What's it like where you live?

[Sivin]

So I'm confused about Australia now. I'd been given to understand your government had lent strongly conservative, to the point of censorship of movies and videogames. As a self-described artist, I find any form of censorship to be extremely disturbing, and I'd assumed that such conservatism would naturally extend to other civil liberties (of significant personal concern) to be 'censored' as well.

I'm gathering that you guys are saying this isn't the case.

[Squab]

i dont think censorship of movies is an issue, nor video games.  Not that i have noticed, anyway.  i do know there were several petitions to get things banned by a group called "Collective Shout" but i wouldnt call them conservative, maybe authoritarian rather than libertarian.

[Impmk2]

I don't think I've ever heard of a movie being censored in Aus. As for video games an 18+ rating was introduced a couple years ago. I believe the only grounds for refusal of classification  (effective ban) is sexual violence these days. But even at the worst a few years ago we were no worse than Germany (and possibly more liberal) on the video game censorship front. 

As for general civil liberties we're no more restictive than most of Europe. Certainly no more than the UK. Definitely less than say France at the moment. 

 

[Theda Baratheon]

9 hours ago, williamjm said:

Yes, there are no tuition fees for Undergraduate degrees. I think postgraduate degrees do have fees. 

 

 

I think EU rules mean EU students get the same free tuition as Scottish students. For some reason this doesn't apply to students from other parts of the UK studying in Scotland who do have to pay fees.

I think it is similar in Wales. Sucks because my Dads Welsh and most of my family are but I was born and raised in Cornwall so still had to pay 9k in Cardiff oh well lol thats if I ever get a job good enough to pay it back which doesnt seem likely for the forseable hahahahah

[Filippa Eilhart]

that's because fees within a country are a national matter and the EU doesn't have a say in it.

[HexMachina]

11 hours ago, williamjm said:

Yes, there are no tuition fees for Undergraduate degrees. I think postgraduate degrees do have fees. 

 

 

I think EU rules mean EU students get the same free tuition as Scottish students. For some reason this doesn't apply to students from other parts of the UK studying in Scotland who do have to pay fees.

Thanks! I was actually curious enough to go ask my friend who studies in Edinburgh (but is from England) and she said she gets reduced fees (I think she said half the cost of English tuition fees)

1 hour ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

that's because fees within a country are a national matter and the EU doesn't have a say in it.

Wasn't sure if the purely internal affairs rule applied here, thanks for that!

[karaddin]

7 hours ago, Sivin said:

So I'm confused about Australia now. I'd been given to understand your government had lent strongly conservative, to the point of censorship of movies and videogames. As a self-described artist, I find any form of censorship to be extremely disturbing, and I'd assumed that such conservatism would naturally extend to other civil liberties (of significant personal concern) to be 'censored' as well.

I'm gathering that you guys are saying this isn't the case.

You occasionally get some questionable to absurd decisions when a property manages to hit a couple of categories in a way that wasn't anticipated by the rules, mostly around the intersection of sex and violence.  For example the anal probe gun in Saints Row IV meant that game was refused classification until an alternative version without that was released, as that was classed as sexual violence.  Another example was the Pirates of the Carribean knock off porn movie was refused classification as it contained genuine sex and violence.  This one is an absurd case where its not hitting the intent of the law at all, as the violence is a joke nod pretending to be a real movie and completely separate from the sex, and the intent of the law is aimed at sexualised violence.

We do have different views on free speech to the US, and there is more potential for hate speech to be limited.  In practice however there is a hell of a lot you can say without falling afoul of these laws, they are nothing like the right wing likes to portray them as.  For my understanding of freedom I feel we have a significantly better stance on civil liberties than the US, because freedom from things like extreme hate speech is part of what I see as them.

On most recent global rankings we are higher than the US on Press Freedom, squeeze into the top 5 with a "Free" rating on economic freedom. Looking at the Cato Institute rankings from 2012, which is a libertarian organisation, Aus is 12 on Personal Freedom to USA 31, and 8 on economic to USA 12.  So it all depends on what you value.  The Scandi countries and other similar Euro ones tend to top the personal freedoms, but don't do as well on economic freedom due to higher taxes.  Economic freedom is topped by Hong Kong and Singapore due to good economies with low taxes, but aren't as great on the personal freedom rankings.  

One thing to remember is that the "censorship" that is largely in the media comes from the left, and is aimed at protecting minorities.  There are still some puritan influences on media classification, but the earlier mentioned thing about sexual violence is more influenced by a more feminist agenda than a puritan one.  The recent swing to conservative in our Government has thus led to pushes to reduce the hate speech laws, not implement new censorship.  There are definitely areas of concern, there is a rabidly homophobic wing of the party and they are currently extremely vocal in trying to hold back marriage equality, but they aren't representative of our laws.  Our stance on asylum seekers on the other hand is disgusting and comes from both sides.

[Squab]

This is an example of the "censorship" in Australia karradin is talking about:

In 2013, three non-indigenous students were asked to leave a university computer room that was for indigenous students only.  The room was not being otherwise used at the time. The students were asked if they were indigenous and then asked to leave.  Later, one posted on facebook, “Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT (is) stopping segregation with segregation”. Another asked "Where is the white supremacist room?" and there was a post that said "ITT n*****s".  Another post was “My Student and Amenity fees are going to furbish rooms in the university where inequality reigns supreme? I believe if we have to pay to support these sorts of places, there should at least be more created for general purpose use, but again, how do these sorts of facilities support interaction­ and community within QUT? All this does is encourage separation and inequality.”  One lecturer said it was "a bit silly" to remove students from the room for not being indegenous considering they weren't being used.  Another said it was just students being nasty online.

Two university lecturers, the three original students and two other students who posted above are being sued (by the officer who asked the students to leave) for $250k under section 18c of the racial discrimination act. The legal challenge claims the Facebook posts were “reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate her” and other Aborigina­l and Torres Strait Islande­r people, and contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

Relevant section of 18c below:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

[karaddin]

It's a little early to call that an example of the law in action until the case is decided.  I suspect the case against some of those comments is stronger than against others, all three of the original students comments look the strongest, while the case against the lecturers is weaker from what you described and I'd be surprised if they are found in breach.

I see zero problems with the students getting asked to leave the room, and the rants they had on Facebook don't inspire sympathy in me. 

[Stubby]

2 hours ago, Squab said:

This is an example of the "censorship" in Australia karradin is talking about:

[snip]

Relevant section of 18c below:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

18C 1a is an objective test:  Clarke v Nationwide News Pty Ltd trading as The Sunday Times [2012] FCA 307.  What that means is that it doesn't matter what the people involved thought.  It has to be assessed taking into account what a reasonable person in the position of the people involved.  That test has been modified, to mean the "reasonable victim": Clarke, at [50 - 51].

The use of the expression “because of” in s 18C(1)(b) raises questions concerning: how an applicant should go about proving the causal relationship between, for example, the act done and a person’s race; whether the motive or intention of the respondent is relevant to that issue; and, if it is, whether it matters that motive or intention for the doing of the act is not directly proved: Clarke, at [79].

It is clear from the authorities that the applicant must prove.  This is accepted as not being easy.  The applicant in such cases is another private citizen - not the govt.  The govt law just supplies a mechanism through which private citizens can bring actions against each other.

What that means is that it is not really censorship as such.

 

 

[Squab]

2 hours ago, Stubby said:

18C 1a is an objective test:  Clarke v Nationwide News Pty Ltd trading as The Sunday Times [2012] FCA 307.  What that means is that it doesn't matter what the people involved thought.  It has to be assessed taking into account what a reasonable person in the position of the people involved.  That test has been modified, to mean the "reasonable victim": Clarke, at [50 - 51].

The use of the expression “because of” in s 18C(1)(b) raises questions concerning: how an applicant should go about proving the causal relationship between, for example, the act done and a person’s race; whether the motive or intention of the respondent is relevant to that issue; and, if it is, whether it matters that motive or intention for the doing of the act is not directly proved: Clarke, at [79].

It is clear from the authorities that the applicant must prove.  This is accepted as not being easy.  The applicant in such cases is another private citizen - not the govt.  The govt law just supplies a mechanism through which private citizens can bring actions against each other.

What that means is that it is not really censorship as such.

 

 

Please correct me if i have misunderstood.

You are saying even though the government:

1. sets out the standards for what can be said;
2. judges if something falls outside those standards; and
3. enforces that decision;

it is not really censorship because the "applicant" is a private citizen.

[Stubby]

42 minutes ago, Squab said:

Please correct me if i have misunderstood.

You are saying even though the government:

1. sets out the standards for what can be said;
2. judges if something falls outside those standards; and
3. enforces that decision;

it is not really censorship because the "applicant" is a private citizen.

You have misunderstood.

The government has passed a law that gives a private citizen a cause of action.  That private citizen has the onus of proving that the cause of action is established.  The state does not fund or prosecute a claim under s 18C.  The Courts determine if the cause of action is proved - which is a difficult evidentiary onus to discharge.  The Courts may enforce the judgement, but that phase of the proceedings is a whole different kettle of fish.

Censorship on the other hand is the mandatory governmental interference in free expression, like only allowing certain things to be said in public.

But this has drifted a little of topic now.  It's an interesting point and might be better off in a separate thread.

[Squab]

1 hour ago, Stubby said:

You have misunderstood.

The government has passed a law that gives a private citizen a cause of action.  That private citizen has the onus of proving that the cause of action is established.  The state does not fund or prosecute a claim under s 18C.  The Courts determine if the cause of action is proved - which is a difficult evidentiary onus to discharge.  The Courts may enforce the judgement, but that phase of the proceedings is a whole different kettle of fish.

Censorship on the other hand is the mandatory governmental interference in free expression, like only allowing certain things to be said in public.

But this has drifted a little of topic now.  It's an interesting point and might be better off in a separate thread.

That was how i understood it. We seem to differ on what we each think censorship is. My definition is per macquarie. Although its a rather old one.

the point of 18c is to limit what can be said in public and is therefore a form of censorship

[Tears of Lys]

Well, today it was over 60 degrees, right now it's raining hard.  Tomorrow it's supposed to go down into the 30s, followed by snow, then rain, then probably snow again.  Oh, and everyone's sick.

Is that what you meant?

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I think the idea that British people insult strangers is being a bit overblown because it's not something I see that often.  That said, I insult my friends all the time and expect the same in return. The straight-faced delivery is half the fun.

[deleted01]

On 23/02/2016 at 4:17 PM, Leap said:

[image removed]

 

Have to agree with Helena, Luke and Theda. There is definitely a sense of community here in the UK, although I suppose it helps to be born into smaller communities if you want to be part of it. Certainly since moving to the city, I've lost that sense of fear that I'll inevitably walk into someone I know and be forced to make small talk 

I can definitely see how visiting members of the US military would get into fights often and encounter rudeness or even genuine hostility, but I don't think that there's a significant population here that really hates Americans. Sure, we take the piss a lot, and as a newcomer in a group of English people you might have to endure some perhaps too-lengthy ''roasts'' as they call them, but I don't think it's so overt or ubiquitous that a US citizen, ex-military or no, wouldn't be able to settle down here in the UK. I know an American person at University actually, and he's both quite popular and happy to take and deal out tongue-lashings. 

 

I reckon it depends on where you go. In Plymouth, there are a lot of Navy lads who go out on the lash and get into fights, so I could see it happening in a strong-military place. Could happen in Cornwall too. But that's when obnoxious personalities meet copious amounts of alcohol and result in fisticuffs. Brits on holiday are horrendous; please don't take them as a good representative of the rest of us. 

Helena mentioned the lack of community in bigger cities. London is a country of its own, but I live in East Hertfordshire now, and find it very pleasant. It's closer to London (by car, anyway), has a taste of the modern side of London, but is still growing, and the people are generally polite and friendly. It took me a year to meet my neighbours in Plymouth - one of them came round after a couple of weeks here to introduce herself, and when our cat went missing, another called me to ask whether I'd found her. So yeah, community very much depends on the place. 

I love being British, but Britain is starting to get on my nerves. It's in a state of turmoil at the moment, what with the NHS up in arms, different unions striking every five minutes, Brexit, and the Tories, of course. Britain is expensive - house prices through the roof, cost of general living too high - and the long winter has been going on far too long. But I couldn't live anywhere else. 

[Theda Baratheon]

2 hours ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I think the idea that British people insult strangers is being a bit overblown because it's not something I see that often.  That said, I insult my friends all the time and expect the same in return. The straight-faced delivery is half the fun.

Yeah. If anything a lot of brits become much friendlier after a drink LMAO 

[Knute]

I'm a Norwegian living in the UK and the UK weather where it rains on and off every day is pretty depressing. I much prefer the cold, dryness of snow than the damp rain.

[Astromech]

I only lived in the UK during the summer months and never minded the rain too much. However, the worst winter I've ever experienced was in Belgium. What Knute described above sounds like Belgium. Fuck cold and rainy. Give me a blizzard any day. It snowed once that winter. The rest of the precipitation was cold rain. It was terrible.

[Rorshach]

Well, to be fair, the southwestern part of Norway has the sort of winter that Knute describes. 

We tend to say we don't have winter (or summer, for that matter), we've got seven-eight months of autumn and four-five months of spring. 

Oh, and wind.