Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts

Xenophon's head up his own arse!

The impossible "war against paedophilia" is turning another idiotic page.

South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon's private member's bill would make it illegal for adults to lie to children about their age. According to reports,
The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.

An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.
Clearly this is aimed at adult perpetrators posing as children - that's all well and good. What isn't clear is whether a 21 yo telling a 17yo he is only 20 is also a crime under the same offence. The ridiculousness of that situation is obvious.

Of course, the bill also fails to address those children who lie about their age in order to meet adults. Believe me, it happens a lot and some of them can get away with quite a few years!

Proposed laws like this are not only outright stupid, they are downright dangerous to the integrity of the justice system and a hindrance to the proper education and welfare of children.

What's next? Making it a crime for predators to lie about their intentions? Or will they make it a crime to lie about your weight or the size of your cock or boobs? I might support that if it applied across the board for all adults (lol - joking) :-p

Get real, Xenophon, you moron. Do something useful like allocate government funding for online awareness education for parents and children. Teach the kids how to use the Internet with respect and teach the parents about taking responsibility for their child's access!

A Brave New World

A simple, thought provoking quote from Aldous Huxley's dystopian novel, Brave New World:

"Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too - all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides - made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions... Suggestions from the State."


And one from George Orwell's 1984:

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."


You can stick to your daily routine and believe that everything is under control, or you can read, think and decide otherwise!

An Obituary

Received the following in an email. The source is attributed as being an obituary published in the London Times, although the BBC attributes it to Lori Borgman. There are also a few different versions across the Internet including this more parochial one.


Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, 'Common Sense', who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouth wash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement .

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights; I Want It Now; Someone Else Is To Blame; I'm A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on.

If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Cyber safety research may miss the mark

The good people over at Australian eDemocracy alerted me to the recent report that the Federal Government will spend some of the $125.8 million cyber safety plan funding to engage an Edith Cowan University research team to "review current research on matters such as the nature and prevalence of cyber-safety issues, such as cyber-bullying, online predators and the disclosure of personal information."

They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."

All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.

On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
“...much good work has been done by researchers to assess the prevalence of the bullying problem but virtually no research has been conducted to investigate empirically what can be done to address this problem.”
It seems she has found a way to get this important research funded by convincing the government that it is a cyber safety issue.

I disagree!

Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.

I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.

Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".

At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
“Many young people say that they wouldn’t report cyber bullying because most adults don’t know that they have a cyber life ... But parents have a moral, as well as a legal, responsibility to ensure that their children engage in safe and responsible behaviour – including online behaviour.”
Precisley the point that Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and his team just don't seem to get, which is why they are insisting on imposing Internet Censorship via a secret filter on all ISP activity to ban black-listed sites.

Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?

We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.

Absolving responsibility

The following is a copy of a discussion that I was involved with on Facebook. It started with my comment in response to someone joining a cause titled Keep Sex Offenders Off the Internet

I feel that type of group does not do any good. It unfairly utilises the term "sex offenders" when they are really targeting paedophiles (if you don't know the difference, get educated!) and takes its members down the road of "society is to blame, I am not responsible for my children, I am helpless, the Government must do something".


Collin Mullane at 23:24 on 15 February

(this is not directed at you, but at the group)
... and keep them out of parks too, and they shouldn't be using telephones either, or driving cars, or allowed in shopping centres or on sporting fields.
Hell, let's just ban them from getting on with their lives after they've paid the penalty for their actions. (insert sarcasm)

Sara --------- at 10:50 on 16 February

The physcology required to commit sexual offences against children, is not something which can be asumed rectified after the serving of sentence, the autonomy offered by the internet and the potential for inappropriate and deliberate targeting of children for perverse pleasure is something the community should do more to prevent. Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child.
Any access to internet by convicted child offenders ought to be limited by security software to general sites and their pornographic activities limited to sites which are monitored by appropriate authorities for any material which might be considered to be of concern.

Sara --------- at 11:00 on 16 February

In regards to Prison visit rooms, the dept of corrections and the countrys legislative policy regarding the same are considered to be in keeping with the priority of child protection. My understanding is that those prisoners who are considered of concern in terms of children are not able to have visitors attend the prison on those visits which are accepting of kids. There are specific child accepting visits and non child accepting visits available at all dept of Corrections facilities. In addition to this specific method of Child protection, I and I know I speak for many other of the beautiful girls who visit partners reguarly, have the sort of personal protection available to me in this forum that would intimidate any potential problem to my child. For anyone who isnt sure what I just said, my partner is sufficently fit, healthy, and capable to be a deterant to any person that might be a problem to me or any member of his kin.


Collin Mullane at 11:24 on 16 February

Sarah - if you wish to absolve yourself of responsibility and instead place it firmly on the shoulders of society, you fail as a parent and as a citizen (in my arrogant opinion).
Your argument is no different to another parent allowing their child to fend for themselves alone at home while they go out to work and then blaming society when the house burns down.
It _IS__YOUR__RESPONSIBILITY to know what your children are watching on tv, what books they are reading, the friends they hang with, AND what they do on the Internet.
As with the television and DVDs, the Internet is NOT designed to act as your free babysitter.

Collin Mullane at 11:32 on 16 February

As for the offenders:
According to your argument we should also restrict all murderers from watching murder movies or going to forensic or news websites in case they get ideas! Perhaps recidivist speeders or car thieves should be banned from going to the speedway or playing Grand Theft Auto? I could make an endless list of similar ridiculous suggestions.
No-one can truly know if someone has been rehabilitated in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or as a result of lengthy therapy sessions - the same applies to addicts (drug, gambling, other) as it does to sex offenders or any other criminal. We must allow justice to prevail and for offenders to either redeem themselves (as most do) or re-offend, in which case we try again.
Censorship and nanny-state regulation will not stop crime. Education, understanding and helping to provide equity and equality across society WILL.

Sara --------- at 08:29 on 17 February

Colin - Good morning.

In regards to Murderers and the watching of violent crime, the length of sentence in these cases is far higher than it is for sexual and predatory but passive (phsycological) crime. Often the offenders of violent crime, do not infact see the light of day again. And here I speak of the crime of Murder (denoting premedatation) not felony murder, unlawful killing, manslaughter, the lesser crimes where a definate intention to kill can not be substanciated.

Simplifying the argument like you have is the equivelant of sensationalism, not uncommon in a media savvy, over educated middle class ruled society. Bearing in mind that you yourself have brought the subject up within a public forum you need to be prepared for the inevitability that many people with a wider reaching knowledged of the subject matter may just have something to say. The problem here is that it may be necessary for you to expand your understanding versus make unchallenged propegatory statement.

Sara --------- at 08:38 on 17 February

In your second paragraph you made the statement that Justice must prevail. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Justice is not the process by which the offending serve terms of punishment toward reinstated freedom. Justice is the term applied to a procedure which best serves the society/community interests after the commiting of an offence against the interest of that same group.

Your arguments are somewhat transparent and if I was going to cast a critical literary eye apon them I would say, unplanned and largely unresearched. You seem to shift intermitantly between arguments as the subject matter in places is directly contridictory. This can happen when a definate position is not held and a secondary motive for your statement or work is its primary reasoning.

Clearly you have a definate interest in the advocacy of child sex offenders that is an interesting position.
Sara --------- at 08:48 on 17 February

As stated in the first response to your initial posting, it is my personal beleif, that the offender of child sex offenses does commit an act against a physically and mentally inferior person and indeed a minor which as group the community has declared unable to adequately protect itself. They are targeted because they are physically too insignificant to protect themselves. These acts are usually by virtue calculated, prolonged and therefore quite definately premediated and unprovoked.

I feel the entrapment of children for perverse pleasure is a crime far exceeding any normal physcological pattern. Whilst I and im sure you may have thrown a slap or abusive word in a heated moment, an undeniable similar thread to violent crime. Personally I myself do not entertain any ideology which incorporates the victimisation of children.
Sara --------- at 08:52 on 17 February

Colin - have a nice day.

All the best for your Child Sex Offender Advocacy, im sure that particular minority feels the less isolated for your friendship and support.

Meanwhile - my position - stay away from my child coz like I said, violent crime is something I think all persons with enough motivation are capable.

Cheers


Collin Mullane at 09:48 on 17 February

LOL ... you missed my point entirely (or deliberately evaded it) and your condescending tone, decision to argue odd points, and attempt to paint me as a supporter of child abuse simply detracts from the debate and is a poor attempt to wriggle out of the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for your children.

Are you Australian? Felony Murder is a term commonly used in the USA, but no longer in most of Australia. Perhaps you watch too much imported TV ;-)

I choose to simplify arguments because most of the populace can't deal with complex issues, particularly where fundamentalism and conservatism reign. Thank you for demonstrating that point.

I do not need to give my credentials on debating this matter, suffice to say that I advocate for (holistic) justice, not simply retribution as you would seek out. You appear to have a personal hatred for sex offenders, likely due to being a victim or being close to one. I'm sorry to see that has clouded your judgement.

.... (cont)

Collin Mullane at 10:03 on 17 February

I think your final comments are offensive and technically libellous. Again another attempt to discredit me and shift focus away from the debating the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

If you wish to attack my points, do so carefully and specifically, rather than to alluding to some contradictions that don't actually exist, but which the casual reader may accept as truth because they would rather follow a mantra of "you're with me, or against me". than risk being labelled as you have done to me. Classic bully tactics.

However, if you wish to debate my original points I'll be glad to respond.

The debate is about censorship of the internet for specific people. The Internet is a medium very much like television and press, with the exception that it relies on openness and accessibility. With that comes the need for respect and responsibility. You cannot abrogate your duties as a parent to someone else. The Internet is not a babysitter.

Collin Mullane at 11:34 on 17 February

To bring the debate to a fine point, my argument stems from this comment of yours:

"Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child."

The point I am striving to drive home is that you DO and SHOULD have to worry. Leaving your child unattended on the Internet amounts to neglect, and is not dissimilar to allowing them to watch porn or R rated movies, let alone leaving them alone in a shopping centre to talk to whomever approaches.

If you can show me the difference, you may just win a part of the argument.

Sara --------- at 11:43 on 17 February
How my children became the real issue of a debate/discussion on "Sex offender access to the internet" is something only you could explain I am sure. It would appear to be a change of topic and it would not be difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind such an attempt.

In regards to the almost stage performance accusation of their being a American television watching illiterate, sorry again - wrong.

Actually I am a student of law and assure you felony murder is still a sentencing title in this country. It is employed in all states of Australia as a product of case law/precedent argument. It is used to argue where they may not have been a direct premeditated intent to kill, but where it was a known likelihood of a personal decission to commit offence.

You refer to the wider populace as not being capable to deal with complex issues. If you deny them the opportunity by simplifying complex issues, then certainly they can not.
Sara --------- at 11:51 on 17 February
If you however inform any reader throughout your presentation of the facts then a contentious issue is most certainly within their understanding and capability to reason.

My response was not meant to aggrevate you Colin but rather to suggest that in a world which increasingly utilizes the internet for everyday activities, including school education, we as a community have reached a stage where the protection of those unable to necessarily protect themselves should be given consideration, specifically in regards to those persons previously convicted of sexual offense.

Studies of Criminal Behaviour and in particular Child sex offender, have a startling rate of re-offense. The fact that we the empowered society and its institutions are aware by analysis that the likelihood of re offence is considerable (and considerably higher than the other offences you have chosen to highlight) do you not think some supervision of their internet activity is appropriate?


Collin Mullane at 11:54 on 17 February
My god, woman! YOU brought your children into the debate, not me.
For friggin sake - go back and read your response to my original posting.

In the meantime I will produce a clear analysis of the debate pathway and repost so that you don't get lost in the future. Don't have time now, but will try to do so this afternoon.

Sara --------- at 12:01 on 17 February
I agree with you Colin that consideration should be given to the fact that the serving of sentence should afford the opportunity to rehabilitate, it is one of the foundations of Common Law. Unfortunately not all crimes can be considered like and when we come to the advances of society like the internet the law needs to be amended to do that which it is employed to, protect. If the liberties of a previously convicted persons of crimes considered predatory need to be restricted to best serve the wider interests of the community, then whilst I can sympathise with a minority I can not put their interests before the "group - humankind"

So I guess we agree to disagree, I feel that restriction in the case of Sexual offense is appropriate and that those persons to which it would apply should not be given access to public speaking forums where they might be able to have inappropriate relations with a child in any school class room accross the country. Where the internet is now a part.
Sara --------- at 12:06 on 17 February
Colin please accept my apologies for anything I may have included which you found personally offensive. I realize your arguments are in reality aligned with some of my own. The serving of sentence should afford those who are the minority an opportunity to re enter society.
But where this poses a threat which is more likely than it is just possible, then, I think further consideration/restriction/policy is needed.

Im sorry you thought my comments were condescending - your a bit pompus yourself.......:-)
Sara --------- at 12:14 on 17 February
Colin, Colin, Colin, I bought children into the topic as a direct user of the Internet and therefore a potential target of those persons being discussed. You utilized to begin a debate about parents using the internet as a babysitter. (Which I consider rude in the extreme.) You are suggesting by virtue of your argument that childrens use of the internet (which is educational no matter what it is being used for) should be restricted and limited to accomodate sex offenders. Mate that is what you said. And you think my use of the word advocate is inaccurate.

As I stated in the previous, it was not my intention to aggrevate you into an argument. As discussion could not be said to be possible as you keep refencing issues outside the topic, I think the exchange has run its course. I wont be make further comment and feel that all stated prior speaks for itself.

Good day to you sir!


Collin Mullane at 17:01 on 17 February
Indeed

Well, derrrrrrrrr !!!!!!

Steve Bracks is pushing "major reform" to "improve literacy, reduce obesity and create a national preschool system".

What appears to be a gigantic leap of faith for the east-coast ALP governments is really just a simple plan from the average punter's point of view. In fact, I can hear voters across the nation bellowing out to Premiers Bracks, Beattie, Iemma & Rann ...
"Well, derrrrrrrrr !!!!!!"

Time and time again, pollsters ask the average voters what the contemporary issues are leading into an election. Time and time again the same answers come forth ... education and health (aside from law and order). Everyone, it seems, thinks that health and education is low on the priority list for governments and that we all would like to see them both improved on an immense scale.

But, at the same time, we all are only too happy to blame the state governments for the obvious lack of will and fortitude while they in turn blame scrooge-like Commonwealth funding, despite record flows of cash through the GST ON TOP of the abomination of sneaky taxes, e.g.: stamp duty.

It has been my belief for many years, even before I read the policy papers from the Democrats, that States are somewhat redundant. I would dearly love to see our second and third (local government) tier bureaucracies replaced by a simple regional government similar to that seen in some other countries. In the UK, for example, the National Health System (NHS) provides funding to local councils that provide the services.

Such a move would, ideally, transfer ALL constitutional powers to the Commonwealth, whereby we would have one entity controlling the collection the tax revenue and the distribution thereof. One government to disperse ALL funds according to a fair and equitable rule of need, rather than the current rule of possession.

I dare the states to hand over jurisdiction in health and education to the Federal Government - lets have one national health system under medicare, but more importantly, we should demand a single education system with one national curriculum for all.

Australia Deliberated ... and, what now?



I've been asked why I haven't reported further on the recent deliberative poll in Canberra.

It isn't because of laziness, although I am a major procrastinator at times. And it isn't because of any disinterest in the topic or a dwindling motivation to see the issues resolved.

My silence has primarily been due to a critical lack of direction or sense of conclusion. I left Canberra feeling at a loss and with some disappointment in how the proceedings were brought to a swift and insalubrious end.

"Fill out a survey, here's a cheque for $100, buses will leave at the appointed times and thank you ... now go and have lunch and listen to Bob Hawke sing Waltzing Matilda"

Ummm! But, excuse me ... What should we do now?

We had several dozen groups of people from all over the nation, brought together as strangers, all leaving with a sense that more needed to be done. Our work wasn't complete. We couldn't just send everyone away without some conclusion, some closure, some sense of a future direction. Yet, that's exactly what happened.

Most of us want to help break down these barriers; to keep the media accountable for their biased reporting; to educate others and facilitate harmony and interaction and pursue the goal of a truly multicultural society where no-one was abused for their beliefs or threatened by the beliefs of others.

Come in, spinner!

Alas, this weekend was not about developing solutions. It had very little to do with Islam in Australian society, and it certainly had nothing to achieve except to promote a system of political polling and facilitating some behavioural research.

It has taken me all this time to admit to myself the futility of this process in facilitating change on a large scale. Certainly, there were many individuals who were inspired to be better people; to take the message of unity back to their local communities, their families, workplaces and schools. But very little can be accomplished on a broader scale when the participants were swiftly dispersed without so much as a brief discussion on taking "the next step".

Perhaps I misled myself into thinking that a forum such as this would be a catalyst for change. No-one promised me that the weekend would provide answers, yet I went fully expecting to be part of the grand solution. Nobody suggested that this was an exercise in negotiation or diplomacy, but still my expectations were high for an outcome of significant proportions.

Three weeks after this extraordinary weekend, I am left sullen and void of satisfaction. It was a great holiday and an awesome opportunity to visit Canberra. It was also a wonderful way to meet some colourful characters and interesting individuals, partake of some excellent education and stimulating discourse. However, it was merely a talk fest amidst a series of research projects - nothing more!

Of course, there is a lot that I can do (and will do) as an individual, but I really feel that without some groundswell of support from the wider community, there will be little to achieve in pushing this barrow.

C'est la vie!

Catholicism from the inside

Disciples eager to call the shots behind the scenes
Sydney Morning Herald - September 13, 2005
Uncompromising religious convictions inspire members of the Catholic organisation Opus Dei, writes Kate Mannix.

Miranda Devine last week claimed Opus Dei is a "mainstream" Catholic movement. So why is it so secretive? David Clarke, MLC, admits he is a member of Opus Dei. He says it "informs" his views and decisions in the NSW Parliament.

The deputy director of public prosecutions, Greg Smith, SC, is also a member of Opus Dei. He's a former president of the NSW Right to Life Association. His son, Nat Smith, is now on the association's board.

I don't know whether John McCarthy, QC, is a member of Opus Dei, but his son, Anthony, is. McCarthy snr is a close friend of Cardinal George Pell and an equally close friend of the former NSW premier Bob Carr. He is also a mentor to Malcolm Turnbull, MP, a Catholic convert who regularly speaks at Opus Dei's Warrane College at the University of NSW.

John McCarthy is also a member of the senate at Sydney University. Anthony McCarthy is a chaplain there, and also an organiser for the Opus Dei event called Carnivale Christi.

It is not unreasonable that the Smiths and McCarthys will, like Clarke, be "informed" by their religious associations.

What is unreasonable is the lack of candour shown by those with such associations. This crosses denominational boundaries in "holy alliances". Their memberships, connections and intentions are rarely discussed. Their "values" are repackaged and stamped "PG" for family consumption.
They will talk mildly about "values" and "the traditional family". They will point away from themselves and make judicious references to being "mainstream" and reflecting a wider societal "return to values". But there is little evidence of broad-based support, and little awareness of their real values.

This band of brothers has the same goal as the late B.A. Santamaria: to impose a conservative, Christian-influenced set of principles into the legal system and into government policy.

They will not talk about branch stacking in the Liberal Party nor the funnelling of tax dollars into the myriad "pregnancy counselling services" that are essentially fronts for right-wing proselytising.

Take health.

Catholics are pretty good at running hospitals. But in an Opus Deified world, what would a more strictly "Catholic" hospital look like? It could not offer abortions, sterilisations, in-vitro fertilisation or certain plastic surgery, or look the other way when someone, desperately, just wants to die.

Rape victims would not be offered emergency contraception. None of this is allowable under Catholic ethical guidelines. Just ask Dr Amin Abboud, doctor and assistant lecturer in medical ethics and health law at the University of NSW and director of Australasian Bioethics Information. He is also a former information officer for Opus Dei Australia.

In education, Opus Dei is aiming for the "high end". The private Catholic (publicly funded) University of Notre Dame is interested in training doctors and lawyers who will move into public life and apply the values they have been taught.

So here are some values to watch out for: that the church alone is the repository of absolute truth; conscience must be subordinate to the teachings of the church; the "traditional family" should enjoy legal and financial privileges over other families; abortion is always wrong (though killing in war is sometimes right); men are almost always the disadvantaged party in family disputes due to "extreme feminism" rampant in today's society; IVF is a capitalist plot; there is no obligation for the church to be transparent and accountable; labour is best hired on the basis of correct religious convictions; foreign aid is a misuse of public money; Catholic social teaching embraces market forces; economic prosperity and morality go hand in hand; homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered"; global warming is exaggerated; social welfare is best undertaken by the church.

Those who hold these values have a mission to correct all those who are "in error". They do not believe in your right to conscientiously hold an opinion they do not share. They have little sympathy for your pluralism. They have no commitment to your rights, or democracy. Pell said last year: "Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves."

The irony in all this is that according to church teaching from as early as the fifth century, direct action which seeks to interfere with the rightful autonomy of the state is wrong (the Gelasian Doctrine).

Less than 50 years ago, Vatican II confirmed that all have the freedom to exercise their conscientiously held beliefs - even if, from a rigidly Catholic point of view, such beliefs are "wrong".

Hang on to those two thoughts: because that's Catholic.

Kate Mannix was the founding editor of the independent e-zine Online Catholics.

Extremism ... win or lose?

Extreme path will leave voters by the wayside
By Adele Horin, Sydney Morning Herald
10 September 2005

In the days when the NSW Liberal Party was a run-of-the-mill conservative party, John Ryan got flak for being too Christian. The opposition spokesman for disability services, commerce and western Sydney once told Parliament that "Jesus is my friend". And last year he told Radio National's Religion Report that "being a Christian is an important part of who I am as a politician". But he added that some of his Liberal colleagues criticised him for being religious.

That was then. Now Ryan, a highly regarded, hard-working and effective member of the Liberal front bench, is in danger of losing his preselection. In the eyes of the new
powerbrokers, he is not their sort of Christian.

The treatment of Ryan, it turns out, was a factor in spurring the Liberal MLC Patricia Forsythe's remarkable candour on the ABC's Stateline last week when she exposed the grip of "zealots" and "extremists" on the Liberal Party.

At a time of hysteria about Islamic extremism in Australia, it is of great concern that the NSW Liberal Party has been hijacked by Christian extremists. Democracy is in peril if the opposition party is rendered unelectable.

Let's be clear about this term, extremists. Social conservatism, encompassing opposition to abortion, to equality for homosexuals, to stem cell research, and to the King Cross heroin injecting room trial, reflects legitimate views held in sections of the community and in sections of the Labor Party. The Liberals' social conservatives have a right to these views - providing the electorate understands
this is what drives them. Holding such views openly and passionately does not of itself make them zealots.

It is when these issues - usually matters of conscience within the party - become the touchstone of being a good Liberal that red lights should flash. It is when a moral agenda, rather than efficient, compassionate government, is the overriding obsession of politicians that alarm bells should ring. It is when people who don't fit into a prescribed box are seen as having no place in the Liberal Party that terms such as zealot and extremist are appropriate.

If even moderate Christians such as Ryan - let alone atheists - are to have no future in the Liberal Party, then that is an alarming development.

At the federal level, John Howard marginalised the economic wets, and enforced rigid unity on issues such as detention centres. But despite the efforts of Tony Abbott and his evangelical colleagues, Howard has not demanded fidelity to a conservative morals agenda. Reading the electorate well, he has allowed a diversity of views on abortion and stem cell research to co-exist within the party.

But the story is different in NSW. The MLC David Clarke, leader of a powerful group of Liberal arch-conservatives, is associated with Opus Dei, a controversial evangelical movement of the Catholic Church - "a co-operator of Opus Dei", he called himself in an interview with Radio National's Stephen Crittendon last year. Crittendon noted a crucifix on Clarke's parliamentary office desk, and a picture of the Virgin and Child on the wall, along with a photo of St Josemaria de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, and a commendation from the Croatian community.

In his maiden speech Clarke vowed to advocate Christian-based truths and values with "missionary zeal". Later he urged anti-abortionists to get themselves on the
party's preselection panels.

The Liberal Party has been a broad church, drawing the line at admitting avowed racists. But it has seen its primary business as running the country - or state - not as imposing a moral agenda. For all the inroads of the religious right into politics, they have not triumphed as have their US counterparts in inflicting their program on everything from sex education to foreign aid.

But now NSW Liberals who don't ascribe to the program are being forced out of the party. Those whose main concerns are taxes, the state economy, trains, hospitals, the usual business of government, are being sidelined, no matter how competent.

Alex Hawke, the right-wing national president of the Young Liberals who is on Clarke's staff, has said, "If people want to legalise drug injecting rooms, lower the age of consent, go with all these trendy things, this is not the party that believes in those things. We're not that broad." They could, Hawke said, "choose the Greens, Labor or Democrats".

Ryan voted in favour of the heroin injecting room trial, and, after consulting the Bible, in favour of lowering the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. He said last year he did not believe the Liberal Party should be a vehicle for "propagating the gospel". Nor did he think that "simply because you're a Christian, therefore you have to have a conservative view about society".

Now he is being punished. He is under threat of being dumped altogether in coming preselections for the Legislative Council. At best, he is to be moved into a new
province where preselection rules are more difficult. His old area will be handed over to the moral conservative Charlie Lynn, Clarke's right-hand man, an MP who has
achieved little in a decade.

These are sad days indeed for NSW Liberals, and NSW citizens generally. The state badly needs an electable opposition.

AOG talks GAY

Assemblies of God in gay talks
By Lyndon Barnett
Sydney Star Observer, Issue 781, Published 9/08/2005

IN A LANDMARK MOVE, HOMOSEXUALITY IS ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE PENTACOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF GOD.

The National Executive of the Assemblies of God (AOG) has agreed to discuss homosexuality with Anthony Venn-Brown, the first openly gay member of the Australian Pentecostal church.

This unprecedented meeting could be a positive step forward for church relations with the gay and lesbian community. The AOG is the largest Pentecostal denomination in Australia containing a number of mega churches, including the high-profile Hillsong in Sydney.

The current belief within the AOG is that homosexuality is a sin, and it is impossible to be both homosexual and a Christian. Homosexuality is considered a lifestyle choice or the result of a dysfunctional childhood.

"It is my aim through intelligent and respectful dialogue to change the misconceptions within the AOG regarding homosexuality. Whilst it's rare to hear gays or lesbians castigated from the pulpit, I am challenging the traditional church doctrines," Venn-Brown said.

Venn-Brown is a former leader with the Assemblies of God who resigned very publicly in 1992. He has subsequently written his autobiography, A Life of Unlearning, detailing his 22 years living a closeted life within the Pentecostal church.

Brian Houston, National President of the AOG and senior pastor of Hillsong, commented to Venn-Brown upon accepting the invitation: "I'm sure you are aware that we are still a long way apart philosophically, but we will give you a fair hearing."

Venn-Brown believes this dialogue demonstrates that views are slowly changing.

"Such an invitation would not have happened 10 years ago," he said.

He hopes the meeting will lead to the establishment of a committee consisting of some executive members of the AOG, a psychologist, a theologian and himself.

"I believe it will be important for the committee to look at sexual orientation from a scientific, psychological as well as a theological basis. I hope to discuss the six verses from Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians which are most commonly used to justify an anti-homosexual stance," Venn-Brown said.

"These verses have an historical and cultural context that needs to be explored. Also the translation from the original ancient languages can lead to misinterpretation.

"I believe understanding and acceptance of homosexuality within the AOG will take some time. We'll know the journey is over when an openly gay man or lesbian is ordained," he said.

"But Mr Houston and the AOG should be commended for accepting my invitation to meet when other denominations such as the Catholic Church have completely closed the door to any discussion," Venn-Brown said.

Other local religious groups are also involved in dialogue with gay and lesbian members.

Rabbis from Reform synagogues meet twice a year to discuss Jewish policy. These rabbis have been discussing gay and lesbian issues throughout the past decade.

The Sydney Jewish gay and lesbian support group, Dayenu made a presentation to the rabbis in 2000 to open a debate on same-sex marriage. Judy Kell, one of the presenters, said the rabbis felt the members needed further education before the Jewish community would accept same-sex ceremonies.

Members of Dayenu believe the rabbis may soon agree to same-sex unions. The next meeting is scheduled for November this year.

Rabbi Fred Morgan of Melbourne's Temple Beth Israel told the Star he was committed to the dialogue.

"We are committed to further study and learning in this area [same-sex marriage], and we regularly revisit the issue at our biannual meetings," he said.

Although the Roman Catholic Church is known for its outspoken views on homosexuality, the United Ecumenical Catholic Church (ECC) is a contemporary Catholic church supporting the gay and lesbian community.

"We worship in the same fashion as Rome, without the restrictions that come from Rome," EEC Archbishop Ron Langham said.

There is, however, no dialogue between the ECC and traditional Catholic leaders.

"We are not interested in getting into a bun fight with other churches over their beliefs. We respect other's rights to believe," Bishop Langham said.

The Worm - Week 3


Did anything political happen in WA other than the "canal"??



Clearly not, as it was top of the media agenda, despite the Coalition trying desperately to move on and refocus on other policy launches. Meanwhile the ALP are carefully stringing it out for what it is worth, hoping that the populist idea can be overshadowed by enough questions about economic feasibility or social and environmental impact.




This week the wormers battled with the dial on the Perception Analyser like a joystick controlling some uncontrollable spaceship in a computer game. For the first time I swung my dial in a full arc from 0 (strongly disapprove) to 100 (strongly approve) and back again as Barnett and Gallop bombarded us with more arrogance, rhetoric and spin than should be a safe limit for any voter!



Clearly this issue is dividing WA like no other current issue and is reminiscent of Dickie Court's bell tower. You either love it or hate it!



Apart from the great Colinic-irrigation scheme, the Libs managed to belt out a riposte in the Hospital sector, announcing 750 additional beds within 4 years (compared with the ALP promise of 1000 beds in the next 10). The ALP scored a few brownie points with announcements to raise the school leaving age to 17 in two stages and threw in a $200 bonus to assist with education costs ($400 for TAFE students)



Perhaps both parties are warming themselves up for a barage of pork-barrelling in the final two weeks of the campaign. Maybe they have something up their sleeves for us?



The score thus far, as I see it, is:


ALP ... one point for each of the following announcements - education, health, car rego


LIB ... three points for the canal, two points for their coup with the nurses (if it holds out), but they lose one point for roll back on cannabis



That leaves the Libs marginally ahead at this stage and in a precarious situation over Barnett's arrogant commitment to the canal plan. The question on everyone's lips is whether he can remain firm and beat off his detractors - predominantly the ALP and most of the media!






[+/-] show/hide this post

The end of a big election year


The Bush victory was easily predictable. Anyone claiming Kerry had a chance really had no understanding of the world we live in and the psyche of the US electorate. While I don't claim to be an expert, I do have my eyes open far enough to be able to read the signs. Objective analysis led me to predict Howard's win (though not his control of the Senate without the aid of Family First), the success of Family First, and Kerry's inability to win the people's vote.




In each of these events there were some key elements that should serve as a warning to future election campaigners.



  1. Voters are selfish

  2. Politics is unprincipled

  3. The media are not without bias





Three simple truths that seem to get lost in the excitement and banter of election fever.



Firstly, the majority of voters are loathe to think of anyone but themselves when marking the ballot paper. We live in a secular, individualistic society that has lost its community spirit. In the scramble to get to the top of the dung heap, we only manage to spread the manure further and are left smelling of crap. Gone are the days when we were all working for the common good and would lift a hand to help a stranger in need. Our national belief system lies in the divine trinity ... me, myself and I!



The irrational and purely selfish preference deals between some parties proves that politics is unprincipled. Even concrete policies are not as strong as they used to be as the ALP have shown by ditching long-held beliefs in favour of moving more towards the Coalition's views. It simply shows that such parties are opportunists rather than leaders with a principled vison for the future of a nation.



Undoubtedly, the gravest problem with our democratic elections is the influence of the media giants. There are very few balanced journalists left because they are increasingly being urged by their editors to provoke a response through the push of a particular opinion. To be fair, it is not that the media favours one party over another, it is merely that they make a commercial decision to not bite the hand that feeds them.



Politics and the work of government represents the majority of all news. To fall out of favour with the current government is a risk that no editor or producer is likely to take unless it is outweighed by an enormous ratings scoop that could take a government down. Hedging bets is not effective, so the media gamble on the outcome of the election to determine the party/candidate it needs to befriend.



Australia's electoral system, election advertising regulations and media ownership rules are some of the best in the world. We are able to safely state that our government is one of the most democratically elected because of compulsory voting and the preferential system.



Improvements to the system could be debated for years and without going into too much detail, some of my suggestions are:



  • proportional representation in the lower houses

  • optional preferential voting in both houses

  • fixed terms of government to avoid election speculation

  • eliminate Senate preference tickets

  • eliminate distribution of "how-to-vote" propaganda at election booths

  • election material to be approved by the AEC for factual validity

  • a voter education campaign by the AEC

  • revamp disclosure of political donations





I add the last point because I predict that the public will not be satisfactorily informed as to the source of funding for Family First. My expectation is that the vast majority (perhaps $750,000 or thereabouts) will remain undisclosed because it will be reported as minor donations from individuals. It is not hard to divvy a large donation up amongst a few fellow church-members in order to circumvent reporting regulations.



By no means am I suggesting that our system is bad, but it is open for improvement. There is a lot more that we can do for democracy (citizen initiated referenda and restructuring of the federal system to reduce the tiers of government are examples) but these suggestions are a good start.



The USA is not so lucky. They need a complete overhaul to remove the electoral college, reduce the unbreakable power of the two-party system, provide fairer access for voter registration, homogenise ballot mechanisms and eliminate the campaign funding loopholes.




[+/-] show/hide this post


History haunts future anthropology

The skeletal remains of an ancient form of hominid found on the island of Flores, east of Java has created excited ripples around the globe, especially among anthropologists. No doubt the find is also creating a bit of annoyance for creationists of varied religions. Good!

Reports in Nature and National Geographic raise more questions than they answer. But there is one question that haunts my mind and the answer makes me fear for the future of any such people.

I question how modern humanity could cope with ever finding another living species of hominid in some secluded location. Imagine the excitement, the rush, the challenge! Scientists, governments, religions, linguists, human rights activists, the media, lawyers and agents of all kind would be high-tailing it to a remote destination. They would all demand to be part of the scoop, the deal, the dollars, the advocacy ... each proclaiming to be working in "the best interests" of the newfound species.

While the probability of such a discovery is less than a three-legged donkey winning the Melbourne Cup, the way some scientists are talking it would be the holy grail of paleoanthropology. I fear that greed, power and ego would take priority over empathy, conservation and human rights. I honestly don't believe that 21st century humanity is any more likely to have respect for such a species than they had for any indigenous humans of the last century and we are still unable to acknowledge such wrongs to many indigenous in this century.

History is riddled with examples of how we have ruined indigenous civilisations, even to the point of their extinction. Contact with modern humans invariably runs huge risks of death through contracting disease, not to mention the cultural corruption of money, alcohol and drugs, religion, education and more.

Could we actually sit back and watch such a powerful discovery from afar without interfering? Could humanity place the rights of these people above the quest for knowledge? I wish I could believe in our ability to not intrude on something so beautiful and rare. I wish I could hope for something more than our shameful precedents offer.

Balance of powers between States and Commonwealth

There is a silver lining to the Coalition's recent victory. It seems that we may get a more reasonable separation of powers between the Federal and State Governments, if a proposal by NSW Premier, Bob Carr, is given some legs by other State leaders and Howard.

Reports today stated that Carr has offered to trade powers with Canberra in order to "tidy up" overlapping policy areas such as health and education.

It has long been my belief that the Federal Government is best placed to handle a wide range of public services, including health and education. In this regard, whilst I applaud Carr's initiative, I don't think it goes far enough.

Health and Education are two policy areas that should be uniform across Australia. As such they are best managed by the Federal Government. The benefits are enormous.

In the area of health it would mean full integration with the Medicare system and uniform standards of health care across the nation. Medical staff would be on equitable employment terms as their counterparts in other states, thus reducing the drain of resources from states like WA.

As for education, it could provide a seamless transition for students from early childcare through to tertiary and post-graduate education. It would make it much easier for itinerant families and those migrating between the states. Uniform standards of education would eliminate the confusion between grading systems and allow teaching staff wider opportunities for promotion and self-development.

In both cases the it is the clients (patients and students) especially that would reap the benefits of a standard system. However, the resulting centralisation of 9 or more separate bureaucracies for health and at least a further 20 or so in regards to education is ultimately a big win for reducing the size of government and the related budget.

Additionally if this were to be extended to other areas of controversial powers it could only enhance the working relationship between the States and the Commonwealth. An example of this are Federal laws that have been implemented under s51xxix, External Affairs, of the Constitution to specifically over-ride State laws.

Finally, the ultimate benefit to the general public and the States (but a possible negative for the Commonwealth) is that the buck can no longer be passed between Canberra and the States. There's only one government to blame if things don't improve. I like that idea the best.

Of course, the devil is in the detail and I'm sure there are many factors that need to be considered, fought out and won or lost before we get anywhere near enjoying the fruition of this dream.

Uninformed, uninterested or ignorant?


I spoke with my father on the telephone last night and cautiously asked him how he voted. In my family politics (for me at least) is an act of tightrope-walking on a razor wire above a pit of flaming lava with a swarm of bees attacking my head!



His reply made me sad and I feel a failure for not providing a better education for my parents!




It wasn't the fact that he voted for the Libs in the lower house ... my parents are typical swinging voters and I'd never chastise them for actually having an opinion, even if it does stand against my own values and everything I have worked hard to support.



No, what made me despondent was the reason he gave for voting above the line in the Senate.



He said he was concerned about the Libs having control of both houses of parliament, so he voted for "the opposition ... I can't think of his name ... you know, the Nationals guy".



Gob-smacked!



How many other voters must think the same way? There's a real need for voter education. Unfortunately most of them aren't interested enough to care.






[+/-] show/hide this post

What to do with nuclear waste?


href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1208387.htm">Claims
have resurfaced that the Federal
Government
has a secret list of up to 22 sites for a nuclear waste
dump.


NO KIDDING?



Honestly, what do people expect the government to do about nuclear waste?
With disposal methods href="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=nuclear+waste+disposa
l+sun+rocket&btnG=Goo gle+Search&meta=">(like sending it off to the sun)

currently too expensive it has to be stored somewhere!




The href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/campaigns/intro?campaign_id
=3940">debate
about whether we should be producing nuclear waste in the
first place is an entirely different matter and not applicable to this
issue. The facts are that we DO utilise href="http://www.iaea.or.at/">nuclear energy, medicine and related
research. Australia's Lucas Heights
reactor is a real and necessary part of our lives and href="http://www.brendannelson.com.au/">Brendon Nelson is spot on
(that's a rare thing) when he says:



Federal Education, Science and Training href="http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/index1_cp.htm">Minister Brendan
Nelson told Sky News that the states would have to find their own sites to
store waste and that the Federal Government was still looking for a site.


Clearly there needs to be more thought put into HOW and WHERE nuclear waste
should be stored. And not just for Australia, but the entire world.



Contrary to my fellow Greens and href="http://www.democrats.org.au">Democrats I support the establishment
of a world class href="http://www.uic.com.au/Pangea-TOPSEAL99.htm">facility based in
Australia to handle domestic and international nuclear waste. I firmly
believe that producers of nuclear waste should be required under
international law to ensure the highest standards for safely (as much as is
technically possible when we are taking half-lives of thousands of years)
and securely storing (disposing is not feasible) of the material.



IMHO the best opportunity lies in Australia.



  • we are unique in having a stable democratic government for the last two
    centuries

  • our nation is geologically stable with few earthquakes and no live
    volcanoes to present a danger to an underground facility

  • Australia has an expansive area of desolate and remote land that is
    relatively easy to secure

  • we have the resources and the ability to receive international support
    for the concept

On top of all this is the financial rewards that will flow from charging
the international community for the safest and most secure solution the
world has yet seen. We are talking billions of dollars a year in revenue!
That would easily give us a world class health and education system and
partially solve our growing welfare crisis.


Food for thought, my fellow homo sapiens!






[+/-] show/hide this post

Artificial Conception


A RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION:

"Do you think that children conceived from donor sperm
have a harder time in general as they grow up?"



As a biological father, a parent and a potential sperm donor I have thought about this a fair bit over the last 12 - 15 months. I can only conclude that there needs to be firm decision between the relevant parties, ideally in the form of a legally binding contract so that each party understands the level of responsibility they may or may not have.



What should always be at the foremost in our minds is the best interests of the child.



It is impossible to predict the future or try to envisage how the child might feel about being the product of what might be seen to be a medical manufacturing process rather than an act of natural procreation between a loving heterosexual couple.



But this is where the argument against queer couples using artificial conception or adoption begins to fall apart.



I think we all agree that loving parents (regardless of biological or marital status) are more important to a child's happiness and welfare than any other single factor (including wealth, education, health etc). I cringe every time I hear a parent jokingly comment that their child was "a little mistake" because they forgot to use contraception or the pill didn't work. No child should ever be considered a mistake, even in jest.



So with that in mind, I would say it is irrelevant whether one chooses to use a known or unknown donor or what type of relationship is negotiated between the parties. What is important is that all parties are happy with the decision and abide by it. That decision is going to be different for each individual.



I would also recommend being honest with the child from an early age. Reinforce the fact that they are loved and how special it was that they were conceived in such a way. Remember that it takes a lot more thought, effort and money to use artificial conception than it is to get knocked up in the back of the Holden at the drive-ins ;-)



Be proud that your child is special and they will be proud to have such special mothers. They might also have a special male in their life that they may or may not call Dad that helped give them life, but always remember that to a child it is the parents that matter, not who supplied the genes.



Having the option to identify with the donor at some stage in their life is worthwhile, but they may never take up that opportunity if they are content with what they have in their real family. Even anonymous donors can be identified at a later stage if it is the wish of both parties.






[+/-] show/hide this post

Phobia vs ism


REGARDING THE LIMITATION OF USING THE TERM "HOMOPHOBIA"



Wouldn't it be just easier to talk about and use the terms "heterosexism"(1) and "heteronormativity"(2)? Of course this might take some education, but it is inclusive and more accurate terminology.



Most acts of discrimination, vilification and yobbish behaviour are not homophobia, biphobia or transphobia (all being the fear of 'x') but are resultant from attitudes of normalcy or even superiority from a heterosexual perspective.




It is the same attitudes that cause sexism, racism, nazism, anti-semitism etc. It is definitely an ism rather than a phobia. Even though there are a few clinical phobics out there, those people are more likely to shun us or campaign against us rather than attack.



Focussing on 'anti-gay', 'anti-lesbian' or even 'anti-bi' or 'anti-trans' behaviour is not appropriate because the specificity of these focal points always means that a fringe group is left out. Using the term homophobia to try and encompass all the above is also incorrect and reduces the visibility of key segments. What about the heterosexual transvestite or the straight fag hag?



The English language is poor by anyone's definition, but the best terms that I know (when explained correctly) are heterosexism and heteronormativity. They also put the problem fairly and squarely on the perpetrators, being (generally speaking) the hetero side of the fence, rather than focussing on the identity of the victims.



check out: this site



As I state in one of my personal signature file, "End heterosexism - embrace diversity".



(1) HETEROSEXISM



The assumption that everyone is a heterosexual until it is otherwise known and that being heterosexual is the proper sexual orientation.


(2) HETERONORMATIVE



the prevailing culture that falsely views heterosexuality as ‘normal’ behaviour and alternative sexuality or gender identity as deviant. i.e. the nuclear family on the qtr acre block with a white picket fence, a dog, cat and a Holden Commodore is considered heteronormative. Anyone falling outside the "norms" characterised by a generalised view of heterosexual society would be considered non-heteronormative.


Here is a more detailed definition of the concept:



By heteronormativity we mean the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent--that is, organized as a sexuality--but also privileged.


Its coherence is always provisional, and its privilege can take several (sometimes contradictory) forms; unmarked, as the basic idiom of the personal and the social; or marked as a natural state; or projected as an ideal or moral accomplishment.


It consists less of norms that could be summarized as a body of doctrine than of a sense of rightness produced in contradictory manifestations--often unconscious, immanent to practice or to institutions. Contexts that have little visible relation to sex practice, such as life narrative and generational identity, can be heteronormative in this sense, while in other contexts forms of sex between men and women might not be heteronormative.


Heteronormativity is thus a concept distinct from heterosexuality. One of the most conspicuous differences is that it has no parallel, unlike heterosexuality, which organizes homosexuality as its opposite. Because homosexuality can never have the invisible, tacit, society-founding rightness that heterosexuality has, it would not be possible to speak of "homonormativity" in the same sense.


See Michael Warner, "fear of a Queer Planet," Social Text, no. 29 (1991): 3-17."

Source: University of Chicago






[+/-] show/hide this post

Schoolyard Bullying


Teasing and bullying and other harassment in the schoolyard is a continuing and growing problem in Australia and mainly due to two things, if I can be simplistic and blunt.




Firstly, inadequate parenting. This is caused by a number of factors including, but not limited to, poor education standards of the parents, time constraints due to longer working hours and busier lifestyles (or single parent families taking on double the workload), lack of discipline in the household, reliance upon the electronic babysitters (TV, video, computers all provide input to the learning of behaviour) etc. If a child does not learn appropriate/inappropriate behaviour in the home then it will learn elsewhere.



Secondly, inadequate social teaching by schools. The fact is, rightly or wrongly, the school has become the next best place to teach children moral and social values and behaviours. This has become more so over the past few decades due to the issues related to point one above.



I'm not promoting that the education system should be the delivery system for the teaching of moral and social values, but inevitably because of the failing of some parents and families to take this responsibility seriously, the onus unfortunately falls upon the education system to act as a safety net. That is a difficult situation when our education system is already so drastically under resourced that it is failing to produce a decent average grade student in many instances.



Bad behaviour and poor values (and I may be unfairly judging them against my own western agnostic values) start within the home environment. They are replicated and enhanced in the school environment and are pretty much cemented by the age of 7 or 8. After that point it takes extra effort to change a child's behaviour.



Bullying, teasing and taunting are learned behaviours. It takes time and a willingness (from the adults and the child) to change those behaviours. Ultimately a child needs positive teaching from their parents and family as well as from their teachers and other adults & children that interact with them in their lives.



We cannot legislate against the poor upbringing of children or the difficulties that lead to those situations, however we can be supportive of social change that will hopefully, one day, mean that families are less stressed, more involved with child-rearing, and ultimately producing respectful and civil-minded children, adolescents and adults.






[+/-] show/hide this post

Parenting - Freedom, privilege or right?

EMAIL RESPONSE TO A DISCUSSION FORUM REGARDING A LETTER TO THE EDITOR



As much as this may rile a few people, M. Mathewson is correct in that parenting is NOT a right and is most certainly a privilege. I'll add that his/her argument seems to be unfairly aimed towards lesbians and should be aimed at all parents instead.



No one in Australia has the right to tertiary education, to work, to have adequate housing, to walk across a road, or to drive a car, but we tend to think of these things as irrefutable. They are but privileges and we must earn them and continue to prove ourselves worthy lest they be revoked. If you abuse your position as a parent then you will lose that privilege also - that is undeniable.



However we should all have the freedom to be parents. Freedom and rights are often confused in these debates and we need to be aware that Australians have very few rights (I can count them on one hand) but we have many freedoms and privileges.