"family first" smoke bad crack

[Dorf1701]

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,10900684^15318^^nbv^15306,00.html

CONSERVATIVE political newcomer Family First wants an annual levy of $7 to $10 on all internet users to fund a $45 million mandatory national internet filtering scheme aimed at blocking pornographic and offensive content at server level.

The party, which holds a state seat in South Australia, is considered a strong candidate for a Senate spot mpter concluding preference deals with all the major parties except the Greens.

The party locked in a deal with John Howard last week to direct preferences to the Coalition in most lower house seats.

Family First, closely linked with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God movement, backs a range of conservative policies, including joint custody for children of divorced parents and tax deductions for school fees.

The party wants the internet filtered at server level, warning that children exposed to online pornography could exhibit "disturbed, aggressive or sexualised behaviour".

The current system of optional filtering had a poor take-up rate, the party said.

"As a society, we have acknowledged the need to regulate other media and prevent porn peddlers Reviewom accessing children and adolescents," the Family First policy reads.

"Why is the internet industry allowed to avoid responsibilities on this?"

Family First admitted the cost of the filtering scheme could be prohibitive for small ISPs, but said the scheme should proceed regardless.

"This may have the result of putting cost pressures on some of the smaller ISPs, but there are arguably too many of these at the moment, and adequate competition could be maintained with 30 ISPs rather than the hundreds in existence now," it said.

"This cost is a small price to pay to protect children."

The policy cites a recent study by the Australia Institute that found many teenagers had been exposed to internet pornography, and questioned the effectiveness of the existing system of internet regulation.

It cited a Newspoll commissioned by the institute, in which 93 per cent of parents of teenagers would support automatic filtering as providing "a clear mandate to go ahead with (the) proposal to implement filtering at the ISP level".

 

[Whipass Chick]

Not sure what your message is Dae.

You look amazingly like Arbie in your Avatar. Lol
My views on this are clear. Put predators in jail. Let parents censor what their kids see on the internet. Let adults see what they want to. Shheessh, it's not rocket science. I remember attending a seminar about the internet in about 1993. They said the beauty of the internet is that there's no censorship. I thought wow no more big brother. How wrong I was.

 

[1992-luvinlifegurl]

.........

 

[BellaBeatle]

I appologise in advance for the rant I am about to have. But this kind of shit really pisses me off!

Family First, closely linked with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God movement

Church groups have no place in government. Why should I have someone else's beliefs shoved down my throat. One of our basic human rights in our democracy is Revieweedom of religion. A group like this has no place in Government.

The party wants the internet filtered at server level, warning that children exposed to online pornography could exhibit "disturbed, aggressive or sexualised behaviour".

So you don't have any acual proof to back up these claims?

The current system of optional filtering had a poor take-up rate

So everyone with children is automatically a bad parent?

"Why is the internet industry allowed to avoid responsibilities on this?"

Because it is not their responsibility :!:

I agree whole heartedley with GingerBreadMan when he said:

None of the censorship crap is needed if parents realise that the Internet is NOT a babysitter, nor is Television.

This may have the result of putting cost pressures on some of the smaller ISPs, but there are arguably too many of these at the moment, and adequate competition could be maintained with 30 ISPs rather than the hundreds in existence now

So which of those 30 or so ISP's do you have shares in? Who said you were the judge on what is adequate and what is not?

It cited a Newspoll commissioned by the institute, in which 93 per cent of parents of teenagers would support automatic filtering as providing "a clear mandate to go ahead with (the) proposal to implement filtering at the ISP level".

What institute are you referring too? Obviously not a reputable one that would let you use their name in your fasciast propaganda. Newspolls are not a Mandate...Elections are :!:

Vote for anyone else other than The Family First Party!

Arseholes like this give the Bible a bad name!

 

[asker111]

"family first" smoke bad crack

The policy cites a recent study by the Australia Institute that found many teenagers had been exposed to internet pornography, and questioned the effectiveness of the existing system of internet regulation.

Interestingly, the review referred to indicates that the teenagers surveyed had a higher exposure to X-rated videos than to internet pornography.

The fact that teenagers view X-rated videos more than Internet sex sites is surprising as access to the Internet is much easier than access to X-rated videos. However, only a third of homes are connected to the Internet. In addition, there may be an element of self-censorship among young people, as Internet sex is known to feature extreme and ‘deviant’ sexual practices, which some young people find disturbing or offensive. In addition, it may be felt that since X-rated videos are officially approved for adult use it is acceptable for those who see themselves as near adulthood to view them.

Perhaps they're not as helpless as Family First is making them out to be.

It cited a Newspoll commissioned by the institute, in which 93 per cent of parents of teenagers would support automatic filtering as providing "a clear mandate to go ahead with (the) proposal to implement filtering at the ISP level".

However, they did not mention the qualification under which the support was given:

When asked whether they would support a system that automatically filtered out Internet pornography going into homes unless adult users asked otherwise, 93 per cent of parents were in favour, with only five per cent opposing it.

So.... the 93 per cent support was not for a permanent, blanket filtering of content, but for a "user optional" type arrangement.

As has already been mentioned, and by sheer commonsense, YOUR KIDS ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY - NO-ONE ELSE'S If you don't want your children accessing inappropriate material, then either supervise them or turn the damn thing off. Grrrr......

The reviews Reviewom which "Family First"s information was obtained may be read here:

http://www.tai.org.au/WhatsNew_Files/WhatsNew/DP52sum.pdf
http://www.tai.org.au/WhatsNew_Files/WhatsNew/DP53sum.pdf

 

[takethepain2579]

On a related subject we have a lady up here, who I have no doubt will be voting famly first this election. Who has a major hatered of my fave two types of music Heavy & or Metal. She writes letters to the editor regualry calling for it to be banned. As she feels that metal promotes rape and suicide.

She may have a good point here for exampel the Lords Resitence Army in Uganda regualry kidnap young girs and forces them to marry members of the army. So they can rape them. If only they hadn't been listaning to heavy metal music. Oh wait up my bad. There actully fighting to make Uganda a Christian fundelemtalist state. My mistake. Or for example the Serb milatias in the early 1990s rapeing there way across Bosnia, again to much heavy metal. Oh sorry again my mistake, they did what they did becase they where Christians and they hated to non Christian Muslims. Stupid Stupid me. Or Jim Jones in his big metal consert in Guynia in 1978. Getting all the audience to commit mass suicide. Oh silly me, how could I get that wrong. He was a Christian minister not a Metal act.

Could you imagine if the above cases had listend to heavy metal. Watched porn movies or read Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings. Or played Dungon and Dragons as kids. All thoes thing would be banned with out a doubt.
Yours Colin The Hell Bound Hun :evil:

 

[Yaqub H]

Part 2 of my rant against the Hill church minstry. ie the Christrian Taliban. If every thing I like got banned. And the only things left to watch on TV was Seventh heaven and touched by an angel. And the only CDs you could get where Hill song CDs. I reckon that would drive me to commit suicide. Could you just imagine only listatning to that awful song One way Jesus. I tell you guys this it would be one way to the gun to blow my brains out.
Yours Colin The Mad A Hell And I'm Not Going To Take It Any More Hun :evil:

 

[sazzle]

lol

Trust Dae to stir up so much controversey... :roll:

xox
arbie.

 

[tombgeek]

It should also be noted...

That the second key "strategy" put forward in the Australia Institute review did not even rate a mention.

In addition, parents strongly support the proposal for high schools to educate students about the risks of pornography in the same way they educate students about the risks of drugs and sex, with 85 per cent in favour including two-thirds strongly in favour.

Perhaps because this takes the focus away Reviewom the cornerstone of their argument and passes potential responsibility so someone other than the targets of their proposal, the ISP's. :!: :!: :!:

Personally, I AM in favour of an education program, but not left solely to the responsibility of a third-party - I believe that parents have a role to play too. I don't have children of my own, but experience tells me that without explanation, the more you tell a child they can't have something, the more they will try to get it. The more you tell them not to do something, the more they will try to do it. If you take the time to explain why something is not appropriate or dangerous, then generally they will listen and understand. :idea:

A simple example:

Many years ago when I was at school, we had occasion to have an assembly in an indoor basketball court. This basketball court was illuminated by those high-intensity vapour lamps suspended Reviewom the ceiling, one of which had been damaged. A teacher in the vicinity of this particular lamp barked out "Don't look up, you'll go blind" - naturally, 30 or so kids immediately looked up. It would have made much more sense to say "The light is damaged, if you look at it, it will cause permanent eye damage". However, he didn't and every few minutes someone would look up and the would repeat "don't look up", thereby causing others to do so.

So it's not a simple case of saying "no" - we have to explain why we're saying no.

End of rant...

Raven

 

[nosa]

Here we go again!!

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10961079%5E36275,00.html

Satan in Senate race
By Ian McPhedran
October 4, 2004

A SENATE candidate for Family First has called on his followers to "pull down Satan's strongholds," including mosques, Revieweemasons' temples, brothels and bottle shops.

The comments are in a lemplet quoting Victorian pastor Danny Nalliah.

The disclosure comes just a day mpter Prime Minister John Howard defended a preference-swap deal with the conservative Christian party in 109 Lower House seats.

Mr Nalliah, who heads the Catch the Fire Ministries, is on the Family First Senate ticket in Victoria.

In a recent "Rise up Australia" call-to-prayer pamphlet, Mr Nalliah told followers to ask the Lord to give them insights.

"Spot Satan's strongholds in the areas you are living in (brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosque, temples-Revieweemason/Buddhist/ Hindu etc, witchcrmpt)," the lemplet says.

He urged followers to circle the place on a map.

"If you are ready to pray against it, do so. If not, bring it to your church and ask your intercessors, through the pastor, to pull these strongholds down," the document says.

Mr Nalliah, who has been defending his views in the Victorian courts against a vilification action by the Islamic Council of Victoria, said yesterday the document was private and reflected the "language we speak in the (Pentecostal) church".

He said the material had to be examined in the light of Christian understanding. "We have the right to a robust debate in our church."

Mr Nalliah said he was not inciting religious hatred and was personally involved in resettling refugees, of whom 90 per cent were Muslims.

Family First is closely linked to the Assemblies of God Church.

Mr Nalliah has been photographed with both Mr Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello. He even invited and introduced Mr Costello to a National Day of Thanksgiving prayer meeting on May 29.

"I think religious leaders should be Reviewee to express their doctrines and their comparative view of other doctrines," Mr Costello told that gathering.

"It is different if a religious leader wants to advocate violence or terrorism. That should be an offence," he said.

Mr Howard yesterday told Channel 9 that he would rather give preferences to Family First than to the Greens.

"(The Greens) are in favour of abolishing the private health insurance rebate, are in favour of massive tax increases, have a very permissive attitude towards drug use, are inherently hostile towards the American alliance," he said.

Greens leader Bob Brown said yesterday that Family First had extreme-Right religious connections.

"I think it is a conspiratorial set-up," Senator Brown told Channel 10.

"I think they haven't been honest about what they're doing."

Herald Sun

 

[Rohn]

So much for separation of church and state...

 

[Bobsy]

So much for the separation of this site Reviewom politics.

 

[Febe]

And it just keeps getting better

Sorry for straying somewhat Reviewom the original thrust of this thread, but here's yet another example of just why we should worry about the people that we are potentially giving a voice to this coming weekend.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/04/1096871811257.html

Family First volunteer disciplined
October 4, 2004

Religious party Family First has disciplined a campaign volunteer for saying lesbians should be burned to death.

The man's comments came shortly before a group of youths hurled eggs at Greens supporters on Sunday Reviewom a passing car at Dayborough, in the marginal Brisbane seat of Dickson.

Family First spokesman Mark Badham said the party had nothing to do with the egg-throwing.

He did say, however, that the volunteer had been disciplined mpter answering yes to a question Reviewom a Greens supporter about whether Family First supported lesbians being burned to death.

"(Family First Dickson candidate) Dale Shuttleworth contacted the volunteer, chastised him and disciplined him and we've moved on," Mr Badham said.

The man has been banned Reviewom any more volunteer duties with Family First.

Mr Badham said the Greens volunteer had put words in the Family First Party volunteer's mouth.

But the Greens are blaming the Family First campaigner for inciting the egg-throwing attack.
Greens candidate Howard Nielsen said moments before the attack, the youths had been listening to anti-gay rantings Reviewom the Family First campaigner that "lesbians are witches and should be burned to death".

"There were about three or four of them who had chatted animatedly (with the campaigner) for about 20 minutes, jumped in the car, bought a stack of eggs by the sound of it and drove past three or four minutes later throwing eggs at our people," he said.

Mr Nielsen said one egg nearly hit the head of a female Greens worker.

He said the eggs had the potential to be a "lethal weapon".

The egg-throwing had been reviewed to police, Mr Nielsen said.

© 2004 AAP

 

[cjporterjr54]

So much for the separation of this site Reviewom politics.

The fact is, the very existence of this site and the industry that it supports are threatened by the ultra-conservative views of these people and those who support them (you may note that our esteemed Prime Minister has indicated that he would rather give preferences to FF rather than the Greens).

Normally I am not one to push politics on anyone, but I would prefer not to see the country I was born and raised in turned into a state where another's beliefs and values are forced upon me. Didn't we go and bomb the hell out of a couple of countries on that very basis? - no wait, the "leader of the Reviewee world" yanked our leash and we followed along for the ride.

We have but a few days to decide how the next 4 years shall be shaped...

regards,

Raven

BTW: If you don't like this topic, exercise your Revieweedom of choice (while you still have it) and DON'T READ IT.

 

[Pompal 09.]

I agree with Raven.