Scott Ludlum of the Greens, speaking in Parliament yesterday against the Conroy filter:
Many child safety groups believe that the introduction of the filter may in fact foster an out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude by parents and may lead to a false sense of security on the assumption that the government has done something to somehow make the online environment safer for children, which of course is not the case. The current incarnation of the filter no longer proposes to filter pornography, violent material, gambling sites, violent or sexualised advertising or any other forms of content that could be considered harmful-depending on your point of view-to children of varying ages. The filter will not be able to block that volume of material. All of those problems will still remain and will need to be grappled with.
He covers all the issues, comprehensively. Well worth a read.
When the two major parties are trying to out-conservative each other on these issues, thank god we’ve still got the Greens.
Moved On 
Yes, Ludlam has been on this issue for a long time. Unfortunately, only the sandgropers get to vote for him. 🙂
Meanwhile the disingenuous Clive Hamilton goes on and on in support of the filter as though it’s somehow remotely similar to what the Australia Institute originally proposed. What he wants is a system that somehow restricts the dissemination of sexualised imagery. He still talks as though this is what the Conroy filter does, whereas in fact Conroy abandoned this idea a year ago and now proposes to block an entirely different range of material.
So whatever the merits of the Australia Institute proposal, it’s not actually relevant to the current policy.
The attempt to impose an internet filter is a loud and clear statement that the government does not respect its citizens’ ability to make their own decisions.
The best way of protecting your children is to respect them, engage with them, understand them, talk to them and be involved with their lives. It is a gradual letting go of them so they can make their own decisions and take responsibility for their own lives.
It is good for them to know that life is about making choices, not having the state decide for you. An internet filter is an undue restriction on the right of parents to teach this basic principle to their kids.
Also the fact is that we can’t trust the government with this kind of power. Ludlum nails the issue with this statement:
If you think that the government will not, sooner or later, use it for this purpose, you are deluded.
Yep Ludlum is one of the few politicians who makes sense when it comes to comments on this so called filter.
It should also be noted though that a number of Liberal politicians have come out very stronger against the filter as well…
“It should also be noted though that a number of Liberal politicians have come out very stronger against the filter as well…”
Of course those concerned Liberals against the internet filter wouldn’t have an ulterior motive would they?They are that shallow they could parachute out of a snakes arse.
If Conroy and his party were against the filter, these so called concerned Liberals would have taken the opposite tack and voted for the equivalence of book burnings.It is much the pity the Australian electorate is falling for all this nonsense.
“Of course those concerned Liberals against the internet filter wouldn’t have an ulterior motive would they?They are that shallow they could parachute out of a snakes arse.”
Since the liberals have not released a formal policy, individual members have spoken out, as they therefore are not contradicting the party line. But I am still waiting for the Liberal policy as this particular issue is deciding my vote at the next election.
What if they said no to this particular filter but carefully left themselves open to bringing one in themselves down the track?
The other question for Liberal voters is whether they seriously think the party under an Abbott leadership would cede christian votes to Rudd. I think not, therefore their endorsement of a mandatory fundie filter is merely a formality.
Jeremy that is absolutely what they’re going to do. It will be even easier for them if Abbott leaves us in the dialup (formerly known as dark) ages with no decent internets.
Both the biggest parties are more interested in themselves getting something done, rather than just getting something done.
“baldrickjones // 13 May, 2010 at 10:24 pm ”
It would be an interesting ex cerise, to take a look at the seats the dissenters among the wing nuts come from, and the demographics of the population.Wing nuts that take a contrary view to the ‘party line’ and I concede this line is not yet known, will always be suspect, it is the nature of this particular beast.
Is that Clive Hamilton pro internet filter nutter still a member of the greens?
Probably, but he isn’t in control on this issue, Ludlum is.
Hamilton’s involvement with the Greens was on climate change.
“It would be an interesting ex cerise, to take a look at the seats the dissenters among the wing nuts come from, and the demographics of the population.Wing nuts that take a contrary view to the ‘party line’ and I concede this line is not yet known, will always be suspect, it is the nature of this particular beast.”
The one thing I will cede the Liberal party is that is has a far more robust tradition of letting individual MP’s vote on conscience grounds – unlike the Labor party.
“What if they said no to this particular filter but carefully left themselves open to bringing one in themselves down the track?”
Then they would not get my subsequent vote. Don’t get me wrong, I have serious doubts about the current Liberal party leadership. I don’t think that Abbott has full control of the Liberal group, but what the Liberals do need is a strong leadership group to tell him when he is speaking bullshit – which is often. I would vote Green if they didn’t have some ludicrous policies (which I have highlighted before) which preclude me from supporting them. I am actually perusing independent’s websites often to see what they stand for.
The thing about the Greens is – people like Jeremy don’t want them to compromise their ideals – but, as has been pointed out by SB lately, you can’t just govern for the people who voted for you if you stand, you have to govern for all of your constituents. That may mean modifying your policy to reflect a “best compromise” rather than sticking to your ideological dogma. Modifying pre-election policies in the cold, hard world of actual responsibility is a neccesary evil.
If you want to vote for a political party that will cave to its opponents, go ahead.
I’ll vote for one that’ll stand up for what I believe.
“baldrickjones // 14 May, 2010 at 8:23 pm”
To govern for all is all very well when you have political Party’s that can compromise their ideologies for the welfare of the whole nation, this has and never been the case.
The conservative ideology is not about ruling for ‘all’ and any one who claims this must be a very poor student of history.
The Liberal party does not brook any dissent among its own ranks with the exception of concerns votes,No more is there a more glaring example of this than the shafting of Turnbull, who may have been the only member in their ranks to lead them to victory at the next election.
But getting back to the net filter, Conroy is playing the same game any politician plays to ingratiate themselves into an electorate that are easily told “we know what is good for you” It is a winning formula.
As for the Greens and their’ ludicrous policies’ it will be in my lifetime that they will emerge into a position of having our first ‘Green P.M.’ people are slowly realizing, that the duopoly we now have, is just not working. The planet is far to important for the Rudd’s and Abbott’s of the must have 3% growth brigade.
“No more is there a more glaring example of this than the shafting of Turnbull, who may have been the only member in their ranks to lead them to victory at the next election.”
I must disagree with that. I don’t think that any Liberal leader would win the next election – Labor simply has not fucked up enough. Labor will eject any MP who doesn’t vote with the party line – that has not been the case with the Liberals….and despite your protestations about the conservative party in Australia, that has been the fact throughout it’s history – at least give them that much.
As for the “Green PM” – not going to happen unless they moderate their position on several of their policies. Just my opinion but they have some ludicrous policies that any ordinary man in the street will not support. I would ask the question as to why they could not moderate some of their policies to appeal to more mainstream voters and hence have a real shot in breaking the duopoly. Having scrutinised the policy statements from Labor, Liberal, The Greens and independents, the greens always come out with the most outlandish policies on some issues – uranium mining being the most obvious. If they feel that strongly then fine – but don’t expect votes from the mainstream voter.
Baldrick, I’m perfectly happy with them representing the progressive left. I think that’s actually more people than you do – I suspect a large part of the ALP base wishes a move to more and better public services and more personal liberties, and those people are just voting for Labor because they wrongly think that only major parties can do any good.
I think there’s plenty of fertile ground for the Greens to appeal to without selling out.
If they sell out, they’ll lose my support, just as Labor has.
Pingback: Strike Four – the filter « An Onymous Lefty
Pingback: Sickos relying on Conroy’s filter to make kids more vulnerable fear not – it’s just delayed, not cancelled « An Onymous Lefty