Friday, 10 September 2010

Conroy's net filter still alive and kicking (!?!)

Won't back down ... Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Photo: Andrew Meares

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, is ploughing ahead with his internet filter policy despite there being virtually no chance any enabling legislation will pass either house of Parliament.

Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, the Opposition and the Greens have all come out against the policy, leaving it effectively dead in the water.

The Greens communications spokesman, Scott Ludlam, has called on the government to end the facade and drop the internet censorship scheme once and for all, as it was wasting time and taxpayers' money.

University of Sydney Associate Professor Bjorn Landfeldt said, given the catastrophic election result after only one term in government, it was "remarkable" the government was "pushing the very issues that undermined their credibility, rather than focusing their energy on important societal issues".

"One may wonder exactly what underlies this relentless pursuit of a mirage, given that there is just about zero support outside the cabinet," said Landfeldt.

"Surely it is no longer a matter of believing that the policy would benefit the general public."

The government is preparing to introduce legislation forcing ISPs to block a blacklist of websites that have been "refused classification" (RC) by government bureaucrats.

After intense criticism of the policy, including that "refused classification" included innocuous and politically sensitive material, Senator Conroy announced just before the election that his policy would be delayed until a review of RC classification guidelines could be conducted by state and territory censorship ministers.

This effectively means any internet filtering legislation will be delayed until next year, by which time the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate. The Greens have already said they would oppose the legislation, as has the Opposition.

But before it gets to the Senate the legislation would need to pass the House of Representatives, meaning Labor would need the support of Greens MP Adam Bandt and the independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter.

Wilkie, Windsor and Katter could not be reached for comment but a spokesman for Oakeshott said he was against the filter.

In fact, last year Oakeshott helped a teenage campaigner in his electorate with a petition arguing the filter should be scrapped.

"It is not the government's role to be a net nanny. It is the role of every single household," Oakeshott told the Port Macquarie News at the time.

Senator Ludlam said in a phone interview that he wanted the review of RC guidelines to still go ahead but the government should drop the internet filtering policy altogether.

"It [the RC review] was quite transparently a political stalling tactic but that didn't make it a bad idea," he said.

"[The filter] is just a complete waste of chamber time. It's a waste of public servants' time who for the next 10 months are going to be progressing a mandatory filter proposal that has no chance of passing either house of parliament now."

Senator Ludlam said Senator Conroy should "get past this fixation" with the filter and turn his attention to other looming issues such as net neutrality and the Attorney-General's data retention proposal. The data retention proposal is being pushed by the Australian Federal Police and could see all web browsing history of Australian internet users logged for law enforcement to access.

A wide range of experts on the internet and child protection have long argued that a mandatory filter would be ineffective as it was easy to bypass, would not capture even a small percentage of the nasty content on the web and would give parents a false sense of security.

The big ISPs, including Optus, Telstra and iPrimus, have already pledged to block child-abuse websites voluntarily. This narrower, voluntary approach has long been advocated by internet experts and brings Australia into line with other countries such as Britain.

The Opposition pledged to bring back free voluntary PC-based internet filters for families, which existed under the Howard government but were scrapped by Senator Conroy to make way for his mandatory ISP-level filter.

"Recent OECD reports tell us the investment and quality of our higher education system is falling behind other developed countries; with the ludicrous house prices Australians can no longer move out of home, etc," said Landfeldt.

"There is no shortage of important issues and challenges for the government to focus on."

Despite the intense opposition, Senator Conroy is pushing ahead with the filter and has revealed "a suite of transparency measures to accompany the policy and ensure people can have faith in the RC content list", a spokeswoman said.

"The government does not support Refused Classification material being available on the internet. This material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence and detailed instruction in crime," she said.

Asher Moses @'SMH'

Astronomy Photographs of the Year

Siberian Totality by Anthony Ayiomamitis (Greece)

HERE

Liverpool fans won't be happy until American owners have gone for good

Liverpool's co-owners Tom Hicks, left, and George Gillett have succeeded in alienating the Anfield fans. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters

Until Tom Hicks and George Gillett are officially consigned to Liverpool history, there will be no dancing around the streets of Anfield at reports of their imminent demise. Imminent will not suffice for supporters more accustomed to refinancing deals than record signings since the Americans arrived in February 2007 with promises to put spades in the ground, to manage debt and to sit on the Kop once fans accepted them as true custodians of a rich tradition. There may not be the energy for the send-off they deserve when it is all over.

News that the Royal Bank of Scotland is preparing to cancel £237.4m worth of debt next month, thereby ending Hicks's and Gillett's involvement in Liverpool and costing the credit-crunched businessmen a fortune, raises hope among the club's support that the end is indeed nigh. Another uncertain period awaits while a buyer is found, but the Americans' track record of resisting pressure from the banks, the Middle East, fellow directors, a former manager and the financial opinions of prized footballers to remain in control ensures judgment on a state-owned Liverpool must be reserved.

Doubt over the future of Liverpool will not lessen the significance of the co-owners' exit, however, whenever that comes. Hicks and Gillett have been accused of a litany of failure by the numerous protest groups they have unwittingly created. Some of the charges – such as never putting their own money into the club – are imagined; most – the stadium, the debt, transfers, undermining Rafael Benítez and their own dysfunctionality – are real. Alienating a mass fanbase from their club would also be high on that list.

That Liverpudlians cannot identify with a fundraiser for George W Bush (Hicks) is no surprise, nor a fundamental reason for the anger today, but an interminable saga of financial misery and broken promises has dismantled the traditions they vowed to protect. It is not simply that they have handicapped Liverpool as the club that "existed to win trophies" by making a profit on player-trading for the past two years. It is that for many – and yes, this does sound trite – the fun has gone.

As the MP for Walton, Steve Rotheram, whose constituency covers Anfield, said this week when calling for greater supporter ownership at all levels of the game: "Look at what's happened at Anfield. The fans there do not feel engaged. The owners have seen the supporters as part of the problem instead of the solution." They still do, and the removal of Benítez this summer illustrates that also applies to management level.

Gérard Houllier's return to English football with Aston Villa provides a reminder of how little and everything has changed about Liverpool since the need for new investment prompted former chairman David Moores to accept the Americans' £5,000 per share offer. Houllier spent years bemoaning Liverpool's inability to compete financially with Manchester United and Chelsea (though Arsenal's achievements at that time always undermined his argument) and was sacked after an alarming dip in form, bad buys and with Liverpool fearing they could be cut adrift while losing the services of two disillusioned stars – Michael Owen and Steven Gerrard.

Replace Owen with Fernando Torres this summer and the parallels are clear yet, even though the calls for Houllier's removal far exceeded those for Benítez, Liverpool's support is now politicised like never before. Instead of bridging the gap, Hicks and Gillett have cut Liverpool adrift – from title contention, the Champions League and from the faithful. Hicks hoped to win the latter back by ceding to Benítez's demands on his last, powerful contract at Anfield, but he had no chance.

Offering Jürgen Klinsmann a European Cup-winning manager's job turned the tide of public opinion against the co-owners, but a bigger mistake was to redraw plans for a new 60,000-capacity stadium on Stanley Park within weeks of their takeover. It was pre-credit crunch, and planning permission and European funding was in place for a stadium that was estimated to cost £215m.

The American dream of bigger and better then got in the way. Hicks wanted his own architects to create a grander vision (or cash cow) for 72,000 spectators. Gillett objected but not forcefully enough, and their business relationship began to deteriorate just as the financial storm approached. Only a succession of short-term refinancing packages, under increasingly stringent conditions, have maintained their grip on Liverpool to this point, but at a cost beyond what they stand to lose should the RBS assume control.

"We didn't come here to milk the franchise or the club, we are here to try and build a winning tradition on what is already a winning tradition," said Gillett on the day he first set foot inside Anfield. "I don't think it is appropriate for me or Tom to try to convince the fans we understand the sport, the history or the traditions as well as they do. But respect is what we genuinely feel about the history and legacy of this franchise. I hope we can earn the respect of the fans. Give us a few years and then measure us."

The verdict was returned long ago. And they never did buy Snoogy-Doogy.

Andy Hunter @'The Guardian'

'More tea, pastor?' A tense meeting with the extremist igniting global outrage

In the end, Terry Jones saw reason. But just a few hours earlier, his mind had been very far from magnanimous gestures of conciliation.

Yesterday morning, not so long before he announced, to the relief of a watching world, that he would cancel his plan to burn the Koran, he was sitting in a Harley-Davidson T-shirt, trainers and shorts in his office, contemplating the speech that Barack Obama had been making about him on TV. That was not the only reason Mr Jones was distracted. The coffee in his church in the Gainesville woods wasn't made; and his website had mysteriously gone down.

With a reporter waiting, Jones Sr hasn't had time to see all of the Obama interview with ABC TV, but the bit when the President urges him to listen to "better angels" had made him laugh. Even then, he gave little sign that he would shortly be performing a remarkable volte-face. "I listen only to God," he says. "Angels don't communicate with us – God does. I don't want to be rude, but that sounds like the statement of someone who doesn't understand Christianity."

Tall and lanky with a drooping moustache, Mr Jones seemed both confident and uncertain at the same time. In his office, whatever he had decided about the burning, all the outward signs were still in place. After we talked, his son, Luke, took me to a side-room where the condemned Korans were heaped on a small table.

In fact, to hear Mr Jones tell the tale of his adventures in extremism is to hear the story of a man who was always in over his head. He began his anti-Islam onslaught a year ago, putting signs outside the church that read "Islam is of the Devil". The reaction, he confessed, was stronger than he had expected. And it wasn't great for his congregation, which, at about 50, is half what it was before he started.

That he has already ignited a different kind of fire – of anger and dismay – in every corner of the world has not left him unaffected, he said. He and his congregation were listening; and perhaps Mr Jones was giving just a hint of the decision that was to come. "We are weighing and praying and we are reconsidering," he said. The door to retreat was open, but it had to be God that told him to do it. "We feel for now that we have received a very clear message [from God] to do it," he offered. "That hasn't changed yet." But Mr Jones went on to recall the Old Testament story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham accepts the order. "Only at the last second, God stops him."

Yet whatever his eventual climbdown, the furore precisely demonstrates, he would still say, what he has been arguing all along – that "there is so much fear connected to Islam. This is why the act of burning Korans has created this kind of reaction."

He may not have seen anything yet. What could have happened here on Saturday, a day when 90,000 fans of the Gators, the American football team of the University of Florida, are due in town, is anybody's guess. What may still happen in the Muslim world is more worrying still.

A nearby resident, Alan Morrow, 62, a former police officer, had spent yesterday putting orange tape across his driveway lest the promised burnings had triggered some kind of furious invasion. "This is America, folks," he said. "We have freedom of speech. But there are different ways to skin a cat and this just isn't right." Sam Gordon, 24, a chef, is blunter. "Everyone in this town that I have talked to thinks this shit is completely out of order," he said.

The climbdown followed a meeting between Mr Jones and Imam Muhammad Musri, of the Central Florida Islamic Society, during which he invited the pastor to join in a 9/11 commemoration instead of burning the Korans.

"We want him to hear other prominent faith leaders talking about how to learn from the tragedy that fell on us on 9/11," he said. "We are trying to find a way for him to be able to address his concerns about Islam without the negative repercussions that would follow a burning of Korans."

Meanwhile, the city managers had told Mr Jones he must pay for all the security costs while the fire department would have pounced with a fine because he had no permit to light a bonfire.

No one will ever no exactly what led Mr Jones to his decision. The extent of the possible fines might have weighed on his mind; yesterday he was insisting that God was his man. But, he added, "If I ignored Obama I would be as crazy as people say I am," he said. And are you crazy? "Well," he concluded, "I don't think I'm crazy."

David Usborne @'The Independent'