[plug] 1984

[Bret Busby]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 5/31/99, 12:11:19 PM, "Larry O'Reilly" 
<lor at ecoli.microbiol.uwa.edu.au> wrote regarding Re: [plug] 1984:

<snip>
> Who is going to take responsibility?

That is the question.

Surely, it is the people who should take responsibility for their 
actions.

If a man shoots another person, he does it because of his own reasons, 
and he should assume responsibility for his actions. As Kalashnikov, 
the man who developed the Kalashnikov AK-47 weapon said, he was not 
responsible for the uses to which the weapon was put; he developed a 
tool, and it was the users who decided to which use the tool would be put.

If a person drives a car while drunk, that person is responsible for 
anything that happens as a result of that choice.

If Clinton is going to merrily bomb Europe, indiscriminately, and 
gratuitously, then he should assume responsibility for the attitude 
that is prevalent in the USA; if you don't like someone, kill them.

If the feral government here is going to prohibit access to sex sites, 
which increase awareness of sexual matters, then each feral member of 
parliament should be held responsible for any problems that result 
from an inadequacy of knowledge about sexual matters, such as unwanted 
pregnancies, dissolutions of personal relationships due to problematic 
sexual relationships that may have been resolved by techniques, or 
attitudes, of which the members were unaware, because the feral 
government insists that people do not have a right to knowledge.

And, the each member of the then feral government must take individual 
responsibility for the imprisonment of the man at the feral election 
before the last one, who was imprisoned because he tried to inform 
people of their rights in voting. He was condemned as a criminal, for 
trying to inform people that they did have the freedom of choice, in 
voting. That imprisonment was in violation of the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which "entered into force in 
Australia", many years ago, and which is repeatedly violated in 
Australia. Two aspects applied; the freedom of speech, and the 
requirement that a government be elected by the free choice of the 
people. That person had those two rights violated, and, so did all 
australia.

And, if a previous message posted on this mailing list, referring to 
the RC classification (or status), is correct, then any ISP who hosts 
any web site that tries to similarly inform people of their electoral 
rights (although the rights that existed, that the person tried to 
explain to the people, have since been eliminated by the oppressive 
feral government), will find themselves with a problem.

Thus, each member of the feral government must individually assume 
total responsibility for the violation of human rights, that it has 
implemented in this country, and, specifically, the feral; political 
party, the anti-liberal party, that oppresses, and violates human 
rights that it is required by law to uphold.

See the text of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights, the UN instrument that was signed by Australia, ratified by 
Australia, "entered into force for australia", as indicated by the 
then minister for foreign affairs, andrew the peacock, and the high 
court decision, that indicates that foreign treaties that are ratified 
by the government, are legally binding on the government.

And, then, think of the man who was imprisoned, so he could not inform 
the australian public of its voting rights, and the removal of the 
provision that allowed an elector to vote for, and only for, the 
candidates of their choice, at feral elections. And, remember the KGB, 
and the deportations to Siberia, and Alexander Solzenitsen (I hope I 
spelt that right), and the Gulag Archipelago. So, what's the 
difference?

And, then, in terms of responsibility, each member of the anti liberal 
party, and the anti democrat party, who voted for the removal of that 
right, is guilty of human right violations, as is any member of feral 
parliament, who votes for this bill, that will oppress political 
expression, that is different to the government.

For those of you who saw the film, "The American President", remember 
what he said, at the end of the film, about the right to freedom, and 
political expression, and, remember, that each person who votes for 
this bill, will be guilty of violating the rights mentioned.

Whether you agree with the policies of the One Nation Party, or the 
Greens Party, or the Democrats Party, or the Labor Party, or the 
Liberal Party, or any other political party, they have equal rights to 
exist, and to have the same facilities afforded to them, including 
freely accessible web sites. Otherwise, we are no better than 
Indonesia, whose army was trained by the australian army, and whose 
security forces were trained at edith cowan university (the security 
part provided training to the indonesian security forces). For those, 
australia must be held responsible.

And, remember, that it is a matter of responsibility.

The people voting on the bill, have the freedom of choice, but, if 
they vote for the bill, they will be removing our freedom of choice.

And, they must each be held to account for that, as they are each 
directly responsible for the outcome, and all the resultant violations 
of fundamental human rights, that are supposed to be guaranteed to us 
by the International Covenant.

And, think of this different aspect of it; if any of you walk into a 
Barbarella's store, you can likely so do, unchallenged, and look at 
what is in there, and walk out, and retain your anonymity. Similarly, 
you can go to art galleries, and see images, to which access on the 
Internet would be restricted, and retain your anonymity. And, you can 
watch sex movies on free to air television, and retain your anonymity. 
And, you can walk into a petrol station, and see images, of the type 
to which access on the Internet would be restricted. on magazines 
displayed, and buy the magazines, and retain your anonymity.

But, the Internet Oppression Bill, will mean that you lose that 
anonymity, if, and, only if, you chose to use the Internet.

And, it will target a medium, discriminating against that medium, 
where other media are not targeted.

There are many issues in this matter, but, basically, the bill is, as 
indicated, an act of oppression by a feral government that freely 
violates human rights (and that is the only association with the name 
"Liberal" - the free violation), and, each member of feral parliament 
who votes for the Internet Oppression Bill, as already stated, will 
individually be guilty of human rights violations, and must be held 
individually responsible for that.

I don't know about a tuppence ha'penny worth; this seems more like a 
guinea's worth!

Bret Busby