Almost a month in and there is no resolution of the Boggo Road Gaol fiasco. On a recent Boggo Blog post (written by Chris Dawson of the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society) [1] I raised the following point: "It would be more than interesting to hear a full account of what happened and why Mr. Sim was given the deed (and under a newly adopted business name)." Dawson's post had dealt with claims made by Mr. Sim that other potential operators (i.e. BRGHS) could not run the Gaol as they rely upon 'gold coin donations' and volunteers. It was stated by Mr. Sim that a commercial operation was necessary and implied that only a private business could achieve such. In showing that other major Gaols in Australia are run as commercial ventures by not-for-profit groups Dawson effectively rebutted Mr. Sim's assertions. What I meant to indicate through my comment is that an account, by those responsible for making the decision, outlining the reasons for Mr. Sim being granted the Deed of Licence would help to explain what happened and also potentially offer ways to constructively resolve the issue.
"The 'why' of all this is quite straightforward. Campbell Newman believes that the way to get Queensland "back on track" is through the private sector and a smaller government - despite all the national evidence showing that this is not how the low-profit heritage sector works. What we saw and heard suggests that the basics of this decision were made months before the BRGHS even found out about it: A private business model would be implemented at Boggo Road while trying to shoehorn community groups in there too. However, and as you point out, 'Ghost Tours' is hardly a successful business. Campbell Newman was convinced otherwise though, and here we are." [1]
Therein rests the crux of my comment: what evidence was there to show that Mr. Sim should be given the Deed of Licence? Even assuming the need for private business to guide the project, the question remains as to what grounds anyone had for selecting Mr. Sim. Leaving aside the why of the inverted commas, nothing seems "straightforward". By Dawson’s account it was down to political policy and personal evaluation on the part of Campbell Newman. I presume that Dawson is speaking of Campbell Newman in the abstract sense though, given that, as per Liam Baker's post on the matter, it was Bruce Flegg, and subsequently Tim Mander, who were directly involved [2]. If Mr. Sim was such an outstanding candidate that not even public tenders were deemed necessary then why not give the reasons? All I ask for is a degree of transparency in the matter.
In the second last sentence of the above quotation, Dawson alludes to the fact that I had noted my own reservations about Mr. Sim's capacity to run a commercial operation. That opinion is based on the fact that I would hardly consider his main venture, Ghost Tours pty ltd, to be a particularly successful one. Fiscal matters aside, I have seen more than enough to suggest that Mr. Sim has a rather lax attitude towards historical accuracy and would therefore be a poor choice of individual, to my mind, if the preservation of Brisbane’s heritage is part of the plan. In other words, there are neither self-evident nor obvious reasons for the decision hence warranting justification.
Perhaps the more salient part of Dawson’s response is its second paragraph which reads:
“There is a basic conflict of interest issue here, in that the private business has a financial motivation to stifle any 'competition' from community groups. The result is that third parties STILL have no access to Boggo Road (which was supposed to be a requirement of the Deed of License). Mr Sim still wants third parties like the BRGHS to pay him $100 per hour to access the gaol, and we understand that he is now arguing that he should have SOLE access rights, i.e. no other organisation can offer tourism services there. So much for this 'fair and equitable' access to a public asset we keep hearing about.” [1]
I would not deny Mr. Sim an equal opportunity to contribute or operate in the local history scene. However, I do think he needs to either meet the standards of historical study or present his work in such a way as to indicate plainly that it is not particularly useful in an educational sense. Excluding others (namely the Gaol’s own historical society – BRGHS) from running tours is not in the best interests of the site itself. In the end such action can, as Dawson remarks, only benefit the business side of things. Given that the BRGHS has shown that they wish to channel the proceeds of their work into the Gaol, and also the fact that their tours would attract different audiences (I, for one, would not be interested in tours involving costumed folk – Mr. Sim included – frolicking about the place) there is valid reason to open the doors to others.
Part of the causal structure behind Mr. Sim being in a position to get such access to historical sites and appear in the media is that there has yet to be an outright challenge of him in the public arena. While the deconstructions of his pseudohistorical pronouncements on this site as well as Haunts of Brisbane and the Boggo Blog are public in the sense that they can be freely and openly accessed, the audience for such challenges is limited. When I speak of the 'public arena' I mean to suggest that such a challenge needs to be articulated in the mass media. Perhaps the Boggo Road Gaol situation affords an opportunity for Mr. Sim to be held to account, and for his efforts to peddle questionable material as history and monopolise local heritage sites to be put to an end.
[1] http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/gold-coins-straw-men-who-really-runs.html
[2] http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/recipe-for-disaster-cocktail-1-rotten.html
A blog confronting pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and other questionable pronouncements of fact
Friday, December 28, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Old News about an even Older Flood
Given the involvement of one Robert 'Titanic Finder' Ballard, I wonder how long it will be before this is misused by Creationists and Biblical literalists:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/2012/12/12/06/51/noahs-biblical-flood-was-real
Indeed, the title of the linked article already shows a degree of ambiguity.
Suggestions that localised, historical events gave rise to narratives of a 'great flood' have been circulating for quite some time. Nothing in the 'facts behind the story' arguments substantiate the Biblical narrative itself though. Saying they did is like saying that evidence of a historical 'Jesus' (who wouldn't have even been called Jesus) is evidence of Jesus, a character in the work of fiction called the Bible. Yes, fictional tales and figures can have a basis in reality but these don't make the stories a direct account.
The flood in question would not have been global nor caused by God opening the holes in the firmament (at that point in time certain people believed the sky was a dome - the firmament - that kept water out, hence the reason for it being blue). Flood myths predate Noah's own and can be found in Babylonian cultural traditions.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/2012/12/12/06/51/noahs-biblical-flood-was-real
Indeed, the title of the linked article already shows a degree of ambiguity.
Suggestions that localised, historical events gave rise to narratives of a 'great flood' have been circulating for quite some time. Nothing in the 'facts behind the story' arguments substantiate the Biblical narrative itself though. Saying they did is like saying that evidence of a historical 'Jesus' (who wouldn't have even been called Jesus) is evidence of Jesus, a character in the work of fiction called the Bible. Yes, fictional tales and figures can have a basis in reality but these don't make the stories a direct account.
The flood in question would not have been global nor caused by God opening the holes in the firmament (at that point in time certain people believed the sky was a dome - the firmament - that kept water out, hence the reason for it being blue). Flood myths predate Noah's own and can be found in Babylonian cultural traditions.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Joy to the World, a Prison is Re-opened
After being closed for several years, Boggo Road Gaol, one of Brisbane's iconic historical sites is to be reopened to the public. Well, partially at least. Instead of the much anticipated return to full operation as a tourist attraction and educational resource, two floors of a single cell block and parts of the yard are all that will be made accessible [1]. Even so this a move in the right direct. Or so I thought...
When I saw the initial news reports and declarations of tour dates on the part of Haunts of Brisbane (to be run in conjunction with Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society [BRGHS]) I was pleased by the fact that genuine historical groups would be involved in offering tours. A quote from Tim Mander (Public Works minister) was especially heartening:
“The interim agreement includes provisions to ensure fair and equitable access to other organisations including the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society, the Queensland Prison and Penal Historical Association and the National Trust of Queensland" [2]
From the above one may expect that fairness was ensured such that the holder of the Deed of Licence (Cameron "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours pty ltd) had to play nice with community groups. Given his track record of interacting with the BRGHS specifically, one might suspect that such documented stipulations would be essential to make sure Mr. Sim doesn't monopolise the site.
However, it appears that fairness is not guaranteed. In a post on the Haunts of Brisbane Facebook page, Liam Baker points out a number of troubling facts [cf: 3]. Firstly, third party activities including historical tours by the BRGHS et al are to be booked through Mr. Sim (by the groups not the visitors). Resultantly, I expect Sim would have final discretion over when and for how long other groups use the site giving him quite a high degree of control.
Secondly, Mr. Sim is "entitled to collect a site access fee" (quote from Baker, not sure of the specific wording of the Deed). The amount of that fee is at Mr. Sim's discretion. Presumably, Mr. Sim could decide to charge legitimate, non-profit, historical groups an access fee of $0. Such a decision would show that he understands the basic distinction between a business enterprise (Ghost Tours pty ltd etc) and a community group whose proceeds go to the upkeep of heritage sites (BRGHS etc). In actuality Sim is not going down the route of being what I would consider a decent person and is instead asking for "$100 per hour" for "non-profit activities" [3]. I had to read the section twice. Initially I though it must have been $100 for anything but non-profit (as is usually the case) and that perhaps Sim was claiming that certain tours don't count as non-profit.
When I say certain tours I specifically mean a proposal to conduct "Haunted Cellblock" tours. Based on what I have read and heard in the past, it appears Mr. Sim is concerned that anyone else who goes to cemeteries after dark or talks about ghosts on tours is trying to move in on his business. Indeed, based on what Mr. Sim is listed to have said concerning negotiations for site access, he believes allowing the BRGHS/Haunts of Brisbane tours would financially cripple his own operation [3]. Based on Mr. Sim's general habit for paranoia about competition this is not surprising. The problem for Mr. Sim is that these are not business tours as far I can tell. He doesn’t say they are but that leaves open the issue of how one can ethically charge a non-profit group.
So the question for me became: why shouldn’t there be another crime/ghost tour operator in Brisbane? A rather basic answer may be that ‘this town is only big enough for one’. That’s an empirical claim and it would rest on the shoulders of the one making it to prove the case. Given the multiple operators in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide I suspect competition is not an inherent destroyer.
Perhaps the case is more one of ‘competition will destroy only a specific operation’. That would only be the case if the operation in question were unable to compete. In other words, that operator may be said to require a monopoly because they couldn’t offer a product which would stand up in comparison when consumers are given a choice. Is that the case with Mr. Sim’s business? I don’t know. The only objective way to assess this would be to see how he fares in a competitive environment. In my opinion, if Mr. Sim is not able to provide tours which draw in sufficient paying customers and at a competitive rate then he should try his hand at another business. My personal view is that Ghost Tours pty ltd is overpriced. Aside from that capitalistic consideration, I would also say his tours don’t do justice to the wealth of folklore and cultural history possessed by Brisbane.
Making my opinion clearer still I don’t believe there would necessarily be genuine one-to-one competition. From what I’ve seen, Cameron “Jack” Sim’s business offers a rather entertainment-centric experience. All of the rhetoric about history aside, much of which I consider part of the pantomime (i.e. helping to sell the story by positioning it as fact not fiction), Ghost Tours pty ltd doesn’t seem to be about history in the same way a BRHS tour is. Edited versions of self-collected oral tales (whether true or not) spoken by costumed ‘ghost hosts’ in an after dark setting where people are on the lookout for ghosts is what I would call light entertainment.
Voyeurism in the form of night time jaunts through cemeteries and prisons is fine on its own and sells. Therefore there’s a place for entertainment. But entertainment neither equates to nor displaces education. To my mind, conducting more-than-nominally historical tours would not render an entertainment-centric company unviable unless said historical tours were more entertaining than those offered by said company. Is that what troubles Mr. Sim? I don’t know.
I certainly think that if Brisbane is only big enough for one crime/ghost tour operator then that operator should be the best and attract attention on the basis of merit not monopolisation. If Ghosts Tours is up to that then I openly invite Mr. Sim and Co. to show they should be the only game in town.
1 http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/confused-about-boggo-road-reopening.html
2 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbanes-historic-boggo-road-gaol-to-reopen-as-tourist-attraction-after-seven-years/story-e6freoof-1226530457162
3 http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-haunts-of-brisbane/the-boggo-road-gaol-saga/517989281552862
When I saw the initial news reports and declarations of tour dates on the part of Haunts of Brisbane (to be run in conjunction with Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society [BRGHS]) I was pleased by the fact that genuine historical groups would be involved in offering tours. A quote from Tim Mander (Public Works minister) was especially heartening:
“The interim agreement includes provisions to ensure fair and equitable access to other organisations including the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society, the Queensland Prison and Penal Historical Association and the National Trust of Queensland" [2]
From the above one may expect that fairness was ensured such that the holder of the Deed of Licence (Cameron "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours pty ltd) had to play nice with community groups. Given his track record of interacting with the BRGHS specifically, one might suspect that such documented stipulations would be essential to make sure Mr. Sim doesn't monopolise the site.
However, it appears that fairness is not guaranteed. In a post on the Haunts of Brisbane Facebook page, Liam Baker points out a number of troubling facts [cf: 3]. Firstly, third party activities including historical tours by the BRGHS et al are to be booked through Mr. Sim (by the groups not the visitors). Resultantly, I expect Sim would have final discretion over when and for how long other groups use the site giving him quite a high degree of control.
Secondly, Mr. Sim is "entitled to collect a site access fee" (quote from Baker, not sure of the specific wording of the Deed). The amount of that fee is at Mr. Sim's discretion. Presumably, Mr. Sim could decide to charge legitimate, non-profit, historical groups an access fee of $0. Such a decision would show that he understands the basic distinction between a business enterprise (Ghost Tours pty ltd etc) and a community group whose proceeds go to the upkeep of heritage sites (BRGHS etc). In actuality Sim is not going down the route of being what I would consider a decent person and is instead asking for "$100 per hour" for "non-profit activities" [3]. I had to read the section twice. Initially I though it must have been $100 for anything but non-profit (as is usually the case) and that perhaps Sim was claiming that certain tours don't count as non-profit.
When I say certain tours I specifically mean a proposal to conduct "Haunted Cellblock" tours. Based on what I have read and heard in the past, it appears Mr. Sim is concerned that anyone else who goes to cemeteries after dark or talks about ghosts on tours is trying to move in on his business. Indeed, based on what Mr. Sim is listed to have said concerning negotiations for site access, he believes allowing the BRGHS/Haunts of Brisbane tours would financially cripple his own operation [3]. Based on Mr. Sim's general habit for paranoia about competition this is not surprising. The problem for Mr. Sim is that these are not business tours as far I can tell. He doesn’t say they are but that leaves open the issue of how one can ethically charge a non-profit group.
So the question for me became: why shouldn’t there be another crime/ghost tour operator in Brisbane? A rather basic answer may be that ‘this town is only big enough for one’. That’s an empirical claim and it would rest on the shoulders of the one making it to prove the case. Given the multiple operators in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide I suspect competition is not an inherent destroyer.
Perhaps the case is more one of ‘competition will destroy only a specific operation’. That would only be the case if the operation in question were unable to compete. In other words, that operator may be said to require a monopoly because they couldn’t offer a product which would stand up in comparison when consumers are given a choice. Is that the case with Mr. Sim’s business? I don’t know. The only objective way to assess this would be to see how he fares in a competitive environment. In my opinion, if Mr. Sim is not able to provide tours which draw in sufficient paying customers and at a competitive rate then he should try his hand at another business. My personal view is that Ghost Tours pty ltd is overpriced. Aside from that capitalistic consideration, I would also say his tours don’t do justice to the wealth of folklore and cultural history possessed by Brisbane.
Making my opinion clearer still I don’t believe there would necessarily be genuine one-to-one competition. From what I’ve seen, Cameron “Jack” Sim’s business offers a rather entertainment-centric experience. All of the rhetoric about history aside, much of which I consider part of the pantomime (i.e. helping to sell the story by positioning it as fact not fiction), Ghost Tours pty ltd doesn’t seem to be about history in the same way a BRHS tour is. Edited versions of self-collected oral tales (whether true or not) spoken by costumed ‘ghost hosts’ in an after dark setting where people are on the lookout for ghosts is what I would call light entertainment.
Voyeurism in the form of night time jaunts through cemeteries and prisons is fine on its own and sells. Therefore there’s a place for entertainment. But entertainment neither equates to nor displaces education. To my mind, conducting more-than-nominally historical tours would not render an entertainment-centric company unviable unless said historical tours were more entertaining than those offered by said company. Is that what troubles Mr. Sim? I don’t know.
I certainly think that if Brisbane is only big enough for one crime/ghost tour operator then that operator should be the best and attract attention on the basis of merit not monopolisation. If Ghosts Tours is up to that then I openly invite Mr. Sim and Co. to show they should be the only game in town.
1 http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/confused-about-boggo-road-reopening.html
2 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbanes-historic-boggo-road-gaol-to-reopen-as-tourist-attraction-after-seven-years/story-e6freoof-1226530457162
3 http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-haunts-of-brisbane/the-boggo-road-gaol-saga/517989281552862
Monday, December 3, 2012
The Ten Commandments and 'Basic Morality'
Working within the topic of morality (and avoiding the drudgery of wading through Sam Harris' assertive treatise) it seemed rather diligent to briefly consider that oft cited paragon of morality, The Ten Commandments. Evangelical Christian fundamentalists have in the past tried to tell me that whatever else I may think of their religion I should be willing to concede that the Decalogue is a good guide to moral behaviour. Sometimes that concession is made by others and it is even claimed that these commandments persist outside of Christianity. I have never accepted that characterisation nor do I see it as accurate.
One means of concession is to cast the commandments as a valid espousal of 'basic morality'. By basic morality I take it one essentially means an unsophisticated acceptance of the points as ethical or the perception that these points are valid without us seeing the need for elaborate justification. To test this we need to look at the content of the commandments by listing them. In Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV used here), God begins by identifying Himself ("I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" - ed: who put them there in the first place?) then announces:
1 - You shall have no gods before me
2 - You shall make no graven images
3 - You shall not take the Lord's name in vain (or hold anyone who does guiltless)
4 - "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy" and not working
5 - Honour your father and your mother
6 - You shall not murder/kill (interpretive variations exist)
7 - You shall not commit adultery
8 - You shall not steal
9 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10 - You shall not covet your neighbour’s house/wife/male or female servant/ox/donkey, or "anything that belongs to your neighbour"
Clearly then we do not have ten morally universal laws. It is actually 3 standard moral pronouncements (not murder/kill, not steal, not bear false witness), 3 fair points (honour father and mother, do not commit adultery, do not covet), and 4 contingent points which are only relevant or intelligible within a given religious framework (no other gods, no graven images, do not take the Lord's name in vain, remember the Sabbath day). Of course, it is impossible not to notice that the perceived morality breaks down even internally as wives and human beings are presented as property akin to livestock and houses in the final commandment. As such one can only agree with that one if necessary qualifications are made. Therein lays the issue: once qualifications and changes enter the picture one cannot hold this list to be ‘basic’ or easily accepted.
Where does this leave us? What is positive in the Ten Commandments has no inherent link to religion (ie one could justify those pronouncements without recourse to religious beliefs) and not all of them are valid or necessarily positive. Therefore we cannot say the list represents some kind of basic morality in and of itself.
Due to work load I haven't been able finish my review of Moral Landscape and likely won't have time for this until next week. However, I have now completed the book and stand firm in my assessment that it is highly flawed (perhaps too much so to adequately cover in a short blog post). Nevertheless that review is forthcoming, but in the interim I have another salient observation concerning Sam Harris.
One means of concession is to cast the commandments as a valid espousal of 'basic morality'. By basic morality I take it one essentially means an unsophisticated acceptance of the points as ethical or the perception that these points are valid without us seeing the need for elaborate justification. To test this we need to look at the content of the commandments by listing them. In Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV used here), God begins by identifying Himself ("I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" - ed: who put them there in the first place?) then announces:
1 - You shall have no gods before me
2 - You shall make no graven images
3 - You shall not take the Lord's name in vain (or hold anyone who does guiltless)
4 - "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy" and not working
5 - Honour your father and your mother
6 - You shall not murder/kill (interpretive variations exist)
7 - You shall not commit adultery
8 - You shall not steal
9 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10 - You shall not covet your neighbour’s house/wife/male or female servant/ox/donkey, or "anything that belongs to your neighbour"
Clearly then we do not have ten morally universal laws. It is actually 3 standard moral pronouncements (not murder/kill, not steal, not bear false witness), 3 fair points (honour father and mother, do not commit adultery, do not covet), and 4 contingent points which are only relevant or intelligible within a given religious framework (no other gods, no graven images, do not take the Lord's name in vain, remember the Sabbath day). Of course, it is impossible not to notice that the perceived morality breaks down even internally as wives and human beings are presented as property akin to livestock and houses in the final commandment. As such one can only agree with that one if necessary qualifications are made. Therein lays the issue: once qualifications and changes enter the picture one cannot hold this list to be ‘basic’ or easily accepted.
Where does this leave us? What is positive in the Ten Commandments has no inherent link to religion (ie one could justify those pronouncements without recourse to religious beliefs) and not all of them are valid or necessarily positive. Therefore we cannot say the list represents some kind of basic morality in and of itself.
Due to work load I haven't been able finish my review of Moral Landscape and likely won't have time for this until next week. However, I have now completed the book and stand firm in my assessment that it is highly flawed (perhaps too much so to adequately cover in a short blog post). Nevertheless that review is forthcoming, but in the interim I have another salient observation concerning Sam Harris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)