And now for a longer and much more serious

post. (And yes, I think I have managed to do that back up all by myself. I still think it is a complicated way of doing it but it seems to be done...and I checked that what I put there before starting came up.)

But, much more seriously, I want to say something about a very disturbing new website. It is called "Call It Out" and the purpose of it is to  provide " a simple and secure way for ANYONE to report incidents of racism and discrimination towards First Nations Peoples."

Now I have no time for racism but this site is saying the incidents have to be towards "First Nations Peoples".  The site mentions "stolen land" so I am assuming they mean the descendants of the people who lived here before white settlement. 

However that in itself is a problem. There is no actual legislation defining a "first nations person". There is nothing said about how you "identify" either. My friend M... always ticks the "prefer not to identify" box on a form if he has the opportunity. He sees no point in "being aboriginal". He sees himself simply as a person like anyone else. I hope I see him and his family and aboriginal friends in just that way. I try to do that. They have never made it difficult and we have shared some wonderful occasions together. 

It was M... who sent me the link to the website. He sent it along with the words, "What fresh hell is this?" He sees it as encouraging a belief in racism even where it does not exist. I suspect he is not far wrong.  He does not see it as being used by those who might have some real cause to believe it. In his view it is more likely to be used by those who "identify" on the flimsy basis of one great-grandparent or the like. 

And that is just part of the problem. This is just one way "racism". It does not cover the indigenous woman who, being given shelter in a women's shelter run by the Catholic church, told a nun who sat down next to her "get away from me whitey". The nun quietly rose and sat down again further away. Was the comment racist or not? Can racism work in one direction but not the other? It is a problem not addressed here and which never seems to be addressed elsewhere. 

And then there is the problem of how you define "racism"? Here is what users of the site are being told,  

" All reports of racism and discrimination can be made to Call It Out: anything that you feel is unfair or unjust towards First Nations People based on race can be reported (e.g. interpersonal or structural bias, prejudice, or discrimination). You can tell us as much or as little as you like in your report."

Is it racist to complain about Aboriginal flags flying at an event which is supposed to unite all of us? Is it racist to complain about "welcome to country" ceremonies when there are no visitors from another country present?  

I could go on. The site disturbs me because I think it is encouraging a belief in racism where perhaps none exists. If we have something like this (and we do in the Equal Opportunity Commission) then the definition of what racism is has to be much clearer. The problem is that I suspect it will not suit the activists who see racism and disadvantage at every opportunity - and they make it so much more difficult for every other person who sees things differently.  

Short post for now

 The computer needs to be backed up and I am on the laptop instead so today it will be a short post. I am going to try to do some clearing out now that I have finished my last project! Paws crossed.

Writing statutory declarations is

is something I have done more times than I care to think about. I know how to do it. I know where to find the various forms I need in order to do it. I know where to find a witness to my signature. Once in a while I have had to write one which I consider "personal" - in other words it relates to my personal affairs rather than my work.

I have just written one such declaration stating that the work I entered in this year's state show is my own work. I will go and get my paw print witnessed later this morning. Having to do this is something I should never have had to do. It is something I have never had to do in the past and I hope I never need to do such a thing again. It should not have been necessary. 

Anyone can put an entry into the handicrafts section state's annual agricultural and horticultural show. It is not difficult. You make something. You fill out the form on line and you pay your entry fee. Apart from one class in Knitting and another in Crochet it is even possible to put in something where the maker has followed a commercial pattern.

I do not use commercial patterns. Part of the challenge for me is to design something. I see no fun in doing what someone else is telling me to do. Perhaps that has led to part of the problem but I do not think so. 

No, I received feedback from more than one source that there were questions being asked about whether it was really my work. Upset? Yes, I am. I am upset. I am trying not to be angry too. I think I know what was behind the remarks which were made. It is one of the oldest things in the book of awkward social relations, jealousy. 

There have been emails backwards and forwards and an interesting offer was made to me which, while not an admission of guilt as such, is a strong indication of "yes, we were wrong". I have politely declined the offer as there is an alternative solution which is better for all concerned.  

None of that really matters though. What matters is that one person has not had the good grace to contact me early on and asked a simple question. It could have saved so much bother and done so much less harm.

Next time you think you know something negative about a person but are not sure ask about it first. It might save a lot of harm being done.    

Basic domestic economics

tells me if I have to pay more for something, but have no additional income, then I am less likely to buy it. For some things this will not matter but it will for others.

I have noticed this in the supermarket. The price of chocolate is double what it was a year ago. I rarely buy chocolate but it is hard not to notice the price when it is "on special" and sitting outwards on the end of the aisle. One of the staff told me "people are buying less of that and more of the cheapest bread". I am sure they are.

I am not too concerned about chocolate. It is not an essential part of our diets. (Yes, I know there are some who will disagree but...)

I am concerned about some other things, two in particular. The first is the rise in the cost of health insurance and the cutting of the "rebate" for older people. This is poor economics, very poor economics. It is older people who are most likely to (a) struggle to pay for private health insurance, (b) most likely to need it and (c) be a drain on other taxpayer funded services if they can get them. Why would you do anything which might add to the public waiting lists and cost more for everyone in the long term?  If I need a joint replacement and I have been paying into an insurance scheme to cover it then it might make sense to see I get it. It could, especially for someone like me, be the difference between independence or being a costly burden on the rest of the community.

The other is the slashing of funding to fee-paying schools. We all pay taxes and some of that money goes to education. There is surely an argument that all children should receive the same basic amount  of funding? After that, and only after that, should some children receive more - and many of those children will be children with special needs. I have no problem with paying more to help children with special needs. I do have a problem with saying, "Some children will receive less than the taxpayer funded amount given to most other children. The idea that "Your parents are wealthy and they can afford to pay for all you educational needs. The state does not need to contribute." is surely wrong? Quite apart from anything else there are multiple reasons why children attend fee-paying schools and their parents are often far from wealthy. 

There are many people opposed to any funding for such schools. They claim it is wrong but if all those schools were suddenly to close then the reality is that the education system could not cope.  

Not so long ago our government found the money to fund the start of a football team in our closest northern neighbour. Many millions of dollars have been allocated to this. More millions of dollars have been allocated to athletics in other Pacific countries. There are many dubious "environmental initiatives" and the current furore over a climate talk-fest in the Pacific. This is not money being wisely spent however much the government might try to argue otherwise but it is popular where it matters. Yes, other countries may well need help with respect to environmental initiatives but those initiatives need to be those which will actually assist. They must not be "climate change" programs which allow any other government to say, "Look what we are doing. Aren't we good?"

Perhaps the biggest problem however is that moves like this one are just playing into the hands of a certain red-headed politician...and that could be very dangerous indeed.  

There are five murders which took place

in this city between 1979 and 1983 which are called "The Family" murders. Only one person has ever been convicted of any of those murders and he is now dead. 

He died in prison last year and, if he knew anything, it went to the grave with him. That person knew he was dying. How likely is it that, if he knew any more about the others involved, he would have said nothing at all? He is described as having been a "psychopath" and "completely lacking in empathy". 

The murders happened at a time when a great deal more was going on in the community.  One of the victims was the son of a well known news reader on commercial television and, perhaps because of that, his case received even more than the usual attention. 

What marks the five cases out however is something much more disturbing, as disturbing as the murders themselves. It is the secrecy which surrounded them and still surrounds them now. Order after order was made to suppress evidence. Evidence was suppressed even during the trial. The prosecution achieved a guilty verdict even when there was evidence not put before the court. 

Yes, it is likely the evidence would not have resulted in a "not guilty" verdict. That was not the reason to suppress the evidence. The reason given was that it might harm the case of others the police were pursuing in relation to the murders. At one point a doctor was brought before the courts as a potential killer. He was released again because the evidence simply was not there. The charges were dropped even before the trial took place. 

We have been left with a situation where the suppression orders may still be protecting people who should have been required to face court. The siblings of those murdered are making one last appeal to have the suppression orders lifted - as their parents had tried before them. They say they, and perhaps the public at large, have the right to know who the suspects are. It is said most of the suspects are likely now dead. Those that are alive are likely very elderly.

One of the victims lived not far from where we living at the time. I did not know him. Brother Cat had "seen him around" but not had anything to do with him. I remember that it still hit us hard. Our parents were, rightly, very worried.  Many other parents were as well. Were their sons safe?

Two more things happened which I still wonder about. The first is that one of the local boys disappeared for some days. Nobody knew where he was. The media made a great deal of it. We knew the neighbours of this boy and thus learned more than most people from two sensible and concerned adults. All they could tell us was that the boy had appeared again. He was severely traumatised and quite unable to tell anyone what had happened to him. His injuries were very similar to those of the victims. His family moved out very suddenly, out of a home which had been theirs for more than twenty years. The father left work abruptly. Nobody knew where they had gone. The only other thing we ever learned, again from the concerned neighbours, was that several years later the boy committed suicide.  He had never been able to speak about what happened to him. Was it another death related to those murders? 

So yes, it is tempting to wonder who was being protected by those suppression orders and why they are still protected. There may be nothing in it. Those named as suspects who are deceased cannot defend themselves. The question of "right to know" has been firmly brought to the front again. If there are murderers still alive I wonder if they are worried by the latest moves or if they know they are still very firmly protected for reasons we know nothing about.

Some day care centres are closing

at a time the government is claiming the sector needs to grow. Why? I suspect there are many reasons and those reasons may be more complicated than the media is suggestion.  

I was interested in what a father had to say to me yesterday. His partner has been visiting day care centres with the idea of sending their child to one so that the mother can return to work.   

"Mummy" is  a teacher. I have not met her. The parents are not married and they do not live together. (Yes, it is one of those complicated modern arrangements.) The father is actively involved in the child's life but there are things he feels he cannot do. He would not attempt to dictate whether a return to work for the mother was a good thing.

The mother knows what to look for if her child is going to be cared for by strangers. Finding those things is proving very, very difficult. I am not surprised.

Childcare, good childcare, is not something it should be possible to make a profit from if you charge the sort of prices parents can afford. It costs a great deal to build a safe environment, fill it with the best toys and equipment and staff it with well trained staff at an acceptable child-staff ratio. There will always be things which are not "right" but a parent will accept if they feel that strong urge to return to work.  I say "strong urge" rather than "compulsion" because it is still possible to be a "stay-at-home" parent. What it may mean is that you will not have all the material goods you are looking for and the house you want to buy may not be possible.

Recently I heard someone in authority say something which went like, "Yes, I do know "people are struggling". I will be told "you don't understand" and "we don't have a choice" and "everything is so much more expensive now". Perhaps those things are true but what is more important - the house or the child, your job or the child?" 

The statement brought me up with a bit of a jolt and I thought, "Yes, where are the children in all this? They are being treated rather like a commodity people feel they must have rather than human beings who are wanted. Is this why some people choose to have pets they try to humanise rather than children? 

Recently I was interested to discover that, in Sweden, it is illegal to leave dogs and cats alone all day. Dogs must be allowed out and walked within a six hour period. Cats must be actually checked on at least twice a day. Putting food and water out for them is not enough. It led me to wonder what would happen if a similar law applied to children. What would happen if you could not leave your child in the care of others for more than six hours? I suspect child-care options would change dramatically. Would it be a good thing? 

Renaming things, places and even people

is apparently becoming more common but renaming Lake Ontario? Will future generations need to be taught "Some Men's Horses Eat Apples" instead? (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and America rather than Oats?)

"Renaming" has been going on rather a lot around here too. It is a sort of "political correctness" phase we seem to be going through. I am not sure it works.  Local people are still referring to the library complex in the hills behind me by the old name. I suspect they will go on doing that. It is simple, easy to remember and say. The "indigenous" name given to it is not simple or easy to remember and almost nobody knows how to say it. Other things have also been given "indigenous" names. I put the word into inverted commas because there is nothing certain about the correctness of the words used and the language they are in belongs to a plains tribe, not a hills tribe. The majority opinion appears to be that the renaming is more about the political views of a tiny minority than any deep felt need to change the name.

There has been some discussion about naming a small street or lane in the city centre after a nun who rose to fame some sixty years ago for her rendition of the Lord's Prayer and her work with domestic violence victims. Sister Janet never sought fame. She just went on being a nun. Renaming a short lane after her might cause some people to ask about her in the future. I am not sure how she would feel. My guess is that she would feel embarrassed. 

I am told that there have been calls to rename the Nashville Airport the Dolly Parton Airport - or something of the sort. The dear woman is dead but it might not hurt to remind people of how much good she did. I might not have been too keen on the sort of music she is associated with but I am very keen on the way she did so much to encourage a love of reading. I just wish I had kept the letter she hand wrote to me before International Literacy Year.  Honouring someone in that way is renaming that can be good. 

Our capital territory has a policy of naming only those who are no longer here but worthy of recognition. Anyone who cares to do so can learn a great deal of history from those names. That is the intention. School students there are perhaps a little better informed than most people. 

Recently we renamed an electorate here. I am not sure that should have been done. I admire the work of the woman it is now named after but it has also obliterated and important part of our past. We need to think about whether this is the right thing to do.

And that of course where the problem lies in renaming Lake Ontario and calling it Lake America.  Ontario is not an English or French word. It is a word which was used by the native North Americans. It is far older than white settlement in either country. It means something like "great lake" or "shining/sparking water". It does not belong to American culture or Canadian culture. It belongs to the people who were there before that.  Retaining their name for it was long ago seen as the right thing to do. Renaming it will do nothing for the relationships between two countries. The name does not belong to either of them.