Sedition Acts and the artist

Logos | 13/04/2007 - 07:37

Once again I am back banging my old drum. Today or tomorrow new legislation comes into effect barring from sale and presumably from library shelves any material which "advocates a terrorist act."
Wonderful, I hear you cry, all these tracts from radical Islamic clergy inviting young people kill themselves as suicide bombers will become illegal, sorry unlawful.
However, it does not seem to define what a terrorist act is.
This is censorship pure and simple and while I personally find any hate material be it from the pen of Islamic clergy, white supremacists, anti semitics or whoever, abhorrent, these people have a right to hold these opinions however misguided and in my opinion have the right to publish.
What is a terrorist act? It's easy at the top end, flying planes into the trade towers was a terrorist act. Is setting off roadside bombs in Iraq an act of terrorism or an act of war. Does the person at whom the act is aimed define the act as terrorism or war meaning if you blow up American or Australian soldiers with a roadside bomb its war but if you blow up Iraqi civilians its terrorism.
Have we ever resolved whether or not the ANC were fearless freedom fighters or terrorists? Does it simply become an act of terrorism if we disagree with the politics of the bomber?
I am opposed in principal to any censorship even if (one might almost say especially if) I disagree with the material being censored. The next step will make material criticising the application of this sort of legislation illegal.
What does this have to do with me as a theatre practitioner I hear you cry?
A lot. Theatre and now TV has always been a hotbed of satire and has helped keep the politicians honest. We have already seen actions brought against artists and comedians using various types of legislation and this will continue. This is the firat step in a series of moves that could reintroduce the old licensing acts that meant that all new plays and shows had to be approved by a Government department. That law was only repealed in 1968 and I bet the pollies would love to see it reintroduced.
Fight for freedom of speech don't let it be eroded.
"He who is prepared to give up a basic liberty in return for a little safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Logos's blog | email this blog | 822 reads

This is very sad

Author: Na
Date: 13/04/2007 - 07:51

It's like banning political cartoons... oh, wait, they probably are banning political cartoons!

The fact of the matter is that they are also stopping academics from researching terrorism - there have been many researchers who have stopped their research into understanding terrorism (and therefore finding some way of stopping it) because they have felt pressure from higher up.

How about we combat terrorism with improved political, social and economic conditions for those people who could potentially become a terrorist? Instead of taking away important historical information from the people who don't pose a threat?

(I suppose that would be too logical for a government to consider)

...My two cents.

The Prompt Copy Store
www.store.thepromptcopy.com

Sticky Apple Legs
www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs

Puppets in Melbourne
www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Treading the Boards
www.treadingtheboards.thepromptcopy.com

Hazzzah!!

Author: jervas
Date: 13/04/2007 - 07:53

Finally I read someone putting the 'terrorist' panic in it's place. Yes there are terrorists, yes they blow things up, yes that are nasy pieces of shy** and should all be strung up by their private parts. BUT and this is a big but. WE ALL HAVE A LITTLE THING CALLED RIGHTS! I have the right to write (sorry bout the syntax)a play about the percieved glory of what these poor misguided morons are doing just as much as you have the right to come and see it and throw eggs at the actor/s and boo them off stage (ok, that may be a little over the top) but you get my point. WE LIVE IN A 'DEMOCRACY' (apparently) and as such EVERYONE has the right to say and present what they want. Even if they deserve to sit in Guantnamo Bay for it! But don't get me started on that one...Oh, by the way i'm just going to the front door as a government car has just this second pulled up...I'm sure it's nothing to worry about... Eye-wink

You should probably read

Author: Na
Date: 13/04/2007 - 08:37

You should probably read the few other threads we've already started on this topic. We've got some good discussion going.

The Prompt Copy Store
www.store.thepromptcopy.com

Sticky Apple Legs
www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs

Puppets in Melbourne
www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Treading the Boards
www.treadingtheboards.thepromptcopy.com

Defined Lines

Author: Labrug
Date: 13/04/2007 - 09:35

Without clearly defined lines, legislation like this is open to all sorts of interpretation and that is where the danger rests. One man's seditious act is another man's light humour. Political Correctness take a new and dangerous level.

Hell, I don't even think we have a clearly defined concept of What is Australian. We are a cultural melting pot with diversity in spades, and yet new "Australian's" are to be asked questionaires? What's this to do with sedition?

The appliations are the same. How can we define an act of Terrorism, or incitement to Terrorism (and I refer specifically to the very thin line of what is and what is not) when we are not able to clearly define what the act ot 'Terrorism' is against?

Without a clear idea of what is a Seditious Act at the thin line, are we all going to walking on Egg Shells in fear of saying the wrong word? As for having rights, yes we do, and we should stand up against any attempt to diminish them which is the potential impact of these legislation.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins
Perth based Actor/Performer
who can also sing and dance
Fight/Sword Choreographer
Virgin Director

Home Page

And this is why it is so

Author: Na
Date: 13/04/2007 - 09:49

And this is why it is so important for the Government (no matter who is in power) to rewrite the Sedition Act/Anti-Terror laws. They are too ambiguous - of course, a conspiracy theorist would say that the government is trying to create an Orwellian world, where fear is the only source of keeping its citizens in check for its own immoral purposes. But then, I'm no conspiracy theorist. Evil

The Prompt Copy Store
www.store.thepromptcopy.com

Sticky Apple Legs
www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs

Puppets in Melbourne
www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Treading the Boards
www.treadingtheboards.thepromptcopy.com

I do believe

Author: Logos
Date: 13/04/2007 - 11:42

that the Howard Government is so conservative that it gives even the late fifties DLP a run for it's money. Given that and idiots like Christopher Pyne who actually said that it doen't matter what the people want the government should make the decisions because we are unable to make good decisions on our own. (That was in the Voluntary euthanasia debate on SBS the other week).
Fear is the factor, if they can continue to play on our fears blowing up incidents in the media then they can convince us that they are the ones who can deal with terrorism and return the idiots for another term. God help us.
I don't really trust the left anymore either. How conservative is Kevin Rudd? Julia Gillard seems all right. The greens are a hopeless one issue party with an enormous number of mutually exclusive policies. I mean how can you reduce the population of Australia by 2 million while allowing unlimited refugee immigration it won't work. I once had high hopes for the democrats but they've torn themselves apart with internal bickering.
Meanwhile all my freedoms are being taken away.
Sorry I'll go and have a lie down now and take my medication.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au

Hah - you can always tell

Author: Na
Date: 13/04/2007 - 11:58

Hah - you can always tell it's election year. Kevin Rudd will say all the right things because they know Howard (oops, almost wrote Bush!) is becoming more and more unpopular. Then when/if they come into power, it'll be same old same old. Our problem is our system is no longer 'two party', but one party, two names.

I normally vote for a third party, but geez, our politics are hopeless right now.

The Prompt Copy Store
www.store.thepromptcopy.com

Sticky Apple Legs
www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs

Puppets in Melbourne
www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne

Treading the Boards
www.treadingtheboards.thepromptcopy.com

This is wrong. Just

Author: Kirilee
Date: 13/04/2007 - 20:34

This is wrong. Just everything that it implies just screams at me as wrong.

I can't believe this got passed. I thought we lived in a free country. Any censoring is bad - people have a choice if they want to see it or not.

Back to the 50's it is then?

Author: jervas
Date: 15/04/2007 - 21:11

Here in SA we are supposed to have a 'labor' government. A premier who desperately wants to be the great arts visionary that the ledendry Don Dunstan was. Only one problem, he was John Bannon's PR man. Yep , he was the one who advised Bannon on how to pitch the state bank debarcle (3 billion lost to SA.) I think Federal, state or territory they simply are too busy triying to feather their own nests to take any sort of risk at all. I mean, hell, Adelaide has a Festival Centre that had a cosmetic facelift outside so it's nice to walk around but the stage/s? They are the same as when I walked out on the main stage as a primary school kid in 1979. I'll admit they seemed a lot bigger then as compared to when I was in the Ring Cycle in 2004 but I was shorter in 79. So here we all are...venting our thoughts about our government/s while they sit there in Canberra and the state capitals and smile saying,"well you voted for us" You know what I say ... what damn choice did we have? NONE THAT'S WHAT! Red or blue its all beige anyway.

Sedition Acts and the artist

Comment viewing options