headers
Pia Smith | 3 Oct 2004 01:17
Picon
Favicon

Re: The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 14:09, Bret Busby wrote:
> The children themselves?
> 
> "Sacrifice your child today, so it can enter the kingdom without 
> being corrupted by worldly things..."
> :)

/me laughs

> My understanding, is that so-called nanny software, or whatever you want 
> to call it, is very fallible, and, the censorship of the Internet, goes 
> against the principles of the Internet, which involve free (as in 
> liberal, not "free of charge") communication across national borders.

As someone who had to deal with one of the most censored "Internet"
accesses in the world - China, with it's "Great Firewall of China"
blanket blocking any sites with blogs attached amongst others ;) - I
think that once you open the gates of allowing intervention at that
level, you don't know what'd happen, and worse yet you couldn't be sure
what was being blocked.

<snip>

> And, I am once again reminded of the feral government's Internet 
> Oppression Bill, which was to outlaw anything "that the government 
> might regard as offensive", being transmitted on the Internet, which 
> would include material such as Pauline Hanson's maiden speech to feral 
> parliament, in which she said that it was time to end the perks of 
> members of the feral parliament, so that they would not get any rorts 
> above what workers were entitled to receive. Such offensive (to members
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bret Busby | 3 Oct 2004 18:23
Favicon

Re: The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Pia Smith wrote:

> 
> > And, I am once again reminded of the feral government's Internet 
> > Oppression Bill, which was to outlaw anything "that the government 
> > might regard as offensive", being transmitted on the Internet, which 
> > would include material such as Pauline Hanson's maiden speech to feral 
> > parliament, in which she said that it was time to end the perks of 
> > members of the feral parliament, so that they would not get any rorts 
> > above what workers were entitled to receive. Such offensive (to members 
> > of the feral parliament) comments and material, were to be illegal under 
> > the feral government's Internet Oppression Bill, which I believe was 
> > passed into law, with the help of a senile christian fundamentalist 
> > senator, who (from what I understand) is not seeking re-election.
> 
> Ewww! Got a reference?
> 

To which; the maiden spech of Pauline Hanson, where she said that the 
parliamentary rorts/perks should end, or, to the Internet Oppression 
Bill?

--

-- 
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............

"So once you do know what the question actually is,
 you'll know what the answer means."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Pia Smith | 4 Oct 2004 07:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 02:23, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Pia Smith wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > And, I am once again reminded of the feral government's Internet 
> > > Oppression Bill, which was to outlaw anything "that the government 
> > > might regard as offensive", being transmitted on the Internet, which 
> > > would include material such as Pauline Hanson's maiden speech to feral 
> > > parliament, in which she said that it was time to end the perks of 
> > > members of the feral parliament, so that they would not get any rorts 
> > > above what workers were entitled to receive. Such offensive (to members 
> > > of the feral parliament) comments and material, were to be illegal under 
> > > the feral government's Internet Oppression Bill, which I believe was 
> > > passed into law, with the help of a senile christian fundamentalist 
> > > senator, who (from what I understand) is not seeking re-election.
> > 
> > Ewww! Got a reference?
> > 
> 
> To which; the maiden spech of Pauline Hanson, where she said that the 
> parliamentary rorts/perks should end, or, to the Internet Oppression 
> Bill?

Sorry, a reference to the Internet Oppression Bill. I've found a little
bit about it now though. :) The eww was directed at the paragraph in
general. We have quite a conservative government, and I'd hate to have
outlawed anything they might find offensive :(

Pia
--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Anthony Towns | 3 Oct 2004 01:53
Picon

Re: The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 09:17:10AM +1000, Pia Smith wrote:
> > Similarly, as the man was imprisoned for advising voters of their voting 
> > rights, a couple of elections ago (the people are not allowed to be 
> > informed of their voting rights for feral elections, under feral law), 
> > advice of human rights, via the Internet, would also likely be banned 
> > under "mandatory filtering" legislation.
> ? Again a reference would be great, I hadn't heard of that before :(

Albert Langer, 1996. He was advocating voting the candidates you don't
like equal last, as a moral stand / form of protest. Which isn't to spec,
but the vote counters will still use your vote as much as possible, so
your vote won't actually get thrown away. Unfortunately for Mr Langer,
advocating filling out a ballot incorrectly is illegal even when it'll
still get mostly counted. He got an injunction, then three weeks hard
time when he kept distributing his pamphlets anyway.

Amusingly, just a few years later, the Queensland Labor party advocated
the same thing for the Queensland state election (where preferences are
optional, and hence advocating that is entirely legal), to great effect:
Liberal and National voters apparently followed their advice, leading to
the conservative vote getting split and an even bigger Beattie landslide.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1995-96/96cib14.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1029303.htm

Cheers,
aj

--

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@...> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Paul Dwerryhouse | 3 Oct 2004 10:11
Picon

Re: The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 09:53:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Albert Langer, 1996. He was advocating voting the candidates you don't
> like equal last, as a moral stand / form of protest. Which isn't to spec,
> but the vote counters will still use your vote as much as possible, so
> your vote won't actually get thrown away. 

This loophole has since been closed, however, so anyone intending to try
it out next Saturday will find themselves having voted informally:

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/research_2001elections.htm

: "At the 1996 elections Mr Langer indicated that he intended to encourage
: electors to use a form of optional preferential voting. As a result of
: an advertisement published by Mr Langer encouraging the above style of
: preferential voting, the AEC obtained an injunction, preventing him from
: continuing the campaign. Mr Langer defied the injunction and was
: sentenced to jail for contempt of court. The term Langer Styler voting
: arose from Mr Langers high profile campaigns of encouraging electors to
: vote in a form 1,2,3,4,4,4 or similar. In 1998 the CEA was again amended
: so that it was no longer an offence to encourage voters to vote other
: than in accordance with full preferential voting. However Langer-style
: votes would no longer be counted as formal.
: 
: In the 1998 and 2001 elections Langer-Style votes were counted as
: informal. Prior to 1998 these votes would have been counted up to the
: point that the numbering became non-consecutive at which time they would
: have been classified as exhausted. Consequently this type of voting has
: contributed to the rise in informality at the 1998 and 2001 elections."

Paul.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bret Busby | 3 Oct 2004 18:52
Favicon

Re: The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:11:16 +0200
> From: Paul Dwerryhouse <paul@...>
> To: linux-aus@...
> Subject: Re: [Linux-aus] The federal election - what ICT policies have
>     been announced? (fwd)
> 
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 09:53:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Albert Langer, 1996. He was advocating voting the candidates you don't
> > like equal last, as a moral stand / form of protest. Which isn't to spec,
> > but the vote counters will still use your vote as much as possible, so
> > your vote won't actually get thrown away. 
> 
> This loophole has since been closed, however, so anyone intending to try
> it out next Saturday will find themselves having voted informally:
> 
> http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/research_2001elections.htm
> 
> : "At the 1996 elections Mr Langer indicated that he intended to encourage
> : electors to use a form of optional preferential voting. As a result of
> : an advertisement published by Mr Langer encouraging the above style of
> : preferential voting, the AEC obtained an injunction, preventing him from
> : continuing the campaign. Mr Langer defied the injunction and was
> : sentenced to jail for contempt of court. The term Langer Styler voting
> : arose from Mr Langers high profile campaigns of encouraging electors to
> : vote in a form 1,2,3,4,4,4 or similar. In 1998 the CEA was again amended
> : so that it was no longer an offence to encourage voters to vote other
> : than in accordance with full preferential voting. However Langer-style
> : votes would no longer be counted as formal.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Anthony Towns | 3 Oct 2004 13:09
Picon

Re: The federal election - what ICT policies have been announced? (fwd)

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 10:11:16AM +0200, Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> This loophole has since been closed, however, so anyone intending to try
> it out next Saturday will find themselves having voted informally:
> http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/research_2001elections.htm

Only partially; http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/votes.htm
indicates that counters are still meant to try to interpret your vote as
formal when possible, so if you miss a couple of numbers on the senate,
or repeat a number your vote'll still get counted as far as possible. But
yeah, Langer style votes are indeed explicitly informal.

Cheers,
aj

--

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@...> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``[S]exual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.''
      -- US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (http://tinyurl.com/3kwod)
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane