A "Christmas Tree Festival"

as a fundraiser for the hills community fire service and other charities has proven to be a success again.

It was held yesterday and is on again today.  I caught the train up into the hills behind me so I could give the friend running it some support. J... is one of the most hardworking and community minded people I know. She also gets very little recognition for her efforts. 

The little festival consists of about fifty trees decorated by community groups. Santa Claus is there - with the reindeer made from environmentally sound logs of fallen timber. There are some trees for sale as well as some plants. There are activities for children (and I saw some lovely "hats" made by them). When you are exhausted by all this there are inevitable tea, coffee and scones. 

I am not really into the business of decorating my own establishment with trees and lights. It is just me. Why bother? But.... another friend and I put our heads together and thought we might be able to contribute something. We have done it twice before. Each time we have tried to think of something different.

This time several people in the knitting and crochet group at the library contributed crochet circles. I made about thirty of these, all about 12cms across.  G...embroidered them and turned them into "smiley" faces. They have been hung on a tree. The circles I made were all in brilliant neon colours. I knew the room would be dim (to give the illusion of night) and I wanted the circles to show up. They looked good. I am glad we did it because I watched children's faces light up as they saw the "smiles". G...had made a few with the extra addition of ears so that they could be bears (or koala bears or mice)  and the youngest children really seemed to like those best. On being given one of the bears one fractious toddler clung tightly to it and fell asleep!

There should be more of this sort of thing. The tree decorated with tiny houses made from scraps of timber and another decorated with paper people made by a junior primary class showed there is still plenty of skill and imagination out there. We need more of that sort of thing.      

"I need to go to Aceh"

the voice at the other end of the phone told me.

I suppose I should not have been surprised - except that the caller is now closer to eighty than sixty. He has been up there three times now. The first was just after the 2004 tsunami. 

I don't think I will ever forget my first contact with the small group of men who went off to help rebuild a shattered community in a remote Indonesian area. They were about the most unlikely volunteers possible. 

I thought they were being utterly irresponsible. I sat down to talk to them to try and dissuade them from going. At the end of the conversation I was ready to help. They had thought things through. They were taking everything they needed, not just tools but food and shelter. They were strong and healthy. They had the skills to do what they planned to do. They had a specific goal they wanted to achieve - and then they were getting out again. 

These men did the job they planned to do and then they left. They have been back since and done similar work. They have always gone and returned quietly. The last thing they want is publicity and I will respect their wishes except to say, "I wish there were more like you." 

All of them looked like members of the toughest sort of motorcycle gang. Those who remain still look rather like that. I saw two of them yesterday and got some rather odd looks from passers by as we sat in a cafe and talked about their plans. Yes, their communication boards need a bit of updating but there are people there now who speak some English and that will help. 

They are going up to help with the repair of an essential building that can be used as accommodation while other things are repaired.  It is a testament to their earlier work that this is one of the buildings which is still standing. They built it from debris in 2004. They will also show some of the young people there how to repair a footbridge over one of the many rivers. That was built on another visit. It will allow aid to get across much more quickly even if it has to be done by handcart. 

I ask about how long they plan to be there, about their other arrangements. This time I know they will have all these things organised. Their flights and other travel plans have already been arranged. Who is paying? They are - with some help from their families. This is their Christmas gift to each other and a community they have come to know. 

No, I cannot contribute anything else. I am, according to them, "doing (my) bit". Perhaps I am but it is nothing like their contribution.

The cafe owner brings my trike in from where he has put it safely "out back". It's a rather rough area of the city. They walk back to the station with me. Their handshakes are firm as they see me safely on to the train.    

Yes, some of the most unlikely looking men from rough backgrounds but I admire them.  

 

  

Holding water in a sieve

is not possible is it? You might catch a drop or two. The sieve might appear to be damp. That will be about it. 

The "age verification" process for removing under 16s from social media looks like being about as useful. It has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese - and Swiss cheese is a great deal more useful. 

The onus for removing young people from social media has been put on the "big tech" companies. They have been warned they will be hit with massive fines if they do not comply.

But is it possible to comply? Is it really possible to comply? The answer of course is that it is not possible. This morning's paper contains a story of a boy who went through the "age verification" process. His face was scanned. He is fourteen and the verification process tells us he is twenty-five. 

Last night there was a fifteen year old interviewed on the news. He was quite frank about the fact that he intends to lie about his age. It is likely he has already done so. 

He won't be the only one. I overheard a bunch of giggling girls telling each other how they have already bypassed the ban by using make up to "look older". I imagine it was very easy to do. 

Teenagers will not meekly give in to this ban. They will find ways around it and there is a major problem with that fact. If they are using social media then they will now be doing it in contravention of the law.  Bullying won't stop. Telling others about bullying is going to be more difficult if it also involves the illegal use of a device.

Rather than put the onus on the tech giants it should have been put on young people and their parents. It should have been made illegal for under 16s to own a phone which can do more than make and receive calls and text messages. 

Fake claims about being

"aboriginal" were raised yesterday. They came at the same time as I was watching a small girl running and rolling in the grass at the park next to the library. Her adopted grandmother stood there holding a bag of library books while her adopted grandfather pretended to chase her. It was a game and they were all enjoying it.

"She's having a wonderful time," I said to her grandmother who had given me the sort of smile which says,"This has to stop soon."

"It ends all too soon," she told me, "I wish they did not have to grow up and find out about the world."

I knew what she was talking about. The small girl is an inter-race placement. She is also disabled. There was an attempt to place her in an "aboriginal" family but it did not work. Nobody wanted to take on a child with two limbs missing. They did not want to deal with the many hospital appointments and other issues that will arise. 

This family has taken her on. She is starting school this coming year and is excited about it. I have often talked to her "mother" in the library. They are regular visitors there. 

"Time to go," her adopted grandfather said and there was a sigh but no argument. She eyed my bike seat longingly though. There have been several occasions on which she has been allowed to "ride" it - with me pushing her while she sits on the seat. If she learns to ride a bike it will be one she uses her arms to "pedal". 

After looking at me her adopted grandfather lifted her on to the seat and we set off to the car park. Then he took her off to put her in her child seat. 

"M...and A... have been told they could get some sort of bike for her to use but they don't want her to think she can have something for no effort. Not everyone agrees of course. They keep saying if she is aboriginal she should be able to get it. We keep being told "at least she looks aboriginal" but what is that really supposed to mean?"

"She just looks like a little girl to me," I said. It is true. She does. There is definitely some "aboriginal" heritage there and perhaps some Chinese too but she also has European ancestry. She is a very attractive child and, at present, a very happy one despite her problems. I doubt she is more than average intelligence but she loves stories and drawing and talking to dogs.  The idea that she should somehow be given something extra because of the colour of her skin seems wrong to them. If she needs a "bike" of some sort to keep up with her friends at school then that seems to be a more reasonable thing. It is an interesting point of view.   

A $2.4m payout made

as compensation to someone who would "never be able to work again" because she was allegedly raped has now dwindled to $50,000 after just three years.

Before anyone who know who I am talking about starts screaming at me "she was raped and she deserved every cent" let me say that, in law, it is still an allegation. It has not been "proven" in a court of law. It is unlikely it ever will be. 

There are two "standards of proof" here. One is "on the balance of probabilities" and the other is "beyond reasonable doubt". The first applies in civil cases and the second in criminal courses. It is much more difficult to reach the latter standard and rightly so. Once reached it can incarcerate people and could once have involved the death penalty. Get it wrong in the latter instance and you could end up putting an innocent person to death.

The criminal trial in this case was aborted twice. On one occasion it was because of juror misbehaviour but on the second it was said to be because of the distress it was causing the alleged victim. (Again I am using "alleged" because of lack of an outcome.) Then, quite suddenly, there was the huge payout in "compensation" for what had happened. It was paid because the alleged victim would no longer be able to work. She was said to be in a very fragile state. There were suggestions of suicidal thoughts and more.  We were told she did not get any support from her employer or one of her employer's staff. They were cast as uncaring and guilty of trying to cover it up. 

The saga has now dragged on for more than three years. It has been shown twice to be wrong but her employer is still being cast as the "bad guy". To do otherwise would bring into question that payout. It was made not by employer but by the present government. There has never been anything like it done before.  The payout was given with no strings attached and that alone should have rung alarm bells.

At very least the payout should have been put into a trust fund and spent very differently. It should have been conserved as far as possible until all matters had been resolved in the courts. When the alleged victim took up some employment then the funding should, at very least, have been reduced. She had shown herself capable of returning to work and returning in a very public role. She has married and done other things which suggest that her alleged fragile mental state has improved dramatically. 

On the other side people have been subject to serious defamation. They have had to fight their own battles with no financial support and, until now, no support in the media.There are still far too many people who are saying "serves her right" for allegedly failing to support the alleged victim. Even when the court has come down in their favour they are still being held responsible. 

They will go on being held responsible because the government of the day needs to be able to justify that payout. Some of those involved hold the highest positions in the land and to admit wrong doing could have extreme consequences.   

The whole episode stinks of corruption. There has been too much harm done. Whatever the consequences there needs to be an inquiry. We were the people who paid the compensation with our taxes. 

The "social media ban" for under 16s

is just over a week away. 

I have had my say about this here and elsewhere. There is a High Court challenge coming up. The case will argue the legislation trespasses on the constitutional implied right of freedom of political communication. It will be interesting to see what arguments are put.

There is also the issue of "digital ID". At the moment the onus is on the big tech companies to deal with the issue. It is unlikely the legislation would have passed if it had been any other way because that would have meant bringing in some form of identification for everyone in order to get the proposed ban in place. The failure to comply will bring about large financial penalties for the companies.

In reality this is the first step towards some form of universal means of identification. It is going to be even easier for the government of the day to effectively "spy" on all we do. 

Whenever I go into the largest supermarket in the shopping centre I am asked if I have a "loyalty" card. The answer is "no". At times I have been asked if I want one. The answer is "no". The same thing occurs in the bakery. 

"But you could get..." I am told. No, I could not. I am all too aware that even "paying by card" tells them what  my shopping pattern is. I do not need to be inundated with "offers" for items I do not want. If an under sixteen year old pays for something with a card or, more likely, a phone "app" then the business and the government already know what they are spending their money on.  They know a great deal more about them as well. 

I reluctantly opted out of a medical information site because I was not certain it was secure. There is nothing particularly wrong with my actual health and certainly nothing I am ashamed of. I may not be "sane" in the eyes of some people but I have never been sectioned or talked to a psychiatrist as a patient. (My experience with them socially has been more than enough.) All that said I have no particular desire to share the details of my medical history with the world and any site can be "hacked". 

I can see a situation where the information being demanded by tech companies in an effort to abide by the age-related legislation will be used for other purposes. Really? 

Some people will say that teens only have themselves to blame for the ban. If they had used social media in a responsible manner then this legislation would not have been necessary. Give me a break! We are talking about children and young people here. 

Perhaps we should be putting much more responsibility on parents?

Are one in twenty seven children "autistic"

or have they have been diagnosed as such in order to get funding for sometimes very real problems?

I am asking the question because apparently around $9bn of the $50bn or so spent NDIS programs went to supporting those with "autism". The number of those diagnosed with autism has apparently almost doubled in the last five years. The article in the paper is suggesting we are "getting better at diagnosing the problem, particularly in women and girls". Is that correct?

I watched a short video recently. It was taken by the mother of an autistic man. He is around twenty now and nobody could doubt he is very severely disabled. In a photograph it is possible you would not see anything wrong but the video tells a different story. He can do nothing for himself. He still puts everything in his mouth. He cannot go to the bathroom alone. He cannot dress himself. He has no speech. His "play" level is less than that of a two year old. At the same time he is a grown man with a beard. He gets violent. It is sometimes without apparent cause but often because he is frustrated. Living with him is a constant balancing act. It is exhausting. 

The NDIS is, quite rightly, intended to help people like him and his family. They need more help than they are getting but there is limited funding. When his mother can no longer cope he will probably end up in some form of "care", possibly drugged in order to keep his behaviour from being a danger to others.

What the NDIS is not there for is to provide assistance to children with mild behaviour issues or learning difficulties. All too often though this is the way it is being used. Children are being diagnosed as "autistic" in order to get help that should be available elsewhere. "Autistic" is seen as an acceptable label. It is more acceptable than "behaviour issues" or "learning issues".

I have no doubt at all that some of those "issues" are due to changes in the sort of world we now live in. They are also due to changes in the way we expect children to function in classrooms which are also very different. 

Not so long ago I had an unexpected conversation with someone who had worked under the Senior Cat's leadership. When the Senior Cat went to take over the headship of the school there was one of the then popular "classrooms" with four teachers in a large space. It was considered to be a good learning environment where children would learn to socialise and work together in teams. There were units like this all over the metropolitan area. The unit was the responsibility of the deputy headmaster. 

It was not working well. The teachers had volunteered to be there but they were struggling. Even the most able students were not coping well. Quite simply it was not a good learning environment. It was too noisy. There were too many distractions. The idea that children could be taught in large groups and then be divided into smaller groups to do the activities which followed was not working. Children were not listening. They were distracted by other things. The supposed "team work" and "socialisation" was not being achieved in the intended way.  There were more issues in the playground.

It was Education Department policy to have these units. There was the intention to eventually make all schools work to this model. Like many other educational experiments it was a policy which was eventually discarded at least in part.  There are still times where classes come together but it is not an all day and everyday policy. It is interesting that teachers now tell me some children do not cope well when they are in a larger group or when there is a big change in routine. They inevitably include the children who have been labelled as being "on the spectrum". 

There must be children who are falling behind early in their school lives because of the learning environment in which they find themselves at school and also at home. Being "distracted" or "fidgety" or "restless" or something else seen as unacceptable surely does not mean you are on that catch all autism spectrum. It might be that the learning environment in which you find yourself is not one which allows you to learn as easily, if at all. Would it help if we started looking at the problems from a different direction?  

Being polite costs nothing

- or so we are told.

I was in the bakery yesterday. The expectation in there is that you will be served in the order you enter the shop. People do not queue as such but you know who is ahead of you and who is behind you.

I am short but the shop assistant had seen me. I am a regular customer there as they sell the type of seed loaf I like. My turn to be served was about to come up when someone moved in front of me.

"There is someone else next..." the assistant started to say.

"I am next. I want..." came the belligerent response. Other customers looked. 

"Is there anything else?" the assistant asked when she had handed over the bread.

"No." 

None of us said anything and the rude individual got away with it. She was served. She did not say "thank you" simply tapped her card and left. 

The assistant started to apologise so I said, "No, she is the one who should apologise."

There were murmurs of agreement around me. Someone mentioned a shop in another country where someone had tried something similar. The problem was they tried it on the owner who then refused to serve them at all.  I doubt a mere shop assistant would get away with that here.

At this time of the year, at the time the Christmas decorations are up and the shop assistants are wearing their Christmas t-shirts instead of the usual shirts, I am even more conscious of the need to be polite. I will tell the younger ones wearing red t-shirts with kangaroos in Santa hats that it is a "fun t-shirt" or the older one that the elf-hat "really suits" them. It is done in fun. They know it and we can smile at each other. I am planning on slipping a tiny little box with a single chocolate inside it to the person who delivers the mail and giving the girl who works at the phone repair booth the same. They have gone out of their way to help this year. Yes, they are paid to do their job but I want to be sure they are thanked again. I want to be polite and it really does not cost anything. I have had more than that in return.

Perhaps the very rude person in the bakery was just having a bad day but I suspect it was more than that.  

So boys are "falling behind"?

Apparently boys are not doing as well as girls in the NAPLAN games. (For Upoverites NAPLAN involves a series of tests of academic achievement at various points through your school career.)

It does not surprise me in the slightest if boys are not doing as well as girls in things like spelling, mathematics, reasoning and the like. Why should they? Psychological theory would have us believe the results between them should be about equal - but different. Perhaps the powers-that-be need to look at the tests.

That said I also think we need to look more closely at what we expect of all students. It may be different Elsewhere but there are expectations here in Downunder. If challenged people will likely deny that these expectations are expectations but I believe they do exist. 

Boys, especially teenage boys, are expected to be keen on sport. They are expected to play sport. They are expected to ride mountain bikes and go surfing. In school they are expected to be much more interested in STEM subjects than the arts. They are expected to be "better at maths" and to have better coding skills. They are expected to enjoy science experiments. We might want to say all this is not true, that "not everyone is like that" but the not so subtle reality is different. We don't want boys to be more interested in English, other languages or other arts subjects. Heaven forbid that they might be interested in art or cookery!

I remember someone with whom I went to school. He was a problem in a very small country school. With four year grades in one room there was no time to provide him with a lot of extension work. After some discussion he "skipped" a year...and then another year. He was hopelessly disorganised about his everyday life but he could multiply three figures by three figures "in his head". He could remember the spelling for any word he had come across. There was not a lot of reading material around but he swapped everything he had for everything we had. He had also read the Bible from Genesis to the end and was working his way through a dictionary when we left. 

He later went on to university and became a solicitor but I wonder what would become of him now. He would almost certainly have been pushed, none too gently, into maths of some sort. Would he have been any happier there? I doubt it. My brother and I once spent a happy weekend with him as we tried to work out how to calculate the height of a tree. It was the sort of problem which interested all of us but only because it related to how much ladder we had to build to get to the branch that looked perfect for a tree house. Now, if we were even permitted to embark on such a project, we would probably be introduced to the necessary maths behind such a task. I have long since forgotten what I knew and I am sure he has too. Maths was simply not our "thing". Being able to calculate something does not mean you are necessarily interested in the entire field around it.

No, sport is more important to many. The other likely activity is that of playing computer games. Yes, I know computer games can vary greatly but they are not all chess, Scrabble or Minecraft. Many of them seem to be quite violent, certainly involving killing off your enemies on screen. I know some girls do play the "kill your enemy" type but it is much more likely to be the domain of boys. That they are highly addictive I do not doubt at all because they work on the classic reward theory. There are boys who spend hours each day playing such games. If that sounds unacceptably "sexist" I apologise but I suspect I am right.

If we want to stop boys "lagging behind" then perhaps we need to think a little less about organised sport (and more about physical activity) and severely limit the computer games. We need to provide them with the ability and time to read actual books. We need to show them that art and cookery are acceptable activities. 

I do not think this will happen. There will be a renewed push to "bring them up to standard" with more of the activities in which they are possibly simply not interested.  

 

Putting a church on top of a hill

probably seemed like a good idea when it was built. The faithful could look up to it. The heathen could see it looking down on them. It was there. It was an important part of the community it was built to serve but also separated from it in some indefinable sort of way. The early parishioners came to it by horse and buggy or shanks pony. They often attended twice on Sundays and perhaps early in the morning during the working week. It was a busy place.

If you need to go to it by tricycle it is not such a good idea. I thought of this as I pedalled up there yesterday. 

The need to go was all my own fault of course. If I had been well organised I could have given my donation to their Christmas hampers for the poor to someone who goes there on Sundays. Of course that would have meant doing something at least a week ago. I did not do anything.

The Senior Cat used to take an item of food to church each Sunday. I would hand over something as he left. There would be cereal or pasta or pasta sauce or the inevitable baked beans in packs of four for individual servings and packets of cup-a-soup. The items would go to a centre in the city which feeds the homeless and provides food for families in need. At Christmas time they try to provide something a bit extra and a little bit more interesting than the basics. It is why I continue to do what the Senior Cat would have wanted me to do and what I feel I must do.  

As children our own Christmas celebrations were not extravagant but we did get our new Sunday clothes for the next year and a book or toy from our parents and grandparents. We were expected to make things for them as soon as we could - even if our paternal grandmother gave up some "very secret" help. 

We also had a special meal. To have none of those things is not what Christmas, apart from the religious aspect, should be about for children. I suspect most children will have no religion in their Christmas at all. We most definitely did. There is no tradition of midnight mass in the Presbyterian church but there were very definitely Christmas carols. The sermon on Christmas Day was likely to be short and all the children would participate in the nativity scene, mostly dressed in our dressing gowns as the robes for the shepherds and the kings.

To have none of that seems wrong so I pedalled up the hill with my small contribution - or pedalled as far as I could. I should have gone the long way around...the route I worked out from the old house. It is much longer but the hill climb is not as steep. But, I thought I would be smart and go a shorter route from here...I walked the last hundred metres pushing the trike...but I got there. It probably took me just as long, if not longer. 

I went in the back way. (There are at least four ways to get into the church grounds and the one I chose goes around the back of the church. It is useful if you do not particularly want to be seen.) The church was open. It was quiet, very quiet. The priest's car was not there but I knew "the red bin" would be by the side door of the narthex.  It was all I needed. 

The priest arrived just as I was leaving. He waved. I waved back and was about to leave but he called out to me and I waited.

"I didn't need to see you D... " I told him, "I was just putting something in the red bin."

He nodded. We chatted for a moment and then he said, "It's all down hill on the way back."  Yes, I could coast all the way down to the shopping centre and thus the post office. There was no need to pedal at all... but I could not help wondering if the journey was something like life. It is much harder to get to a good place at the top than it is to coast down to the bottom.

  

"A Super Progressive Movie" has been banned

from a private showing at the cinema room in our national parliament building. Apparently some people might be offended by it. 

Yes, there are rules about not showing anything which might be offensive. Apparently it does not matter that this was intended to be a private function. Presumably the people who were going to see it would be supporters of the party whose members made the film.

There is a trailer up on the net if you wish to watch it - just type in "A Super Progressive Movie" and you will find it. You will find it along with a range of other "Please Explain" short pieces by the same mob.

I looked at it on the request of one of the neighbours. He wanted to know what I thought of it. My reaction was, "I would not want to see any more and I don't care for what I did see." 

That said...a lot of people are going to like it all. It pokes fun at a lot of woke ideas and some issues which are coming under more serious discussion. There is also a point at which one of the characters says someone has to be listened to "because he's one sixteenth aboriginal". That could be viewed as very racist but many will see it as having an uncomfortable grain of truth in it. There are other words spoken which are potentially equally damaging and harmful and hurtful and more. 

What little I saw, and that was too much, worried me. I did not care in the least for the slick, speedy, noisy presentation. It is not done in a way which would allow me to think about serious issues. 

Yes, there likely are some serious issues there. For all their burqa wearing red headed firebrand leader is seen as a loud mouthed trouble maker she is appealing to more and more people if the polls are right. The major parties need to look more closely at her, not just dismiss her and her party's policies as some sort of aberration which will go away if ignored.   

All that said I do think it was foolish to prevent the film being shown. It has given it a great deal of free publicity. Downunderites do not like being told by governments what they can watch and what they can think. It is a pity they are apparently all too ready to allow other groups and individuals to influence them. They are too fond of their sporting "heroes" and "radio personalities" and more. 

The problem will only get worse with the proposed social media ban for those under the age of sixteen. I note there is now a High Court challenge with respect to that legislation. It will be interesting to see if the court recognises where it is really leading us - and whether they will allow it.

  

So clumsy you "walk into walls"?

There is a case before our courts at present in which a mother is accused of both neglecting and harming her daughter. The daughter committed suicide. At her death she weighed a little over half of what a healthy child of that age would weigh.

Her mother claims that the bruising shown in the evidence being presented was due to her daughter being so clumsy she would walk into walls. She also claims that her daughter liked sleeping in the cold in the laundry and that she was a fussy eater. These claims are being made in order to cover the fact that the child was sleeping there and that the lunches she was taking to school were highly inadequate - if she took any at all. 

I have no idea how the case will end but, at a meeting yesterday, someone asked me, "Why didn't the girl tell someone what was happening?"

I think this person was genuinely puzzled but I do not find it hard to understand at all. I once taught a child whose father often hit him. He had bruises sometimes. I queried the bruises. The head of the school queried it. We spoke to his mother as well. What happened? Nothing. His mother was clearly frightened by the idea of anything being said. The boy in question did not want us to do anything. He was willing to put up with the abuse in order to go on staying at home. I can remember him telling me, "It's all right. My dad loves me really."

Looking back I believe he was terrified that something worse might happen to him. He almost certainly believed he would be taken away from his parents if he said anything. I also think he genuinely believed his father loved him. He needed to believe it. Believing it made his life "normal". The need for "love" was more important than the beatings. Perhaps his father also believed he loved his son. He was a policeman and well known in the district for his willingness to prosecute wrong doers. 

This is surely like women and, rarely, men putting up with an abusive relationship? To believe it is not their fault is just too difficult.  Children are even more vulnerable than adults when this sort of thing occurs. The girl who committed suicide must have seen this as the only way out. Others are going to be asking "Why didn't she say more than she did?" They will blame themselves.

If I had a child who was so clumsy they were bruising themselves by walking into walls I hope I would make an appointment with a doctor, an urgent appointment. If I was that child's teacher I hope I would insist on the same. When I taught that boy corporal punishment was still legal and often used. It is no longer the case. But is life really any different for a child now? They would still be afraid of losing more than they believe they would gain.  

I   

Ban the burqa?

One of the Senators pulled another stunt in the Senate yesterday. She was attempting to get a bill tabled which would ban the wearing of the burqa in public in this country. She tried to do it correctly first but, on failing, put on a burqa and returned to the chamber. There was an uproar. 

The Senator had made her point. It is not the first time an attempt has been made to introduce such legislation and it more than likely will not be the last.   She is not the only Senator to have tried to have a ban enforced.

Whether it is insulting to Islam not to wear, at very least, a hijab or insulting to women to be required to wear it will depend on your point of view.  I know quite a number of women who wear a hijab. Several do so out of the belief this is the right thing to do.  The others, the majority, do so because it is what is expected of them. 

Many years ago now a good friend was about to show me a photograph of a mutual friend and her new baby. Then she hesitated and said, "I don't think I can. She hasn't covered her hair." 

I am afraid I laughed and said, "J.... invited me home last week and the first thing she did when we got inside was pull of her hijab and toss it on a chair." 

The photograph was duly produced and baby duly admired. I think, indeed hope, attitudes have changed since then.  I have been in and out of student houses since and, as they are all female, there has been no wearing of hijabs inside the house even in front of me. Why should they? Some of them only cover their heads to go to the mosque. They will wear hijabs then but a burqa? To the best of my knowledge none of them own a burqa let alone wear one.

I am told there is no religious requirement for the burqa, the niqab or the hijab to be worn. Why should there be? I am sure if something was said about this in the Koran people could quote the passage. Even then it might be rather like the passage in the letter to the Corinthians where the Apostle Paul is demanding modesty and respect from the women by covering their heads. 

My mother would not have gone to church without wearing a hat. She would not have thought of wearing trousers. Her mother was the same as was my paternal grandmother. It was the way things were then. It is not the way things are now. I know a nun who wears jeans in church and has been known to go barefoot there. It does not make her any less devout now than when she started out in a full habit many years ago.

I may be wrong, very wrong, but I suspect that most women who wear a burqa here do so because they believe they must. They come from households where the males have dictated it and/or they see it as a necessity. The sky will not fall in if they do not wear one but they feel anxious and naked without it. That is perhaps what needs to change.

Most ten year old children cannot legally

get a tattoo. They cannot legally drink alcohol. They cannot legally smoke cigarettes. They are not supposed to access pornography or X-rated films. They have very little idea about how they (and everyone else) came into being or what it means to be a "parent".  Most of them do not even walk to school alone - if they even do work. Parents put them in "OSH care" (out of school hours) or send them to sport, drama, dance and more in an effort not to keep them occupied but because they want them to keep up the same level of supposedly desirable activities as their peers. The books they read are, for the most part, written by adults and chosen by them.  Children cannot vote and must attend school or be otherwise "educated". They cannot hitchhike around the world alone. In this country they will shortly not be able to access "social media" because they are considered to be "too young".

There are a great many things children cannot legally do. We see most of these things as sensible precautions because they are deemed to be "too immature". So why do they think it is okay to inject chemicals in to a child as young as ten to prevent puberty? 

Before you start telling me I am "anti-transgender" people or that "children know who they are at that age" or "this is the best time to start doing it" let me say this. I firmly believe there are people who genuinely believe they are "the wrong sex" and who are more comfortable "the other way".  I also believe that there are very, very few of these people and that they deserve all the support and understanding we can give them. Life must be very difficult for them and I get upset when they do not get the support and understanding they need and have every right to get. 

I do not believe there are large numbers of ten year old children, children who are deemed not mature enough to go to and from school independently, who are able to say, "I want to be "A" rather than "B" and I want to be that way for the rest of my life. I want to take drugs to stop nature taking its intended course." Ask these children what they think they would like to do as a job or career and they often have no clear idea. Three years ago at age ten a young friend of mine wanted to design wedding dresses and have her own shop. Now she is thirteen she wants to be a librarian but acknowledges she might change her mind about that too. 

Puberty blockers do not "save lives". Children can be asked to wait in the way they have to wait for other "adult" things. What will save lives, and save some from irreparable damage, is love and understanding and acceptance and patience and a range of other things. Yes, it might seem easier to prevent puberty but perhaps it is time to talk long and hard with people who are "detransitioning". What has gone wrong? Why did they feel that way earlier on? What can we learn from them?

I know my views will upset some people but I find it hard to believe that the current epidemic of demands for "transitioning" is really a reflection of the numbers who genuinely need it.  

 

Christmas Day 1974 is a date

indelibly etched into the minds of any Dowunderite old enough to remember it. It is the date on which a category four cyclone hit the top end of the country, almost destroyed a city, displaced many thousands and caused weeks of chaos and hardship.

Another, and equally powerful, cyclone is going through the area as I write this. There will be harm done but it will not be on anything like the same scale as before. Building regulations have changed and that will help a lot. Disaster planning has improved. Even more importantly communication has improved.  Even the most remote communities are likely to get some information. 

In the north there are still people who speak little or no English so the warnings will have been given in multiple local indigenous languages. The bigger problem will be to get people to heed the warnings and go to local shelters if their own homes are at particular risk. 

Christmas Day 1974 was my first close-distant encounter with a natural disaster that required a response. I had absolutely no idea what to expect. My parents, also called on to help, had no idea either. They were old enough to remember the war but did not see active service. Any other natural disaster had passed them by but this one was different. It was in our country. Yes, it was thousands of kilometres away and the communications coming through were patchy at first but it did not take long for organisations like the Red Cross, Anglicare and the Salvation Army to set to work. 

The Senior Cat was sent off to help organise accommodation. Mum was helping with food and clothing and other basic supplies. I was given a table as a desk and more paper work than I had ever seen before. Looking back I can only think that someone had made a mistake. I was in no way qualified to do what I did. I was taking down often intimate details about people and their families so they could get the assistance they urgently needed. I can still hear the scream of the woman wearing nothing but shorts and a sleeveless top that this was all she had in the world. She had no ID of any sort and no idea if the rest of her family had survived. To this day I am thankful I was not the person who had to help her. 

Late yesterday afternoon someone who has family up in that area asked me, "Is that what started you on your job?" I had to say that no, it was not. The first communication board for that purpose came some years later - but perhaps the earlier experience prepared me just a little? I do not know.

What I do know is that I am fortunate to live in a country where things can happen quickly if there is a need for it. I also know it is when people do not heed warnings that they are more likely to find themselves in trouble. Now I am hoping people in the cyclone area have heeded the warnings they were given.   

Nobody wants to start WWIII

which is perhaps why President Putin still believes he can get away with snatching territory. 

Yes, he might have had to "fight" for it but he clearly believes he is big enough and strong enough to get away with it. He simply does not care if a few people get hurt on the way. It doesn't matter if it costs him a little. The prize is too big for that.

I have met someone who has spent some hours in the company of President Putin. This person has met many, many world leaders over the years. It is part of their job to do just that. This is what they had to say, "He is the most frightening person I have ever met. There is no warmth to him at all even when he appears to be smiling. He is completely cold, vicious and brutal."

This came from someone who has met Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe, the Kims in North Korea and others. They were "not nice people" but Putin is worse.

Why then is President Trump suggesting that Ukraine should simply surrender to President Putin's demands? The answer is not a desire for an end to the war of course. It is about power, oil and trade. It is about Trump's own business interests in Russia itself.

Putin wants the old USSR back. Moving into Ukraine is just a step in that direction. Denying them NATO membership is essential if that is to occur. He won't move immediately but he will make it impossible for Ukraine to survive. There will be a "referendum" of some sort to suggest that the people of Ukraine have willingly rejoined the union and then there will be other moves. It is a long term plan but Putin believes he has time and right on his side. He really believes he can simply take over again.

It is why he must not be allowed to succeed this time and it is why Europe must not allow him to succeed. Ukraine has really been fighting alone - and that has to stop.   

It is a COP out for us

apparently. There are wails and gnashing of teeth and claims of "it's not fair". We lost the "right" to host the next big climate talk-fest.

I am so upset - not. It is something we should not even have considered bidding for, let alone spent almost $4m on with no result. I am never ceased to be alarmed and concerned by the apparent inability of the "leaders" of this country to recognise that we are very small fish in a very large pond.

Why on earth did anyone even believe that we might be able to host the next "climate" conference in this country. Yes, it is a large land mass. Yes, it is the biggest island or the smallest continent but perhaps its claims to fame should end there. For the most part it is so sparsely inhabited it is really scarcely inhabited at all. I can remember when the last tribe of people who had no contact with white civilisation finally came into view. Their isolation was partly due to distance but might also have had something to do with desire.

The population of this country is far less than the state of California. Our trade with the rest of the world is small. We are isolated in many ways. It is something which causes many problems even in an age where communication appears to be almost instantaneous.

Why anyone would believe we were able to host a conference of the likely size of COP31 in a city many people, even the proposed delegates, could not find on a map is beyond me. Would we be able to house them, feed them, transport them and find suitable conference facilities for them? We were told we could by those putting in the bid but I doubt it. Even getting people here could have proved a challenge. Put on extra flights - the very thing they are telling us we should cut back on? Allow the state's main airport to open outside curfew hours? 

The cost would have been huge. I am told it was all about "putting us on the map" and providing business, especially climate related business, with "opportunities". I am told it would end up "paying for itself". I do not believe that.

Now I am told that our Minister for Climate Change and Energy is to be in charge of a major part of the next COP in Turkey - the country to which we lost out. He is widely seen as inept, so inept they kept him in the background at the last election. Yes, he is a power player of some sort inside his own party. He must be in order to retain his position. Is he good at it? No. Is he the best they have? No. There are now some who hope he might be booted from his position on the grounds he has to concentrate on his new role. All I can say is that the next COP will go even further downhill than this one.

Please, could we just forget any sort of COP? We need action now.    

The job cuts at the CSIRO

are cause for alarm. For those of you in Upover and Elsewhere the CSIRO is the  Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is a government agency here. It is responsible for scientific research with a focus on commercial and industrial applications. The CSIRO works with similar places around the world - or should do.

Some of the things they have successfully developed include things like the Hendra virus vaccine for horses and biological controls for pests like myxomatosis and calicivirus. They continue to work on things like reducing damage done by rust in wheat crops and increasing the nutritional content of barley. 

Their work on Wi-Fi technology, plastics (including the first successful polymer bank notes), ceramics for the space industry and much more have all had international benefit. In summer many people bless the insect repellent Aerogard developed by the CSIRO.

Like any big research organisation they have also had their failures and other research facilities have beaten them to solutions. Our geographical location has been a hindrance in the past and continues to be now, although to a lesser extent than before.  

 It is going to get more difficult as they cut another three hundred and fifty staff. That the cuts are coming from health, from biosecurity, from agriculture and food production and from environmental research is alarming. Add the aging buildings and sometimes equipment in many places and there is a problem.

We cannot expect the rest of the world to do the research for us and then simply use it. We need to be doing our own and sharing it. There is something very wrong with a government which can even consider going to the enormous expense of hosting a climate talk-fest here but not adequately funding the research needed. 

Defamation cases are notoriously

hard to win...and getting harder. Our ideas about what is defamatory change too. 

I came across a page on the New Zealand parliament's site recently. It talked about "unparliamentary" language and gave some examples of what has been considered offensive in the past. 

One of the first, in 1933, is "shrewd old bird". Many people would now take that as a compliment. 

They were finding "pipsqueak" offensive in 1936. It is likely the meaning was not quite the same at that time but is it offensive now?

In 1959 someone apparently found being called a "kookaburra" offensive. Well I suppose those birds do have a raucous "laugh".

In 1963 it was said of someone that he "sits on his behind". Lazy? I have heard it said often. 

There were more on that page but it was clear that the acceptable language in parliament has changed over the years. I was also aware that, in parliament, there is a lot of name calling. It is also possible to say things you cannot say outside parliament and be immune from prosecution for defamation. It is generally not wise to do this but it is done from time to time. 

Outside parliament it is a different story. Defamation is more common than many people realise. It does more harm than people realise too. We are all too ready to believe the worst of people, not the best. It is why the news media has a particular and special responsibility to be accurate. The problem is that accurate news might not sell as well. If you depend on advertising for the income which sells the "news" you want to present then you can be sure it will be "sensationalised" and often far from accurate. 

The problem with the BBC doing this however is that it is showing an unacceptable bias. It is even worse that our ABC mindlessly repeats it. Think of it as the BBC broadcasting stolen goods and the ABC receiving and broadcasting stolen goods. 

In the case of Mr Trump suing the BBC the stolen goods are the manipulated words they broadcast. It was a stupid thing to do but no doubt the journalists and editors involved thought it served a purpose. Trump is unlikely to get anywhere with his outrageous claims for compensation. He is out of time and out of jurisdiction.  That said however it should still tell the rest of us that the behaviour of the BBC was wrong too.

It can happen to other people as well - and all too frequently does. There will sometimes be the "apology" read out in the news services on the following day or appearing (usually not too obviously) in the paper.  All too often the media knows the damage they intended has been done. Even paying "compensation" is seen as part of it.

When it comes to the rest of us though it is much harder. It is all too easy to defame someone and cause permanent damage. The words we use do matter. 

 

   

Going to university is apparently

now a "right" if you are "neurodivergent". 

I am still not sure what "neurodivergent" means to the people who are telling me this.  It does not seem to mean the young man I once met who was so severely dyslexic he could not read. He was also highly intelligent and had gone through school with the help of his mother and a school which treated him as if he was blind for the purposes of learning. He did go on to university with the help of more "readers" but he also worked incredibly hard - harder than most students I know.

The adjustments made for him were necessary and fair. He was also prepared to do the work, indeed do the extra work required of him. I have no issues with that at all.

I do have issues with students saying that adjustments must be made for them because they find the university style of learning does not suit them. There is one student in a recent report saying the curriculum "does not suit (her) needs". There is another saying "the lecture room is too noisy".  Perhaps the first student is simply not doing a course suited to them. The second student needs to be aware that there is a partially hearing student in some of the same classes. That student sits at the front of the class. Yes, I know it is not quite the same thing but the student is making the adjustment there - and his teachers appreciate it. Good teaching is generally considered to require interaction between teacher and students. There will be noise at times.

The man in the unit across the way from me is doing a degree by "distance" learning. He is studying "on line". He attends lectures this way. It is not easy. "You can't always hear what another student says but it is the nature of on line learning," he told me recently.  As an older student he is making adjustments for this. 

I still give help here and there to students who ask for it. I am also aware there are other students who seem to be fragile and unable to cope with the work required of them without extra help.  They have been nurtured through school with "extra help" and "extra time" and "consideration". They have been given extra tuition and their anxious parents have demanded papers be remarked and higher grades given. More than one teacher has given in to the pressure. 

Are these students really worthy of it. Do they really have these "neurodivergent" issues it is claimed they have? If so, how do we help them? Is it reasonable to expect other students to accept these students need so much extra assistance? 

Or should we start recognising that not everyone can do everything and that getting to the top also requires us to work? 

 

  

Searching for music is

not something I need to do very often. I needed to do it yesterday because someone called in and asked me about something I thought I had never heard.

"It was in the sixties Cat. You must know it. It is driving me mad. I can't think of it. It goes like this..." 

Oh yes, "It goes like this..." I thought to myself. Perhaps it did. It was equally possible that the person in question had "misremembered" it. She does not describe herself as being "musical". Why she thought I should be able to remember something still puzzles me.

I was one of those rare teenagers who was not firmly attached to "the radio". I did not wander the streets holding one. There was no such noise in our house. The Senior Cat listened to the early morning news on "the ABC" (our Downunder equivalent of the BBC, not the US version). We were expected to remain silent while that happened. It was a bit like going to church on Sunday and being expected to repeat the sermon. There was just a chance he might ask something to be sure at least his two eldest kittens had been listening.

Apart from that the radio did not get turned on again until the evening news service from the same source.  Even then it did not always happen...and there was always the paper to read.  The paper was a news source in those days - the first ever one from the Murdoch stable.

But news services and papers do not teach you about the music teens were listening to at the time. We heard snatches of it when we were in other places but we knew very little about it. There were occasional songs which one of our teachers taught us. We were incredibly proud of J.... he often appeared on ABC television as a "filler" - someone who would provide a few minutes of entertainment in between other programmes. It was because of J... we knew about the "Yellow Submarine" and "Lily the Pink" but he also taught us about "The Quartermaster's Store" and "Gaudeamus Igitur".  

"Try again," I told the person standing there and looking at me in so much frustration. It did sound vaguely familiar - but not quite right. I listened three more times. It was not like trying to do reverse image search on the computer. 

Then she said, "I think the organist at my church played it once. He gets a bit modern sometimes."

I had it then and said, "I think I have it...but it's Bach...they borrowed it and did things to it."

"It isn't Bach. He's been dead for ages, long before they wrote it." 

I found Procul Harum's "A whiter shade of pale". Yes, that was what she had been trying to find. Her version was barely recognisable even when I had the church organist reference. I showed her the more than one reference to Bach that came up with it.

"I didn't have it exactly right did I? Still can't believe that Bach wrote anything that modern."

She went off happily enough but I played it through again. Modern? Perhaps...or perhaps music has no age.  

 

The "Game of Wool" on Channel 4

is not something I can watch here in Downunder. It might be on a pay channel I do not have access to but it is not on any other channel I am aware of. That has not stopped me following the outrage at the way my ancestors approach to knitting has been treated.

For those of you who are not familiar with the show it is hosted by, among others, Tom Daley - the Olympic swimmer who made headlines when he sat by the pool knitting. He probably gave knitting a boost when he did this. Here was an Olympic athlete knitting - and a male Olympic athlete at that. 

I have to admit I was pleased to see him knitting. I thought it might increase the profile of the craft and convince some that it is not a "hobby for little old ladies".  Yes, there are some little old ladies in nursing homes who now knit nothing but "squares" because that is all they feel they can now knit. Careful though! I know one "old lady" in a nursing home who can still knit prize winning standard socks and who knows how to adjust patterns to fit the recipient and much more. I would still go to her for advice.

I also know that knitting is not just a female occupation - look at Kaffe Fassett and Brandon Mably, Franklin Habit and Stephen West and many others. One of the most extraordinary things I have ever seen was a Shetland lace shawl knitted in cobweb weight wool - and it was made by a man.  Men knitted long before women. I have told many people it was an at least seven year apprenticeship at one time. Women were expected to spin the yarn for the men to use.

In Shetland, Fair Isle, the Orkneys and surrounding areas knitting was used to supplement the income of poor crofting families. Those incredibly fine Shetland shawls were made by men as well as women, by people who were not able to do the very hard physical labour on the croft or at sea. Their hands needed to be kept smooth so that the very fine yarn did not snag and break. These are things which experienced and well informed knitters know about.

"Fair Isle" knitting has many variations but it is not done with big needles and thick wool. Garments made that way are simply not practical. They are uncomfortable to wear. Whoever was doing the research for the program failed to understand that very basic thing indeed. 

I wonder where else they will go and what other myths they will perpetuate. Will they go to Aran and retell the false idea that each family had their own pattern or that ganseys were also knitted the same way?

There is an immense amount of knitting history still to be explored. It is difficult to do because there are not nearly as many such items to have survived. There are only rare examples from before the nineteenth century. We do have information from that time though and we need to continue to preserve it. Carol Christiansen and her team are doing an extraordinary job in documenting some of it but it needs support. I doubt the Game of Wool will do much to help that.   

So it is not a "Great job"

anymore?

I have to confess that those "great job" words irritate me. I hear them far too often. It seems to me that parents are constantly telling their children that. They are saying it for actions and achievements I would have thought were...well let me say just average and what I would expect of a child of that age in those circumstances. 

Apparently now it is actually the wrong thing to say to a child too... according to the "experts". Apparently it "makes them dependent on your affirmation rather than their own motivation".  In other words it makes them do it to please you rather than because they want to. Really? 

If ceasing to say "great job" will motivate children then someone has found the solution to getting them to do what they need to do. It will be wonderful...but it won't be because the world does not work like that.

Everyone needs a little praise and encouragement at times. It is where, when and how that is done which matters. I don't think "great job" does it. I also do not believe that giving everyone a prize and making sure they are "included" on an "equal" basis is the answer to social ills. 

Many years ago I said "that's good" to one of my young students in the classroom. I was met with a furious, "No, it isn't!" My intended praise was not acceptable. He was genuinely upset.

I kept him back for a moment at recess time and told him his response had not been polite. I also told him that what I actually meant was he had improved - and he had. He looked at me for a moment and then said, "Sorry...but we do know who's top miss." He was right and I accepted it. Then he gave me a lop sided smile and rushed off before I could say any more. 

Yes, of course they know. All the "inclusion" or the "diversity" and "equity" training we fling at them, and even at adults, is probably nothing more than an attempt to paper over our differences. We do notice differences. They do exist. It is how we react to them that matters.

   

Ditching "Net Zero" as a policy

has been a long time coming for the present Opposition. It is the right move. People are beginning to realise that it is an unattainable goal under the present Government's "renewables only" policy. It always was but the "climate change...climate change" mantra and the endless talk about both "Net Zero" and "climate change" in the media had (and still has) many people convinced. 

Ditching the policy does not mean doing nothing. It may actually mean doing much more. We may need to do much more but if we are not hamstrung by the "renewables only" idea then more may be done.

I wonder about all this. I wish I had the time and the energy to really fight the big business interests that are the drivers behind the "renewables only" push. I can put my paws to the keyboard of course. There is the occasional letter in the paper. I write here. I talk to people. 

Will people, the people we vote in to parliament, listen to us? I am beginning to doubt that. We are told we live in a democracy, that the "will of the people" is what matters. We are told we can change things with a change of government, that what "the majority" want is what matters. 

I am not sure I believe that any more. We voted against a national "Voice" to parliament in a very expensive referendum. We voted against putting something potentially very powerful and very divisive into the preamble of our Constitution. It was the right thing to do but now a neighbouring state government has gone ahead and done a similar thing at state level. They did not consult the people, just a small group of political agitators. The consequences of their decision are yet to be felt. They have handed a potentially very powerful tool to a small group and it may well, despite protestations to the contrary, end in tears and harm done. 

Now our state government is saying they want to do the same thing. They do not have a mandate to do this. It is an idea that, like "Net Zero", is being driven by a small but powerful lobby with its own agenda.

We are so worried about the effects of social media on children we are banning their use of it. While we are doing this we are allowing the media to tell us that we need a "renewables only" power supply and that a Voice for a minority along with a "multicultural" approach to everything will save our social fabric. 

Is it time to start thinking for ourselves instead?   

Special consideration for what?

There is a case being reported in our press of someone who is suing an airline because they feel they are being discriminated against because of their disability. Their claims include being able to take their own wheelchair into the actual passenger area before being assisted into their seat by their carers and then have their carers sit either side of them in the seat of their choosing. That seat would be in the very first row.

There is another demand being made by a transgender prisoner. They are complaining because they are not being given the opportunity to mix as freely as the other prisoners. This is despite the reason for their being incarcerated is the rape of a very vulnerable child.

A further demand is being made by parents of a profoundly disabled child. They want two full time carers allocated to their child at school and those carers not to be used to assist any other child.

Our "Equal Opportunity" legislation is a wonderful thing when it is used properly but are these examples a proper use of it?

My late friend J... once tried to turn down an invitation to speak at a major international conference. He would have been one of the "keynote" speakers. He told them he would be happy to record something and let the organisers have it but he did not feel he could put two airlines to the extra work of getting him there and back. This was before there were air bridges at all locations and they would have had to go to considerable trouble to get him on and off the planes in question. 

There was quite a kerfuffle about this. J... was important and his contribution was something they really wanted. Nobody had given any thought to how difficult it might be for him to travel. He never liked any sort of "fuss and bother" if there was an alternative and he thought he had offered them an alternative. One of the organisers however thought otherwise. He called his local MP, someone I suspect he knew well, and explained the situation. J... was consulted about how he might travel. Would he need to travel alone or would someone need to go with him? J..., more than a little embarrassed by what he saw as unnecessary fuss, said he could manage on his own if they could get him on and off the various planes. He would simply stay, rather uncomfortably, in whatever seat they allocated until it was time to get off again.

J...'s situation actually changed the way airlines thought about the needs of people with disabilities. He did not ask for more than he absolutely needed. I travelled on the same first plane for another purpose and, on discovering we knew each other, a seat swap with someone else was arranged and J... at least had company that far. It was an experience for both of us. 

It still influences my life today. I had no trouble getting extra help when I travelled...and I made very sure I thanked those who helped.

I wonder about the person who is now demanding so much extra help. Is this reasonable?

And what of the person serving a very long sentence for the rape of a vulnerable young person? At the start of their sentence there was no suggestion they were "transgender". That came later. They have undergone their transition at the expense of the state. Other prisoners apparently find this person "intimidating" which has led to almost solitary confinement. 

Prisoners who have committed offences against young children are generally loathed even by other prisoners. They find life in prison even harder than most. Was a male to female transition seen as a way out, a way of making life a little more palatable? Has this person actually convinced themselves that this was the problem all along? Are they actually entitle to mix more and is it in their best interest to do so or do the interests of the majority have to be considered first?

The parents demanding their profoundly disabled child has two full time and fully dedicated carers so the child can go to school "like everyone else" are well aware of what this would cost. They are already receiving a very large amount of assistance at home. Someone is always with their child. The child has around the clock care. Their presence in a "mainstream" classroom is highly disruptive and how much they are learning is being questioned. The family was offered a placement in a special learning facility but refused to accept it. Does the law allow them to challenge the provisions which could have been made?

The first case might cause the "fair and reasonable adjustments" to be adjusted - or it might simply be seen as going beyond that. The second may or may not cause changes for one individual but impact many. The third will be seen by many as simply unreasonable given there are so many demands for extra assistance in the mainstream classroom.

I recently went overseas. I requested some extra assistance but it was the minimum that I needed. I made very, very sure that I thanked those responsible for giving me the help I needed. In all this I tried to remember my friend J... who, before any sort of Equal Opportunity Act, thought it was not good to ask for extra assistance when he believed there was another way around the access issues. That led to changes that might not have occurred if he had complained and demanded.    

"Lower than a snake's navel"

is the only way to describe people who deliberately interrupt events like Remembrance Day services. The "snake's navel" is a phrase I heard used by someone to describe a person they felt had no respect at all for others and it is appropriate here.

I listened with disgust to a teenage boy on his phone to someone about the way he had been "dragged" along to a Remembrance Day event yesterday. "And it was all this weird stuff about remembering the f....soldiers who died..." 

I won't go any further than that except to say that he apparently left in the middle of the event and is now being held to account for his complete and utter disrespect. Perhaps his father should have known better than to expect him to go but I happen to have known his grandfather. He was a Vietnam veteran and it would have upset him deeply. His son grew up with a father who had episodes of severe depression as a result of his experiences in Vietnam. He is now father to the boy who appears to believe it is of no importance. 

There are almost no WWII servicemen left but there are still men who served in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan and in "peacekeeping" roles elsewhere. It is all very well to try and be pacifist and hope for peace but these people deserve support and, for the most part, respect. Taking a few minutes out on the eleventh is the very least we can do. It is very least we can give those men.

The boy on the phone apparently feels differently. He was clearly very angry indeed. He has apparently now been told he will not be able to go to "schoolies" - one of those gatherings of the young around the country to "celebrate" the end of their school lives. It is one of those rites of passage for those who have just finished their final year of school and their final examinations. There were no such events when I left school. We went off to summer jobs. A lucky few packed backpacks and headed for other places. Yes, we had fun too - and plenty of it. It was just different. 

Remembrance Day would come in the middle of the exams and it still does but we would still be reminded to think of it. It was clear this boy's father wants his son to be aware. It is a severe punishment for his disrespectful behaviour. Is it fair? I do not know them well enough to comment. I suspect it might be because this boy is known to be something of a trouble maker. Several weeks ago I heard one of the other students in the library telling him to "F... off if you don't want to work. We do."  The students working in there are generally serious. They are there looking for mutual support and help, not disruptions. If they want to talk more generally they will go outside. He was disrespecting that too.

Perhaps the conflicts are just too distant now. Perhaps all the violence on screen does not seem real. That frightens me. Disrespect for such things frightens me too. The teenager lounging on the railings next to my little parking space has a lot to learn about life - and respect for others.   

 

   

"The Dismissal" fifty years ago

today is something the Labor party in this country still holds as wrong, as something which should never have happened. They still claim they had a mandate to govern and that the Governor-General did not have the power to dismiss a government about to knowingly do wrong.

I suppose it depends on which side of the political fence you are on whether you see the dismissal of Whitlam's government as right or wrong. The constitutional issues around it are still hotly debated. Even in law school the issue was one which caused considerable debate. Was it legal? Was it right? Did the Governor-General actually have the power? Was the Chief Justice right or wrong? 

For most people it was a simple matter of the Governor-General consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court and being told, "Yes, you can do that." If you were and are a Labor voter then this was wrong. If you voted or vote in any other way then it was right.

Of course it was much more complex than that. It was not a simple matter. Yes, the government of the day was proposing to break the law of the land and borrow money in order to keep the country running. It had run out of money because they were spending too much.

The programs the government was putting in place were popular. There was the precursor to Medicare. It is why we still have those cards the present PM likes to tell us are "all you need to visit the doctor". That is not correct but it sounds good. Indigenous land rights were coming into focus. That they have gone far beyond anything originally intended is perhaps something that nobody could have foreseen. That single mothers would get financial support was seen as a good thing but nobody could foresee the social consequences would not always be what the policy intended. 

Those of us who were school librarians welcomed the injection of funds into school libraries. That this had unintended consequences for the publishing industry is another issue. At least the university students were no longer paying to do their degrees.  Of course that had the unintended consequence of many more students applying and entering courses they were not really capable of doing. That resulted in lower standards - something which is still a problem. 

All I am saying here is that government policies which sound good do not always have the long term consequences they are intended to have. They can be put in place with the best of intentions and nobody can foresee the consequences. 

With respect to the Dismissal however there was more than just a little disquiet behind the scenes. The government was first being warned not to spend so much and then the public servants who advise the government were telling them they could not spend so much, that taxes would have to rise and money would have to be borrowed from other sources. Advice of this sort was coming thick and fast but the government was not listening. The programs were popular. They were in power. They could do as they liked. 

When the government was dismissed we had an election. The people could have chosen to vote them back in - and did not. Labor might like to claim unfair dismissal, even illegal dismissal, but there was an election. They lost. 

Perhaps it is time that Labor accepted that result rather than the continued anger at what happened prior to that. Fifty years in a long time to hold a grudge against democracy.   

If you want to eat then don't bleat

because your food has to come from somewhere. 

Yes, I have stolen that idea from the headline in this morning's paper. It just said "eat or bleat" but I knew what the article would be about. There are people complaining because their nice new housing development houses are next door to the farms which put their food on the table. They don't like the noise from the irrigation systems, or the shots from the bird scarers. They are complaining about the dust in summer and the fertiliser use in spring. 

That these places actually supply the food they are eating, about twenty percent of our national food supply, is apparently of no consequence. The farmers and market gardeners need to go somewhere else.

The first garden I can remember properly is the one the Senior Cat had in the small rural township where I was born. There had been no garden in the "place on the hill" but as soon as we moved into the township proper the Senior Cat set about developing a garden. Everyone else had a garden too. It was how people got most of their fresh fruit and vegetables. That is what the "back garden" was for and that was what was expected of you. 

In all the years which followed the Senior Cat had a garden in all but one place. He tried there but was defeated by the salinity of the only available water supply. Rainwater was too limited and too precious to use for anything but drinking. The water from the tap came from a far distant reservoir. It came in an old "inch" pipe which ran across the top of the ground. In summer it could be too hot to put your hands under the "cold" tap. Plants simply died when watered in this way. The Senior Cat buried his disappointment and studied for his Latin III exam instead.

But we had gardens in other places. Moving the school sheep into our back garden during a bushfire did rather a lot of damage but the Senior Cat just sighed and set about repairing the beds. (We had to keep spraying the sheep with water to keep them safe while the fire went through the paddock (field) across the road outside the school.)

When he returned to the city he used every available space. It took time because the garden had not been cared for at the first house. At the second there had never been a garden. It had just been a vacant block of land overgrown with weeds. The garden he developed there was so productive we were giving food away to the neighbours on a regular basis. The Senior Cat was an "organic" gardener and the garden we left behind was still in good shape when I left. I am told the new owners have ripped it all out. It was apparently "too much work". Yes, gardens are work.

If you do not want to do the work yourself though there are people who will do it. If you live in one of those new housing developments and all you want is a patch of "lawn" and a few shrubs that is up to you. I know more than one young person who has more than that. They were encouraged by the Senior Cat and, after the usual late teen exams and the like, they are building their own gardens. They have no problems with the farmers and market gardeners working nearby, indeed are on good terms with them. They understand the need for the fields of this and that and the tomatoes in the glass houses.

I am not sure where the complainers think food is going to come from. They remind me of the people who buy houses near the airport, who use planes to fly interstate and overseas, and then complain about the noise.  

"What do you know about Buckley v Sussex?"

I was out buying a new keyboard for the computer when I was bailed up by someone I do not know. He knew me though and apparently thought he could ask.

My answer was, "Very little. I am not going to express an opinion on that one." 

I am not sure what is happening with respect to the case brought by someone called Jennifer Buckley against someone called Jasmine Sussex.  Buckley claims Sussex vilified her by saying the transgender Buckley could not breastfeed her child. Buckley had apparently taken a cocktail of drugs to produce some sort of lactation process and the infant was being offered the result. Buckley claims Sussex's subsequent comments were "hurtful".

Really? I suspect this case has much more to do with trying to get a legal decision in favour of the transgender "chest feeding" group and those who support them.

Is it time to accept the biological reality that some people are simply unable to breast (or chest) feed their babies? There are people who could do it and choose not to do so and some who simply cannot do it. That is their business not mine. 

I am much more concerned about the welfare of the child in all this. Perhaps I am wrong but I cannot see any way that taking a cocktail of drugs in order to produce some sort of artificial secretion is beneficial to the child. It seems to me that it might actually be harmful. The infant is still being bottle fed. This seems to be more about the parent than the child. 

I have occasionally seen fathers bottle feeding infants. If the baby is being bottle fed then it seems to me that this is an excellent thing. It gives father and child a bit of that so-called "bonding" time. I do not remember seeing the Senior Cat do this with my siblings but my brother and brother-in-law both helped out as their children grew older and the Senior Cat did the same for his grandchildren because he had the time and the ability to do that. That is surely what matters? They had the ability to hold baby and bottle and they were ready to take the time for the sake of the infant.

I know there are transgender activists who will disagree with me. They will claim the physical act of chest feeding is so important it should take precedence in this case. They will tell me this is about the well being of the infant and their relationship with their parent. I will just wait for a decision to be made by the court.   

    

If you are profoundly deaf

you are not going to hear the "public address" announcement on the railway station platform. Let me explain.

I had to be out and about yesterday. It involved multiple train journeys.  A couple arrived. They were signing to each other. They clearly expected to catch the train. 

Then there was an announcement about an "incident". The train would be coming - eventually. This came over the public address system. The woman had clearly heard a noise but shrugged as the man signed a query to her. I took a deep breath and used my very limited sign language to try and explain. My effort was met with signs and smiles in return. 

The really nice thing about this was their delight in finding a hearing person who was at least willing to try and communicate. We had a halting conversation and I found out they had come a very long distance indeed for a meeting of deaf people who use sign language as their primary means of communication. They went on to ask if their interstate pension cards would work here and I showed them the sort of card they would need. Fortunately they had those too. I even managed to explain they must validate their trip by holding it against the reader. I thought that would be it. Not so. 

Now there are two types of trains on this line. One stops at all stations and the other runs "express" from about half way along the line. The train which runs "express" was the one which was delayed. The board which indicates the trains coming in was already showing the train which stops at all stations but it was not the train which would be coming. They were looking at the board and something made me tell them the train coming in was an express train. They would need to get off at one station and catch the train coming in from the spur line to get to where they wanted to go. 

I still cannot quite believe it but I somehow managed to make them understand this. They left the train at the correct station and gave me a wave and a signed "thank you". 

I came back later than I intended because of the earlier delay. As I was getting off the train there they were too. The man immediately signed that they had managed their journey and that they had been for a very long walk. We laughed with one another as he told me they were very tired. His partner shook her head and told me he would be good after a cup of tea. They were going back to the caravan they were staying in at the campsite not far from here.  

We smiled at one another again. I felt very comfortable with them by then. I was relieved I had been able to help but I do wish the railways provided visual as well as auditory information...and even their auditory information could be improved.  

 

At an estimated cost of $1bn

do we really want to have that climate conference here? What's the point of it anyway?

I have often wondered about "conferences" of any sort. Yes, I have attended a few. I have even spoken at some. Once or twice I raised a laugh but I suspect I sent people to sleep more often.

At conferences I have been informed by a very few and stimulated by no more than two or three. I have endured many more speakers who do not have their presentations in any sort of order and speakers who should never have been asked to participate.

The most useful part of any conference I have ever attended has been making contact with some of those present. I will not call them "delegates" because too many of them have not been delegated to attend at all. They are there as professional conference goers. Their presence there is expected. People will look around and say, "Where is... Isn't s/he here this time?" Then there are sighs of relief as everyone realises that someone is not present and cannot bring up arguments everyone else has heard before. There is also relief when the very-VIP has opened the event, circulated briefly and left. Other participants know these people are all too often there for nothing more than the photo opportunity, the news story, the party policy.

The massive cost of running the COP climate conferences is ridiculous. We have been told that this small city could have an influx of 55,000 people and the cost could be a billion dollars. It is madness to think we could do this. If we actually spent that billion dollars on reforestation we would do far more for the environment than any conference would. Conferences are about talk, not action. Yes, we need to talk about what needs to be done but not at conferences like that. Scientists are quite capable of communicating without that sort of thing. They do it all the time. 

There is talk of the other major party in what is known as "the Coalition" here also dumping the idea of "net zero". It would be the best thing they could do. They could then make some actual environmental plans that might work, that might actively involve the rest of us.

Our local Mayor is at the current COP right now. I wonder why she is there. Chatting to others perhaps - or falling asleep during the presentations?