Dire Straits, "Money for Nothing", and 'Faggot'...

Hot on the heels of NewSouth Books and the censoring of a Mark Twain classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, there is this story out of Canada that seemingly takes 2011 standards of vilification and applies them retroactively to 1985.

The word in question is 'faggot'. There is little doubting that the term is one that is derogatory. It is designed to offend, it is designed to hurt the individual that it is aimed at, and in many places it is now included as language that vilifies a certain group of individuals in the community. In 1985, the word was derogatory but it was used much more freely and perhaps to some degree was considered acceptable.

Interestingly, the song is a Dire Straits classic. In fact, it is a song that has received numerous awards, including a Grammy. Should the fact that the song was released more than 25 years ago  mean that it must be subject to a different standard in terms of the language used? Furthermore, does the fact that the song has been played hundreds of thousands of times throughout the world on radio and television in the most far-flung of locales mean that it is exempt from current applicable standards of the Canadian human rights laws and regulations?

I am not advocating a return to a time when vilifying people was tolerated much more than it is now. I do not use the word and I follow certain protocols when children use it in my classroom in unacceptable ways. However, I am wondering out loud as to whether this kind of revisionism and retroactive application is misplaced.  Nevertheless, this is a case of "sooner or later" as it was only a matter of time before someone lodged a complaint. The word 'faggot' violates the human rights standards that apply in Canada. So, the Broadcast Standards Council, who has authority over these matters, has decided that the word must be censored out of the song.

The line that will have to be edited is ''That little faggot with the earring and the make-up''. Money for Nothing is a song off the 1985 Brothers in Arms album. Mark Knopfler, the lead singer of Dire Straits has commented sparingly on the song. He has said that he wrote it after visiting a hardware store in New York.



I wonder what is next for the censors?

Willow & Bristol Palin: Ranting and Railing on Facebook...

Family is important, and when your family is attacked your first reaction is to protect it. However, sometimes common sense and a measured response might better serve your family in the long run. Yet, if that "attack" is merely criticism of your parent's talk show, then it really is sticks and stones stuff. It probably does not need a response at all, particularly if your mum happens to be Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, 2008 GOP Vice Presidential candidate, and possible 2012 Republican Party Presidential candidate.

Nevertheless, Willow took to Facebook without a second thought and proceeded to use some choice swear words and a homophobic slur. I was always taught that a faggot was a bundle of sticks (or as my grancher once told me, a meatball). However, when you read the Facebook exchange, Willow leads little doubt that she is casting aspersions about the sexuality of the target of her vitriol.

Not to be left out, Bristol gets in a few lines about "shit talkers". So, in comparison Bristol was a little tamer than her younger sister. It seems that Bristol might be having a few regrets about her brain explosion.

I wonder how mummy is going to deal with this little media circus? Maybe the Palin kids learn this sort of language at home?

If you want to read a screen capture of the whole series of rants and rails, then head to TMZ.

Indian Students In Australia -- Not All Good News...

The idea that Indian students in Australia are always the victims of senseless crimes is one that does not always hold true. This is a case in point.

Two Indian citizens who are in Australia on student visas, Sukhjinder Singh and Amarjit Singh, have been charged with sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl who was asleep on a train travelling from Melbourne to Sydney. This is a train I have travelled on frequently in my youth when I went to Hurlstone Agricultural High School as a boarder.

The girl awoke to find the two Indians attempting to restrain her. They apparently restrained her long enough to sexually assault her. Sometime during the assault the girl managed to break free and notify train staff of the assault. The train staff radioed ahead to police and police met the train at Goulburn railway station and arrested the two men.

Neither of the accused entered a plea at their hearing and both were remanded in custody until the matter is to be heard again on 16 September 2009. At this hearing both are expected to make applications for bail. It is likely that bail will be granted with strict conditions. I would be guessing those strict conditions would include surrendering travel documents and reporting to police at least several times a week.

The moral of this story, if there is one, is that visitors to this fine land are not always victims of racial taunts and other types of vilification, but are in fact perpetrators of crimes against citizens of this fine land. Simply, those that take advantage of and abuse visitors to Australia, irrespective of what those visitors are doing here must be punished. Similarly, visitors who come to this fine land must understand that they too will be punished in accordance to the law.

Just ask Schapelle Corby what that means.

Racial and Ethnic Discrimination -- Reviewed and Updated

Overview

The House of Representatives (DPR) passed the Bill on the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination on 28 October 2008. The law has been in the process of being passed since 2005 when it first arose as a DPR Initiative. Indonesia already has a racial discrimination law, Law No. 29 of 1999, which is the enactment of Indonesia’s responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The premise of the law is that everyone is born the same in the eyes of God and that everyone is equal before the law irrespective of their ethnicity or race. Nevertheless, these aspirations now have a little more gravitas as they have been codified into law. The need for the codification is that all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination are contrary to the principles contained in Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, it is the Government’s view that this provides a mandate that demands that Indonesia take all steps necessary to remove racial and ethnic discrimination from the Republic of Indonesia.

Challenges of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
Indonesia as an archipelagic nation faces many challenges on the race and ethnicity front. These challenges stem from the bringing together of many racial and ethnic minorities under the flag of a unitary republic. Nevertheless, the differences between the multi-racial and multi-ethnic constituent parts of the Republic are often the trigger for violence.

The law simplifies this to one of differences or imbalance in social, economic, and power opportunities which ultimately lead to substantial losses to the communities where they occur. The violence that accompanies these conflicts is usually extreme and involves not only rioting and looting and destruction but rape and murder as well.

Basic Impacts
Aside from the suffering of the local communities, it is also clear that the suffering extends way beyond the local communities and negatively impacts on the short, medium, and long term development of the nation as a whole. These impacts arise because of many factors, for example, a reluctance of investors to invest in areas that are prone to racial and ethnic conflicts.

What’s Covered
The law stipulates that it regulates issues such as the following:
· The basis for the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Actions that satisfy the elements of discrimination;
· Provide protections for those citizens that have suffered racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Protect citizens from racial and ethnic discrimination that arises from central and regional government actions and actions of the broader community;
· Supervision to ensure the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination by the National Commission of Human Rights;
· The rights of citizens to receive equal treatment with respect to their civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights;
· Obligations and the role of the community in ensuring the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Claims for compensation for losses sustained as a result of racial and ethnic discrimination; and
· Criminalizing discriminative behaviour.

Definitions
The definition of what constitutes discrimination is broad and can be civil, political, economic, social, and cultural. Race and ethnicity are also defined. Race is defined simply as physical characteristics that distinguish one group of people from another and lines of ancestry. Ethnicity is defined as a group that can be distinguished based on beliefs, values, norms, cultural traditions, language, history, geography, and kinship.

The point of eliminating discrimination is to promote and ensure harmony, peace, and security, among others. Therefore, discrimination is defined as any action that seeks to distinguish or differentiate individuals or makes exceptions for individuals thereby holding the potential to upset the harmony, peace, and security apple cart.

The law and the Elucidations are either silent or less than clear on what impact this might have on any affirmative action programs that may arise in the future.

Objectives
The objectives of the law are to ensure the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination. However, simultaneously the law is also seeking to establish equality, freedom, justice, and universal human norms.

The idea of establishing universal human norms is an interesting objective for many reasons. Most notably among these is that many have tried to distinguish between Asian and Western values and that some norms are not universal, particularly in the context that “Asian cultures” favour the group over the individual right. The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, for example, was a staunch advocate of the Asian values systems. One could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the law is Indonesia’s attempt to repudiate this point of view by codifying that there are universal human values with respect to race and ethnicity that must be protected irrespective of where one resides in the world, as this does not seem to be the case.

The reality is that the above claims to universal values worthy of protection are moderated in Article 2(2) with the requirement that the values of equality, freedom, justice and universal human norms be determined within the contextual frame of prevailing religious, social, cultural, and legal norms of the Republic of Indonesia.

Discriminative Actions
The law broadly lists what a discriminative action entails as anything that:
· Differentiates;
· Provides exceptions;
· Restricts; or
· Chooses

The above would require that each of these actions was undertaken within the parameters of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, this would also require that the consequences of these actions include the revocation, or reduction in acknowledgment, or the inability to obtain, or implement a human right in any civil, political, economic, cultural, or social sense.

Racial and Ethnic Vilification
The law also regulates hate speech and vilification in Article 4(b). The provision states that the promotion of hate or feelings of hatred through the use of the following, among others, is strictly prohibited:
· Writings or graphic depictions (pictures), and
· Speeches.

Supervision
The supervision of the provisions of the law is to be done by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM). Supervision will be undertaken through means such as monitoring and evaluation of government policy, investigation and examination of available facts of alleged discrimination, provision of recommendations to government, monitoring and evaluation of programs designed to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination, and the provision of recommendations to the House of Representatives (DPR).

The Role of the Community
The provisions as they relate to the role of the community also address matters related to citizen’s rights. Simply, every citizen has a right to not be discriminated against based on their race or ethnicity. Every right gives rise to an obligation. Therefore, every citizen is also under an obligation not to make racial and ethnic distinctions and as such play a positive role in preventing racial and ethnic discrimination, and ultimately play a significant role in the process of eliminating racial and ethnic discrimination altogether.

Compensation
The law provides for compensation claims in the event that a citizen has been discriminated against. The claim can be either as an individual or as a class action where there are multiple claimants. Claims are to be lodged at the District Court.

Criminal Provisions
The criminal sanctions in the law allow for terms of imprisonment of between 1 and 5 years and fines of between IDR 100 million and IDR 500 million. The penalties for corporations attract a premium of 1/3.

Closing Provisions
Once the Law enters into force all current racial and ethnic discrimination laws remain in place unless they contradict the provisions of this law. If they do, then the provisions of the law will prevail.

Operation
The Law came into immediate force once it is enacted.

Conclusion

It is clear that the government through the enactment of this bill into law is intent on removing the scourge of racial and ethnic conflict and violence from the Indonesian scene. The law will clearly be complementary to other existing discrimination laws and consolidates and strengthens the overall anti-discrimination regulatory framework.

Nevertheless, there are parts of the law that need further work to clarify matters such as affirmative action programs to ensure balance where natural balance does not occur.

The reality is that enforcement will be the key. If there is lax enforcement of the provisions, simply the government refuses to take action where it can to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination then the underlying issues that trigger racial and ethnic conflict will remain, and remain unchecked.

Freedom of Speech Under Attack?

I am an advocate of free speech. I have never considered free speech to be an absolute right but rather one that is modified by defamation laws and protected by an ability to prove what one says.

However, it seems that this freedom of speech is slowly but surely being whittled away as vilification and hatred laws are introduced to the regulatory framework and discourse is restricted to agreed truths that cannot be questioned.

This is a direct attack on the freedom of speech! The cartoon is a statement about the Canadian Human Rights Commission system and it can be found here at the FreedomSite Blog.

I have always wondered for example why it was wrong to publish a cartoon of Muhammad, or more specifically how that was any more wrong than say publishing a cartoon of Jesus or Buddha or some other religious icon?

I have always wondered why there cannot be academic debate say on the holocaust or why saying that the numbers of Jews killed under the "Final Solution" might not have been six million. To my mind there is no doubting that Nazi Germany as led by Adolf Hitler adopted a policy known as the "final solution" and that the purpose was to rid Europe of the Jews.

Yet, I do not understand the fear of having to defend this position. If someone questions whether the gas chambers were capable of poisoning the number of people claimed, then they are labeled anti-Semitic and threatened with jail. Where is the free speech in that and who is protecting the rights of these people to exercise their right to free speech?

Or is it the case that when you want to talk about Muhammad or Israel or other things you can only do so within the "agreed" discourse and to stray from this very limited path makes you a criminal?

Whatever happened to the idea that I might disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.

How can we ever live in a truly functioning democracy if the narrative and the discourse is dictated by the few? Many vilification and hatred and denial laws are used purely for the purpose of stifling legitimate debate. And, this is a sad development and sets back our ability to live in peace and harmony with each other as these laws foster the ill-will and hatred that they seek to overcome.

It is time that we started behaving like adults rather than allowing our politicians to regulate us like we are children.

The freedom of speech must be a freedom to disagree, a freedom to challenge, and a freedom to question. Anything less makes a mockery of the freedom of speech as a legitimate human right.

Thus endeth the sermon!

Bashir and Tourists

This is old news but I just found this cartoon while surfing the Internet for other interesting cartoons to publish and offend my readers with. It is OK to publish cartoon depictions of Muslims, right? Just not of the Prophet, right?

Bashir (Ba'asyir) is somewhat renowned for his calls to violence against the infidels and his desire to form a pan-Islamic Caliphate in Southeast Asia. So, his comments implying that foreigners are nothing more than worms, snakes, and maggots is hardly surprising! Pretty tame stuff really. I would have thought each of these things are one of God's creatures and have been created with a purpose in mind. I might have been a little more offended if he had have called me Satan's love child or something similar!

However, his calls to violence and statements to the fact that it would be OK to beat tourists up is extreme and must be considered as an incitement to violence. He should be called on this and be punished according to the law if the alleged statements are proven true. There is supposedly a video of this speech but in a quick search before writing this post I could not find it. If I do track it down I will post it as a link.

This is not an issue of free speech. As I have posted many times, with free speech comes great responsibility. This is not a man exercising his right to free speech but rather an abuse of free speech to preach hatred and violence. Free speech must be protected and hate speech and vilification must be prosecuted. This is simply not a case of one person's free speech being another person's vilification!

I have been pinged recently on another forum for quoting from the movie Forrest Gump! Apparently, quoting from a movie casts some degree of doubt on my ability to make rational or logical argument -- essentially I was an intellectual minnow in the big scheme of things, oh well.

Anyway, as Forrest would say in this case "stupid is as stupid does!"

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

Anonymous Blogging

This is an old topic but one that I think is worth revisiting!

I am an avid reader of Indonesia Matters and it must be noted that the webmaster is one who prefers to protect his true identity with the anonymous moniker of Patung. However, this is not about Patung or Indonesia Matters per se but rather Indonesia Matters is a place where many prefer to blog anonymously and it is where I have found a good reason why anonymity is not always a good thing!

I am also for free speech. My previous posts attest to this. I am also generally comfortable with anonymous blogging and anonymous writing. Some great literature has been penned under pseudonyms. I am against hate speech and I am against vilification...but that's just me.

I am for a person who has the courage of their convictions to identify themselves when they are advancing arguments that are on the fringes of current debate or where those arguments are outright racist or sexist or premised on distortion of evidence or merely based on anectdotal personal opinion that does not stand up to scrutiny.

I am for people entering into open and frank debate in order to seek solutions rather than merely attempting to inflame and exacerbate old and tired stereotypes! If we are to live in a world that is truly at peace and in harmony then we need to find solutions to those things that harm us!

Thus endeth the sermon!

More on Fitna...

The Dutch government is making all of the right moves in trying to appease the dismay that Geert Wilders' film ever managed to get released. As an aside here, one should never underestimate the power of the Internet. If you have an agenda and an Internet connection you can find yourself an audience without any trouble at all. Mobile phones with cameras and video capabilities mean that the budding film maker in all of us has a chance to find a forum for expression!

The point though of this post is to explore in very little detail the calls by Muslim leaders in Indonesia for the Dutch government to take legal action against Wilders for the film which is described as being anti-Islam. The film is anti-Islam and that is the point of the film. The question of whether free speech has limits, is an interesting one, and the simple answer here is; yes! But just because a section of the community, in this case the world's followers of Islam, feel that the film is offensive still does not mean that there has automatically been a breach of the limits to free speech.

I am not an expert of Dutch law however on face value these are some of the problems that litigation may encounter in the prosecution of Wilders. I must confess here that I still have not watched the film, so what is said from here is based on a more general idea of film content overall.

If it is true that the film contains recorded images of actual events and the selected Suras of the Al-Qu'ran that are inserted are accurate translations of those Suras, then the obvious issue is whether putting images and words together in a particular way is a breach of the limits of freedom of speech? It is clear that it may be a propaganda call or whatever but my question would be does the film call for any explicit violence to be directed back to Islam? If the film incites violence then this might not be a free speech issue but a much more mundane criminal matter. Any additional commentary aside from the images and the various Suras might indeed take the film to a level where it breaches the prevailing Dutch laws and regulations.

However, the fact that the Dutch have yet to make a pronouncement about whether there has been a prosecutable offence committed suggests that it might be a little more difficult than just drawing up an indictment and running with that alone.

However, another interesting point will relate to what happens if the Dutch cannot find a suitable provision under which to pursue Wilders in the legal sense. If he has broken no Dutch laws then what is the response to be? Are calls for Wilders to be killed representative of tolerance for divergent opinions even where those opinions are offensive? Also interesting is the question of whether these Muslim leaders in Indonesia are overplaying their respective hands?

If you demand that the Dutch take action against Wilders for his film (which by most accounts is of relatively poor quality and where most people understand that Wilders has an agenda here so much so that it is being reported that Dutch TV stations won't air it) is the Indonesia Muslim community also committing to a position of upholding the law in Indonesia and demanding the same standard of their own government when it comes to objectionable or offensive films and commentary from Indonesian citizens?

An example would be are these individuals also prepared to come out and criticize Abu Bakar Bashir when he calls for all the khaffirs to be beaten because they are nothing more than maggots, worms, and snakes?

Just a thought about law enforcement in general! But my point is that if Bashir is to have a right to exercise his freedom of speech even where a good section of the broader community and perhaps the world's community of people who fall into the khaffir section find the call and the associated description objectionable and offensive, then why is the same standard not applied across the board. Is this simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too? Or a case of the pot calling the kettle black? or what is good for the goose also having to be good for the gander as well?

What strikes me is the similarities here between the idea of anything that questions the fundamentals of a religion or religious practices is written off as being anti-whatever and suppressed rather than people engaging in constructive and active debate about the merits of the various and relevant positions. If Wilders film is as poorly constructed as it has been alleged then I am certain the Muslim community could counter the Wilders film with one that is designed to set the record straight as the Muslim communities sees it. The similarities here relate to claims that certain positions are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-whatever...

The idea of suppressing debate and writing things off as simply being anti-something seems to belittle human intelligence and the free will and ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong!

Hypothetically, if a Muslim was to put together a film that questioned the underpinnings of Christianity and highlighted Christianity's penchant for violence from the pre-Crusade days until the present and this film was then released concurrently in Holland and Indonesia would we be having the same freedom of speech debates?

My apologies for the long and winding nature of this post...