Boycottaru?

What do we think of the Beijing Olympics? I'm sure you're all aware of the calls to boycott the Olympics, due to China's human rights violations and occupation of Tibet. Discuss.

Not a fan of human rights abuses- and China's treatment of Tibet is a classic example of how degenerate mankind is becoming... but how would boycotting their Olympics solve anything?

Wouldn't it just irritate them so they give all of Tibet the supr cansir?

A better solution would involve trade sanctions or even removing them from the UN council- they invested so much effort and money into their bid for a UN place that a suspension from the council(s) they are currently a part of would hit far harder than them not having to pay excessive amount of money for the millions of tourists that flood a nation before, during and after an Olympics- Sydney took like 4 years to recover after ours, we're (as a state) still paying money to try and recover our lost tourism (maybe also in part due to terrorist events like 9/11- great now we're being monitored by the CIA).

In short, boycotting China's Olympics is pointless, coz no-one cares enough about it anymore, however hit them in their hip pockets if you want them to really change!

Glenjamin wrote:Not a fan of human rights abuses- and China's treatment of Tibet is a classic example of how degenerate mankind is becoming...

I might get to your other points in a minute; I just wanted to point out that mankind has abused each other for centuries, and if anything, violence and oppression is far less common these days, especially in First World countries.

Glenjamin wrote:A better solution would involve trade sanctions or even removing them from the UN council- they invested so much effort and money into their bid for a UN place that a suspension from the council(s) they are currently a part of would hit far harder than them not having to pay excessive amount of money for the millions of tourists that flood a nation before, during and after an Olympics- Sydney took like 4 years to recover after ours, we're (as a state) still paying money to try and recover our lost tourism (maybe also in part due to terrorist events like 9/11- great now we're being monitored by the CIA).

That's an excellent point - however, what does it take for the UN to begin sanctions on a country? China has been fucking with Tibet for years and they do nothing. Does anyone know where we can see relevant bits of the UN charter or something? I'm no law-talkin guy.

Glenjamin wrote:In short, boycotting China's Olympics is pointless, coz no-one cares enough about it anymore, however hit them in their hip pockets if you want them to really change!

I think you'll find that the Olympics are stilled widely cared about: they're still the second-watched sporting event behind the World Cup.

So you mean boycott Chinese products? Is that effective? To punish merchants with no government affiliation seems a bit wide of the mark.

Really- i think abuse is far worse- it's just done differently, imagine how many psychological disorders occur from things like verbal abuse, or bullying, or even things like Pedophilia (granted laws were different) that didn't exist 200 years ago.

Think of women who get so abused by the media they end up believing themselves so hideously obese that they starve their bodies to the point of death, just to be accepted, think of millions of people being wiped out because an international treaty forces 2 races who would normally have little or no contact to live next to each other (think Sudan).

We abuse ourselves in ways we never could have imagined even 100 years ago, but yes we have done evil things for centuries- just don't think things have gotten any better, try working with the Salvo's for a night in the cross- scared the crap out of me.

I believe things are better and are only getting better, in comparison to Years Gone By. Women (and men) that are different have always been "abused" by a society that wants them to fit in; it's a herd thing.

Pedophilia has existed for centuries. You say laws were different, well, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Our sensibilities have been refined to the point that we now believe that sex with children is wrong. That's a step forward.

Women's rights to vote and work have been recognised as recently as last century. Racial equality, while not a reality, is at least attempted. The majority of First World people feel that racism is wrong and the women are equals and that children shouldn't fuck 40 year old men. This is all progress.

All i'm saying is that what is attempted in the 1st world (and sometimes achieved in the 3rd) just changes what is being done- this may sound weird but i think letting children watch violent or sexually charged (so pretty much every big hollywood film) is abusive.

People ignore what they don't want to deal with, but that doesn't mean we're making progress- i just think for every step forward in an area, we run 4 or 5 back in another.

Hey, the Boycotting. Nice topic.

It has been something that i've thought about before, hearing about how they dealt with it in the past (which games did it happen in before?) when I think they decided to allow each individual athlete — this is in Aus — decide whether to go or not, rather than just a blanket ban; I thought that was an interesting decision process. On the one hand I thought that "these are just games; you can't allow the athletes to compete, which really, I think, would be sending the message that we don't mind what you're doing in your country just put it aside while we play" but then I also thought, as you, Marc, pointed out that the Games are pretty damn big and do get a lot of attention, so maybe they could use it to their advantage to raise the issue. (Let's face it, how many of us really knew a lot about what was going on in Tibet before all this crap about the games came about, if you say "me" you're fucking high). But now I hear the athlete's aren't allowed to wear/do anything that is 'controversial' about the issue. What the fuck!?

Glenjamin wrote:All i'm saying is that what is attempted in the 1st world (and sometimes achieved in the 3rd) just changes what is being done- this may sound weird but i think letting children watch violent or sexually charged (so pretty much every big hollywood film) is abusive.

Forgive me for saying so, but I think that's just an opinion without any real basis. I don't see how it can be abusive to children to be aware of sex, which is a perfectly natural part of life. I'm not so sure about the violence, but hey, that's why we have a rating system. Children under 15 aren't supposed to be exposed to that sort of thing anyway; if parents are involved with their kids they can also make decisions as to what's appropriate for their children.

Glenjamin wrote:People ignore what they don't want to deal with, but that doesn't mean we're making progress- i just think for every step forward in an area, we run 4 or 5 back in another.

But what are we going so backwards in?

Andrew.C wrote:But now I hear the athlete's aren't allowed to wear/do anything that is 'controversial' about the issue. What the fuck!?

Really? Is there an article about that?

I don't think China has free speech/free press laws like Australia, UK and America and Europe do though. So it's disgusting, but legal. I could be wrong about that though.

You really think it's healthy for an 8 or even 12 year old to watch people having sex on screen? that comes perilously close to breaching the UN articles on the rights of a child (what all of our Children laws are based on), in the sense that developmentally they aren't equipped to deal with everything that goes along with sex.

My worry is that as a society we are gradually stripping away our morals, let me put it like this: a 15 year old kid isn't an adult, so why do programs that deal with adult issues (like sex or violence) being channeled at them- or why are 12 year old girls wearing increasingly revealing clothing, and boys of the same age mimicking older boys by trying out dating or experimenting with sex. that's not natural- that's sick!

That 12 year old kids know what the current fad crash diet is, is bad enough- that some of them are actively trying them out is revolting. In the purest of definitions, these things are child abuse.

So I see this article is taking a turn... but still kinda interesting.

In terms of just 'health'/life expectancy/satiating basic needs, it seems pretty irrefutable that we've come along way (I think there's plentiful evidence for that) - though it's interesting to think that in our hunterer-gatherer stage it may have been better in some resepects, then we down before coming back up - but anyway, I think you're talking about something different from that? I myself am often lured into the romantic idea of golden ages gone by, but it seems pretty unlikely that they happened. Maybe in some respects, in some areas of society (education i'm thinking. BAM!) it may have been the case. But overall, I'm not so sure.

Glenjamin wrote:You really think it's healthy for an 8 or even 12 year old to watch people having sex on screen? that comes perilously close to breaching the UN articles on the rights of a child (what all of our Children laws are based on), in the sense that developmentally they aren't equipped to deal with everything that goes along with sex.

I don't see any evidence that suggests it's unhealthy at all. How it can be unhealthy for a child to see something, if it's something they're aware of and understand. I don't remember saying that 8 year old children should be watching sex scenes, though; all I said was that that's a parental decision, not one for us to make. What are they unequipped to deal with? The idea of sex? Or the act? I would agree that 8-12 year olds shouldn't be having sex, and for the most part they're not, so what's the problem here? If you mean the idea, I don't believe that it's unhealthy for children to know exactly what sex is. If you lie to them or try to coddle them, that could be more unhealthy in the long term.

Glenjamin wrote:My worry is that as a society we are gradually stripping away our morals, let me put it like this: a 15 year old kid isn't an adult, so why do programs that deal with adult issues (like sex or violence) being channeled at them- or why are 12 year old girls wearing increasingly revealing clothing, and boys of the same age mimicking older boys by trying out dating or experimenting with sex. that's not natural- that's sick!

What morals are we stripping away?

A 15 year old kid is not an adult; that's true. But then you blanket "sex and violence" as "adult" issues, with no justification.

You're setting up issues here that I'm not advocating. It doesn't follow that because I'm in favour of sexual education that I think 12 year old girls should be sexually active/wearing revealing clothing. In fact I think it follows that if properly sexually educated, 12 year old girls wouldn't do it.

There's nothing sick about a 15 year old boy having a date. That's perfectly normal, in fact.

Glenjamin wrote:That 12 year old kids know what the current fad crash diet is, is bad enough- that some of them are actively trying them out is revolting. In the purest of definitions, these things are child abuse.

But if they're fads among children, how can that be child abuse? This diet is not imposed from above. If anything, most parents would be preventing it if they are active in their child's development.

The drive for this "perfect" image is supplied from above- it's the responsibility of the society to shelter children from harmful ideas/ concepts/ images. Yes it's predominantly the responsibility of the parents, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of the society to make the parents role possible?

I see what you mean there. I certainly don't mean to imply that our modern society is perfect; there are hundreds of problems. I just think that it's an incremental improvement over past societies, and that things are improving all the time. Of course, given our different worldviews, it could just be that our ideas of "good" societies are too radically different to agree on what constitutes an improvement. I don't believe that though; I think as Christian and atheist we disagree on certain key points, but we also agree on quite a lot.

I would say that it's not society's goal or responsibility to shelter children. I would say that falls squarely on parents; not to censor, but to educate and provide context for anything their children encounter.

Then why do we have censorship laws?

No i don't think our society can ever be perfect- and yes our reasoning for that will be radically different, but the purpose of any law enforcement (be they police or policy makers) is to protect the members of that society. To me part of that is the society not making it impossible for a member to fulfill their responsibilities. To that end- yes, parents are responsible to see their children's needs are met, but alongside this is the responsibility of the government to ensure that this responsibility is achievable.

Further to that- some of the charges leveled at both Saddam Husein and the Taliban were breaches of the UN "Convention on the Rights of the Child", listed here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/4.html

Australia is a signatory to these conventions- they are in fact one of only a few internationally binding conventions! whether you signed on or not, you must do this, or the UN will send you a sternly worded letter- or in the case of Saddam, hang you.

What are censorship laws? I don't know what you mean by this question. Don't you believe in free press/speech?

I don't see anything in that treaty that says that children should be protected from media or other entertainment, though.

we have a government body who's job it is to make sure nothing too extreme gets released to the general public, they are called the OFLC and they censor things like gratuitous gore in films, certain types of pornography, K Rudd wants them to censor the internet- but i doubt that will happen.

Article 3.2:
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Article 3 is all about the "best interests of the child", this article is the main reason we don't have a R18+ rating for games, and why games that would normally fall into this rating are in fact banned (Fallout 3 for example).

Article 13.1(b) is also focussed on this:
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

whew- long post, eh?

Glenjamin wrote:we have a government body who's job it is to make sure nothing too extreme gets released to the general public, they are called the OFLC and they censor things like gratuitous gore in films, certain types of pornography, K Rudd wants them to censor the internet- but i doubt that will happen.

Technically they don't perform any censoring. They classify things according to their content and give them a rating. Only the most hardcaw libertarian would be opposed to a ratings board. Then they say to a film's producer, hey guy, this is the rating you get. Then the producer can modify that film to achieve a lower rating, which means a wider release. I happen to think that censorship is bad, mmkay.

Glenjamin wrote:Article 3.2:
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

Article 3 is all about the "best interests of the child", this article is the main reason we don't have a R18+ rating for games, and why games that would normally fall into this rating are in fact banned (Fallout 3 for example).

That's not the reason we don't have an R18+ rating for games. The reason we don't have an R18+ for games is because that it's only in recent years that videogames have become capable of displaying images and so on that would make an R18+ necessary. The reason we haven't legislated for that is that the Attorney General of South Australia is holding out, because he is too conservative to vote Yes on the issue. We need unanimous AG voting to change the legislation.

The "bests interests of the child." Well, that's pretty vague, dude. That's what we've been debating the whole time. It doesn't say in the treaty "the best interests of the child is no sexual or violent media." In fact, it leaves it open to the parent or guardian, which is what I've been advocating this whole time.

Glenjamin wrote:Article 13.1(b) is also focussed on this:
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

whew- long post, eh?

Again, that seems to agree with my point; the exercise of this right IS subject to restrictions: ratings classification. The parents still have the LEGAL right to show their children whatever they deem appropriate.

Dun wury bout long post, guy, that's what this place is for.

Marc wrote:The parents still have the LEGAL right to show their children whatever they deem appropriate.

Actually they don't- Docs has a whole dept. for people reporting parents, in fact if a child i have on camp or at church has what i deem to be an inappropriately high level of Sexual knowledge i have to investigate and it's mandatory for me to report this inappropriate knowledge. like a 12 year old not just knowing about but being able to describe something like Anal sex. it happened on a camp in Jan of last year, the director had to report it and the child was removed from parental care (though i think it was for other reasons too).

There's no way the State has the legal right to take a child away for sexually educating their child and showing them R18+ movies. Those parents had to have been doing other things (as you said).

Is that reporting of "inappropriate knowledge" a Christian thing or do DOCS require this?

DoCS, Teachers, Youth workers, anyone in a paid supervisory position regarding Children- Mandatory reporting.

unpaid ppl's are Voluntary reporters.

Makes sense I guess. The idea being that a child with lots of sexual knowledge might be an abuse victim?

Still, I dunno, if I educate my kids about sex and then I have a humiliating investigation...that's a bit much.

Though obviously in this case the kids were removed, so some shit was going down. I'll have to think about this.

Ok, well I just spoke to Viv about the DOCS thing and she said that, a child having inappropriately high level of Sexual knowledge is not enough to warrant even an investigation from them. Also there work load is so big they can only really afford to deal with the one in immediate danger and for a child to be removed there has to be admittance from a parent or the child.

Hi Viv.

Marc wrote: I would say that it's not society's goal or responsibility to shelter children. I would say that falls squarely on parents; not to censor, but to educate and provide context for anything their children encounter.

Oh man, this is a truckload of fail.

I certainly hope you don't mean to say that society shouldn't have a responsibility to protect children. If a child is being abused, shouldn't they be removed from the situation?

Also, what about children with parents that don't give a shit about them? Or kids living on the streets because their parents are too high all the time to care for them the way they should be?

I'ma gonna run off and eat some dinner so I'm gonna cut it off there. I may have missed the point of what you were trying to say... For my sake, please, specify man!