Australian Classification Board vs Me

[GrolschMan]

Here is an email i fired off today to the Australian Classification Board. Feel free to leave comments/criticisms.

>>>>>
To whom it may concern,
I have a complaint about the "unrestricted" tag that the Australian Classification Board has placed on the The New International Edition of The Holy Bible on the 18th of August 1993. In my eyes, "unrestricted" is an inappropriate rating which should be changed to a Category 1 restriction. I refer your attention to the passage found in Ezekiel 23:10-21;
___
10 They stripped her naked, took away her sons and daughters and killed her with the sword. She became a byword among women, and punishment was inflicted on her.

11 "Her sister Oholibah saw this, yet in her lust and prostitution she was more depraved than her sister. 12 She too lusted after the Assyrians,governors and commanders, warriors in full dress, mounted horsemen, all handsome young men. 13 I saw that she too defiled herself; both of them went the same way.

14 "But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea. 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her naked body, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
___

I have two questions regarding this passage. If this passage is "unrestricted" by the Australian Classification Board does that make it legal to supply this book to children without fear of being persecuted for child endangerment? If this is not the case, and supplying in-depth passages about prostitution and murder is not acceptable for children, which i suspect to be the case, is there anyone at the Australian Classification Board that can please reclassify The New International Edition of The Holy Bible to a more age-appropriate level.

Any Information you can return to me regarding this would be greatly appreciated and thank you for your time.
XXXXXX (name omitted for this forum).
>>>>>

 

[Welshidiot]

Good stuff, but they're probably going to try and fob you off with a non-answer though.

What's your next move going to be?

 

[Gnug215]

Lol, this is awesome.

I wonder how this would fare in the US.

 

[GrolschMan]

What's your next move going to be?

Post this email with replies to every single news publication in Australia. Someone will want to stir the pot.

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

 

[Womble]

Mwhahahaha.....

Cunning plans are now afoot hey Grolsch

 

[GrolschMan]

I have been in touch with the Governor Generals office, which now deals with all of Australia's film and literature classifications. They claim that they have no record of this email (which is fine, things get lost) and a representative will be in contact with me.

It's not much of an update but it moved a little when i poked it.

 

[nemesiss]

with email, you HAVE the option that a reply is automaticly send to you if the email has been read (and also for being received, not sure though). That way you have proof that someone HAS read it and can't claim they didn't because it's also time-stamped.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I have an official email through Outlook -
basically, you can provide evidence that you sent the email with the proper settings, and you can be given the option to be notified when the email is sent, and it can never be denied that you sent it.

I would recommend using one that can be linked to yourself professionally. A professional complaint through a real email should be considered, since it can't be simply shrugged off as someone making a tidbit email just to spam some complaints and propaganda.

 

[DepricatedZero]

with email, you HAVE the option that a reply is automaticly send to you if the email has been read (and also for being received, not sure though). That way you have proof that someone HAS read it and can't claim they didn't because it's also time-stamped.

Not entirely true.

This option exists in Exchange, and perhaps other proprietary systems. However, the vast majority of mail servers don't violate your privacy in that manner. Indeed, you can individually disable the sending of read receipts in Exchange.

Additionally, mail is easy to spoof. I wouldn't build an argument on "proof" that I sent an email. I would argue that it had been sent, but it's a hard position to defend without getting into some serious computer work.

Further, while a professional email address will draw more notice, be wary of who's notice it draws. When you send email from that domain name, you're acting on behalf of the owner of the domain. Will your company get behind you using their name in your campaign? This has cost jobs in the past. I contract for the US government and possess a .gov address, but I would never dream of using that in such a manner, as clearly the US Government and the specific branch of it I do work for, has not approved (or disapproved, to be fair) of my campaign. Depending on your company they may care less or not at all, but it should be considered before taking any action that way.

Your best bet, and this is what we do at the company I work for, is to copy people on the email. I copy my boss and any administrators over the systems my email is regarding. The person you copy to should be someone you trust to verify that the email had been sent. This is SOP, I believe, in most corporate environments.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Your best bet, and this is what we do at the company I work for, is to copy people on the email. I copy my boss and any administrators over the systems my email is regarding. The person you copy to should be someone you trust to verify that the email had been sent. This is SOP, I believe, in most corporate environments.

Actually, in Outlook you can request a delivery receipt - it posts as soon as the server verifies that the delivery address is there and sends the data from the server.

But quite right. I wasn't insinuating that you try to involve the world in your exploits... Simply that if you used an official email, but noted that this was on a personal exchange and not part of your job, you would have a slightly better chance in being distinguished from the spam-bots and internet whiners that they receive email from every day or so.

 

[GrolschMan]

I have found why there was a pause in the communications. The submission for the Review Board was not accompanied by the $10,000 fee for an 'Application for Review'. Time to find out what my local member believes in...

 

[GrolschMan]

Dear XXXXX-XXXXXX MP,

I am writing to you, my local member, as advised by the Attorney General's Classification office as a possible avenue to assist with my application for a re-review of the The Bible- New International Version. The 'Classification Act 1995' has informed me that i am not eligible to make this application as i am not The Minister, the instigator of the 1993 classification, the publisher or 'a person aggrieved'. Aside from that hold-back i also do not have the $10,000 application fee. The 1995 Act also has some exclusions from the fee and the instigator of the application as long as it 'is in the public interest to do so' which is why i present my problem to you. If my application came with the approval of an MP or from the office of an MP then i believe this will fall under those exclusions wavering the fee and, if you agree, 'in the public's interest'.

There are only 3 classifications for printed publications in Australia, Unrestricted, Category 1 Restrictions and Category 2 restrictions. My aim is to have the NIV Bible re-classified from Unrestricted to a Category 1 Restriction. The excerpts i bring to your attention are in no way suitable for an Unrestricted rating:

'The Adulterous Sisters'
Ezekiel 23:20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I also submit the passage in full courtesy of the 'Bible Gateway' website:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+23&version=NIV

Thank you for your time and any advice or help on this would be greatly appreciated. The gentleman i spoke to at your XXXXXX office today was very polite and helpful in getting this message to you however i cannot remember his name.

Sincerely,
XXXX-XXXXX
XXXXXX-XXXXXX

 

[Womble]

Grolsch my boy, you need to e-mail me! womble@skeptictv.net

 

[GrolschMan]

New update:

My local member has reviewed my concern and is in contacts with the Governor Generals office on my behalf. I am awaiting a reply on the outcome. A representative from my local member's office advised me that they are doubtful of any change.

 

[Squawk]

New update:

My local member has reviewed my concern and is in contacts with the Governor Generals office on my behalf. I am awaiting a reply on the outcome. A representative from my local member's office advised me that they are doubtful of any change.

Shocked and stunned, it's a religious text, they won't even read the content. Hell, how many christians do you know who have read the thing?

 

[GrolschMan]

An update!!

My Local Member has represented my concerns to the Federal Attorney General's Office as I hoped that they would. The Attorney General's office has replied to me, via my local member, to inform me that the review board will not seeking a re-review of the NIV bible;

"I note your constituent's view is that the classification given to this publication should be higher. I do not intend to seek review of the Decision Board. The Classification Review Board must apply to the same laws as the Board. I understand that it is unlikely that there would be a different result in this instance."

Now for phase #2 of my plan...

 

[Demojen]

Change, in Australia?

Didn't this country ban a video game because it was violent(Manhunt), and then tell women with small tits they couldn't be porn stars because men might think they looked like kids?

Oh and in Australia, the "golden shower" porn is against the law to produce.

I'm not a fan of golden showers or kiddy crap or gorey video games, but at the same time, I don't pretend that I'm in any position to tell others they can't be. Australian politicians have been drawing a dangerous line in the sand on freedom in the last decade.