"Multi-culturalism" does not work

as some sort of panacea for all our prejudices and ignorance.  I am more than ever convinced of that.

Another synagogue was damaged over the weekend. This time there were people in it who should have been enjoying a Shabbat meal. Instead of that they had to leave hastily out of a rear entrance. There were children present.

They have caught someone they believe to be the perpetrator but what sort of punishment will he get? An acquaintance here suggested, "A slap on the wrist. He will come up with some sort of story about a relative in Gaza."  It is likely both the perpetrator and the acquaintance share some prejudices even if they do not appear to do so.

In another instance a business owned by a Jewish family was damaged in the belief they are somehow involved in providing weapons to the Israeli Defence Force. Apparently the perpetrators believe they have some sort of right to harm a business here because of a war on the other side of the world. They believe they have some sort of right to do that even though they had no actual proof for their claims. Even if they had proof this was no way to go about it. There are other (much more effective) ways to protest.

For months there have been "protests" here about the war in Gaza. They have had a great deal of media attention. Yes, there have been protests against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, about the attempt to obliterate the nuclear facilities in Iran and more. We do not however hear too much about those or the much smaller protests and concerns about human rights abuses in China. We get told about the appalling conditions in Sudan and Somalia and Yemen and there are references to "rebels" when the media mentions these conditions. Protests about these things may not even reach the news or, at best, they are a thirty second clip of a small number waving placards outside an embassy.

But the other protests are apparently part of our "multi-cultural right to protest". Really? Is there such a right? Are such "protests" really a right conferred by our "multi-cultural" society.  Many, I suspect most, of those who attend such protests do so out of a desire to protest. It is "exciting". It gives them an adrenalin hit. If they were actually offered a free trip to Gaza to fight they would not want to go. It is easy to protest from a distance, especially when full possession of knowledge of the actual situation would harm their firm belief in what is "right".  We believe there is some sort of democratic right to voice our opinion in this way. Perhaps there is but it should be informed by facts. It is not a "multi-cultural" right to divide and harm.  

   

"Farmers feed us"

I told a woman who was complaining about the price of beans in our local supermarket.

She looked at me in disgust and said, "That doesn't justify the price."

I moved on and left her discontentedly picking over the beans. At $35 a kilo I was not going to buy them but that was because I cannot afford fresh beans at that price. I also know that the grower would not be getting very much at all. Someone else will be making the money. 

If I wanted beans I would be going to get a packet from the frozen food section. The farmer gets about the same amount there for the effort of growing them if you buy the "local" brands.

Perhaps I am a bit more conscious of the sources of our food. I spent most of my childhood living in rural and remote areas. My parents always made sure we knew that the field of wheat we were passing was where our next loaf of bread came from. (In my case this was literally true at one time because there was a mill just outside the town in one place.) 

I knew about vegetables from a very young age too. I knew because the Senior Cat grew them in the back garden. Without his efforts we would not have eaten nearly as well as we did. Even when he was teaching and studying for his degree part time he was growing some of our food. Mum would remind us of the "market gardeners" to the north of the city too. 

Out in rural areas we were also made aware of the problems farmers and market gardeners faced. We knew about "good weather" and "bad weather" about the "wool cheque" and the "wheat cheque" - the payments made to farmers for their efforts.  When some young fool who was speeding crashed into a stand of full milk churns waiting to be collected our concern was not just for the young fool but for the dairy farmer who had lost the milk. (There was no refrigerated vehicle back then. The churns were simply loaded on to a lorry and taken to the nearby dairy for processing.) We understood the need to get the harvest in before an impending storm, something which could drastically reduce the value of the crop.  If the older boys were not at school for a week then that just had to be accepted. The rest of us knew it was about feeding us.

As I grew older I became more and more aware of the stresses of being a farmer. It is far from being any idyllic life and it was even worse in my childhood. There were no air conditioned cabins on tractors and other farm vehicles. Shearing was still being done with old fashioned shears in some places. There were arguments about the use of wider combs and more.

The woman who complained about the price of the beans and how much she believed farmers were getting will almost certainly never read this. I hope though that I never prowl through the supermarket and forget that the food in there is the result of hard work by someone somewhere.   

We had a referendum to decide

on something called a "Voice to Parliament" - a body for indigenous people to have a say over their own affairs. At least that is what the original idea was. 

It ballooned into other demands. There were demands for a "treaty" and for "truth telling" and "reparations" and seats in parliament. During the campaign leading up to the referendum there were wild claims made on all sides. Communities and even individual families were divided over what the intentions were and the outcomes would be.

We have tried this in other ways in the past. It has always failed. This time it was supposed to be different because, eventually, the outcome would have a constitutional base. It would have had to return to yet another referendum to change the constitution. If there was ever a demand to remove it then there would need to be another referendum.

Constitutional change does not come easily in this country. It needs a majority of votes in a majority of the states and a majority overall. Our "founding fathers" knew what they were doing. There has to be a very, very good reason to change our constitution. 

Which is why moves by the states to bring in their own "voices" to state parliaments should be of grave concern. This state has a "voice" to parliament. Only "indigenous" people could vote for the members on it. Voting for them was not compulsory and some of those eventually "elected" did not even reach the quota. Put simply I suppose it can be said many of the indigenous people in this state were not interested enough to vote even though they were given every opportunity to do so. 

My friend M..., an indigenous man, was asked but refused to be involved in the process. He was, and remains, opposed to the idea.

There are multiple reasons for his opposition but, having talked at length to him and some other elders, I can understand their opposition.  These are people with a strong indigenous heritage. Their views are not what I first expected. I thought they would strongly support any such moves but they do not support them. They see such moves as divisive, very divisive. M... has a very strong work ethic. He never received any form of unemployment benefit. He has always worked. His wife worked. His children are still working. His father always worked and ended his working life in a position of some authority. His mother was a remarkable woman who commanded immense respect. Yes, they were unusual perhaps but they worked hard and being "indigenous" was sometimes difficult but it did not prevent them from succeeding. 

This is part of what bothers M...  "They all seem to want something for nothing," he has said more than once. "They seem to think they have some sort of right to it even when some of their own ancestors were the perpetrators of the injustices they are claiming."

I listened to some of the demands being made by a member of the "commission" in a neighbouring state. They want a "voice" there and there were financial demands with it, far more than that state can possibly afford even if it was justified. While any person identifying as "indigenous" could have nominated to be a member of the commission the reality is that the people who were on it were the more outspoken people. They see "injustices" everywhere. Their view of history is very different from the accepted view of my school days. The latter view was skewed but it does not make the former view the "correct" one either. 

I wonder, as does my friend M..., what would happen if people were told there would be no chance at all of any financial compensation and, in order to be considered indigenous, you had to be able to actually show you had (at very least) a great-grandparent who was recognised as "full blood" at the time. The demands being made might be very different.  

"My wife died."

The words were quiet and resigned but the emotion behind them was obviously still raw.

I had not seen this man since before Christmas last year. Prior to that I would see him and his wife in the shopping centre most Thursday mornings. It was just one of those casual relationships where recognised each other - or so I thought. We might exchange a few words about the weather or some major event. They seemed to me to be one of those many pleasant couples with a very good relationship with each other. Yes, a happy marriage.

I always noticed how well cared for their clothes were. The clothes themselves were nothing out of the ordinary but always spotlessly clean and well pressed. I know I joked once about how M... managed to keep him so clean and tidy. She laughed and said something like, "You should see him in the garden." 

I suppose that was what alerted me to something being wrong. He was still spotless but the ironing was amateur.  He had obviously tried but it looked wrong. 

"I haven't seen you for a while," I said after he had greeted me. It was then he told me his news. 

"I wanted to tell you," he said, "But I had no idea where you lived. I haven't seen you going backwards and forwards."

I explained I had moved. I had not moved but it was too far. There was no reason for me to have informed him. They were a couple who were perfectly able to care for themselves.  They did not even live on my actual pedalling route at the time but a little further up one of the streets. Obviously I could be seen from there. My movements had been observed.

His news gave me one of those small, unexpected jolts. M... was younger than I am, about ten years younger. She had seemed perfectly fit and healthy. They did a lot of walking together. Yes, it was very sudden. "She was gone - just like that. I didn't expect it at all. I thought she would be home the next day."

I listened. I tried to understand his obvious grief but how can I? I was not married to her for over forty years. 

Eventually we both knew it was time to move on and it was then he surprised me by saying, "You know M... and I always hoped we would see you. She was so pleased when you sorted out that knitting thing for her."

The "knitting thing" was a pattern. I remember it well. It was one of those patterns where the instructions did not appear to match the photograph. M...and I sorted it out between us. He has a wonderful Aran style pullover as a result.

"I don't like to wear it.  If it needed to be washed I might ruin it."

"Wear it," I told him. "If it needs to be washed take it to the dry cleaner and tell them it is pure wool. Think of it as a hug from M..."

"A hug from M...." he said. His voice sounded rough as he hurried off.  I hope he has many hugs from M... She would want him to wear it. 

The horrific child abuse

case currently in the headlines has thrown up something which has long puzzled and worried me.

The present case involves a young man currently charged with more than seventy offences. There is also a need for over one thousand two hundred young children to be tested for STDs. 

Yes, this man worked in "child care". He had passed a "working with children check".  These things raise questions which need to be answered.

Many years ago my mother was the headmistress of what was known as an "infants"  - now "junior primary" - school. She was posted to several such schools in her career and at one of these she was told by the Education Department they would be appointing a young man to the staff. (The Education Departments decides such things here rather than the school.) 

Up until that time only women were on the staff in the infants school. Now, or so they were told, men had to come in too. Children needed "male" figures. My mother and many others were prepared to cooperate, indeed had no real choice, but they were concerned. The parents were informed of the arrival of the new teacher in the school newsletter in the usual way.  That was on a Friday.

On the Monday my mother had a small "delegation" of parents who informed her that they knew the new teacher. He had been the "leader" of a church based youth group and been asked to leave. No action had ever been taken because there was no "proof" but there were good reasons to believe his behaviour was, at best, "questionable". He had disappeared from the church and they had lost sight of him. They were unaware he had chosen to train as a teacher of very young children. 

My mother had the unenviable job of reporting this to the head office. There were no "working with children checks" back then but even one of those would not have thrown up any issues. There would not have been any police records to suggest there might be a problem. The concerns had never been reported to the police. The church people thought they had solved the problem when he left. There was no "mandatory" reporting that might have led to an inquiry. 

I thought about this some time ago when I had to get a working with children certificate. All the volunteers at our state's main agricultural show had to get one even if we had no actual contact with children. It seemed a bit "over the top" but my first thought was, "Well at least anyone who knows they have a record won't try to come back." My second thought was, "But if they are that way inclined and they don't have a record then nothing is going to show up. They will still get a certificate."

There is of course no absolute answer to this problem. It means that the rest of us need to be constantly vigilant, especially when we are around vulnerable people.  And, for all we might want to believe in "equality" or the need for "male role models" there might be places where males should not work except under extremely close supervision. There will be people who will argue with me over this but I think of that young man who claimed to "love children". Some years later he was fronting court because of that "love". 

  

Car parking spaces are

supposed to be for the residents. This is what I was led to believe when I moved in here. It seems that this is not the case with respect to me.

I do not own a car. I have never owned a car. I cannot drive a car. There is a space labelled with the number of the unit I live in but it seems I do not own that space.

This is not what I was told when I moved in. I was told that the space labelled with my number was my space. I was even told there was council approval to put a roof over the space - at my expense. No, I have not bothered to find the very large sum to do that. I park my trike on the tiny front "porch" instead.

Now it seems that the space can be used by everyone else except me. Even if I wanted to park my trike there I would be expected to move it to make way for any number of "commercial" vehicles doing "maintenance" and for other residents who have overnight visitors or just people coming in to visit.  

A friend came to visit recently. She has difficulty walking more than ten metres. I wanted what I thought was my space to be vacant for her to use. No. It wasn't. There was a van there. Two men were sitting in it eating their lunch. I explained the situation.  No, they would not move.  They had to "carry stuff" and "you can only use it if it is your car". Really? 

Someone else parks there on a regular basis. The car is often there when I have left to do something in the morning. I have tried leaving polite notes saying someone is coming and that the space is needed. They are ignored. 

Yesterday the man who "mows" the lawns used it - and blocked in the girl next door as well. Fortunately he had gone before she went off to her shift at the hospital.  I only know this because she came several days ago and apologised for using "my" space when someone else had parked in hers. After the lawn mower man had gone another van turned up and used the space. The van was there until lunch time and then it left. Another van moved into the space.

I heard the argument when the first van driver returned and found the second van there. They were "working" there! 

This morning I looked out and yes, someone is parked there yet again. 

"Get used to it. You haven't got a car. That means anyone else can use it," the car owner told me as he climbed in and drove off - presumably he was going to work. 

I have a very elderly friend coming to lunch. I hope she arrives and finds the space vacant and that she can park there. I hope the "maintenance" vans arrive and find they cannot park there.

Would I say "yes" if they came and asked? I probably would if they did it nicely and I was not expecting someone with a mobility issue to visit. Is it my car parking space though? I am beginning to wonder if I have given up the right because I do not have a car.  

LGBTQ people have rights

to be themselves. They should not be discriminated against because of who they are. I will repeat that. LGBTQ people have rights to be themselves. They should not be discriminated against because of who they are. 

That does not give them the right to flaunt their sexuality or demand that they be given additional rights because of it. Notice please I have said "additional" rights.  

My only first cousin is "gay" and married to his partner. They have been together since university days. His partner is one of the nicest people I know and he is very definitely part of our family. I know other people in same sex relationships and consider them to be good friends. None of them expect "special" treatment. They do not attend "gay pride" marches or fly "pride flags". They feel no need to do these things. 

Other people obviously do feel that need. I do not know why. Perhaps they do not feel as secure as my cousin, his partner or my other friends. 

What does bother me however is the radical cohort who dress and behave in a much more extreme way and expect not just acceptance but to have the right to indoctrinate others, particularly the young.  I don't know if I am wrong, perhaps I am, but it seems at very least to be unnecessary.  This is a very small minority of people who are demanding a great deal of time and attention and "acceptance". How genuine are they? It's a question I cannot answer but it causes me concern. I do not believe that further confusing very young children about sexuality is right any more than I believe that, apart from very very rare instances, prescribing "puberty blockers" is right.

Someone in England has just been sentenced to thirty years in prison for sexual abuse of minors.  Prior to being charged he was a leader in "gay pride rights" and he advocated for puberty blockers to be readily available. Now questions are being asked about how many other sexual deviants are hiding in among the "rights" movement.  They are questions which need to be asked. 

I have always thought of sexuality as a private thing, or at least one which should not be flaunted but quietly accepted. It surely should not be about which bathroom you can use or how you dress or which prison you should go to if you break the law. Those things should not define you as a person. 

I know there are people who will read this and disagree strongly but when I see "pride" marches with the participants carrying not just "pride" flags but Palestinian and Iranian flags and demanding "freedom" for Palestinians and Iranians as well then I wonder. Do they realise that if they did these things in Palestine or Iran they would be condemned for their sexuality?