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

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

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, I have been thinking of such a thing, and yes I have time. How about sedition.org.au ?

Sadly, unless the rules governing .org.au domains have changed recently (which they might have; I seem to recall that the registrar might have changed recently), we'd need to have an incorporated association called "Sedition Inc." or the like in order to get that.

What about australiansedition.org, seditionaustralia.org, seditionau.org or some such TLD? And should we wait for some other people to comment before going ahead with a registration? (Answers along the lines of "let's just get on with it" are perfectly acceptable. :)

Would that also apply to something like seditionary.org.au? or seditionaries.org.au? seditiously.org.au et al?

There's always the original Latin seditio...

Sadly, yes.

I've just looked into it, and there are a couple of ways we might be able to get away with it. The allowable reasons for registering a .org.au domain, under auDA's rules, include:

Domain name refers to a service that the registrant provides
Domain name refers to an activity that the registrant facilitates, teaches or trains

However, I'm concerned that if we enter into a legal agreement on the basis that we provide, facilitate, teach or train in "sedition", we're opening ourselves up to all kinds of nastiness from the get-go.

Incidentally, sedition.org.au is available, but I seriously doubt any registrar would allow us to have it (ie. under one of the reasons above) without our previously having incorporated an association with a related name.

Hi Jeremy,
My knowledge of the Associations Incorporations Acts of both WA and Victoria is a little rusty, but I seem to recall that the registrar can deny incoporation based on a "deeming" power. If the registrar deems the proposed association to be outside of the law, then the application can be rejected. Incidentally, incorporated associations also come under the Federal Corporations Act; with pretty heavy and to my mind indecipherable penalties for legal and "ethical" breaches.

I'd suggestlooking into setting up a "sporting" or charitable trust, based out of Western Australia. to my knowledge WA is the only state that permits this type of trust. The advantage of a trust is that it is an instrument rather than an entity, so legally it is a little vague and slippery; and can operate a trading name. Leading to the registration of a perfectly legal domain name.

However, to put the all important caveat in here, I'm not a lawyer! So it would be a pretty good idea to bounce this off a lawyer to investigate the protections afforded the trustees should the activity engaged in breach any law. Specifically, can the trustee be held personally responsible when operating within the guidelines of the trust deed instructions? In this case given that those instructions will certainly breach the sedition rule above. Maybe Bernand or Katrina could help out with the specifics?

Regards,
Chris J.

All good advice; thanks

anthanum. (Notice how I carefully adhere to LJ etiquette. ;)

However, establishing any kind of trust is going to be time-consuming and potentially expensive. I would suggest that, while we may want to go down that path later, right now all we need is a place to stick a wiki. Does anyone object to registering a .org for now, and planning to register a .org.au when we are able to put the requisite legal structures in place to enable it? (And if not, we're still left with a need to choose the .org; after all, assuming people aren't interested in the VRoA, we don't have a name for this "discussion group".)

Incidentally, what are our broad aims to be? (Before answering this, please consider the legality or otherwise of anything you say.)

Herein is the greatest problem; it is against the law to advocate that people ignore a law (no matter how unjust a law is). That's pretty much the basis of sedition.

VRoA is acceptable; vroa is acceptable. A wiki is a good place to start. I'm pondering on a working statement for broad aims, except on the lines of;

- To establish a republican government in Australia
- To overturn sedition laws.
- To enshrine the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Hey, no sedition against the Sovereign. After all, if the Governor General were doing his job, he'd refuse assent to these ridiculous laws. By tradition, he refuses assent to any laws which are, at their heart, unconstitutional.

And these are, since they violate the unwritten constitution. Sure, scoff at the unwritten one, but the High Court in 1992 held that there was an "implied" right to freedom of speech here. For other implied rights, see here: http://libertus.net/censor/fspeechlaw.html

A proper Governor General would, along with the state Governors, stand as a defender of the Sovereign as protector of the Constitution and the liberties of the people. Alas, nowadays we only get former politicians and ambitious toadies as Governors General.

Habeus corpus, a right held by Englishmen since 1207, will be abolished by the proposed laws. If there is _any_ "implied right" in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, that must be there. Alas, our High Court judges are also ambitious toadies, as we've seen in recent decisions about detention of refugees, etc.

We don't need a new Constitution, we need to follow the old one. As Machiavelli said in his _Discourses_, "In order that a religious institution or state should long survive it is essential that it should frequently be restored to its original principles."

Our original principles were _good_.

Separation and independence of the branches of government - executive, judiciary, legislature. Today I would add, "corporate." Since we have allowed them so much power, and since they require so much government co-operation to exist, they have become in effect a branch of government. So we need to either abolish them entirely, or acknowledge their power, and keep it separate from others.

A permanent and independent civil service - when ministers appoint their buddies to secretarial positions, we get rubbish like the WMD reports. Ministers need independent and honest advice, not flattery. Better Sir Humphrey Appleby blocking you than Wormtongue whispering in your ear.

An appointed Head of State, such as the Governor General, or a monarch. When the position is elected, quite naturally the person will come to imagine that they have a "mandate" to use their powers. When Executive powers are used, we see a confusion and mixing between the executive, judicial and legislative (and corporate) branches, as in the USA; this is detrimental to liberty.

Sedition against the government and its oppressive laws and violation of our Constitution I can agree with; sedition against the Sovereign, never. Our problem is not that our institutions were bad, but that they are violated by our government.

I find myself thinking of Milton's _Areopagitica_, in which he spoke against censorship - and our government is trying to censor us with these sedition laws - and called for tyrannicide. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/areopagitica.html

Of course, now that we see these "sedition" laws, we understand why our government was so keen to take away military-style weapons from the populace. After all, when they wish to remove all _legitimate_ means of redressing grievances - by abolishing habeus corpus, rights to appeal, independence of the judiciary and executive - then all that is left to us is _illegitimate_ means of redressing grievances.

And that is the great danger of the Industrial Relations and sedition legislation. When people have no longer peaceful and legal means of dealing with their discontents, they will choose violent and illegal means. The government, in fact, is sowing the seeds of genuine and violent sedition.

Cheers,
Kyle

Excellent points Kyle... BTW, when are you setting up an account? Even if it is just to record your Brittany RPG?

Okay, done:)

First post, all about sedition!

The Brittany Immortals campaign is on hold. I've got a job in the country for half a week, and slaving away in kitchens drains the creative juices...

it is against the law to advocate that people ignore a law [...] That's pretty much the basis of sedition.

Yep, we'll essentially be conducting a civil disobedience campaign against the sedition laws (something I believe to be defensible under current law, but which might well become illegal under the proposed law). But we should be careful not to break any other laws while doing it.

VRoA is acceptable; vroa is acceptable.

They aren't really alternates, just different formats for the acronym...

A wiki is a good place to start.

I'm currently working on a wikipedia article called Australian Sedition Law as a resource. As I suggested earlier, a user-space article (perhaps under a special-purpose user like "Australian_Sedition") might be a good place to discuss our proposed activities without appearing to be a terrorist conspiracy. If people don't want to use wikipedia for this purpose, I repeat my offer of hosting space with a selection of wiki software.

- To establish a republican government in Australia

We need to discuss this (and thus the use of the "VRoA" name too). While you and I might, it's possible not everyone wants to conflate republicanism with this anti-sedition effort.

- To overturn sedition laws.

Yep, although we need to be sure "overturn" doesn't have unwanted legal implications.

- To enshrine the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I don't like this. At least part of my basis for wishing to change the government lies in my belief that the Prime Minister is acting against the interests of this country at the behest of a foreign power. Such a clause sounds way too much like the dogma of that foreign power.

Do we need aims as broad as this? Sure, if we're writing a Constitution for a VRoA we probably want some of this kind of stuff in there. But shouldn't we start off with something more specific and build the general as and when we can?

They aren't really alternates, just different formats for the acronym...

Yes, I stuffed up ;-)

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

Quite right. This is a single issue campaign.

Yep, although we need to be sure "overturn" doesn't have unwanted legal implications.

Although we may make a couple of carefully worded references to the US Declaration of Independence (which is one of history's most carefully worded yet forthright statements of sedition)

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).

(no subject)

tcpip.livejournal.com - 2005-10-25 19:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/ - 2005-10-25 20:46 (UTC) - Expand

The Plan

tcpip.livejournal.com - 2005-10-26 02:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: The Plan

http://users.livejournal.com/_fustian/ - 2005-10-30 21:15 (UTC) - Expand

"(Notice how I carefully adhere to LJ etiquette. ;)"
Yeah ok, point taken :)

This said, when the post comes through to the webmail or other email client it will say something like..

"Chris, cj, jonesboy, jonesy and other permutations (anthanum) replied to another comment somebody left in your LiveJournal post. The comment they replied to was:"

d'oh
well you learn something new every day.

Alternately, if we're happy to pre-determine the basis of our "seditious activity", I have an old project called "The Virtual Republic of Australia" which could be co-opted to the cause. Perhaps the VROA could gain sufficient popular support to make a claim to sovereignty over the Commonwealth. :)

Baby steps Jeremy, baby steps... We're not quite ready to take over the country ;-)

I agree, and I'm certainly not going to push the issue, but:

1. We need a (popular) focus for our "sedition" if we intend to achieve much more than making a political point
2. Republicanism is once more on the radar, and has significant popular support
3. Republicanism is specifically "seditious" in that it'd necessarily opposed to the sovereign
4. Establishing a "virtual republic" is actually an achievable goal (not least in that we get to define what we mean by it)
5. I'm ready to take over the country; that's what I meant by "replace the Government". ;)

I fail to see why it has to be against the poor old Sovereign, what harm has she done lately? The problem has been with the legislative leader acting as the Executive, and evading, pre-empting, or corrupting the judiciary, and with the legislature failing in its job of being a house of review to which Ministers are responsible.

When Parliament rubber-stamps stuff, and the PM acts like a Minister-President, and threatens, over-rules and corrupts the pliant judiciary, we already have all the worst parts of a republic without any of the good parts.

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

Let's return to those principles which our nation was established on

What? The White Australia Policy? ;-)

You're quite right about the poor ol' Queen. She isn't a target in this debate. Indeed, we can pitch our initial appeal to her to block the legislation.

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:

Such a position risks being misrepresented as kneejerk conservatism
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!

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.

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.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only