wo unrelated, yet eerily similar, cases in Australia show that the Moral Panics of child abuse and child pornography continue to grow and snare the innocent.

A NSW Supreme Court judge has ruled an internet cartoon in which lookalike child characters from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts is child pornography.

It seems this judge, unlike the defendant, cannot separate reality from fantasy. No children were harmed in the making of the cartoon, and no children are likely to be harmed by anyone viewing the cartoon.

“If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted,”Justice Adams said in his judgement. “Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar.”

The judge, seeing not to understand the import of the word if, then goes on to treat cartoon characters as real people.

Read the whole sad tale at http://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html

In the other case, a Queensland man has been charged for re-publishing on a video-sharing site a viral video of a man swinging a baby around like a rag doll. the man did not make the video, he simply republished what had been published many times before.

He was charged with using the internet to access and publish child-abuse material and is scheduled to appear in court in Maroochydore on December 18.

The baby is laughing and smiling at the end of the clip, but the video has attracted criticism from child-welfare advocates because of how vigorously the man swings the baby by its arms.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/12/08/1228584709781.html

 Have these people never seen America’s Funniest Home Videos? Perhaps that, too will be banned.

I am sorry, but these cases are over the top, and in fact they also trivilaise what is a very important issue.

“STEVE” has been barred from seeing his daughter for seven years.

He has never harmed his only child or her mother. He has never threatened them and a court has accepted he is of good character.

But last week, after a tortuous 10-year journey through four courts, more than 20 hearings, 12 psychologists and six lawyers, he was told he could not see his daughter until she came of age.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24761929-661,00.html

Although I can’t see how. Here exposed is the idiocy of putting political expediency above good law making.

Barack Obama is not black. He may be coloured. He is bi racial. But he is not black.

Content screening – stops staff accessing unrelated work sites.

Now, I think I can work out what they mean, but why should I have to? How much does the CEO get paid? Maybe some of that should trickle down to a decent proof reader.

http://www.telecombusinessbroadband.co.nz/

EVERY pregnant woman should be offered screening for Down syndrome regardless of age, and screening should be co-ordinated by a national policy, according to experts. 

A Danish study published in the British Medical Journal last week showed a national screening program using a combination of tests for expectant mothers halved the number of babies born with Down syndrome in the Scandinavian country.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/more-down-testing-would-halve-births-20081206-6swr.html

Now, as the article goes on to state, not every woman will terminate a Downs foetus, but for those who do, we will be spared the added expense of raising a sub opitmal person.

Just wait for the usual nutters to come out sctreaming about “How life enhancing” it is to parent a Downs child; no thought given to the child. Or the religious wonks railing “Every life is sacred” yet never wondering why their god is was such an incompetent designer that random suffering is part of the design.

In his column 6/12/08 Yardley takes his twit stick to those who see prisons as not just a place of punishment, but as a reflection on society as a whole. He seems to have a particular disdain for the Howard League for Penal Reform and their concerns that over crowded prisons do not provide the best results.

Yardley writes “The Howard League and company are apoplectic that serious, violent offenders now face the dire prospect of having to share their cell with a fellow inmate, who might bash or violate them.”

Perhaps Yardley might like to reflect that:

a) Many, if not most, prisoners are not “serious, violent offenders”.

b) Many prisoners are in jail for crimes other than violence, such as deception, fraud, drink driving, drug use, etc.

c) Many prisoners are in jail, more because they have a mental illness or incapacity than because they are hardened criminals.

d) Prisoners have the same rights and expectations as the rest of society to be safe from violence.

Yardley may like to return to the days of the lash, but if so, let him consider

1. Corporal punishment was administered by an appointed authority and under known conditions; it was not a process of random violence inflicted by inmates upon each other.

2. It would be more intellectually honest of Yardley to put the case for a return to corporal punishment, not hide behind throwaway lines like “double bunking (…) delivering more bang for our buck.”

“It’s disgusting that you can keep continually raising your salaries, giving yourselves slaps on the back and yet it has never filtered down to the people underneath you.”

Qantas shareholder Lisa Marshall

http://business.theage.com.au/business/qantas-boss-payout-hits-turbulence-20081128-6n1r.html

An unholy alliance of religious fanatics, faceless beauraucrats and censorious governments is attempting to place criminal sanctions on the freedom to criticise and oppose religion.

The attempt is being pushed by the The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), using the language of promoting Human Rights. This resulted in a report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diène, on the manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights. Whilst the haedline may relate to islam, this will encomapss any and all religions, no matter how stupid, violent or hilarious they may be.

One of the conclusions of the report is

78. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council invite Member States to adopt approaches in the promotion of dialogue between cultures, civilizations and religions taking into consideration:

 (a) The need to provide equal treatment to the combat of all forms of defamation of religions, thus avoiding hierarchization of forms of discrimination, even though their
intensity may vary according to history, geography and culture;

(b) The historical and cultural depth of all forms of defamation of religions, and therefore the need to complement legal strategies with an intellectual and ethical strategy
relating to the processes, mechanisms and representations which constitute those manifestations over time;

(c) The fundamental link between the spiritual, historical and cultural singularity of each form of defamation of religions and the universality of their underlying causes;

(d) The creation of conditions facilitating the encounter, dialogue and joint action of all religions and spiritual traditions for social harmony, peace, human rights,
development and combat against all forms of racism, discrimination and xenophobia;

(e) The need to pay particular attention and vigilance to maintain a careful balance between secularism and the respect of freedom of religion. A growing anti-religious culture and rhetoric is a central source of defamation of all religions and discrimination against their believers and practitioners. In this context governments should pay a particular attention to guaranteeing and protecting the places of worship and culture of all religions.

80. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Council invite the religious and cultural communities that are victims of these forms of defamation of religions not only to promote in-depth intercultural and inter-religious dialogue, including through the establishment of joint structures in each country in which they coexist, but also to explore the internal factors in their beliefs and practices which may have contributed to these forms of defamation of religions.

An excellent summary of the position can be found at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5.

The UNHCR needs to go back to its founding document on this an understand that rights attach to people, not to ideas or beliefs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Edit | No Comments »

I’ve always been a fan of Hardy’s writing, his care for the underpriveleged and his acceptance of the fallibility of Man, yet all the while seeing Men in their ordinary lives. Billy was Frank’s humourous alter ego.

My intention is to write about life as seen from the peace of Oxford, New Zealand, not all the far away from the setting of many other Hardy stories – Benson’s Valley.