Children have a right to read for

pleasure - or do they? 

In an article in this morning's paper there is a claim from a Professor Helen Adam of Edith Cowan University that "white children are getting inflated perspectives of themselves and what is considered normal" because of the books that are available. Apparently children are being "miseducated" and white children are getting a view of their "centrality".

Adam sees children as passive consumers of literature. She claims children do not question, that they simply accept. She is telling us that children need to become "thoughtful" readers and question what is being presented to them and how it is being presented. 

Colleen Harkin from the Institute of Public Affairs has hit back saying it is "radical ideological judgment, not an educational one". I imagine the argument will go on for some time.

But perhaps it is time to remind myself of that long ago incident in the library when the child looked up at me and said,"I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce. I just want a good adventure story." It was a comment I hope I never forget. 

They were topics in children's literature which were popular at the time. Now we have "diversity" and "inclusion", "transgender" issues and "refugee" issues and more. Publishers are calling for books about those issues.  This is, I am told by the local booksellers, "what children need to read about". Perhaps it is but is it what they want to read about?

I do not doubt there will be more books published on these issues. Some of them may be outstanding but will they be enjoyed the same way that Harry Potter has been enjoyed? Do we want children to develop a reading habit because they enjoy reading or do we try to convince them that reading is there to change their view of the world to the only one that is claimed to be socially acceptable?   

You cannot legislate "anti-hate"

even when you have "anti-hate legislation".  You can make it illegal for people to do certain things publicly but it is not going to change how they privately feel or what they might privately say.

There was a very good example of that yesterday. Middle Cat and I had been to see our GP so I could get the necessary paper work for a "parking permit" signed off. This is the permit which will allow whoever happens to be driving me somewhere to park in a disability spot or for twice the length of time in another spot. I have avoided getting one of these because I was (and still am) of the view that other people need these permits more than I do. When I am out with Middle Cat we use her permit. (Yes, she does need one - some days more than others - but she uses it only when she needs it.) Both of us are very conscious of it being a privilege to have a permit and aware of the need not to abuse it.

Later in the morning I went to the Motor Vehicles Department and passed the paperwork to the very pleasant person on the other side of the counter. I was aware of someone standing at the next booth but took no notice. I paid for the permit and went out to unlock my wheels. There was someone standing there.

"You don't need an f.... permit!" he told me, "It's the same thing all the time. You all expect to get something for nothing when you don't need it." 

Fortunately for me the MVD is just across the road from the shopping centre and someone I know well had just parked their car to go in and renew their licence. He guessed what was going on and intervened politely but firmly causing the other man to stride off muttering angrily.

"I know you are quite capable of fighting your own battles Cat but that riled me. I hope you didn't mind."

No, I didn't mind in the least. I hate confrontation. 

"He will go on thinking the same thing though. Nothing will change him," he said.

I agree. Nothing is going to change that man's view. He possibly has some other prejudices and it is unlikely they will change. It is because of people like him I do not believe the newly passed "anti-hate legislation" will really work. It may make matters worse. It will send views like that off the radar. People will think but not say those things publicly. They will teach their children and their grandchildren to think the very things the legislation is trying to prevent. Trying to teach attitude change in schools will not work either. It has been tried. It might modify some attitudes - or at least appear to but out of that environment it is not going to work as it is intended to work. 

We are trying to do something in this country that simply will not work. We are trying to be all things to all people. We are telling people we are "multicultural" and that they can keep all their beliefs and prejudices associated with a very diverse range of cultures while still living in a cohesive society. It is an approach which sounds very accepting and welcoming and non-divisive but is actually the reverse of that. 

If we were all the same it would be very dull and very boring and no we do not want that but we have gone too far in the other direction. Something needs to change but anti-hate legislation won't help. 

Applying for a new passport

is something I resent having to do. My old one has twelve months to go but you need at least six months before it expires if you are planning on leaving the country.  Even if you are not planning on leaving the country it is wise to get this done...or is it? What if you need it in a hurry?

I will soon find out because I spent half of yesterday attempting to download the relevant form. It should not be that difficult surely to just download the form? But it was...I had to "prove I was human" so many times I almost felt like saying, "No, look really I am a cat... I can just put myself into someone's carry on luggage. Give me a drink of water on the flight and I won't need to be fed. I will curl up and sleep for the entire journey wherever I am going."

But no... I supplied my full name. I supplied my date of birth. I supplied the name of one parent. I supplied my sex (or lack thereof). I supplied my old passport number...and I kept being asked to verify what seemed like all of these things and more... 

I have a mail box at the post office. The reason for that is that it is a great deal more secure than the street letter box. They would not allow me to use the much more secure address for delivery.  No, they want the street address which means the post person has to come and knock on the door. It is just as well I know her. She is really very nice. We always wave to one another when we are out and about.

I eventually filled everything in and was told that all I have to now do is supply my old passport.. and get a new photograph. (You know the sort - the one that makes you look too ill to travel.) I will endeavour to do that at the post office tomorrow...and pay the exorbitant fee. I will then wait...no doubt to be told that I have to supply something else or that they think I really am a cat.   

"But he can't be President again!"

An American acquaintance was trying to explain this to one of the locals yesterday. He was getting quite frustrated as he did so. 

"Our Constitution doesn't allow it. You can only get elected twice."

That was about as far as he could explain. He asked me but I am no expert on the constitutional law of the United States of America. We looked it up instead. The internet has its uses!

There it was - section 122 of their constitution does not allow someone to be President more than twice. 

"So that's eight years?"

"No, ten," I said.

"But Presidential terms are four years..."

"Yes, but if the president prior to that dies in office then the vice-president takes over and if that is a term of two years or less then they can run for two more terms."

The American looked at me and gave a sort of grimace. We began to wonder if the incumbent could find a way around that. Do you have to die in office or could you swap places with the vice-president? If you are no longer the president then could you run again?

There are generally considered to be good reasons to limit someone's term in office if they have certain powers. The constitution here in Downunder has no such limitations but our Prime Minister is not elected. S/he is there because he is chosen by the party which is in power. Strictly speaking the person chosen would not even need to be a member of parliament but of course that would not work so one of their own is chosen. On one side this is done through a complex set of internal "rules" and on the other there is some lobbying, jostling and eventually a vote. 

I have known other organisations where the same people have held office for many years. It has rarely been a good thing. They can come to believe they own the position and the organisation. Other people come to believe someone else will do all the work. I helped to set up a group and was the first leader of it but flatly refused to go on doing all the work. Turns are now taken.  I am the "go to" person for another group but the staff member at the library is responsible for most of what goes on. I can live with that because they know there is at least one other person they can call on. I made sure of that. 

"Political laziness allows communism to flourish," the American said at one point in the discussion, "You don't need to think. You just do what your Supreme Leader tells you." 

It's an interesting thought - and perhaps a dangerous idea.     

There is too much "paperwork" involved

in "volunteering", or perhaps in anything at all. There seems to be a constant demand for "information" and "feedback" and "reviews" and "evaluations" and "assessments" and "appraisals" and more. 

I get "requests" for this sort of thing all the time. The requests are really demands. I know other people are asked to provide the same sort of information about me. 

I send messages back saying, "I do not actually 'know' this person. I have never met them. I am never likely to meet them. I am simply doing something I was asked to do."  Messages will be sent back to me, "The form has to be completed for our records." There will be polite requests and apologetic requests and, sometimes, impatient or even downright rude demands.  Filling out those forms can mean the difference between funding and defunding a project or future projects. That all this really has nothing to do with me at all is beside the point. The paper work needs to be completed.

I spent most of yesterday doing paper work. People seem to have come back to work after the Christmas and New Year break and realised that "things-have-not-been-done". There is apparently vital information that has "not been supplied". There is a need for my full name, my date of birth, my preferred title, my address, my email, my phone numbers(s), my tax file number, my academic qualifications and more.  That is just a start of course. After that comes all the paperwork about the actual work, where it originated, who else is on the team, why it needs to be done, which department, where those involved are going and why and is it really necessary. 

Most of this is absolutely none of my business. I am there to provide words and symbols on request. Yes, I need to understand who is going off to do something and what it is they are going to do. I am all too well aware that they might be going somewhere dangerous but I don't need to know all the ins and outs of a project. I can assess that without all the paperwork. I am not going to help someone blow up a structure that is needed to provide people with water to stay alive. 

There was a questionnaire which ran to almost five full pages yesterday. I could not answer most of it. There was a demand to "evaluate" a project I was only peripherally involved in.  There were other requests to evaluate the performance of people who had volunteered their services. I assume they had also been asked to evaluate mine.

I was ready to throw the key board across the room when I came on a last request, "Cat, could you add a couple of words to this? We want to thank T... for what he did. I'll just write it in the card on your behalf." That was some paper work I was more than happy to do.  

The NDIS is not working

as it was intended to work. The cost has blown out far beyond what was intended or is needed. 

Saying that will not be popular with everyone. It will certainly not be popular with many recipients.  Add in the "out in the community" and "like everyone else" arguments and "disability" is costing the community far more than it should.

The worst part about all of this is the very real problem that there are still some people who genuinely need help who are not getting it. They are simply unable to access help they need in order to live with dignity and even, in some cases, to live safely.

There is still a belief that all people with disabilities should live "out in the community like everyone else" and that they should do this in much the same way as everyone else. We have also discovered that, however well intentioned, this does not always work as well as it should.

H... stopped me in the shopping centre yesterday. H...is in her late 80's.  Her daughter, K..., is in a "group house. K... is profoundly physically and intellectually disabled. K... can do nothing for herself.  She cannot speak. If she recognises you and appears to feel comfortable with you she will smile. There are things she can indicate "yes" and "no" to by her expression but that is the limit of her ability to communicate. Her intellectual ability is perhaps that of a two year old, if that. K... knows me and I always try to include her in the conversation if she happens to be there. It is less often now her mother cannot manage to get her in and out of an adapted vehicle alone. 

H... has been a wonderful mother. She has dealt with all the NDIS paperwork (of which there is a vast amount for someone like K... ) and she visits her daughter everyday. She will help with K...'s feeding which now takes place through a PEG tube because K... cannot swallow safely. There are times when K... would not get fed without her there because not all the "carers" are trained to deal with this. H...will sometimes be called back in to help.  

H... worries about all this though. What will happen to K...when I die?  How will K... survive? Will people care? How will she dressed and fed? 

I have no doubt at all that K... is well cared for now because H... is there and watching. I know H... feels the same way, indeed is very aware of it. She still has to fight for everything K... is getting. The funding "runs out" from time to time and H... tries to supplement it from her own limited funds. She pays for K...'s clothing - something that needs to be replaced frequently because K...dribbles constantly - indeed makes most of it so it is easy to dress K...

As we were talking we were watching a child having a melt down because his grandfather would not allow him to have an ice-cream at the local "Wendy's" place.  I know this child too. He is "on the spectrum". His parents have negotiated quite a large NDIS package for him. His mother told me about it and how much they have been able to get. NDIS is paying for things that would normally come out of the family budget. He is the only child and she has "given up work to care for him". Yes, he has some problems but his grandparents tell me he is "spoilt" and "usually gets what he wants". He is very articulate but is very disruptive in school and at home. He is one of the children whose NDIS package will be affected by the upcoming changes.

His grandfather told me, "And a good thing too. They don't need all this. They need lessons in how to handle him...if it isn't too late."

They do. His mother arrived and wanted to get him the ice-cream to keep him quiet. I don't know what happened because H... and I moved on. I did think about it all though. K... needs all the help she can get and yet H...has to constantly justify it all. It's exhausting even though it was what the NDIS was intended for. The other child does not need his "Little Athletics"  and "soccer" fees paid for by NDIS funds - but they are.  

 We need to rethink the NDIS and who it is intended to help and why. We can say everyone is equally important but do they have equal needs?

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

makes it unlawful  "to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity."

This is followed by section 18D " contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith".

I have taken the words in quotes from the Human Rights Commission site. Those sections of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) are generally considered to be controversial.  They were the cause of a great deal of controversy when they were written and may cause even more controversy now.

Do they matter? Are they a brake on our "freedom of speech"? There is no "right" to "freedom of speech" under the law in this country. Rights come with responsibilities. (I wonder how many times I have had write that?) When people breach responsibilities they risk taking away rights from all of us. I am not saying anything new here.

So does the proposed "hate speech" legislation being put before parliament actually do anything new? Is it simply a way of increasing control over what we can or cannot say? Is there any point in it or should we be doing more to ensure that sections 18C and 18D get applied as intended? 

Will the proposed legislation prevent citizens of this country from being subjected to a fatwa such as that imposed on Salman Rushdie following the publication of "The Satanic Verses"? Will it stop the sort of cartoon like depictions of a prophet which appeared in a Scandinavian newspaper and provoked protest marches around the world? Will it stop anything like the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015.

At one point the government tried to replace the words "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity" with "harass or intimidate". They did not succeed at the time because it was considered to be "too broad". The current proposal goes further than that. It is a response to a tragedy but is it the right response?  How do you get a balance between "freedom of expression", religion and artistic expression and care of the individual? The last week or so has made it very clear that the "hurt" of one person who has made controversial statements is apparently worthy of more consideration than that of a group. Has this been the right decision? It is still a matter of hot debate.

The debate will continue but cartoonist Johannes Leak did an excellent job of showing up the government's intentions in this morning's cartoon,

 

The White Pages are no more.

They have come to a "quiet end" according to the little item in this morning's paper. The company responsible seems to think that it is still possible to get a residential number by calling Directory Assistance.

They have missed the point completely. The white pages were far more than "just phone numbers". They were the address book for many, a very large address book for the entire state.

I can still remember the first phone number I ever had to use. It is the number which was held by my paternal grandparents. The phone itself, a black Bakelite phone of pre-war vintage. By no means everyone had a house phone even when I was born but Grandpa had one because he was a man of business. Grandma almost never used the phone. She was not one for "just chatting". I was taught to recite the number very early in my life. If anything went wrong and I was alone then I was to ask people to call that number if there was no policeman around. I never had to do that but I did need to call my grandparents occasionally. I wonder how many children now know the numbers for their grandparents' mobile phones?

We had a phone too. Teachers were expected to have them but they were not used by parents to contact teachers except in extreme emergencies. In one remote place the school phone was in the classroom. It rarely rang. I remember one occasion when the "post master", who also owned the tiny general store, phoned to say there was a fire on a property and the "four big boys" were needed to help. Someone came to get them a little later. The rest of us thought they were "lucky to get out of school"! 

It was expensive, very expensive, to make long distance calls at that time. They were limited to three minutes and they had to be booked in advance. I suspect the Senior Cat, the bank manager and the policeman were the only people who made more than one a year and they made them only rarely. There was also something called a "party line", a line shared by more than one house. These lines had their drawbacks. Anyone could listen in on a conversation. If you did not want others to know your business you kept your mouth shut until you could have a genuinely private conversation. On the other hand they had their uses. It often meant people knew where someone else was and "Oh, so and so is at...." could save wasted journeys and allow bales of hay to be picked up or children to be taken care of in emergencies. On one occasion the doctor was called to an accident because someone had seen his car somewhere and it was a "fairly simple" matter of waving him down on his way back! 

No, there was no real need for a phone book if you had to go through the tiny local switchboard but the phone book for everywhere else was guarded. It sat on shelves out of reach. The old books were used  for toiletry purposes but the new ones were vital because they had addresses as well as names and phone numbers. People still wrote letters.

Now it is not possible to find an address in that way. It is not possible to tell if someone may have moved or whether you might be talking to the right person. If you want a number from Directory Assistance it is assumed you already know the address. There can be no vague, "I'd recognise the house and it is somewhere along...."

As it is also much more difficult to access the Electoral Roll now the demise of the White Pages is going to make it much harder to find people. Does it matter? It might. We will not be able to search for old friends and casual acquaintances. If we do not want some others to know where we live it may be a little easier to keep it from then. It has the potential to make some people even more isolated.

Somehow though it has not stopped those calls nobody seems to want.... those "marketing" calls. 

Writing legislation is not

simple or straightforward. It is almost certainly the most difficult form of writing there is. The legal profession is in love with legislation. It keeps them in business. The more complex the legislation the better. It will allow them interpret, misinterpret and attempt to reinterpret. The placement of a comma matters. The use of one word rather than another matters. Barristers send their staff hurtling down rabbit holes to find examples of interpretation in past cases. Judge's associates are sent off to find even more examples in the vast network of cases that have been decided.

Nothing is simple in law. "Murder" might appear to be quite a simple concept to a lay man. You killed someone? Then you are a murderer. It is far from so in the world of the law and the courts. You take something which does not belong to you? Then it is theft isn't it - or is it? Again it can become very complicated.

They are apparently simple ideas which can become very complex. Now we have legislation in front of our federal parliament which is attempting to deal with a much more complex idea, the idea of "hate speech". Perhaps it sounds simple to some but is it?

What is "serious vilification" and who can commit it? Is it possible to bring in a law which effectively changes the way people think and then prevents them from telling others?  The proposed law will hit a roadblock in the Senate - and rightly so. It is not going to prevent the harm it is intended to prevent but it will almost certainly prevent free discussion of issues which are causing social harm.

The proposed legislation has exceptions for "religious texts" and discussion of them. It fails at that point. There is a vast difference between the commandment to "love one another" and a commandment to "love those who believe as you are told to believe". People with far more expertise than me are already expressing concern that the proposed legislation is a form of back door blasphemy law. They are suggesting it will not be possible to say you believe certain wrong doers should be deported while protecting those who have done this wrong. 

We already have a range of laws which can and should cover these things. This is a knee-jerk reaction designed to placate, to look as if something is being done and, much more worryingly, to bring in restraints on speaking about issues which do need to be discussed.  We will not be better off under such laws. There is a potential for far more harm than good here. 

"Why do you write letters to the paper?"

is not something I usually get asked.

I live in a village within a city. It has one of the oldest churches. It stands on the hill behind me. Behind that is the large house which belonged to one of the first settlers and, to one side, a large fee paying school. There is a row of, now empty, shops a little further down the hill. They lead to another fee paying school. The "institute" building is still in use. There is a small "gallery" behind it. There is a well known pub from which music can be heard, especially at weekends. Move further down still and there is one of the oldest primary schools. Our shopping centre, the memorial park and the library and the railway station are all close to hand. It's a community. I know people there. They know me. I suppose I stand out even though I am not the only person who rides a tricycle. 

No, I am "the person who writes letters to the paper". I am apparently that even though I am by no means the sort of regular correspondent that many are. I am however the person who can be bailed up in the shopping centre, the post office and the library. I can be verbally assaulted for my apparent views in these places. There will be other letters heavily criticising my apparent beliefs.  It is part of making your views public. You need to accept other points of view.

These people are generally not aware of this blog. They have never "met" the Cathedral Cats and they are not aware of many other things about me. They do not need to know but they are curious about why I write letters to the editor.

"Do you expect to change things?" I have been asked.

No, I don't but I have been known to try and show people there might be another way to think about something. It is possible, even likely, I do not agree with that viewpoint myself but it will be one of which I am aware. Newspapers are not known for "balanced" coverage in themselves. It is one reason why columnists and letters to the editor exist. 

"Do you see it as a social responsibility?" I was asked yesterday. The answer to that is "No." It is not my place to tell people what they must think. All I can do is offer an idea or an opinion and it is up to other people to do the thinking, to accept or not accept. 

I am not going to change the world by writing letters. I can try of course but I know International Literacy Year did not change the world. It might have given literacy a nudge but that is all. Yes, I wonder what would happen if it was held now that access to the internet is so widespread.

So now I wonder at all those people who withdrew from this year's Writers' Week in apparent "solidarity" with someone who is a published author, someone who has actual books out there. All of you had the chance, as did she, to get your message across. You wasted it. I don't want to waste my own chances like that. I'll go on writing letters to the paper and hoping I give just one person something to think about.  Is that enough?  

 

"Tell them I'm safe"

the message said.

I had been vaguely aware that one of the aid workers had a colleague who was in Iran. His colleague is Iranian by birth but left the country as a babe in arms. Like many other people this man was curious about the country of his birth and had gone on holiday to the place of his birth. He had sent a message to the office he works in to say it was "interesting". There were some photos. It all looked like a holiday experience he was enjoying. Then there was silence.

It is very clear that there is massive civil unrest in Iran right now. His colleagues were concerned, very concerned. Somehow he managed to get to Kuwait and was waiting for a flight back to where he now lives. The message was sent from the airport. It was good to know. He will be late back from his holiday but his employers are apparently just relieved he is safe.

There were no marches in the street demanding his safe return of course. Only a very few people even knew where he was. Most people will just shrug and say things like "he was silly to go in the first place".  But one of the people who was informed of his safety said something interesting to me.  "Why aren't all those people who are so keen to march for Palestine every weekend out there protesting about what is going on in Iran? It's just as bad.Why aren't they marching against what Russia is doing to Ukraine? "

There is a very active and often very well organised protest movement in this country. They like to see themselves as the guardians of "human rights". They are also remarkably silent right now. There have been no rallies, no marches, no protests on the steps of parliament house. I heard someone I know very well being asked about this. Protesting is something he does often. It is almost a way of life for him. He simply shrugged and said, "None of our business." Really? 

His questioner looked at him and asked, "Why do some people matter more than others?" 

It's a good question.   

 

 

 

  

The Writers' Week controversy

has now expanded - and not just writers but musicians are withdrawing from the Festival. The chair of the entire Festival has resigned too. Three other board members have gone with her.  I am not sure where this leaves the Festival.  

What is perhaps interesting is that this furore has been developing for some time. It is not the sudden thing that the media first led us to believe. It is quite possible the media was unaware of what was going on. If this is the case then I cannot help wondering what has happened to their spy network - were their spies afraid to speak out?

Apparently someone else resigned half way through his tenure on the board because he was concerned about the invitation given to the person who has been "disinvited". His concern related to the fact that this person succeeded in ensuring someone else, with much less radical views, was not able to attend. Perhaps he had in mind that the same person had also withdrawn herself from another festival event in another state. The reason? That festival had made it clear that the sort of controversial statements she is in the habit of making were not acceptable. They were simply asking people to be "respectful". 

That resignation happened months ago. It should have rung alarm bells because it appears to have made clear the concern about the bias and the lack of balance in programming. One former board member is the wife of a prominent politician. Another person who has "withdrawn" her attendance is a presenter on the ABC - and well known for her far left views.

In all this the rest of us, the readers, the music lovers, the visitors to other events and the like are the losers. What should be a vibrant, lively, thought provoking series of events is in danger of being lost forever. Can Writers' Week survive, indeed can the festival as a whole survive? No doubt the next few weeks will tell us which way things are going. 

Now I wonder if this controversy will be raised at the upcoming Royal Commission. The terms of that mention "social cohesion". Is that a term for "multiculturalism" or something else? There isn't too much social cohesion right now. 

 

A very tolerant woman

 

is still having an influence on my life and that of the next generation and the next.

That picture above is one we recently found. It is of my paternal great-grandmother. She was, to put it mildly, a remarkable woman.  (We are not sure which year the photograph was taken but the baby would be one of the Senior Cat's generation.)

Great-grandma migrated from Caithness. She married another Scot from Caithness. She was a tough, hardworking crofter's daughter. She was also an extraordinarily tolerant woman. She would be considered a very tolerant woman now but for someone brought up in a strict Presbyterian family her tolerance was exceptional.

My great-grandmother married a man who was first a sailor but also became a self-taught marine cartographer and ship's pilot. The maps he and a fellow self-taught cartographer were still in use until computers took over. They were essential to his other work guiding the ships in and out of the inner harbour. Great-grandpa knew the river and those who lived, worked and visited it well. Back then there were people from all over the world. The crews came from everywhere. They were often composed of young men and some of them were homesick. Great-grandpa would sometimes take them home for a meal.

Somehow my great-grandmother's reputation grew. Eventually there was apparently a steady stream of young men who would arrive, often unannounced, looking for help and advice. My great-grandmother became the unofficial but highly efficient person who would now be considered to be a social worker. She handed out meals but expected wood to be chopped or some other small task to be done in return. She taught the young sailors to sew their own buttons on (and expected her own children to do the same). She no doubt listened to their tales about the girls they had left behind and much more. Alcohol was not allowed in the house and she demanded respect for all women present. 

I heard these things from the Senior Cat's aunts and uncles and from his own generation as well. It mattered. It mattered because people like my paternal grandfather carried the tradition on. His tailoring business was situated in the port area. He made uniforms for sea captains and repaired others. Like his mother he came to know some of the young sailors. He would sometimes phone my grandmother to say a young sailor needed a meal, some help. She would add extra potatoes to a meal and make the young man welcome.

Not all these young sailors spoke much English. They came from all sorts of backgrounds. They were far from always Christians, indeed it is likely most of them were not. My great-grandmother and her children after her made them welcome because that is what she believed was the right thing to do. The Senior Cat's generation carried that tradition on and my generation has done the same. The next generation has grown up in a more diverse world but the same has been expected of them.

It influences us today. I don't eat much meat but will occasionally buy some chicken for a friend who comes to lunch. As I was looking someone else I know asked me about some pork. I looked at her puzzled for a moment and then said, "I don't know. I don't eat pork." 

She looked startled and said, "I'm sorry - are you Jewish or something?"

No, I am not but I was suddenly aware of the fact that our family does not eat pork. There is a reason for it too. Great-grandma never knew when she was going to have to feed a stranger who might not be able to eat pork. We have carried that tradition on because she taught us you never knew who might come needing a meal - and they need to be made welcome.   

Dr Abdel-Fatteh has been removed

from the Writers' Week program and there are protests about her removal. Many other "authors" have now withdrawn from the event in protest.  

For those of you in Upover and Elsewhere I may need to explain that Dr Abdel-Fattah is an academic who has called for the "end of Israel" and said that "if you are Zionist you have no claim or right to cultural safety" and anyone who supports Israel "should be shamed into discomfort and silence".  Yes, she is controversial and that is almost certainly why she was invited in the first place.

I am not going to into the rights or wrongs of her removal. Instead note how I put those quotation marks around the word "authors". For me our "Writers' Week" is no longer a week about writers or writing. It is not there for writers or anyone interested in the craft of writing. Instead it has become an event which has allowed the organisers to indulge in the business of controversy and activism. It has gone from being about books to about politics and issues. 

I can hear you asking, "Does that matter? Isn't it important to hear from people who write about those things?" Well, hold it right/write there. Have these people actual written those books? How many of the most controversial or the most "important" people have actually written the books they are there to talk about? The answer is that too many of them have not. They have been written by others, "ghost" writers. Where they have been written by themselves there has often been a great deal of input by others. 

It seems that Writers' Week is no longer about writing. My first experience of Writers' Week was in my teens. I was in my what would now be called a "gap year" I suppose. I was still at school but I was marking time, waiting to be old enough to go to teacher training college. On that famous occasion Judith Wright appeared unannounced at school, demanded to see the headmistress and informed her rather than asked her that I would not be at school for the following week. I would be attending Writers' Week with her, one of the best known poets in the country.  She claimed she needed me because her increasing deafness made it hard for her to follow discussions which followed the sessions. It was as exhilarating as terrifying for a young would-be writer. 

Looking back on those weeks now (I went to more in the following years) I realise how much I was able to learn simply by being there and listening. Yes, I met a great many writers. Many of them were household names but of course I discovered they were also "just people". They had their doubts, their concerns, their fears about whether they were providing readers with that "something" which all writers search for. 

Most sessions were open to members of the public but they were still primarily for writers. There were sessions on "plot" and "character" and "sources". Yes, of course politics were mentioned but they were not the focus. There were occasional fiery exchanges. 

There were a tiny number of authors who thought they were superior to everyone else. (Judith introduced me to the Nobel Laureate Patrick White as "This is Cat, and be polite to her, she writes too." He was not a pleasant man.) Most writers respected each other and supported the young ones coming up. They went out into schools and talked to students and gave interviews for television. (Outside broadcasting was expensive back then so it often meant going to the studios.)

Now it has become a commercial event. There is a tent which is turned into a temporary bookshop on the grounds where the sessions are held out of doors. Those invited to participate and speak are largely controversial figures, the more controversial the better it seems. I have ceased to go. The local library "live-streams" some of it but the numbers who watch there are decreasing. There is something missing now. I think it may be the writers.   

One of the Microaid workers

was stopped by ICE agents yesterday. He was on his way to work in one of those cities in the USA where ICE agents have been sent in apparently quite large numbers.

K... is an American citizen. His parents are American citizens. His grandparents were American citizens. His great-grandparents were American citizens. His great-great grandparents migrated to America to escape persecution in Morocco too many years ago to even think about. 

K... was stopped because he apparently "looks foreign". I am not sure what that means. I have never seen a photograph of him. We have only corresponded by email. I know very little about him apart from the fact he speaks several useful languages like English, European and Latin-American Spanish and at least two Arabic dialects. He is one of those people I can call on for help if there is a translation issue. He has done some aid work himself - at his own expense. He's not in a relationship and I have the sense of a quiet, self-contained person who prefers his own company.

The only reason I know about the "stop" is because he was very late to work and late sending me a small piece of information. He arrived in an apparently dishevelled state having been assaulted and knocked to the ground. It took some time to produce the documentation which showed how far back his American citizenship went.

His boss at work sent me a message telling me what had happened. His colleagues are, rightly, furious. I am feeling angry and upset for him too. There is too much of this going on. Don't tell me, "Well at least he didn't get shot and killed." That is not the point. There should be no shootings and no killings and there should be no assaults. 

I know people who have risked their lives to help others. They don't make a song and dance about it. I suspect most of their colleagues have no idea what they have done. They do not want them to know. It is not why they go to help.  They don't need to be harassed and assaulted by anyone. ICE agents may have a job to do but that is not the way to do it - not at any time, not ever.    

So, what else to save Downunder?

I was asked by email to follow up on yesterday's post. My answer is that I have no idea what else the columnist in question might want to deal with but I would hope he might want to investigate a couple of things.

The first of these things is our National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This is something which started with the best of intentions and is now way out of control. It is costing far too much and it is not meeting the needs of those it was intended to help while others who do not need help are getting it. It is sometimes being spent on items which are not essential to daily living. "Providers" are all too often over charging. 

The second thing to investigate would be the Research Council and the funding of so much politicised research in this country. I am sure the recipients of the indigenous aspects of our space research and the investigation into the potential for changing the date of our national holiday and the failure of the Voice are happy but there are much more important issues which have received no funding.  

I would also ban the payment to anyone for "welcome to country" ceremonies and remove the "acknowledgment" statements from the beginning of meetings. The first are a modern, money making invention. The second have lost any meaning they might have once had through their overuse. It has become a meaningless gabble at the beginning of too many meetings. 

The third thing I would do is remove one tier of government. We do not need local government, state government and federal government for a nation of less than thirty million people.  We could combine local and state government and work towards regional responsibilities while handing back some responsibilities like education completely.  

And the fourth thing I would do in order to ensure all these things could continue to remain in place is change or electoral system so that there was no compulsory preferential voting. We can retain the compulsion to attend the ballot box but please stop the iniquitous "if you don't get your first choice then you must vote for someone else even if you don't want them to represent you". 

It is a start. I can think of more.  

What would you do to save Downunder?

 

One of the regular columnists had a piece in the paper yesterday where he offered some thoughts on what he would do if he had a year to "save" the country.

 

His first offering was to say we should forget the debate about changing the date of our national holiday. Something like 67% of people strongly agree with this and a further 22% have no strong opinion one way or the other. That leaves around 11% agitating for change and getting almost all the media coverage. 

 

Ah yes, media coverage. The columnist in question would like to see the ABC "defunded". I have not watched the ABC for years but then I really don't watch much television. Right around me however people are complaining about the bias being shown by our national broadcaster. If it is even one tenth as bad as the bias shown on the only news service I do watch then yes, it should be defunded. From the glimpses I have seen it is not acting in accordance with its charter.  Most of the people I know watch news services for facts not left-wing opinions. I am not sure about defunding the ABC but perhaps they could replace some staff and there could be an external review panel to ensure more balanced coverage. I might go and look at the ABC some time if they do that.

 

If the media is there to agitate for change as well then they would surely be in favour of calling for an audit and review of where the funding for indigenous bodies is actually going. We spend an enormous amount of "indigenous programs" but they don't seem to be doing much good. I know my friend M... agrees with the columnist on this one after all there was $5.3bn spent on these programs in 2023 and 2024 and things don't seem to have improved much.  He also suggests getting rid of the "First Nations Ambassador" while we are at it. I know more than one indigenous person who agrees with that one.

 

And, like the columnist, I do think we should employ the best person for the job. Employment should not be defined by quotas relating to sex/gender orientation/race/disability/ethnicity or anything else. Changing that requirement across everything would really make a difference. 

 

The columnist's comments about the rorting of the current overseas student visas were also timely. If you are here on a student visa then you leave when you finish or if you drop out. I remember all too well that anxious two week wait to get my right to stay in the UK extended - in order to simply finish my own studies. It had the support of my supervisor, the head of the research unit, the head of the institution and the local member of parliament but it was not a given. Here there seems to be a very casual attitude to extensions.

 

We could fly the miscreants out on our flying kangaroo if the flights are not cancelled leaving passengers waiting with no assistance at the airport. The idea of mandatory compensation for passengers when flights are cancelled for "operational" reasons is something we should be considering seriously. This country is so big it needs reliable air travel in the 21stC. 

 

The columnist tells us that is a start. There were people agreeing with him this morning. He might be encouraged to add more. I can think of a few ideas myself.  

.

A bus as an air-bnb?

There is a rather extraordinary story in this morning's paper about a young couple who decided to do something rather different. They bought a bus and turned it into short stay accommodation on their leafy property in the hills behind me.

The bus can no longer be moved. It just sits there. The couple have done most of the renovation work themselves. From the photographs it looks as if they have done a good job of it too. If I was the sort of person who wanted a couple of nights in a quiet location surrounded by bushland to "recharge my batteries" then it would be ideal. 

The bus has actually been used for this purpose. It was starting to prove quite popular. And then? Yes, someone else put in a complaint. It was an anonymous complaint of course. Such complaints often are anonymous.

The bus can no longer be used. The local council moved in and have seemingly found a raft of reasons as to why the bus cannot be used as accommodation. They have also said there is no way the objections to the bus can be overcome. They have cited the "fire danger" and more. (I am not sure how there is an increased fire danger from a dwelling that was once a bus if it meets all other requirements.)

Now yes, it could be said that the young couple were rather foolish in that they did not investigate all the requirements before they spent the money on the bus and the renovations. It would have been wise. If they had found out what they know now they would not have done all that work. They would not be out of pocket. 

It could also be said that other people are now missing out on the opportunity to "get away for a couple of days". The location apparently does not overlook anything else. There have been no complaints about noise. It was bringing in a little business to the surrounding community.

The council's actions are the sort of thing which stop people from trying to show some initiative, from doing something different and from offering others something they have made for everyone's pleasure. Yes, there is a need for rules and regulations about safety but these need to be applied sensibly. The number of rules and regulations surrounding something like this it seems are ever increasing. 

A late friend who was a potter was told she could not put a sink with a tap inside her work shed in the garden. It was a council regulation "to stop people from living in sheds in the back garden". That a potter might need a steady supply of water was apparently not a consideration. It was a "council regulation under the building code" and could not be changed.  

It was just one complaint that led to all this. I am wondering if the complaint was made out of envy. Perhaps those who wrote the scripts for "Yes Minister" could do a series on local government? 

It is almost certainly illegal

under international law.

I do not know the finer points being put for the kidnapping and detention of the President of Venezuela but it is almost certainly illegal under international law.  

I have no time for Maduro or his regime but this was almost certainly a step too far. My knowledge of international law is limited but I cannot think of anywhere in any convention or any other document where it says "You can kidnap the leader of another country if you think they are a drug dealer or law breaker even if that leader is there by force rather than popular vote." The United Nations charter certainly does not permit breaches of another country's sovereignty - but they happen. Look at Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, India, China, Sudan, DRCongo and more.

Drugs are more likely to come from somewhere like Colombia than Venezuela. They are more likely to come by much more circuitous routes. They may route through Venezuela, almost certainly do, but they are likely to come from other sources. That they are a problem is obvious. That Maduro is a dictator who has no legitimate claim to power is also obvious.

But is this really what the raid was about? If this is the case why not Putin in Russia or Kim in North Korea? They are both effectively dictators with no legitimate claim to their positions. Closer to America what about Díaz-Canel in Cuba? 

Taking out Maduro and taking over the running of the country is about something else - oil. Venezuela has the world's largest known oil reserves. Sanctions on trading oil were being broken. Control the flow of oil and you have potentially have even greater power than you already have. There are also vast mineral resources. This is surely why President Trump is saying they will "run the country for the present". 

Venezuela's oil industry is not in good shape right now. It needs a lot of work. The companies with oil interests, like Chevron, may not be that interested in trying to repair it right now but they will be given incentives to do so if this coup works.  Yes, it is a coup of sorts.

President Trump has territorial ambitions. He has stated Canada and Greenland will become part the United States of America in the future - not that they may like to but that they eventually will. For him there should be no border between the USA and Canada and Greenland is needed for "strategic" reasons. Really? Will Mexico be next? Will the Panama Canal be next?  If the Panama Canal why not the Suez - for "strategic" reasons perhaps?

Should we be celebrating the downfall of a dictator or concerned by the way in which this has happened? Yesterday someone asked if we were headed for a wider war.  I hope not.  

 

 

   

Research funding is not available

for a project which has shown a positive advance in a technique which could improve the eyesight for some people with macular degeneration. Research funding is not available for looking at the effectiveness of non-electronic communication aids in developing the communication skills of children who have profound physical and/or intellectual disabilities.

These are just two research projects of which I have first hand knowledge. Both of them were worthy of funding. They both had the capacity to directly advance the quality of life of others. Both of them were turned down on spurious grounds. 

There is another project I am peripherally involved in which involves communication between medical staff and patients. I would have thought there could be no doubt at all about the value of this project. Good communication between doctors, nurses and all other medical staff and the patients they are treating would seem to be absolutely vital for best outcomes. There was a tiny grant for a limited study but the grant did not come from the funds of our nationally based "research council".

This morning our state newspaper has an article saying that our national university has just been given a $1.48m grant for a four year study into changing the date of our national day (currently 26 January) and the failure of the referendum on the Voice (the indigenous voice to parliament). Both of these are issues which the research council seems to think are important and both have had plenty of media attention.

There is a group of people who think we should celebrate a national day on a different date. Their reasons for doing it vary but the reason that gets the most attention is that it celebrates "invasion day". This is the day that white settlers "took over" this country. We are constantly told by those who object to the day that it is "offensive" and "hurtful". Yes, there is a possibility that a very small number of people feel that way. My own experience is very different. There is no strong feeling among indigenous people about the date. Those claiming offence and hurt often have as many or even more ancestors who are guilty of the acts which claim to do so much harm. This is one of those issues which allow people to be "activists". It is fanned by the media as a way of keeping the issue alive. Without any media attention the issue would dwindle to almost nothing but with media attention there is scope for "rallies" and "marches" and "demands for reparations" and more. 

The Voice was doomed to failure from the start. For all the support it was given in the media the reality is that it is not what indigenous people themselves wanted. The idea that there needed to be something permanently attached to the Constitution to permanently protect indigenous people was seen by indigenous people I know as saying "you will always be citizens in need of special protection". It is not the way they see themselves.

We need to address the issue of what it means to be "indigenous" and who that means. It is however seen as an untouchable issue. There does not appear to be any means of acknowledging the division caused by the demands made by a small group of "activists". It has grown out of control now. Are you really "indigenous" if just one of your great-great-grandparents might have been but this cannot even been proven? We have become fearful of being termed "racist" if we even question such claims or the access to the benefits of such a claim. 

This is research funding being wasted on perpetuating division and claims to disadvantage. I know what I would prefer the available funding to be spent on and I am sure other people would also like to lay claim to equally worthy projects.  

 

Other people's marital relations

are none of my business unless they directly affect me. By that I mean if a friend wants me to child mind so she or he can deal with a marital issue then I need to be involved to the extent that the children are cared for if I can do it. Please, leave it at that.

I am not interested in the marital issues between a sports person and their partner. It is none of my business. It is none of the media's business. It may be the business of some "club" or other if it is affecting their financial affairs I suppose but it does not need to be splashed all over the paper for days on end. 

I have been skipping over the articles about some football/rugby/soccer player for days now. Much has been made of it. It has been much worse than usual. I suspect the "story" is being used to try and deflect interest in our Prime Minister's failure to act and the way his closest allies are trying to support him but also deflect criticism of their own failure to act.

"Cat won't know anything about it," one of my local acquaintances said as we were standing waiting for a train.

"No - and I do not want to know. It is their private affair and if the media would leave them alone then the pressure on them would be much less to begin with," I said.

No, apparently I am wrong. These are "public figures". They are fair game when it comes to what should, in my opinion, be their private lives. All I can do is disagree.

Years ago now I was in a lift in a building which houses a lot of people who are usually considered to be "VIPs". Some of them are very important people indeed. I was, unusually for the lifts in that building, on my own. Someone else got in on the next floor and he was a very, very VIP. He gave me a long suffering look as if to say, "Now I suppose I have to make polite conversation to another complete stranger who will be all over me because of my position."

I took a risk, partly because I was feeling very nervous about who I was going to meet and what I was going to ask them to do. I said, "It's all right. I don't know who you are."  

My assessment of his character was right. He laughed and. in a genuinely interested way, asked what I was doing there. I explained briefly. He nodded and, as we exited the same floor, he made sure that the other VIP's secretary was there to meet me and escort me where I needed to go. 

Some years later I saw this same man on the other side of the room at another event. I did not expect to even be acknowledged. He would not remember me...except he did. He excused himself from talking to some other important people and came over to me for just a moment. He greeted me in a warm and friendly manner. He remembered what I had been there for at the previous encounter and asked how I felt about the outcome. 

I was aware of several people around me wondering what it was all about. They wanted to know of course but I just said, "We happened to meet one day. That's all." 

Those around me did not need to know any more than that.  One of my colleagues at the time looked at me and said to the rest of the group. "Leave it. Cat's right. We don't need to know."

There is a lot we don't need to know. It might make for better relationships. 

I was verbally abused in

the local shopping centre yesterday. Most of the centre was not open and all I had gone to do was re-post some letters that had arrived for the former tenant.

As I was putting them in the box I heard someone running up behind me and then, "You f.... spastic bitch! You have no f... idea have you? You are a f.... Jew lover. They're all the same. They'd kill you sooner than...." 

I won't add any more. I am not sure I can remember it accurately - or that I wish to do so.  It was a stunning assault. It came about following my letter to our state newspaper the day before. It  was the lead letter and a written response from someone with alternative views may not have been so surprising but this was something different. 

There were enough people around that, although shaken, I did not feel frightened. People were looking shocked and two of the men made moves which I guessed would mean my verbal assailant would be grabbed if he tried to make the assault physical. 

I am well used to people disagreeing with me over letters to the editor. It is often the case that I will know they will. They are people who tend to hold very extreme views about the issues under discussion. This was more than that. This person apparently believes that all Jews are guilty of murder, that they want to control the world and that everyone else is at risk. Where they get such ideas from is beyond me.

In my early teens I was given lessons in musical theory by a nun. My siblings were all learning to play the piano and Sister S.... offered to teach me theory as well. She told my parents it would be "useful" and it has been. She told me it would be "more than useful" and taught me much more than simply reading the notes on the page. I can still remember clearly the day when there had been an anti-Semitic incident in the local news. I cannot remember what happened. It was unlikely I would even have been particularly aware of it except for the fact my paternal grandfather knew the man who had been targetted.

"Ask your grandfather child, " Sister S... told me, "The Jews are to be pitied, not condemned."

My Jewish friends may not want my pity but they appreciate my concern. I am not going to stop showing that concern because someone condemns me for it.  

There are no resolutions

being made here. It would be a waste of time and energy. They would not be kept.

I do have a growing list of things I would like to do. They are not resolutions. Most of them are unlikely to be achieved but I can try. 

I really do no see the point of those "New Year's resolutions". It might be interesting to do some research into how often they (do not) happen. That I have a growing list of things I would like to do seems infinitely more important. Making time for at least some of them is simply a matter of commonsense. I feel the need to achieve something or I will, as someone I know put it, "simply slowly slip into slothfulness". Hmmm....I had better not try that one. There is too much to be done that must be done.

But today is New Year's Day. I did not stay up last night to see the New Year in. What is it that makes people want to do that? It was mercifully quiet around here.  Middle Cat's partner is off to a neighbouring state's capital today. He is going to do some work on the bathroom in their son's home. Middle Cat and I plan to be "mice" and play by going to the many flavours of ice cream place for a scoop (or two) of ice cream...taken away and eaten one lick at a time in a quiet place. 

If you are reading this and making resolutions I wish you the best of luck. To everyone else "Thanking you for being here and reading my witterings this last year. I will try to continue them but it is not a resolution."