Brandis supports limited freedom of thought but not of deed

With the rise of libertarianism the Liberal Party are becoming rather fond of getting back to their supposed roots in classical liberalism.  One of the problems they have in doing this is that they are not very good at it.

In 2010, now treasurer, Joe Hockey gave a speech to the Grattan Institute in which he lauded John Locke and John Stewart Mill and spoke at length on his avaricious reading of everything they had to say.  While there is no reason to doubt his reading of them, given his actions since, there is room for considerable doubt as to whether he had a clue as to what they were on about.

George Brandis is better in his actions on freedom of speech, but in an interview with Brendan O’Neill quotes John Stuart Mill as his inspiration while maintaining that the government has a right to be the arbiter of what people can do: 

So currently, Brandis is on a mission to reform Section 18C. He wants to remove the words ‘insult’, ‘offend’ and ‘humiliate’, but he is willing to leave in the stipulation against ‘intimidation’ of a person or group on the basis of their ethnic origins. … 

… Brandis says there are two reasons he’s bent on overhauling Section 18C. The first is because it expands the authority of state into the realm of thought, where it should never tread, he says. ‘There is a deeper question here, about the role of the state. To what extent should the state be the arbiter of what people can think? 

Now of course, the state is the arbiter of what people can do. The state, to use the most straightforward example imaginable, prohibits murder. It is the role of government to protect the weak from the strong. But this is about whether it is the role of government to tell people what they may think. In my view, freedom of speech, by which I mean the freedom to express and articulate beliefs and opinions, is a necessary and essential precondition of political freedom.’ … 

… As another bottle of wine arrives, he returns to Mill: ‘He said the only limitation on the freedom of the individual should be when he causes harm to others. Hearing views that you find offensive or outrageous or insulting is not a form of harm. If it is admitted to be a form of harm, then freedom of speech, freedom of discourse, intellectual freedom and political freedom become impossible.’

Brandis deserves kudos for his effort to reform the racial discrimination act, even if he fails to go far enough.  There is no real reason why section 18C (the hurt feelings law) should not be repealed in its entirety, however he seems to be hung up on keeping the section relating to intimidation of a person or group on the basis of their ethnic origins.

There are already adequate laws against intimidation in Australia which apply whether there is any racial aspect or not, thus making this section unnecessary.  To suggest that there should be a special one to handle complaints where a racial aspect is claimed means that the court is required to decide what an offender was thinking at the time.  This appears to go against his assertion that the state should not be the arbiter of what we think.

To have special laws, either for or against particular racial groups is a form of apartheid and have no place in a free society.

The problem with George though, is his assertion that the state should be the arbiter of what people do.  He offers no ifs, buts, nor even maybes on this. 

His statement on the right to regulate murder is a no contest, but harks back to the arguments of the religious right that were the state not to enact the ten commandments in full, then murder and theft would be legal.

The state has a right and function in preventing coercive acts in society but that is where the right to regulate human actions ends. From a libertarian perspective, we are OK with laws that prevent murder, theft, or the bearing of false witness, but we would have problems were it to enact them against adultery, graven images, or working on the Sabbath.  This does not indicate that we support such behaviors, but they are moral decisions that are not the place of the state to govern.

The Brandis/Hockey state sees no reason to steer clear of regulating our personal behavior. The mere fact that someone somewhere can do something without a license and without breaking a law, is seen as a compelling reason for an act of parliament to correct this.

Brandis is moving in the right direction, but needs to totally reevaluate his commitment to classical liberalism and try to go the whole hog.

Sporting Shooters deceives its members AGAIN

Image: SSAA response to Liberal Democrat gun policies

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has a habit in federal elections of sending out questionnaires to candidates asking them to respond to a number of policy positions that are in the interests of members.  They also have a habit of only publishing a selective list, consisting of the Shooters and Fishers Party, and a few others with worse policies.

The Liberal Democratic Party has responded in the 2007, 2010, 2013, and again in tomorrow’s Western Australian half senate election re-run.  This will make the fourth time that SSAA has refused to publish the LDP response: 

Liberal Democratic Party policies – recreational firearm use

 What is your party’s policy on recreational sports shooting? 

The Liberal Democrats fully support the responsible use of firearms in all sporting contexts as well as for self-defence, collecting, agricultural purposes, and any other non-coercive use.   

We have a high proportion of firearm owners among our members owing to our firearm-friendly policies. These are found at: http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1152-firearms 

Recreational sports shooting is a legitimate, healthy pursuit enjoyed by large numbers of men and women.  It is safe, can be undertaken by people with disabilities, and offers all of the benefits of other sports including family participation and social opportunities. 

What is your party’s policy on recreational hunting? 

Our attitude towards recreational hunting is the same as toward sports shooting. It is a legitimate and safe activity. 

Hunting for food is also a natural activity, older than civilization itself. 

What is your party’s policy on utilising trained and competent hunters to cull introduced species on public lands? 

We fully support the use of volunteer hunters to cull introduced species on public lands. Volunteers are essential to the control of bushfires and in responding to natural disasters, and they could also become integral to feral animal control. 

Do you have any policies that assist or support the sport of shooting and the recreation of hunting? 

Liberal Democrat policies are friendly to all forms of shooting related sports, including large and small bore, rifles, and pistols, single shot and semi-automatic, as well as paintball and airsoft.  

Our elected representatives will oppose any attempt at further restricting the rights of law-abiding and responsible shooters and will support any measure to roll back existing restrictions. That includes abandoning the National Firearms Agreement. 

The Liberal Democrats are also opposed to the absurd laws that make it illegal to own firearms for self-defense, or even non-lethal items such as mace and pepper spray. 

The police simply cannot be there to protect us every time there is a threat, and few of us would like to live in the sort of society where they can.

After the 2013 federal election in which New South Wales elected David Leyonhjelm of the Liberal Democrats to the senate, the media was obsessed with his firearms friendly attitude.  David proved himself to be the most articulate advocate for firearms owners in the country.

As result, we were inundated with calls from angry shooters who were unable to understand why they were not informed of our position and policies.  Many of them are now members of our party.

It is now quite apparent that SSAA is little more than a shill for the SFP and are not interested in providing its membership with any genuine information on alternatives to that party.  Worse still, the SFP has in previous elections habitually preferenced the Liberals ahead of us, despite that party being responsible for the 1996 gun confiscation.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, shooters will need the support of our senator or senators when firearms related matters come up.  The hostility of the SSAA towards our party is going to make it extremely difficult to work with their representatives.

Fortunately, there are other organisations such as the Shooters Union who appear to be more willing to listen to us. 

Australia at #28 in press freedom

There has been some commentary in the libertarian and right wing blogosphere over the US falling to #46 in press freedom rankings in the latest assessment from Reporters Without Borders.

While the US Constitution has a guarantee of freedom of the press in its First Amendment, the reality is that over the Bush and Obama Administrations, there has been a considerable drop in rankings.  The depredations of the NSA and Obama’s ‘war on Fox’ are glaring examples.

Australia cannot feel too comfortable though.  While press freedom lacks a constitutional guarantee here and we are considerably ahead of the States, we are well down the rankings at #28: 

In Australia, the lack of adequate legislative protection for the confidentiality of journalists’ sources continues to expose them to the threat of imprisonment for contempt of court for refusing to reveal their sources. No fewer than seven requests for disclosure of sources were submitted to the courts in 2013 alone. …

This is not really much of an improvement on our #30 ranking during 2012 while Conroy and Gillard were pushing media controls including licensing journalists and a ‘fit and proper’ person test for media owners and a ‘super regulator to oversee the industry including bloggers.  It is also a decline from last year’s #26.

New Zealand currently sits at #9 and there is little reason why as a fellow liberal democracy with a similar geographic position and much in common, why we shouldn’t have a similar standard of freedom.

EU wants auditors to go easy on them

 Everybody’s favorite Eurocrat, the ever amiable, Herman Van Rompuy (Left) has called on the EU’s editors to tone down their criticism of the body’s wasteful and mismanaged spending, fraud, and financial irregularities.  He claims that such criticism can result in ‘negative press’, which fails to promote the image of that body, or at least the image he would like.

The European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off on the books of the body for eighteen years now and last year’s report pointed to £89 billion of European spending that was subject to what it called, “material error.” 

The average authoritarian tends to believe that the waste, mismanagement, and fraud are not the thing that alarms the public.  The real problems start when irresponsible whistleblowers, overzealous auditors or investigators fail to understand the need to keep the news of it out of the public domain: 

Ever since it started producing annual reports into European finances in 1994, the Court of Auditors has failed to sign off the EU’s accounts because of widespread irregularities, including fraud. 

Last year, the auditors’ annual report prompted the Government to warn that the findings “seriously undermines the credibility of the EU’s financial management” after the audit found that £89 billion of European spending was “affected by material error”. 

Mr Van Rompuy acknowledged that the auditors must make “results known” but insisted that they had “another responsibility: that of being as didactic as we possibly can” in order to help instruct the public about the benefits of EU membership. 

“In the end we are all responsible for Europe and its image,” he said. “In times of crisis, it is more vital than ever to foster confidence. We should also be teaching, to convince Europeans and demonstrate clearly that Europe is not the source of problems, but the solution.” … 

… Nigel Farage MEP, the leader of Ukip [R], described the speech as an “incredible” attempt to muzzle the EU’s auditors. 

“The Court of Auditors which has not signed off the EU accounts for 18 years, is asked to go easy and provide good PR only for the EU,” he said. In which other banana republic in the world would the president publicly call for less exposure of waste of taxpayers’ money?.” 

Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP for Clacton, said: “Van Rompuy invokes euro idealism to try to get us to turn a blind eye to dodgy account keeping by his own Eurocrats. In doing so he discredits the very system he seeks to defend.” 

Mr Van Rompuy and the EU civil service is concerned that it is going to be difficult to keep track of new funding projects, worth hundreds of billions in spending between 2014 to 2020.

Van Rompuy’s comments are not only an attempt to muzzle those whose responsibility it is, to root out financial irregularities in the organization, but a ‘Ministry of Truth’ style effort to hoodwink the public into believing that all is clear and above board.

His claim that auditors have a responsibility to be didactic and ‘instruct the public about the benefits of EU membership’ is patronizing and just plain wrong.  The idea that Europe and its image is somehow the responsibility of auditors is a crock.  An improvement in the perception of Europe can only be achieved by better and less governance, not the writing of reports through rose colored glasses.

Abbott remarks; storm in a B cup

Says attractive candidate (L) has sex appeal

Probably the biggest problem Tony Abbott has is his tendency to run off at the mouth; he tends to let out the clutch on his vocal chords without putting his brain in gear.  There have been numerous examples of this, including his infamous advice not to pay attention to his unscripted remarks.

His ‘suppository of all wisdom’ comment was just a slip of the tongue, but a great deal of histrionics is being employed in the Labor, Greens, feminist response to suggesting that one of his candidates had sex appeal.  Kevin Rudd, always the political correctness fanatic is being especially pedantic: 

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd says Tony Abbott would find himself in serious strife if he made his "sex appeal" comments in the workplace. The Prime Minister, campaigning in Cairns at the end of a sweep of marginal North Queensland seats, described Mr Abbott's comments as ''pretty odd''. 

“If any male employer stood up in the workplace anywhere in Australia and pointed out a female staff member and said this person is a good staff member because they've got sex appeal, I think people would scratch their heads at least and the employer would find themself in serious strife, ''Mr Rudd said. 

''In modern Australia sexism or racism or homophobia does not have any place,'' he said.Mr Abbott found himself at the centre of a twitter storm when he described one of the attributes of Liberal candidate for Lindsay Fiona Scott as having ''sex appeal''. 

On his first trip to the key marginal Sydney seat of Lindsay yesterday, the Opposition Leader was asked how Liberal candidate Fiona Scott compared with predecessor Jackie Kelly. 

"They're young, they're feisty and, I think I can probably say, have a bit of sex appeal," Mr Abbott said. … 

… Labor minister Kim Carr told the ABC Mr Abbott's words were ''pathetic''. ''Sometimes we should think Tony Abbott really hasn't crawled out of the 1950s.”

It’s good of old Kim to tell us what we should be thinking, but then, the doyens of correct thought and the current truth have been doing that to us for a long time now.  It’s probably time for us to stop paying attention to them.

Still, it’s given the remaining members of Julia Gillard’s old ‘hand bag hit squad’ a chance to wax lyrical on misogyny.

As for Rudd’s comments on statements in the workplace, he is probably correct but such a situation is wrong unless it forms a real part of some sort of sexual harassment.  Merely passing a compliment, albeit a clumsy one should not be the subject of condemnation.

It is also difficult to see where he is coming from on his ‘sexism, racism, homophobia’ statement.  It is not disparaging her, she is not of a different race, nor does ‘sex appeal’ appear to be homophobic, even if Ms Scott was a lesbian, something we have no reason to believe.  Rudd is merely trying to attach as many disparaging labels to Abbott as possible within the sound bite.

The media, which frequently uses such expressions as, ‘sexiest man/woman alive’, hot, ravishingly beautiful, and so on, are being rather hypocritical on this issue.

Abbott has many flaws and faults, especially on policy, but sexism is not one of them.

Had he referred to the candidate as, “Damn smoking hot,” it might have been inappropriate.

Brits charge social media commenters after Woolwich outrage

Britain, like much of the West seems to have been unable to drag its way past political correctness to develop any meaningful way of dealing with Islamic hate preachers taking to the pulpits advocating violent responses to any perceived slight or grievance. 

It seems that while the local Deity can be mocked, the followers of foreign Deities have to be ‘respected’ or at least have their cultural barbarities treated with understanding.  This is especially the case where said Deity demands beheadings if offended.

On the other hand, authorities are willing to come down hard on anyone who responds to such acts as the disgusting and brutal butchery of Lee Rigby by Islamic Jihadists in a way deemed inappropriate: 

A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.  He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said. 

A second man was visited by officers and warned about his activity on social media, the spokesman added. … 

Flatters has been remanded in police custody and will appear before magistrates in Lincoln tomorrow.  The charge comes after two men were earlier released on bail following their arrest for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder. 

Complaints were made to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social networking website, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

In the aftermath of such a sickening crime, it is only reasonable to expect a degree of public outrage and some of this will come out on Facebook, Twitter, and so on.

Attempts to silence such dissent defy the nature of the native born population who have good reason to be upset about it.  Caramelizing it is an outrage in itself in violating the right to freedom of speech, and regulating emotions to comply with those of the elite who really don’t care much for the feelings of the common herd, favoring their ideological positions instead.

Attempting to stifle discussion in the hope of denying oxygen to extremist groups other than radical Islam is only going to drive people toward such groups as the BNP.

ABC spins lower sea level rise

ABC news reported a story that has been doing the rounds of the news networks today about the lower expectations of sea level rises due to the melting of glaciers in Greenland.  The conclusion of the report gave the good news that the expected rise was now less than a metre (39.3 inches) by the end of the century.

While this is much less than the figures stated by such gurus as Tim Flannery and Al Gore who tend to think six metres is a bit optimistic, it will still make the climate frantics feel deliciously vindicated.

The only trouble is that that the actual expected rise has been revised down to between 40mm (just under two inches) and 85mm (around 3.3 inches.) 

European and US researchers predict the impact on sea levels from the island's melting glaciers could be as little as 7 per cent of previous projections of more than half a metre. 

The "state-of-the-art ice-flow model" calculates that melting ice from Greenland's 50-odd glaciers will raise sea levels by between 40mm and 85mm by the end of the century. 

The estimates, reported today in the journal Nature, are extrapolated from modelling of four "single-outlet" glaciers in southern and northwestern Greenland. 

The paper says glacier modelling is extremely difficult because of the complex forces at work.  "The complicated behaviour of narrow-outlet glaciers has not yet been fully captured by the ice-sheet models used to predict Greenland's contribution to future sea level," it says. 

"Complex pattern(s) with rapid changes may be transient and not necessarily indicative of long-term trends." 

Lead author Faezeh Nick, a glaciologist based on the Arctic island of Svalbard, said previous estimates had been based on "simple extrapolation".  "This is the first time we have managed to calculate the contribution of ice dynamic in sea-level rise in a realistic way based on physics," Dr Nick said. 

"Now we are more confident about our projections."

Well, it’s nice to see that they are more confident about their projections, but a downward revision of more than 90% in figures that were written on stone tablets of settled science is something of a setback, given that in the past anyone who dared to criticize or doubt this figure was branded a climate denier, web footed inbred yobbo, ignorant red neck, and so on by the very people who are doing the revision.

But still, the ABC is quite correct.  40mm is less than a metre.

Tasmania bans abortion clinic protests

Image: Tasmanian Health Minister Michelle O'Byrne. (This explains a lot)

In a draconian move by the Tasmanian government, protests cannot be held within a one hundred and fifty meter radius of an abortion clinic.  At this stage there is no other legislation on the books banning any other protests in a similar manner against anything else.

This action is part of the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2013, so it only applies to protests against abortionists.  It also compels doctors who refuse to carry them out on conscience grounds to refer patents to others who will: 

“The bill proposes a fine of $65,000 or a 12 month jail term for the newly created crime of protesting in an area within a radius of 150 metres from an abortion clinic. This is an inappropriate limitation on freedom of speech. 

“General laws against intimidation already exist in the law and they are appropriate restraints on unacceptable behavior.  

“Singling out particular premises for special treatment undermines equality before the law. This bill does not make it illegal to distribute material outside supermarkets or sports grounds, for instance. The Tasmanian government should not ban protests, whether they occur outside an abortion clinic or a timber mill. 

“The bill also threatens freedom of conscience by forcing doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion to refer patients to another doctor who does not have such objections. A fine of $32,500 applies to counsellors who refuse to contradict their beliefs. This is a clear and unacceptable infringement of freedom of conscience,” said Mr Breheny.

Tasmania is a state with great potential but cruelled by successive governments over the years.  The current one is made up of far left Labor, in coalition with the Greens, who as close to Bolshies as you can get, this side of Stalin.  It is something like Australia’s California.

As much as the idea of abortion is distasteful, legalizing it creates a safer environment for women who undergo the process.  Its illegality has not prevented many from taking place, but has created a situation where women’s lives are at risk.  It is controversial however, and it is reasonable to expect protests against it.

The left though, regard it as some sort of sacred cow that must not be questioned, let alone be objected to. 

Political parties 3, right to privacy nil

Cartoon: By R May 

Currently three journalists are being charged under the criminal code in Victoria for unauthorized access to restricted data, over obtaining data from an electoral roll containing private information of citizens. 

Such an act would be troubling if it were not for the fact that the roll was in the hands of the ALP and the personal details contained in it were collected by the party under an exemption under the Privacy Act allowed to political parties: 

… The journalists -- Royce Millar, Nick McKenzie and Ben Schneiders -- will appear in the Melbourne Magistrates Court next month, accused of illegally accessing an electoral roll database holding personal information about Victorian citizens, collected by the ALP. The journalists subsequently wrote stories in the lead-up to the 2010 state election about the collection of data by political parties under an exemption of the privacy act. … 

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance defended the journalists on the grounds that their investigation and reporting had "significant public interest."  "This was a legitimate news story and people deserve to know that political parties are holding this data," MEAA spokesman Paul Murphy said. 

"Why should political parties be exempt from the privacy act to collect and hold this data? This issue was in the public interest and we don't believe the journalists have done anything wrong." 

The editor-in-chief of The Age, Andrew Holden, said while he could not discuss the defence that would be argued before the court, "the main issue has always been that their reporting exposed a database held by the ALP that contains private and detailed information. 

"Their reporting exposed the exemption under the privacy act for political parties to do that. We think that is of great concern and the public should be entitled to know what information that database holds about you." … 

The journalists allegedly used login details to the Eleczilla database supplied by a source and searched for personal data about prominent Victorians including the then police chief Simon Overland, radio broadcasters Jon Faine and Neil Mitchell, builder Daniel Grollo and barrister Peter Faris QC.

This makes it clear that there is one rule for the ruling class; another for the rest of us.

Had they accessed a government site containing personal information that had been compulsorily acquired, such as Centerlink, the Tax Office, Medicare, etc, it would have represented a serious breach of privacy.  On the other hand, accessing a political party database, to verify information that it contained massive amounts of private information on citizens is a very different matter.

It is definitely in the public interest to be made aware of just what sort of information political parties are holding on us.  It would also be interesting to find out whether this information was collected by legal means, or otherwise.

This action has to be considered a deliberate attempt to stifle journalists who are prepared to seek information outside official government press releases.

The Public Interest Media Advocate; draconian press control

Cartoon: A Pickering offering from the early 70s when Whitlam tried it 

For the most divisive government in living memory, Gillard’s crowd has done a great job in uniting the media. Talk of press control will do it every time.  It is amazing to see the Labor shills from Fairfax lining up beside News Ltd to campaign against the six media control bills being rushed through parliament.

With the benefit of newspeak, Finkelstein’s ‘super regulator’ has now become the more innocuous sounding ‘Public Interest Media Advocate’ or PIMA, as the position has become known.  It is the same animal, with the same powers to suppress dissent, but with a nicer sounding name.

While the term public interest has many great connotations of good to it along with images of rainbows and unicorns; it has to be remembered that in the eyes of government, ‘public interest’ has a remarkable tendency to coincide with the interests of the ruling class.

Cartoonists have produced some classics.

Nicholson has come up with a couple of beauties about the effect of media control on his ilk. 

Bill Leak offers up a more Soviet style concept of the future under PIMA 

The Herald Sun pointed out that the ultimate media regulator, is the public with its ability to vote for even handedness with its dollar: 

The world's most famous newspaper - The Times - took years to recover from campaigning throughout the 1930s for appeasement with Germany and Adolf Hitler.

When perhaps hundreds of potential political opponents, including the Fuhrer's best mate, Nazi leader Ernst Rohm, were executed on Hitler's orders, The Times insisted that "Herr Hitler, whatever one may think of his methods, is genuinely trying to transform revolutionary fervour in to moderate and constructive effort and to impose a high standard of public service on National Socialist officials." 

That was 1934. Ouch. 

The Times was selling 204,400 copies a day then. The News Chronicle, a bitter critic of appeasement, and calling for Britain to re-arm for the battle it knew lay ahead, was selling 1,320,000 copies each day. 

As always, the audience was in the driver's seat. 

It was legendary editor C.P. Scott who coined the phrase "comment is free, but facts are sacred", and newspaper editors have tried to live by it ever since, knowing how keenly each is observed by their readers.

Censorship wars; the Telegraph strikes back

The current government in Canberra has more than its fair share of losers and weirdo’s.  Probably the weirdest and most bizarre member though is the communications minister, Stephen Conroy whose obsession with to use his own words, “unfettered power” and his determination to bring the media to heel is the stuff of legends. 

Last September he stunned a group of US businessmen with the declaration: 

“I have unfettered legal power.” "If I say to everyone in this room ‘if you want to bid in our spectrum auction you’d better wear red underpants on your head’, I’ve got some news for you. You’ll be wearing them on your head.”

For some time he has been attempting to use his legislative power as a blunt instrument to intimidate the press with a ‘super regulator’ a fit and proper person test for media owners, and even talk of licensing journalists.  Finally, the Daily Telegraph has had enough with he following front page:

 Inside was an image of Conroy superimposed on Joe Stalin.

News Limited group editorial director Campbell Reid, defended the coverage stating, ” Do you seriously think that a reader of The Daily Telegraph thinks that we are accusing Senator Conroy of rounding up people? We're making a point about freedom of speech.”

Today The Telegraph doubled down on its effort with an ‘apology’: 

YESTERDAY we ran a picture of Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy depicted as Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. 

It has since been pointed out that this was a grossly unfair and insulting comparison to make. And so we would just like to say: We're sorry, Joe. 

Yes, it is true that Stalin was a despicable and evil tyrant who was responsible for the death of many millions. 

However, at least he was upfront in his efforts to control the media instead of pretending he supported free speech and then suggesting that cheeky, satirical or provocative newspaper coverage might be against the law. We also note that, despite his well-documented crimes against humanity, Stalin at least managed to hold a government together for more than three years. 

Nonetheless, we pay tribute to our new Commissar Conroy and stand ready to write and publish whatever he instructs us to.

Conroy is in the process of spending an estimated $43 Billion on a national broadband network, and is seeking to regulate blogs that get 43 hits per day or more.  While there has been some speculation as to the logic of the number of hits being 43, it is possible that he picked the figure on the basis of one hit for every billion dollars spent on the NBN.