Massive attendance at WAC Film Night (100+)
Our makeshift theatre (Annandale Neighbourhood Centre) was packed out at last night's screening of The World According to Monsanto.Indeed, there were not enough seats to accomodate everyone, with many people standing at the back and seated on the floor.
We were able to inform the audience about the Australian 9/11 Truth movement, and most people seemed quite receptive to these ideas.
There were many environmental activists attending, which led to a few discussions about man made climate change after the film - this presents more of a problem as many people have a very fixed mindset about climate change, and are not open to debate.
However, I would like to challenge this mindset. I'm thinking about organising a screening of the Great Global Warming Swindle and inviting leaders of environmental groups to a debate with AGW skeptics - similar to the ABC debate of 2007, but without the ABC bias.
Thanks John Bursill for your contribution of DVDs and your address to the audience!
Film Night - The World According to Monsanto - 16 May 2009
With an introduction by Louise Sales of Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Saturday, 16 May 2009 | 7:00 PM
Annandale Neighbourhood Centre
79 Johnston St Annandale, Sydney 2038
Free admission, donation optional
“The extent of the Monsanto corporation’s evildoing, and how they’ve been able to get away with it for so long, is the subject of the scrupulous, thorough and damning new film.”
-Montreal Mirror
“Devastating exposé... will freeze the blood in your veins.”
- The Gazette
“Presents a cogent and
horrifying enough picture of the world’s leading seed manufacturer to warrant concern and fury.”
- Hour
One of the most controversial companies in history, Monsanto’s history is littered with lawsuits, toxic products, and cover-ups. Combining previously secret documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians, the film pieces together the massive lies, pressure, and collusion with the US government, used to gain market supremacy. Meanwhile, their unchecked technology threatens human health and the environment with an unparalleled catastrophe.
108 minutes
What is a GMO?
Genetic engineering involves crossing the natural boundaries between species to combine traits from one organism with another. GMOs have not been proven to be safe and chances are: You are eating them. Monsanto is the largest producer or GMOs in the world, a company with one of most histories littered with lawsuits, toxic products, and cover-ups.
Annandale Neighbourhood Centre
79 Johnston St Annandale, Sydney 2038
enquiries contact hereward: m. 0415 059675
Click on the button below to subscribe to our Calendar and get automatic reminders:
Conroy’s clean feed (ABC Radio National)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundb...09/2512171.htmListen Now - 15032009 | Download Audio
In the name of protecting children, the government will decree we'll be forbidden to see 'unwanted' and 'inappropriate' things on the web. But exactly what that means is a secret, and the thin end of the censorship wedge. Reporter, Wendy Carlisle.
WeAreChange talks to America
From www.wearechange.org:
This video was premiered on our new live video show http://www.mogulus.com/wearechangelive.
Film night 7 March - a success!
The film night went ahead as planned and 25-30 people turned up which was quite impressive considering it was Mardi Gras night.I hope we can make this work as a regular event.
In April we are going to screen The World According to Monsanto.
I am aiming to promote this to alternative health practitioners, nutritionists, health food stores, the Green party and enviro groups.
Thanks to everyone who came on Saturday.
Film Night - Money As Debt - 7 March 2009
~ MONEY AS DEBT ~
www.moneyasdebt.net
Paul Grignon’s engaging animation answers the
question that is never asked in school or the media:
“Where does money come from?”
Saturday, 7 March 2009
8:00 PM
Free admission, donation optional
Annandale Neighbourhood Centre
79 Johnston St Annandale, Sydney 2038
enquiries contact hereward: m. 0415 059675
Click on the button below to subscribe to our Calendar and get automatic reminders:
New hurdle for net censorship
The ultra-conservative politician known for his attempts to censor television has strongly opposed the Government's plans to introduce mandatory internet censorship, highlighting the policy's lack of support across the political spectrum.The proposed filters would not have blocked any of the 15,000 child porn videos and half a million child abuse images uncovered by police in a major sting this week as they cannot filter traffic on peer-to-peer networks - only websites.
In a post on his blog, South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi expressed concern that the filters would inadvertently block legitimate content and be expanded to cover other controversial material opposed by the Government of the day, such as regular pornography.
"Already we have a filter on the internet for all parliament house computers. It blocks some political sites, alternative lifestyle sites and other sites that, while not to my personal taste, are hardly grounds for censorship," he wrote.
"Imagine if such censorship was extended to every computer in the country through mandatory ISP filtering. Who would be the ultimate arbiter of what is permissible content?"
Bernardi, who tried to censor Gordon Ramsay by calling for a Senate inquiry into swearing on television in March, is known for his conservative views.
The pro-life Senator has questioned whether global warming is caused by human activities, has opposed therapeutic cloning of human embryos and protested against proposed laws prescribing equal treatment of same-sex relationships.
In his blog post, Bernardi acknowledged that his position on the web censorship issue would "surprise many" and said "a big part of me wants to support it". However, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's plan was "so devoid of detail" that it was impossible to form a considered opinion.
Senator Conroy has consistently dodged questions in Parliament about the scheme, particularly surrounding the specific types of content that the Government wants to block.
The Opposition, Greens and even NSW Young Labor have opposed the scheme, which will make it difficult for the Rudd Government to pass the required legislation.
The individuals who hold the balance of power in the Senate, the independent Nick Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding, have said they would want online gambling sites and hardcore pornography blocked by the filters, respectively.
"Parental responsibility cannot and should not be abrogated to government - if it is, our society will only become weaker," Senator Bernardi said.
"Yes, illegal content should be banned from the web ... but it is wrong to give the government a blank cheque to determine what is appropriate for us to view on the internet."
The deadline has passed for ISPs to sign up to conduct live trials of the internet filtering scheme, some of which are scheduled to begin before Christmas. However, Senator Conroy has refused to release a list of ISPs that applied.
Telstra and Internode have both said they will not take part, while iiNet said it will run a trial purely to show the Government the proposed scheme won't work and Optus's trial will be scaled back to encompass filtering only of a set blacklist of 1300 sites.
The Government's policy includes the mandatory censorship of "illegal" content as determined by a blacklist of up to 10,000 sites, which will be held by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
The second tier, which will be optional, will seek to block "unwanted" content that is inappropriate for children.
No ISP has announced plans to trial the second tier, which is more draconian and technically difficult as it would involve analysing every piece of content handled by the network.
Internet experts say the real-time analysis of content will dramatically slow network speeds, while some child welfare groups have expressed concerns that the internet filters could be easily circumvented, creating a false sense of security.
Lab tests released by ACMA in June found available ISP filters frequently let through content that should be blocked, incorrectly blocked harmless content and slowed down network speeds by up to 87 per cent.
Recent tests of software-based internet filters by consumer advocacy group Choice found they were more than capable of blocking offensive material, which raised questions around the need for mandatory ISP-level filters.
The previous government provided client-level software filters for free via netalert.gov.au, however, Senator Conroy has said the NetAlert scheme will be shut down by the new year.
Children’s welfare groups slam net filters
Asher Moses
Sydney Morning Herald
December 1, 2008
Support for the Government's plan to censor the internet has hit rock bottom, with even some children's welfare groups now saying that that the mandatory filters, aimed squarely at protecting kids, are ineffective and a waste of money.
Live trials of the filters, which will block "illegal" content for all Australian internet users and "inappropriate" adult content on an opt-in basis, are slated to begin by Christmas, despite harsh opposition from the Greens, Opposition, the internet industry, consumers and online rights groups.
Holly Doel-Mackaway, adviser with Save the Children, the largest independent children's rights agency in the world, said educating kids and parents was the way to empower young people to be safe internet users.
She said the filter scheme was "fundamentally flawed" because it failed to tackle the problem at the source and would inadvertently block legitimate resources.
Furthermore there was no evidence to suggest that children were stumbling across child pornography when browsing the web. Doel-Mackaway believes the millions of dollars earmarked to implement the filters would be far better spent on teaching children how to use the internet safely and on law enforcement.
"Children are exposed to the abusive behaviours of adults often and we need to be preventing the causes of violence against children in the community, rather than blocking it from people's view," she said.
"The constant change of cyberspace means that a filter is going to be able to be circumvented and it's going to throw up false positives - many innocent websites, maybe even our own, will be blacklisted because we reference a lot of our work that we do with children in fighting commercial sexual exploitation."
Doel-Mackaway noted the claims by the internet industry that the filters would be easily bypassed, would not block content found on peer-to-peer networks and chat rooms and would be in danger of being broadened to include legitimate content such as regular pornography, political views, pro-abortion sites and online gambling.
Laboratory test results released in June by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found available filters frequently let through content that should be blocked, incorrectly block harmless content and slow network speeds by up to 87 per cent.
James McDougall, director of the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, expressed similar views to Save the Children.
He said the mandatory filters simply would not work and children should be able to make decisions for themselves. Concerned parents could easily install PC-based filters on their computers if they desired, or ask their internet providers to switch on voluntary filtering.
"This is called a child protection measure yet the vast majority of all serious child abuse does not occur on the internet, it occurs in the home," said McDougall.
"I take issue with the minister's perspective that children are themselves the danger in a sense that we have to make this decision for them because they are not capable of making it for themselves - I think there's very little evidence to support that and plenty of evidence to show that children are responsible decision makers given the skills and information."
Other childrens' welfare organisations, such as Child Wise and Bravehearts, continue to support the filters, saying the flaws are acceptable as long as they help block some child pornography.
Yesterday, as political activist group GetUp announced its plans for an elaborate anti-filtering campaign, 70 ISP filtering stakeholders converged on the University of NSW to examine the merits of the proposed censorship scheme.
"There seemed to be some consensus that the proposed mandatory filter model would not actually be directed at the real channel of child porn distribution, which is not the blacklist of known web sites, but via various other internet protocols and tools," said David Vale, executive director of UNSW's Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre.
"The idea of doing whatever was possible in stopping the problem at the source, including education of parents, kids, teachers and politicians, and serious law enforcement efforts at detection and prosecution of perpetrators and distributors, was seen as probably as, or more, effective than a filter initially aimed at preventing inadvertent browsing of child porn on the web by young people.
"Another aspect was the potential for the filter, once in place, to become the subject of a repeated bidding war, depending on which minor politicians had balance of power in parliament, or who had the 'moral panic of the day'."
Senator Conroy's spokesman, Tim Marshall, has consistently failed to respond to requests for comment on the issue.
Anti-Net Censorship Protest Dates
Protests are planned in several states, details are as follows:Melbourne:
13th of December
12pm-5pm
State Library
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=46838735931
Brisbane:
13th of December
11am-3pm
Brisbane Square
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=42526399601
Sydney:
13th of December
11am-4pm
Town Hall
Check www.nocensorship.info forums for Sydney updates
Adelaide:
13th of December
12pm - 4pm
Parliament
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39343300875
Hobart:
13th of December
11am - 1.
30pm
Parliament Lawns
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39329861995
New Taser Controversy Erupts in NSW after Ombudman’s Report
The NSW Ombudsman has issued a shocking (no pun intended) report into the use and misuse of Tasers after general-duties police were issued the stun guns last month.
Despite the evidence of outrageous misuse by police and at least one death, there is no indication that they will be banned, rather the Ombudsman has called for a "freeze" on further "roll-outs".
Here is an example of what troubles me:
Links:
- http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...013871,00.html
- http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001021,00.html
- http://news.smh.com.au/national/tase...1119-6aud.html
- http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...8/s2423801.htm
