Alternative news & commentary

• Home
• About

theBigStinkGuide

The legal action followed a five-month investigation by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.

The companies claimed iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users engaging in illegal file sharing.

Justice Dennis Cowdroy said it was “impossible” to find against iiNet for what its users did.

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision.

Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement.

The entertainment companies compiled their evidence by hiring two investigators to subscribe to iiNet and then begin trading files using different BitTorrent networks.

They kept track of what movies and TV shows they were sharing, when they downloaded them, and the ID numbers of the computers they were sharing these files with.

My opinion: Media companies should not be trying to penalize end users, or their ISP for sharing files, particularly when the media companies actually took part in the sharing.

Sharing files online should be no more illegal than permitting a neighbour to view a purchased DVD disc. If an individual was charging for the property of a media company, that’s theft, but even then why pursue the ISP that individual subscribes to?

I find Neil Gane’s expectation that Government will now review laws, very troublesome, I wonder what inspires his confidence.

In readiness of the fourth coming mandatory internet filtering, laws have already been written into the Broadcasting Services Act which obligates ISPs to execute “denial of access” for anything identified as “prohibited content”.

And then on Feb 2nd 2010, there is this – Senate passes net interception Bill.

This is all seems to be pointing to the painting of a disturbing image for the manner in which people will access (or not access) the net in future.

Although Hillary Clinton recently denounced internet censorship: “Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”, in truth the grimy finger prints from the hand of big brother being smeared all over the internet in Australia, would appear to be originating from US government policy.

Angus Kidman of crikey.com reports:

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) spearheaded by the US government, which apparently doesn’t think its existing draconian proposals in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which Australian copyright law largely mirrors, thanks to the 2004 Free Trade Agreement) go far enough.

The proposal has been debated at a series of meetings between stakeholders since 2007, and while confirmed information is fairly scant, earlier leaked documents suggest that as well as covering physical piracy, ACTA will try and enforce copyright in the digital realm, meaning the same kind of ISP-level meddling that’s associated with current internet censorship proposals in Australia.

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:

“The participants in ACTA negotiations do not intend for the ACTA to target individuals, the privacy of individuals or the property of individuals where those individuals are not engaged in commercial scale trade in counterfeit and pirate goods.”

What DFAT doesn’t discuss at all is the highly secretive nature of the treaty process. A prolonged legal campaign by the Electronic Freedom Foundation in the US did eventually result in 159 pages of documents associated with the treaty being released but only after 1362 had been deemed as potentially violating “national security” and withheld.

Open government seems to be playing second fiddle to the demands of the IP protection crowd, which counts deep-pocketed software makers and movie studios among its most verbal supporters.

Policy measures for combating copyright theft on one hand and censoring internet content to “protect children” on the other, may seem unrelated at a glance but only if you believe the lies.

As far as I am concerned, the protecting children line is a lie, how can government possibly filter 25 billion World Wide Web pages with any effectiveness whatsoever? In addition, certain organisations, ones that have a large enough profit margin, will enjoy exemption from being filtered.

In example, management from SecondLife have stated they have government assurance that they will be unaffected by filtering. How can this be when some areas of SL host the most heinous of debaucheries to be found in any online gaming platform, anywhere on the net?

Denial of access to internet end users by big brother to protect copyright law, and denial of access to protect children from undesirable content are both two sides of the same coin. Coin literally. Allowing people of the Earth to have freedom of choice, is not in the interest of the small minority, over privileged who puppeteer our governments and own all the big media companies, when they have a monopoly to maintain.

 
A furore erupted on the 2nd of Feb, when it became widespread public knowledge that the SA Government had passed a Bill sponsored by Mr. Atkinson, amending the Electoral Act (effective as of 6th Jan 2010).

The new Act reads:

“A person must not during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the internet, unless the material or the program in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of that material.”

 
Chris Prior from gamers4croydon wrote:

After only a few hours of public outrage, Michael Atkinson has promised to repeal the legislation after the election, and not enforce it during this electoral period. Given the Rann Government’s history of sticking to election promises (for example, regarding the banning of political advertising with public funds) we’re not going to forget this ill-fated attack on civil liberties by the people who should be representing us.

 
The law applies in SA (or no longer applies, only on the word of Mr. Atkinson’s promise) between the issue of a writ authorizing an election and the election.

Fines of $1250 for citizens can be issued for non-compliance in the law which also requires media organizations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, with fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.

 
Chris Prior, gamers4croydon:

2/2/10

Now, whenever a South Australian writes a comment about a political matter during an election period, they must provide their full name and address. With accusations of government MPs threatening their constituents with legal action for expressing dissent, it is not difficult to imagine a possible motivation for these changes.

 
The AdelaideNow website (a division of News Corp’s Advertiser Newspaper) reported:

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the law would not impinge on free speech and claimed that he expected The Advertiser and AdelaideNow to “publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me”.

Mr. Atkinson described AdelaideNow as “not just a sewer of criminal defamation” but also “a sewer of identity theft and fraud”

 
WTF Mick?

I used to have respect for Mick Atkinson; he was once a politician who was approachable, a regular local guy. While most other parliamentarians were being chauffeur driven about town in luxury cars paid for by tax payers, Mick could always be seen pedaling down the street on his bicycle, arriving at work with pegged trouser legs.

But this outburst against AdelaideNow; “a sewer of criminal defamation”, in itself defamation, clearly suggests the old man is going senile.

And this is not the only gibberish attack to dribble from the mouth of Mr. Atkinson of late. I get the feeling he’s a tad nervous about the forthcoming March 20 election in SA.

He has held the seat of Croydon in Adelaide for the last 20 years but now there is a new party on the block directly challenging him in his own electorate, gamers4croydon.

Atkinson has been a lone campaigner (only Attorney-General in Australia) persisting in voting no on the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for video games in Australia. This was the primary catalyst for gamers4croydon forming; they hope to apply enough pressure to have this classification issue resolved on the side of common sense.

Speaking to GameSpot AU Atkinson said he wasn’t threatened by gamers4croydon’s presence.

However, he then proceeded to attack them just for good measure:

“I assume the gamers4croydon campaign will involve criminal activities and dirty tricks, which is what I’ve come to expect from gamers.”

 
As a member of gamers4croydon and/or just as a gamer, I find that remark highly offensive, way to alienate your constituency Mick.

The story of the amended Electoral Act ends happily for now (providing we can believe the promise of a politician) and it’s a great demonstration of what can be achieved if people only give a dam, and act on their convictions.

Even if Mick keeps good on his promise, the fact that he sponsored the implementation of this abominable law to start with, and the main opposition party supported the law without objection, would incline me to recommend all South Australians vote 1, gamers4croydon.

South Australians can support gamers4croydon by signing up for membership (free) and/ or making donations, click here.

You may also show your support by purchasing gamers4croydon gear.

There are many great protests evolving against the announced internet filtering policy. One group registered the domain stephenconroy.com.au which proudly displays the header; Stephen Conroy: Minister for Fascism.

Despite Minister Conroy profusely guaranteeing complete transparency in censoring our online content, the stephenconroy.com.au story is perhaps a true indication of the way the Australian Government intends to use these new powers.

Conroy officially announced future mandatory internet filtering on the 15th Dec 2009, and then quickly disappeared for the holiday break. On the 18th Dec 2009, the Australian Domain Name Administrator (auDA) issued notice to the owners of stephenconroy.com.au, demanding evidence of eligibility to hold such a domain name.

auDA gave them a leisurely 3 hours to satisfy the demand from time of notice issue. The website was taken offline upon the deadline expiring.

The website owners quickly re-established their online presence at Stephen-conroy.com where Australian authorities have no jurisdiction.

The best thing about this site is that a photo of Minister Conroy shares different random words of wisdom each time a visitor loads the page. My favourite is this one -

Other captions I quite like:

“What do you mean basically every respected academic and technical mind in the country is screaming NO? They’re all wrong. God told me so.”

“The first rule of mandatory internet censorship is that you don’t oppose mandatory internet censorship.”

“The people who are telling the real TRUTH about my filtering plan are DECEPTIVE…”

“Prepare to be censored, BITCHES!”

There is more good information regarding the filtering issue and some nice protest action at www.internetblackout.com.au

A Parliamentary petition against internet filtering can also be signed at Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA).

Update to previous post:

gamers4croydon has upgraded their website which can now be viewed here. They have now been officially registered as a political party and have announced their running candidates, hooray!

Original correspondence included:

Dear Minister Conroy

I am outraged with the announcement that compulsory internet filtering will proceed.

There are currently around 110 million operational websites online with in excess of 25 billion indexed pages. How does one review 25 billion pages and counting? Even if only 1% of those pages were “prohibited content”, no organization could hope to apply a meaningful filter solution; it would be like trying to arrest a locust plague with a butterfly net.

It is clear from the outset that this policy has nothing to do with “protecting citizens/children” and has everything to do with government censoring any internet content that they so choose, in a targeted manner, as this is the only manner feasible.

I was not aware that websites are assigned classifications (and I’m a website owner), so I investigated. The Australian Classification Board provides classifications on internet content to the ACMA on request, if and only if, the ACMA receives a complaint about internet content. According to the ACMA website; “The ACMA can only take action about material that is prohibited, or potentially prohibited, under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.”

Scanning through, it would appear that the Broadcasting Services Act, amended Nov 20, 2009, already contains the provisions for compulsory internet filtering.

In summary, the Act bestows the ACMA with the power to enforce that all ISPs deny access to any internet content that is rated X 18+ or refused classification (RC).

Already RC is applied to an ever increasing number of films by the Australian office of censorship (Classification Board), making them illegal in Australia, and all video games are RC by default if they cannot meet the MA15+ standard.

Dictating that adults should not be free to choose adult entertainment has no place in a “democracy”

If we really lived in a democracy, a majority voice would prevail. That majority voice has for the past year, been strongly advising you against this policy, and yet you remain unmoved in a position contrary to common sense. Why don’t you just come out and say you hold no regard for public opinion if that is the case?

I received reply on the 4th Jan 2010 in the form of an attached PDF – “Cyber-safety and internet service provider filtering”.

While I appreciate the response, the PDF (outlining the filtering policy), does little in addressing any of the concerns I submitted.

Further, the PDF contradicts the Broadcasting Services Act.

From the “Cyber-safety and internet service provider filtering” (PDF) I received:

“For families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered, including potentially X18+ content and gaming sites, the Government will establish a grants program to encourage ISPs to offer these services on a commercial basis.”

From Broadcasting Services Act 1992
Amended Nov 20, 2009
Vol 2:

If, in the course of an investigation under Division 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 7, the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

Give each Internet service provider known to the ACMA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

Prohibited Content:

For the purposes of this Schedule, content (other than content that consists of an eligible electronic publication) is prohibited content if:

(a) The content has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; or

(b) Both:

(i) The content has been classified R 18+ by the Classification Board; and

(ii) Access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system.

Naturally, I submitted another email to the office of Minister Conroy, as follows:

Minister Conroy, are you oblivious to the laws relating to your own portfolio (X 18+ is prohibited online content), or are you intentionally misleading the public when you claim “ISPs will be encouraged to offer filtering” of X18+ content?

I think it appropriate that you actually answer this question and not send another PDF in response which 1) tells me what I already know, and 2) raises even more questions.

I also expect an answer to the following, and will continue to send correspondence until I receive reply that does address my questions.

1) How can you claim that “a defined list of URLs can be filtered with 100 per cent accuracy” when it was revealed in trials that the web pages of a Queensland tour operator, boarding kennel and a dentist, as well as online gambling sites, You Tube links, regular porn and fetish sites and Wikileaks pages had all been included in the ACMA’s secret “defined list”?

2) There are currently approximately 25 billion indexed web pages world wide, how do you propose a meaningful “defined list” solution for that volume?

3) All video games are classified RC by default in Australia if they cannot meet the MA15+ standard, why are you proposing that adults should not be free to choose adult entertainment?

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy can be contacted via: minister@dbcde.gov.au Please email the Minister to express your own concerns.

Censorship issues have inspired the birth of a new political party in South Australia, gamers4croydon.

We are committed to running candidates in next year’s (2010) South Australia election, with specific emphasis on the Croydon electorate.

Why?

There are several reasons, but the main and driving reason is to exert pressure on the Attorney General for South Australia, Michael Atkinson, as he is currently the only Attorney General voting ‘no’ against the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for videogames in Australia.

Trivial, right? No!

This is about every adult’s right to engage in whatever kind of lawful entertainment they see fit. This is about fighting censorship and enabling freedom of expression through art. This is about bringing Australia into line with every other progressive country in the world and letting our adults play adult-oriented material.

Read more from gamers4croydon…

The Federal Government will introduce compulsory internet filtering.

 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the changes today following a controversial trial to filter the internet which was conducted earlier this year.

Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.

“It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material,” he said.

He says the Government will not determine what is blacklisted on the internet in Australia; rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC for refused classification.

Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries.

The filtering trial attracted criticism from some who said it would not work and would slow internet speeds.

But Senator Conroy says the trial has been successful.

“Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy,” he said.

“It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed.”

Grants will also be offered to ISPs to voluntarily block other content.

After the legislation is passed the filter will take 12 months to implement.

Senator Conroy says the Government will take steps to ensure the filter is transparent and people know why material is being blocked.

In May 2008, the Government said it would spend $125.8 million over four years on several measures to strengthen cyber safety, including the filter.

Analyzing this lunacy:

1) “Some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilized society, it is important that all Australians are protected from this material”.

I was under the mistaken impression that individuals in civilized society had the capacity and freedom to autonomously discern good from bad, and accordingly make a decision to consume or not consume, thank you Senator for correcting my misguided perception.

In all seriousness, protecting the children just doesn’t wash. There are currently around 110 million operational websites online with in excess of 25 billion indexable pages, plus a few more pages that haven’t been indexed by Google or Yahoo.

How in the f*ck do you review 25 billion pages and counting? Even if only 1% of those pages were “prohibited content”, no organization (government or otherwise) could hope to apply a meaningful filter solution, it would be like trying to arrest a locust plague with a butterfly net.

It is clear from the outset that this policy has nothing to do with “protecting citizens” and has everything to do with creating additional government authority for the purpose of censoring any internet content that they so choose, in a very targeted manner, as this is the only manner feasible.

2) “Government will not determine what is blacklisted; rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC”.

Independent in the way that the “Peoples Daily” is an independent newspaper in the People’s Republic of China. The “independent body” comrade refers to is otherwise known as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a government organization.

3) “Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries”.

I assume that should read something like “Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material from other countries which has been refused classification in Australia.”

After all, (don’t quote me on this) but I would suspect that classification codes are not quite up to par in Uzbekistan or Uruguay. Conversely, any content outside the Chairman Mao fan club is RC in China.

My next thought was, are websites actually classified in Australia? I mean, I have never seen a website with classification info, like the logos that appear on DVD movies.

As for legislation being introduced next year, it would appear that media law imposing “access prevention notices” on ISPs is already active, as gleaned from the Act, thanks ACMA for the tip.

In summary, the act (amended just weeks ago) bestows the ACMA government organisation with the power to enforce that all ISPs deny access to any internet content that is rated X 18+ or refused classification (RC).

If, in the course of an investigation, the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

Give each Internet service provider known to the ACMA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

See below at bottom of this post for important excerpts and a link to the Broadcasting Services Act.

Already RC is applied to an ever increasing number of films by the Australian office of censorship (Classification Board), making them illegal in Australia, and all video games (online or other wise) are RC by default if they cannot meet the MA15+ standard.

4) “Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy.”

Hugh, come again? Back in March it was revealed with much fan fair in the main stream media, that the web pages of a Queensland tour operator, boarding kennel and a dentist had all been included in this “defined URL list” being trialled.

In addition, online gambling sites, You Tube links, regular porn and fetish sites and Wikileaks pages were also found in the black list.

Wikileaks reported at the time:

“Apparently without irony, ACMA threatens fines of up to $11,000 a day for linking to sites on its secret, unreviewable, censorship blacklist. This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks. We were not notified by ACMA.”

Comrade Conroy guest starred on ABC TV and made rather bemusing claims about the Russian Mafia hacking the web-page of the dentist in a pathetic attempt to justify why the blacklist filter had been less than “100% accurate”.

I think it’s a good compromise between protection and freedom of expression. The commitments to transparency are a pretty good inclusion as well.

And then there were the super delusional. -

Comment by Delta:

Hmmmm reading most of these posts seems a lot of people are into the hard core porn, sexual abuse and the like, well what ever turns you on….

Remember it’s designed to protect young children and people who have a clean and decent outlook on life.

 

Overwhelmingly though, about 343 from 350 comments expressed outrage and a desire to burn the government at the stake.

It would appear from the comments however, that the public is oblivious to just how sinister the filtering announcement really is.

It’s not merely a dumb filter programmed with a black list; our government has been less than forthcoming in disclosing the technologies which will be utilized under the legislation. Most ISPs in the trial were all using appliance based products with signature blocking capabilities able to filter P2P, IMs, anonymous proxies and online gaming.

See – ISPs reveal clean-filter technologies

Conroy may be less articulate than a baboon’s asshole and apparently arrogant enough to fly in the face of all considered and professional advice on this issue, but this is not about the Rudd government, this is a world wide attack on public freedom to access information.

In the UK, a new Digital Economy Bill is currently under review in the House of Lords. It contains a provision (clause 11), which begins:

The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate….

The definition of a “technical obligation” and “technical measure” are inserted by clause 10:

A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.

A “technical measure” is a measure that— (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

See – government-wants-new-powers

Authorities in the UK are claiming these measures are designed for combating copyright infringement, probably less insulting to the intelligence of the public than the story about protecting children, but my point is governments are not behind this attack on our freedoms, they are just facilitating it.

The Howard Gov (previous Aust Gov) was in the process of implementing this action and an Abbott Gov (new leader of opposition Gov) would not deviate from this course either.

Governments are not elected; they are selected, by the people who own them and whom the government is always answerable to, the few who really run this world from behind the curtain. These are the people we need to dethrone.

Protest action is already alive and well, in September; Prime Minister Kevin Dudd’s own official website was attacked and shut down, allegedly by the group “Anonymous” who had given prior warning that government websites would be targeted.

See – Rudd website attacked in filter protest

For more info on the trials, click here.

See also – EFA, Net censorship trial report brings more questions than answers

Schedule 5 – Online services

This Schedule sets up a system for regulating certain aspects of the Internet industry.

• If the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

(a) if the ACMA considers that the content is of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant referral to a law enforcement agency—notify the content to an Australian police force; and

(b) Notify the content to Internet service providers so that the providers can deal with the content in accordance with procedures specified in an industry code or industry standard (for example, procedures for the filtering, by technical means, of such content).

• The ACMA has a reserve power to make an industry standard if there are no industry codes or if an industry code is deficient.

• The ACMA may make online provider determinations regulating Internet service providers.

If, in the course of an investigation under Division 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 7, the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

Give each Internet service provider known to the ACMA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

The ACMA may, by written instrument, declare that a specified arrangement is a recognised alternative access-prevention arrangement for the purposes of the application of this Division to one or more specified end-users if the ACMA is satisfied that the arrangement is likely to provide a reasonably effective means of preventing access by those end-users to prohibited content and potential prohibited content.

Industry codes and industry standards

• Compliance with industry standards is mandatory.

Matters that must be dealt with by industry codes and industry Standards

General matters

(1) The Parliament intends that, for the Internet service provider section of the Internet industry, there should be:

(a) an industry code or an industry standard that deals with; or
(b) an industry code and an industry standard that together deal with;

(j) subject to subclause (8A), action to be taken to assist in the development and implementation of Internet content filtering technologies (including labelling technologies);

(m) procedures directed towards the achievement of the objective of ensuring that, in the event that a participant in the Internet service provider section of the Internet industry becomes aware that an Internet content host is hosting prohibited content in Australia, the host is told about the prohibited content.

Other matters

(d) subject to subclause (8A), procedures to be followed by Internet service providers in dealing with Internet content notified under paragraph 40(1)(b) of this Schedule or clause 46 (for example, procedures to be followed by a particular class of Internet service providers for the filtering, by technical means, of such content).

(8A) If the Minister is satisfied that Internet content filtering is not viable in relation to access to Internet content using a particular device (for example, a mobile telephone handset), the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that paragraphs (1)(j), (k) and (l) and (2)(d) do not apply in relation to access to Internet content using that device.

Schedule 7 – Online services

11. Eligible electronic publication

For the purposes of this Schedule, if:

(a) content consists of:

(i) an electronic edition of a book, magazine or newspaper; or

(ii) an audio recording of the text, or abridged text, of a book, magazine or newspaper; and

(b) a print edition of the book, magazine or newspaper is or was available to the public (whether by way of purchase or otherwise) in Australia; then:

(c) the content is an eligible electronic publication; and

(d) the print edition of the book, magazine or newspaper is the corresponding print publication in relation to the eligible electronic publication.

Division 1 – Prohibited content and potential prohibited content

20. Prohibited content

Content other than eligible electronic publications

(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, content (other than content that consists of an eligible electronic publication) is prohibited content if:

(a) the content has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; or

(b) both:

(i) the content has been classified R 18+ by the Classification Board; and

(ii) access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system; or

(c) all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) the content has been classified MA 15+ by the Classification Board;

(ii) access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system;

(iii) the content does not consist of text and/or one or more still visual images;

(iv) access to the content is provided by means of a content service (other than a news service or a current affairs service) that is operated for profit or as part of a profit-making enterprise;

(v) the content service is provided on payment of a fee (whether periodical or otherwise);

(vi) the content service is not an ancillary subscription television content service; or

(d) all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) the content has been classified MA 15+ by the Classification Board;

(ii) access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system;

(iii) access to the content is provided by means of a mobile premium service.

Eligible electronic publications

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, content that consists of an eligible electronic publication is prohibited content if the content has been classified RC, category 2 restricted or category 1 restricted by the Classification Board.

21 Potential prohibited content

(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, content is potential prohibited content if:

(a) the content has not been classified by the Classification Board; and

(b) if the content were to be classified by the Classification Board, there is a substantial likelihood that the content would be prohibited content.

Wikileaks has published a deleted BBC news article on the toxic-waste dumping of commodities giant Trafigura. According to a September 2009 UN report, the dumping drove 108,000 people in the Ivory Coast to seek medical attention.

Trafigura and their lawyers Carter Ruck had been pursuing an ongoing libel case against the BBC over a news story that aired in May 2009.

Until this week the story was still available on the BBC website. The link stopped working some time on December 10th or 11th.

It is the biggest toxic dumping scandal of the 21st century, the type of environmental vandalism that international treaties are supposed to prevent. Now Newsnight can reveal the truth about the waste that was illegally tipped on Ivory Coast’s biggest city, Abidjan. A giant multinational is being sued in London’s High Court by thousands of Africans who claim they were injured as a result.

 

The truth behind Ivory Coast toxic waste dump

Our investigation took us to Amsterdam where the waste could have been safely disposed of. Instead the company, Trafigura, went for the cheaper option and offloaded it in Abidjan.

Trafigura has always denied that the chemical waste was dangerous, but we have seen an analysis by the Dutch authorities which reveal it to be lethal.

We consulted a leading toxicologist, John Hoskins from the Royal Society of Chemistry. He said it would bring a major city to its knees.

The waste includes tons of phenols which can cause death by contact, tons of hydrogen sulphide, lethal if inhaled in high concentrations, and vast quantities of corrosive caustic soda and mercaptans which John Hoskins describes as “the most odorous compounds ever produced”.

A terrible smell

It happened on 19 August 2006 in the dead of night. A convoy of trucks from a newly-formed company in Abidjan arrived to take the waste away. They illegally dumped the first loads at the huge tip in Aquedo.

Watch Newsnight’s 2007 investigation into claims toxic waste was dumped in Ivory Coast.

A powerful stench soon engulfed the area. The tip’s operators were called out and the drivers sent packing. They looked elsewhere to drop the waste, tipping it in at least 18 places across the city and beyond.

The Aquedo tip stretches as far as the eye can see. As scores of waste trucks tip their loads, an army of Abidjanis cluster around, children amongst them, brandishing long metal spikes. They pick through the rubbish, looking for anything that can be sold.

Deaths

We were soon surrounded by people, only too willing to talk about the night the toxic waste was dumped and the terrible smell that made them gag and sicken.

There were women who miscarried, and that was very painful. But still, the worst was that three people, two adults and a girl were killed by the toxic wastes. That was very hard Esaie Modto, head of Djibli village.

Just round the corner from the dump, we met Jean Francois Kouadio and his wife, Fidel.

She had been eight months pregnant with their first child when the fumes swamped their home. Fidel gave birth prematurely and the boy, Jean Claude, died within a day.

Their second child Ama Grace was born a year later. She too fell ill.

The doctors said that Ama Grace “was suffering from acute glycaemia caused by the toxic wastes”.

They could do nothing for her and she died.

The medical reports state a “strong presumption” that the deaths of the two children were caused by exposure to the toxic waste and Jean Francois and Fidel now fear they will never become parents.

Polluted water

We also visited the village of Djibi, just outside Abidjan. The waste that was tipped here got into the water supply, killing the fish that fed the village.

A woman whose face is covered in lesions in Abidjan (September 2008) Thousands of people say they were victims of the waste

The head of Djibi, Esaie Modto, told us that every last person here fell ill, two thousand people:

“There were women who miscarried, and that was very painful. But still, the worst was that three people, two adults and a girl were killed by the toxic wastes. That was very hard.”

So what was it that brought such ruin on a country that in 2006 was still struggling to recover from a civil war?

The waste was generated as the result of an oil deal spanning three continents. Trafigura bought a consignment of cheap and dirty heavy oil with a high sulphur content. Instead of putting it through a refinery, Trafigura tried to clean it up, using a do-it-yourself method, so they could sell it on at a massive profit.

They used a ship called the Probo Koala which they stationed off Gibraltar as a rough and ready refinery. Caustic soda and a catalyst were added to the oil which reacted with the sulphur and settled to the bottom of the tank. Trafigura were then able to sell the oil, but left with a toxic sludge at the bottom of the tank.

“Smelly but not dangerous”

The Probo Koala went to Amsterdam where they attempted to unload this sulphurous tar as if it were normal ships’ waste, which would have cost a few thousand euros.

However the fumes were so bad, the emergency services were called and the Dutch authorities carried out tests. They discovered the waste was highly toxic and told Trafigura that it would cost half a million euros to dispose of safely.

The Probo Koala instead pumped the waste back on board and left port, ending up in West Africa.

Marietta Harjono of Greenpeace Nederland says this has led to a prosecution by the Dutch authorities for “falsification of papers – they deliberately were silent on the toxic nature of the waste”, as well as for illegal import of toxic waste and “illegal export of toxic waste from Europe to Cote d’Ivoire”.

When Newsnight first investigated the toxic dumping scandal in 2007 one of Trafigura’s founders Eric de Turckheim told Jeremy Paxman “these materials were not dangerous for human beings. It was smelly, but not dangerous.”

Newsnight’s new investigation shows this was far from the case. Trafigura continues to deny any wrongdoing.

Climategate = bullshit. Climate change v skeptic is just the new left/ right paradigm. It is exactly what was insidiously planned to be by our caring ruling elite, and it coincides very nicely with people waking up to the last paradigm.

Another division successfully crafted, two more tribes created to fight another war.

Whether you believe or not that climate change can be influenced by human activity, this little planet is disgustingly polluted. There is almost no place left on Earth where inhabitants may still find clean air to breathe.

I’ve seen so called “climate change skeptics” making conjecture such as “CO2 is good for the environment, it makes the trees grow”. This would be a fine argument if it were not for the fact that humans are deforesting the planet so fast that the trees which might utilize our lovely emissions don’t actually exist. That is, not in sufficient numbers relative to volume of emissions.

Something to do with A) : high demands for timber products, B) : high demand for farming produce which requires farming land and oddly enough, that requires the landscape to be free of trees, C) : never ending urban sprawl which equally oddly can not progress with all those f*cking trees in the way.

One might also note that human produced emissions are not purely carbon dioxide; they also comprise carbon monoxide (a poison) and other carcinogens.

I would like to see those who have proposed heavy emissions are an asset; seal themselves within a small garage with an idling car engine, and report back on how they felt afterward.

Millions of people around the globe currently die annually from respiratory illness but hey, it’s good for the trees, if there were trees.

And if there were trees, the “truther’s” would be barking up the wrong one here, fighting to preserve their own oppression. There have never been any other consumer products in history, more successful in enslaving the human race quite like oil and coal have. Every aspect of modern day society is depended upon these resources, which reside in the control of a handful of people, people who see fit to manipulate their value in what amounts to nothing less than extortion.

There are a few decent arguments here and there from both sides of this contrived battle, but overwhelmingly I find individuals from either persuasion unwilling to educate themselves or simply think for themselves beyond popular sound bites. Yes CO2 is life giving but so is water, and a funny thing happens if you are submerged in water, you stop breathing.

It’s entirely appropriate to oppose “cap and trade/emissions trading schemes (ETS)”, but in doing so I have not seen anyone call it out for the smoke screen that it is.

The impression I get from the “truth movement” concerning the revelations of “climategate”, is that it’s the ultimate smoking gun and anyone now still bold enough to voice environmental concerns on any level should be lynched immediately, because they are now and forever more exposed as just deceptive tools for the New World Order agenda.

I would suggest that the true NWO shills are those entities whom have disseminated the meme that sets up environmentalists and scientists as the patsies for blame, while completely ignoring the realities of a fossil fuel driven world.

Neglecting to make any mention of a need for transition away from the westernized world’s unsustainable consumerism of pollution producing resources, only serves to encourage the continuation of business as usual, which is exactly what our ruling elite want. They came up with “plan B”, a new global tax on the poor, encase “plan A” (business as usual) came under threat.

But “plan b” was always designed to fail. Is it not predictable that if; governments tell their people the planet is becoming uninhabitable but we can fix that by taxing you into poverty, the people are going to say SCREW YOU?

Essentially that is what the carbon trading scheme is all about, making the rich richer and the poor poorer in lieu of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer as set out in “plan A”.

Under the schemes, the world’s most prolific polluters (corporate industries) will be granted concessions/carbon credits/offsets and therefore the scheme/scam will do absolutely nothing to curtail global emissions; it in fact allows those big polluters to continue increasing emissions for profit.

Even some of the climate scientists agree on this:

Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails – ABC News

The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.

Professor James Hansen says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

Hansen argues that the process is so flawed because it relies on cap and trade emissions trading schemes. Instead of allowing polluters to buy the right to continue polluting, he prefers a tax on the price of carbon at the mine or the port.

“The whole idea that you have goals that you’re supposed to try to meet and that you have outs with offsets means that it’s an attempt to continue business as usual,” he said.

Scientist quits over ETS ‘censorship’- ABC News

A senior CSIRO environmental economist has resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was censored.

Earlier this year he had been expecting his paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, to be published internationally after it was peer reviewed for the British Journal New Political Economy.

His paper questions the effectiveness of carbon trading schemes in industrialised countries and argues that a direct carbon tax might be more effective. He was told that it breached guidelines preventing scientists from commenting on policy issues.

The article ends with one of the best examples of political hypocrisy one might encounter;

The opposition says the Government’s election promise to end gags on scientists, which was called Operation Sunlight is leaving Australians in the dark.

That would be the opposition (former Government) whom put Australians into the dark but now scorn the current Government for leaving them there.

I can not argue against the scientists criticizing carbon trading schemes. However I find the idea that; any tax whatsoever would be useful in achieving emission reductions, a contentious one.

The inbred family of hicks who call themselves the “elites”, who have engineered modern day society to be totally depended upon the resources they control, resources that produce toxic pollution on mass scale, not content with the measure of enslavement they already command, now want us to make even more tribute, by paying another tax, this time for pollution which they will continue to disperse, all made possible only because they suppressed over the last century, every viable sustainable alternative energy resource ever investigated.

As for “climategate”, is it really that important that from a pile of stolen emails, a couple of lines were found that revealed certain scientists operating below the threshold of professional conduct? Has no one ever previously heard of scientists being purchased, put on the payroll for various interests? This is an established practice of long standing, granted though it is far more common place to find compromised scientists in the climate change skeptic’s camp, shilling for oil corporations who have never made any secret of aggressive opposition to alternative energy sources.

If governments were not owned by and completely subservient to the inbred scum f*ck overlords that rule this planet, and were serious about addressing environmental issues, they might in the first instance, implement policies for significant reductions in the demand for energy.

Within the continent I call home, Australia, temperature extremities can be quite harsh during the summer months. Accordingly, dwellings of the past were always constructed with high roofs and ceilings and the buildings would be encompassed by something known as a veranda. These designs kept the inside rooms nice and cool during periods of uncomfortable heat.

Those simple fore mentioned features, are now lost in time and as a result, no one can live in their little box house without the aid of air conditioning blasting away all day and night throughout the summer.

It is no inadvertent mishap that urban planning over the last fifty years has consistently and progressively become more and more incompatible with the environment.

The government congratulates and credits itself for pretending to do something, like regulating that white goods makers affix five pretty star images to our refrigerators, supposedly indicating how much energy my fridge will guzzle, but concurrently the government in reality does nothing but aid and abet their masters in generating ever increasing demands for energy supplies.

Clothes lines have been replaced with electric clothes dryers, every house has an electric dishwasher, wide-screen TV’s consuming infinitely more power than their predecessors occupy every living room, all city and urban development is designed specifically around the needs of automobiles, and the best plan my government can come up with is to stick f*cking stars on my fridge.

The primary preoccupation of all western governments regarding domestic policy is always with driving consumerism, CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME! Now governments are saying ok, turns out all that consuming is bad for us, so we will have to tax you more, to present the illusion of action, but please don’t stop, CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME!

 

NY wants revenge

While US authorities vow a fair trial for the alleged plotters after years of abuse in military jails, when they arrive in New York they will find a city thirsting for revenge.

“Hang them,” said Joe Ricciardi, 55, a construction worker near the gaping hole of Ground Zero, site of the Twin Towers destroyed on September 11, 2001.

“Look at what they did to this place. Look at the families they wrecked,” added Mr Ricciardi’s son, also called Joe, gesturing toward Ground Zero, where nearly 3,000 people died when hijacked planes struck the World Trade Centre.

“Put them in a bird cage and hang it in the middle of Times Square,” a third man in the group said to mordant laughter.

Rudy Giuliani, the mayor who sought to calm a shocked New York in the wake of the attacks, lambasted the move to allow the accused a civilian court trial.

“We have regressed to a pre-9/11 mentality with respect to Islamic extremist terrorism,” he said in a statement.

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried like the war criminal he is and tried in a military court. He murdered as part of a declared war against us, America.”

In a follow up article

Hicks’s lawyers commenced an action in the Federal Court of Australia (Dec 2006 – Hicks v Ruddock), accusing the Australian Government of breaching their “protective duty” to Australian citizens overseas. The government of John Howard argued that it had no legal duty to protect Hicks from torture and abuse in Gitmo. The government described Hicks as “the worst of the worst” and Prime Minister Howard had revealed just a week prior to this case commencing, that he was aware that the US would release David if he (Howard) were only to request it. Howard boasted that no such request would be forthcoming.

In the elaborate hoax responsible for world wide carnage and destruction that is the “war on terror”, it is difficult to find a more putrid shill for that war (being aware of the hoax) than in former PM John Howard.

The Howard government repeatedly stated that Hicks had to face a US military commission, precisely because he committed no crime under Australian or indeed US law.

Finally after more than five years in Gitmo, Hicks was trialled which no jury took part and in which Hicks was not allowed to see the “evidence” U.S. prosecutors had gathered against him. He was given a suspended 7 year sentence under a pre trial guilty plea bargain which was commuted to 9 months, served in the maximum security Yatla prison of his home town in Adelaide Australia. He was told he faced life imprisonment if the plea was declined.

Under the conditions of the plea deal, Hicks was forced to agree that he had never been abused or tortured in custody (although he had previously complained of such), he was required to pledge not to file future lawsuits against his captors and a 1 year media gag was imposed to be effective from his release date. Even after his release, Dec 2007, he was subject to a control order which placed various restrictions upon his freedom until Dec 2008.

Former Pentagon chief prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis later alleged political interference in the case, by the Bush administration in the U.S. and the Howard government in Australia, and said that Hicks should not have been prosecuted

Back to the “9/11 mastermind” and the co accused, a provoking article – Truth, Lies, and the Legend of 9/11 by Chaim Kupferberg, published 21st October 2003, at http://globalresearch.ca is well worth reading. It’s not for the attention span challenged (its quite long), but it offers some valuable insights. I have collated some extracts here – Truth, Lies, and the Legend of 9/11. some key extracts from my extracts:

It was almost an afterthought. On March 1, 2003, the War on Terror had finally served up the alleged paymaster of 9/11 – a shadowy Saudi by the name of Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi. Yet his arrest just happened to coincide with the capture of a much bigger fish – the reported 9/11 mastermind himself, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Only seventeen months before, a former London schoolboy by the name of Omar Saeed Sheikh was first exposed as the 9/11 paymaster.

Omar Saeed, as reported back then by CNN, was acting under the alias of Mustafa Ahmed. So where is Omar now? Sitting in a Pakistani prison, awaiting his execution for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl – while another man fills the shoes of his pseudonym.

On October 1, the New York Times reported that hijacker Atta received money from someone using the alias “Mustafa Ahmad”.

Times of India, October 9 2001;

“While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI (Pakistani intelligence) director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the “evidence” India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Omar Saeed at the insistence of General Mahmud Ahmad.”

In short, the Times of India revealed that Omar Saeed was acting under the direct orders of the head of Pakistani intelligence and not Osama bin Laden.

Tracing the “smoking gun” money trail to General Ahmad created an entirely new smoking gun that led straight back to Washington, D.C. – for General Ahmad had already been reported as having breakfast in the nation’s capital with Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss on the morning of September 11 (Both Graham and Goss would go on to co-chair the joint Senate-House 9/11 inquiry).

Around the same time that the joint Senate-House Inquiry was proceeding under the co-chairmanship of Bob Graham and Porter Goss, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was formally introduced as the operative mastermind behind 9/11.

A June 2002 Associated Press article also accused Khalid of working with Ramzi Yousef in the first bombing of the World Trade Center [in '93]” in addition to working with Yousef on a 1995 plot (code-named Bojinka) to bomb a dozen airliners headed to the United States.

Conveniently timed for release on June 6, 2002 – further news followed that, according to National Security Agency intercepts, Khalid was heard talking on the telephone with hijacker Mohammed Atta. Moreover, for the very first time, authorities were now reporting that Khalid was actually the uncle of Ramzi Yousef. In other words, when the nephew failed to bring down the Towers in ‘93, the uncle took up the slack in ‘01.

Prior to Khalid’s June 2002 public promotion, he was lurking on the official terror lists merely as an indicted conspirator in the 1995 Bojinka plot masterminded by Ramzi Yousef.

One can almost picture sitting in with the members of the National Security Council on a balmy Spring morning in late May 2002, leafing through their photo albums as they argued over the most appropriate candidate to close off the official 9/11 Legend. As it turned out, they chose the guy with the unibrow and the hair shirt.

If habitual coincidence is the mother of all conspiracy theories, then one must surely raise a discerning eyebrow at the revelation that, around this time – after more than a decade of staying hidden in the shadows – Khalid Shaikh Mohammed suddenly was stricken with an urge to conduct his very first interview, with none other than Ramzi Binalshibh at his side. The journalist chosen for this honor was the London bureau chief of Al-Jazeera, Yosri Fouda.

Only two days after the initial broadcast of Fouda’s interview with Khalid and Binalshibh – on the first anniversary commemorating the 9/11 attacks – Pakistani forces, accompanied by FBI agents, raided an apartment complex in Karachi. After a “four hour” gun battle involving “hundreds” of Pakistani soldiers and policemen, the authorities captured, among a few others, Ramzi Binalshibh.

Their original target, however, had been Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom they had been tracking for months throughout Karachi. While Khalid had just barely slipped away only a few hours before Pakistani forces had arrived at his door, the authorities were reportedly “surprised” to discover that they had netted Binalshibh in the process. At least that is now the official version of the day’s events.

As revealed by Syed Saleem Shahzad in an Asia Times Online article dated October 30, 2002, the shootout ended with the deaths of two Al Qaeda fighters, one of them identified as Khalid. Here was Shahzad’s report of the events:

“The FBI, still keen to take [Khalid] Shaikh Mohammed alive, teargassed the area, and a number of people were captured. However, despite instructions to the contrary, a few Pakistani Rangers entered the flat, where they found [Khalid] Shaikh Mohammed and another man, allegedly with their hands up. The Rangers nevertheless opened fire on the pair.

Later, the Pakistani press carried pictures of a message scrawled in blood on the wall of the flat, proclaiming the Muslim refrain of Kalma, in Arabic: “There is no God except Allah, Mohammed is his messenger”. An official who was present in the flat at the time of the shooting has told Asia Times Online that the message was written by Shaikh Mohammed with his own blood as his life drained away from him…

…But now it emerges that an Arab woman and a child were taken to an ISI safe house, where they identified the Shaikh Mohammed’s body as their husband and father…

… The widow subsequently underwent exhaustive interrogation in the custody of FBI officials…”

Authorities eventually did confirm one crucial portion in Shahzad’s account: Khalid’s wife and two young sons – aged 9 and 7 – were apprehended in the raid, and immediately handed over (in the later, official version) to Pakistani custody. Yet this information officially would not be revealed until one week after Khalid’s later “official” capture on March 1, 2003.

After signing, AVN forwarded my protest to the office of a number of politicians including the federal Health Minister and the Treasurer. I received 12 automated “out of office replies” from various ministers. In addition, two office staffers were actually kind enough to hit their keyboards in response.

From the office of Louise Markus:

Thank you for your email regarding the Swine Flu vaccination. As you would appreciate Mrs Louise Markus receives large volumes of correspondence and as the Federal Member for Greenway her priority is that of her constituents. Mrs Louise Markus thanks you for your email and has noted your comments.

Ok, I’m not one of her constituents, fair enough. Now from the office of Kate Ellis of whom I am a constituent, Electorate Officer Pauline Cusack writes:

Thank you for your email concerning the swine flu vaccine.

The Government has no plans for the swine flu vaccine to be mandatory.

Regards

Pauline Cusack

I appreciate the enormous effort and trouble Pauline went to in her reply but I couldn’t help but feel a bit patronized. I sent a reply correspondence as follows:

Brown-nose said that the cost from the failure of banks, should never again be borne by taxpayers. Is he taking the piss? What bank has ever incurred additional operating expenses without passing them directly on to its customers in the form of more fees and charges?

He also said of the banks; “This is a unique sector that, when it fails, imposes such a high cost to the wider economy and damage to society that government intervention becomes essential. So the taxpayer had no real choice but to step in to keep the system afloat.”

No real choice? Spoken like a true joker totally at the service of bankers. Here’s a choice, an idea, let the f*ckers fail and outlaw central banks/federal reserves. With the trillions of dollars tax payers have been robbed of for bailouts of criminal bankers, who claimed to have “failed” because they robbed the system of trillions that didn’t really exist, couldn’t those trillion dollar bailouts instead fund a new banking system? One that doesn’t have a central bank actually affixing immediate debt to every dollar printed, a banking system that operates ethically to maintain currency purchasing power?

Jokers, who claim we have no choice, speak a great lie. A lie so big and repeated so often, the sheeple believe it. Wealth is never lost, it merely gets transferred. In the wreckage of the “global financial crisis”, the rich have become richer and the poor, poorer.

Asked what he thought of Brown-nose’s bailout fund, Australia’s treasurer of the Jokery Wayne Swan, said he could not say if he supported the idea until his masters at the IMF indicated their views of a tax on global financial transactions.