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.

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.

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?