Society

2007 closed with a couple of government overreactions, which mostly escaped scrutiny because the governments involved announced them at a dead time when no-one really gave a bugger:

1. The Victorian government has banned bicycles on peak-hour trains in Melbourne, and on any V/line service which originates or terminates in Melbourne during peak hour. Now, I hate bicycles on trains as much as the next person (probably more so, given the number of bikes I had to squeeze past on the crowded Amsterdam metro, while I was living there) - but a complete ban seems overly heavy-handed.

   
   
   

   Wouldn't it be more sensible to remove a few seats from the end of each train and restrict bicycles to the final carriage? It's not like our public transport operators haven't stooped to removing seats in order to cram more passengers aboard, in the past.





2. The new Federal government is channelling the ghost of the old Federal government, dredging up a discredited internet access policy to appease a small group of Christian fundamentalists, who are too irresponsible to monitor what their own children are doing. ISPs in Australia will be compelled to supply a "clean" internet connection (read: no pr0n, violence or anything "inappropriate") to all customers, and anyone who does not wish to be subject to this must explicitely opt-out (whereupon their ISP may well decide to charge a fee, and presumably flag the connection for easy targetting by Australia's security services).

   
   
   

   Our new Minister for Communications, Senator Stephen Conroy, then went on to show he comes from the same fine pedigree that produced our previous Communication Ministers, by deliberately confusing pornography (which is legally available) with child pornography (which is already, as it should be, illegal):

   
   
   

   "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

   
   
   

   Apples and Oranges. As mentioned earlier, this is all being done to appease the Fundies First party, because the government may well need their one vote to kill off Workchoices. A saving grace may be that the government hasn't got the ISPs on side, as Paul Montgomery notes. The previous government announced these plans several times, and never did anything about it; with luck, this will be just more bluster - because if it's not, then either their plan will be unworkable, or Australian internet connections will become unusable.

I have no idea who said it first, but that about sums it up for me.

It's time to fix a mistake I made eleven years ago.

Unlike the past couple of years, I was fortunate enough not to get anyone banging on my door demanding food, last night, and I was hoping that this might mean that Halloween in its final death throes, in Australia. Unfortunately, after reading Russell's comments, I suspect not.

For a society that constantly complains about being annoyed by telemarketers and door-to-door salesman, I can't quite understand why anyone would encourage children to go cold-calling people. I don't want strangers knocking on my door at the best of times, and I certainly don't want their children doing it, too.

I won't beat around the bush: I have no interest in watching sport, whatsoever. Living in Melbourne, that can make one feel somewhat like an alien, as the media here is utterly obsessed by it (although, given that only 1.2 million people here watched the grand final on TV, it occurs to me that there are 67.6% of people who, like me, couldn't have given a bugger about it).

Australia likes to project an image of being a country of sports players. I reject this image completely; we are, instead, a country of sports-obsessed couch-potatoes, with a minority of players who are given far more money and admiration than they deserve.

And like all obsessions, it's getting rather unhealthy. This week, the federal government launched their
Guide to the Teaching of Australian History in Years 9 and 10, a course that the government is saying must be taught in schools in order to receive federal funding.

So, what important Australian historical events does this 18-page guide document? The Eureka Stockade, which has been often cited as leading to the birth of democracy in Australia, perhaps? Australia's shameful involvement in the second Boer War? No, on both counts. Cyclone Tracy? The 1999 republic referendum? Nope and nope.

What do we get instead? Cricket. 1868: First Australian cricket tour of England. 1932–33: ‘Bodyline’ cricket controversy. Listings of no less than three cricket players. Why is any of this even notable?

I was subjected to a documentary on the Bodyline "controversy" by my sports-obsessed school, back in the 80s. It was the most deathly dull thing I've ever had inflicted upon me and I distinctly remember being more interested in the carpet on which I was sitting than I was in watching the TV. It is of no more relevance to students today than would be an in-depth look at the history of the Russian republic of Ingushetia, and arguably, far less useful.

This booklet has the cricket-tragic fingerprints of the Prime Minister all over it. It's highly likely that the election will be finally called, this weekend. Is it too much to ask for us to get a leader who, in the same vein as other notable politicians like Paul Keating, Bob Carr or Barry Jones, has more interest in art, science, music, literature or anything, other than sport?

From the ABC:

A sexual health expert says up to 20 per cent of schoolgirls are not getting vaccinated under the Federal Government's Gardasil program, which protects against cervical cancer.

Dr Edith Weisberg from the Sydney Centre for Reproductive Health Research says some parents are not giving permission for the vaccination because they are worried it could promote promiscuity.

So, I imagine these people would prefer their daughters died a premature, painful death? That's as offensive as honour killing.

I guess I should be thanking the Australian Christian Lobby. Not being an avid watcher of commercial television, I completely forgot that Californication was being shown last Monday. Never fear, however, the ACL's predictable bleating about the show's "gratuitous sex" generated considerably more media coverage for the show than it otherwise would have received, which prompted me to, err, obtain the first episode - and as far as black-comedies go, it wasn't too bad.

I'll leave aside the issue of why these holier-than-thou organisations are forever whining about sex on TV, yet so very rarely make a peep about violence - although I will note that the ACL did bang on about Channel Seven's "City Homicide" show, also. I don't recall them ever making any noise about the very excessive violence and torture in 24, but I guess it's just possible that they were elated that the bad guys were almost always of Middle-Eastern appearance.

What I would like to know, though, is why the Australian Christian Lobby even exists? This is Australia. Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. There's probably not a better place in the world to be a Christian, because our society tolerates pretty much any belief, provided that you don't go trying to ram it down their throat. We certainly don't have the sectarian violence that Northern Ireland put up with for so many years. We give religious organisations tax-breaks. We even put up with the religions that are racist, sexist and aren't particularly tolerant about non-believers.

I can only conclude that the ACL exists because these people, not content with living their lives as they see fit, feel a need to force the rest of us to live that way too. In a liberal democracy, there is simply no need to argue for stricter laws to match those of your religion; there's nothing stopping you from adhering them as you wish (with the usual caveat of not hurting anyone else).

Don't want to work on a Sunday? Well, don't. But don't stop me from shopping on the only day I find it convenient because your supreme-being tells you it's a day of rest. You don't want your kids given sex education? Fine, have them removed from class - and accept the consequences of an increased risk of teenage pregnancy, because no amount of your god-bothering is going to stop them if they want to. If other parents are happy about it, then there's no reason for you to oppose it. Don't like Californication? Well, for Christ's sake, don't watch it. Surely the name would have been enough of an indication that it might offend?

Want your kids protected from the evils of teh Interweb? PUT THE DAMNED COMPUTER IN YOUR LIVING ROOM WHERE YOU CAN WATCH WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING! Sheesh, does social conservatism always come with a free frontal lobotomy?

With all the recent hysteria about the attempted bombings in the UK, The Register has a really good article written by a former armed forces bomb-disposal operator, putting it all in perspective. Well worth a read.

Why is it that some employers treat their staff like schoolchildren? The following story was all over the news today:

This is the new face of work in Australia's hotel and hospitality industry, where a template Australian Workplace Agreement is being rolled out that strips all award conditions and replaces them with a starting wage of just $13.47 an hour.

At the same time, workers at one motel restaurant have been given instructions not to wear perfume or aftershave, nor to rub their nose or even "pull at a slipping bra strap".

...

A handbook distributed to staff also contains standards for grooming and hygiene, including bans on:

• HAIR ornaments, necklaces, bracelets and rings (not wedding rings);


• PERFUME and aftershave; and


• RUNNING fingers through hair, pushing hair out of eyes, rubbing nose, scratching, adjusting clothing, yawning and "pulling at bra strap".

From dire warnings about the consequences of not keeping one's desk tidy, to stories of supervisors timing employees' trips to the toilet, some employers just seem incapable of recognising that their employees aren't five year olds. The above story, if true, is just too ridiculous for words. Now, while a number of those directives make sense for food handlers... yawning? Adjusting clothing? I imagine being sacked from an environment like that would be nothing less than liberating. (As an aside, I'm also intrigued by the differentiation between wedding-rings, and non-wedding rings. Another sign that unmarried people are second class citizens in Australia? Surely if it's unhygenic to wear a ring around food, then a ring with a deity's blessing is hardly going to make a difference).

And it seems that, time and time again, it is small business that is guilty of some of the worst offences. My apologies to any readers who own or work in a well-run small business, but let's face it, you're in a minority. I've seen examples of so many that are either run by nutjobs, have constant cash-flow issues and have trouble paying their staff, or simply just have some of the most brain-dead work practices that it's a wonder they even managed to register a business name for themselves, let alone survive for a couple of years. Perhaps the process for registering business names is just a little too easy.

Anyway, it didn't surprise me in the least to find that the above Horror-Workplace-Of-The-Week story was about a small business (albeit, a member of a larger chain).

I recall the manager of one (of only two, fortunately) former small-business employer of mine giving a lecture to all staff about how they should say "good morning" to each other, every day ... and then at another time, insisting that all staff report to him before they left each day, to make sure that there was no more work to be done; effectively forcing them to request permission to leave. It didn't do anything for staff morale, although the facetious sounds of "GOOD MORNING" yelled across the room each day for the next week made for more than a few laughs; I suppose the theory was that if we were going to be treated like children, we might as well act like them.