2010 is upon us. A month into a decade into a millennium; and we have seen revolutionary breakthroughs in technology, medicine and science. And so it would seem that nothing will remain the same forever. The common adage, so often (incorrectly, might I add) attributed to Mr. William Henry "Bill" Gates III stated:
“640K of memory should be enough for anybody." 1
Since this remark, we now have common household PC’s running with 2GB of RAM, high speed DVD burners, and a Disk Tray which doubles as a cup holder. CD’s are becoming little more than placemats. Truly, time has proven again and again, progress is inevitable. Things change, businesses grow, and the familiar Facebook homepage once again because unfamiliar.
From the above, it appears that we are making breakthroughs as a society. We’ve created a plethora of new science and technology, in order to make a better future. Let’s analyse that for a second. Are we progressing towards a better tomorrow, or self inflicted cultural ruin? The social morals and values that determine the very fabric of our discourse are so tightly entwined with business and government; that the institutions will not let us think for ourselves. It seems that Australian social progression, or transgression, if you will, is a dying species.
To the point, are we so involved in progress to keep the world safe and systematic, that we forget about social needs, obligations, and rights? Australia used to be a land of opportunity. Then again, that epithet has been applied to many a country. However, it seems which each coming day, new evidence suggests this opportunity is no longer the case. We in Australia are one of the few Western countries not to possess a Bill of Rights. We proclaim equality, yet stop gays from marrying. We promote freedom of speech, yet ban films and video games. And it seems that the domain of anonymous is being attack, with the proposal for internet censorship. I ask you, in a world of iPad’s, T3, and the quest for transhumanism, what became of rights?
We must consider what is best for the people, and their liberties. We must create according to the times, not based on history. When progress is exponential, precedence cannot be strictly followed. As individuals, we now must place it upon ourselves to choose what’s best for us. Otherwise, it will be left to backwards institutions. In reference to The American Bill of Rights, First Amendment, Justice David Souter states:
“[The] government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." 2
After years of personal debate, I consider myself pragmatically non-religious. Australia is supposed to be a secular society, free of direct religious influence. However, it seems that religious input; in particular Christian conservative opinion seem to be influencing more than just their followers.
For those who are not religious, is it just that these ‘moral institutions’ should have so much influences. To evidence, I reference Abbott’s proposed mandatory reading of the bible. He notes:
“I think it would be impossible to have a good general education without at least some serious familiarity with the Bible and with the teachings of Christianity.” 3
Are we really that backwards of a society to force the modern generation to read a text whose merit is based on faith, as opposed to quality? I agree with you Abbott that children should be familiar with the great texts. However, even though it passes as the foundation of our society, does it constitute as a great text? And does it belittle the influence of the Torah, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Satanists Bible?
Personally, I don’t care who begat who, but I certainly care that children will be forced to read that list of names. And while we are at it, I’m sure drilling those morals into the heads of our youth will be good for your image Mr. Abbott, but take a good look at what you’re instructing. Justification of slavery: check. Defamation of homosexuality: check. Live sacrifice: check. Deserved rape: check. Seems like your moral direction is a bit off, maybe perhaps, slanting to the right.
However, the law states that he must have his say. It is his right to be able to speak his mind, express his vision, and promote his outlook on life. For me, it comes down to an “I don’t support what you say, but I support your right to say it” paradigm. In this vain, I approach my next line of contention. Censorship, in all its social and legal forms.
Like many countries, Australia has had a long history of censorship and content dilemmas. Art, music, theatre, and film have all had their squabbles with the law. The transgressive John Waters film ‘Pink Flamingos’ suffered 12 years of refused classification, and Australian ban. The definitive rape/revenge film ‘I Spit On Your Grave’ suffered the same fate, and was refused classification for years 4 . Currently, Baise-moi and Ken Park (the latter highly praised by Margaret Pomeranz 5) are still banned films. We allow pornography (in some forms anyway), and yet these films are banned. And while it edges the line of a ‘victimless crime’, in agreed conditions, it still remains so. In some cases, even ‘descriptions’ of areas considered ‘taboo’ are illegal. 6 You cannot write fiction about Child Pornography, because that is considered illegal. Bart and Lisa Simpson having cartoon sex again is considered a criminal offense to view. 7
It seems the art world will one day come to a halt. All performances will be screened for ‘offensiveness’, all music will be bleeped, video games will be little more than electronic paint by numbers, and all artworks will have fig leaves repainted over the genitalia of the mighty warrior and awaiting maidens. This will continue until they put pants of the statue of David. And apart for appealing to the government for your work to be shown based on having ‘artistic merit’, there’s nothing that can legally currently be done. The art scene has always been ahead of the rest of the world. The individual has always been ahead of the government. And yet we are examined on the basis of “a general test of offensiveness to ‘reasonable persons’” 8. What constitutes as a reasonable person now? A convservative Christian, who lacks all thought towards social transgression. The answer provided, I believe, it what they would agree with. Not that they’d admit to it in those words.
Finally, I move to the internet. The global system which progress has fought so hard to build, and recently, so hard to destroy. Lately, two interesting online events unfolded within close proximity to one another. The first is Google’s refusal to continuing censorship of google.cn, the Chinese search engine. 9 The second is Australia’s proposal to implement government internet censorship. 10 As one nation rises, another begins to fall. I’m all for protecting the minds of children, but not when it is a mandatory filter and block on the rights of the adult. There are other countries with mandatory: Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. 11 Anything they have in common? With the exception of China, none even come close to modern standards of living. Religious and political freedoms are unheard of in many of these places. South Australia currently wants to deny anonymity when making political comments 12, so we’re well on the way to achieving what these countries have. Progress, I think not. We’re replacing freedom with skyscrapers, civil liberty with iProducts, and social justice with eGoods. I think it’s time for Australia to prioritise.
So there you have it; our current system in a nutshell. For those of you, who are able to vote, consider this when approaching the poll booth. When it comes down to it, the battle will be between the two major political parties. Liberal vs. Labor. Abbott vs. Rudd. It’ll be like Evander Holyfield vs Mike Tyson, but without the ear bitting (not that Abbott couldn’t use a few centimetres off his). In the crunch, you’re left with the decision: The introduction of conservative Christian right-denying morals or the censorship of the last bastian of social change, the internet. So what’s it to be Australia: A ‘giant douche’ or a ‘turd sandwich’. 13 I’ll leave it in your capable hands…
Bibliography:
1. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/msg/99ce4b0555bf35f4?pli=1
2. http://supreme.justia.com/us/512/687/case.html
3. http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,1,26507226-5006301,00.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films
5. http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?a=7595&s=Features
6. http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:PZamhYsiVasJ:www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/289C584B88554BCBCA2574B400125787/%24File/Child%2520pornography%2520law%2520and%2520index.pdf+child+pornography+law&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au p11-12
7. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/the-simpsons-porn-lands-man-on-sex-offender-list-20100126-muzn.html
8. http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:PZamhYsiVasJ:www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/289C584B88554BCBCA2574B400125787/%24File/Child%2520pornography%2520law%2520and%2520index.pdf+child+pornography+law&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au p19
9. http://technologizer.com/2010/01/12/exactly-right-google-exactly-right/
10. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/blogs/connector/3267678/Australias-net-censorship-plan
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship#Around_the_world
12. http://www.news.com.au/technology/south-australian-state-government-gags-internet-debate/story-e6frfro0-1225825750956
13. http://www.tv.com/south-park/douche-and-turd/episode/372423/summary.html
