Australians, the State Knows Best

Art with a message the State disagrees with had better watch out in Australia. Censorship by the government is the way the State puts limits on certain thoughts being expressed publicly and with which the State disagrees or perhaps it considers may cause public unrest? north-korean-artists-banned-from-australia  These North Korean artists were commissioned by the Queensland Art Gallery to supply works for exhibiting but they were not allowed entry to Australia to explain their works. This might upset the thoughts of a free thinking secular democratic Australian public, so they were denied visas. The Australian public is here being told that in certain matters they must not be permitted to think for themselves and they must be protected from the expressions, words, ideas, thoughts of others. 

Is the Government overstepping its role? I am concerned it may not matter to Australians as much as it should. Whatever the message art, literature, speech may deliver, the silencing of it by-way of laws designed to limit free expression is much worse.

Iran to cut off Internet...completely

Iran's theocracy is taking further steps into isolation.

What is this a prelude to?

Something to view with concern...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57411577-93/iran-expected-to-permanently-cut-off-internet-by-august/

Meanwhile in Iran

...Nasrin Sotoudeh remains in prison sentenced to 11 years (originally) for the equivalent of sedition.

Is David Nicholls of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc for real?

Apparently you are only a legitimate and worthy Atheist if you belong to this Atheist club! 

The "Director" of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., David Nicholls, in an email to me dismissed my argument that the AFA might find our case (commented on in other posts here) of interest and worthy for some supportive comment. His response revealed a curious position. It is a position which informed my above statement with regard to legitimacy but it was also put to me in terms that were clearly intended to intellectually dismiss me as a Atheist. 

Indeed, my not belonging to his club in the first place, seemed to irk most. This being the greater wrong is worthy of some examination alone. This by implication suggests that in order to belong to a community of Atheists and expect their support one must first join into a large group, with a defining name, pay some sort of mysterious homage to the directing forces within this larger group, pay some unknown dues to establish ones bonafides to be deserving of support from it, and all whilst adhering to unspoken and mysterious rules as dictated by those with the higher power to do so. 

If this sounds a bit like organised religion then you'd be correct.

The Left have a big problem when it comes to Islam

This includes the Atheist, Humanist, Secular Left…

Maryam Namazie says it best.

Judicial Mediation "is a waste of time and money"

"Snapper" (digital manipulation) 2010

"Judicial mediation is a waste of time and money" I could not agree more. 
(source: http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2010/04/an-inconvenient-truth-judicial-mediation-is-a-waste-of-time-and-money/)

It is the generally held belief that mediation works really well. So well in fact that it must be used regardless of the apparent ineffectiveness in the face of the facts at hand. It seems only relevant to the lawyers and mediators that mediation happen. Most disputing parties want to get the matter settled properly and at trial where the rulings made are enforceable. Especially the party that can demonstrate truth and provide proof of it. In Mediation, the matters have to be heard in secret, kept secret, the outcomes or discussions are not binding and no one has to follow any recommendation. There are no orders, no findings,

International Women's Day - a celebration of equality

Selene - detail

It is hard for me to comprehend I was born into a world where women employed in the public service were, when married, forced to leave their employment, career, in some cases their life's work to tend to their new role as home keeper and bearer of children. It wasn't until 1966 in Australia when this Dickensian form of legislated discrimination against women was removed. 

Somewhat auspiciously by contrast in 1902 Australia became the first country in the world to allow (white) women to vote and to stand for public office. (New Zealand awarded the vote to women in 1893 though not the right to office until much later) In my home state of Victoria women won the right to vote last (1908) in Australia and of all her compatriots was last again to be awarded the right to stand for office (1923).
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

Edith Cowan,

Burden of Proof

The Good Wife episode 2 "The Death Zone" (season 3) aired last night on Australian TV. 

If you need anymore straightforward a contrast between UK Libel laws and US equivalent laws you need not go past this line from the UK Council character, the evil Mr Thrush, who taunts  "Do you know the key distinction between the libel laws in you country and mine? The burden of proof is reversed." 

Australian Defamation law with some variations pretty much slavishly follows the UK model. 

What will not quite be clear to those unaware of Australian/UK Defamation laws, though hinted at in this episode, is there is a further noxious element to this reversal of burden of proof. That though the initial burden may be met and truth demonstrated, one can still be found to have defamed the aggrieved complainant because a reasonable person may be caused (by the writings or statement) to think less of him, the aggrieved party.

So there is even more burden on the defence to establish, not only truth but as well demonstrate there is a pattern of behaviour which can then be shown contributes to a "Duty to Inform" and, as inThe Good Wife episode, that there can be a successful defence mounted of "Qualified Privilege".  

Under the Australian/UK model who benefits?