Sedition, We Are One Day, Intelligent Design, Truth, RuneQuest

[tcpip]

The weekend started with a visit to the small demonstration for civil liberties. We live in dangerous times when people retreat into their private commercial lives over involvement in the public sphere. Chris Savage calls for sedition. I approve of his call for arms: "Because I do not want to see liberty nibbled at, I urge an association of Australian men and women to act mightily, with seditious intention, against the sovereign and against the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia." Who else is up for a bit of sedition?

Afterwards went to the We Are On Day annual meeting at the Melbourne Town Hall. Neither the array of speakers (from the Humanist Society, the Uniting Church, Christian Scientists, Bahai, Islamic Council, Kagyu E-Vam-Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh) or the compere (ABC's Encounter presenter Maraget Coffey) seriously addressed the serious problems in the divergent interests and beliefs, despite claims to similar core values.

Sunday I gave the extended service at the Melbourne Unitarian Church on intelligent design. Quite a good turnout and an interesting discussion by Dr. Bill Hall and Nigel Sinnot. Meanwhile, seventy thousand Australian scientists urge the government not to allow it into the classrooms. More on the presentation at my convert_me post.

Following the service was an animated philosophy group discussion on the nature of truth. I pulled an old rabbit out of my hat by using universal pragmatics to draw the sharp distinction between truth and sincerity (this is where people often get very, very confused). The debate really took an odd turn when matters of "contingent truthfulness" conflict with moral principles. In other words, the old discussion of the difference between moral principles and situational ethics has returned.

After all that, was the continuing adventures of the RuneQuest game run by Andrei. Magnificant stuff; we managed to find the Storm Khan leader of the White Bison clan (my clan!) and distract the army of Broos hunting for him, by tricking them and a century of Lunars into a conflict. The magnificant conclusion of the day saw the summoning of the Clan's Founder to dispatch the remaining chaos creatures and the subservient Lunars singing our praises. Waha help us if they ever discover it was due to our trickery that they fell into conflict with the Broo. It was high fantasy storytelling at its very best.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

I fail to see why it has to be against the poor old Sovereign, what harm has she done lately?

It's not about the individual, it's about the institution.

Let's return to those principles which our nation was established on, and see how they work, before looking for new principles.

Two points:

1. Such a position risks being misrepresented as kneejerk conservatism
   
2. Sometimes things are too broken to fix (eg. the ALP)

That said, I agree that what we're facing is not really a Hardcore Tory regime, but actually a radical and probably treasonous attempt to undermine the Australian Way of Life by a fanatical convert (where was the Dear Leader on 11/09/01?) to the Great Santa. (In fact, I attempted to kick off a movement called "Conserve Australia" a few years back, to embody this "defend hard-won core values without scaring off the Liberals for Forests" concept.)

However, this is meant to be about theatrical civil disobedience, isn't it? As such, I believe we need something headline-grabbing, and small-L liberal conservationism isn't going to cut it.

So, down with the monarchy, me hearties!

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

it's possible not everyone wants to conflate republicanism with this anti-sedition effort.

Quite right. This is a single issue campaign.

Maybe, but I don't think we've resolved that yet (nor perhaps should we expect to do so, at least until we've got a decent mailing list going and had time to ponder all the possibilities). After all, what's to be the basis of our "sedition", if not opposition to the system of government?

we may make a couple of carefully worded references to the US Declaration of Independence

Fair enough; even Uncle Ho went there (for all the good it did him).

Re: Will I be well hung?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

Ah. Now you tell me.

I really need some other people to work on my wikipedia article, to pick up stuff like this. (I have inserted ellipses into the Crimes Act (1914) where I assumed people were simply leaving out clauses that weren't relevant to the discussion at hand.)

Sedition vs. bad taste

[aayande.livejournal.com]

As I understand the proposed laws the headline "Spectacular triple attack rocks Baghdad" in today's 'Age' (26/10/2005) probably counts as sedition, in that it promotes/ encourages/ glorifies acts against Australian forces (I can't find the exact reference).

If there was a law or regulation against bad taste in headlines that might be more applicable - this 'spectacular' blast killed eleven people.

[jimboboz.livejournal.com]

Hey, what's wrong with conservatism?

Conservatism, n. - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes.

Aren't rights of habeus corpus, separation of powers, freedom of speech, all among "the best in society"? Isn't abrogating them a "radical change"?

And Lev, Australia was not "established" on a White Australia policy. That came after Federation. And I said we should return to the principles upon which it was established; not every old policy. The principles were all good, even if the policies were not all good.

Just because Sheriff Johnny confuses constitutional issues with the policies of the government of the day, does not mean that we ought to.

I would never say, "down with the monarchy." The erosion and abrogation of our civil liberties, our prosperity and the egalitarian nature of postwar Australian society has run in parallel with an increasing republican-style government. When the Prime Minister acts as the Executive, having the Governor General as his rubber stamp, opening games, being the spokesman for every ministerial portfolio, etc, we're living like a republic.

Menzies, a monarchist, wanted to ban the Communist Party, but the public and the courts wouldn't let him. Howard wouldn't let a silly thing like the public and the courts stop him. He'd just change the law to say the courts had no authority or something, worked well enough with the Tampa.

High Court: "You cannot use the military in a policing action."
Johhny: "Just passed a law saying I can! Nyah, nyah, nyah!"

Most Prime Ministers tend, over the course of their career at that level, decide that PMs should have executive power, they should be able to impose their will on the Cabinet, there's no need for a Senate, and the states should be abolished, there should only be Federal and local government. That's republicanism if it ever existed at all in this country. Johnny Howard is the most fervent republican we have.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The banksia grandis is used as the emblem for Murdoch University.

Apparently it flowers after going through a fire. Quite appropriate really.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Try that again.

We don't need to support sedition, we just need to express opposition to the existence of sedition laws.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

Hey, what's wrong with conservatism?

Nothing (thus Conserve Australia). It's just not a barbecue stopper, and thus an inappropriate basis for civil disobedience.

Aren't rights of habeus corpus, separation of powers, freedom of speech, all among "the best in society"? Isn't abrogating them a "radical change"?

Yes; as I said, I believe the Dear Leader is actually a revolutionary for the Eschatological Right.

I would never say, "down with the monarchy." The erosion and abrogation of our civil liberties, our prosperity and the egalitarian nature of postwar Australian society has run in parallel with an increasing republican-style government.

Perhaps so. However, certain institutions and ideas (sadly including "Socialism" and indeed "The Left") have been so degraded in the public eye that there is simply no saving them, and continuing to advocate for them is utterly unproductive (aka "Sunk Theory").

Johnny Howard is the most fervent republican we have.

What you seem to be trying to do here is to attach to the term "republican" everything that is negative about out-of-control executive power. All you can possibly achieve by this strategy is to degrade the term "republican". Perhaps this is your intention. I would strongly caution against it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

We don't need to support sedition, we just need to express opposition to the existence of sedition laws.

Sounds a bit like semantics to me. Still, maybe that's a sensible legal posture.

Not a lot seems to be happening with this idea, and the whole thread has now gone into "condensed mode" so I can no longer easily tell when anyone's added anything new. (Is that down to my settings? Can I flip some secret LJ switch to get it to display fully expanded?) If we're to maintain any momentum, I suggest a mailing list is in order. Unless anyone has a better idea, I suggest setting up "sedition@yahoogroups.com.au".

[jimboboz.livejournal.com]

What you seem to be trying to do here is to attach to the term "republican" everything that is negative about out-of-control executive power.

It's an inevitable development of any republic, it's happened in every one there's ever existed. The head of government tries to become the head of the state, too. Perhaps it's just the American example, I don't know, but that's what happens.

I don't know what a "barbecue stopper" issue is for Aussies. If arbitrary detention and banning strikes doesn't do it, I don't know what would. Maybe if Sheriff Johnny banned footy.

The Plan

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Sounds a bit like semantics to me. Still, maybe that's a sensible legal posture.

We don't need to advocate overthrowing the government, we just need to advocate that people have a right to say that the government should be overthrown.

Sedition is a silly law.

Unless anyone has a better idea, I suggest setting up "sedition@yahoogroups.com.au".

Let's stay on condensed mode. Heck, we three/four can work out the details here.

Q 1) What do we want to do?
A 1) Remove sedition laws

Q 2) How are we going to achieve this?
A 2) Mass protest. Heck, it's the only way that any progressive change occurs.

Q 3) What do we need?
A 3) This I don't have an answer for. If we have a website, what goes on it? If we have a mailing list what do we discuss? etc etc.

Re: The Plan

[http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/]

After carefully analysing the legislation, I believe (and I'm more than happy to be told I'm wrong about this; please do check my working) I have determined that the new laws will make it impossible for an individual unassociated with an "unlawful organisation" to be convicted of sedition, unless they call for the use of violence in some form.

That said, the new laws are very far from perfect. Not only do they create a ridiculous state where foreign citizens in foreign lands can be charged with sedition against Australia, they retain the disturbing indication to the Courts that they should doubt "good faith" in instances where Australians are advocating support for an enemy of an ally, regardless of whether such country is an enemy of Australia. (One can well imagine a situation where one would be restrained from opposing a US invasion of Venezuela, despite our government's decision not to become involved.)

The question is, should we devote our time and effort to opposing this particular law? My feeling is that we should back-burner this effort, at least until the Terrorlaws have been passed. (Let's face it: no effort we make now is likely to help prevent that happening.) We might like to visit the issue thereafter, depending on the final shape of the laws. (After all, who knows what trickery and double-bluff might emerge in the wake of all the COAG horsetrading?)