![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Various Studies (PhD, CCNA, Cert IV Management) and Civil Society Activism
Good one guys... The first four people on my friends list have the same story about JoHo's son being paid to spam.
News in brief. I've deferred by CCNA exam because it clashes with classes for my Cert in Small Business Management. I'm now doing the CCNA on September 23, which gives me more than enough time to get my head around some of the more obscure concepts (such as IPX, Frame Relay configuration, Dial on Demand Routing). I've also put in my intention to submit at the Uni of Melbourne. I now have three months (i.e., to the end of November) to complete and hand in my PhD.
The Cert IV in Small Business Management is proving to be a real dream run as it (a) will mean a nice government grant at the end of it (b) I'll continue doing what I'm doing already, except more so and (c) it's a pretty damn easy course to be honest. Also, unlike the "other" RMIT course the people doing the teaching are actually interested in giving out some knowledge in a friendly and effective manner. One other nice little benefit is that it seems that I'm the only person in the class whose concentrating on the range of IT services that I offer.
In the past few weeks I've taken time out to contact and see a few interesting people. One was Carmela Barenowska, a filmmaker and reporter who I befriended in East Timor (I think my extremely positive comments about her film "Scenes of an Occupation" won favour). After she went recently missing in Afghanistan, but later contacted SBS I shot off an email expressing how concerned we were all back home. She replied with the tale of what she'd really been doing - undercover investigation of
more abuse of civilians by the US occupiers.
Jose Ramos-Horta was in Melbourne recently and I caught up with him briefly after his well attended speech (some 350 people) organized by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at the Parliament of Victoria. The topic was on whether East Timor could be considered a UN success. In general he said it was, particularly considering they really didn't have much experience with nation-building per se. One other matter that he commented on at length was the rebirth of civil society over the past fifteen years, especially emphasizing how quickly the public - and not the governments of the world - reacted to the militia riots of 1999.
A few days later it was the first Jim Cairns Memorial Lecture organized by Race Matthews of the Australian Fabian Society and the RMIT, Melbourne, Monash and La Trobe ALP clubs. The speaker, Julian Burnside QC, gave some devastating examples of the horrific conditions that detainees in Australia's concentration camps (and I don't use that term lightly) have to go through and their lack of legal recourse. He also brought up Cairns' point of view that laws are not an absolute moral force and indeed, it is an abdication of duty not to defy an unjust law (pretty interesting stuff from a QC!).
It does raise a whole range of interesting questions about how one determines right and wrong behaviour, not just between individuals, but also right and wrong behaviour by institutions, and also the limits of social democracy and personal liberty. I'll leave that topic for comments...
News in brief. I've deferred by CCNA exam because it clashes with classes for my Cert in Small Business Management. I'm now doing the CCNA on September 23, which gives me more than enough time to get my head around some of the more obscure concepts (such as IPX, Frame Relay configuration, Dial on Demand Routing). I've also put in my intention to submit at the Uni of Melbourne. I now have three months (i.e., to the end of November) to complete and hand in my PhD.
The Cert IV in Small Business Management is proving to be a real dream run as it (a) will mean a nice government grant at the end of it (b) I'll continue doing what I'm doing already, except more so and (c) it's a pretty damn easy course to be honest. Also, unlike the "other" RMIT course the people doing the teaching are actually interested in giving out some knowledge in a friendly and effective manner. One other nice little benefit is that it seems that I'm the only person in the class whose concentrating on the range of IT services that I offer.
In the past few weeks I've taken time out to contact and see a few interesting people. One was Carmela Barenowska, a filmmaker and reporter who I befriended in East Timor (I think my extremely positive comments about her film "Scenes of an Occupation" won favour). After she went recently missing in Afghanistan, but later contacted SBS I shot off an email expressing how concerned we were all back home. She replied with the tale of what she'd really been doing - undercover investigation of
more abuse of civilians by the US occupiers.
Jose Ramos-Horta was in Melbourne recently and I caught up with him briefly after his well attended speech (some 350 people) organized by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at the Parliament of Victoria. The topic was on whether East Timor could be considered a UN success. In general he said it was, particularly considering they really didn't have much experience with nation-building per se. One other matter that he commented on at length was the rebirth of civil society over the past fifteen years, especially emphasizing how quickly the public - and not the governments of the world - reacted to the militia riots of 1999.
A few days later it was the first Jim Cairns Memorial Lecture organized by Race Matthews of the Australian Fabian Society and the RMIT, Melbourne, Monash and La Trobe ALP clubs. The speaker, Julian Burnside QC, gave some devastating examples of the horrific conditions that detainees in Australia's concentration camps (and I don't use that term lightly) have to go through and their lack of legal recourse. He also brought up Cairns' point of view that laws are not an absolute moral force and indeed, it is an abdication of duty not to defy an unjust law (pretty interesting stuff from a QC!).
It does raise a whole range of interesting questions about how one determines right and wrong behaviour, not just between individuals, but also right and wrong behaviour by institutions, and also the limits of social democracy and personal liberty. I'll leave that topic for comments...
no subject
The great conflict. interested in smart people's views. QC sounds pretty bold, and wonder what happens when he has to prosecute persons violating said unjust laws?
no subject
Burnside did say that, as a lawyer, he was not suggesting that people breach the law (significant sniggers from the audience). I don't think he's in the business of prosecution these days. I've just discovered he has his own website, which is notable for its content over glamour.
The debate between the moral force of law and its conflict with individual rights and democratic management is certainly one of the most unresolved issues of our time. At least in liberal theory this former is taken reasonably seriously (e.g., John Stuart Mill's "self-regarding" and "other-regarding" acts).
In the latter the US Declaration of Independence is probably the most radical examples of the latter - simply stating that if a government does not have your consent and if a government does not further the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*, then it is right to rebel.
I imagine very few states, let alone the US government, considers the Declaration of Independence to constitute just cause for violating unjust laws.
* Jefferson's very interesting ammendment - orginally is said "life, liberty and property"
no subject
I often try to explain to people the distinction between legal and right; it amazes me that people believe that legal = right and illegal = wrong. I don't advocate casual law breaking, and I try to ensure that people understand that there are consequences of choices, but if a law is wrong it needs changing.
Certainly this administration (and its predecessors) do not seem to believe that civil disobedience has any place in their little world... it was fine for civil rights marches 40 or 50 years ago, but not anymore... Now they throw RICO at them.
Cheers.
no subject
I think the difference between legal and right comes down to the fact that the former is determined by the political system (which in a democracy is "merely" majority opinion) whereas in the latter it refers to a universal principle.
For a law to be truly right it would have to be universally just. A difficult objective, but still a good principle to operate from.
What's RICO?
no subject
A statute designed to go after organized crimes, Janet Reno began using it against pro-life organization Operation Rescue in the early 90s. Pro-Choicers were all for it, failing to see that it set a precedent that could be used for all civil disobedience.
It has been broadly employed by government in cases which it was not originally intended to apply, including other political type situations.
If one strives to keep law universally just, one is much less likely to make bad law, I would think!
no subject
Tragic. I've seen similar things happen here with regard to censorship laws. For example, there was a Melbourne City Council by-law preventing people handing out leaflets that were deemed offensive - originally it was supposed to stop racist material. Anti-Nike protestors were very surprised to see it used against them.
If one strives to keep law universally just, one is much less likely to make bad law, I would think!
Indeed. Unfortunately both the centralization of political power and the influence of vested organizations makes universality very difficult indeed. Typically it is minorities that miss out.
Hijacked Laws
http://niagarabuzz.com/printer_873.shtml
Re: Hijacked Laws
Counter argument, of course, is that the corporate people is really just an amalgam of the individuals behind it, and that protecting their 'corporate' rights is merely an extension of their individual rights.
But, it is certainly true that the results are not, perhaps, what one would hope for.
droit de seigneur
Re: droit de seigneur
I think Jefferson was thinking in the reverse... That those without property (heavens, he actually recognized that property was a social invention!) were sill entitled to 'happiness' (along with life and liberty)...
Hannah Arendt has an interesting chapter on the 'pursuit of happiness' in On Revolution...
Re: droit de seigneur
Re: droit de seigneur
I have read somewhere (I know, not a great reference) that Jefferson actually tried to abolish slavery in the US constitution.. But with the white, 'enlightened' and wealthy men against such a proposition, he simply implemented what he could on his own plantations.. After all, if I was a black slave, I think I'd prefer to be on one of Mr. Jefferson's plantations than some of those other characters....