The "Muslim" issue will have to be

addressed at some point. Trying to pretend it does not exist or is some sort of Islamophobia is not going to do that.

A Muslim friend of mine did address this issue as we came out of the library yesterday.

"Cat, I'm worried.  This phobia thing is not going away. We are good people. We work hard but now A... is finding people do not treat him quite the same way at work. In the library it is good but in the shops it can be bad. I am trying not to use the car but we did need petrol and the man at the service station was hostile."

I really did not know what to say. I did not want to upset her but I know she is right. What I wanted to say is unacceptable.

I wanted to tell her. "Don't dress the way you do. Ditch that hijab now. Don't try telling people what you have just said to me. They will not believe it. A... does give the impression he believes he is superior to you and to any other woman." 

I would like to know what was said at the mosque last Friday but I am also afraid that it will have encouraged the sense of superiority her husband displays. He is always polite to me but it is distant. I am a woman and woman are not equal to men. He has told me this. He thinks of himself as being "very liberal" (his own words) but is he? Perhaps he is within his own culture but many of the men I know would not dream of treating a woman the way he does. What is more their wives would have something to say if they did. My friend P... accepts it. He behaves as she expects him to behave. Yes, it is much better than some Muslim men I have known but it is different. His religion requires it of him. This is what he has been taught to believe.

So where do you begin with that sort of problem? It is not a simple issue. There can be "education" but this is religion and, as I know all too well, religious beliefs will all too often take precedence over all other beliefs. How else would otherwise highly educated people believe that something like a blood transfusion was wrong? How else would others believe that their god does not expect them to be happy, simply obedient? How else would they refuse to allow their child life saving treatment or demand they miss out on any form of celebration?

Our national constitution, rightly, does not allow laws to be made about religion. That is actually not the problem. The problem is the "we are right and you are wrong and what we say must prevail" attitude of some.

It is also why our Prime Minister made a major error in attending an Eid service. He reportedly had himself invited which makes it an even bigger concern. There had to be a police and other security presence there to ensure his safety. Some present let him know what they thought in no uncertain terms. That has never been necessary at a church, a temple or a synagogue. It was wrong. Even if an invitation had been freely given he should have excused himself politely. The events at Bondi are still too raw. We do have an issue and it is not going to go away simply because everyone is being told they need to be more tolerant. 

 

  

An $85m pay out?

Apparently the "sacked" presenter of a radio show I had not even heard of is seeking that extraordinary sum as "compensation" for being sacked. 

I do not choose to listen to radio. I do not actually own one any more. Even when I did have one I did not listen often.

I grew up in a family where the radio was turned on for the news service and, as we kittens grew old enough, to listen to "the Argonauts". (For those of you who do not know this was a very well presented program for older children. It was definitely "educational" or we would not have been permitted to listen to it.) Apart from that we did not listen to the radio.

It meant I grew up knowing nothing about the latest "pop" songs to "hit the charts". I had no idea who the performers were. I had no idea who presented these shows. My ignorance was so great that it was not until I went to school in the city that I had heard of the Beatles. I was genuinely confused about the fuss that was being made. My new class mates were very kind to me but I was still bewildered. I didn't actually like the music. My old class mates knew more about classical music because it was what the cows preferred. (Yes, seriously!) 

My paternal grandmother liked silence. The radio, apart from the news, irritated her. My paternal grandfather would sometimes "listen to the cricket" but I suspect he was really asleep. My maternal grandparents did listen to radio in the evenings but not when we were there.  Nana must have listened during the day as well because she sometimes argued with a neighbour about something that had been said. The radio was not on when we there.

But the Senior Cat was like his mother. He liked silence while he worked. He was comfortable with his own thoughts. I am comfortable with my own thoughts. The avoidable noise of other people is something I find irritating. I do not want to hear the endless chatter of radio presenters. Above all the "talk back" shows where people can "phone in" and "have their say" make me squirm. I am intolerant. I know I am intolerant. I do not need to be tolerant do I?

So when I learn that someone apparently had a radio show where they also had a "contract" for $100m and they have now been "sacked" for their lewd remarks on air, remarks which went just too far for their female co-presenter to tolerate, then I can feel no sympathy. Presumably the sum this person was being paid represented something of the advertising the show generated. What it tells me is that too much money is spent on advertising...and far too much is spent on deliberately provocative radio presenters. 

Thankfully I do not have to listen to them.   

No, it was not a "landslide"

even though the result was largely as expected. 

As I am writing this the results of the state election are being analysed and discussed and argued...and more. There is a claim that the winning party won "by a landslide". 

That is wrong. They managed to get 39.1% of the first preference vote at the last count. It means that almost four in ten people wanted them before any other party. After that they had to rely on the second or third preferences or more. In other words people were put in a position where, like it or not, they had to choose another candidate or candidates apart from their first choice. 

Yes, some of you will be tired to death of me saying that yet again. You may even stop reading the blog. Some of you will tell me "it's fairer than first past the post" or "it is fairer than any other system". No, it isn't. It is no more or less fair. It is simply the electoral system we are stuck with. 

What I want to say here however is that the way the media is portraying all of this is a problem. It is not educating people about the way the system works. Is it their role to do this? That is another question.

Given that most adults in this country know almost nothing about actual politics and do not educate the young then it likely is the role of the media. They will not do it but perhaps they should. Of course the problem is that, in order to do it in a fair way, the media would need to be (and remain) apolitical at least while dealing with the topic of voting. It is not something they would find easy to do. Our ABC (the approximate equivalent of the BBC) is unashamedly left wing. If a more "conservative" government came in they may find there are demands to at least "be more inclusive" or "broaden their perspective". It is unlikely to happen. They have an agenda and intend to stick to it.

But they have at least raised the issue of the far right party abusing the preferential voting system in a way of which few people are aware. They were almost encouraging an "informal" vote which then, under arcane rules, requires the electoral commission to make decisions that may not be in accordance with a voter's intentions. If ever there was a reason for a review of our electoral system then this must be it.  

 

Church bells may not be

rung on Sundays.  The "adhan" is allowed five times a day.

Some years ago one of our local churches was ordered by a court to cease ringing the church bell on Sunday mornings. It had been rung ever since the church had been built. It had been rung for three minutes before the mid-morning Sunday service and for funerals. 

The reason it was ordered to cease ringing the bell was because a young couple had bought a house in the square in which the church stands. They found the bell annoying. It interfered with their ability to sleep in on a Sunday morning. Their right to peace and quiet on a Sunday morning was seen to be greater than the right to remind people it was time for the Sunday morning service. 

The young couple had bought the house knowing that the bell would be rung on Sunday mornings but they proceeded anyway. The court ruled in their favour.

It was a decision which still causes concern today. I believe it was the wrong decision. The bell may well have been an irritant but it was doing no harm. Even more than that the young couple knew and could have avoided the problem by buying a house elsewhere. (At the time this would have been very possible.) 

The polling booth at which I voted is opposite that church and someone I know reminded me of the story as I was leaving. They went on to say, "I wonder what would have happened if it had been a mosque and they had that prayer thing." It was an interesting idea. What would have happened if it had been a mosque and the adhan had been called five times a day?

My guess, and I am certain I would be right, is that the mosque goers would have won. They would certainly win now. There would be absolutely no question about that. No court in this country would rule against such a practice. 

The adhan does not bother me. I would probably cease to notice it if I lived near a mosque. I am far more bothered by the recent public gatherings and displays of "prayer" by Muslims. Christians have been prevented from praying in public spaces - and not just outside abortion clinics. I am certain if a large group of Christians descended on one of the squares in the CBD and started to disrupt traffic, even just pedestrian traffic, with prayer they would be held to be a "public nuisance" and moved on. When Muslims do it we are asked to move around them. There is no reason for either group to do such a thing but it seems we must view such acts differently according to the beliefs of those committing them.

I am aware of what recently happened in another state. I am aware that our Prime Minister and one of his Ministers were "invited" to Eid prayers at a mosque. I am aware they went although I believe they should have found excuses not to go. I am aware that a British MP is in hot water for expressing concern about a public display of "faith" for Eid. I also believe it is likely that any attempt by Christians to do the same sort of thing on Good Friday would be blocked.

There are double standards here. Muslim extremists are demanding and getting the "right" to make public displays of their faith. Christians are being told that any sort of public display of their faith at Christmas or Easter is not acceptable. Schools provide "prayer rooms" for Muslims but not chapels for Christians or temples for Buddhists. 

I remember going  to the loo on the plane to England last year. I had to step around a man kneeling on a prayer mat. He still had to shift. He glared at me. He was blocking access to the facilities and obviously believed his right to pray was greater than my access to bathroom facilities. I find it hard to believe that any higher being actually requires me to avoid going to the loo just so someone else can perform a ritual five times a day. 

Perhaps we need to start asking, "Who is being controlled here, who is doing the controlling, why and what do they hope to get from it?" 

  

No, they are not "autistic"

and it is time to stop saying they are.

I refer you to those people who would once have been labelled "a bit eccentric". They functionally perfectly well in society. They may have traits which irritate or annoy you but they are not "autistic". 

I know I have said similar things elsewhere but I will say them again. It is important people know the difference. 

There is a vast difference between someone who does not relate to other people, is not toilet trained, cannot feed themselves, is frequently destructive, cannot entertain themselves at all and has no means of any form of communication and a person who has the ability to hold down any sort of job in open employment. The latter person may not be able to read or write or they may have a doctorate in organic chemistry or physics. They may appear to be "a bit odd", "strange", "not exactly shy but not very sociable", "obsessive" or a range of other things others (who do not share those traits) find uncomfortable. It does not make them "autistic". 

Once upon a long time ago these people would almost certainly have been considered "normal". Now apparently they need to be labelled. They need to be given a "condition".  

It is rather like "high blood pressure" and "cholesterol". The "acceptable" readings for those things have been lowered over time. I did a little research about that. In the 1940's an "acceptable" reading for a fifty year old was apparently 190/50. In the 1950s it had gone down to 180/100. By the 1960's it had gone down to 160/95. In 1970 it had gone down still further to 140/90. I will stop the history there and say that an "acceptable" level now, according to my doctor, is "no more than 120/80".  Cholesterol readings show a similar sort of pattern. If we do not reach these levels then we apparently need to be medicated.  

What you believe about these things and how you handle them is entirely your affair. Is it however a similar story with human behaviour? Have our ideas about what is acceptable, what we can tolerate in the behaviour of others changed? 

I think it might have. The "fidgety" child in the classroom has now been diagnosed with "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" or ADHD.  Does that child really have a disorder or do they need a different level of before school activity and a breakfast consisting of good quality fuel and not sugar laden cereal? Do they need to have walked or run to school and then spent time running around the playground? Is their friend who appears to be failing to pay attention and constantly wandering around doing so for some external reason? Might it possibly be one related to modern technology or a means of gaining attention in a world where  parents are too busy to care? Is something wrong at home? 

Is there a possibility, as I have said elsewhere, that the classroom is the problem? The child really is "normal" (whatever that is) but the way the classroom is set up and run is not one which provides the best learning outcomes? Is it actually providing the best learning outcomes for any child? Might there be reasons for the "drop in standards" which actually have nothing to do with the child(ren) and everything to do with the way we expect them to learn?  

I might be wrong but I am not sure medication is the answer to everything.  I would like to see some changes in the education policies of the party which will get re-elected today. Unfortunately it is likely to be more of the same policies which I suspect are not working.  

I voted yesterday

and it is something I am told I am required to do. What the law really says is that I must "attend" and "mark" the papers. In other words I must turn up, take the papers handed to me and make some sort of mark on them before folding them up and putting them in the relevant boxes.

Actually mine when into an envelope because I made a "declaration" vote outside my electorate. This was because the electoral boundaries were changed after the last election and I am now in a new electorate.  Getting to the next available early polling station would have meant a long pedal there and back.  Going on polling day would have meant standing in a queue. I am not good at standing in queues. 

This actually annoys me a little because questions do need to be asked how the electoral boundaries get changed. The Electoral Commission is supposed to oversee this being done in a "fair" manner. The reality is that it sometimes leads to changes that are not sensible.  My old electorate and my new one were once divided by a major road. People knew that one side was X electorate and the other side was Y electorate. That has changed. There is a wiggly line that ends at the end of the street I now live in.  I heard one of the candidates trying to patiently explain to someone that no that person could not vote for him. He does not live in the electorate the candidate is standing for even though he has previously "lived in that electorate all his life". Quite possibly he has too. It is a long time since it would have affected that particular person. I know where he lives.

I know enough about early polling stations to know timing is important if you want to avoid a queue and I did avoid any sort of queue. I was in and out very quickly...and I voted. I voted properly. I did not just fill out the ballot papers according to what any party told me to do. I had thought about my choices. I know my first choice of candidate is almost certainly going to lose but in reality she is the better choice. Her only serious rival, another female, will simply do as she is told.  Yes, I know them both by reputation.

I left wondering how many people will actually vote at this election. They will go along and fill out their ballot papers and believe they have voted. The majority of them will "vote" according to the way they have voted all their lives. They will have no idea what the party policies are. "Why bother?" and "Nothing will change" are the way many of them will approach the problem.  It is not voting. It is simply marking boxes and doing it in a "what's in it for me" way. 

Am I feeling concerned about the almost certain result? Yes. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.  

So what language are you learning at school?

It should be a serious question. 

My attention was drawn to an article in the Spectator. Punjabi parents are apparently asking their children be taught Punjabi at school. 

My nephews went to "Greek school" on Saturday mornings - and hated it. I taught a child who was profoundly physically disabled and unable to speak. He wanted to go to Greek school like his brother and his brother admitted it was the only reason he liked going as well. (The child I taught can read both Greek and English now.) 

My goddaughter objected so strongly to learning Chinese that her mother eventually ceased trying.  She has had to try and learn Chinese as an adult pursuing a profession because it is essential in Singapore.

Children who go to school in an English speaking country are probably fortunate they are learning in one of the most difficult of all languages. Their linguistic achievements however will almost certainly be lower than a child who learns English as a second language or a foreign language. 

But which other language should you learn apart from English? It is an easy question and a difficult one. It is often easy for a child whose family speaks another language at home. They may already have some of the basics. There will often be good family, social and cultural reasons to learn such a language, even a "minority" language. 

We "teach a language" in junior primary and primary years here. The most common ones in this state are languages like Chinese or  Japanese, Italian,  Greek or perhaps French. It depends on who is available to teach and how fluent they are. The classes are concerned as much about "culture" as they are about the actual language. The result is that children really learn very little.  In high school they are faced with the same issue. They may not even be able to continue with the language they were supposedly taught in primary school.  More likely than not their teacher will not be a native speaker of the language.  They might get five forty-five minute lessons a week if they are lucky. You will learn very little Chinese or Japanese in that time and not much more Italian or French or Vietnamese.  We are told that Asian languages are important (and they are) but the reality is they are often badly taught in school. The head of an Asian studies department told me he would prefer to have students who had never studied the language they were there to study. They could start from scratch and not have to "unlearn" so much.

Part of the problem here is the insistence on being "multi-cultural". That sounds fine until you get a very small minority group demanding "their" language be taught so they do not "lose their culture". It cannot be done. There are more than eighty languages spoken at home in this country.  The SBS caters for all of them to some extent. It is an incredibly expensive exercise. 

There are about 240,000 speakers of Punjabi here. It is the fifth most spoken language in the country. That said there are only 20,000 in this state. How do you cater for their children? Is it the most important second language for them to learn? 

There are around 2,200 speakers of Pitjatjantjara in this state. A great deal of money is spent teaching the even smaller number of children who speak it. We are told this is essential so as to retain their culture and keep the language alive. It brings with it as many problems as it does benefits. Punjabi has a stronger case in terms of numbers but trying to suggest one language should be retained and another be given resources to expand is much more complex. 

It might help if we first really taught English in school - just so we can actually speak to each other.