Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: Australia (page 3 of 7)

Victoria: Fine for swearing

1 June 2011 / / 4 Comments

What’s with the state of Victoria? They’re modifying their decades-old anti-profanity law so you can be fined on the spot.

The Victorian Government plans to introduce laws this week that will give police permanent power to issue on-the-spot fines to people who swear.

If I were fined for public swearing, I’d be fined twice, because the next thing I’d say is “Are you fucking kidding me?”

Under the proposed legislation, people could be fined close to $240 for language that is considered indecent or offensive.

Considered offensive by who? The local constable? The organist at church? Are ‘damn’ and ‘hell’ swearing? Is ‘bullshit’ on the shit list? What about racial terms of abuse that are offensive, but not actually profane? This opens up some tricky issues of definition, and more worryingly, controlling the language behaviour of the public.

And how are they going to enforce it? Oh, right. Ad hoc.

The Attorney-General, Robert Clark, confessed to a bit of colourful language himself yesterday. “Occasionally I mutter things under my breath, as probably everyone does,” he told ABC radio. “But this law is not targeted at that. It’s targeted at the sort of obnoxious, offensive behaviour in public that makes life unpleasant for everybody else.”

Well, swearing in public can be unpleasant, to be sure, but so can a lot of public activities, like farting or shirtlessness. Will they be illegal, too?

I don’t know, Victoria. Fining people for swearing is so Puritan. They used to bore a red-hot poker through your tongue for blasphemy, including profanity.

I’d say there’s an opportunity for some civil disobedience here. Could they fine everyone in a mass swear-in? What if we form a huge choir and sing Tim Minchin’s Pope Song? Or, if we don’t want to spend the money, we could taunt police by saying ‘Bloody crap! It’s hot today!’ The possibilities are many.

Crossbow control

8 April 2011 / / 13 Comments

A horrible story about a gun massacre at a school in Brazil. Sort of like the ones that come out with grim regularity in countries where guns are readily available. I don’t know much about gun control in Brazil, but I do see that voters rejected more controls on guns and ammunition in 2005.

I don’t really want to focus on the religious leanings of the killer. Nor do I want to argue that greater gun availability tends to lead to more gun violence. I guess people do still get killed with guns in Australia, despite the heavy restrictions. (Australia is that tiny sliver down the bottom — it’s kind of hard to see.)

No, I really just want to brag that my state, Western Australia, has implemented a crossbow ban.

WA Police Minister Rob Johnson said the new laws followed an agreement by the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council that crossbows should be banned across Australia.

“The changes will limit the circumstances under which crossbows can be lawfully purchased,” he said.

“We want to reduce the likelihood that a crossbow falls into the wrong hands and is used to injure or kill a person or animal.”

The only exceptions will be genuine crossbow collectors, people engaged in crossbow events who belong to an Archery Australia club, and film producers.

Not only is it hard to get a gun, it’s also hard to get a crossbow. And that’s fine with me.

I used to live in America, so the lack of reaction is puzzling to me. Where’s all the hand-wringing about our right to grab a whole bunch of guns to protect ourselves from people with a whole bunch of guns? Why isn’t anyone saying, “See, if you ban guns, people will pick up crossbows. What’s next, a knife ban?”

Strangely, it doesn’t come up. I guess we’re busy with other issues besides fearing for our lives.

UPDATE: Stephanie from comments informs me that some crossbow fans are indeed chafing under the yoke of oppression. All I can say is, I’m sure glad we’re having this discussion at this level, instead of further on down the track. Aren’t you?

‘Capsicun’ with an [n]: A QLD instance

9 March 2011 / / Comments Off on ‘Capsicun’ with an [n]: A QLD instance

I’m always looking for people who say ‘capsicun’ with an [n] instead of ‘capsicum’ with an [m]. But so far I haven’t found anyone who says it outside of Western Australia.

Until now. This is a clip from Seven’s ‘My Kitchen Rules‘. First, Peter says it the regular way, and then Johnny from Queensland says it with an [n], as clear as can be.

Talk the Talk Twofer: Google and Bing + Shit happens

15 February 2011 / / Comments Off on Talk the Talk Twofer: Google and Bing + Shit happens

Two Talk the Talk episodes have come down the pike today.

One is the “Google and Bing” story about dueling search engines and why being clever sometimes looks the same as being very stupid.

The other is about the phrase “shit happens“, which can get you into a lot of trouble if not handled correctly.

You can find older episodes on our Facebook page. Be sure to like us!

Australia 2011 Census: Mark “No Religion”

20 January 2011 / / 1 Comment

A follow-up to the UK census post: the Atheist Foundation of Australia has launched the “Mark ‘No Religion’” campaign.

The AFA will be unveiling billboards across the nation in major cities stating “Census 2011: Not religious now? Mark ‘No religion’ and take religion out of politics.”

“It is time the Australian community questioned whether they hold religious beliefs or not. How they answer this question in the Census will influence decisions by Australian governments. Often the transfer of taxpayer money to religious organisations is justified on the basis of the Census results, as are special concessions and exemptions including the right to discriminate against some groups.

Of course, the ‘No Religion’ box is for the people who haven’t quite made it all the way to ‘Atheist’ yet. If you do identify as ‘Atheist’ or even ‘Agnostic’, feel free to write that in. Both categories are recognised on the census, so commentators can include them in with the non-religious vote.

One thing isn’t clear: what happens to joke answers like ‘Jedi’ et al. I can’t tell if they get dumped into the ‘did not answer’ bin, so don’t write them and risk not being counted. Let’s make the number of non-religious Australians zoom up this year.

Census: ‘Atheism’ or ‘No Religion’?

12 January 2011 / / 7 Comments

Now here’s an effort I can get behind. Atheist Ireland requests that if you’re not religious, don’t automatically tick the box for a religion in the upcoming census.

Be Honest to Godless in the Irish Census on Sunday 10 April. Think before you tick. And if you’re not religious, please tick the no religion box.

It’s now three months to the next Irish Census on 10 April, and Atheist Ireland wants to see an accurate answer to the question on religion. You won’t write in your childhood home address unless you still live there. So don’t write in your childhood religion unless you still really practice it.

Sounds reasonable. And the British Humanist Organisation is saying the same thing.

If you say you’re religious on the census and don’t really mean it, then you are treated by some sections of the media, churches, and even government policymakers as if you are a fully-fledged believer.

This is significant for Australians because we’re having a census of our own in August this year. We have a census every five years instead of ten. (Takes less time to count us.) The 2006 census was the first time I’d identified as “No Religion” (but I didn’t identify as an atheist). I have to say, it was a somewhat exhilarating experience, one that you can enjoy for yourself. I’m really looking forward to see how the unchurched categories jump, as they have consistently done.

But somewhat strangely, the Irish Atheists are requesting that atheists not say they’re atheists.

Please don’t write in ‘Atheist’, or anything else that is not a religion, in box number 6, which says ‘write in your RELIGION’. That makes some people mistakenly think that atheism is a religion, and creates the impression that there are far fewer atheists than is actually the case.

Okay, so atheism is not a religion. But if someone asked me, “What religion are you?” I’d say, “None; I’m an atheist.” So I can see “No religion” or “Atheism” as appropriate answers. The confusion about atheism-as-religion is annoying, but people won’t suddenly straighten themselves out from the census alone. It’s the kind of thing you have to explain to people over and over, one person at a time. Which we will continue to do after the census is over.

And if you think about it, it doesn’t make sense to say “Don’t write in ‘Atheism’ because not enough people will write in ‘Atheism'”. Let’s turn that argument on its head — do write ‘Atheism’ so that more people will be writing ‘Atheism’!

How does the religion question work for Australia? The Australian Bureau of Statistics has a space for the categories “No Religion”, “Atheism”, and “Agnosticism”. (Download an Excel spreadsheet of all the religious data on this page.) I plan on writing in ‘Atheism’ because observers and journalists will group atheists in with the ‘No Religion’ category anyway, and why not be as specific as possible? And, of course, if atheists write “Atheism”, then more atheists will be identifying explicitly as atheists, which is a good thing.

That’s my argument, anyway. But what is everyone else doing?

As a final note, the LDS Church claims that there were 108,851 Mormons in Australia in 2006. In the same year, only 52,141 people self-identified as LDS. You’d think saying “I’m LDS” would be some kind of minimal requirement to be considered a member. Do you think the LDS Church is not doing their best to keep a really accurate count?

Opt-out for phone books

6 January 2011 / / 7 Comments

Like everyone else in Australia, every year I get phone directories plopped onto my porch (sorry, veranda), even though I don’t want them. (Between Google and the White Pages website, phone books seem like such a leftover artifact.) And every year, I dutifully carry the dratted things off to the Post Office because they want them, and they’re happy to hold extra copies for people who want extras. Apparently there are such people.

Sensis is the company that makes the books in Australia.

Sensis admits that producing the 22.5 million White Pages and Yellow Pages directories in 2009-10 created the largest part of the company’s carbon footprint. More than 52,000 tonnes of paper are used to make the directories each year and they account for 175,000 tonnes of emissions annually, while Sensis’s business operations (fleet, electricity and air travel) total 30,000 tonnes of emissions.

If everyone’s getting the books I’m getting, 22.5 million phone books would cover the state of WA nearly twice.

Well, I’ve just discovered that you can halt the tide by opting out through Sensis’ Directory Select website. By telling them your address, you can cancel delivery and stay off the list for three years.

It’s not the best solution — the process should be ‘opt-in’, rather than ‘opt-out’. Why don’t they do it that way? Oh, someone’s already asked.

Why not offer an opt-in system rather than an opt-out system?

With such widespread use of Yellow Pages® and White Pages® books and only a small proportion of people requesting not to receive a book, we believe an opt-out such as www.directoryselect.com.au is an appropriate way to support consumer choice.

Hey, how about we make that proportion a whole lot bigger? Head over to Directory Select now while you’re thinking about it.

Ketchup and tomato sauce: Australians fret over lexical shift

19 September 2010 / / 23 Comments

Is there a difference between ‘tomato sauce’ and ‘ketchup’?

When I first arrived in Australia 70 years ago, all you could get was tomato sauce. Ketchup wasn’t available. Never mind, I thought, it’s the same stuff, that’s just what they call it here.

Then I noticed that my local supermarket began to carry both ketchup and tomato sauce. Obeying some primal American instinct, I always buy ketchup. But I feel rather silly, since there’s no difference. Or is there? Tomato sauce: thinner, less spicy? Ketchup: more vinegar?

For some people, it matters.

The term “tomato sauce” could be lost to future Aussies with Heinz, for the first time, advertising ketchup on TV.

In a move Dick Smith labelled “disrespectful” to the Australian culture, Heinz has unveiled a new national ad for Tomato Ketchup, which they say is thicker and has spices and more tomatoes than tomato sauce. “They don’t give a stuff about Australian culture or our way of life,” Mr Smith said.

Who knew the Australian way of life was less spicy, with fewer tomatoes?

Channel 9 star Scott Camm said the term tomato sauce would be lost to future generations.

“What, are we gonna start walking down the sidewalk?” he said.

“They’re infiltrating us – it’s not our way of life.”

It isn’t really about sauce. It’s about language attitudes. Australians like the way they talk, and they don’t like the thought of losing expressions like ‘footpath’, ‘giving a stuff’, or saying ‘zed’ for ‘zee’. Mind you, this is a pretty strange place to draw the line. Other far more iconic expressions have dwindled with nary a peep. (When was the last time you called someone a ‘cobber‘, honestly?) But maybe this item is extra sensitive because it’s being framed as a foreign corporation dictating language change by fiat.

So even if there’s no difference in the actual sauce, there’s a difference in the words. ‘Tomato sauce’ is fair dinkum Aussie, while ‘ketchup’ is an American intrusion to be resisted. Will this become a selling point? We’ll just have to see which way the chips fall.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

UPDATE: The ad.

Why the Australian Sex Party?

18 August 2010 / / 3 Comments

I’m volunteering to help the Australian Sex Party. Yep, this election Saturday, I’ll be at my local polling place, handing out ‘How to Vote’ cards and answering questions.

One question I’ve already gotten is “What on earth are you helping them for?” I’ll confess, it does go deeper than the desire for a bright yellow ASP t-shirt, or to make fundy heads go asplody.

When I first heard about the Australian Sex Party, I thought, “Ha. Funny.” Then when I saw their policies, I thought, “Wait a minute. I agree with most of this.” Here are my favourite ASP policies.

To overturn mandatory ISP filtering of the Internet and return Internet censorship to parents and individuals.

The Internet filter is Labor’s idea, and it’s a shame they’re clinging to it. Even the Liberal Party has disavowed it.

To bring about the development of a national sex education curriculum as a first step in preventing the sexualisation of children.

Yes, yes, and yes. This is what prevents pregnancies (and abortions): better information and availability of contraception.

To create total equal rights in all areas of the law including same sex marriage.

Neither of the major parties has had the courage to come out in favour of this. When someone who’s an otherwise progressive thinker refuses to condone gay marriage, you know what that tells me? They’re willing to let prejudice prevail, for no good reason. And that they’re probably beholden to some religious ideology.

To enact national pregnancy termination laws along the same lines as divorce law — which allow for legal, no-fault and guilt-free processes for women seeking termination.

It’s a medical matter, not a political matter.

Overturn restrictions on aid to overseas family planning organisations that reference abortion.

Why is this even happening?

Convene a Royal Commission into child sex abuse in the nation’s religious institutions.

This should have already been done.

An Ethics course along the lines of the current NSW trial, developed by the St James Ethics Centre, to be incorporated into the national curriculum.

I love the idea of getting young people to examine secular ethics and ethical issues. Much more relevant than the bronze-age tribalism they’re currently getting.

Supports stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research, and maintains it is a vital medical issue, not a religious issue.

Automatic yes.

The public education system should be secular in nature and not provide for any religious instruction whatsoever.

‘Religious instruction’ is an oxymoron.

Ending the tax exempt status for religions.

Cessation of tax-exempt status on all but the charitable work of religious institutions.

Religions don’t pay their fair share, and we end up paying their tax burden. Let them pay taxes like all other businesses.

To be fair, there are planks in the platform that I find uncomfortable, unappealing, or complicated.

To bring about equal numbers of women in the Parliament through enabling the Federal Discrimination Act to have jurisdiction extending to political parties.

This is worded funny. You can’t force equal numbers.

Decriminalisation, not legalisation, of purchase, possession and consumption of all drugs for personal use, such quantity to be defined as an amount equal or less than 14 day’s supply for one person.

I can’t stand drugs and don’t use them (including alcohol), but I see the value of moving enforcement to the supply side. Dealing would remain illegal.

Minors (under the age of 16) may obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian.

Touchy, but actually that’s the way it is now.

I understand the reasoning behind these positions, but I’m not sure I’m entirely comfortable with them. Even so, these aren’t deal-breakers for me. No one’s going to agree with every party position, and this will be more pronounced when the party takes a strong stand on issues, as does the ASP.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to a volunteer info meeting, or as they call it, ‘Slave Training‘. You have your choice of two meetings; they describe one as ‘vanilla’. I’m going to the other one! (Pictures soon.)

Americans: Don’t you wish you could vote for a Sex Party? Oh, I forgot: Republicans. Let me reword that. Don’t you wish you could vote for an unrepressed non-self-hating sex party?

Yes, she is.

29 June 2010 / / 2 Comments

Julia Gillard, the prime minister of Australia, is an atheist. For a while there, I wasn’t sure, but she came out this morning in a radio interview.

Do you believe in God?

No, I don’t, John. I’m not a religious person.

I’ll write some more on this later, but I just wanted to light a celebratory sparkler. Isn’t it great that Australia is a country where a politician doesn’t have to pretend to believe in supernatural beings, and can still get elected as a head of government…

Erm. Maybe I should hold off on the celebration until after the elections.

Older posts Newer posts

Meta

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑