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.'"

14 of 93 comments (clear)

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

    An Aussie political party with some cojones.

    1. 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*
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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!
  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 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. 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".