The author Matthew Knight has this posted on the ABC. It seems some can still write messages opposing the government of Kevin Rudds totalitarian exercise into tyranny. My post’s there, never make it to the published stage for some odd reason. So i am re posting Matthew’s post to Mr Rudd, here , as it virtually is similar to my sentiments at this current time.

That November election night a year ago when Kevin Rudd defeated the conservatives, I guzzled French champagne. “Materialism has been defeated!” cried my wealthy host, popping another bottle to toast a new dawn of progressive values.

Our binge peaked: my Fabian friend jubilant because tomorrow he would wake glad-hearted, if sore-headed; as for me, sometimes intoxication just feels good.

Then Kevin hit the stage.

But instead of shaking a fist in triumph or dropping his head to honour the mysterious sorrows of victory, Kevin started up in that reedy voice, not sounding the warlord to have slain John Howard. His pitch, his intonation, his whole vehicle of being had the dreary, sing-song, measured reasonableness of some soporific, parodic dweeb of a vicar.

“Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward,” proclaimed Kevin.

“To plan for the future, to embrace the future and together as Australians to unite and write a new page in our nation’s history.”

Outside fights for national survival, invocations of unity make me nervous - they are the control orders of mediocrity. And haven’t Kevin and the ALP let rip with their prudish, paranoid, huddle-round-the-hearth wowser assault on Australia.

Remember the “alcopop” crisis and its tax hike on drinks vixens prefer for debauchery? Now how cruddy, how depraved must the Government believe us to be to dedicate at least $44 million to removing Australia from the internet’s free-flow?

Welcome to Clean Feed, the ALP’s compulsory, universal censorship - “filtering” - of the web. If Clean Feed proceeds after the impending pilot, Australia will top the democratic world in web censorship with internet service providers (ISPs) forced to block access to sites on a secret blacklist compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

Blacklists - conveniently exempted from Freedom of Information disclosure - are currently provided to makers of censorship programs already readily available. The ALP wants to force it on everyone. Why?

Federal Internet Minister Stephen Conroy said censorship would “reduce the exposure of children to illegal content”. Illegal? What don’t they want seen? Suicide bombings; high speed pursuits? Nah, that’s news. Money laundering? Identity fraud? Not visual.

Child pornography has little attraction for kiddies and is already hunted relentlessly by police worldwide.

Let’s be frank. It’s about sex.

It’s Chairman K’Rudd’s War on Sex. On carnality. On voyeurism and lust. A war on the greasy insults flesh spits at this author of a Faith in Politics essay for Monthly magazine. In it he quotes Dietrich Bonheoffer’s “when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die” - typical nihilistic utopianism. Chairman, when porn calls a man, you can lop off the “…and die”.

Our ruler only needed about 20 seconds of TV screen-grabs of Bill Henson’s classically composed studies of troubled adolescence to declare them without artistic merit and “absolutely revolting”. What a premature ejaculation.

Welcome to the PG Nation where realists of humanity - of our bare, bleeding, beautiful, barbaric psychologies and sexualities - are becoming dissidents under the Government’s morbid fear of life in the raw.

On top of Clean Feed, the Government has the Australia Council for the Arts considering new “children in art” protocols, one of which is “protecting images of children from being exploited, including use of the images beyond the original context of the creative work”. In the digital age, how can one determine all future uses?

Dig the next thought-control protocol: “Ensuring that everyone viewing the artwork has an appropriate understanding of the nature and artistic content of the material.”

Even if we indulge the totalitarian fantasy of there being a single correct (and by implication sexless) interpretation, after a bout of university teaching this year let me suggest no one can ensure anyone understands anything.

And whiting-out irrationality’s epicentre - young sexuality - is clearly the aim.

Let’s be frank, Kevin. You must know puberty and adolescence bring sexuality and all its terrors, thrills, disappointments, cruelties, joys, enslavement, emancipations, humiliations, dangers, illusions and clarity - a host of forces defying “appropriate understandings”.

Depicting it is not abusing it.

If the Chairman is to set art and porn policies for a non-theocratic society, he needs an education revolution.

Rudd could start with Camille Paglia’s 1990 walloper, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. “Sex is the natural in man,” writes Paglia.

And art? “Art is our message from the beyond, telling us what nature is up to.”

Nature is harsh, Kevin. It’s pre-Christian. In trying to hold it at bay with civilisation’s countless regulations and restrictions we lose more than just its exhilarations and terrors. We lose its honesty.

Of course, people’s hunger for deeper truths than those arising from insipid urban codes is insatiable, and we hunt everywhere for the reflected teachings of what we no longer dare approach.

Sport is one arena for a proxy experience of barbarity’s intensity, but its lessons are too singular and repetitive to appeal to everyone.

Some prefer to touch the void through the babel of the arts, whether via Sophocles’ ghastly Oedipus the King, Shakespeare’s poetic Tragedy of Macbeth, Bret Easton Ellis’s pornographic American Psycho, or Bill Henson’s unsettling photographs.

They’re all voyeuristic. But that’s different to being real.

Pornography, that sludge Rudd hopes Clean Feed will dyke out, is more real, but sex between consenting adults in whatever combinations and permutations they devise is surely a natural right.

Why the fear of seeing it? Why force a Clean Feed on everyone?

And what’s so “clean” about censorship? Another book for Rudd’s Christmas reading is Friedrich Nietzsche’s 1888 zinger, Twilight of the Idols: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer.

Sexual desire is the true sacred road, writes Nietzsche: “It was only Christianity, with ressentiment against life in its foundations, which made of sexuality something impure: it threw filth on the beginning, on the prerequisite of our life.”

Maybe my champagne-quaffing election-night host was right: materialism - if taken as embracing the shock and grit of reality over heavenly, utopian delusions - has been defeated.

But I predict the coming of a most uncivil, uncouth, un-Christian disobedience.

Two words, Chairman: screw you.

Australia has changed for the worse over the last year. It appears as Mr Rudd to win the election has made some rather odd commitments to minority lobby groups such as the ACL. Recent policies are troubling, including alco pop tax, net filter, govt spending, his travel, his inability to actual do anything more than talk about a subject. He hasn’t achieved one election promise of substance besides the hollow apology to Aborigines. I say hollow because he apologized yet he continues the racist intervention. He will have spent whatever surplus was left by John Howard yet the poorest of poor have not received one cent. He is as i thought a smooth talker of no real substance.

The scary part of the about to be introduced censorship of the Australian internet is the govt has now included a new criteria called “unwanted” material Previously it was supposedly only illegal material, already according to a Mark Newton letter posted at electronic frontiers.

Meanwhile getup.org also have a protest to the filter

Article from :getup.org

Five days before the 2007 election, the Labor Party issued a policy ‘fact sheet’ stating: “A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries” which would prevent access to “any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA”.

Few media outlets reported that policy and, even if many had, most voters would expect “offer” meant they would be free to decline the offer of censored Internet access.

Less than twelve months later, Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy revealed that Labor’s policy statement was not trustworthy. Evidently, Labor failed to tell the voting public the truth about their plan or have changed their policy since election.

In October 2008, Senator Conroy said that ISP-level filtering would not be opt-out; all Internet users’ access would be subject to blocking. He told a Senate Estimates Committee that “we are looking at two tiers - mandatory of illegal material and an option for families to get a clean feed service if they wish” and Sky News that “Clean feed is broader than the prohibited sites. You can’t opt in or out of the prohibited material. The clean feed is something you can opt out”. Labor had not previously mentioned “two tiers”.

While the Minister frequently refers to “illegal”/”prohibited” material on ACMA’s blacklist, this terminology is highly misleading. In fact, “prohibited content” includes material that is lawful to publish/distribute/obtain offline in Australia, (some is also lawful to exhibit in cinemas), and which is not illegal for Australians to view on the Internet. Material unsuitable for children is termed “prohibited content” in Commonwealth Internet censorship legislation enacted in 1999 (which Labor voted against).

Unlike Australia’s offline censorship regime, the Internet censorship regime is secret and unaccountable. Offline material is classified by the Classification Board, an independent statutory body comprising publicly named members. Titles of banned and classified material are publicly available in the Board’s online database. In stark contrast, decisions to add content hosted outside Australia to ACMA’s blacklist are made by unnamed government agency (ACMA) staff and all information about material on ACMA’s blacklist is secret. Freedom of Information legislation was changed in 2003 to exempt all such information from disclosure under FOI (changes voted against by Labor).

Moreover, ACMA’s blacklist may include overseas hosted content that ACMA staff incorrectly thought “would be” prohibited if classified. In FY2007, the Classification Board found that 11 of the 28 items submitted by ACMA (presumably content hosted in Australia which ACMA is required to have classified before issuing a final take-down notice) were not “prohibited content”. In FY2008, 7 of 14 were classified not “prohibited”.

Secret, unaccountable, censorship is incompatible with democracy and the inappropriateness of the existing regime will be exacerbated if ACMA’s blacklist is used for compulsory ISP-level blocking, instead of only provided to filter makers as currently.

Labor’s intention to implement non-opt out ISP-level blocking of so-called “prohibited” content on a secret blacklist, which they voted against in 1999 and 2003, shows that Labor has changed its stripes markedly in recent years.

If Labor implements non-optional ISP-level filtering, which would be contrary to their 2007 election policy, they will prove beyond doubt that Labor is not trustworthy. Accordingly, regardless of the type/s of material Labor says will be on their secret compulsory blocking list, such statements will not be trustworthy either. Labor’s intention to mandate non-optional ISP-level blocking must be opposed.

Direct action Protests are being planned in all major cities at nocensorship.info.

Your Domestic Bliss hope all of these action groups can actually get their heads together and work in an organised  and concentrated fashion to protest this abhorrent action by the government rather than just having many different groups running individual protests.

Your Domestic Bliss would like to offer its support and thanks  to  radio broadcaster Derryn Hinch, in his battle against a legal system that protects the worst of worst criminals , pedophiles. Under the current system some of  these vile felons are  a protected species provided with anonymity upon release from jail. Derryn defied an incredulous crazy suppression law  again and has  allegedly named 2 pedophiles on his website and at a protest rally.

The public has a right to know the whereabouts and identities of such vile predators yet our system thinks protecting the criminals rights is more important than the rights of society.

A man of conviction stands by his convictions, and Derryn is such a man. The real threat of jail has not deterred Derryn  from naming pedophiles So Your Domestic Bliss applauds his stance.

He has already spent 12 days in jail, back in 1985, for previously revealing such details of a pedophile priest.

Penalties, for Derryns charges, provide for fines in excess of $12,000 on each charge and up to 12 months in jail.Derryn currently has a petition for supporters to sign at namethemshamethem.com.

He can be heard on 3AW 4pm - 6pm weekdays

Derryn Hinch in court to fight charges he allegedly breached court orders

Georgie Pilcher

November 20, 2008 10:48am

BROADCASTER Derryn Hinch appeared in court this morning as he continues his fight against charges of breaching suppression orders.

The case has been adjourned until February next year to give the prosecution time to compile a brief of evidence against Hinch.

Prosecutor Kim Swadesir this morning applied to have the suppression order, which Mr Hinch allegedly breached, varied to allow the Crown and the defence access to the materials.

Hinch, 64, is facing five charges which relate to alleged breaches of County Court suppression orders protecting the identities of two pedophiles freed from prison.

The controversial 3AW drive-time host is accused of publishing their names on his website, www.hinch.net, and announcing their identities at a protest rally in June.

Full story  : herald sun

No longer are drunks or the mentally ill shown compassion or effective justice in NSW , Australia. Its a quick zap into submission and hopefully the suspect won’t die . Australian civil rights have been eroded  rapidly over the last decade or 2 but this certainly takes the cake.  Australia’s allies in the world need to apply pressure on the Australian govt to revert back to some form of civil rights for those least able to protect themselves. Tazers are a dangerous weapon at the best of times but in the hands of Australian  police officers. How on earth were NSW police even issued with such barbaric tools in this day and age?

Its time civil rights became an issue in Australia, before this govt removes every last eon of base rights from its citizens.

Note the media site doesn’t allow public comments on this or any other outrageous civil rights issue in Australia. Cesorship is alive and well in Australia

Tasers mostly used on ‘drunks, mentally ill’

Article from: AAP

November 19, 2008 11:13am

THE New South Wales Ombudsman has called for tighter regulation of Taser use by police after $1 million worth of the stun guns were delivered to senior officers at 80 Local Area Commands last month.
NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said the Tasers had been deployed to defuse potentially life-threatening situations.

But in a report tabled in Parliament today, Ombudsman Bruce Barbour expressed concerns they might be used in more commonplace situations.

He found people subjected to Taser use were typically male, Caucasian, under 40, and with mental health problems.

The vast majority were armed or thought to be armed with one or more weapons.

Over half were intoxicated at the time Tasers were used on them.

One person had died of a heart attack 12 days after police used a Taser to subdue him, the Ombudsman said in his report.

He acknowledged the man had had a number of health problems, including heart disease, so it was not clear if the Taser had caused his death.

“Police need to be extremely careful using Tasers,” he said.

“They are not a non-lethal weapon - they are just a less lethal weapon.”

Mr Barbour called for a two-year stoppage on any further rollout of Tasers to police, pending a further independent review.

“Current police standard operating procedures relating to Taser use are inadequate,” he said in a statement.

“There are known risks with using Tasers, and police must receive clear, comprehensive and consistent guidance to ensure safe and effective use of this weapon.”

The Ombudsman’s report maintained there was conflicting medical and scientific opinions as to whether Tasers could cause irregular heart rhythm, including ventricular fibrillation, a life-threatening condition.

“While it may be relatively safe to use a Taser on a healthy adult, the jury is still out on their use on a range of other people who police typically encounter in serious situations,” Mr Barbour said.

The Ombudsman made 29 recommendations to improve safety, effectiveness and accountability of Taser use

Despite Australia  once  being a democracy with open and honest government it has now evolved to a totalitarian style of govt  dictating to its citizens what  they can see on the internet and what they can not  although the subject of what is banned and what isn’t not remains a state secret,  never to be made public.

Given that child pornography is illegal in every country i can think of the real motives behind this filter pertain to other matters unrelated to the main excuse given for such a filter,yet our govt does not have to explain its motives, agenda pertaining to internet  censorship to anyone. The government has no checks or balances. As such no doubt this site will be blacklisted along with any other site that protests this most ridiculous process. Be scared  be very scared.

According to electronic frontiers, a site focusing on  promoting and protecting civil liberties online :

The contents of the list are secret - it cannot even be obtained under Freedom of Information thanks to modifications to the FOI Act.

So its official no longer is the Australian govt an open or honest government. Our government now decides for us what is right and wrong, what is suitable for our viewing what is not. No longer is choice an option.

The Government is yet to explain under what terms the list will be expanded, who will decide what goes on it, and what mechanism will be available to correct errors. Unlike other forms of media, Internet censorship decisions are secret and not subject to review. Under these circumstances, we should urgently demand that the Government explain its reasons for introducing internet filtering. No compelling reason has so far been provided.

But rest assured the content is not soley restricted to illegal content according to electronic frontiers.This government has overstepped the mark  relating to governement censorship and controls. We need to actively protest  the pending introduction of such filters or face the very real prospect of never being able to have choice ever again.

Just as the working with children check was expanded to restrict  anyone with any criminal record from ever accessing children, this filter will to be used to discriminate against any citizen that refutes the ludicrous system we live under.

Australia has no federal civil rights , its  now obvious why it has never been of importance.

Your Domestic Bliss has added nocleanfeed.com banners such as this one:

to our site  to encourage people to protest the Australian govt outrageous behavoiur in this filtering matter. please feel free to object in any of the manners availible and to keep this matter in the public eye until the govt ceases from this totalitarian style of behavoiur.