It must be awful to be important enough to be in Wikipedia.

Imagine being at the mercy of a pack of largely anonymous editors (some of them spooks?) who can – and often do – perform the most comprehensive character assassination imaginable on hapless victims who have little or no chance of redress.

For that reason, Dr Michael Flood of Wollongong University has my sympathies. Even though his role in promoting Internet censorship disgusts me (Flood has collaborated closely with prominent pro-censorship ‘intellectual’ Clive Hamilton on that issue), I wouldn’t wish a dud entry in Wikipedia on anyone.

But I have a little gratuitous advice for Dr Flood. Even though he seems to churn out academic papers at a furious rate, he might take time off from his frantic schedule to sort out his Wikipedia entry, if he can.

The entry for Dr Michael Flood, dated December 4th, 2008 makes him seem rather foolish (emphases added):

Michael Flood is an Australian sociologist. His research includes work in men’s studies, a field which formed largely in response to [citation needed], and as a critique of [citation needed], an emerging men’s rights movement. Flood’s research focuses on men, heterosexuality, interpersonal violence, and gender and gender-related topics.

Flood is the coordinator of a pro-feminist website, XYonline, that provides a range of commentary and research on men and masculinities, male sexuality, gender feminism, violence perpetrated by males, and the men’s movement from a gender feminist perspective. He received a PhD in Gender and Sexuality Studies from the Australian National University (ANU) in 2001.

Flood opposes sex-positive feminism[1], men’s rights[2], and father’s rights.[3]

He is currently a lecturer in Sociology at the University of Wollongong. Previously he was a Postdoctoral fellow at La Trobe University’s “Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society”, conducting research on the sexual and reproductive health of young heterosexual men.

On the principle that the best antidote to convoluted nonsense may be an equal and opposite force of incorrigible anti-intellectualism, I think I’ll forward this to Bob Katter and see what happens.

Here’s my suggested Questions in The House (sadly they must await the new Parliamentary year):

Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the foremost proponents of his compulsory Internet censorship scheme is an academic who, according to Wikipedia, opposes both men’s rights and father’s rights?

Does the Government fund Dr Flood’s academic pursuits, given that he is apparently hostile to at least half the human species?

How can the Rudd Government justify associating with Dr Flood, given it’s supposed commitment to ‘working families’?

Does the Government favor only single-parent or lesbian working families?

Follow-up question:

Does the Government agree with Dr Flood that sex-positive feminists should be opposed – and does it have a policy of positive discrimination in favour of sex-negative feminists?

____________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

The most interesting pages in Wikipedia are often the ‘Discussion’ pages. Each entry (eg. Michael Flood) has a front page which is what you usually view. But at the top of that page are a few tabs. One says ‘Discussion’. Click that tab to see what discussion – if any – has ensued over the main entry.

Some discussion pages are lengthy and reflect extended debates between editors. In other cases, there’s no discussion at all. Michael Flood’s discussion entry is not null, but it is very short. Someone asks whether Dr Flood is truly notable enough to be in Wikipedia and seeks a secondary source to prove it.

I can help out there. This ‘secondary source’ affirms that Dr Flood is indeed ‘notable’. I’d say he’s notorious. He definitely merits an entry in Wikipedia – and if anyone ever starts a rival called ‘Dikipedia’, he should probably be in that too.

________________

UPDATE (June 6th 2009):  Furher to the comments on this article by Dr Flood and myself dated December 2008, there’s a significant article in New Matilda – see ‘Net Nanny’ Advocate Does Back Flip by Rachel Maher.

Dr Flood notes what he perceives to be dangers of compulsory Internet censorship:

“I am much more convinced of its technological problems and I am much more convinced of its political dangers”

It’s a welcome clarification, for which Michael Flood should be congratulated.

Australia’s Minister for Communications Chaos, Internet Censorship and Moral Panic rose in the Senate early this week to defend the Government’s ‘Clean Feed’ policy yesterday.

It was not an impressive performance, but to paraphrase Dr Johnson, the remarkable thing is that it happened at all.

In recent days, Conroy has been taking hits from all quarters. The most recent thwack came from Young Labor in NSW.

Every time the Senate meets, he faces at least one uncomfortable question about his portfolio. Each time, the main issue is whether he’ll make a bigger mess of his answer than last time. Nobody expects a quality response from Conroy any more. Nobody is ever disappointed.

Conroy attacked the previous Coalition Government for what he claimed was an ineffective and costly scheme, whereby all households were provided with a self-install Internet filter on request. Generous sums were spent promoting the scheme.

Conroy’s point is that uptake of the voluntary ‘filter’ was very low. The Minister didn’t remember the exact figure, so why should I bother looking it up? In any event, it was low. 2% or so. ‘Nuff said.

One might reasonably infer from this that most Australians simply didn’t want to install a ‘filter’ on their Internet connection. That could be regarded as good news – a hint that the Government can concentrate on other important policy areas (and even make a modest saving scaling down the free voluntary web filter service).

But that is not the way Stephen Conroy’s mind works. He claims the low uptake of voluntary filters is evidence that compulsion is needed. If Australians won’t take filters for free, force them!

It’s an approach to governance that was popular, for a while, in the Soviet Union. But does it have a place in Australia today?

Senator Conroy is an incompetent control freak with no obvious redeeming qualities. He cannot mount a coherent case for his own policies. He cannot defend them without dissembling and evasion. He seems to be making a complete mess out of what is arguably one of the most critical portfolios to Australia’s short and medium-term prospects.

It’s time that Kevin Rudd invites him over to the PM’s office for that nice cup of tea. By jettisoning Conroy and backing down on compulsory Internet censorship (it was never ‘core’ Labor policy, by any stretch of the imagination) Rudd can ride the crisis and move forward.

Quite soon, if Rudd doesn’t stem the infection, it will damage his entire Government’s health and its prospects at the next election.

Of course, it is also possible – as I speculated previously on more than one occasion – that the real reason this scheme is being pushed (to the point of political suicide) is because Kevin Rudd cut a deal with forces who intimidate him.

A little support was given to this theory in Conroy’s extended answer to the Senate. It’s clear that overseas agencies – including national ‘law enforcement’ agencies such as the FBI – will be consulted when drawing up Australia’s banned website list. Whether or not other countries fall into line with similar schemes, Australians’ freedom to choose is being ‘outsourced’ to overseas interests. I doubt the Iranains will be consulted about the banned list. I imagine the Israelis will. 100 Years War here we come…

I hope there is not a smidgeon of truth in this outrageous ‘conspiracy theory’. But even so, a national Christian role-model like Kevin Rudd can surely be counted on to stand up to arm-twisting and act in the public interest – especially given the masses are clearly behind him?

After all, Kevin, about the worst they can do is assassinate you and cover it up afterwards.

It beats eternal damnation any day.

Australia has more sheep than any other country on earth. Nearly 20 million of us are bipedal.

Several hundred two-legged Australian sheep, with better superannuation packages than most, meet regularly in Parliament House in Canberra. Today they are all off for well-earned holidays. Another session of the Australian Parliament is coming to an end. It’s time for the Christmas break!

Another session is closing, in which the tragic and deepening plight of the Palestinians has not been seriously discussed. Indeed, it has barely been mentioned at all. As usual.

When Members conclude their business later today, exchanging pleasantries about Christmas goodwill in the improbable setting of a sweltering Canberra summer, the odds are nobody will mention the walled-in residents of Bethlehem or the shivering masses of Gaza.

Many of our elected politicians pray from the Christian Bible, but no-one will utter a word about the beleaguered Christians in the Holy Land. No-one will demand an end to the very un-Christian siege of those parts of Palestine not already under the thumb of the Israeli military or their collaborators. No one will say: enough!

Why is this?

Are the people in Australia’s Parliament completely ignorant about these matters? Are they cruel? Do they share the view of many Israelis that Palestinians are less than human? Is Evil now Canberra’s official religion?

Not really. Most Australian politicians, while they may well have a streak of ruthlessness, would never personally condone utterly bestial treatment of their fellow human beings. There is no support for setting up walled enclaves within Australia to restrict the free movement of our ‘second class humans’. No-one in the Australian Parliament speaks in favour of establishing an apartheid system that carries out blatant war crimes. No-one openly advocates the deliberate mass torture of an occupied, imprisoned people.

They don’t need to. They only need to avoid the topic entirely. Or, if they do mention the Middle East, all they need do is repeat platitudes that they’ve heard repeated before by other conformists. It’s OK to ‘call for peace’. It’s OK to demand an ‘end to terror’ as a precursor to a ‘just and lasting peace’. It’s OK (just about OK) to call for Israeli restraint – as long as such a call is ‘balanced’ by an equal and opposite appeal to the Palestinians to cease all armed resistance (which must be called ‘terrorism’, incidentally). It’s OK to say ‘Happy Christmas!’ and head home for a turkey dinner.

Palestinian Woman at Gunpoint while children shelter behind herAustralia’s mainstream media effectively sets the terms of the national discourse. That’s why our national ‘debate’ about the Middle East so closely parallels the equivalent in other ‘western’ countries. A similar system of control operates there too, whether one looks at Canada or Britain, France, Germany or the USA. There are minor differences of course – just as there are moves to ‘harmonize standards’. But the same basic principles apply.

Politicians recite the lines expected of them on this highly ‘sensitive’ issue. If they ever buck the trend and speak outside the script, they can expect punishment. Just as juicy carrots are available for willing conformists, there are plenty of sticks for recalcitrant types. But like any effective system of social control, it’s rare that sticks need be used. For the most part, conformism alone does the trick. The egregious bias of Australia’ body politic in favour of Israel’s 60+ year record of cruelty, bullying, militarism, war mongering and deception is achieved by self-censorship within Australian political circles. Not a word in anger need be said to keep these people in line. They do it all by themselves.

Over time, there have been a few honorable exceptions to the rule.

Former National Party Leader Tim Fisher deserves a notable mention. After leaving office, he even had the guts to write about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in a major Australian Newspaper. His article was published (it would have been hard for the mass media to completely reject such a clear, well-argued and interesting contribution by a former Deputy Prime Minister). So it was published, then comprehensively ignored. A few days later, most Australians would never have known that the article ever appeared. That’s a shame, because Fisher’s eye-opening story put a whole different slant on the ‘plucky little Israel’ legend.

One paragraph from his article is worth repeating – and committing to memory.

“The two key issues arising from this are still relevant today. If Israel did deliberately attack the most powerful nation on Earth, it knows it can do so and get away with murder. Worse still, US military personnel now know that if the truth is politically inconvenient, they and their legacy are expendable.”

Labor MP Julia Irwin is another courageous politician with the courage to speak up for the Palestines from time to time. One might take issue with the extent to which she pushes the Palestinian case. Everything she says is laced with qualifications. Unlike the pro-Israel Lobby, which is strident and unapologetic in its advocacy, Julia feels required to justify each counter-comment and incessantly clarifies that she is not biased and only seeks justice. But the fact she bucks the trend at all is praiseworthy. It is so very rare. In a paddock of black sheep, the occasional off-white specimen stands out. Interestingly, while Irvin has copped attacks over this, her political sky has not fallen in – not yet, anyway.

So what is wrong with all the rest of our politicians? What’s wrong, for that matter, with the Australian public that we tolerate such a disgusting and inhuman Middle Eastern policy? Why can’t we speak out? Why can’t our voices heard? Why can’t we get the ugly Zionist bias in Australia’s foreign policy changed?

The answer lies partly in established trend. If 99% of one’s colleagues have jet black coats, who wants to admit to feeling even slightly grey?

Another partial explanation is the existence of rather vicious Zionist ‘sheep dogs’. Any politician who plucks up courage and decides to join the tiny band – anyone who dare on occasion speak truth about Palestine – will be ‘noticed’. They can anticipate a little harassment. If they persist, they can expect a lot of harassment. The same thing happens to fringe media that stray from The Faith. They get intimidated. See for instance ‘Has Webdiary been Threatened by Zionists or Not‘

The brilliant Israeli political commentator Israel Shamir devoted an essay to this phenomenon, which he calls ‘The Swarm’. Shamir describes how maddending clouds of gnat-like critics beset even luminaries such as former US President Carter, a man who dare (as a longstanding advocate of Middle Eastern peace) to criticize Israel rather too sharply for neocon tastes.

This Zionist attack pattern is common. It operates here too. It’s no big secret how it works. An impassioned and very well-organized Israel Lobby, operating within Australia, howls like jackals if a politician speaks out of line on issue of core concern. This pressure from below dovetails perfectly with conformism and control from the top. It completes the loop and effectively kills debate.

Opposing pressure from the grass roots can and does emerge. One might think it could be effective too? Certainly, it should have the potential to serve as a counter-balance to rampant Zionist bias.

After all, there are a lot of ordinary Australians who, despite persistent mass media bias, are both concerned and angry about Palestine. There’s a small but significant Muslim population. Some Australians are émigrés from Arab countries. How come all these voices seem to count for naught? Collectively, they are numerous. And after all, while many Jewish Australians support AIJAC‘s one-eyed Zionist bigotry, many do not. In any case, Australia’s Jewish population is tiny – less than 2% of the total.

So why can’t Australians – and Australian politicians – speak up clearly for Palestine? Why can’t we stand up for the oppressed and dispossessed? Why can’t we change our national Middle Eastern policy so it is, at the very minimum, fair and balanced?

It’s a good question. Any number of excuses can be used to explain why. A number were suggested above.

But beneath all the excuses and analysis lurks a stark truth. It’s a truth that has been rediscovered throughout history, in different locations and circumstances, involving very different players. It’s an answer that entrenched power fears, because of its simplicity and potency. It’s an answer that’s likely to be misrepresented by any means available. That means it may well be misrepresented as hatred, bias, terrorism, support for terrorism, support for the supporters of terrorism – any old line will do, really.

It’s an answer that cleaves the impenetrable tangle of uncertainty, fear and moral paralysis, like Alexander cut the Gordian knot with a clean sweep of his sword.

It’s the answer you may not wish to hear – because it involves you too. Just three words:

“Yes We Can!”

Discussion of how Australians may be able to liberate ourselves from an alien ideology that warps our foreign policy – making it seem that Australians truly side with wall-builders, aerial bombers and all-round serial oppressors – is a topic for another article.

The first step is to correct our vision.

We need to look beyond the merried-up legend and see Bethlehem as it really is, c. Christmas time 2008. A walled ghetto for impoverished second class citizens. The utterly ugly visage of a brutal supremacist fantasy. The ultimate insult to the spirit of peace and liberation, in a severed land we still call holy.

This ‘blood-dimmed tide‘ is no Act of God. It is the handiwork of men and women. Like any ideological fabrication, it can be demystified, defeated and superceded.