You cannot legislate "anti-hate"

even when you have "anti-hate legislation".  You can make it illegal for people to do certain things publicly but it is not going to change how they privately feel or what they might privately say.

There was a very good example of that yesterday. Middle Cat and I had been to see our GP so I could get the necessary paper work for a "parking permit" signed off. This is the permit which will allow whoever happens to be driving me somewhere to park in a disability spot or for twice the length of time in another spot. I have avoided getting one of these because I was (and still am) of the view that other people need these permits more than I do. When I am out with Middle Cat we use her permit. (Yes, she does need one - some days more than others - but she uses it only when she needs it.) Both of us are very conscious of it being a privilege to have a permit and aware of the need not to abuse it.

Later in the morning I went to the Motor Vehicles Department and passed the paperwork to the very pleasant person on the other side of the counter. I was aware of someone standing at the next booth but took no notice. I paid for the permit and went out to unlock my wheels. There was someone standing there.

"You don't need an f.... permit!" he told me, "It's the same thing all the time. You all expect to get something for nothing when you don't need it." 

Fortunately for me the MVD is just across the road from the shopping centre and someone I know well had just parked their car to go in and renew their licence. He guessed what was going on and intervened politely but firmly causing the other man to stride off muttering angrily.

"I know you are quite capable of fighting your own battles Cat but that riled me. I hope you didn't mind."

No, I didn't mind in the least. I hate confrontation. 

"He will go on thinking the same thing though. Nothing will change him," he said.

I agree. Nothing is going to change that man's view. He possibly has some other prejudices and it is unlikely they will change. It is because of people like him I do not believe the newly passed "anti-hate legislation" will really work. It may make matters worse. It will send views like that off the radar. People will think but not say those things publicly. They will teach their children and their grandchildren to think the very things the legislation is trying to prevent. Trying to teach attitude change in schools will not work either. It has been tried. It might modify some attitudes - or at least appear to but out of that environment it is not going to work as it is intended to work. 

We are trying to do something in this country that simply will not work. We are trying to be all things to all people. We are telling people we are "multicultural" and that they can keep all their beliefs and prejudices associated with a very diverse range of cultures while still living in a cohesive society. It is an approach which sounds very accepting and welcoming and non-divisive but is actually the reverse of that. 

If we were all the same it would be very dull and very boring and no we do not want that but we have gone too far in the other direction. Something needs to change but anti-hate legislation won't help. 

Applying for a new passport

is something I resent having to do. My old one has twelve months to go but you need at least six months before it expires if you are planning on leaving the country.  Even if you are not planning on leaving the country it is wise to get this done...or is it? What if you need it in a hurry?

I will soon find out because I spent half of yesterday attempting to download the relevant form. It should not be that difficult surely to just download the form? But it was...I had to "prove I was human" so many times I almost felt like saying, "No, look really I am a cat... I can just put myself into someone's carry on luggage. Give me a drink of water on the flight and I won't need to be fed. I will curl up and sleep for the entire journey wherever I am going."

But no... I supplied my full name. I supplied my date of birth. I supplied the name of one parent. I supplied my sex (or lack thereof). I supplied my old passport number...and I kept being asked to verify what seemed like all of these things and more... 

I have a mail box at the post office. The reason for that is that it is a great deal more secure than the street letter box. They would not allow me to use the much more secure address for delivery.  No, they want the street address which means the post person has to come and knock on the door. It is just as well I know her. She is really very nice. We always wave to one another when we are out and about.

I eventually filled everything in and was told that all I have to now do is supply my old passport.. and get a new photograph. (You know the sort - the one that makes you look too ill to travel.) I will endeavour to do that at the post office tomorrow...and pay the exorbitant fee. I will then wait...no doubt to be told that I have to supply something else or that they think I really am a cat.   

"But he can't be President again!"

An American acquaintance was trying to explain this to one of the locals yesterday. He was getting quite frustrated as he did so. 

"Our Constitution doesn't allow it. You can only get elected twice."

That was about as far as he could explain. He asked me but I am no expert on the constitutional law of the United States of America. We looked it up instead. The internet has its uses!

There it was - section 122 of their constitution does not allow someone to be President more than twice. 

"So that's eight years?"

"No, ten," I said.

"But Presidential terms are four years..."

"Yes, but if the president prior to that dies in office then the vice-president takes over and if that is a term of two years or less then they can run for two more terms."

The American looked at me and gave a sort of grimace. We began to wonder if the incumbent could find a way around that. Do you have to die in office or could you swap places with the vice-president? If you are no longer the president then could you run again?

There are generally considered to be good reasons to limit someone's term in office if they have certain powers. The constitution here in Downunder has no such limitations but our Prime Minister is not elected. S/he is there because he is chosen by the party which is in power. Strictly speaking the person chosen would not even need to be a member of parliament but of course that would not work so one of their own is chosen. On one side this is done through a complex set of internal "rules" and on the other there is some lobbying, jostling and eventually a vote. 

I have known other organisations where the same people have held office for many years. It has rarely been a good thing. They can come to believe they own the position and the organisation. Other people come to believe someone else will do all the work. I helped to set up a group and was the first leader of it but flatly refused to go on doing all the work. Turns are now taken.  I am the "go to" person for another group but the staff member at the library is responsible for most of what goes on. I can live with that because they know there is at least one other person they can call on. I made sure of that. 

"Political laziness allows communism to flourish," the American said at one point in the discussion, "You don't need to think. You just do what your Supreme Leader tells you." 

It's an interesting thought - and perhaps a dangerous idea.     

There is too much "paperwork" involved

in "volunteering", or perhaps in anything at all. There seems to be a constant demand for "information" and "feedback" and "reviews" and "evaluations" and "assessments" and "appraisals" and more. 

I get "requests" for this sort of thing all the time. The requests are really demands. I know other people are asked to provide the same sort of information about me. 

I send messages back saying, "I do not actually 'know' this person. I have never met them. I am never likely to meet them. I am simply doing something I was asked to do."  Messages will be sent back to me, "The form has to be completed for our records." There will be polite requests and apologetic requests and, sometimes, impatient or even downright rude demands.  Filling out those forms can mean the difference between funding and defunding a project or future projects. That all this really has nothing to do with me at all is beside the point. The paper work needs to be completed.

I spent most of yesterday doing paper work. People seem to have come back to work after the Christmas and New Year break and realised that "things-have-not-been-done". There is apparently vital information that has "not been supplied". There is a need for my full name, my date of birth, my preferred title, my address, my email, my phone numbers(s), my tax file number, my academic qualifications and more.  That is just a start of course. After that comes all the paperwork about the actual work, where it originated, who else is on the team, why it needs to be done, which department, where those involved are going and why and is it really necessary. 

Most of this is absolutely none of my business. I am there to provide words and symbols on request. Yes, I need to understand who is going off to do something and what it is they are going to do. I am all too well aware that they might be going somewhere dangerous but I don't need to know all the ins and outs of a project. I can assess that without all the paperwork. I am not going to help someone blow up a structure that is needed to provide people with water to stay alive. 

There was a questionnaire which ran to almost five full pages yesterday. I could not answer most of it. There was a demand to "evaluate" a project I was only peripherally involved in.  There were other requests to evaluate the performance of people who had volunteered their services. I assume they had also been asked to evaluate mine.

I was ready to throw the key board across the room when I came on a last request, "Cat, could you add a couple of words to this? We want to thank T... for what he did. I'll just write it in the card on your behalf." That was some paper work I was more than happy to do.  

The NDIS is not working

as it was intended to work. The cost has blown out far beyond what was intended or is needed. 

Saying that will not be popular with everyone. It will certainly not be popular with many recipients.  Add in the "out in the community" and "like everyone else" arguments and "disability" is costing the community far more than it should.

The worst part about all of this is the very real problem that there are still some people who genuinely need help who are not getting it. They are simply unable to access help they need in order to live with dignity and even, in some cases, to live safely.

There is still a belief that all people with disabilities should live "out in the community like everyone else" and that they should do this in much the same way as everyone else. We have also discovered that, however well intentioned, this does not always work as well as it should.

H... stopped me in the shopping centre yesterday. H...is in her late 80's.  Her daughter, K..., is in a "group house. K... is profoundly physically and intellectually disabled. K... can do nothing for herself.  She cannot speak. If she recognises you and appears to feel comfortable with you she will smile. There are things she can indicate "yes" and "no" to by her expression but that is the limit of her ability to communicate. Her intellectual ability is perhaps that of a two year old, if that. K... knows me and I always try to include her in the conversation if she happens to be there. It is less often now her mother cannot manage to get her in and out of an adapted vehicle alone. 

H... has been a wonderful mother. She has dealt with all the NDIS paperwork (of which there is a vast amount for someone like K... ) and she visits her daughter everyday. She will help with K...'s feeding which now takes place through a PEG tube because K... cannot swallow safely. There are times when K... would not get fed without her there because not all the "carers" are trained to deal with this. H...will sometimes be called back in to help.  

H... worries about all this though. What will happen to K...when I die?  How will K... survive? Will people care? How will she dressed and fed? 

I have no doubt at all that K... is well cared for now because H... is there and watching. I know H... feels the same way, indeed is very aware of it. She still has to fight for everything K... is getting. The funding "runs out" from time to time and H... tries to supplement it from her own limited funds. She pays for K...'s clothing - something that needs to be replaced frequently because K...dribbles constantly - indeed makes most of it so it is easy to dress K...

As we were talking we were watching a child having a melt down because his grandfather would not allow him to have an ice-cream at the local "Wendy's" place.  I know this child too. He is "on the spectrum". His parents have negotiated quite a large NDIS package for him. His mother told me about it and how much they have been able to get. NDIS is paying for things that would normally come out of the family budget. He is the only child and she has "given up work to care for him". Yes, he has some problems but his grandparents tell me he is "spoilt" and "usually gets what he wants". He is very articulate but is very disruptive in school and at home. He is one of the children whose NDIS package will be affected by the upcoming changes.

His grandfather told me, "And a good thing too. They don't need all this. They need lessons in how to handle him...if it isn't too late."

They do. His mother arrived and wanted to get him the ice-cream to keep him quiet. I don't know what happened because H... and I moved on. I did think about it all though. K... needs all the help she can get and yet H...has to constantly justify it all. It's exhausting even though it was what the NDIS was intended for. The other child does not need his "Little Athletics"  and "soccer" fees paid for by NDIS funds - but they are.  

 We need to rethink the NDIS and who it is intended to help and why. We can say everyone is equally important but do they have equal needs?

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

makes it unlawful  "to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity."

This is followed by section 18D " contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith".

I have taken the words in quotes from the Human Rights Commission site. Those sections of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) are generally considered to be controversial.  They were the cause of a great deal of controversy when they were written and may cause even more controversy now.

Do they matter? Are they a brake on our "freedom of speech"? There is no "right" to "freedom of speech" under the law in this country. Rights come with responsibilities. (I wonder how many times I have had write that?) When people breach responsibilities they risk taking away rights from all of us. I am not saying anything new here.

So does the proposed "hate speech" legislation being put before parliament actually do anything new? Is it simply a way of increasing control over what we can or cannot say? Is there any point in it or should we be doing more to ensure that sections 18C and 18D get applied as intended? 

Will the proposed legislation prevent citizens of this country from being subjected to a fatwa such as that imposed on Salman Rushdie following the publication of "The Satanic Verses"? Will it stop the sort of cartoon like depictions of a prophet which appeared in a Scandinavian newspaper and provoked protest marches around the world? Will it stop anything like the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015.

At one point the government tried to replace the words "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity" with "harass or intimidate". They did not succeed at the time because it was considered to be "too broad". The current proposal goes further than that. It is a response to a tragedy but is it the right response?  How do you get a balance between "freedom of expression", religion and artistic expression and care of the individual? The last week or so has made it very clear that the "hurt" of one person who has made controversial statements is apparently worthy of more consideration than that of a group. Has this been the right decision? It is still a matter of hot debate.

The debate will continue but cartoonist Johannes Leak did an excellent job of showing up the government's intentions in this morning's cartoon,

 

The White Pages are no more.

They have come to a "quiet end" according to the little item in this morning's paper. The company responsible seems to think that it is still possible to get a residential number by calling Directory Assistance.

They have missed the point completely. The white pages were far more than "just phone numbers". They were the address book for many, a very large address book for the entire state.

I can still remember the first phone number I ever had to use. It is the number which was held by my paternal grandparents. The phone itself, a black Bakelite phone of pre-war vintage. By no means everyone had a house phone even when I was born but Grandpa had one because he was a man of business. Grandma almost never used the phone. She was not one for "just chatting". I was taught to recite the number very early in my life. If anything went wrong and I was alone then I was to ask people to call that number if there was no policeman around. I never had to do that but I did need to call my grandparents occasionally. I wonder how many children now know the numbers for their grandparents' mobile phones?

We had a phone too. Teachers were expected to have them but they were not used by parents to contact teachers except in extreme emergencies. In one remote place the school phone was in the classroom. It rarely rang. I remember one occasion when the "post master", who also owned the tiny general store, phoned to say there was a fire on a property and the "four big boys" were needed to help. Someone came to get them a little later. The rest of us thought they were "lucky to get out of school"! 

It was expensive, very expensive, to make long distance calls at that time. They were limited to three minutes and they had to be booked in advance. I suspect the Senior Cat, the bank manager and the policeman were the only people who made more than one a year and they made them only rarely. There was also something called a "party line", a line shared by more than one house. These lines had their drawbacks. Anyone could listen in on a conversation. If you did not want others to know your business you kept your mouth shut until you could have a genuinely private conversation. On the other hand they had their uses. It often meant people knew where someone else was and "Oh, so and so is at...." could save wasted journeys and allow bales of hay to be picked up or children to be taken care of in emergencies. On one occasion the doctor was called to an accident because someone had seen his car somewhere and it was a "fairly simple" matter of waving him down on his way back! 

No, there was no real need for a phone book if you had to go through the tiny local switchboard but the phone book for everywhere else was guarded. It sat on shelves out of reach. The old books were used  for toiletry purposes but the new ones were vital because they had addresses as well as names and phone numbers. People still wrote letters.

Now it is not possible to find an address in that way. It is not possible to tell if someone may have moved or whether you might be talking to the right person. If you want a number from Directory Assistance it is assumed you already know the address. There can be no vague, "I'd recognise the house and it is somewhere along...."

As it is also much more difficult to access the Electoral Roll now the demise of the White Pages is going to make it much harder to find people. Does it matter? It might. We will not be able to search for old friends and casual acquaintances. If we do not want some others to know where we live it may be a little easier to keep it from then. It has the potential to make some people even more isolated.

Somehow though it has not stopped those calls nobody seems to want.... those "marketing" calls.