Whether the "ISIS brides" should be

permitted to return to this country or whether they should be barred from ever returning is being hotly debated in the media right now. Most people who are commenting on it almost certainly have no knowledge of the law surrounding their right, or lack of right, to return.

Add to that the undeniable fact that the government has been assisting them in their attempts to return and the issues get even more complex. 

The question of whether they have the right to return to this country is actually easily answered. Yes, if they have valid passports, they have the right to return. You cannot stop people with valid passports entering their own country unless you take extraordinary measures. The government has not taken those measures and it does not appear they intend to do so. 

How did the women get those passports? They must have obtained them with the help of the government. 

Recently I had to renew my passport. It still had a time to run but you need a minimum of six months from your proposed date of return to enter some countries. I was not taking any risks. The complications of not having the correct documentation can be huge and very costly -financially and otherwise.  

In order to renew my passport I had to supply some information. I had to supply a new photograph in multiple copies. I had to sign the form and so on. This was just to renew a passport. 

Obtaining a new passport is even more complex. It can be done of course and people do it all the time. Doing it from anywhere abroad is more complex, much more complex. You need to be able to access original documents. You need to have others on the electoral roll and who hold certain positions to certify the person who is applying is who they say they are. Documents need to be signed and witnessed.

Why am I saying all of this? I am saying it because it would have been impossible for the women seeking to return to have obtained passports without the assistance of the present government. That assistance must have been taking place over many months. The claim that they have been giving these women no assistance is wrong. 

If they are returned, and they almost certainly will be, then they will likely be closely monitored for the rest of their lives. Their children will be monitored too. There will be restrictions placed on them. It will come at immense cost to the taxpayer and it is not just because these women will never be employed.

 Should they have given them assistance? Do these women have the right to return? Should we be concerned about their return? These are completely different questions. 

In all this we also need to remember there are children. It can be argued their mothers had a choice but the children had no choice. How we treat them is going to be a test of how we stand as a nation.  

 

An election sweetener for housing?

 Oh yes there is an election coming up next month. It has barely made a ripple so far. We are being told that the present government will be returned "in a landslide". We can do nothing about this. It is what is going to happen.

Yes, it almost certainly will happen so why is the government also offering a one off concession to try and get older people to "downsize"Why do they want them to move out of their large homes into smaller homes and "free up" housing stock? Yes, there is a serious housing shortage but will this solve the problems?

It's unlikely. The offer sounds good, too good to be true. It is when you look at the detail you realise that, like many election promises, it is not nearly as good or as likely as it sounds. There are conditions and most of those conditions cannot be met very easily, if at all. 

You have to be 60 plus. Fair enough and easily verifiable. Does that apply to just one of you or more than one if you have a partner? No doubt we will find out.

You have to be buying a smaller property. Well, that's the whole point isn't it? It should be easily verifiable. Does it apply to just the structure or the entire block? I guess we will find out.

You need to be actually selling your existing home, not passing it on to the children. Fair enough. Must it be sold on the open market or can you sell it to your child(ren)? Mmm...tricky one that.

And then the other crunch item, the one which will probably prevent more than a very few actually taking the offer up. You need to be buying a "new or off the plan" build. That is supposedly designed to stimulate the building trade. It doesn't actually need stimulating. It is failing because of the lack of qualified tradespeople and supplies, including land supplies. No amount of downsizing sweeteners will solve that problem.

Another issue, one which has not been raised, is where is this new housing? Do older people actually want to move to these locations? I might be wrong but older people who have lived in one area for years, sometimes a lifetime, often have no desire to move away. It is not just the comfort of familiarity but the convenience of the other services they have set up and require. It is their friendships, even just the casual ones. They can be particularly important in a world where children have moved interstate or even overseas. Or it might be that their children have remained close to home and they now need to be babysitters for grandchildren. In an increasingly on-line world however it might be that the actual world has become increasingly important to them.

Do people want to lose all that? Would they do it for a supposed tax break which might cause their pensions to drop anyway? I doubt it.  It is one of those "sounds good until you think about the consequences" sorts of policy that only come up at election time.  

I am not my brother's keeper

or am I? It is an interesting question I suppose. The absolute glee with which the downfall of a very public figure has been met suggests that the responsibility for other people's behaviour only exists when it can be used against us. At that point mere association of any negative sort is sufficient. Let me explain.

I was at a meeting a couple of days back. Prior to the meeting people were standing around and talking about the alleged misconduct of a former prince. I use the word "alleged" with reason. No misconduct has yet been proven.  

Ah, but it doesn't really matter does it? Here is a public figure who has "probably" done something he should not have done. That's enough isn't it? He's a public figure, a lazy man who has never "worked" in all his life, who lives a life of luxury. He "isn't very nice" and never has been. He deserves everything which is coming to him and, here's the big one, so does the rest of his family.

Really? Is that enough? 

I do not for one moment think I would like the man if I met him but if we really believe that "everyone is equal under the law" then is this how we should be behaving? What happened to "due process" and "admissible evidence" and "the law"? Why is "hearsay" suddenly acceptable?

And why are his brother and other members of the family suddenly also responsible for all this? No, the media is not saying they are directly responsible but they are responsible by association, simply because a family relationship exists. There are people who want to bring down what has been a highly effective and stable system of government and this seems like an ideal time to do it. They wilfully misunderstand that the only power a monarch has is because the monarch has no power at all and democracy works because of it. Yes, that sounds ridiculous but that is the way it works.

On another forum someone pointed out that there are many other people named in the files surrounding a convicted sex trafficker. Many of them are people who held very high positions, who still hold very high positions. Their appearance in those files is not being given the same attention. Why? The simple answer is that it would be politically inconvenient to do so (and could also lead to litigation.)

Not so long ago the nephew-by-marriage of a politician in this country was charged with an offence. It had absolutely nothing to do with the politician in question but this is how the media reported it. Unless they did it that way the item was not likely to have been of any interest at all.  You need to be "someone's" associate for the alleged offence to matter. The idea that "I am not my brother's keeper" only applies to those with whom you have no relationship. When it becomes convenient then the relationship applies.

At the meeting I did not participate in the "discussion". It made me feel uncomfortable. One other very quiet person also clearly felt uncomfortable. She eventually asked, "And what about the parents of those underage girls? What were they doing?"  Then she walked out of the room and came back when the meeting started. Her question was a good one. I have often wondered the same thing. 

More often than not we are guilty of misquoting the Bible when we say "I am not my brother's keeper" because, from memory, Cain actually asks God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's a question, not a statement.  

 

 

Another sporting event is

about to hit the streets of the city in which I live. Conveniently it has also been announced just before our state election.

This time it is a "motorbike" race. It will not be held at a dedicated location south of here but around the streets of the centre of the city, the CBD. It is going to be held around the same route as a car race was once held, a "Formula One" race. 

Like many other people who are not interested in motor "sport" I was relieved when the F1 was taken away. It was disruptive of the city for weeks before and after. 

The arguments for bringing in the new race are the usual ones. It is claimed it will put the state, and the city in particular, "on the map" and that there will be "great financial benefits", that it is "exciting" and "what people want". 

I say there are very good reasons not to bring it here. The event will cost taxpayers something. There is no real financial benefit. The hospitality industry may benefit but the rest of the community will not. The businesses around the circuit will actually suffer financially. They did in the past and there is no reason to believe it will be any different now. People cannot get to them when streets are closed off and barriers are erected. Even if they can access them the noise and other disruptions tend to send people elsewhere. 

I am also, and I believe reliably, informed that street circuits are not suitable for such races. They are actually considered to be "dangerous" by experienced riders. Perhaps that adds to the "fun" of the event but it is also sending messages I do not think should be sent to people who are already foolish enough to think anyone can ride a  powerful motorbike. 

As this event is also a "spectator" sport it is not encouraging people to actually do anything active. It is not asking them to engage in any other way than simply watch - and quite possibly eat and drink while watching. This to me is not "sport" as it should be. 

What is more it is a short lived event. It does not last a lifetime. It is not a year or even a month. It is a few days of "entertainment". 

This is being offered to us as some sort of great coup at a time when has the highest electricity prices in the country and no answer to that except "we need more renewables". Manufacturing is almost gone but we are getting "the submarines" - also conveniently announced just before the election. There is also my personal concern, shared by many I have talked with recently, that the amount being spent on libraries is being cut back. It is being cut back at the very time more should be spent because of the social media ban for young people.

The only good thing right now is that the nurses managed to get a pay rise - but of course they did right before an election. 

We don't need any more "sport" but it is apparently seen as "cake". I would prefer bread.    

Does our Treasurer know any economics?

It might be a good question to ask. Our Treasurer has a doctorate and likes to be called "doctor" because of it. It makes him sound...well, "knowledgable" perhaps.

The problem is that his doctorate has nothing to do with economics. (It was to do with a political identity.) This shows when he is attempting to explain anything to the rest of us. 

I admit I do not know anything much about economics myself, not those sort of economics. For me economics has been the age old questions of "how much money do we have in the bank?", "how much money do we need to pay the bills?" and "can we afford it?".  They are the questions I have had to ask myself ever since I was sent off to boarding school. My entire working life has been one of "be careful and remember you are not getting as much as everyone else...you are getting less". No, I am not complaining. There is no point in complaining. I am simply stating a fact. I have actually managed to save some money over time. I intend to spend some too.

But the Treasurer's job is different. He is responsible for the nation's money. When a former governor of the Reserve Bank tells him he is spending too much money then he should be listening. That former governor is still intellectually sharp and he knows a great deal more about economics than the Treasurer. Just quietly let it be known that the present governor of the same bank agrees with the former one - not the Treasurer.

I went to law school with someone who was a senator in our federal parliament. She was retiring from the senate and we were both present at a lecture being given by a member of the university staff. He was attempting to explain a policy in social security and a decision which had been made while the senator had been the minister in question. He referred to the legislation, a number of cases and more. It all sounded good until he said, "The Minister made the decision on these..." 

I could feel the Senator, who was sitting next to me, getting restive and then she spoke up, "The Minister is present and the Minister made the decision not on those issues at all. She made the decision on the basis she is also a wife and a mother. She runs a household and it is the decision any responsible wife and mother would make. It is what the women of this country would have wanted. It is what they were telling me." (The issue, relating to child support, had cross party support.)

The references to women might not be quite as acceptable now but they were then. The Senator was, rightly, making the point that decisions were not based on legislation and policy alone but on reference to the families she was responsible for. 

It is how the Treasurer should be handling the economy. He isn't.

"Should they be allowed to return?"

was the question under discussion yesterday. One of my neighbours had just seen the footage of the ISIS brides and their children trying to return to this country. They apparently have valid passports but they were facing some sort of "documentation" difficulties.

The government does not want the women back. It seems most other people do not want them back either. They do not want the children either. There are claims the women are, or are likely to have been, "radicalised" and that the same applies to the children.

That may or may not be true. I have no idea. There are some things which I do wonder about however and they have not been mentioned. The first of these is whether these women were in "arranged" marriages. Does that matter? Have they been brought up to be submissive? 

It is quite likely they were brought up in households where men make decisions. Their fathers would have expected obedience. Their marriage partners would have been decided for them. 

That brings us to another thing. Once married they would have been expected to obey their husbands. If their husbands chose to go and fight for a caliphate they would have been told that this was the right thing to do. It would also mean that going to join him would have been considered the right thing to do even if they did not want to do it. For all the warnings they may have received they may not have had a choice. Yes, they could try not to go but, like leaving a cult your family still belongs to, it could mean leaving everything and everyone. Is that really a choice?

And what about the children in all this? Children are limited in the decisions they can make at any time. In the really important issues such as where you will live, with whom you will live and how you will live children have no choice. It is decided for them,

Do we need to consider those things before we say, "No, you cannot return"? Do we allow them to return but only under strict conditions? What do we require of them on their return? It might also be that what is right for one woman and her children is not right for another.  How do we determine that?

The government has some difficult decisions ahead of it.  

"It's the ambulance"

was the response.

It is perhaps a good thing I was actually awake and heading for the shower when there was an insistent banging on the door this morning. I had ignored the first knock. It was not quite six-thirty and I thought the noise must be something else. Then there was a second knock and I had to hastily make myself "decent" and, as they knocked a third time, I managed to get to the door and ask, "What is it?"

"It's the ambulance," a voice said. I opened the door (cautiously) and looked out. Yes, there was an ambulance officer. The other one, the male, was standing some distance back.

I could guess immediately who they were looking for and said, "You don't want me. It's the unit down there."

"You're not C....?" 

"No. She lives in that unit there."

"But this is the right number?" she asked and I explained about the numbering system. My unit is the same number within the units as the street number for everyone. It is confusing.

I know it is confusing because, more than once, there have been attempts to deliver alcohol to me...and that "breakfast" from the fast food place. The resident of that unit is an alcoholic. There is no kind way to describe it. This morning's episode should not have surprised me because someone attempted to deliver alcohol to my door last night. 

I said this to the ambulance officer. Perhaps I should not have said anything but I felt she had the right to know what they were going to. "I doubt it is an emergency," I told her, "I hope it isn't."

She gave me a resigned nod and a "Thanks for the info."

After they had gone I wondered what would have happened if I had not answered the door. Would they have tried to break in? Would they have called the police? I imagine the first thing they would have attempted to do is try to rouse me again. 

I can remember a similar incident years ago. One of the very elderly people I was keeping an eye on was not answering the door when the ambulance arrived. I was on my way to answer another "help" call early in the morning when I saw them. I stopped and opened the door for them with the key I had. I went on to the next house and dealt with the issue (flipping the mains switch so the power came back on) and then returned. 

"Taking her to hospital. Can you pack a bag for her?" I was told. 

It was an uncomfortably intrusive sort of thing to do but I found what she needed under her instructions. Later I wondered what would have happened if I had not stopped. 

There would have been nobody to do that for C... this morning. I suspect the bottle in the brown paper bag being delivered last night was "the hard stuff", spirits of some sort. I also suspect that the bottle would be close to empty this morning. 

If the emergency services had damaged my abode by breaking in I would feel angry, not with them but with her. As it is I just feel annoyed - and concerned.