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.
Cherry's last laugh?
Just when you thought the Democrats' gala comedy festival was nearing the finale, Senator Cherry jumps up and spouts off a gag that has us rolling in the aisles. The Sydney Morning Herald ends an article with a serious proposal by Cherry, but the follow-up joke has many in stitches:
[+/-] show/hide this post
The Democrats' losing Queensland Senator, John Cherry, called for reform of the Senate voting system under which most people vote "above the line" - causing preferences to flow along lines determined by deals made in advance by parties. He complained the Nationals had "fluked the last Senate seat with the lowest vote in the party's history because of foolish preference decisions by Pauline Hanson, One Nation and Family First".
And how did Family First candidate, Steven Fielding manage to score a Senate seat with less than 2% of the primary vote? It wouldn't have been foolish preference decisions by the ALP and Democrats, would it? LOL
[+/-] show/hide this post
Green predicts Senate reform
A disturbing prophecy today from Australia's prescient pollster, Antony Green, who suggests that Howard might (and even should) overhaul the way the Senate is elected and represented.
"There may now be a push by the Government to change the electoral system, perhaps electing senators from electorates or by introducing minimum electoral quotas to keep minor parties out."
Normally I'd praise Green for his unique insight and depth of knowledge, but on this issue I'm remaining wary. This concept is fraught with danger for Australia's internationally respected version of the Westminster system.
The Australian Constitution protects the States' House only in so much as ensuring that each original state has an equal number of Senators elected for a period of 6 years each. The details of how the Senate is elected is predominantly left up to the Federal Parliament. Any power the States may hold is generally thought to be overshadowed by the power of the Commonwealth.
This potentially gives the Howard Government the opportunity to do as they please, even going so far as to replicate Queensland's infamous gerrymander. I doubt Howard would be that audacious, but who can predict what the Coalition might do with their new-found power.
Certainly, removing the strong system of proportional representation would eliminate the annoyance of minor parties ever holding the balance of power, but as Green rightly addresses, it could equally give the opposition a stronger foothold, thus forcing the Senate to be more obstructionist than it has ever been.
Antony Green strongly suggests reform is needed to eliminate the bizarre results that have occurred through the preference deals between ideological strangers. In his opening statement he states that:
"Preference voting deals are starting to distort rather than reflect the will of the electorate"
The importance of this conclusion is not revealed until further into his article and is overshadowed by the perceived threat of Howard making the Senate less representative and subsequently far less democratic. However, he does eventually state that the real problem is "above-the-line" (ATL) voting and related party voting tickets.
The problems associated with ATL voting are numerous. Of most importance is the disenfranchisement of the uneducated voter. A vote ATL for one's party of choice can equate to that vote ending with the least preferred party. This is a lazy vote that defers democracy to the party machine and its backroom deals. The majority of voters are unaware of where these preferences go, let alone how the system works.
The real issue, and thus the real solution, is to improve the voting system, rather than reform the representation, electorates or quotas. Simply eliminating party voting tickets would give full democracy back to the people.
This is not to say that we should eliminate ATL voting. The reality is that the growing number of candidates and groups appearing at each election makes it increasingly more difficult to number all squares in a sensible fashion without risking the validity of the vote.
Above the line voting can remain, but instead by making the entire Senate vote optional preferential we can ensure that only those groups (above the line) or individual candiates (below the line) that are deserving of a voter's preference actually enjoy the receipt of such. If an elector were to mark three groups (as an example) above the line it would indicate that the preferences would flow in the order of candidates marked under each grouping with the remaining groups unworthy of that elector's vote.
Arguably this would mean fewer preference flows to the final places, however a more accurate reflection of voter intention would only serve to enhance democracy.
It is undeniably a simple solution to an increasingly troublesome problem. But is it in the best interests of the Government or opposition of the day? Hardly! However, it is in the best interests of a more representative Senate, the constituency, voter sanity and ultimately the security of Australian democracy.
One caveat ... any changes to the Senate must be viewed with extreme caution. Our forebears were well-advised to establish such a unique house of review. We would be poorer for its loss or any weakening of its structure. We can only benefit from strengthening its representation and simplifying the process for the electors.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Lees and Democrats cover denial with blame
Perhaps I'm over the whole Democrats fiasco, but Meg Lees' latest "don't blame me, I'm not a Democrat" defence is more entertaining than Pauline Hanson looking for Xenophobia in an Arabic dictionary. It was a predictable move as Lees is the champion of plausible deniability.
What was less predictable is the frantic scurrying of the four isolated Senators (Lees, Murphy, Harradine and Harris) trying to leave their final mark on Australia before surrendering their seats in July next year.
We may all wonder what they hope to gain from reopening negotiations on media ownership (and probably every other shelved bill) before the Government can wield full control of the Senate. Whatever it is they hope to achieve, it certainly won't render the legislation any less offensive to Australia's best interests than we would expect under a Coalition run Senate. Are they posturing or simply naive?
Meanwhile the eternally optimistic and teetotalling gothic Democrats leader, Andrew Bartlett, continues to herald the return of the party in 3 years time by implying that voters will soon realise their mistake when Howard pushes through with his bad reforms.
Fair go, Andrew! First you stuff the Democrats around playing suckup to Andrew "Doberman" Murray, then you carelessly forget why the Party was in turmoil and do nothing to repair the damage. Now you want to blame the voters for abandoning a sinking ship?
The demise of the Democrats can only be blamed on the party processes that stifled the one principle that set it apart from any other party - member led democracy. The numerous books expected to be published over the coming years will provide a welcome analysis of this and other factors as we bid a long goodbye to the party once hailed for 'keeping the bastards honest'. Becoming one of the bastards was, perhaps, a natural progression in the evolution of politics.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Mad Mbeki
South African President, Thabo Mbeki, seems to be losing the plot in a more irrational way than ever before. His recent attack on "whites" leaves many people wondering why this man is President.
Whether Mbeki is justified in his explosive retort against racial slurs is not the point. Every word he utters simply loses him more credibility in his leadership position. He already lacks credibility when it comes to dealing with the welfare of his people, especially if the issue is AIDS related.
Mbeki is oblivious or chooses to ignore the peril of his nation.
Bleating about racial slurs and condemning whites for focussing on the need for HIV treatment and prevention will not raise the dead or cure the sick. Mbeki is an ignorant man who does not recognise the link between HIV and AIDS. His legacy will be the death of millions more in South Africa.
P.S. [28 Oct 2004] Some good references:
One side of the story
The other side of the story
AIDS focus in South Africa
The United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
Whether Mbeki is justified in his explosive retort against racial slurs is not the point. Every word he utters simply loses him more credibility in his leadership position. He already lacks credibility when it comes to dealing with the welfare of his people, especially if the issue is AIDS related.
Mbeki is oblivious or chooses to ignore the peril of his nation.
- South Africa has the largest HIV+ population in the world
- 1 in 5 adult South Africans carry HIV
- 1 in 4 pregnant women are HIV+
- Over 600 die each day from AIDS related illness
- 40% of deaths in the 15 - 49 year age group are AIDS-related
- A 15-year-old only has a 20% chance of reaching 60 years
- By 2010 life expectancy will be less than 40 years.
- By the same year 6 million would have died as a result of AIDS
Bleating about racial slurs and condemning whites for focussing on the need for HIV treatment and prevention will not raise the dead or cure the sick. Mbeki is an ignorant man who does not recognise the link between HIV and AIDS. His legacy will be the death of millions more in South Africa.
P.S. [28 Oct 2004] Some good references:
One side of the story
The other side of the story
AIDS focus in South Africa
The United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
Democrats should heed Lawrence advice
In the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, Carmen Lawrence wrote that "Democracy is failing if the majority are alienated from politics". Carmen rightly points out that membership of political parties is comprised of less than 1% of Australians and that these people are not truly representative of our diverse community. Political hacks are unique beasts indeed.
Carmen has passed on some great advice to her fellow ALP members. But the wise words need to be heard by other parties, most notably the Australian Democrats.
A brief summary of some of the events leading to the downfall of the Democrats follows and should be read in light of Carmen's perfect conclusion for the ALP:
In my time (1996 - 2003) with the Democrats I've experienced the highs and lows that afflict any political organisation. But the one thing that used to separate the Democrats from other parties was the unique democracy that was entrenched into the constitution and party processes. Every member had the opportunity to attend party meetings, nominate for executive positions or stand as a candidate. Each member would, in turn, be able to vote for each of these important roles in a secret ballot without being limited by factions or coerced by consensus.
It was these processes, these rights and responsibilities that brought party members together and ensured the success of a minor party. The membership was the Democrats greates asset and democracy was its greatest tool.
The fall of the Democrats can be traced back to the subsequent erosion of these rights and responsibilites. When democracy becomes a sham, the peasants will revolt. And so they did when, under Cheryl Kernot, the Democrats negotiated the major industrial relations reforms and left their principles behind. This blow to the party was second only to the infamous GST sell-out.
But these two factors were not the catalysts, they were the effect of smaller, less conspicuous acts of riding rough-shod over the membership. Not the least of which was the dismissal of the Western Australian Division, including the expulsion of some 14 high-profile members, including a former parliamentarian. These were good people caught up in, what some have claimed to be, the injustice of a kangaroo court.
The rebuilding of the Division and the subsequent appointment of Andrew Murray as the lead Senate candidate in 1996 was the culmination of years of unresolved power-struggles between the membership, the WA heirarchy and the National Executive. The unwillingness of Lees and Murray to admit the GST decision was wrong saw many members (including high profile former parliamentarians) walk out the door.
When the membership decided to use their voting power to hand the leadership over to Natasha Stott Despoja (one of the vocal opposers of the GST deal) Lees and Murray were cornered. During the campaign, Natasha's supporters had taken heart to her promise to "Bring the party back home to the members". However, Natasha didn't stand a chance and was covertly and publicly attacked by her party room opponents, her leadership ability was questioned and systematically depleted.
The growing membership unease was fueled by the party room tension, and eventually we saw Lees spit the dummy when she was about to be hauled through a disciplinary procedure. Ironically it was the same system that she had used previously against another member. Lees quit the party and Murray served the ultimatum that led to Natasha quitting the leadership.
The fall out was enormous and resulted in a flood of members leaving the party in disgust. My own attempt, with the aid of other signatories, to have Murray disciplined was hampered at every turn. The party's Secretary refused to refer the legitimate complaint to the National Compliance Committee (NCC) claiming that documents had not arrived (despite sending them twice) and that it was not in the best interests of the party to proceed.
A similar complaint lodged by Queensland members against Senator Cherry met the same fate. Yet a complaint by Murray supporters against myself made it past the gatekeeper and was promptly dismissed by the NCC without even calling for my response to the charges.
Membership of the Australian Democrats fell to less than 2000 at one point, and in Western Australia it fell below 270. Only with unprecedented stacking of the division (via a special $5, 3 year associate membership) did the party manage to avoid de-registration in WA.
The results of the 2004 Federal election have been felt throughout the Party. But while some party hopefuls are pressing for a return to their democratic membership roots, others, are either oblivious to the demise or continue to suggest navel-gazing strategies.
Recent calls for Natasha to return as leader have been unfulfilled. And who could blame her after what she has been through. Perhaps if Murray was pushed out the door she might reconsider. In the meantime it looks like Lyn Allison will be handed the position. None of the usual membership vote, just a deal amongst the remaining members of the party room. How many members are going to deny the single contender the job? I wish they would.
If only Carmen would defect to the Democrats, her wisodm might be enough to lead the party back into a chance for survival. But I like Carmen, and I wouldn't wish the Democrats on her. I hope she sticks around long enough to make it back into shadow cabinet and perhaps even the Lodge.
Carmen has passed on some great advice to her fellow ALP members. But the wise words need to be heard by other parties, most notably the Australian Democrats.
A brief summary of some of the events leading to the downfall of the Democrats follows and should be read in light of Carmen's perfect conclusion for the ALP:
"If these members are to make a contribution, factional power and patronage must be relinquished in the interests of ensuring members a more adult role in the party. Being told what to do and think is humiliating, and most thinking
Australians won't stand for it.
In my time (1996 - 2003) with the Democrats I've experienced the highs and lows that afflict any political organisation. But the one thing that used to separate the Democrats from other parties was the unique democracy that was entrenched into the constitution and party processes. Every member had the opportunity to attend party meetings, nominate for executive positions or stand as a candidate. Each member would, in turn, be able to vote for each of these important roles in a secret ballot without being limited by factions or coerced by consensus.
It was these processes, these rights and responsibilities that brought party members together and ensured the success of a minor party. The membership was the Democrats greates asset and democracy was its greatest tool.
The fall of the Democrats can be traced back to the subsequent erosion of these rights and responsibilites. When democracy becomes a sham, the peasants will revolt. And so they did when, under Cheryl Kernot, the Democrats negotiated the major industrial relations reforms and left their principles behind. This blow to the party was second only to the infamous GST sell-out.
But these two factors were not the catalysts, they were the effect of smaller, less conspicuous acts of riding rough-shod over the membership. Not the least of which was the dismissal of the Western Australian Division, including the expulsion of some 14 high-profile members, including a former parliamentarian. These were good people caught up in, what some have claimed to be, the injustice of a kangaroo court.
The rebuilding of the Division and the subsequent appointment of Andrew Murray as the lead Senate candidate in 1996 was the culmination of years of unresolved power-struggles between the membership, the WA heirarchy and the National Executive. The unwillingness of Lees and Murray to admit the GST decision was wrong saw many members (including high profile former parliamentarians) walk out the door.
When the membership decided to use their voting power to hand the leadership over to Natasha Stott Despoja (one of the vocal opposers of the GST deal) Lees and Murray were cornered. During the campaign, Natasha's supporters had taken heart to her promise to "Bring the party back home to the members". However, Natasha didn't stand a chance and was covertly and publicly attacked by her party room opponents, her leadership ability was questioned and systematically depleted.
The growing membership unease was fueled by the party room tension, and eventually we saw Lees spit the dummy when she was about to be hauled through a disciplinary procedure. Ironically it was the same system that she had used previously against another member. Lees quit the party and Murray served the ultimatum that led to Natasha quitting the leadership.
The fall out was enormous and resulted in a flood of members leaving the party in disgust. My own attempt, with the aid of other signatories, to have Murray disciplined was hampered at every turn. The party's Secretary refused to refer the legitimate complaint to the National Compliance Committee (NCC) claiming that documents had not arrived (despite sending them twice) and that it was not in the best interests of the party to proceed.
A similar complaint lodged by Queensland members against Senator Cherry met the same fate. Yet a complaint by Murray supporters against myself made it past the gatekeeper and was promptly dismissed by the NCC without even calling for my response to the charges.
Membership of the Australian Democrats fell to less than 2000 at one point, and in Western Australia it fell below 270. Only with unprecedented stacking of the division (via a special $5, 3 year associate membership) did the party manage to avoid de-registration in WA.
The results of the 2004 Federal election have been felt throughout the Party. But while some party hopefuls are pressing for a return to their democratic membership roots, others, are either oblivious to the demise or continue to suggest navel-gazing strategies.
Recent calls for Natasha to return as leader have been unfulfilled. And who could blame her after what she has been through. Perhaps if Murray was pushed out the door she might reconsider. In the meantime it looks like Lyn Allison will be handed the position. None of the usual membership vote, just a deal amongst the remaining members of the party room. How many members are going to deny the single contender the job? I wish they would.
If only Carmen would defect to the Democrats, her wisodm might be enough to lead the party back into a chance for survival. But I like Carmen, and I wouldn't wish the Democrats on her. I hope she sticks around long enough to make it back into shadow cabinet and perhaps even the Lodge.
I'm not AWOL!
Despite the lack of any posts since last week, I'm not guilty of shirking my blog completely. Everyone needs a holiday. Even the toughest, most inconsiderate slave-driver would agree with that notion. So please consider the last few days as my well deserved long weekend.
I've had a an enjoyable time with friends from Sydney flying in to visit with us and joining in celebrating the end of our state's Pride festivities. Pride WA (originally Lesbian & Gay Pride, but now enjoying the benefits of a more inclusive name) celebrated its 15th annual parade, marking a turning point from protest march into a significant cultural event. The month long festival culminates in a street parade (second in size only to Sydney's Mardi Gras) and a dance party.
This year we were privileged to have a superb line-up of DJs to complement the excellent (although far too small) venue at Gilkinson's. Richard and I had the additional joy of being ambassadors to our friend DJ Ruby, who was undoubtedly the star of the "sKin-tite" party. His set went from 2am till 4pm and then he promptly jumped on a plane at 6am back to Sydney to play a 4pm set at Toybox! That is dedication :-)
Without a doubt it was the best Pride party I have experienced in Perth. I can say that even knowing that I was only one of the few hundred that arrived early enough to avoid the queue. Some people had to wait for hours due to licensing limitations and there was still a queue at 4.30am. Pride is deserved of the community backlash for this debacle, however, on behalf of those of us inside the main venue, thanks for a wonderful evening.
Now, back to reality ... did I miss anything?
[+/-] show/hide this post
Crystal ball gazing
It seems that the Coalition is going to secure its 39th Senate seat and will not need to rely on Family First to support any future legislation. This gives them a clear run to introduce, nay force, any number of draconian or regressive measures it likes.
As of the 1st July 2005, bar any miraculous conscientious objectors from the coalition getting in the way, Howard will have absolute, unfettered power. Australia will be the loser. All we can hope is that he plays it cool and keeps his hand firmly by his side, lest he reveal more of his Napoleonic traits.
What this will mean for various issues is anyone's guess. Telstra will undoubtedly be sold, but the devil is in the detail. The whispers of a break-up of the public telco could mean anything, for better or for worse.
Industrial relations is high on the agenda, but just how far he is prepared to go in this term is undecided. How badly does he want that fifth term of government? Even Whitlam concedes that Labor will be in opposition for another two terms.
And then we have foreign ownership laws, especially relating to the media. Analysts have been expecting Telstra to move into a traditional media presence, but the way in might be from reverse. Will Howard give the green light for the future USA-based News Ltd to take up a signicant piece of the Telstra pie? Are they interested?
It might herald the end of Australian culture as we know it, be it as weak as it currently is. BHP is no longer the Great Australian, our Aussie foods (like Vegemite and Arnotts) belong to others. Our entertainers must migrate to Hollywood and the UK to fuel their success, and not to mention the great brain drain that sees our intellectual property fail to carry a "Proudly Australian" badge. Even the Wiggles are Americanising their songs with themes of Central Park and being a New York fire-fighter, so why not rob us of more of the great Aussie spirit?
Hold on to your seats, Australia! We might be in for a bumpy ride.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Bush Blunder or Robertson recoils?
There's a new allegation in the USA over what the President did and did not say about the war in Iraq. I'm referring, of course, to the claims that President Bush told USA Christian Coalition leader, Pat Robertson, that there would be no casualties in Iraq.
Typically the media are expecting us to exclaim "oooohhh, he lied!". But seriously, think about it! Where is the logic of this issue? It really doesn't matter who is right in the new debate over who said what. However, there are two important conclusions that could and should be raised.
Firstly (and least of all) if Bush is correct in his recollection, that he never made such a ridiculous claim, then Robertson is posturing for some unrevealed reason. Perhaps he is now trying to distance himself from Bush on the slim chance that Kerry wins? Is he hedging his bets?
Secondly, and I prefer this one, is that Robertson is correct in his claim, and Bush is now covering his ass. I like this theory because it goes to prove that both Bush and Robertson are idiots. Bush, primarily by believing he could go to war and not have any casualties; and Robertson, for having faith in Bush and now having the audacity to be upset about a promise that was broken last year!
Sometimes you just have to laugh :-)
[+/-] show/hide this post
Damn those polls!
In recent Aussie elections, we have been seeing increased inaccuracies and the subsequent irrelevance of professional polls. It seems the pollsters are getting it right less often. At least the weather bureau seems to be improving their forecasts!
Some analysis of the inconsistent political forecasting is offerred by Andrew Leigh who suggests that the pundits are at least as good, if not a better guide, than the pollsters.
The looming USA Presidential election is set to follow the precedent. The varying polls around the nation and from each state offer no consistency and have Bush and Kerry at varying levels of win or lose.
Take a look at the three-way tussle between Bush-Kerry-Nader since the beginning of September, we see Bush consistently leading by as much as 16 points. He only loses to Kerry on four ocassions, and only by a maximum of 4 points with eight of the 62 polls suggesting a tie.
If we forget Nader (and 99% of USers do) the head-to-head counts still suggest a similar story. Of the 43 polls representing the same time frame, 4 suggest a tie and only 4 pick Kerry to win by 3 points or less. Bush is a clear leader with a lead of up to 13 points.
The conclusion is clear:
(by a narrow margin or a landslide!)
To pick the winner might be easy enough, but to ascertain the margin we may as well throw darts. My cynicism gives the odds to Bush with a significant 4-5% majority. I say this because a close election could see a repeat of 2000. The USA cannot afford to have any doubt as to the winner of this election and the GOP is not likely to leave the way open for another legal challenge.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Where is the "free world"
Sometimes, in life, you hit that rare moment when you are forced to pause and reflect, even if just for a few seconds. The adage that someone is always worse off than yourself became a startling realisation today when I came across a blog entry that highlighted the discriminatory policies of one society in particular.
Many readers of this blog would be aware of my role as an activist for the rights of people that don't fall into the heteronormative mold. This includes homosexuals (lesbians and gay men), bisexuals, transgendered, transsexual, androgyne, intersex, pansexual, polyamorous, and more (including heterosexuals where applicable).
We know that many cultures and societies frown, condemn, abuse, vilify, arrest and even punish (sometimes by death) anyone that does not fit into a specified (by theology, psychology, biology, sociology or law) label or box. And to hear that strict theocracies like Iran are barbarous to these people often will not raise an eyebrow. Equality and human rights are expected to be deficient there.
What is surprising to many is that basic human rights are lacking in 'civilised' countries like Australia and the USA. The extent of the bigotry is what should raise the ire of any 'small l' liberal or campaigner for social justice.
Australia's pink voters are winning small battles on a state level, but the big task is in the Federal sphere. A task made even more daunting in having to deal with a conservative Government and Senate.
While we have a long struggle ahead of us, the fact remains that for the most part (at least in WA and Tasmania and other states following close behind) we are protected and have our relationships on a similar par with heterosexual de factos. In the USA, with their conglomeration of laws that criss-cross county, state and federal jurisdictions, the task is much harder and has been a far longer struggle.
So I pause, just for a moment, to reflect on how lucky I am. How lucky we all are, in Australia, compared with the majority of the civilised world. But if I reflect too long, if I think about the persecution in the 'uncivilised' world, I might just cry.
Many readers of this blog would be aware of my role as an activist for the rights of people that don't fall into the heteronormative mold. This includes homosexuals (lesbians and gay men), bisexuals, transgendered, transsexual, androgyne, intersex, pansexual, polyamorous, and more (including heterosexuals where applicable).
We know that many cultures and societies frown, condemn, abuse, vilify, arrest and even punish (sometimes by death) anyone that does not fit into a specified (by theology, psychology, biology, sociology or law) label or box. And to hear that strict theocracies like Iran are barbarous to these people often will not raise an eyebrow. Equality and human rights are expected to be deficient there.
What is surprising to many is that basic human rights are lacking in 'civilised' countries like Australia and the USA. The extent of the bigotry is what should raise the ire of any 'small l' liberal or campaigner for social justice.
1,049 federal rights depend on marital status
After being in a romantic partnership for almost eight years, after living together for four years, after jointly purchasing property, sharing bills and income, after having a ceremony during which we publicly declared our commitment to one another in front of all our friends and family, Terra and I are still denied 1,049 federal rights automatically granted to heterosexual, married couples.
read more here
Australia's pink voters are winning small battles on a state level, but the big task is in the Federal sphere. A task made even more daunting in having to deal with a conservative Government and Senate.
While we have a long struggle ahead of us, the fact remains that for the most part (at least in WA and Tasmania and other states following close behind) we are protected and have our relationships on a similar par with heterosexual de factos. In the USA, with their conglomeration of laws that criss-cross county, state and federal jurisdictions, the task is much harder and has been a far longer struggle.
So I pause, just for a moment, to reflect on how lucky I am. How lucky we all are, in Australia, compared with the majority of the civilised world. But if I reflect too long, if I think about the persecution in the 'uncivilised' world, I might just cry.
Live and let live
I've come to a recent conclusion that it is hypocritical for us to
condemn churches for taking their stance on homosexuality within their
jurisdiction, whilst at the same time telling them to bugger off out
of our own private lives.
If a church honestly believes (and can convince its parishioners as
much) that homosexuality is an abomination, that priests should only
be male, that the end of the world is nigh, that tithing is good, that
pork is bad, that we should all be vegetarian, or that the Vatican is
not the whore of Babylon, then by all means let them do it.
Anyone willing to be part of that culture also willingly assents to
being discriminated. If individuals want change they have to change it
from within. It is none of our business. It has nothing to do with
wider society. They are free to teach and preach that the earth is
flat for all we should care.
On the flipside of the coin, the relevant religions should leave the
gentiles, heathens, pagans, infidels, atheists, agnostics, witches,
and liberal believers well enough alone. Let us live the life we
choose.
Interfering in religion is as much a form of vilification as religion
enforcing its moral standards on the rest of the community.
Who cares what the Anglican, or any other, church thinks? It is only
our own insecurities that they attempt to weaken by preaching our
wicked damnation. Why should we preach to them in the same tone? It
achieves nothing but makes them stronger, just as their vitriole makes
us stronger and more determined.
It is as pointless an exercise as debating the 'cause' of
homosexuality. While we waste resources on things we can't change it
leaves us with fewer resources for the things that we can change.
condemn churches for taking their stance on homosexuality within their
jurisdiction, whilst at the same time telling them to bugger off out
of our own private lives.
If a church honestly believes (and can convince its parishioners as
much) that homosexuality is an abomination, that priests should only
be male, that the end of the world is nigh, that tithing is good, that
pork is bad, that we should all be vegetarian, or that the Vatican is
not the whore of Babylon, then by all means let them do it.
Anyone willing to be part of that culture also willingly assents to
being discriminated. If individuals want change they have to change it
from within. It is none of our business. It has nothing to do with
wider society. They are free to teach and preach that the earth is
flat for all we should care.
On the flipside of the coin, the relevant religions should leave the
gentiles, heathens, pagans, infidels, atheists, agnostics, witches,
and liberal believers well enough alone. Let us live the life we
choose.
Interfering in religion is as much a form of vilification as religion
enforcing its moral standards on the rest of the community.
Who cares what the Anglican, or any other, church thinks? It is only
our own insecurities that they attempt to weaken by preaching our
wicked damnation. Why should we preach to them in the same tone? It
achieves nothing but makes them stronger, just as their vitriole makes
us stronger and more determined.
It is as pointless an exercise as debating the 'cause' of
homosexuality. While we waste resources on things we can't change it
leaves us with fewer resources for the things that we can change.
ALP drowning in internal backlash
News headlines are often harshly, even brutally, blunt. Perhaps it is more to do with the necessity of brevity rather than the need for newspaper sale sand ratings. Even so, today's conglomeration of one-liners must be giving Mark Latham and the ALP a mild headache, if not a gut-wrenching migraine.
Even ... the former prime minister Gough Whitlam, has conceded that the party realistically needs two terms to win.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Latham's incredible shrinking front bench
More than the rest, Tanner's retreat rattles insiders
Latham confident despite resignations
Fresh blow to Latham as MP joins exodus
Latham's front bench in turmoil
Chaos in ranks threatens leadership crisis
The exodus from the front bench of the ALP's shadow ministry started with John Faulkner (Senate Leader, State, Public Administration and Accountability), Kim Beazley (Defence, and former leader), Annette Ellis (Ageing, Seniors & Disabilities), Craig Emmerson (Workplace Relations, Public Service), Bob McMullan (Finance, Small Business), and now Lindsay Tanner (Communications, Community Relationships) have all taken a seat on the back benches.
Classic lines from the Sydney Morning Herald include:
First Mark Latham lost the election. Now he is losing his front bench.
Mark Latham is putting a brave face on the ever-increasing numbers of experienced people who are deciding against serving in his front bench.
Labor's leader always wanted to rejuvenate it and promote new faces. Now he has to.
"This is now a problem," one senior operator said last night - as if all that had happened in the previous week was not.
Even ... the former prime minister Gough Whitlam, has conceded that the party realistically needs two terms to win.
Although at this stage there is no realistic threat to Latham's leadership, the party is edgy, unhappy and unsure.
Meanwhile the rest of Australia is either underwhelmed or under sedation!
[+/-] show/hide this post
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.
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.
The voices in our heads
If Armageddon is nigh, I believe we will only have the religious zealots to blame. Which is doubly ironic, considering my agnosticism!
From the Canberra Times today, I read a posting in "Your Say" that sparked a worrying realisation about how fragile our future might be with the increasing popularity of fire and brimstone preaching. The posting stated:
Much more scary than Jesus
Max Smyth - Sunday, 17 October 2004
Graeme 'Godwhacker' Gibbon, our resident 'Get Ready Man', let me tell you about something far more frightening than Jesus H Christ's second coming, that thing nutters have been obsessed with for 2,000 years.
I am truly scared that the dimwitted Godwhacker President of the United States is going to win a second term. This could happen next month - not 2,000 years off. Wanna see him fry humanity in the Armageddon he believes is inevitable and within his control?
It heralds a stark realisation that we have in our midst (and increasingly among our elected representatives) people of the firm belief that the world as we know it will soon end and that unrepentant sinners will face eternal damnation.
These people are not merely forewarning of impending doom, they are actively working for, and rejoicing in, the approach of that day. They WANT Armageddon, they pray for it, they live for it, and they are willing to die for that belief.
Strangely, we are not talking about a Jonestown cult. These are everyday citizens of Australia and across the civilised world. Yet their strange and morbid fascination with the final days is commonly accepted without so much as a raised eyebrow. Why?
We laugh at the image of the disheveled vagabond with his sandwich board heralding that "the end is nigh", so why do we give more credibility to millions of bible-bashing church-goers? Is it safety in numbers? Is it because they wear shoes and dress neatly and have a home to go to each night? Does a particular level of hygiene bestow great gifts of respectability?
As an agnostic leaning towards atheism, I won't get into a debate about the truth of "The Word" - its just too subjective. Besides, biblical debates are emotive, not rational. Instead my rant today is more about the double standards we set and the implications for world harmony.
If I claimed to speak with 'God' on a regular basis, and that he told me what to do each day nobody would over react by sending for the straight jacket and booking a room at the local asylum. And if you are the President of the USA, well, that just makes your actions even more credible, being the work of God and such. Only the Pope and the President of the USA could get away with dropping a bomb and claiming it was God's will. A Moslem would be seen merely as a terrorist.
Change the perspective slightly and claim that you speak to some dead Swedish blacksmith from the 14th Century, who tells you what you should do each day, and many people will start to question your sanity. The dead guy has a lack of credibility, whereas God (as long as it is the Judeo-Christian monotheistic god) has ultimate credibility, at least within the relevant nations.
Moving into a Buddhist, Hindu or other polytheistic society may provide a similar acceptance of holy conversation. However the point is that religion is given far too much credibility when used to explain motives or rationale. I believe it tends to be an improper excuse or defence.
At the risk of losing the argument under Godwin's Law one only has to look at how Hitler brandished such extreme power under a Christian banner. The Crusades of old are no different to the Jihad of today. Same objective just different weapons. Is it any different for the leader of a nation, especially one that prides itself on the separation of church and state, to claim fortitude and a mandate under God?
What then does this say about the modern rise of a Christian theocracy? How is that political forces, like Family First, can rise out of religious fundamentalism to encroach on the separation of church and state by enforcing their conservative values on a secular society?
And why is it that they can hide behind a deity for all manner of acts and claims. Speaking in foreign and non-existent languages, miracles that claim to defy logic, healings that usually have little proof, conversations with apparitions. When excluded from a religious setting all of these would normally result in a psychiatric assessment of the individual. Religion is its own protector.
If traditional religion is immune from objective scrutiny and reality, should we begin to fear what the future may hold with these doomsayers making decisions of global importance. Should we worry that the man with his finger on the red button talks to voices in his head and believes that only Christian nations are good nations.
Should we especially be concerned that the people who most want the four horsemen of the apocalypse to ride across the earth are the very same people that are vying for more power in our parliament. The very same people that may, someday, have to choose between averting or starting World War III and potentially causing worldwide nuclear extinction.
Given a choice between languishing in this earthly existence or assisting in the fulfillment of holy prophecies by precipitating Armageddon at the press of a button, what would a zealous Christian do? Of course, they've already thought of that ... hence the reason for the third anti-Christ.
No matter what the non-believers and pagans think, Christianity will always win. Even if there is no god and no after-life, world destruction vindicates them. And as long as life continues, they continue to work and wait for the second coming.
Meanwhile those of us who are trying desperately to improve our mortal lot have to put up with their lot. There really is no justice.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Pedant musing
Does anyone else see the irony of this picture from the Sydney Morning Herald? Or maybe I'm just a little too pedantic this morning!
It shows Sam Statham surveying his family's certified organic vineyards at Rosnay, Tasmania.
We would hope that the motorbike is at least running on unleaded petrol, if not some form of low-pollutant bio-fuel.
Political Tautology
It never ceases to amaze me what lengths some people will go to in order to convince themselves (primarily) and others of their thinking and/or to position themselves in such a peculiar niche.
Take this website for example:
Progressive Conservative Foundation
"A 'progressive conservative' is socially and fiscally conservative, but is progressive in problem solving. However, a progressive conservative applies conservative principles to the progressive ideas utilized to solve problems. Generally, progressive conservatives are Republicans, but can come from various political groups. Progressive Conservatives have a Christian Faith."
I mean, honestly folks, where is the reality?
Ok, lets be fair and ignore the obvious tautology of the name and the irony of the acronym (PC) for now. We'll look at this for what it represents.
What I'm really astounded at is the uber-conservative restrictions placed on the oddly progressive notion that one could be progressive in solving problems whilst only applying conservative principles from a Christian perspective.
Geometrically it would probably resemble an amorphous blob (progressive) trying to escape the boundaries of an immovable and equal-sided quadrilateral (square conservative). *grin*
You've got to give the guy credit for trying, but he has lost before he even starts.
Its like a hare and tortoise rematch, where the tortoise gets to use rocket roller skates (speed limited to 1km/hr) and the hare can start a day earlier and gets an alarm clock to wake him up! In the end it is the same race and the tortoise will still win!
But gee, these GOP variants are good for a laugh, eh?
[+/-] show/hide this post
World Wants Kerry to Beat Bush!
Well, that was the headline from the Sydney Morning Herald, but I'd hardly call 10 countries being definitive of the world. Then again, the USA thinks the world consists of itself and a handful of annoying little countries.
Similar (they say identical and then contradict themselves) polling was conducted among 10 nations in mid-late September to gauge public opinion toward the upcoming USA election.
Regarding the opinion toward the USA, only Israel went against the trend of negativity with 40% of respondents having an improved attitude towards the USA compared to 28% who had a worse opinion. Other results were Canada, 64% had a worse attitude compared with 70% of the French, 45% of Brits, Japan 74%, South Korea 67% and Australia 54%. The SMH failed to report the result from Russia, Spain and Mexico.
Other results from the survey indicated strong support for Kerry; that the USA had too much influence on international affairs; and a consistent opposition to the War in Iraq.
The full report is copied below.
World wants Kerry to beat Bush
By Michael Millett, October 15, 2004 - 9:35AM
The US President, George Bush, is encountering growing international hostility to his campaign for a second term in the White House.
A remarkable collaborative polling exercise, undertaken by leading newspapers in 10 countries across the globe, has highlighted strong opposition to the Bush re-election campaign.
While the findings have no direct impact on the US election - the poll excludes the Americans whose vote really counts - they show the Bush Administration is struggling to secure popular support for its policies outside American borders.
The hostility is directed not only at the White House: the image of the US itself appears to have suffered collateral damage. This is despite the fact that most of those polled believe in the US alliance and declare they are not anti-American.
The ambitious exercise, initiated by Canada's Quebec-based La Presse, required the 10 project partners to run identical polls in mid- to late September to gauge public attitudes towards the US election on November 2.
The Herald, which commissioned its regular pollster ACNielsen for the exercise, is the first paper to appear with the results in print under Friday's co-ordinated publication date.
Across most of the countries surveyed, including Australia, opinions towards the US had deteriorated over the first Bush term.
Only Israel, lockstep with the US in terms of foreign policy objectives and delivery, ran against the trend. Forty per cent of Israelis surveyed said their attitude towards the US had improved over the past two or three years. Twenty-six per cent said their view had soured.
This contrasts with the response elsewhere. In Canada, 64 per cent said their attitude had worsened, France 70 per cent, Britain 45 per cent, Japan 74 per cent, South Korea 67 per cent and Australia 54 per cent.
The souring view is directly linked to public dissatisfaction with Mr Bush, mainly over his prosecution of the Iraq war.
In all countries except for Israel, majority opinion remains firmly against the US-led war. (No specific question on Iraq was asked in the Australian exercise.) In July, a majority of Australians (55 per cent) said the war was not justified, down eight points since May.
The strongest opposition to the war was in South Korea, Mexico, Spain and France.
This anti-war mood appears to feed directly into an international preference for John Kerry, the Democrat challenging Mr Bush for the presidency.
In eight of the 10 countries taking part in the poll, Senator Kerry is rated the preferred winner, with huge margins in France, Canada and Spain. Only in Russia (52-48) and Israel (a more decisive 50-24) is Mr Bush the preferred winner.
Senator Kerry benefits from being a relative unknown. In Australia, respondents were less likely to express an opinion about him (a 37 per cent "don't know" response compared to only 4 per cent for Mr Bush) but there were more people with a favourable rather than unfavourable opinion of him.
If Mr Bush was re-elected, 40 per cent of Australians surveyed believed the international state of affairs would worsen. Eleven per cent believed it would improve and 45 per cent believed it would stay the same.
While the appeal of the US has faded of late, Australians remain strongly committed to the relationship. Seventy-two per cent had a favourable opinion of Americans; 22 per cent had the opposite view.
Almost three in every four believed it was important that the US play a leadership role in the world and 92 per cent said it was important Australia maintain good relations with the US.
Four of the project countries asked whether the US had too much influence on international affairs. The results were emphatic: 86 per cent of Canadians, 73 per cent of Britons, 66 per cent of Mexicans and 87 per cent of South Koreans answered yes.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Norwegian Club Med
Clearly some of the world's population, even that of highly educated and mostly civilised Europe, seem to be lacking basic cognitive intelligence.
In this particular example Norway's Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Svein Ludvigsen, is probably in need of a new job (or at the very least, a new advisor) after suggesting that seal hunting would be good for tourism.
That guy needs to have a few more holidays of his own ... the long summers and winters of Scandinavia have finally killed off too much grey matter!
P.S. just think what they'd do to Antarctica!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)