Oh help! Greens Senator Larissa Waters has called for a "no gender December" - an end to "gender based toys" for children. Stop giving little girls dolls and don't let little boys have a tool box.
(The latter apparently encourages violence in little boys because you at least pretend to cut and you do bang.)
I am one of those who happens to think that the very best toy that any young child can be given is a big box of wooden blocks in varying shapes and sizes - the sort designed to be used for building houses, sheds, stables, stations, castles, dams, roads, bridges etc. We had one when we were small. My brother snaffled it for his children and now his grandchildren use it. The Senior Cat made my sister's children another set. They now have it carefully stowed away for their children - should they have any - to use.
The Senior Cat has made other sets for other children. In most cases they are treasured. They keep children quiet for hours.
Yes, I like wooden blocks.
I also have no objection to girls having dolls - if they want them. I was never very interested in them myself. The little girls across the road - grandchildren of our neighbours - were given dolls last Christmas. One girl wanted a boy doll and the other a girl. That is what they got and the dolls go everywhere with them. They are also interested in dinosaurs, frogs, beetles, bicycles, ballet and just about everything else.
My brother had a tool box - with proper tools - and we both used it until it got "left behind" when we moved. My mother was irritated by the sawdust and glue and the litter of "planes" we made. The boys around the corner had a tool box. They have outgrown it now and use the tools in their father's shed instead. The tool box was passed on to the boy and girl next door but only the boy has bothered to use it.
The Whirlwind wanted a screw driver for her birthday the year she turned four. Her mother had died the year before and, when asked why she wanted a screw driver, she told people it was "to mend things". Her father gave her a small set of screw drivers. He is not terribly practical himself but an elderly neighbour (not the Senior Cat) taught her how to use them. I also made her a pink cardigan with white angora rabbits around the edge - her choice of colour and yarn.
I know children who have not been given dolls when they wanted them - although I know of no child who has been denied a "boy" toy. Middle Cat wanted a football for her birthday one year - and got it.
So I am not sure about this "sexist" issue. I don't like "Barbie" dolls for a number of reasons. I don't like the idea of pink Lego. It just looks wrong to me - and that is not just because I dislike the colour pink. I don't think there is a lot of play value in a princess dress and crown and I do think that pretend "make up" for little girls is inappropriate - as are adult style dresses, heeled shoes and "trainer bras".
But if a girl wants a doll - and some do - then what is wrong with that? Is there something wrong with being feminine and maternal? I am not particularly feminine (preferred clothing jeans and t-shirts) and not particularly maternal (have never had children but will defend them against harm). Despite that I see no harm with being both if you are that way inclined. Discouraging those things is to discourage motherhood - and our survival as a species depends on mothering.
For me the real problem is that most of the "gender neutral" debate is not in the least bit neutral. How many boys are given dolls, princess dresses or makeup boxes and encouraged to play with them? And why did the child I met who was denied a doll turn her collection of dinosaurs into a family of girls, dress them and put them to bed?
I am not sure a no gender December will work unless it is what they child wants.
Wednesday, 3 December 2014
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Handwriting? Did someone say
handwriting?
There was an article about handwriting in the weekend paper. I read it with some interest.
I have appalling handwriting. I don't have the fine motor control necessary for good handwriting. It's a simple fact of my life and I have to accept it.
Most people do not have that excuse. I am not suggesting that they need to be writers of elegant copperplate loops and flourishes. They don't. They just need to write legibly. My writing is, usually, legible. It just looks awful. If I can write legibly then other people can.
Except that now - well are children taught to write?
My mother had beautiful writing. Her hand flowed across the page. Her writing was clear and even and wonderfully legible. She found the physical act of writing a joy. Someone in the Education Department in this state recognised that fact and my mother found herself on the "Handwriting Committee". She was not terribly impressed. She felt they were re-inventing the wheel and that the state might just as well have gone with something called "Marion Richardson".
The Senior Cat has appalling handwriting - and admits it. I used to watch him trying to write on the blackboard at school. (Yes, I am old enough to remember what a blackboard was.) He would hold the chalk so tightly it would break. Middle Cat has tried to get him to "loosen up". He can't seem to do it. These days he does almost no writing. He uses a very personalised form of shorthand for the diary he keeps...which is sad because none of us will be able to read it later. He signs his name and writes the occasional note to himself and that is it.
Not being able to write easily and well was a great frustration to me as a kitten. I wanted to write things down. I wanted to write stories down. The physical act of writing would get in the way of the ideas. It took too long.
I can compose on a keyboard now but there is a difference between that and using a pen. Even I can recognise this difference. There is a quiet intimacy between writer and pen that does not exist between writer and keyboard.
And there is a suggestion that people learn more, remember more, understand more when they write something down. The physical act of writing, rather than typing, seems to make connections.
If that is true and it is also true that children are no longer being taught to write and write well then it seems to me that our ways of learning may need to change. Will they? Will learning be less efficient if it is all screen based - or whatever comes after the screen?
I had a visitor yesterday. She trained as a doctor and later went into politics. Her writing should, given the hours she has spent taking lecture notes, minutes and goodness' knows what else be appalling. It isn't copperplate but it looks neat enough and I could read it. So is it really essential to have an illegible scrawl? Is it laziness? Is it seen as the mark of a busy professional? Why do some people take pride in it?
I wonder about all of this. I don't understand it. I don't think anyone does.
But I do think children should be taught to write - and to write well. It may improve creativity.
There was an article about handwriting in the weekend paper. I read it with some interest.
I have appalling handwriting. I don't have the fine motor control necessary for good handwriting. It's a simple fact of my life and I have to accept it.
Most people do not have that excuse. I am not suggesting that they need to be writers of elegant copperplate loops and flourishes. They don't. They just need to write legibly. My writing is, usually, legible. It just looks awful. If I can write legibly then other people can.
Except that now - well are children taught to write?
My mother had beautiful writing. Her hand flowed across the page. Her writing was clear and even and wonderfully legible. She found the physical act of writing a joy. Someone in the Education Department in this state recognised that fact and my mother found herself on the "Handwriting Committee". She was not terribly impressed. She felt they were re-inventing the wheel and that the state might just as well have gone with something called "Marion Richardson".
The Senior Cat has appalling handwriting - and admits it. I used to watch him trying to write on the blackboard at school. (Yes, I am old enough to remember what a blackboard was.) He would hold the chalk so tightly it would break. Middle Cat has tried to get him to "loosen up". He can't seem to do it. These days he does almost no writing. He uses a very personalised form of shorthand for the diary he keeps...which is sad because none of us will be able to read it later. He signs his name and writes the occasional note to himself and that is it.
Not being able to write easily and well was a great frustration to me as a kitten. I wanted to write things down. I wanted to write stories down. The physical act of writing would get in the way of the ideas. It took too long.
I can compose on a keyboard now but there is a difference between that and using a pen. Even I can recognise this difference. There is a quiet intimacy between writer and pen that does not exist between writer and keyboard.
And there is a suggestion that people learn more, remember more, understand more when they write something down. The physical act of writing, rather than typing, seems to make connections.
If that is true and it is also true that children are no longer being taught to write and write well then it seems to me that our ways of learning may need to change. Will they? Will learning be less efficient if it is all screen based - or whatever comes after the screen?
I had a visitor yesterday. She trained as a doctor and later went into politics. Her writing should, given the hours she has spent taking lecture notes, minutes and goodness' knows what else be appalling. It isn't copperplate but it looks neat enough and I could read it. So is it really essential to have an illegible scrawl? Is it laziness? Is it seen as the mark of a busy professional? Why do some people take pride in it?
I wonder about all of this. I don't understand it. I don't think anyone does.
But I do think children should be taught to write - and to write well. It may improve creativity.
Monday, 1 December 2014
I sympathise with the Australian Defence Force's
request for a pay rise in keeping with inflation but I cannot condone the antics of the senator who is threatening to block all legislation until that happens.
I believe defence forces should be paid fairly and, if they see active service in a war zone, they should be paid very fairly indeed. I am not one of those people who say, "Well, that's their job" and then expect them to do it on a pittance.
But I also believe that Senator Jackie Lambie is wrong. For those of you in the rest of the world let me explain who she is. She was elected to the Senate at the last election on the PUP (Palmer United Party) ticket in Tasmania - on 6.58% of the vote. It is only the peculiarities of our electoral system for the Senate that allowed her into politics on such a small percentage of the vote.
There are other Senators there on an even smaller percentage of the vote. They wield a disproportionate amount of power.
Lambie wields more power than most. She is female and identifies as indigenous - both things help her get media attention. She knows how to use the media. She is outspoken and revelling in the attention she is getting. Her vote counts - as all votes should -- but it counts more than most because she is not a member of the government or the opposition.
And now she is not a member of the PUP either. It was perhaps unlikely that she would remain a member of the PUP for long. She is too independent minded for that. She is not a team player. She resigned from the PUP - cynics might say she used the PUP in order to get elected and then ditched them. I suspect they may not be too far off the mark. It may not be what she started out thinking but she soon came to the realisation that real power lay in being an "independent". Analysts now say she would be re-elected as an independent if there was an election and she put her name forward as a candidate. Yes, people might well vote her in again.
But right now she is not behaving in the way people expected her to behave. She was voted in as a member of the PUP. She has resigned from the party and claiming the right to vote as she chooses. That's wrong.
It is wrong because people voted for her on the understanding that she was a member of a team with a certain set of policies. She gained a seat because of our system of compulsory preferences - not because she was, at the time, the candidate of first preference but because she was the second or third.
And now she sits in one of the most powerful positions in parliament. She can make or break legislation - and mostly she will break it even if the government caves in on the issue of defence force pay. She will break legislation because she has tasted power and she wants to go on tasting it.
The Senate was set up as the states' house. It has long since become something else. That needs to change. Nobody should wield as much power as Lambie.
I believe defence forces should be paid fairly and, if they see active service in a war zone, they should be paid very fairly indeed. I am not one of those people who say, "Well, that's their job" and then expect them to do it on a pittance.
But I also believe that Senator Jackie Lambie is wrong. For those of you in the rest of the world let me explain who she is. She was elected to the Senate at the last election on the PUP (Palmer United Party) ticket in Tasmania - on 6.58% of the vote. It is only the peculiarities of our electoral system for the Senate that allowed her into politics on such a small percentage of the vote.
There are other Senators there on an even smaller percentage of the vote. They wield a disproportionate amount of power.
Lambie wields more power than most. She is female and identifies as indigenous - both things help her get media attention. She knows how to use the media. She is outspoken and revelling in the attention she is getting. Her vote counts - as all votes should -- but it counts more than most because she is not a member of the government or the opposition.
And now she is not a member of the PUP either. It was perhaps unlikely that she would remain a member of the PUP for long. She is too independent minded for that. She is not a team player. She resigned from the PUP - cynics might say she used the PUP in order to get elected and then ditched them. I suspect they may not be too far off the mark. It may not be what she started out thinking but she soon came to the realisation that real power lay in being an "independent". Analysts now say she would be re-elected as an independent if there was an election and she put her name forward as a candidate. Yes, people might well vote her in again.
But right now she is not behaving in the way people expected her to behave. She was voted in as a member of the PUP. She has resigned from the party and claiming the right to vote as she chooses. That's wrong.
It is wrong because people voted for her on the understanding that she was a member of a team with a certain set of policies. She gained a seat because of our system of compulsory preferences - not because she was, at the time, the candidate of first preference but because she was the second or third.
And now she sits in one of the most powerful positions in parliament. She can make or break legislation - and mostly she will break it even if the government caves in on the issue of defence force pay. She will break legislation because she has tasted power and she wants to go on tasting it.
The Senate was set up as the states' house. It has long since become something else. That needs to change. Nobody should wield as much power as Lambie.
Sunday, 30 November 2014
I asked my nephews to sign
the "Advanced Care Directive" last night.
This is the document in this state which will give them the right to decide what should happen if I become so seriously ill or disabled that I can no longer make decisions for myself.
I have three nephews and a niece but only the two nephews here are involved in this. One is a doctor and the other has a law degree although he works in another field.
I had asked them to think about it earlier and the response was, "We don't need to think about it Aunty Cat. We'll do it."
But I know they did think about it. They are both aware that I am asking them to take on a potentially huge responsibility.
My doctor nephew asked me several questions about what I wanted. It is interesting when he slips from being my nephew to being a doctor. The questions were sensible and searching and although we both knew what the answers would be he still asked. If anyone asks him in the future he can say he asked.
I'll leave it up to them. I trust them. These are the boys who might have a single glass of alcohol in a week but more than likely won't. They don't smoke and have never tried drugs. They speed - but only around the go-kart track. They care about people and other animals with more than usual concern.
I don't think they are saints. They would not describe themselves as saints. What they are is what I most want - ordinary, decent, caring and loving people who want the best for everyone.
My sister and I had a similar responsibility for our mother - although we discussed decisions with our father and our brother. We have the same responsibility for our father - but again we would discuss decisions with our brother. We all hope we won't have to make those decisions but our father has placed his trust in us to "know". Will we? We know what he wants. He's 91, almost 92.
I have an acquaintance around the corner. He has a terminal lung condition. He is about sixty. They offered him a lung transplant which would extend his life. He refused and asked them to give it to someone younger. Recently he had a couple of nights in intensive care. He asked them not to take extraordinary measures. They didn't. He has recovered and is back doing things.
"I wasn't meant to go yet," he told me - apparently cheerfully.
We have talked about his end-of-life wishes. His wife knows what he wants but he has asked, "And when the time comes Cat, you will be around for her won't you?"
Of course I will because yes, it's a huge responsibility and I can only admire my nephews having the courage and maturity to agree to take it on.
This is the document in this state which will give them the right to decide what should happen if I become so seriously ill or disabled that I can no longer make decisions for myself.
I have three nephews and a niece but only the two nephews here are involved in this. One is a doctor and the other has a law degree although he works in another field.
I had asked them to think about it earlier and the response was, "We don't need to think about it Aunty Cat. We'll do it."
But I know they did think about it. They are both aware that I am asking them to take on a potentially huge responsibility.
My doctor nephew asked me several questions about what I wanted. It is interesting when he slips from being my nephew to being a doctor. The questions were sensible and searching and although we both knew what the answers would be he still asked. If anyone asks him in the future he can say he asked.
I'll leave it up to them. I trust them. These are the boys who might have a single glass of alcohol in a week but more than likely won't. They don't smoke and have never tried drugs. They speed - but only around the go-kart track. They care about people and other animals with more than usual concern.
I don't think they are saints. They would not describe themselves as saints. What they are is what I most want - ordinary, decent, caring and loving people who want the best for everyone.
My sister and I had a similar responsibility for our mother - although we discussed decisions with our father and our brother. We have the same responsibility for our father - but again we would discuss decisions with our brother. We all hope we won't have to make those decisions but our father has placed his trust in us to "know". Will we? We know what he wants. He's 91, almost 92.
I have an acquaintance around the corner. He has a terminal lung condition. He is about sixty. They offered him a lung transplant which would extend his life. He refused and asked them to give it to someone younger. Recently he had a couple of nights in intensive care. He asked them not to take extraordinary measures. They didn't. He has recovered and is back doing things.
"I wasn't meant to go yet," he told me - apparently cheerfully.
We have talked about his end-of-life wishes. His wife knows what he wants but he has asked, "And when the time comes Cat, you will be around for her won't you?"
Of course I will because yes, it's a huge responsibility and I can only admire my nephews having the courage and maturity to agree to take it on.
Saturday, 29 November 2014
I don't understand the love affair
some people seem to have with "the sales". I certainly don't understand "Black Friday" or the "Boxing Day" sales. I don't understand why people will queue for hours to try and get "the bargain" they might not get.
Our central shopping district in the CBD used to have a row of department stores and each would have a "sale". Prices would magically drop - on some items. It would appear that real bargains were to be had. You just had to be there - and be there fast. Popular items like sheets, towels, clothing and footwear would disappear quickly.
The crowds were immense. I imagine that shoplifting was immense too.
My maternal grandmother used to go to "the sales". She was a large woman who could battle her way through the crowds with, apparently, no difficulty. She would have read the advertising in the paper and decided that she needed something or other. She would "book it up" at one of two major department stores on her "card".
Did she also "impulse" buy? I suppose she must have - at least her kitchen was filled with "gadgets". My mother kept some of those gadgets but gave others away. I got rid of the rest. I simply did not need them - even if they had been bought as a "bargain".
I suppose the Senior Cat and I have our own "bargain hunting" gene in that we have, in the past, been to book sales. We have bought books but we have also read them. Many of my "bargains" have not been financial but practical. I have found dictionaries in languages I needed to know something about. They have been, still are, useful. (Yes, I have used that Melanesian Pidgin dictionary!)
There used to be a "dress shop" in our local shopping centre. It sold fairly conservative clothing for women. I knew the manager, indeed would mind the shop for a few minutes while she rushed to the bank or the toilet. I bought very little there but she would never let me buy anything full price. She would tell me, "Wait. Everything will be on sale in...." I would tell her "I hate sales..." and she would nod understandingly and say, "I know but you don't want to pay full price. It isn't worth it. And, it is only a bargain then if you need it."
She would shake her head over women who bought things she felt did not suit them.
"She won't wear that," she would tell me as someone left the shop with something she felt was the wrong colour or fit. I suspect she was right.
It bothered her even more at "sale" time when people would buy simply because it was cheap. It is not cheap if you are not going to wear it.
I bought a new jacket in the opportunity shop last week. It is brand new - the tags were still on it. Someone obviously decided it did not fit or something else was wrong. It is white denim. I would not normally buy white for a jacket of that sort but I talked it over with the volunteer who was serving that day. We know each other well. She made me put it on and said, "Yes, it fits you well."
It can be washed in the machine. I just want it to cover my arms when I am out on the trike. It cost me $10.
Later, out of curiosity, I looked the price up. If I had bought it from the on-line company in question it would have cost me close to $70.
I call that a "bargain". I can live with the colour and the little extra effort to keep it clean is a reminder that you get what you pay for - if you need it.
Our central shopping district in the CBD used to have a row of department stores and each would have a "sale". Prices would magically drop - on some items. It would appear that real bargains were to be had. You just had to be there - and be there fast. Popular items like sheets, towels, clothing and footwear would disappear quickly.
The crowds were immense. I imagine that shoplifting was immense too.
My maternal grandmother used to go to "the sales". She was a large woman who could battle her way through the crowds with, apparently, no difficulty. She would have read the advertising in the paper and decided that she needed something or other. She would "book it up" at one of two major department stores on her "card".
Did she also "impulse" buy? I suppose she must have - at least her kitchen was filled with "gadgets". My mother kept some of those gadgets but gave others away. I got rid of the rest. I simply did not need them - even if they had been bought as a "bargain".
I suppose the Senior Cat and I have our own "bargain hunting" gene in that we have, in the past, been to book sales. We have bought books but we have also read them. Many of my "bargains" have not been financial but practical. I have found dictionaries in languages I needed to know something about. They have been, still are, useful. (Yes, I have used that Melanesian Pidgin dictionary!)
There used to be a "dress shop" in our local shopping centre. It sold fairly conservative clothing for women. I knew the manager, indeed would mind the shop for a few minutes while she rushed to the bank or the toilet. I bought very little there but she would never let me buy anything full price. She would tell me, "Wait. Everything will be on sale in...." I would tell her "I hate sales..." and she would nod understandingly and say, "I know but you don't want to pay full price. It isn't worth it. And, it is only a bargain then if you need it."
She would shake her head over women who bought things she felt did not suit them.
"She won't wear that," she would tell me as someone left the shop with something she felt was the wrong colour or fit. I suspect she was right.
It bothered her even more at "sale" time when people would buy simply because it was cheap. It is not cheap if you are not going to wear it.
I bought a new jacket in the opportunity shop last week. It is brand new - the tags were still on it. Someone obviously decided it did not fit or something else was wrong. It is white denim. I would not normally buy white for a jacket of that sort but I talked it over with the volunteer who was serving that day. We know each other well. She made me put it on and said, "Yes, it fits you well."
It can be washed in the machine. I just want it to cover my arms when I am out on the trike. It cost me $10.
Later, out of curiosity, I looked the price up. If I had bought it from the on-line company in question it would have cost me close to $70.
I call that a "bargain". I can live with the colour and the little extra effort to keep it clean is a reminder that you get what you pay for - if you need it.
Friday, 28 November 2014
"Ahora contaremes doce
y nos quedamos todos quietos..." thus begins one of the poems by Pablo Neruda.
"Now we will all sit still and count to twelve" is the way it is translated in "Extravagario" - the English version I have.
It is both a contemplation and a command.
There have been some deaths recently. The death of the cricketer Phillip Hughes at the age of 25 has made headlines around the sporting world. He was young, too young. It was a freakish accident and I would feel saddened for him and his family, Sean Abbott (the young bowler who bowled the ball which struck him) and his team mates whether they were professionals or amateurs.
A young boy has died in the US - apparently shot because he was carrying a toy gun that looked too realistic and was confused with the real thing.
PD James has died. She was 94. People will say she had a long and productive life. She was one of those highly intelligent people who had an acerbic wit and a capacity for hard work. The Senior Cat is currently reading the last book she wrote. When I told him he gave a small smile and said, "A good life." Yes, it probably was.
There has been another death here that has, curiously, gone almost unnoticed - that of a former politician in this state. Heather Southcott famously managed to retain a seat for "the Democrats" in my local electorate - at a time when everyone was sure the seat would fall to another party. Like many current and former politicians she was involved in many other things as well. She was ill for some years before her death and perhaps her departure from the public scene has meant there has been no real mention of her in the media. She was also in her 80's. People will no doubt say she had "a good life".
Of course there have been many other deaths as well - of people old and young. Many will go barely noticed except by those immediately around them. Others will still say that some of these people had "a good life".
I wonder what "a good life" really is though...is it achieving what we want to achieve, is it "winning", is it doing things for others - or doing no harm - or making a mark on the world in some other way? Or is it, just sometimes, the ability to do what Neruda contemplates and commands? Can we just sit still for a short while and count to twelve and marvel at life itself?
"Now we will all sit still and count to twelve" is the way it is translated in "Extravagario" - the English version I have.
It is both a contemplation and a command.
There have been some deaths recently. The death of the cricketer Phillip Hughes at the age of 25 has made headlines around the sporting world. He was young, too young. It was a freakish accident and I would feel saddened for him and his family, Sean Abbott (the young bowler who bowled the ball which struck him) and his team mates whether they were professionals or amateurs.
A young boy has died in the US - apparently shot because he was carrying a toy gun that looked too realistic and was confused with the real thing.
PD James has died. She was 94. People will say she had a long and productive life. She was one of those highly intelligent people who had an acerbic wit and a capacity for hard work. The Senior Cat is currently reading the last book she wrote. When I told him he gave a small smile and said, "A good life." Yes, it probably was.
There has been another death here that has, curiously, gone almost unnoticed - that of a former politician in this state. Heather Southcott famously managed to retain a seat for "the Democrats" in my local electorate - at a time when everyone was sure the seat would fall to another party. Like many current and former politicians she was involved in many other things as well. She was ill for some years before her death and perhaps her departure from the public scene has meant there has been no real mention of her in the media. She was also in her 80's. People will no doubt say she had "a good life".
Of course there have been many other deaths as well - of people old and young. Many will go barely noticed except by those immediately around them. Others will still say that some of these people had "a good life".
I wonder what "a good life" really is though...is it achieving what we want to achieve, is it "winning", is it doing things for others - or doing no harm - or making a mark on the world in some other way? Or is it, just sometimes, the ability to do what Neruda contemplates and commands? Can we just sit still for a short while and count to twelve and marvel at life itself?
Thursday, 27 November 2014
Should we get rid of the Equal Opportunity
Commission?
Andrew Bolt, the columnist we love to hate, has a piece in today's paper about the Commission. More specifically, it is about the President of the Commission, Gillian Triggs. It is also about perceived bias and the need to be rid of the Equal Opportunity Commission.
It is not the job of the President of the Equal Opportunity to display any bias. Is it fair to say that Professor Triggs does? Does the Equal Opportunity Commission actually do the job it is supposed to do?
I don't think it does.
I have to admit a certain degree of bias here. The Commission has a number of areas of interest - Aboriginal and Torrens Strait Islander Social Justice headed by Mick Gooda, Age and Disability Discrimination headed by Susan Ryan, Children's Commissioner (Megan Mitchell), Human Rights (Tim Wilson), Race Discrimination (Tim Soutphommasane) and Sex Discrimination (Elizabeth Broderick).
It wasn't until 1993 that the Commission had a Disability Discrimination Commissioner and when Elizabeth Hastings, who held the position, died there was nobody appointed in her place. There were Acting Commissioners who had other jobs. When Graeme Innes took over the job in 2005 he was also the Human Rights Commissioner. Now Susan Ryan has the responsibility along with the responsibility for Age discrimination.
In other words Disability Discrimination has never really been considered to be such a serious issue that it needed a full time, dedicated commissioner. This is despite the fact that the biggest issue facing most people with disabilities is that of communication - both individually and as a group. They need to get their message across and they often have difficulty in doing it because of their physical and intellectual limitations.
If an Equal Opportunity Commission is to do the job then it has to deal with all people equally. It should not have a political bias. Ours does. Race and Sex Discrimination and Human Rights have always taken precedence. They are important, very important - but so are the rights of people with disabilities.
And recent moves by Professor Triggs suggest that, far from behaving in an unbiased manner, she has deliberately delayed taking action on other issues so as not to embarrass the previous government. Instead she is trying to hold the present government accountable for the actions of the previous one.
Quite simply I believe the EOC has become a political body instead of an apolitical one. If it has then it cannot work because it will not allow equal opportunities for all - particularly for those who lack the capacity to stand up for themselves.
It may be time we ditched the Commission and found new ways to communicate injustices. I hope they prove me wrong.
Andrew Bolt, the columnist we love to hate, has a piece in today's paper about the Commission. More specifically, it is about the President of the Commission, Gillian Triggs. It is also about perceived bias and the need to be rid of the Equal Opportunity Commission.
It is not the job of the President of the Equal Opportunity to display any bias. Is it fair to say that Professor Triggs does? Does the Equal Opportunity Commission actually do the job it is supposed to do?
I don't think it does.
I have to admit a certain degree of bias here. The Commission has a number of areas of interest - Aboriginal and Torrens Strait Islander Social Justice headed by Mick Gooda, Age and Disability Discrimination headed by Susan Ryan, Children's Commissioner (Megan Mitchell), Human Rights (Tim Wilson), Race Discrimination (Tim Soutphommasane) and Sex Discrimination (Elizabeth Broderick).
It wasn't until 1993 that the Commission had a Disability Discrimination Commissioner and when Elizabeth Hastings, who held the position, died there was nobody appointed in her place. There were Acting Commissioners who had other jobs. When Graeme Innes took over the job in 2005 he was also the Human Rights Commissioner. Now Susan Ryan has the responsibility along with the responsibility for Age discrimination.
In other words Disability Discrimination has never really been considered to be such a serious issue that it needed a full time, dedicated commissioner. This is despite the fact that the biggest issue facing most people with disabilities is that of communication - both individually and as a group. They need to get their message across and they often have difficulty in doing it because of their physical and intellectual limitations.
If an Equal Opportunity Commission is to do the job then it has to deal with all people equally. It should not have a political bias. Ours does. Race and Sex Discrimination and Human Rights have always taken precedence. They are important, very important - but so are the rights of people with disabilities.
And recent moves by Professor Triggs suggest that, far from behaving in an unbiased manner, she has deliberately delayed taking action on other issues so as not to embarrass the previous government. Instead she is trying to hold the present government accountable for the actions of the previous one.
Quite simply I believe the EOC has become a political body instead of an apolitical one. If it has then it cannot work because it will not allow equal opportunities for all - particularly for those who lack the capacity to stand up for themselves.
It may be time we ditched the Commission and found new ways to communicate injustices. I hope they prove me wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
