Just an update on the story concerning the young aborigine boy mentioned in the previous post. It seems that good sense has prevailed. The West Australian Police Commissioner, Karl O'Callaghan stepped in and requested the charges be dropped. The young lad was awarded $1000.00 costs.
Mr O'Callaghan stated that though the charges were "technically correct", the matter should have been handled by the juvenile justice team.
The Northam Police in defending themselves claimed the boy had come to their notice on several occasions without being charged.
WA Aboriginal Legal Service chief lawyer Peter Collins, stated that the charges were scandalous and that the charges would not have been brought had the boy come from a middle class non-aborigine family.
I am pleased that the charges were dropped, however I think that by awarding costs the wrong message was sent. The outcome would have been totally acceptable have the charges been dropped and left at that.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Is Australia a Racist Country?
I recently came across this news item that I found laughable. It seems a 12 year old indigenous boy has been arrested from his school and charged with receiving a stolen seventy cent Freddo Frog. According to police,&nbap the lad had been spoken to on previous occasions but had no previous criminal convictions. As absurd as this story appears, the underlying connotations give a clue as to the extent that racism exists in this country today. In order to set the scene more fully I will give a very brief history of Britain's occupation of the land that was to become Australia.
The first fleet arrived at Botany Bay on the 26th January 1788. The settlement that eventually grew to become the modern day city we call Sydney was initially a penal colony. A dropping off point for Britain's "undesirables". In order for Britain to occupy the land Australia was described to Europe as beingTerra Nullis (A land belonging to no one), even though at the time the land was populated by an estimated 300,000 indigenous peoples, who had occupied it for 30,000 years. Although there was no immediate problems between the old and new occupiers, it wasn't too long before conflict broke out (for a documented time line check out this site).
Ever since those early encounters there has been an underlying current of discontent between the two peoples. It is not surprising really considering the interaction between the two has been one of master and slave rather than that of equals. White Europeans have always considered themselves the superior race in this country to the extent that there was a "White Australia" policy through to 1973. Although officially that has changed, the minds of a large minority of the population has not. Non-white migrants in Australia have generally been treated with suspicion and some face a difficult time settling. Maybe because of this, they tend to live in close proximity to others from a similar cultural background. This is seen by some as being stand-offish and is often used to point out their unwillingness to "integrate". The irony of this is that European emigrants and indeed Australians themselves unconsciously do the very same thing. You will find pockets of Greek, Italian, English, to name a few, communities throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Italian and Greek migrants, in particular, most likely appreciate the opening up of Australia to people of Asian descent, as prior to 1973 they were the recipients of much discrimination themselves and even today get their fair share. Since September 11 2001, the Asian community have gained some relief; the new target being people from Arabic speaking countries.
Of course it matters little to Australian aboriginals, who remain a target of discrimination not only from Australians but also from the very same migrants that are being discriminated against. A culture of racial discrimination has developed from the early convict penal days through to modern day Australia. Had the young boy mentioned at the top of the post been a white Australian there would have been no arrest, no charges and no story.
A short list of sites highlighting some of the less extreme right wing groups posing as concerned Australians with their country at heart. The more extreme groups, are too sickening to list here. If they interest you I suggest you seek them out yourself, I have no intentions of sending readers their way.
Australian News Commentary
One Nation
Australia First
National Front Australia
This is a blog that hides under the umbrella of a bonafide Australian newspaper.
Sydney Morning Herald
The first fleet arrived at Botany Bay on the 26th January 1788. The settlement that eventually grew to become the modern day city we call Sydney was initially a penal colony. A dropping off point for Britain's "undesirables". In order for Britain to occupy the land Australia was described to Europe as beingTerra Nullis (A land belonging to no one), even though at the time the land was populated by an estimated 300,000 indigenous peoples, who had occupied it for 30,000 years. Although there was no immediate problems between the old and new occupiers, it wasn't too long before conflict broke out (for a documented time line check out this site).
Ever since those early encounters there has been an underlying current of discontent between the two peoples. It is not surprising really considering the interaction between the two has been one of master and slave rather than that of equals. White Europeans have always considered themselves the superior race in this country to the extent that there was a "White Australia" policy through to 1973. Although officially that has changed, the minds of a large minority of the population has not. Non-white migrants in Australia have generally been treated with suspicion and some face a difficult time settling. Maybe because of this, they tend to live in close proximity to others from a similar cultural background. This is seen by some as being stand-offish and is often used to point out their unwillingness to "integrate". The irony of this is that European emigrants and indeed Australians themselves unconsciously do the very same thing. You will find pockets of Greek, Italian, English, to name a few, communities throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Italian and Greek migrants, in particular, most likely appreciate the opening up of Australia to people of Asian descent, as prior to 1973 they were the recipients of much discrimination themselves and even today get their fair share. Since September 11 2001, the Asian community have gained some relief; the new target being people from Arabic speaking countries.
Of course it matters little to Australian aboriginals, who remain a target of discrimination not only from Australians but also from the very same migrants that are being discriminated against. A culture of racial discrimination has developed from the early convict penal days through to modern day Australia. Had the young boy mentioned at the top of the post been a white Australian there would have been no arrest, no charges and no story.
A short list of sites highlighting some of the less extreme right wing groups posing as concerned Australians with their country at heart. The more extreme groups, are too sickening to list here. If they interest you I suggest you seek them out yourself, I have no intentions of sending readers their way.
Australian News Commentary
One Nation
Australia First
National Front Australia
This is a blog that hides under the umbrella of a bonafide Australian newspaper.
Sydney Morning Herald
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Blood Lust
What is it with people that they need to vent their anger, or blood lust or whatever label you want to give it, out on anything that is vulnerable and defenseless. Is it something hidden deep in our primordial brain that creates a need to blood let, that most of us are able to keep under control. Perhaps there was a full moon a couple of nights back, I'll need to check. However I try to rationalise it, it makes no sense to me. What am I talking about? Another senseless act of violence directed at a group of animals carried out by either a single moron or a group of them.
Some years back when this sort of thing first raised it's head, we would have some professor type with a psychology degree making noises about the Zone of proximal development (or ZNP as any good psychology student would know it) or nature/nurture or some other theory put forward by someone with an almost unpronounceable (to the western tongue) surname. These mutterings seemed to make some sense back then, especially when the noises being made seemed to be offering solutions. Yet here we are in the twenty-first century and what have we got to show for it. Child rights! (Rightly or wrongly I am making an assumption that it is kids that are committing these despicable acts)
I don't want to hit on child rights again, I let my feelings on that matter be known a couple of blogs back. We need to find a solution to this problem now. I am obviously concerned about the animals that are suffering because of our inability to control these monsters that are committing the crime. My concern does not end there however, what worries me is what is the next step for these kids. &nbp When the killing of animals no longer satisfies their needs, will the next step be the killing of the human animal. Maybe someone will be make a name for him/herself by developing a theory that rationalises and compartmentises this sort of behaviour then we can spend the next fourty years blaming ourselves for the way our kids turned out, just as we have been told to blame our parents for our own behaviour.
Some years back when this sort of thing first raised it's head, we would have some professor type with a psychology degree making noises about the Zone of proximal development (or ZNP as any good psychology student would know it) or nature/nurture or some other theory put forward by someone with an almost unpronounceable (to the western tongue) surname. These mutterings seemed to make some sense back then, especially when the noises being made seemed to be offering solutions. Yet here we are in the twenty-first century and what have we got to show for it. Child rights! (Rightly or wrongly I am making an assumption that it is kids that are committing these despicable acts)
I don't want to hit on child rights again, I let my feelings on that matter be known a couple of blogs back. We need to find a solution to this problem now. I am obviously concerned about the animals that are suffering because of our inability to control these monsters that are committing the crime. My concern does not end there however, what worries me is what is the next step for these kids. &nbp When the killing of animals no longer satisfies their needs, will the next step be the killing of the human animal. Maybe someone will be make a name for him/herself by developing a theory that rationalises and compartmentises this sort of behaviour then we can spend the next fourty years blaming ourselves for the way our kids turned out, just as we have been told to blame our parents for our own behaviour.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Asianising Australia
The Taliban have recently put to white Australia what in effect amounts to an ultimatum: either assimilate into Asia or get out. Of course the wording was not quite as straight forward as that but at the same time they were not what you may call diplomatic either.nbsp Mustafa Hamid's exact words were "It can either return to its motherland in Europe or reconcile with its Asian surroundings and assimilate into it as a wealthy and active member." The irony of this is that Australian's, in general, tend to feel that when Asian peoples come to this country, even though we take great pains in telling the world how multicultural we are, should assimilate with Australia.
If you remove the rhetoric from Hamid's article, there is some truth in what he says. Australia is geographically closer to Asia than to Europe, there is no argument there. Culturally we are predominately European and our history links us to Europe. But times, and the world, have changed since Captain Cook's fleet landed here some two hundred years ago. Europe is trying to comes to terms with it's own unification and has little time for this, not insignificant, island at the bottom of the world. We have, in modern times, tried desperately to ingratiate ourselves to the US by taking part in all their wars no matter how immoral some of those wars have been. But even the world's sole remaining superpower has enough problems of her own to be overly concerned about what is happening down here. Most American's have no idea where Australia is and a former President couldn't even get our Prime Minister's name right.
The only direction Australia has to go is towards Asia. It is true that in recent times some effort has been made to improve our relationship with Asia. There is a free trade agreement in place with Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand and our dialogue with ASEAN has improved to the extent that earlier this year Australia completed the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA). So the signs are there albeit only economic gains.
I don't expect that advances in defense pacts will come quickly or easily, yet this is an avenue Australia should be pursuing with more zeal. There is something in the pipeline involving Japan but it does not appear to be a full defense pact, more a defense supply agreement. Australia has a defense pact with the US which does us no favours in Asia. Some parts of Asia resent Australia's relationship with the US and see Australia as being America's guard dog in the region. It would be crazy for us to break our ties with the US at this point in time but we should be looking to more actively pursue similar pacts with countries in our region in order to eventually do so.
Australia's future needs to be tied to Asia's future. In order to take advantage of the promise that Asia's future holds we need to be making the right decisions now.
If you remove the rhetoric from Hamid's article, there is some truth in what he says. Australia is geographically closer to Asia than to Europe, there is no argument there. Culturally we are predominately European and our history links us to Europe. But times, and the world, have changed since Captain Cook's fleet landed here some two hundred years ago. Europe is trying to comes to terms with it's own unification and has little time for this, not insignificant, island at the bottom of the world. We have, in modern times, tried desperately to ingratiate ourselves to the US by taking part in all their wars no matter how immoral some of those wars have been. But even the world's sole remaining superpower has enough problems of her own to be overly concerned about what is happening down here. Most American's have no idea where Australia is and a former President couldn't even get our Prime Minister's name right.
The only direction Australia has to go is towards Asia. It is true that in recent times some effort has been made to improve our relationship with Asia. There is a free trade agreement in place with Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand and our dialogue with ASEAN has improved to the extent that earlier this year Australia completed the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA). So the signs are there albeit only economic gains.
I don't expect that advances in defense pacts will come quickly or easily, yet this is an avenue Australia should be pursuing with more zeal. There is something in the pipeline involving Japan but it does not appear to be a full defense pact, more a defense supply agreement. Australia has a defense pact with the US which does us no favours in Asia. Some parts of Asia resent Australia's relationship with the US and see Australia as being America's guard dog in the region. It would be crazy for us to break our ties with the US at this point in time but we should be looking to more actively pursue similar pacts with countries in our region in order to eventually do so.
Australia's future needs to be tied to Asia's future. In order to take advantage of the promise that Asia's future holds we need to be making the right decisions now.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Child Murderes
A quick aside from yesterday's post. I found this news report to be in bad taste. Well not the report itself but the subject matter. It seems that the Sydney Theatre Company is staging a play regarding the Casey Anthoney case. You would think they would have the decency to hold off until after the trial.
Whilst combing the Internet looking for information about the Anthony case, I was shocked by the number of child murders that occur throughout the world. There are two cases currently in Australia. A Sydney woman was found guilty of poisoning and smothering her four-year-old son and two-year-old daughter and was given a 4 year prison term. A 25 year old Adelaide woman is being detained following the death of her two-year-old son. It is bad enough when a stranger murders a child but I just cannot wrap my head around a parent that would take the life of their own son or daughter.
Now I have no training in law but I thought that if you were deemed unfit to stand trial on psychological grounds then you could not be tried. My thinking is this, the only way I can imagine anyone taking a child's life (especially the parent) is if the life taker is mentally ill. If they are mentally ill, they should not be tried. Obviously my logic is flawed because my first premise is incorrect. Many killers have taken a child's life with as much indifference as they may kill a chicken for the Sunday roast. Thankfully many of these monsters have been put away or paid the ultimate penalty for their crimes (capital punishment requires a post on its own which I may look at in the future).
There was one case that I came across that disturbed me far to much for me to continue reading. The torture and eventual death of Sylvia Likens back in the sixties was a tale of unsurpassed horror. I have no intentions of recounting any of the gruesome details here.nbspnbsp If you feel you have the stomach for it I have a link to the site here.
Whilst combing the Internet looking for information about the Anthony case, I was shocked by the number of child murders that occur throughout the world. There are two cases currently in Australia. A Sydney woman was found guilty of poisoning and smothering her four-year-old son and two-year-old daughter and was given a 4 year prison term. A 25 year old Adelaide woman is being detained following the death of her two-year-old son. It is bad enough when a stranger murders a child but I just cannot wrap my head around a parent that would take the life of their own son or daughter.
Now I have no training in law but I thought that if you were deemed unfit to stand trial on psychological grounds then you could not be tried. My thinking is this, the only way I can imagine anyone taking a child's life (especially the parent) is if the life taker is mentally ill. If they are mentally ill, they should not be tried. Obviously my logic is flawed because my first premise is incorrect. Many killers have taken a child's life with as much indifference as they may kill a chicken for the Sunday roast. Thankfully many of these monsters have been put away or paid the ultimate penalty for their crimes (capital punishment requires a post on its own which I may look at in the future).
There was one case that I came across that disturbed me far to much for me to continue reading. The torture and eventual death of Sylvia Likens back in the sixties was a tale of unsurpassed horror. I have no intentions of recounting any of the gruesome details here.nbspnbsp If you feel you have the stomach for it I have a link to the site here.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Sad Tale of Caylee Anthony
Little Caylee Anthony never had a chance to experience the joys of life, her life was taken from her in the northern summer of 2008, in Orlando, Florida, USA (thanks to the anonymous reader for correcting me). She was just two years old. The child's mother Casey Anthony, a single mum, has been arrested and charged with Caylee's murder. Whether mum is guilty or not we will have to wait to find out. Her trial begins in January 2010.
Caylee never knew her father. He, most likely, never even knew of her existence. According to friends of Casey Anthony, the child was the result of a one night stand and the father died in a car crash shortly after Caylee's birth.
What is known of Caylee's death? Not very much at all. Only the skeletal remains of the toddler were found and her death was listed as "homicide by undetermined means." There seems little doubt she was murdered as it is well documented that the body was discovered with duct tape wrapped around the mouth and head.
No evidence has turned up that directly links Casey with the child's murder. There are, however, some questions she will need to satisfactorily answer if she is to convince a jury that she is innocent. Why was the child's disappearance not reported to the police until around a month after she went missing? Why has she continually lied in her police interviews? Why was she out partying the whole time her daughter was missing? The answers to these questions may give an insight into Casey's personality and state of mind but they do not necessarily prove her guilt or innocence. However, it would appear that this makes up the bulk of the prosecutors case. And seems to be the reason why many members of the public see her as guilty.
The only thing I know with any degree of certainty is that Caylee's life ended far too soon. I always find it difficult to imagine a mother taking the life of her own child. It has happened in the past and will most likely happen again but that does not make it any easier to accept. I want to believe that Casey Anthony is innocent but something in the back of my mind is telling me otherwise.
If you haven't seen this CBS/48 Hours interview by Maggie Rodriguez, I suggest you have a look. You won't find anything new in it. What you may get out of it is a better understanding of how this child's death has affected those closely related to her. For those of you who like to sift through evidence you may want to visit this site where you will find a summary of the numerous witnesses involved in the case.
As I stated earlier, there is something in the back of my mind that I am not comfortable with. Having said that, I still intend to keep an open mind in regards to this case.
Caylee never knew her father. He, most likely, never even knew of her existence. According to friends of Casey Anthony, the child was the result of a one night stand and the father died in a car crash shortly after Caylee's birth.
What is known of Caylee's death? Not very much at all. Only the skeletal remains of the toddler were found and her death was listed as "homicide by undetermined means." There seems little doubt she was murdered as it is well documented that the body was discovered with duct tape wrapped around the mouth and head.
No evidence has turned up that directly links Casey with the child's murder. There are, however, some questions she will need to satisfactorily answer if she is to convince a jury that she is innocent. Why was the child's disappearance not reported to the police until around a month after she went missing? Why has she continually lied in her police interviews? Why was she out partying the whole time her daughter was missing? The answers to these questions may give an insight into Casey's personality and state of mind but they do not necessarily prove her guilt or innocence. However, it would appear that this makes up the bulk of the prosecutors case. And seems to be the reason why many members of the public see her as guilty.
The only thing I know with any degree of certainty is that Caylee's life ended far too soon. I always find it difficult to imagine a mother taking the life of her own child. It has happened in the past and will most likely happen again but that does not make it any easier to accept. I want to believe that Casey Anthony is innocent but something in the back of my mind is telling me otherwise.
If you haven't seen this CBS/48 Hours interview by Maggie Rodriguez, I suggest you have a look. You won't find anything new in it. What you may get out of it is a better understanding of how this child's death has affected those closely related to her. For those of you who like to sift through evidence you may want to visit this site where you will find a summary of the numerous witnesses involved in the case.
As I stated earlier, there is something in the back of my mind that I am not comfortable with. Having said that, I still intend to keep an open mind in regards to this case.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tamils and the Ocean Viking
What is wrong with this Australian labour government? More than three hundred Tamil people have risked their life trying to reach our shores and this government are refusing them entry. I thought that when the Howard government was kicked out of office some compassion would return to Australian politics, I was obviously wrong. Let me say straight up, I am not political. I have withheld my right to vote since Whitlam was booted out of office way back in 1975 and have virtually ignored politics ever since. But when a party so lacking in compassion as the Liberal (a misnomer if ever there was one) Party of John Howard rules over the land for as long as they did, you cannot help but take notice. Of course I still lean (maybe bend) to the left in my thinking, that will never change. I am going off topic here again. You'll have to forgive me, It's an age thing that is getting worse by the year. There is an argument that goes something like, these people pay "people smugglers" to bring them here. So what? My folks paid ten pounds each to come here (nothing for me) and were ferried here on a luxury liner. I wonder if we (encompassing the European emigrant in general) would have risked everything to come here on a leaky boat.
Why have our policies towards "boat people" not changed with a change of government; especially since the labour party, when in opposition, called for a more compassionate approach themselves. Is there a fear of being overrun by "boat people" if we allow these people to land on our shores? Would the view of this government be any different if these people trying to come here were not Asian?
There is a very good article in The Canberra Times that address these issues very nicely. Here is a quote from the article
Anyway, in my view these Tamil asylum seekers should be allowed into the country. I'll be buggered, a short while ago, it seems a pollie has just agreed with me. The Premier of West Australia announced that these people are our responsibility and we should allow them onto our shores in order to process them. All I can say to that is, and about time too.
Why have our policies towards "boat people" not changed with a change of government; especially since the labour party, when in opposition, called for a more compassionate approach themselves. Is there a fear of being overrun by "boat people" if we allow these people to land on our shores? Would the view of this government be any different if these people trying to come here were not Asian?
There is a very good article in The Canberra Times that address these issues very nicely. Here is a quote from the article
The sea journey to Christmas island is indeed hazardous, and the fact that asylum-seekers continue to risk it suggests that they have very good reasons for wanting to leave their country of origin in the first place; something not all Australians are willing to recognise. It's regrettable that some politicians so easily lose sight of the human dimensions of the asylum-seeker issue as they seek to curry favour with xenophobic voters or to uphold dubious legacies.These people seem to be genuine asylum-seekers. Fools, like West Australia's own Wilson Tuckey, make the claim that Tamil "terrorists" are among the common people on the boats. That maybe so, I don't know. But today's terrorists are tomorrow's "freedom fighters" depending which side our government (nearer the truth, the US government) is backing at the time, so let's not get over concerned about that. Politicians use these scare tactics all of the time. Why do they use them? Because journalists report their every word as the truth without checking for accuracy and of course the general public believe it. And they only need the public to believe them for a short while. For some reason our memory, when it comes to the utterings of pollies, is quite short lived. However I am immune to them , my yardstick for pollies telling the truth, if his mouth is open, he's lying.
Anyway, in my view these Tamil asylum seekers should be allowed into the country. I'll be buggered, a short while ago, it seems a pollie has just agreed with me. The Premier of West Australia announced that these people are our responsibility and we should allow them onto our shores in order to process them. All I can say to that is, and about time too.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Youth, the UN and the Social Worker
The front page headline of the local rag reads "Youths Out Of Control". After reading through the article it was obvious that not much has been happening in the area over the past week. I mean, the article described youths behaving, in the main, pretty much as they have always behaved. However, it got me thinking about the way kids behave nowadays. I realise that anyone over the age of twenty-four that compares the behavior kids of today with the behavior of kids of their own youth are reminded that they sound like their own parents (a comparison we all dread). Well I am prepared to accept the comparison.
I think kids today are basically the same as they have always been. All well and good so far but I am starting to hear dad's voice echoing in the background. There are a couple of things that set the youth of today apart from the youth of my day. For one, there is a lack of respect. I don't just don't mean a lack of respect towards others but a total lack of respect for anything. The other thing is there seems to be a particularly nasty streak apparent in a small but growing minority of teens and pre-teens. These differences have come about in spite of, maybe because of, the greater rights given them through the ratification of the UN Convention of Child Rights, I'll come back to that later. Who is responsible for the way kids function in society today?
I will always speak out for the rights of the child. Children are extremely vulnerable and need and deserve our protection. There are certainly enough predators out there ready to prey on their vulnerability. The very fact that there is a need for a special set of rights for children says more about where we are as a species than I can articulate. But I am straying from the point here. Anything worth having seems to have conditions attached and in some cases are protected by laws. If you break the conditions or laws you are penalised in an appropriate way. Well that's how it is supposed to work anyway. I know I seem to be jumping all over the place here but bear with me. Earlier I spoke of a particularly nastiness in today's youth. A short while ago over a period of 5 months, 6 kangaroos were mutilated and decapitated at the local golf course by a couple of teens; last year on Rottnest Island (a small island off the coast of Australia where us West Aussie's go so we can say we have been overseas) some quokka's (a small marsupial about the size of a rat) were kicked to death by kids using them as football's; recently in London a 10 week old puppy had it's skull crushed by a 15 year old thug. I don't know what the latter youth's penalty will be but in the other incidences, the kids received a small fine and received a short probation period. The penalties for these barbaric acts are certainly too low and I doubt very much if the kids involved gained any respect for animals, the law or anything else. Now I know that the Convention of Child Rights does not lay down laws on how children should be penalised, it only give guidelines. The problems arise when people begin to interpret the guidelines.
A lot of the blame for the way children behave today is laid at the feet of parents. I guess to some extent and certainly in some cases this is true. But in recent years, parents have become less and less effective simply because their rights as parents have become eroded and that erosion has been brought about by the rights of the child. This was certainly not the intention of the UN when it drew up the Convention of Child Rights. Like laws and codes, conventions are open to interpretation. Unfortunately the responsibility of interpreting the convention of child rights fell to sociologists. I have nothing against sociologists per se, they are well intentioned people in general and do a lot of good for the general welfare of mankind and I in no way say that in a patronising way. They do, however, tend to
have a very blinkered view of the world and as a consequence tend to cause as much harm by their actions as they do good. As such we have laws in place that disenfranchise not only parent but also anyone who has dealings with children. As a short example of this, I was speaking with a bus driver late last year about how the bus seats were torn and the glass in the windows were scratched on new buses. He told me it was work of school kids. I asked why he didn't stop them, he said he did not have the power to stop them. He was not allowed to psychically stop them, he was unable to remove them from his bus or stop them leaving the bus. All he was able to do was radio ahead and have the police meet the bus at the terminal (most often the kids would alight before the last stop). Even when the police were able to apprehend the culprits the maximum penalty was a small fine. In most cases the kids were given a warning and allowed to go on their way. What I am saying is, the conventions guiding the way we interact with children has gone way beyond their original intentions simply because of the way they have been interpreted.
I for one am not advocating bringing back corporal punishment, that is about as effective as capital punishment is at stopping murder. I do think, however, that kids need to be taught to respect their place in society. That they have to accept the consequences of their actions and the penalties need to match more closely the deed that brought about the consequence in the first place otherwise they learn nothing. OK, so maybe dad's words forced their way through at the end, whatever, I stand by em.
I think kids today are basically the same as they have always been. All well and good so far but I am starting to hear dad's voice echoing in the background. There are a couple of things that set the youth of today apart from the youth of my day. For one, there is a lack of respect. I don't just don't mean a lack of respect towards others but a total lack of respect for anything. The other thing is there seems to be a particularly nasty streak apparent in a small but growing minority of teens and pre-teens. These differences have come about in spite of, maybe because of, the greater rights given them through the ratification of the UN Convention of Child Rights, I'll come back to that later. Who is responsible for the way kids function in society today?
I will always speak out for the rights of the child. Children are extremely vulnerable and need and deserve our protection. There are certainly enough predators out there ready to prey on their vulnerability. The very fact that there is a need for a special set of rights for children says more about where we are as a species than I can articulate. But I am straying from the point here. Anything worth having seems to have conditions attached and in some cases are protected by laws. If you break the conditions or laws you are penalised in an appropriate way. Well that's how it is supposed to work anyway. I know I seem to be jumping all over the place here but bear with me. Earlier I spoke of a particularly nastiness in today's youth. A short while ago over a period of 5 months, 6 kangaroos were mutilated and decapitated at the local golf course by a couple of teens; last year on Rottnest Island (a small island off the coast of Australia where us West Aussie's go so we can say we have been overseas) some quokka's (a small marsupial about the size of a rat) were kicked to death by kids using them as football's; recently in London a 10 week old puppy had it's skull crushed by a 15 year old thug. I don't know what the latter youth's penalty will be but in the other incidences, the kids received a small fine and received a short probation period. The penalties for these barbaric acts are certainly too low and I doubt very much if the kids involved gained any respect for animals, the law or anything else. Now I know that the Convention of Child Rights does not lay down laws on how children should be penalised, it only give guidelines. The problems arise when people begin to interpret the guidelines.
A lot of the blame for the way children behave today is laid at the feet of parents. I guess to some extent and certainly in some cases this is true. But in recent years, parents have become less and less effective simply because their rights as parents have become eroded and that erosion has been brought about by the rights of the child. This was certainly not the intention of the UN when it drew up the Convention of Child Rights. Like laws and codes, conventions are open to interpretation. Unfortunately the responsibility of interpreting the convention of child rights fell to sociologists. I have nothing against sociologists per se, they are well intentioned people in general and do a lot of good for the general welfare of mankind and I in no way say that in a patronising way. They do, however, tend to
have a very blinkered view of the world and as a consequence tend to cause as much harm by their actions as they do good. As such we have laws in place that disenfranchise not only parent but also anyone who has dealings with children. As a short example of this, I was speaking with a bus driver late last year about how the bus seats were torn and the glass in the windows were scratched on new buses. He told me it was work of school kids. I asked why he didn't stop them, he said he did not have the power to stop them. He was not allowed to psychically stop them, he was unable to remove them from his bus or stop them leaving the bus. All he was able to do was radio ahead and have the police meet the bus at the terminal (most often the kids would alight before the last stop). Even when the police were able to apprehend the culprits the maximum penalty was a small fine. In most cases the kids were given a warning and allowed to go on their way. What I am saying is, the conventions guiding the way we interact with children has gone way beyond their original intentions simply because of the way they have been interpreted.
I for one am not advocating bringing back corporal punishment, that is about as effective as capital punishment is at stopping murder. I do think, however, that kids need to be taught to respect their place in society. That they have to accept the consequences of their actions and the penalties need to match more closely the deed that brought about the consequence in the first place otherwise they learn nothing. OK, so maybe dad's words forced their way through at the end, whatever, I stand by em.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Death of the Tigers
Poachers. if you find this picture disturbing, then it has served its purpose. People reckon I am a bit of a hard nut where my emotions are concerned. In fact my grand-daughter jokingly tells me I am emotionally challenged. But I have to tell ya when I came across this story today I was genuinely upset. The article claims that there are around 3500 tigers left in the wild, a huge drop from the 100,000 that roamed the wilds around a hundred years ago. Unless we raise our effort to conserve these beautiful animals they are likely to become extinct in around 20 years from now.
Skins being tanned and prepared for sale.Poachers are a major threat to these beasts. They service the Asian markets. Tiger body parts are in great demand throughout Asia and it is not just the skin that is sought after. Just about all body parts are favoured in Chinese medicine. If you want a run down on just what parts are used and why, check out this site. What will people use to ward off evil spirits when these beasts no longer roam the world.
Senseless slaughter.It is not the poachers alone that are causing the alarming drop in tiger numbers. We are encroaching on their environment to the extent that since the 1940's three of the ten subspecies of tiger have become extinct. Tigers have been around for millions of years, longer than man, yet in such a short period of time we have brought them to the edge of extinction. Now without going into a full blown environmental sermon, we really do need to learn to co-exist with the other animals on this world of ours.
The last Bali tiger?Throughout the ages, man has always taken advantage of the most vulnerable. He will generally go to any lengths to earn a quick dollar. It is this greed that has caused the extinction, or near extinction of a number of creatures. According to the World Conservation Union, "784 extinctions have been recorded since the year 1500, the arbitrary date selected to define "modern" extinctions." Is there anything we can do change this trend?
Make a start by going here to see how you can help the various endangered species. Or maybe you are like me and have a soft spot for the tiger, if that is the case, go here and make a donation. If we want our descendants to be able to see the great cats outside of a book, the time to act is now.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Prince Edward Down Under
Australia is to play host to yet another Royal fop. Prince Edward, the third son and fourth offspring of Queen Elizabeth II is to do us colonials the honour of landing on our shores. To do what, you may ask.
It seems that Ed is to grace us with his presence for a couple of days in order to present a few awards to some worthy young people, have tea with the Governor General, then issue a few more awards. And who is footing the bill for this little jaunt? The Australian taxpayer of course. I do not have an official estimate of just how much this is going to cost but judging by previous royal visits there won't be much change from $100,000.
Surely we have our own dignitaries that are capable of giving out a few awards and having tiffin with the GG. I reckon Dame Edna Everage would be more than happy to do the honours and at a fraction of the cost. We may even be able to coax Norman Gunstan "The Little Aussie Bleeder" out of retirement for such an occasion.
So why do we need to bring the 7th in line to the English throne to our shores on such occasions. Perhaps our illustrious leaders are still feeling the need to repay our Paul's little indiscretion back in 1992, when he had the temerity to touch the royal back. Maybe the royalist lobby, which is quite strong in this country, need to show our link to the Monarchy is strong and healthy by having this royal personage here. I do not know the reason and to be honest I don't particularly care, all I know is he is coming, my taxes are paying for him to come (it is my choice to continue paying tax even though I am retired) and I have no say in the matter.
It seems that Ed is to grace us with his presence for a couple of days in order to present a few awards to some worthy young people, have tea with the Governor General, then issue a few more awards. And who is footing the bill for this little jaunt? The Australian taxpayer of course. I do not have an official estimate of just how much this is going to cost but judging by previous royal visits there won't be much change from $100,000.
Surely we have our own dignitaries that are capable of giving out a few awards and having tiffin with the GG. I reckon Dame Edna Everage would be more than happy to do the honours and at a fraction of the cost. We may even be able to coax Norman Gunstan "The Little Aussie Bleeder" out of retirement for such an occasion.
So why do we need to bring the 7th in line to the English throne to our shores on such occasions. Perhaps our illustrious leaders are still feeling the need to repay our Paul's little indiscretion back in 1992, when he had the temerity to touch the royal back. Maybe the royalist lobby, which is quite strong in this country, need to show our link to the Monarchy is strong and healthy by having this royal personage here. I do not know the reason and to be honest I don't particularly care, all I know is he is coming, my taxes are paying for him to come (it is my choice to continue paying tax even though I am retired) and I have no say in the matter.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Reason to Blog
I first started blogging some years ago but after a short time I found there was not much I could contribute. At least that was how I felt about it. Recently after retiring, I made the decision to take a trip to the land of my birth for the first time since arriving down under some fifty-one years ago. I came online looking for information about the area I had lived in England. I came across a blog from a woman that lived in my old part of London. She calls herself Raggy Dee Ann. She went out of her way to help me and even took photos of the place I lived and other haunts of mine. If you are interested in seeing these, go here.
Raggy blogs on things that mean something to her. She writes about the area where she was born and champions the cause of non-whites in the area. Although I think I may be doing her a dis-service when I say that. From what I have read on her blog, Raggy seems to speak out for anyone that she feels is getting a bad deal.
What I am leading to here is, it was reading Raggy's blog that made me decide to blog again. Maybe I cannot change the world, I don't really want to do that. Maybe I cannot change the way people think, although there are some I would like to effect. Maybe I cannot change the way people react to each other and there are some behaviours I would like to change. That really isn't the point of a blog is it? It is the modern day version of the old soapbox. You can state you point of view and allow others to agree with you, disagree with you or ignore you.
It is nice when people agree with you but it sure would be a boring bloody world if everybody did wouldn't it?
Raggy blogs on things that mean something to her. She writes about the area where she was born and champions the cause of non-whites in the area. Although I think I may be doing her a dis-service when I say that. From what I have read on her blog, Raggy seems to speak out for anyone that she feels is getting a bad deal.
What I am leading to here is, it was reading Raggy's blog that made me decide to blog again. Maybe I cannot change the world, I don't really want to do that. Maybe I cannot change the way people think, although there are some I would like to effect. Maybe I cannot change the way people react to each other and there are some behaviours I would like to change. That really isn't the point of a blog is it? It is the modern day version of the old soapbox. You can state you point of view and allow others to agree with you, disagree with you or ignore you.
It is nice when people agree with you but it sure would be a boring bloody world if everybody did wouldn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
