All About Dr Strangecoke. The Censorship Issue: Focussing on Eminem, New Govt laws, Sniffer Dogs challenge, Sickening Ring of offenders invade Telegraph

DR STRANGECOKE SHOCK WEDDING
"Mein Fuhrer, I can walk... up the aisle"

November 1 2001

The Australian Voice has learned that Rudolph "strangecoke" Pereira is to marry his long-time girl-friend Rachael (surname withheld due to lack of research). Rudolph proposed to Rachael over an intimate dinner at ARIA restaurant, Circular Quay. They were both using their laptops to communicate over nanoLAN (TM), a program that Rudolph completed just after the tech wreck made it impossible to sell. The AV was given the transcript in an exclusive leak:

R011udo010: hey honeybums, this artichoke on a bed of saltwater prawns and ginger spiced flummery in aioli with ricotta and sumak puré is delicious. It reminds me of the time...

RachX0X0ael: Rudo, we're at a restaurant. i don't know what's gotten into you... *giggle*.

R011udo010: So, what do you think of your mild plum duck pudding with potato and truffle liquor ala alan ducasse in poached egg and parmesan brouché?

RachX0X0ael: I liked the entre better

RachX0X0ael: ... hey, there's something hard in the egg!... what's this?!! Oh... Oh My God... honey - sweety cakes, what's this?...

R011udo010: Rachael, you are the yolk of my life and I want you to be like that for the rest of our days together. *kneel* Will you marry me? :o)?

RachX0X0ael: Oh, Rudi, my puddems, my bed of saltwater prawns, of course I will.

R011udo010: Let's Kiss

RachX0X0ael: *kiss*

R011udo010: *kiss*

And so, Rachael put on her dripping yolk ring and a historic day was completed. It was from there that Dr Strangecoke wrote up an e mail to his friends, relatives, the international media and the Australian Stock Exchange. The news was greeted with both muted euphoria and condemnation as the impending vows sent shockwaves throughout the world.

The Cathedral High Court has been hearing an urgent interlocutory application under section 69 of the Cathedral Constitution (widely referred to as the pimp clause). The full bench will be considering whether the marriage would, as the plaintiffs puts it, "constitute cheating on the Cathedral Goup and if not for its male protagonist would be dishearteningly and gender stereotypically called the actions of a "slut" in the common language of ordinary decent Australians."

Trading in Coca Cola Amatil shares was suspended on the day of the announcement. The share has been suffering depressive losses as reports of Rudo's declining use of Coca Cola spread. However, news of the wedding had investors rushing to CCA shares once trading resumed. In what was an astonishing day of trading, the CCA shares jumped 35%. Alisiae Nottingdram from comsec securities commented on the sudden rush on CCA shares by saying that most analists believe that significant quantities of CC will be consumed prior to and including the wedding day. However, the biggest reason for the rise were the long term prospects of the stock because:

"Investors believe that Pereira will continue to shock by procreating within the first five years of marriage. The prospects of many Rudo Jrs running around in the country have CCA shareholders salivating at the potential for exponential growth in Coca Cola consumption well into the future. It may in fact spur a multi million dollar plant upgrade and make up for their disastrous foray into the Phillipines and Eastern Europe."

Analysts around the world have also moved CCA shares from "hold" to "strong buy".

While the Stockmarket was buouyant, disenchantment emenated from the Chancery of the Catholic Church, with the senior spokesman for the propogation of the faith claiming that Pereira's plans for a garden ceremony with a female baptist minister presiding was "an affront to Catholicism, a shocking, heretic decision and a slur to what decent Catholics around the world stand for." One sources close to the Church identified why there was such a strong statement issued: "If such a rational person chooses a female minister, what does that say about the intellectual and theological integrity of the institution of male priests?"

Rudolph's impending vows also drew swift rebuke from the Australian Institute for WOG stereotyping. Hussain Charbel Ziferelli-opolis said he felt "disgusted" by the plans of the wedding which included inviting "only" 20 people and having a classy lunch afterwards:

"How dare his not have a minimum 300 peoples and why is not there a reception centre with beautiful fake pink roses and red and white curtains? Where are the envelopes with CASH in them for the bride and groom? We don't hear of this from Rudo. He is trying to hide who he truly is. We call on Professor Dumsiggen to try to make him see that it is his genetic birzright and duty to have a WOG spectacle."

The AIWOGs weren't the only ones calling on Professor Dumsign to reach out to Rudo. The AV has spent considerable time and money resourcing Dreuf Dumsign's investigations into the psyche of Rudo's behaviour, and at every turn, Dumsign is always a step behind. Dumsign now claims that Rudo was until very recently in a period of "latency" and that his fixation with Coca Cola made him realise that his own body, his own mind was telling him to come out of the latency and Rachael was that integral step that made him realise self:

"Like David from AI, Rudo found his blue fairy and can now dream - dream of a future, dream of great things to come and be truly separated from the womb - but most importantly, the dreaming has made him fully self aware and this has made him human, so much so that now he takes a very important step in the self realisation process."

Dr Strangecoke's friends were taken by surprise with the announcement, many of them now realising how un grown up they were. One of them said:

"We always relied on Professer Dreufs analysis of Rudo's latent childish desire thesis and always thought therefore that he was on an emotionally juvenile path towards never growing up. Thus we always considered ourselves superior. But we have discovered that Rudo was in fact, in control from the very beginning, as if he was at the apex of psychological security. Prof Dreuf should have been thinking more of Neo in the Matrix when he analysed Rudi or Michael J Fox's character in Back to the Future who had absolute power over his own primal scene. Not some weak, emotional wreck relying on coca cola to make up for an unspoken latent desire."

Strangecoke's impending vows also "lay down the gauntlet" to all those with significant others. It also turns the "single guys" into a hideous metaphor of the Anzacs. As the years go by, there are less and less unattached cathedralites. This can only spell doom for the adolescent (toilet humour) intellectual point of view that has made the Cathedral Institute one of the most renowned in the world.

As one can see, the ramifications of the marriage of Rudolph and Rachael will like the tragic events of September 11, stay with the world for far longer than we can imagine; whether it be the bitter divisions in Cathedral between those with and without invites (it is after all according to The Daily Telegraph's CONFIDENTIAL column, the "hottest ticket in town") to the increased risk many shareholders are taking in rudo's ability to have offspring within the first five years of marriage. Having said that the AV will be there covering the story for our readers in the fearless but accurate way we have handled all our stories. The editor congratulates the happy couple and hope that their hundredth wedding anniversary will be as happy as the day in February 2002.
 

DR STRANGECOKE DISCOVERS "FRIEND" WHO HAPPENS TO BE A FEMALE "ACQUAINTANCE" AND LEARNS TO CHANGE IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS (September 2001)

"Strangecoke sees light and is metaphorically reborn"

In an earlier edition of the Australian voice, we claimed victory over Dr Strangecoke's addiction to coca cola when he was seen purchasing orange juice at the movies. It appears that professor Dumsign, who was employed by the AV to provide free intensive therapy to Strangecoke was duped. Strangecoke appears to have been seeing a female student currently studying liberal studies at the University of Sydney (her thesis is the disappearance of Harold Holt). Like her thesis, the AV has been wondering where Strangecoke's appetite for coke has disappeared to. Professor Dumsign said that his therapy was working. However, the Ac can officially reveal that it was really Strangecoke's 'girl friend' filling in the void. Further evidence of the diminished appetite came through at a special AV function honouring the Australian release of the Burton masterpiece "planet of the apes". At a chic Italian restaurant, Strangecoke ordered WATER. Not one drop of coke was consumed. Coca Cola Amatil shares plummeted a further 10% but regained on news that he did purchase a regular coke during the movie.

Dumsign has only one conclusion to make with regards to the miraculous turnaround in Strangecoke's habits:

"The classic element of desire is lack. When someone is lacking something, their desire for that lack is found in a substitute. In Shrek, Lord Farquar is small and he builds himself a phallic monument outside his castle. Strangecoke on the other hand resorted to drinking litres of coke at a time to fulfill his lack for a companionship not of the friendship kind.

"He needed more, he needed to grow from this child like state by being metaphorically reborn. In this lovely young lady Strangecoke's subconscious saw in her an ability for her to be like a lactating mother, nursing and weening him off his quench for coke - and this has brought him to a state of unimagined normalcy. It is no coincidence that he went to see Planet of the Apes on the very day he made his first official public appearance with this special lady. The movie deals with primal scenes and the psychoanalysis of desire in a way no other movie in current release deals with such issues (except for Freddy got Fingered)."

The editor of the AV has said publicly of the relationship:

"To be sure, I was gobsmacked by the total lack of desire for coke as I purposefully ordered glass after glass and commented on how good the stuff tasted. Rudolph just drank his water as if it was a natural human condition. I knew that his forgetfullness was a result of those furtive glances and whispered sweet nothings to Rachael over his Tortellini. And what really confirmed the end of the addiction to me was when he did not order a large coke at hoyts even though it was only 50c more."

Strangecoke has been seeing his acquaintance for two years now and they appear as doe eyed as though they had only just met. While it is true that Strangecoke and Rachael do have their differences, they are eventually resolved with a little phrase they say to each other: "let's kiss *kiss*"

Strangecoke and Rachael did however confess to have engaged in a slanging match earlier last year. Strangecoke explained it as such:

"We were going on a drive to the Hunter Valley for a romantic getaway, and I desperately wanted to hear the premier broadcast of Carl Vine's Sixth Symphony on ABC FM, but Rachael had her own plans. She wanted to listen to Shostakovich's Second Piano Concerto on 2MBS FM. She was saying to me: "why do you want to listen to that incoherent hollywood new age computer using hack" and I said: "Hollywood hack, well, why does DISNEY use the first movement of the piano concerto in Fantasia 2000? and if you wanted to listen to it, at least their orchestra was better than the LA Philharmonic. And Shostakovic? What a joke, even Holst's Planets wasn't as Hollywood as him." and then she said: "What? Are you a fu**ing idiot or what? You were the one that didn't even know that Holst was quoted in Gladiator" and then i said: "Oh what, you've reverted to profanity, is that how you're going to argue. Well, i'm listening to Carl VIne and too bad for you." As usual she got her way, but then I remembered that 2MBSFM would cut out in a few more kilometres because it would be out of range! So, I let her have the victory, and in no time we caught the thrilling last two minutes of the 1st movement of Vine's Symphony and the breathtaking 4 1/2th movement."

In spite of their tussles over classical FM radio stations on Friday nights, they are otherwise the picture of perfect harmony and I suppose we will know when things go wrong as soon as Strangecoke returns to his old habits and the stock price of Coca Amatil improves.

RESIDENT CARTOONIST DFM ANALYSES STRANGECOKE SITUATION

SNIFFER DOGS CHALLENGE

Well, let's hope this one goes well. Sniffer dogs are under attack by civil libertarians because they believe the minute they start sniffing that they are searching. As you can't search without a warrant (i thought reasonable suspicion could warrant a search), any sniffing is a breach of that rule. I suppose because a dog is just sniffing randomly and is not focussing its search on a particular person, then there is no way that you can "reasonably suspect" that every person in the community is carrying drugs. I don't think you could even reasonably suspect that someone going to a nightclub was carrying drugs. But let's wait and see how the courts will overcome this problem. Surely they're not going to put those 12 dogs out of work?

What I would like to see though, is sniffer dogs being used to search up market establishments frequented by the rich and powerful - what about the nightclubs that traders from the stock market visit. To target these people will have a good affect because lets face it, poorer people, those that go to raves and dance parties are easy targets - as are children who can't even vote. As usual, the use of these dogs are targetted towards intimidating certain sections of the Australian community and cast aspersions on their particular choices in life - for example, the type of music they listen to casts them as drug addicts. Just like me being of lebanese origin means that i am genetically predisposed to rape blonde women with blue eyes, so too must a person into the technical mastery of some forms of dance music be drug addicts, and a person into metal is a knife wielding pot-head. As John Laws would say, these are "facts" and we at the AV congratulate Peter Ryan and his boys on such brilliant profiling (unfortunately, most lefties and socialists are back in fashion - otherwise they would have been targets in another era).

BREAKING NEWS: POLICE MAKE ARRESTS IN SICKENING PORN RING RAID

MEDIA JUST CAN'T REPORT ON ITSELF PROPERLY: EXAMPLE 1018927

Daily Telegraph 26-03-2001 p120.

EXPOSED: DAILY TELEGRAPH AIDES PORN PEDDLARS The Australian Voice, in an astonishing revelation has found that The Daily Telegraph in Sydney has accepted payments for placing ads in the classifieds which encouraged others to actively participate in the growing international Necropaedobeastiaphilia ring. The Australian Voice exclusive into the shocking and disgusting behaviour of Australian residents that resulted in the breaking of the worldwide ring by police forces from around the world only cracked the surface into what is believed to be the widest such group of like minded fiends. The Daily Telegraph, which in its articles and editorials proclaims itself to be a moral guardian, even having the tenacity to headline the fact that Australia is filled with bastard children ("A Nation of Bastards") or to launch into scare campaigns about sex and violence on television or the internet, has for days been publishing "classifieds" in the "pets" section of the newspaper. The Australian Voice with little research was able to match pictures of these animals with pictures of dead animals on the "mineland" website (run by the npb ring). The mineland website even joked about how easy it was to convince the cash hungry Daily Telegraph into accepting a pic advert. Alarm Bells should have been ringing when an ad was placed: Zac... 3 years, ... likes toys The mineland website, particularly liked the "toys" reference, saying that "a shovel counts". The Daily Telegraph has issued a public statement condemning the Australian Voice for: "a concerted campaign to discredit our fine newspaper. They have engaged in gross defamation. These classifieds were paid for on the basis of selling pets. We do not believe that by placing a picture of an animal per se is pornographic. Does that mean that any publication with animals in it are pornographic? AV wants to make out as if we're some sort of closeted mineland members. The Daily Telegraph has been at the forefront of the fight against these porn peddlars and have been on record with our abhorrence at the horrendous crimes these people have perpetrated against innocent animals who yes, were also pets while alive." The Australian Voice issued a reply in editorials saying: "blind Freddy would realise that these pics had highly erotic overtones. Don't tell me a picture that says "Jewell, sleek black stunner" is an innocent sales pitch to buy a pet. Don't tell me that an animal who needs to be surrounded by "high fences" is innocent when we've got pet cemetries being dug up all around the country. The Daily Telegraph is trying to make a quick buck. Sure they've condemned mineland, but it's really a case of - and i'm not being coarse here by using this analagy - something less than biting the hand that feeds you. Just like they attack the inernet's effect on kids and publish full on advertisments for whore houses and non access unrestricted international telephone access sex phone lines, they are engaging in hypocrisy that has perhaps never been tried anywhere by the free and independent press. For that they should be condemned. For that, the Australian Voice continues to exist.

X RATING STANCE A SAD DAY FOR FREE EXPRESSION

This week, the Senate passed a bill restricting the X category. The restrictions were supposed to apply to a new rating NVE (non violent erotica) that would allow titles of this nature to be viewed in every state and territory on the condition that violence and i suppose, extreme fetishes (as defined by the Gazette) would be restricted.

As a background to the whole discussion here, let's look at what hapenned and why it's so bad. Here is Nick Bolkus' summary of the facts in second reading speeches of the Classification Amendment Bill:

"In the lead-up to this particular legislation, the government initially proposed a new non-violent erotica classification to replace the current X classification. The NVE category was to have considerable overlap with the X classification it was proposed to replace. Many of us are aware of the long battle that Senator Harradine had, both in this chamber and also in the Senate's committees, in which he demonstrated that it was not just considerable overlap; I think it is fair to say that what Senator Harradine demonstrated was that it was almost an identical category which was being set up by the Attorney-General to replace the X classification. However, it has been the government's contention that some material previously permissible within the X classification would not be permitted within the NVE classification. They have argued that this includes `mild fetish' material, the depiction of any violence whatsoever, the use of sexually aggressive language and also the portrayal of persons over 18 as minors.

"On 30 May 2000, the Attorney-General unilaterally announced the decision to abandon the NVE classification and to retain the X classification. This was largely in response to concerns expressed by, particularly, a small group of National Party backbenchers." More on Nick Bolkus' speech later. But the point is that here we have a few National Party backbenchers and Brian Harradine's personal porn collection trying to censor what is on the whole behaviour engaged in by most Australian adults. Sure, the behaviour may involve what many would only fantasise about, but contains no illegal behaviour. It has been illegal for example for porn to feature rape. It has been illegal for porn to feature underage actors. The new legislation will ensure that no one that is 18 will be portrayed as a minor. This is intended to "protect children".

I don't see how children are harmed by even such fantasies being portrayed. Indeed, how many feature films have been made featuring 25 year old actors playing teenagers. Just because porn films reduce fiction to one motive, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is harmful to children. Furthermore, I don't think current censorship arrangements allow for depictions of children in pornography (even if adults playing the roles).

FILMS BANNED ON PREVIOUS CENSORSHIP REGIME AND WHO SHOULD BE ARBITER OF TASTE?

A Pasolini film based on a Marquis de Sade book (Salo) was banned even under the old classification system. It is said to be a work of art ("Very few would argue that "Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom" is simultaneously the ugliest -- and most beautiful film in all of cinema") and an indictment of fascism by many critics. In film class, one person told the class he was disgusted when he went to see it (before the banning) because there were old men who appeared to be masturbating during the film in scenes that feature "homosexual rape, a feast of human shit, and the scalping and garrotting of young people."

However, what to many critics might be a masterpiece, is a porn film to others (A BBC reviewer wrote that the movie has no deeper morality and "is simply a display of twisted lust, spun by the fantasies of four extreme perverts, not to mention the director himself."). And it should not be up to politicians to be arbiters of artistic merit or taste. "I know it when I see it" might work for some judges, but it is certainly not correct in any logical sense. Even in porn videos that contain images that imply violence to women or extreme acts, there can be multiple interpretations and even some artistic merit.

I refer here to films such as Gregory Dark's "Flesh" (1996) which feature men in clown suits having sex with a woman (see "The Anabel Chong story" for an idea of the type of extreme porn this film has influenced). The film could be read as an attack on political correctness, an examination and send up (as well as affirmation) of representations of male power in porn films themselves among other things. The film is also scarily reminiscent of the visual perspective of A Clockwork Orange, particularly in its employment of masks - in many ways its crime is to bring to the surface much of what underlies straight out porn films. This type of film ofcourse, many people would be shocked to think that people would "get off on that shit" - but if we're going to start regulating what and what not people find attractive, then we're in real trouble. So long as there is not intentional and actual physical harm done to the actor and that person is consenting, there should be no issue. Having said that, what if a person consents to her or his own suffocation in a film? The easy way out from my perspective is that killing someone, even if it is consent is illegal and therefore cannot be filmed under any circumstances.

My point is simply this - we must accept that for free speech to exist, works of fiction should not be censored to appease even 99.95% of the population. Art that shocks has always been a part of our culture. And even something like porn, which does influence art (especially in advertising) but could hardly be said to be art in the sense most of us think of it, is a fantasy, and as such should not be censored if there is no harm. THe argument that actual harm is done can be proven in a few cases. Mental person watches Sex Freaks a thousand times and goes out and rapes a woman. Mental case listens to Eminem a thousand times and goes out and kills his mum. Mental case watches Natural Born Killer and goes on a shooting rampage. These people are likely to commit crimes like this anyway. In fact, many would argue that filming fantasy can often reduce the incidence of real life incidents taking place. I don't know what proof there is of this, but it works from a psychological point of view when you examine what repression does. For example, the single biggest group of paedophiles are priests. Evidence has been tendered in countless of these cases that their vows of celibacy drive them to prey on innocent young children, much like rape occurs in prisons. Portrayals of fantasy, no matter how extreme, hurts no-one if the participants in the action are consenting.

HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND READING SPEECHES in the Senate of the Australian Parliament House Classification Amendment Bill

LET'S LOOK AND ANALYSE THE THREE PARTIES' REACTION

LIBERAL PARTY

In his second reading speech, Senator Ian Campbell said: "In Australia, the X classification is primarily concerned with explicit depictions of sexual acts which are lawful between consenting adults without any sexualised violence or coercion of any kind. For this material, the question to be asked is not whether some individuals find the material offensive but whether the general community finds it so unacceptable that it justifies its banning. The Government does not consider the latter to be the case.

"In considering the issues relating to X-rated videos, the Government took into account the fact that X-rated videos have been available in Australia for over 15 years and that a large number are circulating within the community. Given the demand for these videos, banning them would inevitably drive the industry underground. The Government considers it is far better to maintain a strict regulatory regime to control the content and availability of videos containing sexually explicit material. By doing so, adequate protection can be provided to minors and those who may be offended by such material and the involvement of criminal elements in its production and distribution limited."

I do not understand for one minute how people can be offended by X rating titles if they don't actively go out and buy it. They are available only through mail order in the states, or in sex shops in the territories. Why should people, who have their own views as to what is acceptable, force it on the people who wish to watch it. Furthermore, the "protection of minors" argument is the worst one of them all. Minors cannot buy pornography - they could certainly access it from their parents - but that is the fault of bad or careless parenting. THe protection of minors or females or any other disadvantaged group hardly ever figures in any conservative ideology EXCEPT WHEN IT INVOLVES CENSORSHIP. What so angers me about Senator Brian Harradine for example in trying to ban porn - and I'm sure he would like to ban all porn - is that he would not for one minute entertain the thought that many scientists would maintain that being a Catholic is unhealthy and could "brainwash" children into believing something that is 99% not true. If these scientist formed the majority of Australians, what protection would these catholics have against the majority, a majority that is the arbiter of what "good taste" is. The fact is, thousands of Christians have been persecuted because their beliefs are deemed to be dangerous to society. For Harradine, and indeed, the Catholic Church to engage in this behavious is absolutely revolting and I would go so far as to say, a heresy against the religion. Then again, the pope would disagree with that. Perhaps I shouldn't act with horror when Catholics are executed in Indonesia.

THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS: THE ONLY SANE VOICE SENATOR GRIEGG

"Quoted David Marr: Catholic and Protestant, old and new, they love authority and suspect pleasure. Nothing much changes with the churches. That's their boast. Each claims to be the authentic expression of values going back a couple of millennia. So as we start into the next one, it's perhaps no surprise Christians are engaged in an old crusade against sex, last ditch battles with women inside and outside their congregation, guerilla campaigns against homosexuals, harassment of AIDS and HIV prevention programs, outbreaks of civil war in church schools, persecution of books and grim collaborations with Governments to pursue the War on Drugs.

"...Last night during the course of my second reading debate, Senator Harradine interrupted me with his belief that what I was saying was untrue. I believe that Senator Harradine last night illustrated again, with his box of porn props, another example of what I was speaking about earlier in this debate - I wonder how many Australians realise that the X classification currently excludes those matters, rightly objected to by the Australian community. Violence has been excluded for some time in the X classification. Depictions of children have been banned for quite some time in the X classification. I support those and other restrictions within the X classification. What I do not support, however, is the right of a politician, in a democratic society, to dictate taste and style of what is or what is not an appropriate sexual fantasy."

Now this is an entirely appropriate view to take! And the voice of reason, in a minority ofcourse, continues:

"I take the view that in terms of sexual activity, so long as there is no harm to the participants, it is not the role of legislation or guidelines of any variety to impose some people's limited view of the world. The rule of thumb, I believe, should be this: if it is not legal to do something sexually to or with another adult - like dragging them off the street and having non-consenting sex with them - then it should not be legal to watch someone doing that. If, however, someone does enjoy wearing leather or rubber or anything else for that matter, then it is their business. If they like watching videos that include leather or rubber or ostrich feathers, for that matter surely in the 21st century we can draw the line here in the Senate against telling people about what they can and cannot watch in the privacy of their own home."

THE LABOR PARTY EXPOSED

Senator Nick Bolkus had this humorous exchange with one of the rorting brothers in the senate but later exposed his party as hypocrites yet again (same thing hapenned with the $$$ bill for private schools):

"We can all remember that infamous `video night', the `blue movie night' during which three movies were screened, two of them X rated and one which had previously been refused classification.

"Senator McGauran (Liberal rorter and owner of poker machines through his family trust) interjecting:

"Senator BOLKUS Senator McGauran is chuckling away because on that particular night he did not have to go to Fyshwick to get his videos; he could actually see them within the comfort of the house! The member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly, was subsequently questioned by the AFP over her involvement in organising a public screening of unclassified material. However, after a brief investigation the Australian Federal Police announced that no further action would be taken against her.

"Under the changes announced, X will now remain as the designator for sexually explicit material, while the scope of material that falls within that classification will be reduced as per the original NVE proposal. The government has subsequently moved amendments in the House of Representatives to implement this decision. The abandonment of the non-violent erotica video classification was to many people extremely disappointing, as it further delayed the implementation of classification reform restricting the availability of violent and demeaning material currently permitted within the X classification. Australia's system of classification, as I said earlier, depends on a national approach agreed to between the federal government in consultation with censorship ministers from each state and territory jurisdiction. In this instance, the Attorney-General's unilateral decision to shelve the NVE classification, and then to present that decision to state and territory censorship ministers as a fait accompli, placed an enormous amount of pressure on the integrity of that national approach. It was the action, once again, of a bungling, incompetent and insecure government captured by arch-conservatives of the coalition parties who not only impeded but also created the potential for derailment of the national approach. It was another instance of dogma and ignorance prevailing over balance and reason.

"When the state and territory Attorneys met with the Commonwealth Attorney in early July to discuss their response to the federal government's announcement, it is fair to say that, though they were not happy, at that meeting a cooperative spirit continued to prevail and the Attorneys did not raise objection to the approach unilaterally announced by the A-G. So we have here a situation where the government's handling of the issue has been incompetent, inept and not up to the standards of good administration. We have had the government going in all directions with respect to the fundamental provision of this legislation, the X-rated category. As I said, though a lot of people have been upset by the process and there was capacity for the process to derail a national system, it is fair to say that at the end of the day both the state and territory Attorneys and now the opposition in this place are prepared to retain the proposed classification.

"The bill also contains a number of other minor amendments to the classification legislation, including expansion of the current range of films exempt from classification, which are typically those of limited market appeal and on specialist subjects, which will reduce the cost of classification for some film producers; allowing for revocation of classifications for interactive films or computer games which contain material not brought to the attention of the censors in the initial review; and streamlining of the classification processes by allowing the board to issue and revoke serial classifications for certain publications. It is appropriate, we believe, that the way in which the act is operating is reviewed from time to time and amendments are made to close loopholes, clarify the operation of the scheme or introduce small but nevertheless useful reforms to improve its effectiveness. So we generally are supportive of these provisions in the bill... So, as I said, the opposition will support this legislation."

And hence, the bill was supported and passed with the help of the cynical and two faced Labor party. ---

STAN REACHES NO 1 in AUSTRALIA
09-03-2001

After one of the most outstanding live performances at an Grammy awards in a while, EMINEM's STAN has increased in popularity in Australia, and after eight weeks of release is sitting at the top of the charts. Similarly, the Marshall Mathers LP after 41 weeks on the Australian charts is also at Number One. It's interesting that the album has taken this long to connect with Australian audiences, but I think that the Grammy performance really struck a chord with viewers. I was surprised for example that older people connected with Stan and understood it. Perhaps the rest of the album now can be listened to with some degree of sanity and perspective.

Also, thanks to the popularity of Stan, DIDO's album (which features the sung part of STAN) has had its debut at no 1.

WHY EMINEM SHOULD WIN ALBUM OF THE YEAR
Wednesday 21-02-2001

There has been much controversy surrounding the Marshall Mathers LP. Most of us would have heard The Real Slim Shady. For me, the song was a revelation that Saturday morning exiting off the M4. From the opening simple crude harpsichord ostinato came this torrent of dialogue so self aware and steeped in popular culture that I was astonished (and laughing very loudly). Could rap really be the poetry of this decade? THis prompted me to buy the album - and I quickly discovered that the Real Slim Shady is the lightweight piece of this album. Sure it contains the same themes, speaking to a culture, expressing the consciousness of neglected rejected poor white males across america. And perhaps this is what is so disturbing about the album to so many - it is so real (but in reality it is hyper-real). Slim Shady, Eminem's foul mouthed personality, seems to tap into the silent rage hidden in so many. That that rage is reserved for especially women and then homosexuals is disturbing to the negative critics of this album who will be protesting outside the Grammys. But what we need to learn from the album is that the REAL SLIM SHADY is really a construction - in literal conception he was invented while Marshall Mathers was sitting on a toilet seat. Again though, one wonders how acceptable the album would be if Slim Shady began attacking jews in his dialogue. Perhaps no record company would touch it. This example shows that perhaps the degradation of women and homosexuals is still acceptable - and this may worry the critics.

But I have real problems with these critics. They may be good intentioned, but if anything, art cannot be fully PC. It must challenge us. It must shock us. It must disturb us. It doesn't always have to be beautiful or aim to please the best in us. It can appeal to our basest characteristics, expose our prejudices, make fun of them, present them as they are. EMINEM does all of this. He gloats about how he can make kids slit their wrists. He rapes his mum in a song then right at the end says: "I'm just playin ladies/you know i love you." The Marshall Mathers LP is also an astonishing mixture of pop culture aesthetics, with a particular love for horror films. Just like there is an almost Freudian undercurrent to horror pictures, so too does the album have an underlying oepidal complex. EMINEM is constantly abusing his mother in the album and in previous albums he directly relates his behaviour to Norman Bates from PSYCHO. From the first song, there are references to horror films. This is indeed a vital clue to understanding there is more complexity to EMINEM's music than a reading of his words at face value.

The complexity of the album, its many different interpretations, is exactly what EMINEM wants. People will take it literally and actually relate to SLIM and his shady politics. Other people will understand the irony. People will be enraged. People will be amazed at its technical brilliance and the construction of and delivery of the rap - surely the delivery in itself is virtuosic. When Slim Shady says in this album "don't you want to grow up to be just like me?" - it is the ultimate irony that some people would say "yes" - but these are the people mocked by EMINEM because they are weak to have to be just like him, without their own personalities, without their own sense of who they are. Perhaps that's why Stan resonates on the album even more. In fact, EMINEM in often satirising his own fan base achieves Swift like status, because Jonathat Swift would be very regularly read and enjoyed by those people he directly satirised. Some of them were his supporters. So again to the critics - look beneath the words, listen to the context, the tone, the character and then make a judgement (that's not to say that this can explain away the often blatant hatred expressed, but within an artistic evaluation is allowable and shouldn't be detested).

And this multi-layered ideological framework is echoed in EMINEM's ability to convey tone. I cannot stress enough how integral this is to the album. It is because EMINEM can come off as being "real" that his songs scare us. In 97 Bonnie and Clyde (from his previous album), even the smallest change in tone underlies a sincerity that elevates the piece from an ingenious shock piece to a disturbing look at the psyche of many men that have probably gone through the same emotions as the character in the song. LIstening to KIM on the MArshall Mathers LP is another example of that very same idea. It could so easily fall apart as a serious work, but its delivery, its tone is just perfect and when EMINEM cries out his rhyme, you actually wonder whether this is is actually in him or not. And that's why the album is so important. In this post-modern world it keeps us guessing, keeps us thinking while also reflecting a particular world and psychological state for us (even if it might be invented). It is perhaps the psychology in particular that makes the album so unique. It's also quite possible that the songs on this album will be studies quite thoroughly from time to time. I would not be presumptuous to claim that EMINEM leads us into a new era of verse and poetry - that it has sold 8 million copies is both disturbing (because i presume many people will take it at face value and have their hatred and bigotry sort of condoned by the rapper - but to me this is what EMINEM argues is wrong with these people and their families) and brilliant (that people could respond to such quality and uniqueness)

HIGHLIGHTS of ALBUM

KILL YOU

In this album, EMINEM is in his usual rage. He fantasises about killing bitches and raping sluts, his mum in particular:

Put your hands down bitch, I ain't gon' shoot you
I'ma pull +YOU+ to this bullet, and put it through you
(AHHH!) Shut up slut, you're causin too much chaos
Just bend over and take it like a slut, okay Ma?

The visual imagery here is again in the horror aesthetic. Shooting isn't enough, his hatred is so palpable that he will pull it through.

Eminem also examines his own rap and the effect it has on others. He constantly imagines what critics will say. So why does EMINEM rap about these things? Well, this highlights the brilliance of the rap. Notice how he undermines rap convention (rhyming) while keeping to it:

Eh-heh, know why I say these things?
Cause lady's screams keep creepin in Shady's dreams
And the way things seem, I shouldn't have to pay these shrinks
this eighty G's a week to say the same things TWEECE!
TWICE? Whatever, I hate these things

Tweece Twice. Brilliant. He'll also correct himself in a later song.

Also in the song are littered violent pop culture references whether it's the Texas Chainsaw Massacre film or OJ SImpson case (and even himself).

STAN

Stan is one of the more seriously minded songs without much pop culture reference. Stan, an obsessed fan of EMINEM (it's the high point of self obsession that a singer is writing to himself in a song albeit through the guise of characters) writes increasingly disturbed letters to his idol. His idol doesn't write back to him and Stan's world is shattered by this rejection. EMINEM has a contempt for people who cannot be themselves or who haven't got the courage to be themselves, and this can be seen as a warning piece about the destructiveness of living your life through someone elses or even becoming so obsessed with some-one that you lose sense of yourself. Stan is unable to deal with the rejection that he feels and decides to kill himself and his pregnant girlfriend by driving his car off a bridge.

Stan is like a cousin to The Real Slim Shady in the sense that it deals with the idea of EMINEM as a personality with influence over his fans. He has the foresight to recognise that some of his fans will become obsessed with his music and even carry out the violence and rage contained within the lyrics. This song argues against such an interpretation, while The Real Slim Shady does the opposite simply because Slim Shady is rapping the song, not EMINEM (as happens in the last verse of Stan). But even if you look at The Real Slim Shady, it's done tongue in cheek, and in the video clip, the clone shady's seem quite boring.

This song is so brilliant because of its strong sense of visuality. EMINEM understands that our news is littered with crazed white men who kill their wives and kids after divorces, we have those images in our heads. EMINEM uses these images effectively in his songs so that we feel as though it is real. If you look at the video clip for Stan, it follows exactly in a visual sense the song. Stan's visuals are so strong that not even the video clip could be done any other way (i.e. to be obscure or not to follow the dialogue). Perhaps it is because the characters in his songs are like a pastiche of our society that they achieve a disturbing level.

On top of this, the use of tone in this track is particularly impressive (though maybe not as subtle as in other tracks). The madness of Stan is gradually exposed through shifts in vocal register increasing to a ferocity that is matched and exceeded later in the album in KIM. The tone also conveys in Stan a vulnerability - and this tone is also used in other tracks, again hinting at a softer side hiding behind a veneer of taunts and immature behaviour (in other tracks). DIDO's chorus adds weight to the track. It'll be interesting to see what Sir Elton John does with it.

WHO KNEW

This is one hell of a track. The intro and chorus is again all dependent on tone, but you can't tell whether he's gloating or being sarcastic. Perhaps it's a mixture of both. Looking at the introduction:

Mic check one-two
I never knew I..
Who woulda knew?
I never knew I..
Who woulda known?
I never knew I..
Fuck would've thought
I never knew I..
Motherfucker comes out
I never knew I..
and sells a couple of million records
I never knew I..
And these motherfuckers hit the ceiling
I never knew I..

Notice again, correcting his own mispronunciations as in KILL YOU ('who woulda knew' followed by 'known'). This of course refers to his previous album which sold quite a bit. WHO KNEW refers to the heat he has taken from his incindiery lyrics. He can't believe what a fuss it has caused, and seems to first lay the blame at parents and hypocritic politicians. This bit from the track is absolutely brilliant - a mix of a serious argument and the most juvenile of reactions to it:

(Oh my God! Oh my God!) I'm sorry, there must be a mix-up
You want me to fix up lyrics while the President gets his dick sucked?
{*ewwww*} Fuck that, take drugs, rape sluts
Make fun of gay clubs, men who wear make-up
Get aware, wake up, get a sense of humor
Quit tryin to censor music, this is for your kid's amusement
(The kids!) But don't blame me when lil' Eric jumps off of the terrace
You shoulda been watchin him - apparently you ain't parents

How can anyone call EMINEM irresponsible when we see the Starr report, the bastian of conservative america, talking about Monica and Bill's conversations while he gets his bit of sexual gratification. How can we take politicians seriously when they undermine their own message through hypocrisy. The politics of George W BUsh for example is far more violent than the politics of EMINEM. It's just that W goes to Church and say God and America everytime he speaks. Same thing with Clinton criticising violent lyrics or movies. Of course, I'm not saying that EMINEM himself isn't responsible - but if art influences people to kill themselves or others, as it probably does to the unbalanced, then we wouldn't have much of the art we have today. And Eminem doesn't shy away from the responsibility either. If you look at STAN, it's obvious Eminem has thought that some of his fans would use his music to be violent to others. But there's an inevitability to crazed people - no art necessary. The improtant thing is to try and stop it hapenning. Why take your kids to a Schwarzenegger film? Why is it so easy to bring guns into the country when in England Eminem couldn't even get a pellet gun through customs? And when EMINEM makes "fight music for your kids" shouldn't that set alarm bells ringing, shouldn't you talk to your teenage kids about it?

So the whole idea of parental responsibility is essential here - and Eminem hits the bullet where it hurts. YOU SHOULD WATCH YOUR KIDS. How could the kids from Columbine hide such an arsenal in their rooms if their parents ever walked in and checked on them?

EMINEM is hardly going to behave himself though. He just adds to those arguing against him in a chorus that I'm sure is almost gloating in some adolescent glee that his music is having such an effect:

Cause I never knew I, knew I would get this big
I never knew I, knew I'd effect this kid
I never knew I'd, get him to slit his wrist
I never knew I'd, get him to hit this bitch

And so goes on the song - answering his critics in one breath, then feeding them the fuel in the very next breath (sometimes there is no breath between defence and total lapse of judgement).[post author note: Bernard Zuel, writing in the SMH on Friday 23/02/2001 said that EMINEM both prosecutes and defends his own album. I would agree with that statement.]

TO BE CONTINUED after a careful revision of the other tracks

HYPOCRISY IN PROTEST
Thursday 22-02-2001

It was disappointing to see gay groups who for years have fought for the right to be heard and accepted (both in speech and expression) in 'mainstream' society protesting about Eminem on the grounds of hate. Eminem is not a hate merchant. If he was, then what could be said of the Catholic Church, whose position is even more contradictory and violent than Slim Shady could even dream of being. Why aren't gay groups standing outside Catholic Churches and other religious establishments who feel that homosexuality is abhorrent. You ask any person who has commited a hate crime against gays and their answer won't be "I did it cause EMINEM hates gays." The answer is always "it's un-natural and against God's law."

Eminem is a caricature of the hatred that exists in society. If protesters have a problem, it should be with the society that can allow hatred to exist. That Shady might be a popular character is not Eminem's fault. A dedication to free speech means that we should be able to tolerate something even if it makes us physically sick. Pauline Hanson's political dominatrixism makes me feel sick. George W Bush's military minded policies and unjustified attacks on Iraq are equally so.

That gay groups demand that the art of EMINEM be rejected is an insult to free speech and expression, and brings them on the same path of preachy parents who called THE BEATLES the spawn of satan and picketed bands such as THE SEX PISTOL. Any intelligent person would regard hatred based on gender, colour, sexuality or other preordained human condition (even stupidity) must always be guarded against in a society - but we don't do it by banning someone or not recognising the artistic value. EMINEM's music should actually be praised. His lyrics expose the dark undercurrent existing in society and show that putting up a veneer of lyrical cleanliness and acceptance doesn't mean that people in their hearts are also accepting. Banning Eminem or not recognising his mastery would be just is no cure. Just like Alex in Clockwork Orange, the cure would be a sham and it might give activists some content - but only to their detriment. These groups would be far better served picking on the true merchants of hatred - those that allow violence to continue without condemnation through policy - the Churches and the political parties that continue to try and refuse the rights of all citizens to have equal access to the law and citizenship rights.
 
 

PEREIRA'S NEARLY GONE IN 14 SECONDS

Rudolph Pereira forced himself into the driving seat of a car of a former Cathedral student and begun to drive in what a spokesperson for the Fox Studios carpark described as "the most erratic and callous way." After viewing the 5 Academy Award nominated film TRAFFIC, Rudolph, high on frozen coke decided that only he could drive the vehicle and proceeded to nearly hit fourteen objects while travelling up a level. A passenger in the car, Dominic Moawad, described the 14 second ordeal:

"I was scared for my life. Brett was shouting and screaming while his hair was in the Cousin it position and Scott was probably crying under his palm covered face because his brand new uninsured car was going to be a wreck. Never before had I seen anything like it. Doing donuts around the pillars, almost mounting the kirb while moving up a level, what felt like clipping the cement block near the lifts. I saw my life flash before my eyes but he stopped just before I got to puberty [5 years old]. I have to thank that guard he almost ran over. We're fine now, Professor Dumsign gave us counselling and we all understand where Rudo is at and he has our full support."

This behaviour comes as a blow to the Australian Voice after progress was reported on Rudolph's severe coke addiction (see dr strangecoke). Professor Dumsign said he was "astonished by such a sudden regression into childhood traumas and the politics of lack that I and my team at the institute had been working with Rudolph on for months. Obviously his lack for coke is so strong, that not even a large frozen coke is sufficient to make up for the emasculating power required to separate him from the metaphorical womb. He feels he needs to physically drive. In fact, this is far worse than the quenching need for coke - this could harm countless people and ruin the lives of innocent families." Professor Dumsign has stopped short of recommending institutionalisation of Pereira. He has said that as a last resort, psychologists would attempt to attach electric connectors between the battery of a running car and rudolphs nipples, and whenever he felt the need to "pump up" or accelerate the engine or take the car "for a spin", he would automatically feel the surge. He felt that while this was barbaric, in certain cases it was the only cure. The AV is not giving up in this latest battle by Rudolph to overcome the Matrix of desires inherent in such behaviour and will stand by all possible treatment he may seek in these precarious times. Let's all hope and pray that he is cured before he hurts an innocent child playing hopscotch on a pavement, or a young girl playing doctors with her classmate while passing on a zebra crossing (which Dumsign says would be a startling metaphor of the breakdown of modernisms certainties. i.e. "between black and white, good and evil, mother and father").

HANNIBAL R RATING RORT
Thursday 22-02-2001

Talkback commentators will no doubt be crowing about Hannibal's newly reclassified R rating. It is yet again an absolute disgrace that people who haven't seen a film should classify it and when it doesn't go their way, they appeal it to a body that is sensitive to political criticism. That a film critic (Lyndon Barber) is responsible for the outcry is an even bigger scandal. Critics should collectively hang their heads in shame at this movie being allowed to be rated R.

Let's get this straight. MA rating in Australia is RESTRICTED to children 15 years or younger unless accompanied by a PARENT or GUARDIAN. R rating restricts ALL CHILDREN. That includes 16 and 17 year olds. People who can sit the HSC but cannot see stylised violence or even sex scenes. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Look at the news - the violence we see daily is shocking, and then we get all riled up at Hannibal's quite artistic depictions of violence (a violence that mymics the painting style of the artist that Hannibal talks about). I wrote to Mike Carlton, who thought that the violence was "shocking" and within one breath said he "wouldn't" watch the film. Anyway, I doubt he'll change his views - particularly since all the shock jocks say that the R rating is the same here as it is in america. It is not. and a simple look at www.filmratings.com would prove that.

Mike,

I heard you talking about Hannibal on today's show applauding the re-rating of Hannibal to R. While I think you won't change your mind on your views, you were sort of incorrect in assuming R rating here is the same as the R rating in the USA. It is definitely not.

If you do some research you will find that the USA R Rating is very similar to our restricted MA rating. Children under the restricted age cannot enter the cinema unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

The MA rating is excellent in a liberal society because it means older children (16-18years) who can interpret the obviously stylised violence of Hannibal can watch it while those that are younger can be guided by a parent's discretion as to how mature they are to be able to handle such violence.

By protesting the MA rating, you are effectively saying that parents and guardians cannot make logical decisions as to what levels of violence their children can tolerate.

www.filmratings.com explains all USA film classifications.

R in the USA is: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian.

MA in Australia is exactly the same except the age is 15.

RETURN TO INDEX

RETURN TO ARCHIVES