Caution about intolerance

Although it looks as though Abbott will pressure the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate to backdown on not allowing  women wearing Islamic religious dress to sit in the Gallery opf the Parliament; It remains to be seen if that will actually happen. 

I suspect it will. But we shall see.

The Abbott machine has obviously sussed out very quickly that the community is "not very happy" about the arbitrary erosion of religious freedom

One of the great problems is that the non religious community is pretty unaware of what such things are all about. And often use such issues for expressions of fear, intolerance and....frankly    ignorance.

Most of us, for example, are not aware that there is a variety of religious garb...quite a good article on the ABC News website here.

I also have often made the observation that you don't have to go very far to find that the sort of criticisms that today are offered about Islam, or Judaism, Hare Krishnas...could just as easily be fired at Christians.

The typical characterisation of "cults" for example...that people sell up their lives and give their money to the faith body; make acts of commitment and ultimate obedience....could just as easily be aimed at many Christians.

Indeed I make the observation : would nuns of the most conservative Christian traditions (like the one that Senator Bernardi and Mr Abbott belong to) also be banned because their bodies and faces can't be readily identified.

I know that lots of modern nuns don't wear habits at all. And most people don't understand what they are all about it. Some of it is anachronistic (see below)...but in a pluralistic and democratic society people are allowed to choose to be religiously conservative ...even if you or I would not choose to be so.

Why Rudd had to go!

I personally don't think that Rudd was dealt with harshly by his party.

He got what he deserved because he had forgotten that as PM it is not incumbent upon him to tell others to jump and for them to respond "How high?", but rather to lead a team. He clearly didn't do that. And the team eventually revolted.

When asked by my keenly observant 16 year old who said "I don't understand why they got rid of Rudd, why did they do that?"

My reply was simple.

"He had forgotten that he was so supposed to work with people and just chose to do what he liked." I am glad that we live in a democracy that calls this sort of behaviour out.

The crap that passes for democracy

I was watching question time yesterday while I was having my lunch.

The Leader of the Opposition began by trying to move an urgency debate....leave wasn't granted...it took 20 minutes to go through the process because instead of taking the refusal on the voices the Opposition insisted on a division. Then the seconder, Joe Hockey, was gagged but in the 30 seconds allowed before the Leader of the House (Albanese) got to his feet Hockey screamed in a most unparliamentary way ...what must the Gallery have thought of democracy in action.

Then the erstwhile member for Kennedy, wild-cannon Bob Katter, got up and did the same. Again although it was obvious the gag was going to applied...we had to have three divisions...and this time a 10 second rant from the leader of the Nationals. What game playing (on both sides). Another 20 mins

I toyed with the idea of trying to calculate how much it actually cost to have the whole House of Reps sitting around on their backsides playing meeting procedure...but I'll leave that up to you

Most receiving a salary in excess of $120,000 per annum. And generous allowances

If you assume they may work 60 hours a week for 48 weeks of the year then each person's posturing cost $40 or so and there are 150 of them

Of course not all were present!!

And some are paid much more.

This doesn't also allow for the staff of the House.

Or the costs of running it.

So I didn't bother!

For those who think Question Time is a waste any way.

Well yesterday was even worse.

By some chance I happened to be awake after midnight when it was being replayed. Fortunately they had the good sense to not replay the crap that passed for democracy yesterday afternoon

Interesting nonsense

There is an interesting toing-and-froing about my previous entry concerning the visit of the latest monarchist heartthrob (here).

I make the point in comments that having seen "Invictus" last night that some countries do manage to get good leaders (eventually) and cite Mandela as case in point.

My issue (from the previous post) about the monarchy is that it is essentially unjust, and unfair to give people authority and power on the basis of "accident of birth".

It seems to be nonsense to entrench injustice at the highest level of government.

There are of course many injustices and corruptions that flow into leadership struggles, not the least of which is the influence of big money and political parties.

My combatant suggests that Mandela is good because he is actually 'royalty' of the African kind.

The truth is, whether royalty or not, he was still elected.

It seems ludicrous to me that a country like ours should even consider having as head of state someone who is not a citizen of our land. (Whether 'royal' or not, Mandela was a South African...the Windsors are not Australians).

A person, even with dual citizenship, is excluded from being a Senator in the Federal Parliament unless they renounce their citizenship of the alien land. And rightly so.

I do not see monarchists even faintly suggesting that anyone of Aboriginal royal descent should be promoted as potential King or Queen of Australia! The idea has certain appeal!

Putting all that aside, it is easy to get distracted by seductive niggling arguments which divert us.

But, fundamentally, I cannot see that any nation should have as its leader someone who is the citizen of another country.

Whilst allowing for the fact that most systems have deep flaws I also cannot see that the leader should just become so because of accident of birth. At the very least the particular candidate, whether monarch or president or governor, should have some sort of popular approval...probably by a majority of votes in favour (whether of the populace or the Parliament)

Parliamentary Reform

I agree with Business SA (The Advertiser 11 January) that we need serious parliamentary reform in South Australia. But I don't quite understand how the abolition of compulsory voting would add to this, unless we want to encourage people not to take an interest in how we are governed or what our elected representatives get up to, which seems the very opposite of what is being proposed by the business lobby.

It is trite to say, as Peter Vaughan apparently does, that 'democracy' requires the abolition of compulsory voting. Democracy requires responsibility, and the key responsibility for the elector is to vote.

In the end we are not required to vote for any one particular person or party in Australia, we may choose to exercise our democratic responsibility and vote informal. But it is to our credit as a nation and as a state that all adults are permitted to vote and are required to act responsibly by so doing.

Foxes find holes

A story doing the rounds in the US press (here) about the erstwhile Iraqi veteran who, in declaring himself to be atheistic, finds himself under attack from his alleged comrades (perhaps not a word you would use in the Amercian military).
Having to be put under protection because of his open atheism, there are huge questions here about what sort of society America actually promotes when it can't even tolerate a modicum of difference amongst its own.
We are not talking here apparently about a couple of fundies from the wild hills of Kentucky..or is that Dakota...or are they Black Hills...but you get the point. But ranking officers who tell an atheist who doesn't want to pray that he is some how threatening the glorious constitution, or that when a couple of them want to meet together to discuss their common plight they are some how threatening the war effort.
It makes the Australian Christian Lobby (here) look positively smart by comparison.
More significantly it suggests how ill-founded this particular Iraqi war is.
In the minds of many in power not about democracy at all, but about some curious religious view which doesn't tolerate difference even amongst its own.
The problem is not that people shoudn't be allowed to hold whacky or inconsistent views; the problem is that when it is officers who hold people's lives in the palms of their hands, and they are manifestly confused about what they are on about.
Here for example

in July, while still in Iraq, Hall organized a meeting of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. According to Hall, after things began, Maj. Freddy Welborn disrupted the meeting with threats saying he might bring charges against Hall for conduct detrimental to good order and discipline, and that Hall was disgracing the Constitution. (Err, I think the major has that backward.) Welborn has denied the allegations, but the New York Times reports that another soldier at the meeting said that Hall's account was accurate.

What sort of democracy, freedom, religion, tolerance etc.etc is being promoted?
This stuff, to my mind, is slippery.....and really really scary!

What is it Watt? Watt, what is it?

Goons fans will recognise the quotation in the title, which has nothing to do with this post about 'democracy'. But I was reminded of a previous post I made about the use of language...in particular the word 'democracy' (see here)...that post was about the dangers of translation as a discipline.
My question is about the use of politically loaded panaceas to cover the multitude of sins
What sort of 'democracy', for example is being promoted by the electoral process in Pakistan? The struggle for 'democracy' in Kosovo, as it asserts its independence this week; what is that about?
The trouble with the word is that it is bandied about...but ill-defined
America in high flight leading up to democratic election, would seem to be the plumb line by which democracy is gauged and yet:

• Never yet has there been a woman president or a black president.
• Women are grossly under-represented at almost every level of government
• Health care in the world's most influential democracy would seem to be almost totally dependent on how wealthy you are, and whether or not you have a job.
• The US seems to have little regard for any small country that stands in the way of its self-interest, and little or no compunction about invading the territroy of other independent nations
• By and large the elected agents of the government in the federal and state legislatures of the US are the rich and powerful elites

We have little discussion anywhere in the world about what constitutes a democracy. And so we can assert that anything American is whilst anything Russian or Chinese is clearly not!

But we surely need to have some discussion about rights to education, healthcare and housing. Access to government, and the ability to genuinely influence policy. In this regard the most 'democratic' nations on earth are not neecessarily without spot.

Get up to that Senate

I have been interestedted to be included on Get Up's mailing list largely because I am pretty disillusioned with traditional party politics.
Get Up is an interesting phenomenon (and may yet prove to be more partisan than it claims to be), in our two party system neither of the major parties likes the suggestion that there should be a genuine third, fourth or fifth voice.
This seems to me be undemocratic!
Democracy is not about hearing two voices, it is about hearing the voice of the people who comprise the democracy. Some of those voices are easy to hear. They are articulate, dominant, rich. They are privileged, educated and entrenched.
Some, many certainly, perhaps even most, find it difficult to make their voice heard. The infamous Richard Nixon used the term "silent majority" and perhaps that is a good way to characterise what is a political reality.
In such a system a bicameral (two chamber) parliament has its part to play. In Australia the Senate has been touted as protecting States' Rights. Though in latter years it has perhaps given a voice to the disillusioned, who find that neither of the major parties adequately expresses their position.
The two major parties seemingly hate the Senate, because it has so often stood in their way. Such a possibility occurred when the Coalition fluked a majority in bth houses at the last election. They then presumed to pass their raft of IR laws which they had not (it would seem to me) put to the people!
This, I suspect, will play no small part in their downfall if and when the next election is called.

Pray it may be today or tomorrow...but surely no longer!

Any way, into this comes the innovative Get up. Who have with innovative aplomb invited us to share in the democratic process in a way never before seen. Explore their site and see if it apeal to you (here) It must have the Rudds and the Howards quaking.
So we might just go along on Friday:

You're invited GetUp's "Save Our Senate" Town Hall Forum at the Adelaide Museum
at 12:30pm this Friday 5 October, including Senators Natasha Stott-Despoja and
Bob Brown in a frank discussion of the importance of our house of review and how
it has changed since the Coalition won control. Seats are limited so be sure to
RSVP now - and invite your friends and family:

It ain't necessarily so

I was loaned a tape of a talk of one who has worked in Bangladesh on and off for 30 odd years. Whilst still identifying herself as an outsider she had some interesting reflections to make on matters we don't readily understand.
She notes for example that when Carey first translated the Bible into Urdu he was unaware of dialectical variants between Hindus and Moslems. Which are significant.
She noted for example that Carey was advised by an Hindu and used the Hindu variants for theological language. Thus translating the word "pray" the Hindu word means to "bow down" as in ..bow down to an idol... which is of course anathema to Moslems , thus failing to realise that a stumbling block had accidently been put into place.
She noted also that Bangladeshi converts to the Way were not keen to be called Christians...because that word has about it the hidden cultural connotations..pork eater, drinker and womaniser. Another observation concerned some of the current political dogma, which I must admit has bothered me, and that is that the presnet political orthodoxy is that Democracy is the highest form of all government.
You could have a good argument about that.
But what is often now the case is that Imperialist US and Imperialist UK joined by the little cousin wagging our tail is now going about using the road to democracy as justification for almost everything.
We invade Iraq to establish democracy.
We tie foreign aid to the establishment of democracy.
We beg the question about how our form of democracy works.
Does for example American democracy deliver health care for the poor in the US?
Does democracy provide shared wealth for society? Or do only the elite share in that particular largesse.
Does 'democracy' mean that everyone can influence the politiocal process, or only those at the top of the tree?
Does 'democracy' actually discourage ideology and replace it with popularist dogma (bread and circuses) or patronising government (father knows best)?
We note that the US and the UK are remarkably silent about the lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia and in Brunei.
We note that the US does little to protect the democratic infringement of the rights of Palestine by 'democratic' Israel.

Yes, this lady has a point. Not unquestioningly she invites the world to be more open-minded to Islam, even daring to suggest that a culture which scorns drug-taking (questionable) may in fact be the onlky thing that holds out hope to the youth of the decadent west.
Ahhhhh, interesting days.