Arms for the armless

China under fire on the Western front, The West, 16 April 2005, p.28:

"German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the European Union would not go ahead with plans to lift its arms embargo on China unless it saw concrete steps from Beijing on Taiwan and human rights."

Let me see... If China stops threatening to attack Taiwan, if China stops stamping on its own people, Europe will sell weapons to China. So where will the weapons be used? Why will China then need weapons?

The message is, if China is not going to use these weapons, we will be happy to provide them... Oh yes, I can see the logic in that... not! What a load of two-faced rubbish!

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Is sport only a game?

Baseball boy beaten to death for game taunt, The West, 15 April 2005, p.28: A 13 year old boy "became enraged when his team was ridiculed for losing a game, took the [baseball] bat out of a bag an attacked." The boy's team had won every previous game, this was its first loss of the season. One person is quoted as saying, "when you know other baseball players, you give them a hard time. It's called razzing."

"Razzing", eh. Not taunting, not insulting, not trying to make a player feel like a fool and a loser. Just "razzing". Is that meant to make a player feel good? Is that meant to make sport more enjoyable? Remember: this is a team of 13 year olds, they have won plenty of games. This is their first loss.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

There are other suitable words, such as: taunting, insulting, verbal bullying. It's unfortunate that a boy had to die for being such an unthinking, mean-spirited member of the mob. But his attitude to sport will be no great loss to the world.

Sport -- for children, especially -- should involve some enjoyment. So what if they lose the occasional game? So what if they lose every game? Are they enjoying playing? Are we enjoying watching the game? And what about the team that did win -- surely they deserve some congratulations?

Children's sport should be about participation and enjoyment. Enjoyment will encourage participation. Let's not lose our children -- and their sports -- to a vindictive must-win attitude. Let's encourage everyone to enjoy the game... and celebrate the play... no matter who wins.

Dockers out of excuses, The West, 18 April 2005, The Game liftout:

The Dockers have lost three games in a row. They are "out of excuses", according to the front page headline. No they're not! What about the ultimate excuse, "We are not a winning team"?

There are more AFL teams than I can remember. Must they all be winners? I'm a Dockers supporter -- and I'm happy with their performance. Sure, they don't win. But that's part of the attraction... I'm glad when they win -- and still support them when they lose.

The AFL -- and all AFL teams -- are commercial enterprises. There is no real representation of a particular area, they buy players from wherever they can, there is no entitlement to local-team loyalty. So what? I'm not betting money on the Dockers winning, I'm just enjoying claiming to be a supporter.

When it's your own child playing in the team -- whether it's football in Australia or baseball in America -- sure, you feel a strong loyalty to that team. You hope that they will win, because it will make your child feel good. But what if they lose?

If your child's team loses -- does that make your child a loser? In every game there is always one team that will lose! Does that mean that half the players are losers?

AFL players are paid to play, you expect them to try hard. If they lose, well, someone has to lose. You can hope they will do better next time...

Children's sports teams are there to learn and to enjoy. If they win -- that's great. If they lose -- well -- that means that the other team won -- and that is great for them! If you can't bear to cheer for a losing team -- then cheer for the winners.

Just don't razz... taunt... insult... bully... the players who did not -- today -- win this otherwise enjoyable game.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

My morality must be the only morality

Everyone has their own view of what is right and wrong; that's fine: individuals live by their own standards. Some things are considered to be not acceptable at all in whichever country you live in; that's fine: you live there, you live by the rules. Some issues are still being debated, there are opposing views within the one country -- that's where we have problems...

Catholic hospitals block tests, The West, 15 April 2005, p.5: "WA's Catholic hospitals say doctors should not offer early prenatal screening to pregnant women they believe would abort an abnormal foetus."

The Catholic church is against abortion, so hospitals owned by that church are told to avoid actions that could lead to abortions. To me, that makes sense: the church has a particular moral stance, they should stick by it. I would even be happy if they were to extend their ideas, to entirely ban the prenatal test. After all, in the matter of mortal sin, it could be better to be safe than -- in the hereafter -- eternally sorry.

"Association for the Legal Right to Abortion Margot Boetcher said it was wrong for the Catholic Church to impose its beliefs on hospital patients which included many non-Catholics." What a load of rubbish! If I eat at a vegetarian restaurant, I would not demand steak. If I eat at the home of Muslim or Jewish friends, I would not demand pork. If I stay in a Catholic hospital -- I would not demand an abortion.

It's not as if there were no choice! If I were a charity case and the Catholic hospital were the only one willing to treat me -- I would expect that their charitable attitude would make some allowance for my non-Catholic views. Some allowance, anyway. But there is plenty of choice in Perth, plenty of public hospitals that do support whatever the law allows in the way of abortions.

The big Catholic hospitals in Perth are not charity hospitals. They are profit-making concerns with a Catholic ethos. They are rich, they are expensive. They cater for patients who can afford the high level of care that they offer. They do not accept emergency patients -- I once tried -- they only accept patients who have had the opportunity to decide to attend at that particular hospital.

If you want an abortion -- go to a non-Catholic hospital.

Cardinals at conclave must accept the need for change (Editorial), The West, 18 April 2005, p.15

The editors of The West state that the Catholic church must -- through its choice of the next Pope -- embrace change. What a load of rubbish!

The Catholic church is based on beliefs handed down over the centuries. If the church changes its beliefs to suit public opinion -- what kind of loose morality does that indicate?! If we change our moral standards to suit our environment then they are not standards, they are simply a convenient reflection of public opinion.

"Disturbingly... Cardinal Ratzinger [current front-runner to be next Pope; a strict conservative]... seems to be telling Catholics that they must fall in line, or leave the Church." What is wrong with that? It is not disturbing -- it is a strong indication that there is a Cardinal who supports the stated beliefs of his own Church!

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Being a Catholic is -- as I understand it -- optional. If you choose to be a Catholic then you have chosen to accept the Church and its beliefs. If you do not support those beliefs then you have the option of not being a Catholic. If you believe that not being a Catholic will lead you to eternal damnation -- then accept and follow the Catholic rules! It's as simple as that.

What if you chose to play football... You like the Australian Rules style of play -- but soccer is an international game. You join a soccer club in order to (possibly) play overseas. Does your personal preference for Australian Rules give you a right to hand-ball in a soccer game? No way! If you want to play hand-ball, play Aussie Rules. If you choose to join a soccer club -- you play by all of the rules of soccer.

Don't get me wrong: I am not a Catholic. (Nor am I a footballer!) I strongly support the right to individual choice. But that does not mean that you can choose to ignore rules that do not suit you. If you choose to join a particular Church -- or football club -- then you must be willing to follow the Church -- or club -- rules. If you don't like them, feel free to try to have them changed -- from within.

If you represent the Association for the Legal Right to Abortion, or are the editor of a newspaper -- you have no say in Church affairs.

Abortion is legal, it is not compulsory. If you want an abortion -- go to a hospital that is willing to provide that service. If you choose to be treated in a Catholic hospital -- you should neither expect nor demand that that hospital will break its moral codes, just for you.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Clark pushes maverick to make an exit

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

From New Zealand comes an interesting report on democracy in action (The West, 12 April, p.21): MP John Tamihere is stupid enough to publicly state his derogatory views of various people. He upsets many people, including his boss, the prime minister, Helen Clark.

"Tamihere should consider finding a new job, according to Prime Minister Helen Clark." Tamihere has already been sacked from Cabinet after earlier fraud allegations. "She made it clear that... [he] would not be back in the fold after the election due later this year."

Now wait just a minute! He will not be back in Cabinet after the election?! If Tamihere is such a maverick -- why should he expect to voted back into parliament at all? Surely -- in the NZ democracy -- the people in the democracy will be voting. If he has really upset people, he will lose the election. If he is elected -- then 51% of the voters still support him!

If a politician is democratically elected to parliament -- does the prime minister have the right to deny that result? Okay, he will still be in parliament. But if he is successfully elected -- surely it's a messge that the electors support this man as a politician! Given this support -- what right has the prime minister to deny Tamihere a position in Cabinet?

If New Zealand is a democracy then "the people" should have some say. If the people put a man in parliament -- they may expect him to do the job to the limit of his ability. The prime minister may disagree with his views -- but they are supported by electors. the PM must remember the basis of democracy -- majority rule.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Democracy -- what it really means

Western Australia is currently debating the "one vote one value" issue. At present, country votes are worth more -- in terms of people elected to parliament -- than city votes. The current government -- with a history of losing in the country areas -- wants to remove the bias.

Well, they want to remove some of the bias. For reasons of political expediency they are willing to accept vote weighting in politically sensitive electorates. But that's another story...

What is "democracy"?

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Democracy is government by the people, government by the common people, majority rule... What do we have in Australia? What is the practical implication of democracy? It means that 51% of the people are entitled to force the other 49% to do as the majority decide.

Fifty-one percent! Just over half of us are entitled to force the rest to do as they are told! We are talking about rule by the people rather than for the people.

Do "the people" know what they want? Apparently not. Is there ever an election, or a referendum, where "the people" are simply asked for their opinion? No way! The lead up to very vote is a publicity campaign -- a campaign in which the few with a fixed opinion attempt to sway the opinions of the majority. If you can convince 51% -- then the remaining 49% are forced to follow.

Sure, this is "democracy". (And I am glad that I do live in a democracy.) But let's remember what our democracy really means.

There is no democracy for the people. There is only democracy of -- majority rule by -- 51% of the people.

"One vote one value" may help a particular political group remain in power. It will ensure that country voters are overwhelmed by city voters -- country voters will then more easily be forced to accept "democratic" decisions. This is democracy.

Don't ever confuse "democracy" with the right of every individual to have some control over running their own lives.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Face it, the so-called Aussie dream is over

In The West (12 April, p.14) Adele Horin comments on the loss of the quarter acre block... We are moving from large or small houses on largish blocks, to small home units on very small blocks. This -- according to Horin -- is a good thing.

Living like sardines will reduce commute time, reduce infrastructure costs, remove the space that was previously unused in backyards. Even stronger justification -- Europeans have been living like sardines for years...

So let's just pack ourselves in. If it's good enough for Europeans then we -- Australians -- must follow. Why the hell should we have a lifestyle that is different to anyone else? If it's European, it must be better!

Here's another view:

We live in Australia because we like to live in Australia. Why is that? Perhaps it's because of the laid-back lifestyle, the pleasant weather. Perhaps some of us even like the freedom of space around us -- the freedom of being able to be on our own quarter acre block, with a bit of outside space for personal living.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

"They cannot afford or do not want the house in the far-flung suburb." That sounds reasonable. But why not? It's expensive because of the competition to buy -- more people want more houses so prices rise. Okay, so let's control our population -- keep the numbers down so that there is less demand for new houses, so the prices remain within reach of more people who already live here.

What is the problem with a suburb being "far-flung"? That suburb will be a long way from work and entertainment and friends. So there is a high cost of travel. The article notes, in particular, the high cost of commuting to work. Can we decentralise work? Why not encourage businesses to spread themselves around? Bring business to employees rather than the other way round.

Well, no, that last idea is ridiculous. After all, business is in the business of reducing costs. Employees are a major cost. Employee commuting is not a cost to the business -- so forget it! So what if employees have to travel a long way to work, that's their problem. If they don't like it -- they can resign. There are plenty more employees where those ones came from.

We are driven by business. Business aims to make a profit -- and any cost that is outside the business is irrelevant. Large populations, high rates of unemployment, living like sardines, commuting for hours each day, environment and standard of living going rapidly downhill -- who cares?! As long as business makes money.

Business makes money, there is a flow-on effect, people -- on average -- earn a little bit more. So the country -- on average -- earns a bit more money. If we need to accept a poorer standard of living -- even some people living in abject poverty -- who cares? After all -- on average we have more money.

Packed in like sardines, tied to the TV and the PC because there is no freedom to move outside, can't afford a house with a yard... Population pressures destroying our environment and our standard of living, population growth continuing... But who cares? After all, Australians -- on average -- are earning more money. And money, after all, is the most important thing in the world.

What a load of rubbish.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Camel man will say sorry

The West, 12 April 2005, p.3:

"The baggage handler who paraded across a Sydney Airport tarmac in a camel suit will meet the man whose bag he took it from to apologise.

"The sacked handler plans to meet David Cox, who said yesterday he felt terrible that the father of two had lost his job and would accept the apology."

Shades of the plastic-spider-in-the-meat-pack affair of a year or two ago... The apprentice butcher was sacked -- but gained a new position with a butcher with a better sense of humour. The baggage handler was also a larrikin, someone who just saw the possibility of a joke, but it went a bit too far. Except for the report further on in the same paper...

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Corby lawyers to present reports of baggage tampering (p.9)

Who are these people, these baggage handlers, who seem to have free access to poke around inside our baggage?! The Schappelle Corby case hinges on a story of someone -- someone in the baggage handler area would be my guess -- who stuffed kilograms of cannabis inside Corby's baggage. That story becomes more believable when a baggage handler not only pokes around inside baggage -- but he pulls out the contents and casually tries on the camel suit! What was he really looking for: money? jewels? a good laugh at someone else's expense?

I suggest that we need some sort of control over people who really have no business at all accessing the baggage that they are handling. Their job is to move it, not to explore inside. It seems a bit extreme but -- in light of the cannabis smuggling accusations -- perhaps we need to see our luggage sealed before we let it out of our sight.

Then there's that parade across the tarmac...

Is this man an idiot? Sure, he can be offensively intrusive in the "privacy" of the baggage handlers' area. It's just him, his mates, a few cannabis smugglers -- noone who will report his stupidity to those who care. Then he parades out into a public area... What a drongo!

Do we have airport security?

So what about airport security? The government has introduced new rules, including the need for every person in a secure area to wear a government-approved ID badge. Red badges for high security areas, grey for low security areas. These are anti-terrorist measures. You must be a current employee to enter secure areas.

Okay then... We have employees who search through baggage, who remove and use what they find. Are there others who remove and keep what they find? We have -- allegedly -- employees who add cannabis to baggage and who are so stupid that they forget to remove it at its intended destination. What else are they smuggling in our baggage?

We need some means of protecting our baggage. I don't want to be an unknowing smuggler. I don't even want baggage handlers prying through my baggage. At least one overseas airport inspects baggage -- with the owner -- then seals it with tape. We may not need the same system in Australia. As individuals, though, we may need to consider sealing our own luggage, before we trust it to the backroom antics of the Sydney airport baggage handlers.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Royal bride should go for an elegant, classic look

Comment on The West, 9 April 2005, p.62

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

"Camilla Parker Bowles has been said to pack the stylistic punch of a dilapidated Yorkshire pudding." Well la-di-dah. It's not just, "who cares?" There's also the question of, "how two-faced do we want to be?"

There are regular articles -- in The West as well as in less news-oriented magazines -- about the pressure to attain an unattainable ideal of body and fashion. On one page we are shown pictures of pencil-thin models with enormous breasts, on the next we are told of the dangers of trying to look like those same models. Here's how you can look like a supermodel, exhortations to spend on plastic surgery, make-up, constantly changing fashionable clothes... followed by warnings on the dangers of doing exactly that.

Then along comes a woman who has -- so we are told -- no style, no looks, no figure... probably not even any plastic surgery. Yet she has kept the love of one man for more than 30 years!

The article in The West gave advice on how Camilla Parker Bowles should tart herself up for the wedding. It did stop short of suggesting plastic surgery... Idiotic!

Okay, keeping the love of one man is not every woman's dream. But it does show that the woman has some good points. Let's forget about moulding Camilla into the standard, plastic, supermodel image.

Instead, please consider those who do want a successful personal life, rather than a glamourous surface image. Let's have an article that explains why Camilla Parker Bowles is okay just as she is. Perhaps we could even learn from her success... but let's not assume that we should all slavishly copy what she does.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Senior school reforms fail test of confidence

Comment on The West, 9 April 2005, p.58

At present, students in the last two years of high school can select from about 400 subjects. Of these, 22 may be used in the selection criteria for university entrance. That is, students must select subjects from the 22 if they intend to go on to university. results are given as A, B, C, D... although these are magically converted to a percentage for university entrance requirements.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

The new system will have 50 courses. Results will be given as a number from 4 to 8, representing a "level of performance". None of the courses count towards university entrance; if you want to get into university -- that's a separate, external exam.

What on earth are these people trying to do?!

First up, the article itself seems contradictory... Take that bit about the external exam for university entrance: Another part of the article indicates that all courses can count towards university entrance, so students will choose the easier courses.

If there really is "an external exam" -- and if it is the test for university entrance -- what will it examine? Or will there be one exam for each of the 50 courses -- in which case yes, students may as well pick the easiest subjects... Metalwork, woodwork, music and Japanese will be ideal preparation for university studies in law, medicine and physics...

What would really happen, of course, is that university faculties would set their own requirements: selecting the acceptable courses, or even adding their own test as an entry prerequisite. Medicine already does this -- they have a special test of skills and attitudes that are not, possibly could not be, taught at schools. It would be easy to extend this to test knowledge in all subject areas that are considered relevant to the university course.

And what about the scoring system: levels from 4 to 8... Presumably, levels 0 to 3 are reached in previous years. Levels 9 and up would require a university education. If I get a level 29 performance in philately, would that entitle me to a PhD?

There was even a claim -- by the minister, I think, in an earlier report -- that levels would represent equivalent knowledge across every course. So a level 8 in physics is exactly the same as a level 8 in woodwork and a level 8 in music. Sure, each of these subjects is worthwhile, challenging, too difficult for me... But how can you possibly claim that they are equivalent? Who could possibly believe that each subject is equally good preparation for a particular course at university?

Not to mention: who could possibly believe that a level 8 in physics is equivalent to a level 8 in woodworking as preparation for a TAFE course in cabinet-making?

The trouble is, we are taking one school system and trying to make it fit all possible requirements: preparation for work and life and university and trades and all else that young people could possibly require. Can we possibly admit that some people would prefer physics and some would prefer mechanics? If we admit that, then we can allow streams of students, each with different subject choices and different methods of teaching and evaluation.

Sure, it seems unfair to make students choose a career direction before they finish school. On the other hand -- it is ridiculous to force every student through exactly the same sausage-machine education system. How long do we plan to delay the need for any choices? Why not accept that if the wrong choice has been made -- there is always the opportunity to change, to retrain, later in life.

Let's stop this force-feeding of "equal opportunity". It's not really equal opportunity -- it's equality of results: every student will be an educational clone. Forget about forced equivalence... let's look to the benefits of separate educational opportunities.

Accept that people -- including high school students -- are all different. Celebrate -- encourage -- and support those differences. Forget education that supports an educational theory of how the world should look. Provide education to suit students as they really are -- and as they would like to be.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Boat spill theory does not wash

Comment on a letter to The West, 9 April 2005, p.21

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

There was a lot of poo in the water at Rottnest. Well, perhaps not poo, but the bacteria that is found in human poo. Rottnest is our idyllic island paradise... the beaches were closed due to the threat to swimmers' health. The bacteria was blamed -- by the officials who closed the beaches -- on poo-spill from one of the hundreds of boats moored close to the shore.

The letter says that blaming a poo-spill from a boat is "so silly that it beggars belief." The real cause -- according to the letter writer -- is the heavy pollution of Rottnest Island by birdlife and marsupials. This pollution accumulates in dry weather and is washed into the water by heavy rain.

Of course! It's obvious, once it has been pointed out. Let's explore this idea a little further...

Poo-poisoning has never been noticed before because... ummm... oh yes: As more people go to the island, more wild birds and marsupials breed there. Surely everyone knows, the more people there are, the more wildlife there is -- that's why city centres are full of wildlife...

The bacteria is human-poo bacteria because... ummm... the birds and marsupials are eating food scraps that have been discarded by humans who did not wash their hands afer going to the toilet...

Aaahh rubbish. Let's just hope that the letter writer was only joking.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Groundhog Day all over again

Comment on article in The West, 9 April 2005, p.19

Paul Murray, in his column, gets stuck into the Premier. It's all about that enquiry into the prison/justice system. (See also Accountable -- don't count on it.) The general thrust of the article is clear in the last few paragraphs:

"So here it is, fully exposed in its awfulness.The tawdry, shabby, crappy nature of WA politics.... Those within the circus play their games, treat us with contempt and there is no net gain to the public."

I can't disagree with those sentiments!

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

On the other hand... perhaps we should go back to Yes, Minister. How easy is it to actually get anything done? Very difficult! If you want to get any power -- the power to do what you believe is right -- then you need to first play the game. Play the game, support others, call in favours, put on pressure, crawl to those who already have some power. By the time you have done this -- you are trapped! You have sold your principles to get the power to make changes. And if you try to make those changes, to act once again on your own principles -- you will suddenly lose all of that hard won support.

Being in politics is all about politicking. Why should we expect politicians to be anything other than political? Being "political" gains you power... and as soon as you try to use that power -- against the wishes of your "supporters" -- you will suddenly lose that power!

Ministerial Abilities

Politicians are elected. One political party has more electoral winners, that party forms a government. The government selects ministers from amongst the elected government members. Each minister is responsible for one (or more) areas of government.

How could we possibly expect to get capable ministers?!

What are the qualifications for being elected? Basically, you must be good at politicking... as described above. What are the qualifications for being a good minister? Hmmm...

When we were voting, did we think (for example): That person has a teaching degree, three years teaching experience, five years management, has defined curricula for K-12, etc, etc... therefore I will vote for that person to be education minister. No way! So how could we possibly expect to elect a person who will have the qualifications to be a good education minister?!

"The party" puts forward candidates. There are two key criteria: likelihood of getting elected and willingness to agree with party policy. We select amongst those candidates. Our criteria may include: belongs to our preferred party, looks good on TV, sounds intelligent but not too intelligent, is not a member of one of those really wacko parties... Having made our choice -- we expect the elected goverment to find capable ministers! Wow!

Back to that Enquiry

When we consider the selection criteria for ministers... no wonder there are ministerial problems. The enquiry will not include asking the minister to explain what happened. So what? No sensible person would expect the minister to have known what to do... We should expect problems at the ministerial level.

What about the public servants -- the people who are paid to manage justice and the prisons? It would be nice if they were capable of doing a good job. (Though allowances must be made for the requirement to be responsible to an unqualified minister.) That may be worth some sort of inquiry...

We -- through our taxes -- are about to pay $2,000,000 or more for an inquiry. An inquiry that will be run by an 80 year old retired judge from another state. Have a look at page 5, Voters call for wider jail inquiry (same day, same paper). Look at that photo of the ex-judge...

Do I expect a substantial, far-reaching expose of political and public service problems? No... what I expect is what I see -- nothing at all on top, and an extreme comb-over to cover up that lack of any worthwhile results.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Perth Muslims plan sharia divorce court

Comment on an article in The West, 6 April 05, p.15:

Perth muslims plan to set up a sharia court -- a religious court -- "to adjudicate on difficult divorce cases." What sort of intolerant, ghetto-style thinking do these people have?

They come to Australia. Why? Apparently to set up a self-ruling clique within this country, a clique which refuses to accept Australian law. "Under Muslim law, a woman is free to remarry only if her husband says: 'I divorce you.'" So? What about Australian law?! Oh, no, apparently Australian law does not apply to this select group of people living in Australia...

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

According to Abdul Jalil Ahmad from the Islamic Council of WA, this new court will be "a boost to women's rights." It seems that some women are suffering because the husband refuses to give her a divorce and... wait for it... "she can't complain to a court." Really? What Ahmad means is, the controlling factions within the muslim community -- presumably the men -- will not allow these women to take this legal issue to an Australian court of law.

How does this compare to my earlier blog post, about pharmacists who won't prescribe the morning-after pill?

The pharmacists -- so I wrote -- have the right to choose to not prescribe, if they believe that use of these pills is immoral. Pharmacists should be free to follow their own beliefs, as long as they do not hurt other people. In that case, as long as women are allowed to go to another pharmacist who does provide these pills.

Is the muslim sharia court simply a case of a group following its own moral code? Yes, it is. But -- following this moral code is hurting other people -- muslim women. If a woman is not allowed to go to an Australian court, to use the law to protect her rights -- as defined within the country in which she lives -- then that woman is being hurt.

If, on the other hand, the woman is allowed to take her divorce proceedings to an Australian court -- and the findings of that court would be accepted as binding, by the woman, her (ex) husband and other members of the muslim community -- then fine! The woman may then choose to go to a sharia court rather to a legitimate court. She -- and her husband, and her community -- may live by the decisions of the sharia court. That is her right.

But the findings of a sharia court will have no bearing on the legal status of the marriage. A marriage is defined and supported by Australian law, with rights and responsibilities. No individual and no group can invent laws to suit themselves.

If people "marry" without following Australian law -- that is not a marriage. (It may be de facto, there is wide acceptance of the legal status of a de facto relationship.) If they "divorce" simply by saying, "I divorce you" -- that is not a divorce. And if a court of law says that they are divorced -- no amount of denials by the husband -- or wife, or community -- will affect the legal fact of the divorce.

If the muslim community refuses to allow a woman access for a legitimate action in an Australian court of law -- then the muslim community is acting illegally.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Doctors have rights, too

Response to a letter in The West, 2 April 2005, p.20:

That letter is one of several, following reports from America of pharmacists not wanting to provide the morning-after pill. The morning-after pill, contraceptive pills, referrals for abortion... some doctors and pharmacists find these to be morally repugnant. Their own beliefs are, that these things are immoral.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

On the other hand -- should a doctor or pharmacist be able to restrict access to these modern options? Should a medical professional be able to control a woman's right to manage her own body? To put it another way: should an individual be forced to break their own moral code in order to support the moral code of society?

One view is, doctors and pharmacists have taken on an obligation to provide services -- even those that they do not like. I disagree...

Our society is supposed to be multicultural. At the very least, that means that there are differentr people, different groups, different points of view. Are we going to stamp all over those differences? Some -- yes! Other differences, though, should be acceptable. As long as they do not hurt other people.

So... A doctor disagrees with abortion? A woman wants to be referred for an abortion? She can go to another doctor. Perhaps the first doctor needs to display a sign, some sort of code of ethics for the practice. (eg "I will not refer anyone for an abortion.") That will make it clear and perhaps save time and money (ie the cost of the appointment). Same with the pharmacists: Put up a sign, "Morning-after pill not supplied here."

Perhaps, out of courtesy, the sign should also include the address of a doctor/pharmacist who does provide the required service.

The thing is, these are matters of personal choice. Apart from some small waste of time, noone is hurt by not providing the service. (I won't tackle the more dificult question of, is someone hurt when the services are provided.) So why force the doctors and pharmacists to comply?

Do we force pharmacists to stock and supply every single brand of every single medicine? No! range of stock is a simple business decision, a choice based on profit and loss. So why should we force them to stock one particular medicine? If it were a business decision -- we would not dream of forcing an action.

And if it's a personal moral choice -- the decision should still be left to the individual.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Accountable -- Don't Count on it

Response to an article in The West, 2 April 2005, p.19:

There has been some trouble in the Western Australian prison system: prisoners walk out of prison... Paul Murray writes in his opinion column that the Premier and his ministers should be responsible for the failings of the government-run prison system.

What rot!

The Parole Board meets to consider up to 80 requests for parole in one day. The head of the Parole Board denies this; it's only 65 in a day. Whoopee! So how many minutes discussion does each of these 65 to 80 prisoners get? Not very many!

One of the prisoners is a cold-blooded killer. He is also a convicted rapist. A primary school teacher can remember his childhood determination to kill people. He was found guilty, sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment. He is to be "held at the Governor's leisure", if I remember the correct phrasing.

Twenty years later, this prisoner is transferred to a pre-release program at a minimum security prison farm -- because the Parole Board is about to consider him for release. What?! Not even due for release, just under consideration -- and he is already sent to a minimum security prison. Guess what? He walks out... sorry, escapes.

Now this raises a few questions. Of particular interest to Murray in his column is, who approved the transfer to minimum security? The transfer was signed off by "two senior ministers and the Governor". Oh dearie me, government ministers approved this high risk transfer... Let's consider this more closely...

Sixty-five or more parole requests are considered by the Parole Board. It's a rush job but they have had time to read all the paperwork in advance. Is every one of these 65 decisions sent to the minister for approval? And the minister is expected to read all the papers and confirm each and every decision? Why? How?!

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Or is it just the "difficult" decisions that are sent to the minister... The Parole Board decides, this is too difficult for us, we don't want trouble, we don't want more appeals... Let's just approve it -- but send it to the minister to cop the flak. Why should we -- the Parole Board -- take responsibility for the work that we are being paid to do?

The minister sees a list of names -- one, two, three... sixty-five? -- and thinks, Should I read all the paperwork? I have a lot of politicking on my plate... perhaps I should simply trust the decisions of the Parole Board. After all, it is their specific job, to make these decisions... And the ministers signs.

Who has really made the decision? The Parole Board have considered all the issues (we hope!) and passed responsibility to the minister. The minister has a broader responsibility -- and very little real knowledge of the system -- so takes the "advice" of the Parole Board.

The Parole Board has successfully avoided the responsibility for which it is being paid. The minister is currently avoiding the enquiry into what went wrong. The minister has ultimate responsibility -- but is the victim of a snow job.

What a pile of... political nonsense.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Let's all back off a bit... for our kid's sake

Response to a column from The West, 2 April 2005, p.18:

The columnist, Hugh Mackay, is worried that our children are being pushed too hard. There is so much "early intervention", he writes, that the children have no time to just be children. "The best preparation may not be to push our children too hard, but to encourage them to grow at their own pace..."

Well, my wife and I have done that, for more than twenty years, with our two sons. We have let them grow up at their own pace, to make decisions on their own. We may suggest, but we support their right to make their own decisions. When they fight, they sort it out by themselves. We have not seen them fight for the last fifteen or more years.

We have allowed and encouraged -- by example -- an attitude of caring, courtesy and enjoyment. If they need help we may offer. If they ask for help, we will help. We support and encourage but never interfere.

Our children are a delight! Polite, helpful, intelligent... understanding, supportive...

Will they succeed in business, or politics, or commerce? No way! Our children are too nice.

If you want your children to "succeed" in our increasingly commercial world, you must push: push now, push hard. Push your own children, push other children aside. Drive your children to succeed -- forget about nice, well adjusted adults -- your children must have the urge to win. Plus all the support that you, your family, friends, casual aquaintances, can bring to bear.

Use your own power to teach that second place is for losers. Use you own networking skills to push your children to the front of the line, to get every available advantage over the pack. Drive your children now -- while they are young and malleable -- to understand that winning, at any cost, is the prime requisite for success...

Or watch your children finish last, with the rest of the nice guys. Fight hard and win! Or be losers.