Is being watched 24-7 the solution to tackling our nation’s problems?
Apparently so, as Victorian schools have suggested spy cameras are the “key” to stopping disorderly behaviour in the school playground.
Last week the Victorian Principals Association president Fred Ackerman said “we live in an environment now where our behaviours are under scrutiny.”
Mr Ackerman said the cameras would be used for security, to monitor vandalism, theft and graffiti and poor behaviour in general.
While it might be a quick fix to the situation, the reality stands with the argument raised by Queensland Council of Civil Liberties president Michael Cope.
He said fitting security cameras would only fix the problem in schools, but push the behaviour outside the playground and onto the streets.
Despite this I’m sure one would agree it would be a positive to at least have this behaviour cease occurring in schools.
While children are at school, their safety and behaviour remains the schools responsibility.
Therefore I think if schools believe this is the right step to take and have enough money to back the idea, then why not test it and see what results it produces.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Brisbane billboard deemed too sexy
With so much on our minds these days, you wonder really just how much one billboard could truly affect our day or corrupt our minds.
Last week Elizabeth Tilley reported on the reaction of family groups to pull down an Ambra billboard underwear advertisement in Brisbane’s CBD.
The argument was raised advertisers are using sexualised images offensive to women and giving children the wrong impression.
I had not seen the billboard until Sunday, when returning home from a walk with my workmate.
From my own perspective as a young woman I found the advertisement non offensive and my friend agreed because we liked the overall design.
We both could not understand how displaying the waist down of a women’s body could be offensive as it is clear the billboards intention is to promote underwear products.
The Australian Families Association branch president Mark Holzworth said the billboard could encourage sexual predators. In particular concern was the recent spate of violent sex attacks against women.
Let’s be honest now, does one billboard truly have the power to impact further or add to the recent attackings?
The fact is we take in so many messages a day from so many different mediums, I think it is unlikely we would recall one billboard, we all have more important things to worry about.
The point is the billboard is in no way overexposing women, it is showing one feature of the female body, the legs, and how you can compliment them with an Ambra product.
The overall layout, use of background colours and the slogan ‘let your legs do the talking’, effectively suit the products intentions.
The advertisement could instead be seen positive for women. If you’ve got the legs and the confidence why not be proud of them. Women are powerful and have every right to feel good about themselves and their body.
In response the argument about the billboard giving children the wrong impression, my question is what about the effects of content through television commercials and programs, adult magazine covers in newsagents and supermarkets, mannequins modeling lingerie in shop windows, internet pop up advertisements, websites and youtube.
If you really think about how much sexual content we’re exposed to throughout the day, it can get a bit ridiculous to say one billboard is going to affect children terribly.
The billboard is going hand in hand with how the world is. More television shows are about accentuating what you’ve got and improving how you feel about your body and your life.
Carson Kressley’s ‘How to look good naked’ television series is an example. He takes the photograph of his contestant in her lingerie and places it on a large billboard for the public to see and comment on. Naturally the contestant is stunned to discover people actually think she’s hot.
It’s only been a few weeks now and the billboard has been removed and replaced by another ‘want longer lasting sex’. I don’t know which is worse.
-ends-
Last week Elizabeth Tilley reported on the reaction of family groups to pull down an Ambra billboard underwear advertisement in Brisbane’s CBD.
The argument was raised advertisers are using sexualised images offensive to women and giving children the wrong impression.
I had not seen the billboard until Sunday, when returning home from a walk with my workmate.
From my own perspective as a young woman I found the advertisement non offensive and my friend agreed because we liked the overall design.
We both could not understand how displaying the waist down of a women’s body could be offensive as it is clear the billboards intention is to promote underwear products.
The Australian Families Association branch president Mark Holzworth said the billboard could encourage sexual predators. In particular concern was the recent spate of violent sex attacks against women.
Let’s be honest now, does one billboard truly have the power to impact further or add to the recent attackings?
The fact is we take in so many messages a day from so many different mediums, I think it is unlikely we would recall one billboard, we all have more important things to worry about.
The point is the billboard is in no way overexposing women, it is showing one feature of the female body, the legs, and how you can compliment them with an Ambra product.
The overall layout, use of background colours and the slogan ‘let your legs do the talking’, effectively suit the products intentions.
The advertisement could instead be seen positive for women. If you’ve got the legs and the confidence why not be proud of them. Women are powerful and have every right to feel good about themselves and their body.
In response the argument about the billboard giving children the wrong impression, my question is what about the effects of content through television commercials and programs, adult magazine covers in newsagents and supermarkets, mannequins modeling lingerie in shop windows, internet pop up advertisements, websites and youtube.
If you really think about how much sexual content we’re exposed to throughout the day, it can get a bit ridiculous to say one billboard is going to affect children terribly.
The billboard is going hand in hand with how the world is. More television shows are about accentuating what you’ve got and improving how you feel about your body and your life.
Carson Kressley’s ‘How to look good naked’ television series is an example. He takes the photograph of his contestant in her lingerie and places it on a large billboard for the public to see and comment on. Naturally the contestant is stunned to discover people actually think she’s hot.
It’s only been a few weeks now and the billboard has been removed and replaced by another ‘want longer lasting sex’. I don’t know which is worse.
-ends-
Friday, June 6, 2008
University of Free Speech
(see related article)
Where does free speech begin? Does it start with pro-feminist movements pushing for continued support of 90,000 terminated pregnancies a year?
Or is free speech the ability to advertise counseling services for women suffering depression?
Once again, the debate has hit the fan with the University of Queensland banning a Catholic student group (Newman Society) for 12 months for advertising support for women in strife.
It makes my blood boil when I hear of the battering people get when trying to stand up for all things life.
The petite girls at the Newman Society stall were promoting help for women suffering post-traumatic stress as a result of terminated pregnancies and they got the boot!
As reported on The Australian website, union president Mr Joshua Young said the University of ‘free choice’ voted 15 years ago to support women in their rights to choose abortion.
“I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand.”
All I can say is they’re just lucky their parents weren’t ‘pro-choice’ (anti-lifers).
It’s been proven (although not agreed by some) that the nightmares and post-traumatic stress of an abortion takes a tremendous toll on a would-have-been mother.
A report in the London Daily Mail said abortion is the new contraception; saying 1,300 British women who admitted to having an abortion, claimed it was at least their fourth time.
I think if we found out the Japanese were ripping calves from the womb of pregnant humpback whales, we wouldn't be as complacent as we are about terminated pregnancies.
The federal baby bonus was meant to encourage an incline in the Australian population, but no one’s questioned why one in every four Australian feotuses don’t make it out alive.
It’s all very well to encourage a woman to make her own choice, but who’s there to pick up the pieces? The Newman Society? The Priceless Life Centre? Of course not, these help lines have been kicked out of universities like Galileo.
I find it strange that for decades, the men and women campaigning for life have been called ANTI-abortion, whilst feotus killers get labelled PRO-choice.
Maybe we should take note of our Slovak counterparts, who just recently eradicated abortion, (except in the case of a woman’s life being at risk).
Jana Tutkova, a spokeswoman for the Centre of Bioethical Reform (CBR Europe), says their successful campaign was based on airing out the dirty laundry of abortion.
“No one with a functioning conscience who sees these images can support abortion," she said.
Until then, it looks like onward Christian soldier for the rest of us. But hey… there’s a whole lot of trees we should be saving before we even think about the babies... right?
By Josh Bavas
Related Links:
PULSE: http://www.myspace.com/pulseqld
Newman Society: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7175
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23700857-5006786,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=539728&in_page_id=1774
http://qutnews.qut.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=543&Itemid=1
Where does free speech begin? Does it start with pro-feminist movements pushing for continued support of 90,000 terminated pregnancies a year?
Or is free speech the ability to advertise counseling services for women suffering depression?
Once again, the debate has hit the fan with the University of Queensland banning a Catholic student group (Newman Society) for 12 months for advertising support for women in strife.
It makes my blood boil when I hear of the battering people get when trying to stand up for all things life.
The petite girls at the Newman Society stall were promoting help for women suffering post-traumatic stress as a result of terminated pregnancies and they got the boot!
As reported on The Australian website, union president Mr Joshua Young said the University of ‘free choice’ voted 15 years ago to support women in their rights to choose abortion.
“I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand.”
All I can say is they’re just lucky their parents weren’t ‘pro-choice’ (anti-lifers).
It’s been proven (although not agreed by some) that the nightmares and post-traumatic stress of an abortion takes a tremendous toll on a would-have-been mother.
A report in the London Daily Mail said abortion is the new contraception; saying 1,300 British women who admitted to having an abortion, claimed it was at least their fourth time.
I think if we found out the Japanese were ripping calves from the womb of pregnant humpback whales, we wouldn't be as complacent as we are about terminated pregnancies.
The federal baby bonus was meant to encourage an incline in the Australian population, but no one’s questioned why one in every four Australian feotuses don’t make it out alive.
It’s all very well to encourage a woman to make her own choice, but who’s there to pick up the pieces? The Newman Society? The Priceless Life Centre? Of course not, these help lines have been kicked out of universities like Galileo.
I find it strange that for decades, the men and women campaigning for life have been called ANTI-abortion, whilst feotus killers get labelled PRO-choice.
Maybe we should take note of our Slovak counterparts, who just recently eradicated abortion, (except in the case of a woman’s life being at risk).
Jana Tutkova, a spokeswoman for the Centre of Bioethical Reform (CBR Europe), says their successful campaign was based on airing out the dirty laundry of abortion.
“No one with a functioning conscience who sees these images can support abortion," she said.
Until then, it looks like onward Christian soldier for the rest of us. But hey… there’s a whole lot of trees we should be saving before we even think about the babies... right?
By Josh Bavas
Related Links:
PULSE: http://www.myspace.com/pulseqld
Newman Society: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7175
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23700857-5006786,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=539728&in_page_id=1774
http://qutnews.qut.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=543&Itemid=1
SEX sells
Are we really surprised?
The Australian Families Association is outraged at Ambra billboards showing bums and sexy legs held together by strands of lingerie. (see related article)
Mark Holzworth from the Australian Families Association says he thinks the billboards should come down because it’s defaming Aussie women.
“It is a representation in a very sexual context as to how women are portrayed," he says.
But should we be pulling the billboards down because they say women are floozies… or because the ads are darn right distasteful?
The other day I counted the word ‘sex’ 15 times on the news.com.au homepage, not to mention the myriads of links to stories about promiscuous activity.
We’ve come a long way this century; the easy access to porn…thriving adult stores…and sexpo has ‘opened’ our eyes and raised our eyebrows.
But is this really healthy?
For me, the term ‘adult’ now holds ideas of depraved sexual activity.
Let’s face it; every soapie is just a game of musical beds.
It’s no wonder why the crickets start up and the tumble weeds roll past whenever someone finds out I’m ‘waiting’; just like everyone was shocked at Guy Sebastian.
How far will sexualised marketing go?
I find it amusing to watch movies pre-dating the 70’s, when women and men wouldn’t even dare sleep in the same bed – even if they were married.
How funny to think people would shudder at Elvis’ controversial pelvis thrust.
It’s like a Sunday school pic-nic watching it against something like Underbelly.
I suppose at the end of the day it’s not worth getting all ‘hot under the collar’.
But there will always be someone crossing the line, going that extra step to be just that little more risqué.
It looks like we’ll have to put up with car accidents under the Ambra ads.
By Josh Bavas.
The Australian Families Association is outraged at Ambra billboards showing bums and sexy legs held together by strands of lingerie. (see related article)
Mark Holzworth from the Australian Families Association says he thinks the billboards should come down because it’s defaming Aussie women.
“It is a representation in a very sexual context as to how women are portrayed," he says.
But should we be pulling the billboards down because they say women are floozies… or because the ads are darn right distasteful?
The other day I counted the word ‘sex’ 15 times on the news.com.au homepage, not to mention the myriads of links to stories about promiscuous activity.
We’ve come a long way this century; the easy access to porn…thriving adult stores…and sexpo has ‘opened’ our eyes and raised our eyebrows.
But is this really healthy?
For me, the term ‘adult’ now holds ideas of depraved sexual activity.
Let’s face it; every soapie is just a game of musical beds.
It’s no wonder why the crickets start up and the tumble weeds roll past whenever someone finds out I’m ‘waiting’; just like everyone was shocked at Guy Sebastian.
How far will sexualised marketing go?
I find it amusing to watch movies pre-dating the 70’s, when women and men wouldn’t even dare sleep in the same bed – even if they were married.
How funny to think people would shudder at Elvis’ controversial pelvis thrust.
It’s like a Sunday school pic-nic watching it against something like Underbelly.
I suppose at the end of the day it’s not worth getting all ‘hot under the collar’.
But there will always be someone crossing the line, going that extra step to be just that little more risqué.
It looks like we’ll have to put up with car accidents under the Ambra ads.
By Josh Bavas.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Whether to spy or not to spy … that is the question?
It’s been about ten years since I last read George Orwell’s 1984, where the infamous Big Brother snuffed out the notion of privacy by keeping the novel’s populace under constant surveillance.
The theory was if a population knew it was always under scrutiny, then they would never act out of order.
No criminal behaviour.
No aggressive acts.
Just passive, law-abiding citizens.
Very easy to control.
This idea was adopted by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham when he created the Panopticon, a prison that allowed an observer (guard) to watch the prisoners but the "inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so." (Foucault)
Now it seems the Victorian school system have decided constant surveillance is the best way to curb bad behaviour in the school ground.
Victorian Principals Association president Fred Ackerman says the primary reason for the security cameras is to monitor vandalism and theft, but he acknowledges the cameras could be used to monitor school children for anti-social behaviour.
Of course civil liberty groups have thrown their hands up in the air claiming children’s rights to privacy are being stripped away.
It’s not unusual to walk through the public spaces of the world and see closed-circuit cameras recording all of our movements, but do we really need to expose the children of the world to 24 hour surveillance, especially in a place where they’re already supposed to be safe from harm?
Surveillance would probably lower the incidents of bad behaviour in schools, but wouldn’t it be due to the children’s sheer fear of being caught.
A child should never learn through fear, but through example.
A lesson of what is right and what is wrong.
When I went to school the playground, which by the way was no bigger than a small field, was patrolled by teachers I knew and learnt from.
Not by a sentinel camera.
Children learn through action, they learn through example, and I think if we continue down this road, they’ll learn nothing but obedience to a faceless camera.
Kids can get out of hand and the anti-social problems that exist within their age bracket need to be addressed, but I was always taught lessons were learnt through mistakes.
I find it hard to see mistakes being made when they’re so worried about making them.
By Quinn Jones.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)