Gotta be a better way

New blog

2007-09-17T16:06:00.000+10:00

To whom it may concern,

I've decided to use my Ruby Reflections blog from now on. GBBW was supposed to be about how the world works, while RR was supposed to be more personal rants and reflections. However, I find that the two merge so much, that I'd rather form one narrative than two.

The address is rubyreflections.blogspot.com

Read it and pray for me... everything's feeling a bit fucked right now. But the other side of that is that things can only get better. I hope.

Cherry Ripe.

Hiatus

2007-05-18T17:11:00.000+10:00

Just wanted to do a quick post to explain my absence from the start of the year... I'm expecting our second baby, had to take an extra day at work and we've just bought our first house back in the city. So not a lot of time for blogging! I hope to return to the blogosphere soon...it's been fun so far.

Cherry.

Did you hear the one about the atheist and the Jew on Christmas day...?

2007-01-20T22:24:00.000+11:00

Well we've just recovered from Christmas holidays, which was supposed to be a recovery from Christmas, which was a week-long affair in our fragmented family.

Leaving that aside, just before Christmas, an interesting situation arose between some good friends of mine - twin brother and sister - which troubled me. Let's call them Joe and Josephine. They are the offspring of a devout atheist and a lapsed Jewish woman.

Josephine, in her late teens, reclaimed her Jewishness, studied judaism and found her way towards a fairly strict Jewish lifestyle. She met a nice Jewish boy, had a gorgeous wedding at a Synagogue, moved to Elsternwick and had a beautiful son. Everyone was happy for her - the twins' parents were over the moon with grandparenthood.

This year was the little one's first Hannukah, and also his first Christmas. Or it was to be... but Dad said no. This little boy is not to celebrate Christmas, as he is a Jew.

Eventually Josephine negotiated that she would be there with her family, but hubby went for a day out with the little one. This child did not celebrate Christmas with his family, and his mother could not celebrate her first Christmas with her baby.

Joe, a committed and well-versed atheist like his father, was ropable. Christmas in this family has never been about Christianity! It is a time for gathering, exchanging presents and sharing a meal. But no - this child will not be at Christmas. The twins' parents (the little one's grandparents) were heartbroken, and tried not to be angry. Joe became an even more evangelical atheist.

Both sides were deeply troubled by the situation - all except Josephine's husband, who was convinced that this was his duty as the father of a Jewish child. I thought about his point of view, as I am not Jewish. I would like to point out that I am thoroughly committed to racial and religious tolerance and understanding. I also know that every situation has multiple meanings to different people, depending on what they bring to it. So I don't wish to judge these friends of mine, but I do want to explore the issue.

With that in mind, here's an attempt at a sympathetic explanation - the Jews for thousands of years have been a stateless culture. Its strength has been in the devotion to the practices of the culture and religion, which have become one. Jewishness is not just a religion, it is a practice and an identity. It needed to be in order to survive so many troubles and challenges for so long. Millions of lives have been sacrificed now, for the sake of Jewishness. This is serious and important, these devotions must be taken very seriously, as they stand for anyone who believes in rituals, cultures and practices.

So no Christmas. This culture cannot be diluted, but must be protected.

On the other hand, this child has another family with its own history and rituals. No-one is seeking to take his Jewish rituals away, so why take away Christmas with his family? Surely - at a minimum - this is creating a situation where the child will rebel. But it's also denying the meaningful ceremonies of his family - a happy, loving, nurturing and understanding family (I know them well, and I often marvel at how startingly well-adjusted they all are). Is this extremism at its worst?

It makes me think of the case of Edgardo Mortara ,the Jewish boy who was taken away by the Inquisition because his nanny had surreptitiously baptised him. The argument was that this boy is now, in spirit and essence, catholic, and would be steeped in the catholic culture and way of life, in spite of his family. The case still inflames outrage in the Jewish community, and derailed Pope John Paul II's campaign to have Pope Pius IX beatified.

So is this little boy's family doing the same thing? Perhaps it's his father's belief in the sacrilege of celebrating other religion's rituals that drives this. But this I also don't understand - I would be honoured to celebrate any form of religious or secular holiday with my married family.

This kind of fearfulness and extremism is surely counter-productive for Jews and those who wish to understand Jewishness. As I say, I am not Jewish, so perhaps I don't understand the depth of commitment and the need for exclusivity of the Jewish faith and culture, but I don't think it can possibly help Judaism thrive in the modern world. Any religion - any discipline for that matter - needs to be challenged to remain alive. Perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps blind devotion and removing children from their heritage is necessary for cultures under threat. But I would argue that, in that case, the culture is not one which deserves respect or devotion.

Is there something I'm missing here?

A certain Mr Hall...

2007-01-08T20:16:00.000+11:00

I would like to say thank you to anyone who comments through this blog. I appreciate all comments, and don't want to put anyone off at all. But I thought that I should respond to one or two recent comments about one of my regular readers, Iain Hall.

I've looked at Mr Hall's blogs, and while I disagree with many of the views he puts, I don't find that he explains them offensively, nor that he is abusive or even particularly arrogant. This puts him outside many conservative commentators that I have read! I usually simply find that he is interested in putting forward challenging views. All of us need to be able to justify the views that we hold, and so I am always happy to have a solid, fact-based debate on issues that interest me.

In the interests of avoiding a flame war, or alternatively in the interests of diversity and debate, Mr Hall is welcome to comment on my blog, in the spirit of good bloggers, as is anyone else.

I, as before, reserve my right to moderate comments that I think are irrelevant, or unhelpful, or repetitive, or just that I don't think fit within the spirit of the debate (same goes for anyone else - I'm not interested in simply preaching to the converted).

cheers dears

What is it about feminism?

2006-11-30T13:33:00.000+11:00

I have been reading an interesting, "robust exchange of ideas" on the OzConservative blog, about domestic violence. In reading this, I was struck by the vitriol against feminists, being labelled "feminazis" and "feministas". These people seemed comfortable in mutually reassuring themselves that feminism is equal to extremism and irrationality. I was extremely disappointed. These are clearly educated young men, yet they play the (wo)man and not the ball. When my friend Legal Eagle - more conservatively inclined than I, but equally committed to rational thought - engaged in debate, she was received as a raving lunatic.

I comfortably call myself a feminist. After teaching criminal law, having a baby and attempting to re-enter the workforce, I am proudly entrenched in that position. The label is a purely historical one in some ways: I am proud of the women who have called themselves "feminists" and what that meant. I can now vote, I can work for money, and I can own property. Second wave feminism meant I can work part-time, I can refuse to spend all my time serving my husband's career, and I could get decent help if I found myself in a violent relationship. This is why I call myself a feminist, and I think that's fair enough. Just like others call themselves Aussies or Gypsies or Jews.

What it means, however is as much a question of individual beliefs as any culture or religion. I base these beliefs on my perceptions of people's behaviour, my readings of experiences, and on research. I am a feminist because I believe in a right to a good life, which takes into account the realities, and disregarding unnecessary unrealities, of "gender".

It seems that the mere concept of feminism is unacceptable to these people. My feeling is that this aggressive view belies an inability to recognise women's truths: like their need for meaningful work and meaningful parenthood, the fact of violence against them and the physical and political dominance of men. I think it is hard for a man to imagine what it feels like to be a woman in this context.

Perhaps this one example might help: I did an exercise once, in a workshop that was thinking about relations between the sexes. The background was that one woman identified that there was a man who wouldn't leave her alone when she was sunbathing and swimming by a river one day, despite her efforts at communicating that she was not interested in talking to anyone.

So we did an exercise, where the men stood in a line at one end of the room, and the women stood in line at the other. Then the men had to walk towards the women, and the women had to look a men in the eye and say "stop" when they reached the woman's personal space.

The results were interesting. Many women couldn't do it the first time, they would stop and giggle or feel uncomfortable. The men found this extraordinary - why couldn't you assert your personal space? The second time, all the women did it at the same point - about double arm's length. Interesting that this means that as the men entered touching distance, this was considered within a woman's personal space for this exercise.

On a personal level, I found it confronting to do this, even as a strong young woman. What right did I have to tell a young man not to come near me? How would he feel about that? I don't want to upset him, do I? Especially if he'd been perfectly nice to me during the day? It was very powerful and it clarified a lot of gender relations questions that I'd had up to that point. It certainly had a big impact on the men in the room. These are probably the sort of men who will go away and support White Ribbon Day.

White Ribbon Day is a way of saying to women: yes, we have listened. We don’t deny that there’s a problem. You’ve been screaming at us for a long time to get our attention: you have it now. Let's talk about this: how can we help?

I find WRD extremely reassuring, for exactly that reason.

AIC "white ribbon day" special website

2006-11-29T23:49:00.000+11:00

From the Australian Institute of Criminology - a dedicated website for white ribbon day. Just the facts, please sir...

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/women/hot-topic_white_ribbon.html

Tie a big old white ribbon up, boys!

2006-11-29T23:26:00.000+11:00

Legal Eagle posted an interesting piece on domestic violence recently. And the Daily Flute has had a hot debate over white ribbon day, which I've contributed to. So I feel it's my time to put something together on this, having had some experience in the area of domestic violence and criminal law.

Regular correspondent with Legal Eagle, Iain, wrote on his blog that:

Women who goad, nag and belittle their partners must accept some responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Perhaps, for the sake of argument, you have something of a point Iain - if you're talking about conventional relationships, which can indeed become emotionally toxic, some of which become violent, usually superficially and briefly (a chair through a window, a high-heeled shoe thrown, etc). Most of these battles, however, are fought in and out of family courts, or in gossip circles. (at the same time, men are bigger and stronger than women, so there's still no excuse... but *sigh* anyway...read on...)

In my experience prosecuting (not extensive but very in-depth), and in teaching criminal law, cases of domestic violence are not conventional relationships, but ones of malignant violence and entrapment.

Sometimes the woman in the relationship has been beaten by a father or brother in childhood, so she already knows what violence means and how impossible it is to escape from. Either that, or she has been "caught" in the situation, by a man who promised everything and then began to frighten and terrorise the woman until she is completely unable to escape out of fear for her life. (Indeed, this fear is genuine - most of the women we studied were killed when they were trying to leave. This is why I don't believe in the learned helplessness of early battered women syndrome theories)

Often - almost always - the man in question is heavily into a cocktail of drugs and/or is an alcoholic, and the beatings happen during those sessions. Either that or they are seriously troubled and insanely stressed individuals. Often these men carry illegal weapons in the house, just to refer to occasionally, if the woman threatens to leave.

Women in these situations are not "nags". They are usually asking for common needs - to know when the man will be home, for money for the kids' excursions, etc. The man feels overwhelmingly ashamed of his incapacity to care for his family, but uses rage to deflect this "criticism", as he sees it... and takes it out on his partner. Beatings are usually accompanied by rapes. As the woman becomes more terrified, the welfare of her children become her primary focus. So she sets herself up between the child and her partner and gets pummeled.

Usually she tries to leave at least once, and is found. Some of the cases show men who travel all over the country, waiting outside parents' houses, cruising streets, looking for her. Just to "show her who's boss".

This isn't being a nag, Iain. Have a look at the AIC website for the statistics, and have a look at some of the cases. Tell some of my victims when I was prosecuting that they "have to take some responsibility" for this.

Heather Osland's history was a good example of what can happen - the facts of the case are compelling. Unfortunately, her case was argued badly (the High Court - mainly McHugh J - acknowledged this), and she ended up in jail for what she did, with the real legal points left behind.

I think ordinary, gentle men try to relate to these other men, but they can't. So they try to imagine what would make them so enraged to become that violent - and they imagine that the woman must have been extremely provocative. Sorry guys, but there's other stuff going on here. This is what White Ribbon Day is all about - telling men that this is not on. That they don't actually relate to their experience. That it's F*CKED UP to treat another human being like that.

Men who do this persistently defend themselves, way beyond comprehension. None of it was their fault, it was all her fault, it was because of the kids, it was because a job fell through, you know what it's like, etc, etc. It's the same with most violent criminals. So standing up and saying "no - you're the one at fault here" could be very powerful. I support it.

On the legal points (having taught crim I hope I've got a couple of accurate observations here) - yes, the provocation cases do have a couple of female ones, but they are all examples of self-defence as provocation, not overwhelming anger. The self-defence cases were about 50/50 successful. The anger cases are all men, and all but one that we studied were successful. And they all stemmed from an inability to cope with the independence of a woman from them, be they a woman who they stalked and hardly knew, or a woman they were married to for many years (eg the Ramage case).

The true tragedy of provocation is that the evidence of the accused that he was provoked simply cannot be contested. Usually the confrontations leading up to the killing happened in private, so there were no direct witnesses. And any other evidence to suggest that the man himself was frightening the victim is generally hearsay and inadmissible. It's one of those serious imbalances in the interaction of evidence law and criminal law. Julie Ramage's sister, Vicki Ramage, wrote about this devastating principle of law, and how the facts as accepted by the court were totally contrary to what her sister had told her, about her fears for her life.

Somebody give me that hammer

2006-11-29T22:51:00.000+11:00

I have to say, I've hit the glass ceiling recently, as a part-time worker and mother of young child. It's not pleasant at 30.

Luckily I'm in the public service. Luckily in some ways... I received 13 weeks maternity leave, and I work part-time. But I've been back for a year now, after nearly 4 years of service, and despite the fact that I increased my skills while I was away by doing sessional teaching at uni (a better paid alternative to a masters), and the fact that I wrote the manuals that my colleagues, happily leapfrogging me, use for their work, I can't get ahead.

a) there are no part-time professional positions. none. You'd think the entire workplace hadn't heard of job-sharing. Lawyers in firms reckon part-time is 4 days per week.

b) You've got to be 5 times better than anyone else to be considered for a full-time position on a part-time basis.

c) There are few chances to improve your skills (and become the said 5 times better) because the quality work always goes to the full-timers.

I've been told "you'll mark time until your children are in school", I've watched equally worthy colleagues promoted again and again beyond their capability and I've seen my boss fight for their retention. But when it comes to me, he is confounded by the idea that I'm asking for a better deal, validly based on my experience.

This in the public service...

It wouldn't be so bad if the cost of living wasn't so insanely high for young families, mainly because of super-inflated housing prices (something for which I hope we will hold our governments criminally responsible one of these days). But at this stage, we can barely afford a bare block in the country. But that's for another post...

If I could coast, or "mark time", I probably would. But for me and my family, the stakes are way too high.

Lawyers, Pessimism and Depression

2006-11-17T13:06:00.000+11:00

I've been thinking a lot about my career lately, as one does at the end of each year (no, not the financial year!), so Legal Eagle's recent postings on the issue have been particularly poignant according to my poignometer.

I was in a meeting recently with a non-government organisation which I assist in running. We had a proposal brought to us to jointly run a music festival. Unfortunately, it had more holes than my best painting jeans, and a short time frame in which to plug them. The people in question were certainly well-intentioned and reasonably thorough, but I saw a number of risks. I put on my best lawyer hat and pointed out the lack of planning approval, contract drafting and provisions for insurance and security. I saw liability everywhere.

We made the right decision - to postpone the idea - but I felt like a pariah afterwards. Everyone wanted to join in and create goodwill, but I could only see the "what-ifs". For a long time afterwards I struggled with my reaction. Am I too risk-averse? What is my role here? Why do I sound so negative? Did I do the right thing?

It didn't help that the person putting the idea forward was a close friend.

The experience tapped into a whole lot of other concerns about my career choice. What is worthy about what I do? I don't save lives, I don't facilitate good and amicable dispute resolution, I don't help people feel better about themselves, and I'm not solving the hunger crisis in the world. Why do I do this? I didn't need the weight of others' perceptions of lawyers to reinforce that I felt like a bottom-feeder.

Lawyers, when practising, are dedicated pessimists - it's their job. But this can feel less than worthy, especially for those of us who feel the pain of the world heavily at times.

The year my law firm's voice broke

2006-11-16T12:26:00.000+11:00

Legal Eagle, another insightful post on that old bugbear, the law firm. They're lucky young lawyers are so insecure, because I tend to think they deserve to have a fight on their hands.

In this instance, Legal Eagle has been discussing the importance of good people management and guidance.

Clear guidance is so important to good work. When I started out as an AC, my boss used to say "the stupid questions are the most important." He always had his door open, even though he was one of the more senior lawyers in the public service.

Mind you, we didn't have to worry about 6 minute billing, being salaried in-house lawyers. It also means we didn't have a "law firm culture", rather a more modern organisational development model, which takes into account relationships between a range of parties, not just lawyers. It seems to keep things in perspective, especially since promotion tends to come from the quality of your work and experience, rather than billing hours.

From my experience working at law firms whilst studying, I generally think they are hopelessly insular and hierarchical, and full of snobbery and fragile egos. The expectations on young lawyers keep them so tired and stressed that they can't see their way clearly out other than by working, which keeps them stuck in the cycle.

So what can they do about it? Well first of all they can hire good HR managers with a brief to ensure the welfare of staff, and to foster good channels of communication between levels of seniority. Perhaps creating partnerships with organisations outside the firm would be beneficial. Salarying young lawyers is, I've heard, an excellent option for some. I know of a couple of firms that do it. But most of all, I suspect changing a firm's culture to accept responsibility for the well-being of staff - all staff equally - would make a huge difference. A good HR manager, who is supported by the partners, is extremely important.

I also wonder if the articles system is too insular - some rotations could perhaps be required, through public service or NGOs.

But are firms actually haemorrhaging young lawyers? Because it feels like everyone's saying this, but there's little motivation to change. Am I right? Are we pissing in the wind?!

If not, junior lawyers need to take a bit of a hit here too. I have also found that, in my experience, junior lawyers are divided by competition and favouritism and infantilised by their firm's treatment of them. They need to curry personal favour to get anywhere. If one wanted to take a stand against poor treatment, the others would merrily use the opportunity to get higher on the ladder. This is exactly why I chose not to work in a law firm - I saw this attitude at uni and in clerkships and part-time work, and realised that I would die working in that environment.

I had a lovely moment once: the senior partner (and namesake) of a well-known Melbourne law firm with whom I had completed a summer clerkship came to see us for a meeting - we had outsourced some legal work to them. I shook hands and he said "I know your face", so I told him I did a summer clerkship there. He apologised that I hadn't obtained articles with them, as they have such a high quality of candidates. I replied "oh that's okay, I didn't apply." My boss was aghast and the man in question went slightly pale, so it wasn't particularly good for my career but it was very satisfying.

I think that if law firms aren't going to change, young lawyers need to force their hand by moving away from law firms and trying other options, rather than pursuing partnership out of ambition, or even petty snobbery. I can't count the number of times I heard the public service put down at uni or in law firms, yet it is the most satisfying work I could ask for, and has excellent conditions now that I'm a mother. And it's work that actually, really, makes a difference to people's lives. I don't just apply the law now, I help make it. No amount of extra money can make up for that kind of satisfaction. I work to live and live to work, because my work is meaningful. I think we're fooling ourselves if we see work as a means to a good life, rather than a part of it.

But coming back to the theme, in any organisation, (and definitely in areas of the public service!) you're absolutely right: good people management is crucial, especially for junior staff. Law firms need to grow up.

Might this issue also link to your observations about lawyers and mental health...?

Reclaim the night? Reclaim the agenda

2006-11-07T16:03:00.000+11:00

Dianne Brimble lay drugged and dying in a cabin while two men raped her, shaved her public hair, took photographs of it, then went off to a cabin down the hall to share the photos with other female passengers, who laughed along with these men.

A group of teenagers in Werribee filmed the merciless and sexualised brutalising of a young woman, then packaged it and marketed it around the streets of Werribee.

Over in Sydney, Sheikh Hillaly made a speech that has left me gobsmacked for weeks. And now he is inciting marches in support of his outrageous assertions.

Well may we be outraged. As women, we have a right to be genuinely frightened. Why are men doing this, and what is this attitude that permits the utter de-humanising of another person? And what can we do about it?

We may ask ourselves: who are these people, who can treat another person like that? I find this behaviour astonishing. But in contemplating these events I'm trying to remain interested in why this is happening. I see something greater: what is the culture that we are creating? Why is there no empathy between people so that they can be treated like a "piece of catmeat"?

First, I should say that I will not countenance any argument that humiliating, assaulting or raping women is because of an uncontrollable sex drive. If your sex drive is that bad, have a good w*nk and get some counselling, because this is not sex - this is dehumanising, assaulting and commiting an atrocity against another human being.

But where are the men? I want them to talk to other men about how outrageous this behaviour is, but they close ranks. I feel sometimes like we are screaming inside a cone of silence. Yes, before I hear your protests, good men also feel this way, sometimes very intensely out of horror and shame for the behaviour of their brothers. The fact of an assault can drive good, peaceable, respectful men to contemplate physical violence against other men. But what I'm talking about is a systemic problem, which seems to stem from a deep suspicion of - or utter contempt for - women. How is it that any group of men can countenance treating women like this?

I have spoken to a friend who is a social worker and she has noticed men - sometimes literally, because she works with military families - closing rank on women who have alleged assault or sexual assault against their partners or others. Surely a real man would say "Yes I'm your mate, but what you did was pretty f*cked up", rather than "she's off her rocker". She said the women in question often feel assaulted for a second time, by being effectively accused of being crazy, scheming, lying or malicious, when she was simply a victim of violence who told someone. Naturally, it means others don't tell, and the violence continues.

Interestingly, in the same week as the Hillaly comments, VicHealth released a report into attitudes to violence against women, entitled two steps forward, one step back. Despite finding that most men disagree with using any forms of physical violence against women (a marked improvement since 1995), this study also found that there remained concerning numbers of people who held attitudes which may condone or trivialise violence against women or undermine efforts to address it:

nearly one in four respondents disagreed with the statement that ‘women rarely make up false claims of being raped’ and a further 11% were unsure;
approximately one in six people agreed that in relation to sex ‘women often say no when they mean yes’ and a further 8% were unsure; and
just over one in ten people believe that women who are sexually harassed should sort it out themselves.
nearly two in five respondents agreed that ‘rape results from men not being able to control their need for sex’.

Further findings were that "despite evidence to the contrary, there is a high level of belief that men and women are equally likely to perpetrate domestic violence and that women often falsify claims of domestic violence to gain tactical advantage in cases of contested child custody."

In 2004, a study by VicHealth and the Victorian DHS showed that physical violence is the largest preventable health risk for women aged 15-44 years, and the biggest single cause of death in that age range.

The 2005 Personal Safety Survey, a rigorous national study based on face-to-face interviews with over 17, 00 Australians, found that:
• one in three women had experienced physical violence since the age of 15;
• nearly one in five women had experienced sexual violence since the age of 15; and
• 16% of women had experienced violence by a current or previous partner since the age of
15 (ABS 006).

I recently taught a subject about crime at a large university. I showed my students statistics from reliable sources such as the ABS and the AIC indicating a massive problem that is not being reported, or not being dealt with by the justice system, and one that is not really abating.

Our class was divided: those who saw how prevalent sexual assault is - who saw it as a massive unredressed issue in social morality and social policy, and those who genuinely believed that sexual assault allegations should be treated with the utmost scepticism and interrogation, out of concern for the reputation of the alleged assaulter. These are educated, English-speaking, intelligent kids. What is it about?

Here's a theory: we're currently going through a period of intense self-justification and narcissism. Nobody needs to apologise for anything, be it road rage, state-sponsored abduction (ie the "stolen generation"), illegally going to war, systematically lying to constituents, or accepting political donations and plum jobs after holding public office. Ethics shmethics (...try saying that 5 times fast...). Bugger accountability, and bugger Westminister. Put principles on hold, I'm trying to ram through my own agenda. Screw her, she's just a slapper. It's all about me.

On the other hand, there's the "I'm relaxed and comfortable. I'm not getting involved. It's all too hard" perspective, which is the other, defeatist side of the narcissism coin. Apathy.

The VicHealth report made a number of recommendations for change, but it seems to me that what is needed is an enormous, elephantine effort in shifting our own culture to a less comfortable, but more trusting and healthy place. But in an environment where an award-winning, hard-hitting campaign to change our understanding of abusive relationships (the "No respect no relationship" campaign) was filtered down, given the runaround and had its key byline changed, I wonder what hope we have.

----------------------------------------------

Just an aside: Legal Eagle, in response to the question "where are the feminists?" is concerned that fears of Islamophobia have silenced many feminists in response to the Hilaly speech. I don't tend to agree. I think it's actually a sign about understanding that the voice of radical conservative islam is best countered by other islamic voices; which have indeed been loud in criticism. Perhaps we need to support them too.

An inconvenient truth?

2006-11-03T15:05:00.001+11:00

"KIWIFRUIT BLAMED FOR GLOBAL WARNING" (Page 1 headline,
Taranaki Daily News - 31/10/2006)

Poms say the humble Kiwifruit is responsible for
discharging carbon emissions into the atmosphere by flying
the fruit into Britain. Aussies can relax now they have
found the real cause of the widespread drought conditions,
a spokesman said, “We knew the Kiwis were behind it some
how”.

Abuse of power

2006-10-30T10:33:00.000+11:00

I just read this article, and found that it reflected my thoughts precisely on recent legislative efforts by the federal government (and some states).

Canberra Times (Australia)
October 30, 2006 Monday Final Edition

Arbitrary use of power poisons the rule of law
The Canberra Times

THE CHIEF Justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, said in the keynote address at a recent judicial conference that the core value reflected in the pledge given by those seeking Australian citizenship was to uphold the rule of law.

This phrase has been used often in the discussion about how to deal with terrorism.
It is argued by critics of government policy that the rule of law is ignored by anti-terrorist legislation here and in the US.

A terrorist act is defined in the ACT Terrorism (Extraordinary Powers) Act 2006.
It involves conduct that disregards the rule of law and an intention to change government or other lawful authority by unlawful and dangerous means.

The Chief Justice explained that, "The rule of law is not merely a formal concept, satisfied by the existence of any form of legal authority governing in accordance with rules, no matter how repressive or unjust they might be. It is only if people know in advance the rules by which conduct is permitted or forbidden that they are free to set their personal goals and decide how to pursue them."

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights - other than in the ACT and Victoria - which spells out what the basic freedoms we should expect are. We have rights that are implied from custom and usage and may be ascertained by knowing what the law is and asking whether the conduct is prohibited.

Legislation creating crimes which applies to past conduct, which was not then a crime, is an obvious example of ignoring the rule of law.

The US Congress has recently agreed to do this to make sure detainees such as David Hicks can be charged and be liable to be convicted for past conduct. The US Administration had failed to do this under existing law as a result of the decision of the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Now a person who in the past had been fighting with the Taliban, then the ostensible government of Afghanistan, against co-belligerents of the US - such as the Northern Alliance apparently were - is an unlawful combatant. This makes activity that is expected of soldiers, like shooting at the enemy, a war crime and enables charges such as murder or attempted murder to be brought. If it was not retrospective it may still be capable of criticism but to pass legislation aimed to catch conduct that has already occurred is to ignore the rule of law.

Further, any person so charged such as David Hicks may be, will be tried by a commission chosen by his accusers, which may accept evidence from persons not called to be cross-examined, including statements made involuntarily as a result of activity now not called torture but which itself would be unlawful if practised by ordinary citizens. Such statements would be excluded in our courts.

Lawyers use the expression 'the rule of law' but do not explain it. Former premier of Queensland, the late Jo Bjelke-Petersen, when asked what he understood by the expression 'the separation of powers' said words to the effect of, "You tell me and I will tell you if you are right."
'The rule of law' is said by legal historians to have been developed in the Middle Ages in England. It has been defined to mean, the exercise of powers of government shall be conditioned by law and that the subject shall not be exposed by the arbitrary will of a ruler.

Professor A.V. Dicey, an English writer of the late 19th and early 20th century, is said to have been the most influential writer on the subject. He said "it means in the first place the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power". It also meant "equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts". The third meaning was that "the law of the constitution, the rules which in foreign countries notionally form part of a constitutional code are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced by the courts". Free access to the courts of justice, he said, was an efficient guarantee against wrongdoers.

The core value of our democracy, which we seek for ourselves and for all people, including our rulers, is the subjection of all equally to objective and known laws.

No one doubts the threat of terrorism or the need for our rulers to protect us and others from it. To confront it by imposing arbitrary rules and retrospective laws or by engaging in conduct that may be described as torture in its dictionary meaning is to ignore the rule of law.

It is a recurring lesson of history that if people are treated unfairly and denied the rule of law they will resist and resort to terrorism to fight such oppression. The 1916 Irish rebels received little support and were easily defeated, but the manner of their subsequent treatment and execution galvanised the country to fight using new and terrorist-like tactics, as portrayed in the films Michael Collins and The Wind that shakes the Barley.

Our Federal Government tells us that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has not increased the threat of terrorism. It may not necessarily be only the involvement that explains the unrelenting and increasing insurgency in Iraq, but it will not be improved if it is administered in an unfair and arbitrary manner without regard to the rule of law.

While it is in the interests of our national security to have the US as a close ally and friend, we, as friends, should protest when the rule of law is ignored, as Britain has done to some extent.

In short, while David Hicks may have been guilty of conduct that we regard as unacceptable we must seek to give him and everyone freedom from arbitrary and retrospective rules - in the same way US citizens are entitled to be treated in the US and Australian citizens are entitled to be treated in Australia - and free access to ordinary courts.

These principles are enshrined in the Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The US Congress has agreed to ignore these international agreements to which its country is a party.

It is the obligation not just of lawyers but of all of us to uphold the rule of law because it is what enables freedom from tyranny and fair treatment for all.

Bryan Meagher, SC, is a Canberra barrister.

October 29, 2006

Burqas and workers

2006-10-23T09:33:00.000+10:00

I was delighted to read Legal Eagle's latest posting on women who wear burqas.

I am concerned that a this kind of reaction puts a woman, who already suffers under a fierce form of patriarchy, in an extremely difficult position. Muslim women from fundamentalist families find it difficult enough to be financially independent, without further barriers placed in their way.

In some ways the burqa is a way of "seeing without being seen", akin to Hamlet's madness. However, it is not entirely self-imposed: the woman who wears the burqa in the streets of Melbourne is usually terrified not to, for fear of social (and possibly physical) consequences.
The headscarf alone does, indeed, appear to be a sign of modesty before God. But the full burqa is usually not self-imposed, rather it is quietly accepted amongst muslim women.

I guess employment is one way for women who are so oppressed that they must wear it to find their way out of that oppression.

The broader point is that you don't always know what's going on in someone's life. I get nervous about blaming the woman in this scenario - you may be creating further disadvantage to an already disadvantaged person.

Why not give her the job on probation! If it doesn't work, you can always end the contract. But you might have employed the most dedicated teaching assistant around, and changed someone's life immeasurably.

I agree that not seeing someone's face is a disturbing experience, but perhaps challenges in communication make us better at communicating. And it could be a very good experience for children in two ways:

1) children from Muslim families recognise that they can be part of working society, and
2) children not from Muslim families can realise that there is a person behind the veil.

The biggest losers...

2006-10-20T22:31:00.000+10:00

Sometimes I wonder about our obsession with low-fat diets. Isn't the problem that we all sit on our arses all day long?

Maybe that's what I'm doing now... I'd better get up. Time to go and eat some cheese...mmm...

Editorial "balance"

2006-10-20T21:56:00.000+10:00

I'm sick of the ABC being bashed around the ears about "balance". The ABC has plenty of "balance". What the Government wants is complicity.

The ABC may be left-wing: this is natural. It is a public institution, a creation of big government. Similarly, commercial media is naturally right-wing, or small government. This has been the natural balance in Australia's media during my lifetime.

However, this insistence on having extreme right-wingers on the ABC for "balance" is not only upsetting the overall balances in the media, but is injecting a dangerous element of anti-debate and anti-intellectualism into the ABC.

To date, the so-called right-wing commentators on the ABC have not been genuine debaters, but people who play the man and not the ball, and who regard politics as a team sport, whereby loyalty to the Howard Government is blind and all-consuming. Including Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman in current affairs is akin to publishing the Little Red Book as a miniseries. These people cannot debate sensibly. They have no commitment to the truth. They have no commitment to fair and open debate. They get pissed off every time they are challenged and they insist on browbeating everyone else. Then they use unilateral media types (usually the printed media, where no-one can argue back) to can the ABC for suppressing diversity!

I have become increasingly concerned at the Federal Government's reckless disregard for the fundamental element of open and honest debate in a democracy. It seems this is being extended to the ABC in every way possible, including appointing Keith Windschuttle (Aussie Keith reckons blackfellas were treated quite nicely by Europeans) and Janet Albrechtsen (most canned journalist for plagiarism in Media Watch in 2001) to the board of the ABC. Again, these are people with no commitment to open, rigourous, public debate.

This is dangerous: the control of information is the first step to dictatorships. Power tends to corrupt, etc... these guys have been in way too long.

Setting a good example...

2006-10-20T21:20:00.000+10:00

I'm sorry - did I hear wrong, or is the federal government trying to tell me they have the credibility to set a standard school curriculum?

Let's look at some examples of fundamentals that I'd like my daughter to learn, and the Howard government's best examples of these:

Compassion: destroying the lives of children and the most vulnerable - refugees and escapees - by cruel, often indefinite, detention... Letting asylum seekers drown rather than destroy our "values".... etc

Respect for the rule of law: Flagrantly ignoring the federal court's decision that the Tampa should dock after saving people in distress from drowning. Excising large portions of Australia's land mass from immigration laws.

Honesty: need I say anything on this one...

Respect for democratic values: misusing and constraining parliament's ability to scrutinise vitally important Bills in the upper house.

Belief in fair and open public debate: Appointing Janet Albrechtsen and Keith Windschuttle to the board of the ABC.

Respect for a diversity of views: slashing the ABC's budget, then stacking the board.

Understanding of others: cutting Centrelink benefits for single mothers and those with illnesses. Employing a policy of "breach first, ask questions later".

Intellectual rigour: Deporting AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS for speaking the wrong language and having a mental illness.

I'd rather have my mad uncle teach my darling daughter about life. At least he knows he's crazy.

A slight return...

2006-10-20T21:17:00.001+10:00

Apologies to my (couple of) loyal readers... I have been very tardy in my blogging. This happens occasionally - my despair at the world gets the better of me and I can't even begin to think where to write. But a recent announcement by the federal "education" minister was one I couldn't leave alone...

States and Religions

2006-08-22T10:09:00.000+10:00

Apologies to all those who are champing to read my thoughts (!!)... having a young family with the flu is one of life's more unpleasant experiences.

I have just been reading Legal Eagle's very impressive rant about anti-semitism.

It occurs to me that this is a problem wherever states represent religions. Israel is one such state. Iran's actions under the Ayatollah, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, tended to lead to generalisations about Islam (I remember being taken to see Not Without my Daughter at school, and being horrified by what I thought were the necessary consequences of Islam).

Similarly, Protestants and Catholics were persistently tarred with the actions of Northern Ireland (and England) and the Republic of Ireland respectively during the Northern Irish conflicts.

This is one reason for the separation of religion and state. Of course, the contrary argument is that states are there to protect a people with some form of common need or culture or ideology. Be that as it may, that people or members of that religion may need to wear the fact that their representative state will in fact represent them.

This is no excuse for racism. Nor is it an excuse for wilful ignorance of such events as the Holocaust. But the actions of Israel do bring succour to those willing to be antisemitic, just as the actions of Iran or the Taliban generate Islamophobia.

Indeed, this phenomenon extends to any state which claims to represent a particular ideology. The communism of East Germany, Russia, China and Cuba are each entirely different manifestations of a political system based on marxism. However, the actions of the worst offenders are always equated to the ideology itself.

The moral of the story? If a culture or religion explicitly uses a state as a means of expression and protection of their people, that people must take responsibility for the actions of that state, and instead of saying "we're jews; we're different from Israel", say "we're jews; and as such we oppose the actions of Israel".

Then again, I confess I am a secular woman in a (supposedly) secular state. I have never experienced the feelings of those with a deep connection to a state outside my own, nor have I ever experienced the desperate need for protection within my own people. These are the constraints on my views, and I willingly acknowledge them.

ABC update

2006-08-08T15:08:00.000+10:00

More articles about ABC skimping and money making centres...these guys are unbelievable - they've got to be very highly geared by now. Plus they're making big political donations in return for favours, but what happens when the government changes? What are communities going to do if they go under? Let's hope they're not the Enron of childcare...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/minister-you-help-us-well-help-you/2006/08/05/1154198378638.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/abc-learning-centres-buys-us-childcare-group/2006/08/08/1154802859854.html

"Natural" parenting

2006-08-08T12:33:00.000+10:00

Boy, this blog business is exciting! It's a pity the kid doesn't spend more time playing with Duplo and toilet training herself. And vice-versa... which brings me to...

On "natural parenting"...

I confess, I was a big fan of natural parenting. Until I had a baby.

Natural parenting has strong advocates - Pinky McKay is a popular advocate of this approach to parenting and has written several books on it, the main one being "parenting by heart". Penelope Leach is a better known but more moderate advocate of this approach to raising children. Practitioners such as the well-known Dr Sears and his wife are strong advocates of this approach.

"Natural parenting" goes something like this: babies need to be close to their mothers at all times (preferably in a sling or something), for as long as possible. They should be breastfed until they feel that they no longer need it. They should "co-sleep" (sleep in the same bed) with their parents (safely), and they should never, never be left to cry - their behavioural troubles can be sorted out once you can talk them through, when they're 2 or 3.

I'm limiting this to a discussion of behavioural approaches to children - this is leaving aside ideas about medical "natural" parenting, such as using homeopathy instead of vaccination (which I do think is ludicrous), or using probiotics instead of antibiotics (which is not so ludicrous when done in an evidence-based way).

The problem with "natural parenting" is the persistent confusion between it and "attachment parenting". Attachment parenting is extremely important for children: we know that children who have compassionate, loving and strong relationships with at least one caregiver for the first 5 years are more resilient, intelligent, loving, confident and healthy than children who do not. (this is, in part, why I have so many concerns about this child care generation... but that's for another post).

When my daughter was born, I slept in bed with her much of the time. It felt perfect - a small, warm, trusting bundle to protect and nurture in my arms. This was a very important part of bonding with my baby, especially since she was an "unexpected arrival". I began to rock her to sleep whenever she cried, feed her to sleep, and do all those things that newborns want you to do.

When she was four months, however, the pattern became more demanding. She wanted to breastfeed all night (babies love breastfeeding, can't get enough of it). I would sleep with her crooked in one arm, always half-awake so that nothing happened to her. I gradually became more and more exhausted.

I had two older women friends at the time. One was a "primal therapist" who worked counselling children, but who did not have any of her own. She would tell me all the theories about how early childhood "trauma" affects mental health throughout life (a partial truth), and led me to believe I would do my child terrible emotional damage that will come back to haunt her if I let her cry. Meanwhile, I was becoming delusional and emotional with tiredness.

The other had raised six children. She told me that we needed to do controlled crying, because it works. My daughter was waking every 2 hours. By 3am she would be back in bed with us. My shoulder was packing it in from cradling a baby. My back was suffering from breastfeeding in bed. After 10 months of less than 3 hours sleep in a row (I was also teaching at uni at the time - utter madness), we went to sleep school.

And she cried. She howled. She roared. She screamed and she sobbed. I would go in to settle her every few minutes, and she would try to climb up my arm. It was awful. But after 2 hours of hell, she went to sleep. The next time, the screaming was worse, but she went to sleep after 1 and a half hours - sitting up, holding the bars of the cot. My heart was breaking, but I clung to the program - 2 minutes, 4 minutes, 6, 8, 10. My greatest motivation was seeing the toddlers there - they were so much worse. I thought: I have to get on top of this while I can.

After 3 nights, she started sleeping for 4-5 hour stretches, in her own bed. After a week, she was sleeping from 8pm-4am, then until 6. I was getting enough sleep. I would get up in the morning with her and be able to play with her - and I loved it! I loved her more than I ever had. I rejoiced in her new little personality traits, unfolding like petals before my eyes. We attached to each other more strongly than ever.

I haven't looked back: she's still a poor sleeper by nature, always wanting to be up with us, but she knows that we're in control and that there's a time when everybody sleeps, including her. Occasionally at night I'll hear her saying listing all the things that sleep at night: "mummy 'leep, daddy 'leep, nanna 'leep, bear 'leep, train 'leep".

I felt so let down by natural parenting. I felt abandoned, in fact. When I was exhausted and on the verge of breaking down everything in my life, including my relationship with the father of my child, natural parenting gave me nothing but "press on, in the interests of your child", without any consideration of my needs.

I note that Penelope Leach, in the most recent version of Baby and Child (a wonderful book on many accounts), begrudgingly acknowledges the value of controlled crying as a last resort, but still doesn't seem to understand how horrible extreme sleep deprivation can be for parents, and how a clear program can help overcome it.

But once you abandon "natural parenting", there are fears of returning to the 50s and 60s, when mothers were advised not to cuddle their little boys too much, so they don't become sissies...

In fact, there is a sensible middle ground, which allows mothers to enjoy their children's company, and to love them to bits - the most important need of all - without destroying themselves. Even if leaving a baby to cry is traumatic for them, it is far more traumatic to be growing up with a detached, resentful or depressed mother.

On having educated opinions about the Middle East...

2006-07-24T16:00:00.000+10:00

I'd like to refer my readers (all one or two of you) to legal eagle's article about the Middle East conflict. Educated lass that she is. Highly enlightening.

On "cultural relativism" and supposed sympathies to Islam...

2006-07-20T10:07:00.000+10:00

I'd like to have a brief rant following Legal Eagle's critique of "cultural relativism", and its apparent sympathy for Islam in particular.

First, I am surprised that LE has come to these conclusions, and used these terms to describe them. In my experience, the concept of "cultural relativism" is a useful construct of neo-conservatism, rather like "political correctness". It's a way of criticising an argument by claiming that there is a flawed, overarching theory guiding it, and anyone who does not subscribe to the theory is not part of "the left".

I see no such theory in "the left" that I know. Perhaps as an undergraduate we all toyed with the Nietszchian (sp?) idea that "the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth", and its implications for public policy. Indeed, such post-modern understandings strongly influenced some very successful shifts in public policy and non-government approaches, which meant that do-gooders all over the (developing) world now "do-good" by listening and facilitating, rather than preaching, with largely far better results for those being helped.

However, in fact, it is possibly when "the left" forget to listen and collaborate that they do the most harm (ref Aboriginal policies of the 70s-80s).

Nevertheless, of all the people I know on "the left" - from activists to apparatchiks - I know very few who would justify human rights abuses, torture and oppression against anyone.

Second, Islam is, as far as I can see, given extremely short shrift when it comes to public opinion and scrutiny. In Australia there are a number of churches and religions which preach very oppressive dogma about women and lesbians/gay men - from orthodox judaism to christian fundamentalism, even catholic fundamentalism (which should be an oxymoron). I see no public scrutiny or criticism of these preachings and practices anywhere in the public sphere. Yet there is continuous debate and conjecture about the preachings and practices of Islam.

On Dubya...

2006-07-20T09:39:00.000+10:00

As my work colleague said yesterday "he's illiterate, he's corrupt and he's stupid." She forgot to add "hypocritical":

Preaches DEMOCRACY but rigs his own elections and then seeks a court injunction to stop votes from being counted;
Preaches FREEDOM but keeps people in detention for years without charge or trial
Preaches the RULE OF LAW but transfers people to offshore ships for torture to avoid oversight of the courts of any country
Preaches LIBERTY but passes the Patriot Act, an incredibly invasive scheme of surveillance over American people.

What the HELL is going on in the Middle East?

2006-07-20T09:29:00.000+10:00

For GBBW, this is ripe for discussion. The trouble is, I never feel like I know enough to comment on this. So forgive me for this incoherent babble, but it's the only way that I know to start this conversation without completely alienating people.

Am I completely wrong, or have these people lost all sense of the value of human life (other than of their own people - which is meaningless without recognising the humanity of all others).

I have so many questions on this:

* is this a "double siege", like Northern Ireland was for so long - two sides each feeling "besieged" by the other?
* Is there no longer any truth, just two realities crashing into each other?

It seems that each side is just so ANGRY with the other! But they have so much - so much - in common. Why can no-one turn to the hard work of conciliation? There are many ways that this can be worked on, for the sake of the civilians involved. I know a number of practitioners in dispute resolution and group facilitation. I've seen it work on a small scale. Where are our international practitioners? This stuff works - why is violence not a last resort? Surely both peoples know the tragedy of suffering from violence?

We continue to make specious excuses for all sides:
"they don't know any better" - this is rubbish, these are often highly educated people
"They fear the other" - this is only getting worse right now
"They suffer insufferable provocation" - this seems to be something both sides have in common as well.

Where are our armies of humanitarians? Of stern, fair, loving mothers and fathers?

And - let me put this on the line - why can't a powerful, educated, wealthy country like Israel offer conciliation, access and aid for Palestine? Surely somebody has to break this stand-off. Kindness and understanding is surely our greatest weapon in a "war on terror" (an oxymoron if ever I heard one mind you)

Is it that we cannot resolve it? Or is it - more frighteningly for humanity - that we will not?

On teaching...

2006-07-20T09:26:00.000+10:00

Students. Total bastards. Love them to bits.

On blogging...

2006-07-20T09:18:00.000+10:00

How extraordinary. Somebody wants to read what I have to write.

I originally had this feeling that a blog was a kind of radical diary, untraceable and protected, freely unilateral. But reader, here you are! Turning up on my doorstep, wet and cross. Dear reader, how can I not oblige with my digital binary version of a hot chocolate, an open fire and a sincere apology.

At the same time, this is no reason for narcissism. On the contrary - it is not I that the reader cares for, it is the medium itself. Blogging must be honoured! How interesting... How exciting... I had no idea...

Onward, to the breach! Blogs away!

Just when you though TV execs couldn't get any stupider...

2006-07-18T14:39:00.000+10:00

This article made me crack up, which is completely heartless I know... Do you think they skimped on their due diligence?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/show-on-thin-ice/2006/07/17/1152988477396.html

2006-07-06T21:19:00.000+10:00

I have a confession to make. This blog is moving very slowly. A large part of the reason for this is the magnificent efforts of my fellow blogger and friend, Legal Eagle, who writes the blog Legal Soapbox.

Unfortunately many of my intended efforts are being sucked away by this extremely diligent blogger! I simply can't help but respond!

Perhaps we should just try and catch up more, but for consideration of many of the issues that trouble me about the world, check it out.

ABC Learning and money making centres

2006-06-20T10:42:00.000+10:00

Some links specifically on ABC learning centres... more links to come on the issue as a whole...

Australia Institute - think tank run by Clive Hamilton:

April 2006 report on corporate vs community child care (summary only):
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/DP_Files/DP84%20Summary.pdf

2006 follow-up specifically on ABC Learning (full):
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/DP_Files/DP87.pdf

Article in The Age outlining numerous complaints about ABC Learning centres:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/04/02/1143916408899.html

and more recently...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/03/31/1143441339454.html

Article in SMH on ABC Learning Centres:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/10/1141701698670.html

Transcript from SBS Insight:

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/archive.php (click on "Minding the Kids" in the drop-down box)

Transcript from 7.30 report:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1622919.htm

bubhub forum (now closed but others are up and running) on ABC Learning Centres -worth a look for some of the stories.
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=13121

ABC Learning and scrimping centres

2006-06-20T10:23:00.000+10:00

OK now I've figured out how to edit this thing (for a second time), I want to have a rant about something that's driving me crazy: the corporatisation of our child care centres and, in particular, the dominance of ABC "Learning".

How on earth did we get to the point where our kids are just commodities for shareholder profit? Is it because we're all too damn busy paying the rent/mortgage to worry about our kids' welfare? Or is it the substantial donations that Eddy Groves pays to the Queensland Liberal Party?

Our local child care centre is being outsourced to ABC this year, and I'm very upset about it. Some ABC centres are okay, from what I hear, but it's an uphill battle on behalf of staff and parents just to have a half-decent food budget, equipment, and staff conditions.

Everything in the public policy arena in the past 5 years has pointed to the extremely high benefits from excellent early childhood programs: in the long term they cost less and have greater effectiveness than intervention programs later in life. Yet we've somehow abandoned our little kids to market forces and spiv profiteers!

ABC and other chains (most of which are now owned by ABC) claim that good care is keeping their profits up. This is utter crap. What they do is not legitimate competition: instead they corner a market. This is what they're doing in my town - buying up the child care centres so there's no choice. This is how they make their profits, it's got nothing to do with quality of service.

Here's what I'd like to see: top priority for leasing unused state land to parent-run groups for child care centres, particularly in regional areas. I would further like to see support and training for parents who are volunteering to run community child care centres, with regional boards like health boards as overseers.

The system is in desperate need of overhaul: economic imperatives on parents are leaving our beautiful children vulnerable to systemic neglect. Luckily we are in a position to care for our daughter almost full-time, but she loves the contact with the other kids at our local child care, 2 mornings per week. This is what child care should be: the equivalent of kindergarten.

I worry for the next generation. I wouldn't choose Eddy Groves or his wife as one-off babysitters, let alone the keepers of a quarter of the country's children in care.

2006-05-23T12:28:00.000+10:00

OK we have our first topic - very exciting and thank you to legal eagle for this one...

"Hey hey! What do you reckon about the plans for public transport etc in Melbourne? I know you drive, ride a bike and use public transport so I think you'd be a good person to comment. The thing that really gives me the irrits about PT in Melbourne is the way that nothing connects up, and if you want to get anywhere other than the city, it's impossible and takes hours."

Public Transport in Melbourne - tell me what you really think!

There's gotta be a better way...

2006-05-18T22:32:00.000+10:00

Hi! Welcome to my blog. I often find myself reading the papers and thinking "Why is this so bad? Surely there's gotta be a better way to do this!" This could be on anything from the environment to urban design to international affairs. The idea is that this is a place where we can talk about "better ways" to do things. It's deliberately naive: often the response you get when suggesting ideas for changing things is rolled eyes, or an accusation that you are "idealistic" or naive. I want to hear the idealists! And I kind of am one. And I write too many letters to newspapers, and thought I should just have my own blog, so here it is.