A school principal has lost her job

over her refusal to endorse  "Wear it purple day" in her school. She was the head of a school where the pupils are under the age of twelve.

"Wear It Purple Day" is apparently a day that encourages people to "create a safer, more supportive and more inclusive world for LGBTQIA+SB young people," according to its website. I had never heard of it.

The school principal felt those matters were not something which should be discussed at school. They should be discussed at home and inside the family. She felt it was not like ANZAC Day or even NAIDOC week where schools do discuss issues around war and racism. 

I will not go into the rights and wrongs of discussing these issues in school although I will admit I would not personally feel comfortable about doing so with young children who were not related to me. Is this really what school is intended to be about?

I know there are people who feel very, very strongly about these issues. They are much more vocal than they were even five years ago. There are court cases which relate to these issues. Some of those cases remain unresolved. People have lost their jobs over these issues. They have been shunned and banned. It has all become very nasty at times. I still do not believe that this is what school is about.

School should surely about giving students the skills and capacity to read, write, calculate, reason and argue? Am I wrong in thinking this? Perhaps I am. Have parents stopped discussing these issues with their children? Perhaps they have. Perhaps they do not have time to deal with such things?

I do not believe people should be losing their positions over these things. The principal in question is apparently just opposed to the issues being discussed in schools. I wonder how she feels about the continuing publication of books about these issues. The local library has many of them. One mother I know has complained to me that she feels it is not appropriate to have books about "gay grandfathers" on the shelves. I wonder if they are really necessary - or appropriate.

We do need to be open about these things if children ask questions but my guess is that most children do not. Why would they? They might think someone is "different" but such differences usually mean very little in childhood.  

It seems to me we are teaching children to believe something is far more significant than it might otherwise be. We are telling them that differences are more important than similarities. I am not sure it is a good thing.  

I have been making a book list

for someone and came across another list. The second list was intended for students in their senior year at a Catholic high school somewhere in the United States in 1965.

It is an extraordinary list. The books on it are books which even the brightest university students would now struggle to read. 

It begins with  four books to be read "before September" - presumably the start of the school year.  There is a book by Thomas Merton and I know nothing about that. Then there is Harper Lee's  "To Kill a Mockingbird" (now banned in some places), Antoine de St Exupery's  "Night Flight" comes next, then Ivan Turgenev's "Father and Sons". 

I have read just two of those and only glanced at the Turgenev.

It goes on to other books. The first on the list is Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a young man". When I was about ten the Senior Cat was studying that as part of his university degree and I remember him reading me the part where Stephen's mother is washing his ears. It is not the sort of thing most ten year olds hear about I suppose. I did read the book later.

The rest of the list covers some interesting material.  It ranges from things like "Lord of the flies" and "The thirty-nine steps" to "War and Peace" and "Crime and Punishment".  I have read Lord of the Flies and The thirty-nine steps but gave up on the other two. 

In between there is Paton's "Cry, the beloved country" and Shute's "On the beach". They are interesting choices for their time and were probably considered controversial as well. Willa Cather appears too, as does F. Scott Fitzgerald and John Le Carre.

It is a mixed list but there is serious literature on it. It is an interesting list because I have just shown it to the only neighbour I know who does any reading for pleasure. He looked carefully at it and then said, "Well, I have heard of some of them but the only one I have read is Lord of the Flies. It was a set text in my last year at school." This neighbour is twenty-two years younger than I am. His children have not read any of these books. He thinks they will not even have heard of anything on it. The idea of them reading four books on it before the beginning of the school year made him laugh.  "Not a hope," he told me.

I know quite a number of teenagers in their final two years of school and I have to admit that not one of them would be likely to read anything on that list by choice. They might read one or two of the shorter and better known books if they were forced to do so but most of those books would not be read except under duress.

So, what are they reading? Is that the right question or should I be asking, "Are they reading at all?"  I know some of them are not reading now. Hopefully they will go back to books when Year 12 has ended and before university begins.  

 

Ecclesiastical vestments are not

something I know much about. The subject is likely of no great interest to most people. I certainly never planned on needing to know anything.

As a child I went to Sunday School and, where there was no Sunday School, I was expected to "sit quietly" in church. I suspect I went more often than many children, often twice on a Sunday when we were in the city. I went to the Presbyterian Sunday School on alternate Sunday mornings and endured the Christian Science version on the other Sunday when we lived in the city. The Presbyterian one was something my brother and I actually looked forward to attending. Looking back I realise we must have had some exceptionally good teachers there. They were not "do-gooder" older women but young and enthusiastic people who provided activities.

But, for all that, the Presbyterians were a "black and white" lot. I do not remember anything colourful about the clothing worn by the Ministers or Teaching Elders. The only thing which marked them out were their plain "bands" and clerical collar. The same was true of the ministers who appeared out in the remote rural areas. There in fact the preacher was more likely to be the Senior Cat in his Sunday suit and tie. 

My brother and I found the occasional Church of England service "colourful" compared with what we were used to experiencing but the occasions were rare. I did not set foot inside a Roman Catholic church until I was an adult. Since then I have been to many others as well - for weddings, funerals, baptisms and more. I have been inside temples and synagogues too.

And most of these places have been more decorated than the very austere Presbyterian churches I knew as a child. It is always one of the things I find extraordinary about religion in general - the enormous amount of great art, architecture, music and literature religion can generate.

So, why ecclesiastical vestments? I never thought I would try to make anything remotely related to one. Next year however "the church on the hill" the Senior Cat attended is having their 175th anniversary year. Planning is apparently well underway for this. As I see and hear this from the oldest parishioners (I see them often in the local shopping centre) I know that they are concerned they might not be there to experience the year in the way they would most like to do. They want to participate but they may not have the ability or the energy to do it. 

I also know it is going to be a great deal more work for the priest than many of them understand. He is a good man. He works hard. He was a regular visitor to the Senior Cat. They spent hours discussing woodwork and teaching techniques. There was very little "religion" in those visits and I know D... got as much from them as the Senior Cat did. D... may have been given some timber from the Senior Cat's shed but I have always wanted to thank him in another way. 

So, I sat and thought and then I did some research. The result has been a "stole" - that long, thin scarf like affair that the priest wears over his white robe on Sundays. They come in different colours according to the time of the church year and some of the modern ones come in many colours and designs. Many of them are as beautiful in their way as the oldest ones from centuries back. Could I knit one with one hundred and seventy five colours in it? One for each year of the existence of the church on the hill? 

It had to be long, but not too long. There had to be a cross in the centre at the back and one on each end. I had to find something that would provide all those colours. I had to shape it so that it will not bunch up at the back. There were more challenges. 

The result has been something knitted from very fine weaving cotton and embroidery thread. The weaving cotton is green - for what D... will call "ordinary time" and a pack of cheap Indian embroidery thread provided the colours. As most of the greens (and there were a lot of them) could not be used I still had to experiment. I have made no attempt to sew or weave the ends of the single row "flashes" into the fabric. That proved impossible. The thread just slips out again.  Two days ago I pinned out something which is 2.8m long and 10cms wide. I sprayed it to keep it flat and it has been drying. When my friend M... gets back from visiting family I will pass it over to her to see what she thinks and, if approved of, then ask someone else to line it so it can be used.

Yes, definitely a challenge and I would do it differently if I needed to do another one but I have managed to learn a good deal on the way.

This is a not very good photograph of it. Now I can go back to other things instead. 
 

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.