, under 18, and if you should dare
'recklessly' to fail to perceive what the Moral Censoring Body conceives to be
unfit for the minors, then yours may be the demeaning rather than endearing
fate of becoming a criminal, as well as subject to a fine up to $10,000 for
a) not being sufficiently like
a minor in your presentation on the Web and
b) not foreseeing that someone
else, or some group,
who are officially meant to sense the mood, the values,
the feeling of society,
may, in a majority only, find.
Further, the areas under censorial review are now defined by the Commonwealth
body as those not only that might not fit the cap of minors, but SPECIFICALLY
issues which would render them "adult" and so those inclusive of
"marital problems, emotional trauma... death and serious illness, racism,
religious issues."
To be sure what is DEFINED in the GLOSSARY provided thoughtfully by the Office
of Film and Literature Classification, as ADULT THEMES, may not be compatible
with the REQUIREMENTS of being SUITABLE FOR MINORS! It may be useful to quote
in full from their glossary on the area of the FORBIDDEN, the VERBOTEN
verbiage for Australians living in South Australia, if the Bill is to fly into
Act, and become law.
Adult ? Why yes: "Issues dealing with aspects of adult life that are
potentially harmful to minors, or disturbing. Adult themes may include verbal
references to and depictions associated with issues such as suicide, crime
corruption, marital problems, emotional trauma, drug and alcohol, dependency,
death and serious illness, racism, religious issues" (emphasis
added). OUT, oh spot! (with apologies to Lady Macbeth).
Useless to try to defend this monolith of moral majesty erecting itself, by
saying that the MORAL ARBITERS AUTHORISED to condemn, MIGHT not condemn.
Certainly they might not, but are not materials by law (if this Bill pass) to
be conformable to minors, if they are to be allowed to major on the internet!
First, if it is not for minors, but rather what adults discuss, then that is
at once moving into the statutory realm readily to be dubbed the
non-permissible, subject to discrimination and popular condemnation by a
socially interpretative Board; and secondly, the array of materials spelt out
as adult, above is so large, that it seems this potentate of patronage,
the censor,
 |
becomes a type
of socialised god,
|
|
|
whose failure in
reasonable instruction
|
|
|
(by definition,
as 'he' merely reflects the conventions, cultural modes and so on, and
statistical morals are a contradiction in terms, since numbers are not in
themselves
either an attestation of truth or of logic),
|
|
|
induces more
respect by imposing criminality and fines.
|
The moral
matter is misconstrued (cf.
below).
In the
Glossary of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, in a
work statedly approved by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship
Ministers, we DO find, to be precise, that "adult themes", while they are
"issues dealing with aspects of adult life that are potentially harmful to
minors, or disturbing", "MAY include verbal references to ... religious
issues" (emphasis added). This does not formally BIND the Board of
Classification to make ANY religious issue depiction to receive the tag "adult
theme", since if they MAY include such references, they MAY NOT. Nevertheless,
the issue is a loaded one, left securely in the hand of the Classification
Board. Its rendering of mores could land degradingly on the turf of any
church, or church oriented body, or indeed religious entity, merely to take
one example.
To be sure, we find relative to "adult themes" in the classification which
lies just below the severity of the 'R' rating, that of "mature
accompanied", that "the treatment of themes with a high degree of intensity
should be discreet". Of "discreet", the official Glossary tells us this, that
it means "with little or no detail and generally brief". Thus a low level of
intensity in treating matters of prominent adult need and challenge, may be
perhaps permitted, if the two are FELT to be compatible; but if the thing is
intense, as one would hope from the more effective academic or researcher,
reformer or leader of thought, then brevity and little detail is the permitted
pabulum, once the matter is deemed an "adult theme". The phrase as defined
does NOT involve any moral wrong or evil, but quite to the contrary, is found
in categories which per se can be noble and strengthening.
But what of such
brief and low level approach
to issues such as religious ones ? In academic terms, this sort of coverage of
major issues is quite close to flat contradiction. It readily becomes
unsophisticated, unlearned and crass.
So then might society, per Government, with whatever intention but with
catastrophically clear impetus to result, monstrously adorn itself with power
… But does it ? We will shortly see what it does, for it is only days away,
this hideous infirmity: and why hideous ? and why infirm ? It is because it
would so reduce the nature of manhood and womanhood on the Web. If you reason
that this is 'only' in S.A., yet there is thought that in this legislation S.A.
might lead and provide a prototype for the nation. What is this leadership
to be ? To provide ? Here is an opportunity for something really worthy.
You may argue that it is not exactly into worms that the citizens, web-wise
would be turned; but it is certainly not into children, for as the Bible puts
it,
"in understanding be MEN!"
It can lead to a hideous defilement of excellence in the very areas
desperately required, like a captain watching a whirlpool in childish abandon,
and not playing the man.
ASSESSMENT OF
THE PATRONISINGLY INVASIVE AND
SUBJUGATIVE EVILS OF THE BILL
WHO is being unscrupulous ?
Is the real purpose of this Bill, then, to protect the young from the
unscrupulous, or to be unscrupulous in dominating those who seek the welfare
of all ? Is it to use police power to protect from abuse, or with it, to abuse
the liberty for which this land has so long stood, in practice ? Such power
is certainly invoked in the South Australian Bill, with apparent provision for
criminal proceedings, seemingly with little notice for removal of the indicted
material.
Is the objective to ruin the internet as a medium for the advance of learning,
and its dissemination of intellectual enterprise, or to prevent gross and
outrageous elements from serenading or corrupting the young, in a way that
has NOT been done with literature in the schools, despite many
protests, and is NOT done in libraries ?
Is the objective, web-wise, to make South Australians literally, in much, a
police State, subject to the thought tyranny of some 17 supra-religious
pundits, elevated to rule, or secular primates ? or is it to allow freedom of
expression, except and until abusive and corruptive influences are shown to be
present, and not to cast in the cast-iron of fines and criminality, the ruling
mores of a given time, like little children playing games, giving no thought
to what they mean, or why ?
If, further, the purpose is speedy removal of things obviously in this evil
category, what is to be done about the premature and pre-emptive embarrassing
removal, if it is later SHOWN to be unwarranted ? Even the charge is no small
thing in society, and any disruption of a web site can be of vast importance,
long before there is any question of finding guilty or fining. The loss of
time and the disturbance alone could be a critical feature. Is all of this, if
found to be in error, to be without repayment, apology, and free restoration
in order to induce responsibility, on the part of false accusers ? for such
have been prominent since the days of Daniel, and for reasons not always far
different, envy and calumny for position, competitive advantage, revenge,
obsessive desire and so on.
ACADEMIC OBLIVION ON THE WEB,
IN DEEP SOCIAL, INTELLECTUAL, EMOTIONAL,
SPIRITUAL ISSUES
ON PAIN OF CRIMINALITY ?
Moreover, is the object, in part, to make of South Australians, relative to
the Web, ninnies living in fear and cut off from the moral magnitudes that
require the fullest discussion and penetrating understanding in the greatest
depths, lest some 17 people fine them, because they deem society at that
moment, to be thinking differently, and on the whole, not to be bent that way
(by a majority of the 17 or so pundits) ? or the Review Board happen, on the
same basis for judgment, to agree!
Such a scenario is certainly in this respect, just as totalitarian as
Communism, which also likes people to follow its ideas, as it has them, and
puts on penalties if they don't!
Further, is the objective of the Bill, CAB 2000,
to preclude, or at least to supervise, and certainly ludicrously to limit
discussion of vitally important and wholly searching
"religious issues"
-
to use the term which is explicitly subject to constraint in this Bill, lest
they should not be "brief", or have a modicum (which is more than little) of
detail ? or is it to use sanctions if they seem indiscreet in the eyes of 17
or so people, for failing to be presented in some limited and very superficial
way, lest being in the 'adult' category, and hence 'not suitable for minors'
without these restrictions, they become assessable as 'R', or restricted, and
hence subjectible to condign punishments ?
If convicts in the 19th century were indeed sent to Australia for trivial
crimes, out of all proportion often, to the exile and status of convict,
what of this, where there is not necessarily any crime but rather faithfulness
to one's calling, and no fault but insistence on the moral, spiritual and
rational criteria of the word of God, for example! If a small fault led then
to a large penalty, stirring our sensibilities and compassion, in the 1800s,
what of this, where a large virtue on the Internet, can at a breath, become a
crime, by the churning tide of cultural preference, and may be fined!
·
Is this to be
the glory of South Australia: to become a provider of danger, for work to be
dubbed with an 'R' rating for being adult (as adults ought to be), for
treating searching topics with maturity and depth, as befits much discourse,
and hence to be excludable and subject to penal financial servitude (as
totalitarian States normally do) ?
·
Is this to be
the wonder of the State, that it gratuitously provides an impediment of
potentially disastrous proportions, at the level of intelligent and benevolent
- if searching and deep - discussion on the Internet!
Disastrous ? Well, not entirely JUST because of the stigma which appears to be
provided, 'criminal', or the fine taken, to $10,000; but rather, to take one
illustration only, because the work itself - which may and could be,
carefully and sedulously prepared from the word of God, and at the command of
Christ - can in this way be taken down, removed, hidden away, brought to a
ruin like that narrowly escaped by Adelaide this Summer, from locusts. In this
case, it would however be the State which acts the locust, not the locust
which attacks the State.
It would then be liable to
become a State of Decline, as well of Immaturity:
academic integrity in
major components being dismissed on the internet, universities themselves
under the rod.
Just what might legislators imagine they are called to be, if this should -
after examination and review - be passed. Is it to serve by dictation,
prescribe by intimidation, make freedom of thought, however benevolent, a
crime because adult, if expressed with vigour, depth and detail, as often
called for, in this vital and potentially serviceable medium of the 21st
century ?
·
Or might S.A.
become the State
of Backwardness?
·
and how does all
this fit with the proposed positioning of South Australia
as a kingly contributor
to the Electronic Age,
as was evidently the case in the governmental earlier paper,
"INFORMATION ECONOMY ..."!
It is a king not provided with the implements of majesty, but rather set in
his grave, by some ... error. Could it not far rather be dubbed, INTERNET
ORPHAN ? or RESTRICTED ACCESS ECONOMY ?
But then would not the Information Economy paper itself need
considerable re-writing!
Yet it may be said, THIS is certainly not the intention of the Bill, nor is
there any limitation on freedom of speech intended, for did not the
Commonwealth Minister, Senator Alston,
himself declare that this was so! and is not the endeavour to implement that
Commonwealth Act ?
How could South Australia be apparently so blatantly acting, as if to excise
freedom of speech so deeply from the internet, when the Commonwealth Minister
who took prominent part in the initiative, assured his hearers at the time of
the Commonwealth action, that freedom of speech was NOT in question.
In the context, he did not mean, since he was protesting the sagacity of the
legislation, that freedom of speech was obviously going to be dismissed, but
rather that it would be sustained: and this ? ... it is sustaining! As well
might a lion sustain when it assails you!
The legislation as it stands, would alas seem to sustain no small part of what
it governs not with food, but with iron, making childhood the mentor, and
ground of censorship!
If, then, this is NOT the intention, then there would appear an inefficiency
or overkill in the Bill as currently worded, which may conceivably be unique
in our history. It would not, in any case, adorn it. In fact, however, in a
large society, many influences may be at work, religiously repressive,
culturally oppressive, socialistically invasive, or even communistically
occlusive, anti-God and so on. Thus might be explained much in the Bill, for
the strange distance between its apparent aims and obvious means. This however
is charitably NOT to be imagined unless we should be compelled, and the
ensuing session of the S.A. Parliament should reveal much. Perhaps the trouble
is not least a desire for easy administration of the legislation afterwards;
but as so often, ease is not wisely purchased at such a price.
Whatever, however, may be the inefficiency or other error lying at the base of
the relevant legislation in this country, it is raising a potentially
dictatorial head which the wise - unlike the case in so many other countries,
so often - will cut off before it rears! Many may make USE of what it is not
clear and adequately defined, for their own purposes. Hence, whatever the
reason for the formulation in this legislation, it should be altered till it
is not vulnerable at all. This may make it harder to administer; but then many
things make matters harder to administer, in family, church or society, when
the objective is good, and precious things have to be preserved, untradable
standards.
·
It is not
necessary to endeavour to determine the purpose of all of the government, as
though one could read hearts; it is enough for our present purposes to
consider, with the welfare of all at stake, what would be the RESULTS of its
proposed action. Nor has the government taken this action yet; and it is in
hope it will abandon these evils, that it is necessary to speak, in good time.
It IS necessary to conceive these results in terms of stated
purpose, however, in order to show the cleavage between just purpose and
proposed action, lest much damage to many result, and this to the State as one
whole.
But as things stand in this apparently preposterous Bill, what is the case ?
Is this land then Web-wise, to become a State for children, a child-State
(and put that on the licence plates), or would it submit to become a State of
Immaturity, as far as adults are concerned, an undisciplined State, which,
unable to watch over its children, now is or soon may be, legally prepared for
attacks on its adults, even in their moral and ideologically benevolent
activities ? Should this Bill in present form pass, then free at least so to
repress at the will, desire or caprice of its people, whose mood and ideas are
to be interpreted by the Board from time to time, the State can act in
response to the 'ruling' social ideas or desire, as discerned by a very few!
It can then degrade, fleece and fulminate at pleasure, not only justly at
manipulative and corruptive criminals, but at those who at sacrifice seek to
build in morality, lead in truth and instil justice!
Is liberty a thing that so many slaved to obtain, that it should be so
detached, like the bottom half of a receipt, and sent on! What has become of
wisdom, that such intolerance should so be authorised, and that quite
explicitly, in the name of the values and so on, of society, as if some being
criminals, all must become children! Is it not enough to punish crime, without
making it crime to think differently from your society, as Christ for example
did, and was rather more than fined!
TOWARDS THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN STATE ?
If this is to be so, this bids fair to become, in one basic aspect in this
crucial field, an anti-Christian State. In what aspect ? in this,
that it is refusing
liberty for Christian adults to proceed to communicate on the Web -
in great depth and
detail,
without fear of, or
provision for, the provocation of persecution -
the prodigious
wonders of the grace and power of God over evil and for good in Christ:
because in some point
some Board may feel that this is not suitable for minors -
to
present what the Bible declares!
The Bible is VERY
deep, not at all BRIEF, exposes much great wickedness and suffering to
overcome it, touching to the heart, and its word divides, in fact, as it says,
between soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).
·
It is of course
not harmful to youth or anyone else, but beneficent, benevolent, and
instructive, as the word of God (as demonstrated in
Chs. 1-3,10 and verified continually on this site). However, all that is
needed is rejection of the Bible as such, in terms of social mores,
which is the alleged determinant for the judgments - and these CERTAINLY in
their endless variability are not the word of God, but of man - and behold,
man as judge in militant secular humanism, judges man who serves God. That
would be reckless indeed, but it is far from uncommon in societies, and some
such leaven as this appears to have been conspicuously at work in S.A.
education already, as attested in That Magnificent Rock (TMR
- Ch. 8).
·
In fact, the Bible
describes itself as
"living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing..."
and as in all therapy, it points out the disease in ways so far from soporific
or humanistic, or relativistic that it both announces the truth and condemns
from the mouth of God, all other sources, than Jesus Christ and the law and
the prophets of old. Jesus Christ can and DID cause enormous division, and
SAID so (Matthew 10:34-35), and His words were not muted in public by concerns
that they might prove rather too much for any youths who heard!
·
Nor is it merely
that there is POSSIBLE interference. Let us take the Christian case. Those who
so present things, with intensity, without being brief and what is called
discreet, and do so on the landmark magnitudes which Christ unveils, are
ALREADY being told they may be subject to the charge of "RECKLESSNESS" for NOT
realising as they might, that this is NOT brief, or NOT discreet, or NOT
treating things in a way suitable, in the opinions of a few people, FOR
MINORS. Imagine now a great medical specialist being told that all his books
must be suitable for minors!
·
While we, with
many, are satisfied there is nothing the world needs so much as Christ, this
is to cut Him off from one of the main media in the AMPLITUDE OF THE BIBLICAL
DEPTH on many issues, and hence crimps, cramps and attacks, assault or even
insults His servants by telling them IN ADVANCE they are criminal if caught
out, in NOT presenting things ONLY fit for minors, AS deemed fit for minors,
ON THE WEB, as the Board may deem the case to be, from time to time!
What a pity for the city of churches, and what hypocrisy could lurk there, if
the Bill passed. For then it would have a name for religion, when in fact,
Caesar on the internet, would be ruling with violence over the thrust of
thematic and practical freedom of Christ's ministers, elders and teachers in
particular, rendering them liable to be put in financial chains or perhaps
called criminals! Are they not - to mention but one religion, as an example -
Biblically called to present through all the world the word of God, the gospel
of salvation ? Are they in particular, with such a known commission, to be
chained on the internet, made to keep things to the level of immaturity,
'suitable for minors', on pain of sudden and virtually unpredictable
insurgence of 'criminality'! if so, what is this State becoming ?
Further: is there ANY religion which more emphatically, dramatically and
practically DEMANDS that its WORD (NOT its power over people by authoritarian
strictures) be presented throughout the world, and not the gospel only, but
ALL that He has commanded (Matthew 28:;18-20), which is statedly penetrating
between soul and spirit! In fact, Christ in Matthew 24 indicates that He will
not RETURN as king in this world, until this presentation is made over the
whole world. Such State limits in such a vast medium are therefore an enormous
discrimination against THIS particular religion, which specialises so that in
this none surpasses it, in dissemination, communication, unabbreviated and
penetrating, and this global.
Further ramifications of this appear in Joyful Jottings 12,
and 14.
The minatory prescription in such areas ? suitable for minors! The interface
at this point is not so important as the direction, on pain of recklessness if
social standards in vogue are not "read".
That, such a limitation, is or would be, a hostile act! If it is not so in
intention, it is so in result. In this sense, it would be hostile not to
Christ alone, but to those who perform His word no less, and this eminently
if not pre-eminently; and the gospel and biblical commission in particular,
given at the proper adult level for millions, would be curbed by oppression,
met by discrimination. With such limitations, many it might well not reach in
its Biblical depth as prescribed, with the whole word of God, because of this
punitive prescription, this artificial limitation of adults to the minds of
children. This explosive provision, the electronic medium, would be under
threat to be tossed into the water of the well.
It is, once again, not necessary to try to plumb the intent of the
legislation, or the parameters which have guided its particular type of
construction; only to seek to measure its direction for results.
But as to the latter, it would not be unfitting to ask this: Are then
newspapers on line, to omit all strong address and depth also, as if - in the
result, whatever the purpose - real examination of what is occurring cannot be
made, lest it surpass the mind of youth, as it is deemed to be, and
criminality ensue, for them likewise ? Is this to be a nation, electronically,
of kids or criminals, then, as the definitions move from time to time, as
prescribed ? Do you preserve youth by mocking it, by making men and women act
like it, as if some sort of social leucotomy were in view ? rather than having
them to be examples of tenacity of purpose and depth of comprehension!
What moreover of politics ? this surely is an adult theme! and the glossary
definition merely lists EXAMPLES of adult themes, and does not propose to
exhaust them in its list! Is politics to be subjected, as indicated in the
glossary definition of adult themes, to such limitations, so that those in
power are freer from this aspect of exposure, lest it surpass junior minds in
scope, in the OPINION of a few people! Does this make for political stability
and restraint ? Does history suggest that!
Moreover, what are teachers to do, who scale their material to different ages
and levels of attainment ? Is education to become a subdued farce because a
Bill
cannot or will not differentiate
between the removal of corruption and corruptive influences that cannot be
doubted, such as enticement to immature obscenities or drug dependency, on the
one hand, and the removal of liberty, on the other; and because it will not in
this, have adults to be adult, but rather degrades all to what in its time, is
fine, to youth, because it will not or cannot control what it should where it
should!
Already as TMR Ch.,
Ch. 8,
show so plainly, there is in South Australia a seemingly impervious insistence
on teaching in an absolute and monopolistic fashion, according to
unsustainable preference in a biological area, something which has enormous
implications for behaviour and social bearing. The problem, of which this is
part, now appears planned for solution by sacrificing adult maturity in much,
whereas it is better reduced by providing childhood training in truth. It is
better to treat children as children than adults as children, and in secular
education to present creation and its theoretical competitors, unsustainable
though they are demonstrated to be (see The
Shadow of a Mighty Rock,
That Magnificent Rock,
A Spiritual Potpourri for
example), so that youth may consider, rather than to indoctrinate in the
ill-considered propaganda which so readily substitutes strife for Creator, and
imagination for evidence, and rational exclusion of much, at the teaching
level.
But what of this current solution on the Internet, to the problem thus
exacerbated by bad educational technique, as Russian prize-winning Dr Dmitri
Kouznetsov so well attested of it, when he lectured to Adelaide University
students ? It is sensitively treated facts, not pre-prepared dogmas which they
do not warrant or sustain, which are appropriate scientifically, when the
creation of this universe’s energy and life is concerned; and in fact, in
terms of scientific method, the degradation of things to self-invention is not
warranted by observable processes or logical rigour. As we show in TMR Ch.,
Ch. 8, it is excluded! But in S.A.'s State High School situation, the thing
is not even left rationally open! If to exclude the only viable logical option
is not commendable, far worse is it to exclude competition of ideas. This, as
a basis for thought, in the interests of what is thus in practice, a monopoly,
is simply not in accord with scientific method.
The point here, however, concerns simply what has for so long been without
stated rational ground, rejected by the S.A. Government: Secular education
should enable students to ponder the issues, not exclude the use of teachers
from so much as the rational presentation at all of the things which are with
reason adduced for this or that approach. We do not need in the secular realm
of education, forced intellectual labour camps, in which pre-slanted results
are substituted for reasoned ones, with an apparent effrontery fully contrary
to student needs, by command of the political powers that be.
It is this violation of scientific method, as well as of godly values in the
implications (see demonstration of the breach, TMR Ch.,
Ch. 8),
which is a contributory factor in the constitution of the youth problem faced;
the full force of which is currently being faced in the Bill under discussion.
The Classification Bill method of addressing an answer to such things, at the
adult level, is as incorrect as the educative approach which tends so to
augment it. Here is found, alas, a double negative which assuredly in this
case makes no positive!
What then ? Thus incurring their own aggravation of the youth problem, is the
Government now to use disastrous escalation into the adult sphere, perilously
ill-defined and what appears outrageously unqualified powers being granted to
a control board OVER ADULTS, because of the misdirected young ?
It is entirely comparable with removing, in the transport sphere this time,
all cars lest some youth should find one, and being of immoral mind and evil
purpose, steal it! Shall we then ban transport, unless suitable for minors,
who might steal a car if they saw one, before their time.
What then is to be said in Biblical terms ? Woe to any folly which maximising
man, minimises God, and thus deals with what is not there, for the only God is
Almighty (SMR)!
BETRAYING CHILDREN BY ACTING
ON THE BASIS OF IMMATURITY
It used to be said, Children should be seen and not heard. Now has the
pendulum swung so far, that it seems electronically that it is adults who must
be seen and not heard, lest children should overhear them, because without
discipline they eavesdrop!
Now if these are NOT, and one hopes indeed, EMPHATICALLY NOT in any sense the
objectives of this Bill, then as presented, it is seriously amiss, because it
permits them; and it thus needs amendment. Should such a type of amendment,
of limitation and qualification, as is here proposed - and this is merely one
- be rejected, if this should occur, then the Government of this State (for
however long it may remain in government - and in this case, in view of
national trends, it might not be very long) becomes morally guilty of needless
intrusion in the varied and well-intentioned affairs of its members.
It then is guilty of making provision for a reversion, in some ways, to
medieval times, and turns back the clock of history while the people sleep.
But they will not sleep for long, with such an Act, if this Bill as written
should become one, as this!
VAIN it is, to say that the 17 or some such number of people to be put in the
place of judgment,
the censorship board, would never dream of persecuting established religions
for presentation at the adult level and manner, on the internet; or that the
Appeals bodies, should the religionists be accused or dubbed as criminals for
presenting what is their religion or its grounds or applications, would never
uphold such a judgment. By then, much damage is done. It can be of prodigious
proportions, in terms of reputation alone, and cessation can be nearly
calamitous. Who pays ? Where is the provision for that! And ... where is the
purse for it!
Or is justice to be disregarded, evil wrought on those disapproved by the fiat
of the Board, at the will of Commonwealth and State elevation of man to
moral-maker in place of God, and a variable maker at that, without recompence
even if guilt is later found misplaced ? If however, guilt is falsely
attributed by these merely social morals, though they are in this Act
seemingly seen as simply social statistics, then the evil is doubly dealt,
being without social recompence, or financial, and the work impeded,
however good it may be!
Nor is this all. In history, incredible seeming views, mental constructions,
ideologies (cf)
can readily take possession of whole peoples, and if these last two wars have
not successfully taught that to this State, then much of their suffering would
appear in vain. This country alone, which came very close to the imposition of
force in its ways, from outside its shores, is it now to do it voluntarily, in
a self-inflicted wound, to its own members! Will it call evil good and good
evil, as it substitutes its statistical preferences for morality, and uses
force where it is useful, not simply where corruption is demonstrable!
To set up a Police State, at this level, in this area and in
this respect, would alas, be a profound error: and if this is not the
intention, then the abundant provision to act at once with criminal charges,
and the Board’s power with impunity to harass the upright with whose
presentations they may not agree, in applying the social mores of the
day, makes a distinction in the realm of ideology and ideas, as well as
religion, all but impossible to maintain.
But let us emphasise the sequence in the situation.
To limit conversation or presentation on the Net, to the level
of minors under threat of duress, is an additional error of immense magnitude.
To fail specifically to exclude the deep and conscientious religious
discussion bent on good for people, from such an unfortunate if indirect
tyranny of minors, and of police, and of politicians, is such an abasement of
manhood and womanhood, as to induce the deepest concern for any people subject
to it. Such treatment of ideas and ideals as these, bids fair to mark out this
State for due recompense for violation of needed religious liberty, maturity
and stimulus in this crucial area, for one. This, the religious, let us be
clear, is simply one area; but it is nevertheless a vital example of the
openness for misapplication of force which the Act enshrines, whatever the
intention.
To correct the corrupters is a limited and just objective for an Act; yet to
remove the correct with them, on the basis of arbitrary definition, based in
current philosophic and social notions, as interpreted ... this is the abyss
faced by the Bill.
·
That any Party
should so try to protect the young by abusing the mature, while taking over
some of the prerogatives of God Himself, to do so, comes close to the
testimony that "truth is
fallen in the street"
and "righteousness stands
far off" (Isaiah
59:14). It has happened before.
·
The question is
this:
·
Does this State
want so to provide for it to happen again, at this time ? If so, the way may
be open for it to do so, and so bring evil on all, while ostensibly the aim is
to give protection to some. The way is likewise open to it to RESIST and
REJECT all such things, not merely with noble words of good intention, but
with a carefully crafted law which EXCLUDES such matters.
While one was not born in this State, and had served in several countries in
the pastoral domain, before coming here, one has yet enough affection for it,
to desire a far better future for it than this portends!
and to delight in any action to prevent such a situation, as may in timely
fashion, arrive.
KEEPING TO THE POINT AT ISSUE
WOULD BE SO HELPFUL,
AND IS SO NECESSARY
In the
Commonwealth legislation, there have been formulations of what is abhorrent,
morally outrageous: and these, if they are the real target, the real purpose
of arraignment and arrest of communication, in terms of the Bill, could
conceivably be used just as they stand.
On the other
hand, unqualified censorship power (over matters such as of adult discussion
of "religious issues", to use the phrase in the Bill, on the Web), this
becomes merely partial dictatorship. It brings with it an avenue to enmities,
a beginning module for religious and other persecution, under whatever
fine-sounding name it might choose to go, leading to very possible desire for
revenge on what has facilitated the pomposities of power: this legislating
without rational ground, over ideas.
Is this
nation to be so stricken and so fallen, and this State to lead in the
injurious stampede so that instead of giving challenge to the young, it abases
itself in this electronic sphere: in outrageous disjunction from that of the
printed word, still far freer and justly so, than this ?
But abases itself to what ?
It is to the child's level of mind, so that adults instead of providing
examples of mature thought to which the young may aspire, are to made liable
to become, at a word, the abused butts of Governmentally led, police assault.
If the legislators' intention is benevolent, are they alone in that ? It is
the provisions which count, and the use to which they lie open, like
sun-bakers in front of a steam-roller.
And is the
censorship body indeed to be enabled to call it "reckless" that material HAS
BEEN PLACED on the internet, because it is at some subsequent time deemed to
have shown an unacceptable level of knowledge of what the Board might think,
as it approaches the changing social mores
problem, and seeks to determine what ought to be, and what, therefore, is so
wrong as to be ‘reckless’ ?
Is then what
is DEEMED unsuitable and felt to be clearly so by the Board, to become the
basis of accusation of those whom also it fines, for breach of integrity,
because they so lapsed in obeisance to the current stream of social thought!
Though the
intention may be plausible, the result thus all the more moves vigorously
towards dictatorship of thought, on the Internet, punishment of divergence,
and appears in principle, wholly indistinguishable from militant secular
humanism, by legislation, and punitive legislation at that.
If the exclusion of below
, or some equal ruling is not made in amendment, the Bill is PROVIDING for
just such a thing, even if this be far from its purpose, in its use of
censorial power, based on grounds inflated in kind and wholly inadequate in
definition, qualification and kind.
And that ! It
could readily become in itself an abuse of the Police themselves by the
Government, that they should be asked to stoop to such things. As in Germany,
there is always a beginning of such things, and as in Tiananmen, for a time at
least, there may be almost an end through various kinds of duress, of that
stimulus of liberty which may correct a nation, as so often, from going
perilously astray.
If the State
is to do this, or the nation to follow in such a method, it will suffer, and
that justly, for abusing its gifts, insulting God by forcing its own moral
standards on all, varying them precisely and
explicitly
indeed, as it sees fit:
and this, instead of
what ?
Instead,
simply of restraining with wisdom evil where its corrosive force indubitably
aims at corruption, while promoting good with liberty. Good government is a
difficult art (see Questions and Answers ),
but there are principles, the sacrifice of which brings typical corruption.
The procedure
to be installed, if S.A. is unfortunate enough to inherit this heavily
intrusive and ill-adapted mechanism of control, and assault on freedom of
expression, on the one hand, and the principles behind it, on the other: what
are they like ? They are like a lion and a lioness. Alone they are terrible.
Together they can produce many cubs, which growing, defile further those who
were lax enough to suffer the parentage! History bulges with such progenies,
labours under their examples, and laments for the litanies their litters
produce.
Finally, it
should be clearly stated that it is not the intention of this body, which now
is constrained to write to S.A. legislators, to assume motivation or to assess
capacity of any legislator; for the concern is to seek to avoid results which
should not be intended, may not be intended, and to alert to a supreme danger
of their eventuation: and this, both in the interests of South Australians in
general, and of the Biblical faith in particular. History is not dumb; we must
be alert with enormous care, at this point.
NOTES
*1
The Bill ? "Classification
(Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2000".
We shall refer to this as CAB 2000, Classification Amendment Bill 2000.
*2
The officially authorised Office of Film and Literature Classification
declares this in its Guidelines: "When making its classification decisions,
the Board is required to reflect contemporary community standards…", and of
course, as to the intended audience or viewers, if "minor" is a necessity to
be met, that intrudes officiously. What is 'likely to be objectionable to a
reasonable adult' is the phrasing reportedly used by Attorney General Darryl
Williams in 1997, in a Murdoch University speech. Under these circumstances,
this tends to become the criterion of liberty, as sure as the winds, as secure
as the waves, as ill-defined as the clouds, nugatory, nebulous, nubilous
extravaganzas of unholy humbug, waving phrases, not praises, and making the
very waves the ruler.
 |
Did reasonable
men make Hitler ruler ? sustain him as he advanced ?
|
|
|
Did reasonable
men seek to exterminate the Jews
to the extent of some 50% of the world
population, and continue it for years ?
|
|
|
Did reasonable
men twist the thumbs, crush the bones and extort 'confessions'
from countless
impoverished and persecuted victims,
in religious persecution in Europe, and
continue such things for centuries ?
|
|
|
Did reasonable
men put millions of kulaks into Siberian torture
and deprivations unspeakable,
over years of horror,
because they had the eminent crime, a matter judged to
be so,
by those who doubtless deemed themselves, reasonable people - of
having farms ? …
|
|
|
Did reasonable
men make thousands of slaves, and make them work,
after kidnapping them, in
conditions often both miserly and inhuman,
or deem them 'something else' than
human ?
|
At their time, were they not of this persuasion ? Is superiority to become a
criterion of judgment, then, for this nation ? We are too good, perhaps, to be
so duped ? Delusion frequently precedes destruction, and elevation,
depression.