Limiting the booze

available seems like a good idea to me.

I will have of course to say at the outset that I do not drink alcohol. I am allergic to alcohol. No, I am not an alcoholic. If I ingest alcohol I get a very nasty reaction. I have tried to explain it to other people as a bit like touching a stinging nettle but inside rather than out. It won't kill me but it is excruciatingly uncomfortable for a time and I am very careful about avoiding it. 

There have been rare occasions on which people have tried to force it on me, have told me that I must be allergic to something else and have generally not believed that anyone could actually be allergic and not an alcoholic. I am allergic. The medical profession says I am allergic. For the record I cannot tolerate vinegar either...and that is a real nuisance at times. 

I can live without alcohol. It saves a lot of money and I can still have a good time without it. I don't need it but it seems this is not the case for many other people. Downunderites are some of the heaviest drinkers of alcohol in the world. Many of them drink far more than the medical profession says is good for them.  "Going to the pub" for the evening is a common social activity here. During the Covid lock downs the authorities actually decided to keep the liquor outlets open as an "essential" service because of the threats posed by people who could not get their alcohol fix. Liquor outlets have extended hours. The booze shop in our local shopping centre is the biggest one after the two supermarkets. 

The, how shall it put it, "alcohol industry" is a major part of the economy. It means employment for an enormous number of people in the production and distribution of it and in the hospitality industry. It is also a major contributing factor to road accidents, domestic violence, child neglect and other serious social problems as well medical issues.

There seems to be a vague awareness of all this among those who make the alcohol laws. They are talking about limiting the availability of alcohol at least in some places and at some times. I am sure our police force would welcome not having to deal with quite so many alcohol related incidents in and around the city at weekends. 

But why stop there? There is no point in trying to ban alcohol but is there a way of reducing consumption here as well as in Alice Springs? 

The Senior Cat's generation did not drink much alcohol. They could not legally drink until they were twenty-one - although no doubt a few did. They did not have the disposable income so many young people now think they have. They also had to make their own entertainment. Going to a "night club" was not something they even considered - and they would have been denied entry had they tried.  

Perhaps we could start with making more effort to help the next generations to build the skills to entertain themselves. Then the liquor laws could reflect what people might reasonably  "need" rather than what they "want". 

83% of First Nations people support

the Voice @ulurustatement announced on Twitter. It was the result of a "YouGov" poll...or was it?

Remember those advertisements which said something like "Eight out of ten dentists recommend...."? Yes, they may have found eight dentists who would recommend a certain brand of toothpaste but is it eight out of ten of all dentists? Of course it isn't. The "statistic" is meaningless. 

The statement on Twitter was even worse than that. There are no "First Nations" people. First Nations may be the correct term in Canada but it is not the correct term here. There have never been "nations" here. There are tribal areas and tribal groupings but they have never been nations. So why do they use that term? Is it to try and suggest something that is not actually the reality? I don't know and it puzzles aboriginal people I know.

But lets move on to the actual "poll". The very fact that it was "conducted" by YouGov should ring alarm bells. Their methods are far from "scientific". Conducting any sort of social science research is highly problematic and this sort of "on-line research" is only helpful if you can manipulate it in order to get the results you want. And of course this is what was done here. 

We are of course now on Warren Mundine's "Myth number six" - the idea that the proposed Voice will speak for aboriginals. It won't. It can't. The idea that twenty-four people - chosen, not elected - can speak for such a diverse group of people with an even more diverse range of needs is nonsense. Only a tiny minority of aboriginals join the community organisations which supposedly speak for them and the proposed working of the Voice will reduce that still further.

The 83% support comes from a survey of what appears to be one thousand, one hundred and eighty-six people who "identify" as aboriginal. It is difficult to find out much more but they appear to be urban dwellers who are sufficiently well educated people with access to a computer and the political "savvy" to participate in such a poll. Now even if everyone who participated in the survey stated they supported the Voice it is still just 00.00135% of the group for whom the Voice is supposed to speak. (I am being generous and rounding up rather than down.)  

It might be that the results of the survey would be the same or close to the same if every person who identified as aboriginal was asked - but how likely is that? We cannot put figures on that.

Like the old "eight out of ten" dentists advertisement we are being told something is true for everyone when it is only true for those who were chosen to be asked. 

My concern here? That many aboriginal people will have even less opportunity to be heard than before.

 

Public toilet use for transgender,

intersex and gender diverse people is now a topic of legislative review. In this morning's paper the mother of an autistic boy is also arguing that either he or she should be allowed to go into a toilet catering for the opposite sex because he cannot or will not go alone. 

In most instances there is a simple answer to the problem with the autistic boy. They can use the facility for the disabled.

But what about the rest of us? 

Some time ago now I was asked by a Muslim woman if it was safe to use the public toilet in our shopping centre. She had seen a man coming out of the facility and did not want to enter it if there was a man in there. The whole idea of using a facility that a strange man had used was clearly abhorrent to her. Another woman I know slightly came out at that point and I asked her if there was anyone in there. 

"There was a work man in there fixing a tap," she responded. The Muslim woman still looked anxious so I said, "I'll wait by the door and make sure he doesn't go in if he comes back."

The look of relief on her face was immense. I would have stopped the work man too. I would have asked him to wait. What the answer would have been I have no idea but I would have tried because the woman obviously felt so very uncomfortable.

I don't know anyone who actually likes using public facilities even when they are kept clean - and all too often they are not really clean. I certainly avoid using them if at all possible. Do most people avoid using them if they can? I suspect they do.

Men and women do not use public facilities in the same way. Men almost never speak to one another, may not even acknowledge one another but women do. More than one woman has sought help in a public facility. It is a place where women should feel safe. It should not be a place where they now feel vulnerable or uncomfortable. Perhaps we need to add facilities for those of alternate sexual orientation in the way we have facilities for people with disabilities.

The argument that "everyone uses the same toilet at home" is not one which can be readily transferred to the public arena. Perhaps we do - but we still shut the door.

Three parents were arrested yesterday

and charged with manslaughter. 

The cases were not related to one another. The neglect was obvious in every case. Social services were involved in every case. In every case the children were left with their parents in a situation which was very obviously not in the best interests of the child.  

I was talking to a neighbour about this late in the afternoon. We were watching the children in the street speed up and down on their bikes and scooters. Schools are on holiday until next week and I try to help out by watching the children do this on some occasions. The neighbour had just put their evening meal in the oven and we were watching the youngest trying to do a "u-turn" on her scooter.

"If she falls off and breaks her arm I will probably have social services visit and tell me I am a bad mother," her mother said.

She was not joking. The incident would be reported. The idea that a child might be allowed to do something that could lead to such an injury is something now questioned. 

I looked at her daughter. She is obviously well nourished and healthy. By late afternoon she was also, while still well dressed, rather grubby. It had been a busy day playing with big brother and the other children in the street. 

But yes, there would likely be a visit. I don't know whether this is a good thing or not. Perhaps there is a need to check but it seems that the real issues are not being dealt with.

Both my parents had "difficult" schools - schools where there were acknowledged to be high levels of serious social welfare issues. They came to know some social workers very well indeed. There were times when my parents pleaded with children to be removed from households where they were simply not safe. They knew the local police and the doctors all too well. There were too many children who came to school dirty, inadequately clothed and without food. Some of those issues could be dealt with but it was more difficult to deal with violence at home, alcohol and drug issues. There was one child whose mother was a prostitute. He "stole" from his mother's purse in order to eat. He would do it while she slept off the alcohol of the night before.  She would beat him for it. There is no way that child was receiving proper parenting but he was returned to her even after a week in hospital due to her neglect. Social services just visited occasionally.

One of the children who died had a serious medical issue. It required a special diet that the mother was clearly incapable of understanding or providing. The child was neglected in other ways as well. Other children in the family were seen to be neglected too. Was it really in the best interests of the children to be left in that situation? Those of them who do reach adulthood often have the same issues themselves.

We keep persisting with the idea that parent and child must be kept together even when the children are being neglected. Social workers can visit. Social workers can make suggestions. Social workers can do make reports. They can do very little else. Many of them have ridiculous case-loads and no resources. The woke policies they are required to try and apply just make it more difficult and they sometimes end in tragedy.

I hope little L.... never breaks a bone but, if she does, it will not be because her mother has deliberately harmed or neglected her. Social services don't need to be involved. The school can tell them otherwise.

So you don't have a voice?

 Myth number 5 on Mundine's list is the one which says, "Aboriginals don't have a voice" and he debunks that one very quickly. 

This will be the fifth attempt at a voice at a national level. The others have all failed.  Governments of all persuasions have dismantled them because they did not work.

"If we put it into the Constitution it is there forever," the Prime Minister is telling us. He is telling us that this is a good thing. Why? Does simply putting something into the Constitution mean it will succeed? Does it mean that it will always work the way it is intended for the intended purpose?

This proposal is not like anything else currently in the Constitution. It is completely different.

There are already many, many forms of negotiation and consultation with aboriginal people through hundreds of local, state, national and even international bodies. They already have, through elected representatives who identify as aboriginal, more parliamentary representation than everyone else. 

Is more needed? Do we need something very special that the rest of the population does not have? Are aboriginal people always going to be at such a perceived disadvantage they are going to need additional rights and consideration?

Mundine is arguing that the Voice is already there, that there is plenty of consultation and negotiation. It seems likely he is right, that aboriginal people in fact already have greater rights to be heard because there are so many voices already out there.  Do they need more and will a formal Voice actually give them that? I will deal with Mundine's myth number six next time. 

The Dawn Service is over

and the Returned Servicemen are going off to breakfast at the local hall where they meet. Their numbers are less now.

My godfather, another returned man, says he is too old to be at such events. He is 97, still living alone after the death of his wife several years ago. I don't know how much longer he can do it but he is still as independent as he can be. 

ANZAC day has never been something to "celebrate" in the eyes of my godfather. When the Senior Cat was alive L.... would come here. He would sit at the kitchen table and I would make another pot of tea. L... would talk about anything but the war. He came back with a quite profound hearing loss. For the rest of his life he has only been able to hear you if it has been quiet and you speak clearly. He has aches and pains from other injuries too. The war, WWII in his case, is not over for him.

The war is long over for the ANZAC men of Gallipoli. The last soldier from the campaign died in 2002.  Is it over for their families? I doubt it.

As a teenager I met far too many men who were deeply traumatised by their service in WWII. There was not just my godfather but all the men in the "soldier settlement" where the Senior Cat was in charge of the big area school. My brother and I were made acutely aware of the trauma these men had been through as we stood with our Scout and Guide troop at the Dawn Service. Grown men do cry. They don't forget. 

There has just been a defence review in this country. We won't be told all the details. Some of it has been deemed "classified". I don't like what I have heard so far. I wish we didn't need "defence" forces at all.  I wish I had never needed to make the poppies that have gone up again on the annual display at the library.

But perhaps there is some hope for the world because T... and H... across the road have been to their first actual Dawn Service this morning and watched their father participate. Can we go on remembering? 

Mundine's myth number 4 - the Voice will only be advisory,

 courts won't give it power. 

It was the present Prime Minister himself who has said, "It will be a brave government that goes against the advice of the Voice". 

As Mundine points out the idea the Voice will only be "advisory" is nonsense. There is no point in having a voice inside the Constitution if it really is only going to be "advisory". There are a multitude of voices advising the government already. There are hundreds of organisations advising the government on aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs already.  There have been others in the past.

There have been some serious problems with all these and the Voice won't change that. It may even make matters worse.

First, more than one organisation has failed because of corruption and capacity failures within the organisations themselves. ATSIC - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is the most widely known example perhaps. It had a budget of millions of dollars but it was a financial and policy failure. Those at the top have still not faced all the charges against them.  One of the problems was that the organisation was too big, attempted to be all encompassing.

Second, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture is extraordinarily diverse. There is no single culture or language or way of thinking. It is as diverse as Iceland is from Egypt or Greece is from China. One Voice cannot speak for all aboriginal people...and yet this is what is essentially being proposed. For all the claims about the size of the Voice and the way it will work it simply will not allow many indigenous people to be heard at all. There won't be the same capacity for much smaller groups of local people to say, "This is what we need" or "We have talked together and this is what we have to tell you."

Third, those in charge at the top are not listening now. Remember those "cashless debit cards"? Many aboriginal people, particularly the women, wanted to retain them. It was not at their request the program was disbanded. It was because others saw it as "demeaning" and "paternalistic" and demanded it be disbanded. The problem is that many of those claiming it was demeaning and paternalistic are the very people the government suggests would be likely to be part of the Voice. 

The government did not listen. It was only media coverage that caused the liquor laws in one state to be changed. It was what those who should have been listened to had demanded in the first place - not what those advising the government were saying should happen. 

The idea that putting a Voice into the Constitution will actually provide the best advice and that it will be just advice and nothing more is a fantasy. It may actually leave many more without an effective means of being heard at all.