I harboured as pets, two guinea pigs as a child. We only found the hind half of one after a neighbour’s dog accidentally found its way into our back yard. Aristotle and Gladys were a beautiful couple, mischievous, a little bit haughty, funny - sometimes irreverent - but always loyal to one another. On an earlier occasion, I remember squashing one under a pile of old timbers stacked up against a fence when we were hunting them down. You see, they were wild guinea pigs, allowed to roam freely around the family quarter acre. One of my family members wanted to take to the very badly sandwiched guinea pig with an axe, "to put it out of its misery" but my protestations won over. What I learned during that experience was that all creatures can connect with their own species and, at some level, can express empathy and compassion. I watched the undamaged guinea pig circle its prostrate mate for hours on end, making gurgling noises and shivering its pelt, as if performing an indigenous healing ceremony.

The other thing I learned, which accords with the teachings of Islam, is that good intention is the highest form of sincerity. However, as a species, humans are often conflicted about this. What is undertaken with good intentions and expressed as sincerity by one person or culture can often be threatening or abhorrent to another.

Recently, the Australian Government announced its intention to censor the internet, to protect us from the horrors and perversions of the world. I didn’t think much about this until I watched a news report that showed a large group of very alarmed senior citizens who were being informed that "Exit International", the voluntary euthanasia information and advocacy organisation run by Dr Philip Nitschke, would be banned through mandatory filtering of website access under the proposed censorship legislation.

Clearly, the Australian Government views itself not only as the great arbiter in this debate but also as the good intended Big Brother who sincerely knows what is best for us all.

I am conflicted about this, on the one hand we have an obligation to protect the innocent and the vulnerable but what is also at risk is freedom of speech, the right to choose and democracy.

In the case of my axe wielding family member, their intentions were good, sincerely not wanting the poor rodent to suffer a slow agonising death. Conversely, my intentions, to intervene to extend life, were also good but, upon reflection, were also born out of guilt of having caused the horrific injuries in the first place. If there was a chance of survival I sincerely wanted salvation for the "GP" and, redemption for myself.

Guilt is quite often the shadow of sincerity and it may grow or wither with the passing of time.

I’d like to be able to finish this narrative with "and they all lived happily ever after", in fact, Aristotle did rally following the "lumber’ crushing incident, and he and Gladys did live happily as a couple for a while, until... "who let the dogs out"? ... now there’s someone who could really use Dr Nitschke’s help!

Are we going to sanitise the internet from this type of behaviour as well? As hilarious as it is, no doubt someone will find a reason to complain to yet another censorship board.

Gary Hatwell Executive Chairman Footnote: Dr Phillip Nitschke was the writer’s GP when living in Darwin during the 1980’s - some would say that he didn’t do a good enough job!