Blood Libel: The Sarah Palin Defense...

Politics is a heated business at the best of times, and rhetoric is often emotive and extreme. There is undoubtedly consequences from this continual ratcheting-up of the rhetoric and the anger. Whether or not the recent mass-killings in Tuscon, Arizona, are proof of this remains a contentious issue of debate. However, Sarah Palin, the one-time Governor of Alaska and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, is at the center and forefront of this debate.

Sarah Palin makes up for her deficiencies as a politician by using extremely emotive language that disguises the fact that she does not know much about what she must know about to ever become President of the United States. In the lead-up to the recent mid-term elections in the US she was responsible for producing a map that had cross-hairs marking marginal congressional seats that she believed the Tea Party could "target" and win. One of these seats was that of Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords was shot and critically wounded in the Tuscon shootings.

The point of this post is not to question whether that sort of action is an incitement to act that requires some individual who is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic basket to go buy a gun and kill a few people. To each their own on that one. This post is about how Palin has responded to the accusation that her extreme rhetoric is a trigger to this violence.

Palin stayed quiet for several days. In hindsight, she should have stayed quiet. Palin posted the following video on her Facebook page:



The argument that "acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own" is only true to the extent that the person who commits those crimes, in this case pulls the trigger, is responsible for their actions. However, it would be naive to suggest that every action is independent of every other action. It would be remiss to just accept that people cannot be incited to act when they might otherwise have not acted. Although, in this instance, it would seem that Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, had serious issues way before Palin started bandying around maps with cross-hairs.

Yet, Palin was not willing to leave it there she then went on to say this:

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Blood Libel is an emotive term. It is a loaded term. It has a very specific meaning that is linked to anti-Semitism. Blood libel in essence is a myth that Jews sacrificed Christian children in the lead up to Passover. The blood of these Christian children was then used in medicinal rituals and to bake unleavened bread (matzsos). The blood libel myth has been used throughout history to justify pogroms against Jews and is an underlying piece of the propaganda puzzle that has been employed to justify some of the most heinous atrocities committed by humans against their fellow human beings.

A blood libel is not simply just a false accusation, but rather there are very specific understandings that go with the use of the term.

What is even more bizarre about this line of defense is that Gabrielle Giffords is a Jew. Surely, Sarah Palin and her people are not that stupid that they did not do the hard research yards to firstly find out what the term meant and secondly to think about the context in which they were about to use it, or are they?

Let's assume that she or her minions are not that stupid, then this is a cold, calculating, and deliberate attempt to inflame and incite this situation even further. It is only fair to question Palin's motivations for using the term blood libel. Is Palin suggesting that like the Jews she is being falsely accused or is she suggesting that it is a Jewish conspiracy to undermine her?

I am all for freedom of speech. As much as it sometimes pains me, I do believe that there is a freedom of speech that we all enjoy. But, I believe that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The freedoms that we enjoy to speech and expression must be used responsibly. When one chooses to exercise their freedom of speech and expression irresponsibly then they must be brought to account.

In this instance, there were so many other ways and terms that Sarah Palin could have employed to have made the point that she thought she was being unfairly criticised with regards to the Tuscon killings. However, she chose to use a term that was designed to prolong the controversy and to keep the news cycle running and to keep her name at the front and center of that news cycle.

I wonder if the next news-bite from the Palin camp will be about exercising a few of her rights under the Bill of Rights, perhaps she might start exercising her Second Amendment rights not just to keep and bear arms but start using them to return America to exceptionalism?

I am shaking my head at the thought of a Palin run for the presidency of the US...

Child Pornography and Artistic Merit...

It would seem that NSW is about to introduce legislation that removes artistic merit as a defense for images of children that are determined to be pornographic. The NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has said that a working group tasked with making recommendations on this matter has recommended that a defense of artistic merit must lapse once an image has been deemed to be pornographic.

Simply, whether the 'artist' in question produced the image as art or not becomes irrelevant with respect to the charge of producing, possessing, or distributing child porn material.

The question then becomes what about images that are not produced for artistic purposes, but rather are nothing more than personal family photos. For example, what if the Attorney-General had a happy snappy of one of his children or his grand children taking a bath. Is this producing or possessing child porn? What if in his apparent pride he shows the photograph to a colleague or places it on his computer as a screen saver and it is seen by members of his staff? Is this distributing child porn?

I am totally against child pornography. I find it objectionable in the extreme, abhorrent. I am certain that my views on this topic and subject have hardened since the birth of Will. The thought of him being exploited for child pornography is repugnant in the extreme. However, I really do not see what harm there is in either his mother, his grandparents, or his aunts and uncles having a picture of the little fella swimming but naked in the pool. I cannot fathom how I could be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted for producing, possessing, or distributing child pornography.

On the artistic front. I am not an artist and cannot make the arguments for artistic expression that an artist might need in producing images of children that may or may not push the boundaries of art and child porn. However, I do accept that artists have a right to that freedom of expression. An artist who takes a semi-naked picture of a child with the full consent of the parents of that child for the purposes of creating art that may later be exhibited should not lose the right to claim artistic merit as a defense because someone, probably a bureaucrat, has deemed the image to be child porn. The current recommendation would see a panel created to determine whether or not the image was a valid image of a child.

I am wondering whether in the common law there is a requirement for the commission of a crime to include not only the actus reus or the act, but also a requirement for mens rea, the intent. Before a crime can be proven is there not a need to determine the intent of the alleged offender to commit the crime charged?

It would seem to me that the removal of artistic merit as a defense removes a right to create art. Clearly, Bill Henson's work is not everyone's cuppa tea, but all the same neither is what Picasso or Rembrandt produced either.

Interestingly, many are arguing that this working group was set up in response to the furore surrounding Bill Henson and the closing down of an exhibition of his work. If this were true, then it seems a little silly considering his work was assessed by the relevant classification authorities in this area and determined to not breach any standards with respect to images involving children (including the photograph above).

There is certainly a need to tighten child pornography laws and to eliminate this scourge from the community. However, it seems that artists who produce images of children are the softest target available for the government on this front. The idea of removing the artistic merit defense for artists is evidence of the government's inability to deal appropriately and comprehensively with the scourge of child pornography.

There will undoubtedly be more to follow once the legislation is introduced to the NSW parliament.

Is SBY Paranoid?

Wednesday, 9 December 2009, is International Anti-Corruption Day. The day is marked for protest. This is not all that surprising in light of the recent, and ongoing, Cicak vs. Buaya fiasco and the ever-present Bank Century scandal. There is still enough corruption in Indonesia to warrant a demonstration on most days, let alone only on international anti-corruption day.

Poor old Mr. President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono or SBY to his friends, has suggested in a fit of paranoia that the protest or demonstration is not really in support of anti-corruption efforts but rather has been hijacked by his political opponents as a means of scoring some cheap political points. Awwww schucks Mr. President, it is nothing personal, it is called democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of expression. People in democracies feel comfortable and free to express their views in the form of demonstrations.

Maybe the photo above is an indication of how paranoid the President feels at the moment on the finger scale.

The fact that they feel free and safe enough to do it in Indonesia must be exploited by you! You need to get your PR people on this thing straight away and get them spinning it for all it is worth. "Look, under my watch democracy in Indonesia has thrived, and people believe that they are safe, so safe in fact that the feel comfortable in protesting about the one thing that is going to be my legacy, anti-corruption".

But instead, and as he is prone to do, the President has missed the moment. This is another one of those post-Marriott / Ritz-Carlton hotel bombings where the president has decided that the emphasis needs to be on him rather than the issues at hand. Pretty sad really that the President is seeking to silence his critics in this way.

The cold hard reality for the President, his family, his party, and any other associates is this; if they are clean and corruption free then there is absolutely nothing to worry about when a group gets together and wants to demonstrate about the failures they perceive to be occurring on the eradication of corruption front.

It is interesting that the President is all for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of association when it does not disturb national stability or law and order, yet, he was more than happy to stand by and let the "investigation" run its course in the attack on the KPK and two of its commissioners. Sounds like wanting to have one's cake and eat it too!

Perhaps it is time that the President worried more about governing than a few demonstrators getting together to celebrate International Anti-Corruption Day.

There is more to leadership than winning an election!

(Photo can be found here)

The New Law On Film In Indonesia -- Some Preliminary Thoughts...

The bill is not short on controversy and not all stakeholders are happy about the provisions that have been codified into the new law. The bill, as most Indonesian laws do, make grand and bold statements as to the context in which the bill was drafted and debated. In this case, the bill suggests that the reformasi that Indonesia has undergone since 1998 and the fall of the New Order Regime of the former president Soeharto, included not only a political reformation but a cultural one too. As part of this cultural reformation the manner in which film is viewed has changed. Consequently, the previous regulatory framework for film, Law No. 8 of 1992, is no longer fit for purpose and needed to be repealed and replaced with a piece of legislation that reflects the current state of the Indonesian film industry in 2009.

The government views the new law as a step in the right direction with respect to the promotion and development of the thriving Indonesian film industry. However, in contrast, some within the thriving Indonesian film industry are openly questioning whether the new law is going to be conducive to the freedom of expression they have enjoyed in recent years to make the films they have wanted to make or whether the new provisions are going to stifle their creative opportunities with respect to making films that satisfy their creative energy. And, any stifling of the creative aspects of film-making would seemingly fly in the face of a recent Presidential Instruction on the Creative Economy.

The debate, although seemingly settled, with the passage of the bill through the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) on 8 September 2009 may not be the end of the matter as there have been concerns raised with regards to whether or not quorum was reached in the DPR when the bill was passed. However, a more pertinent debate is whether the provisions infringe on the freedom of expression that Indonesians believed they enjoy as part of the series of Constitutional amendments made at the beginning of the reformation period or not.

At the heart of this debate is whether a modern and developing democracy such as Indonesia needs a censorship board or agency to vet film content or whether a film classification board would be sufficient for the purpose of rating films based on their content. Furthermore, the new law stipulates that film scripts must be registered and listed with the minister at least three months prior to any filming being undertaken. Ostensibly, this is to ensure that no two films are being made with the same title or on the same content / issues. Nevertheless, this provision would seemingly provide the power to the minister to vet and then veto any film which the minister deemed to be inappropriate.

The provisions of the new law require that all films conform to explicit societal mores and norms, and these are set out with respect to what is prohibited in Article 6. Simple, scenes that show violence, gambling, the misuse and abuse of drugs and other addictive substances, pornography, provocation between ethnic groups or races, questions religion or religious practices, encourages criminal activity or lowers the honor of the community are all prohibited. In essence, a foreign film like Ocean’s Eleven, which deals with gambling, and therefore would seemingly have to fall foul of the censors and be prohibited from screening. Similarly, local Indonesian films such as the martial arts film, Merantau, might also fall foul of Indonesia’s new censorship board as a consequence of the scenes that portray violence, drugs, and perhaps even scenes devoted to issues of human trafficking.

The new law sets out four classifications; all ages, 13+ years of age, 17+ years of age, and 21+ years of age. Films for the 21+ classification can only be screened between the hours of 23.00 and 03.00 and these films cannot be screened in a public space.

Foreign film makers wanting to use an Indonesian location must obtain the permission of the minister prior to shooting being commenced. The Elucidations to this provision only state that it is ‘self-explanatory’. Presumably, the permit procedure would require that the foreign film maker submit a script and all other relevant information prior to the minister considering a permit application.

The government’s argument for the new law supporting the development and expansion of the Indonesian film industry relies on the rather short Article, Article 32, which stipulates that at least 60% of all the hours that films are shown during any six-month period must be Indonesian films. The question many film makers have is whether they can make a sufficient number of films in light of all the prohibitions they are under with regards to content.

Film festivals, or more broadly film appreciation activities, are specifically regulated under the new law. These activities can be undertaken by private individuals, groups or organizations, the central government, or regional governments. Nevertheless, specific provisions on how the relevant articles are to be implemented will become clearer once the associated Ministerial Regulations are issued.

The devolution of authorities under the provisions provides that the regional governments can facilitate film production within their respective regional areas. This would include facilitating Indonesian films to satisfy the 60% content provisions noted previously. Regional governments would also be required to facilitate the production of documentary films on their respective cultural uniqueness and other regionally specific issues.

The central government has responsibility with respect to facilitating film-making through the provision of tax and other kinds of duty and excise exemptions and reductions.

The funding of films is set out as a joint responsibility that would permit the central and regional governments to contribute. However, it is expected that any funds that are to be provided by government would be best administered through the creation of a film corporation which is tasked specifically with managing these funds. Unfortunately, the new law and the elucidations do not provide any additional input on this issue beyond funding being a joint responsibility.

The new law sets out both administrative and criminal sanctions. The administrative sanctions are the standard written warnings, fines, temporary suspension of activities, and the revocation of licenses and permits. The criminal sanctions provide for terms of imprisonment of between 6 months and 2 years, and fines of between IDR 10 billion and IDR 100 billion.

Finally, the current censorship board is to remain in place until such time as the new censorship board is installed. The new censorship board must be installed no later than 18 months from the date of enactment of the new law.

The new law is not without some controversy. However, the entry into law appears a mere formality with the president expected to sign the bill.

God is Love -- Jesus Supports the Use of Condoms

I fully expect to offend people with the picture that leads off this post. I do not apologize for the message of this piece. Thanks to the Freethinker for illuminating this controversy for me here and here.

Sexually transmitted diseases of all types are slowly but surely decimating our collective future. The idea that abstinence is the answer has proven to be clearly not the case. The need here is to ensure that people are fully educated and therefore able to make informed decisions on their own. If abstinence happens to be that choice, then all well and good. However, if the choice is a different one, then at least those individuals will have at their disposal the knowledge that may just save their lives.

The art work is by Ben Heine, a Belgian, and was in direct response to the statements of the Pope and his fellow clergy members who seem to believe that it says somewhere in the Bible that condom use is strictly prohibited and that the use of condoms actually makes the HIV / AIDS tragedy in places like Africa even worse. The art work was posted on a site called DeviantArt. Unfortunately, DeviantArt in their infinite wisdom deemed the work too offensive or controversial or something because they removed it, and then ultimately banned Heine from the site.

I fully support the right of websites to determine their own content. However, a quick look around the DeviantArt site turns up quite a lot of art that would best be described as pornographic and perhaps even offensive to some, not to me though. So, why single out this piece of art for censorship? Come to think of it, I am not offended by Jesus wearing a condom or the idea that the Christian God is a God of Love and would be cool with a pro-condom message. This is not because it encourages promiscuity but to the contrary because it saves souls from agonizing and pointless deaths.

The right to freely express one's ideas is a core tenet of my philosophy on life. I have not and do not advocate that there are no limits to free speech, in fact quite to the contrary. However, sometimes free speech sometimes offends, and causing offense does not necessarily mean that it has crossed that uncrossable line in the sand where it is no longer protected. My personal opinion is that I can accept some people will be offended by the image, but I do not believe the image crosses the line.

Is it in bad taste? To each their own.

Anonymous Blogging, Wordpress, and the Prophet

This story is a couple of days old and I have been too lazy to write about it before. However, I figured I should as I have recently made a presentation relating to the recently enacted Information and Electronic Transactions Law (ITE Law).

The story is that there is an anonymous blogger in town and they are posting a comic strip of the Prophet Muhammad which has riled the sensibilities of many Muslims. What caught my attention was the headline in the Jakarta Post which reads "Govt to pressurize Wordpress into disclosing blogger's ID". I am not sure that pressurize is the right word for this sentence. I am guessing that it is like terrorizing using pressure to get a pressurize situation.

The language choices aside, there are just a couple of points that are worth making here.

If you think that you are anonymous then make sure that you are smart enough to know how to use the technology to make it so. The government is demanding that Wordpress reveal the identity of the blogger because the content of the offending blog is deemed to be a cyber crime. The threat is that if Wordpress does not disclose the blogger's identity then the National Police Force's Digital Forensic Lab is going to get involved and uncover the blogger's identity themselves.

It seems that there is still a fair amount of road to be travelled in terms of what constitutes free speech and freedom of expression, particularly in light of Article 27 of the new ITE Law.

Freedom of Speech

I am following some interesting threads at the moment on this very topic. The discussion is at times heated and personal. It is rarely focused on the legal issues except in abstract ways and generalizations. The discussion is multi-jurisdictional and therefore comparative in nature.

Although the topic in a more general sense is the freedom of speech, the heart of the issue seems to be more focused on defamation, slander, and libel.

I tend to believe that the Internet has developed very much as an anything goes forum. The law is lagging behind and it does so as old style media laws are trying to be remodelled to fit new style media. Defamation gets tricky in this scenario. For example, does defamation occur at the point of upload or download when we are talking about electronic publishing? How much liability can be attributed to webmasters or bloggers that do not censor third party material? How anonymous are anonymous bloggers?

In terms of anonymous bloggers. This is an old debate and one that cyclically, at least, raises its head every now and then. Most of you reading this will know that I am not an anonymous blogger. The ugly mugshot you see in my profile is indeed me. Anonymous bloggers would also include those using pen names. I am for anonymous bloggers. My point on anonymous blogging relates to how anonymous you really are. I have learned that you can be truly anonymous if you are familiar with the technology and know what you're doing. For the rest of us not so techno-gadgety (amateurs) blogging using a pen name or just the title anonymous is probably not affording you the degree of anonymity that you think.

But back to freedom of speech. Are the questioning of people's sex lives or their preferences, whether it be sexual or political, or making disparaging remarks about specific individuals know or anonymous, or the threatening of physical violence off limits? Do people have a right to be offended?

I generally believe the trading of insults is an attempt to mark deficiencies in sound sustainable arguments. The insults are simply detracting from the arguments. Nevertheless, to each their own. However, when you start writing about particular people on your blog then I consider this to be an open invitation to the other party to comment. If the post is personal and disparaging of the other then I think you have an obligation to allow the targeted person to comment.

Defamation normally occurs where what is said is untrue, factually inaccurate. Does defamation occur on the Internet? Yes, there is case law to say that it does. In terms of precedent and interpretation of the prevailing laws this is still a much more fluid situation.

With great power comes great responsibility. The Internet provides us, the regular people, with a vast and wide forum. We have an obligation to exercise a degree of caution when wielding this power. After all, I am sure that I read somewhere that "the pen is mightier than the sword!"

Have a good weekend!

Anything Goes - The Last Supper Revisited!

The Internet is truly a place where anything goes and the boundaries of freedom of speech and good taste are often pushed to the extreme and perhaps regularly crossed.

However, as I was reading a story about a sketch that depicts the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy, which I might add was part of an exhibition being hosted by a Catholic Church in Austria in celebration of one of Austria's finest painters, Alfred Hrdlicka.

Nah, I know nothing about art or about one of Austria's finest painters but I do have to say trying to find the painting in question has proved way more difficult than I thought it might have been but persistence pays and I have located the sketch (above) and I have found a video of it here...

Not to be deterred though my travels led me to another depiction of the Last Supper that has a very definite S & M theme happening and it is just so Village People. This is the second picture!

The point of this post is not to offend (although it probably will) and it is not to make any pronouncement on what freedom of speech or expression means. Hopefully, the post will highlight that something does not have to breach the boundaries of free speech to offend. I am certain that if Indonesian Catholics were offended by the depiction of Soeharto and his children in the Last Supper scene then these two pictures are truly going to test the limits.

Nevertheless, the point is this; if the Indonesian government is going to block and prohibit access to the film Fitna because it is likely to upset the apple cart of harmony and public order in Indonesia then surely pictures of this kind have that same potential and should be banned (sad that I am advocating for my own banning)...

I guess what I am asking you to do is this, and that is ask yourselves these questions?

1. Is art, even where it offends, a legitimate expression of free speech and freedom of expression?

2. Who should decide what I look at as a consenting adult, the government or me?

There are probably many more questions that I could pose here but I will let you, my readers (some of whom I might have offended -- my apologies for any offence but not for the post) throw questions back at me...You already know from my previous postings that I am into constructive debate on topics that matter.