Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Greens Demand Public Access To Cloak and Dagger Anti-Piracy Meetings

Posted by samzenpus on from the we-can-handle-the-truth dept.

Fluffeh writes "Continuing the recent stories on the secret, closed door, FOI blocked talks, the Australian Greens have filed a motion in the Senate requesting that the Government release documents regarding its closed door meetings on Internet piracy which the Attorney-General's Department has blocked from being released under Freedom of Information laws. This morning, Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam filed an order in the Senate that the Government disclose details of the most recent meeting. 'The Government refuses to reveal almost any information about the attendees, the substance or the outcomes of the meeting,' he said in a separate statement. 'A Freedom of Information request from a journalist looks like it's been met with maximum resistance.'"

26 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. At last... by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An Aussie political party with some cojones.

    1. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any help they give will be purely coincidental. Greens are interested in serving there own agenda, if they happens to help you so be it, but they would just as soon as watch you rott in the gutter.

    2. Re:At last... by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that's the point of having political parties! They are out to serve their own agenda, and if enough people feel served by this agenda too, they will elect them. If you don't feel their agenda fits your goals, then don't elect them.

      Instead of ranting, maybe some democracy 101?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:At last... by andrew3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.

      Really? Wikipedia and the Greens website both say they oppose censorship.

    4. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IN Europe it is the Green/Pirate Party alliance that has been fighting ACTA. Here is a quote from a response i got from my SNP MEP: 'My group in the European Parliament, the Greens/European Free Alliance,
      has commissioned two very important studies regarding ACTA which may be
      of interest to you. One is on the compatibility of ACTA with the
      European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental
      Rights (http://rfc.act-on-acta.eu/fundamental-rights) and the other is
      in relation to Access to Medicines
      (http://rfc.act-on-acta.eu/access-to-medicines).'

      so, as you can read: Greens fighting ACTA.

    5. Re:At last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is indeed the point of democracy, but it is also a flaw in the idea of political parties. The Romans used to consider that politicians banding together into parties was a very dangerous trend in a democracy, obscuring the merits or flaws of the individual under the combined policies of the party.

      It leads to linking concepts that should have nothing to do with one another, such as "If you care about the environment, then obviously you also support the welfare state, it couldn't be otherwise." or "If you believe tax on business should be lowered in sectors X, Y and Z, then obviously you also want massively increased military spending."

      In order to serve their own agenda and be able to compete, political parties have to be as large as their opposition, which means they have to absorb sufficient numbers of groups that can support them, all with their own issues and interests.

    6. Re:At last... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      They have no interest in maintaining the openness of the internet in Australia. They supported the failed internet filtering legislation moreover they would like to censor everything.

      The Australian Green Party do not support internet censorship, and in fact are opposed to internet censorship. Do you have a reason for your opinion - or are you perhaps you're thinking of the Laboural Party of Australia? They seem to love censorship.

      Their policy manifesto would make Kim Jong Ill proud.

      Wow! You're a fucking idiot aren't you?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    7. Re:At last... by garrettg84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod AC up. This is a huge problem and it is exactly why I refuse to associate with a political party. Both sides here in the states are totally full of it and have blinders on.

      --
      -g
    8. Re:At last... by jasenj1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Came here to say this, but not as eloquently. This is why I wish the two party system in the USA could be busted.

      - Jasen.

    9. Re:At last... by EJB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Liberalism and liberterianism are not the same, and liberals in countries with proportional voting systems are definitely not the same as libertarians in the U.S.

      Most liberals want to government to give people equal chances in life, while most libertarians want to either abolish government or keep it as small as possible.

      Let me Wikipedia that for you...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

      Actually liberal parties in Europe have quite a lot in common with the democratic party in the US, in terms of what they want to achieve. Except they're typically considered right of the center in Europe.

    10. Re:At last... by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Australia, neither Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Conservatives or Liberals are single-issue parties, and Liberals are most definitely not Libertarians. The single-issue parties are the ones like "Shooters and Fishers Party", or "Help End Marijuana Prohibition".

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    11. Re:At last... by Elaugaufein · · Score: 2

      I think you might have the Liberals confused with someone else, there social policy is not precisely Libertarian (its Replublican-ish,), nor are they a single issue party, they are essentially the ruling half (at the Federal Level, at the state level the Nationals sometimes lead) of our Liberal/National coalition who represent the Conservative side of politics here.

      The Social Democrats have not to my knowledge ever held the balance of power (in fact I'm not even sure if that group exists?, I know there are both Labour Democrats and Liberal Democrats), you might be thinking of the Democrats who held the role the Greens currently do (ie the largest party not part of the 2 major groups), up until the late 90s. We have a bunch of parties who feature the word Democrat in their titles, some because they were spin offs of the Democrats, others because it seems like a nice word to have in your title in a democracy.

      Also there's not really a Christian Conservative single issue group, there's 2 parties playing that card at the moment Katter's Australian Party (which is new) and Family First. The 2nd is actually pretty much a Christian Conservative group, the former is hard to explain, since he span of one of our major Conservatve Parties his policies are pretty wide ranging but largely conservative, in favour of farming and hunting , and Christian.

      Sorry if you were trying to describe ideologies rather than parties but since some of party definitions and names are very different (Our Liberal Party would usually be considered Conservative) I felt the need to qualify.

      Disclaimer: I don't care much for any of the major political parties at the moment, but my social positions are Left (significantly left of even our Left party really), I apologize if my bias has slipped in anywhere, I tried to be as factual as possible.

    12. Re:At last... by Elaugaufein · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you're confused about what a request/motion from a Senator is. Its not asking politely, its essentially proposing that the matter be considered by that House (and as such it needs to be voted on, even if it gets voted down) and the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate, and our major parties are so polarized at the moment that they'll vote against something just because the other side votes for it, it'd be pretty difficult to dismiss it out of hand anyway in any practical sense.

    13. Re:At last... by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Both sides here in the states

      We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".

      You know why our voter turnout is so low here? The above explains it. Rather than choosing between eating a shit sandwich and poking yourself in the eye with a stick, they just stay home.

      The Dems and GOP want to put some of your friends and family in jail for an innocent, harmless activity. Someone you love smokes marijuana. Why are you voting for candidates who want to incarcerate your loved ones?

      I'm not sure about the CPs, but neither the Greens nor Libbies want to put your dope smoking son in law in prison. I'll be voting GP this November, as I did last election.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    14. Re:At last... by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      Both sides here in the states

      We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".

      You know why our voter turnout is so low here? The above explains it. Rather than choosing between eating a shit sandwich and poking yourself in the eye with a stick, they just stay home.

      I reject the "might as well stay home argument". If are not part of the solution, in this case, you are definitely part of the problem. Especially when there is a mechanism that could remove the "wasted vote" problem. It's called an instant run-off election. Get involved, make it a reality in your area, and stop wasting your vote.

    15. Re:At last... by BenLeeImp · · Score: 2

      Voice your dissent. Vote 3rd party. Only good things can result from that. Either we elect a 3rd party candidate, which I suspect would be less susceptible to corruption, or the first party candidates wake up a bit and realize they have to pay attention to the electorate. Either way, the people win.

      Also, vote in primaries. The first parties tend to have at least one candidate that isn't atrocious, but they don't seem to win primaries very often. I suspect voter apathy is the cause here as well.

      If you want to take laziness out of the equation, sign up for absentee ballots. Much easier than voting in person.

    16. Re:At last... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      We have a Green Party here in the US, too. Their Presidential candidate was on enough ballots last election to win, had the media given them coverage instead of convincing you that we only have two parties, or that a vote for a Green or Libertarian (also on enough ballots to win, as was the Constitution Party) is "wasted".

      It's not a media problem. It's a problem with our plurality voting system. Each voter gets a single vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins. That's been mathematically proven to favor a two-party system. If the candidate you vote for isn't one of the top two finishers, you have wasted your vote.

      The fix is to change our voting system. While a perfect voting system is impossible to create, certain voting systems are still better than others. Plurality is one of the worst. Instant run-off, while not the best, is one of the simplest to implement, and much better than plurality.

      But the two parties will fight this tooth and nail because they like how the current voting system gives them more power.

  2. Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by master_p · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, they never were.

    if democracy could change things, it would be outlawed.

    1. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Actually, they never were.

      if democracy could change things, it would be outlawed.

      And yet, quite strangely it would seem, many that share your opinion want a larger, more powerful government.

      Not saying you, personally, do. I just find it to be a major reality-disconnect when people who complain about the government expanding it's powers, spying on the domestic populace, commonly employing military-style strike teams on individual civilians not convicted or suspected of a major/violent crime, and taking away their rights and abusing them in general, turn right around and vote for those politicians and laws/policies that give the government even more power and ability to control their lives and screw them over even worse than they currently are in "new and improved" ways.

      By the way, pure democracy is nothing but mob rule, and woe to those in the minority. I wouldn't want to live someplace that practiced pure democracy. It wouldn't take long for it to collapse at any rate, and likely in a very violent way.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Actually, they never were."

      Except for roads, electrification, water and sewage, healthcare (outside the US), and the social safety net??? To say government doesn't govern at least somewhat in the interests of the people is a lie. The issue has always been the people do nothing to change things until the proverbial shit hits the fan (great depression).

    3. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      What makes mob rule so much worse then a rule of corrupt politicians? Both will disregard the wishes of anyone outside 'their' group, and at least when you're trying to bribe the mob you have to give something to most of the nation, rather then just a few individuals.

    4. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd dare say that mob rule is often even more dangerous. Especially when the mob is emotional.

    5. Re:Governments are no longer 'for the people'. by Pecisk · · Score: 2

      It is very easy to say something outrageous and stereotypical. I think Estonian or Fin would disagree with you. They certanly don't sing hymns for their goverments, but they that they're trying their best.

      Problem with UK and US citizens that they are weaklings - they are mirroring their "lobby democracy expierence" to rest of the world, and think it's unbeatable. Because ohh, life is too short, and you're already one payement short for your house loan. Run, critter, run.

      Guess what, it all takes to just stop running.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  3. let me guess: public interest immunity? by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

    If it involves stifling creativity, removing our rights, or otherwise telling us that we can't do what we previously *could*, then it most certainly does not warrant PII.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  4. How to assist this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who do we petition or write to to make this a reality?

  5. It's not that simple by F69631 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.

    When Churchill said the above, he very much meant liberal as in libertarian. The point was that when you're young and idealist, you think that free economy/people/etc. lead to the best results... and after you've seen a bit more of the world (and grown a bit more cynical), you end up thinking that regulations and the like have their place.

    So... while the term "liberal" appears to be synonymous to cultural liberalism to those who reside in the USA, it can mean either cultural or economic liberalism or any combination of those here in Europe. It all depends on what kind of rhetoric the party wants to use... For example, here in Finland we have a Libertarianist party (which doesn't have much support) under the name of "Liberals".