rg believes the true national emergency is this policy put forth by john howard and the sanctimonious attitude he's currently spewing forth.
rg has many views on howard's platform to save aborigines and their children from themselves, and has become virtually bogged down with a weight of words struggling to make their way from brain to fingers and onto the keyboard. wading through the quagmire of reports, interviews and opinions by the commentariat, mental paralysis has nearly ensnared this blogger, such is the destructive depth of howard's vision and action. it has taken some time, but let's kick off what will no doubt be a significant stream of blogs with a succinct outline on rg's position:
this emergency response disempowers the already disempowered. abuse and addiction stem from anger, resentment and pain that needs to be acknowledged; the abscess needs lanced for healing to start. recognition of indigenous trauma is fundamental. consultation is a sign of respect; this was abandoned on a national, state/territory and community level. howard's policy is paternalistic, bigoted and lacking short- and long-term logistical vision.
howard is a hypocrite. this policy is a big, ugly race card drawn from the bottom of howard's election deck. it is a bid to look powerful by exerting power, not only over this nation's indigenous people but over states, territories and voters. howard is trying to appear human and caring; his obnoxious history belies this facade.
the federal alp are dangerously close to wedging themselves with their quick-flowing support for fatally flawed policy. to question this attack does not equal racism; to go blindly and cheer while people are acted upon without their consultation or input is. the idea of children living in such abject poverty and being abused on such a level is devastating, stomach-churning and something no-one with a pulse would wish for - but regrettably this is old news that has not been addressed by howard and his government for 10 years, despite copious commissioned and independent reports and pleadings from indigenous leaders and individual communities. this 'national emergency' has been festering and growing continuously, aggravated by the abandonment of federal attention, aid, funding and education.
when your nation's pm starts making comments such as, 'i'll be slammed for taking people's rights away, but frankly i don't care about that', alarm bells should start sounding. LOUDLY.
rg is suddenly very, very alert, and terribly, terribly alarmed. what about you?
June 26, 2007
June 25, 2007
20 days
that's how long it's been since rg has bashed the keyboard.
initially an onslaught of protracted illness - virus, chickenpox, virus - sapped my ability to do anything other than function and sleep; as a result the mother load took one for the team and enjoyed some down-time. however watching all things political unfold over the last few weeks, i realised there was more to this self-imposed blogless state: (a) fear, and (b) denial.
(a) fear - of or over what? simply, the alp choke factor. rg has a self-destructive habit of getting all 'it's time!' excited when a new leader steps up to the plate and performs well - or just performs; the potential for victory and a new direction for this nation is heady stuff. then kevin rudd starts making questionable decisions (joe mcdonald) and being careless (productivity brief). in addition, julia gillard bags out paul keating in the politest of terms; a true sign that the alp have not, and have no real intention of, learning from or embracing the past. the final terrifying nail in the coffin has been rudd's support of howard's plan to 'save' aborigines from themselves; far too many shades of 2001, beazley and tampa. rg is anxious and for the first time in months feels the possibility of another howard term; it is mere vapour, but a presence nonetheless.
(b) denial - small children have a habit of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes tight and screaming 'i can't hear you! i can't hear you! la la la!'; adults, in their maturity, are slightly more discrete and adopt a shaking of the head combined with mutterings of 'this isn't happening, this is not happening'. 'truth' is hardest when it stares at you from the coldness of a typeface, and there have been too many articles recently that have been an affront to this true believer. regardless, rg is now out from under the doona with personal issues surrounding alp foolishness resolved, however momentarily.
rg is back on track and notionally healthy, so on with the show.
initially an onslaught of protracted illness - virus, chickenpox, virus - sapped my ability to do anything other than function and sleep; as a result the mother load took one for the team and enjoyed some down-time. however watching all things political unfold over the last few weeks, i realised there was more to this self-imposed blogless state: (a) fear, and (b) denial.
(a) fear - of or over what? simply, the alp choke factor. rg has a self-destructive habit of getting all 'it's time!' excited when a new leader steps up to the plate and performs well - or just performs; the potential for victory and a new direction for this nation is heady stuff. then kevin rudd starts making questionable decisions (joe mcdonald) and being careless (productivity brief). in addition, julia gillard bags out paul keating in the politest of terms; a true sign that the alp have not, and have no real intention of, learning from or embracing the past. the final terrifying nail in the coffin has been rudd's support of howard's plan to 'save' aborigines from themselves; far too many shades of 2001, beazley and tampa. rg is anxious and for the first time in months feels the possibility of another howard term; it is mere vapour, but a presence nonetheless.
(b) denial - small children have a habit of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes tight and screaming 'i can't hear you! i can't hear you! la la la!'; adults, in their maturity, are slightly more discrete and adopt a shaking of the head combined with mutterings of 'this isn't happening, this is not happening'. 'truth' is hardest when it stares at you from the coldness of a typeface, and there have been too many articles recently that have been an affront to this true believer. regardless, rg is now out from under the doona with personal issues surrounding alp foolishness resolved, however momentarily.
rg is back on track and notionally healthy, so on with the show.
June 5, 2007
thinly veiled discrimination
back in the dark ages when rg was at high school, there were various fads, crazes, "in" things and "out" things that aided personal identification, belonging, or conversely highlighted difference or rebellion; ironic belonging in itself. nothing has changed, nor will it - nor should it. school, whether it be primary or secondary, is a time of learning, socialisation and personal development, a time of understanding what acceptable behaviour is and what tolerance is. in theory at least.
rg has a catholic and public education history. neither doctrine of education or values was immune from students pushing the boundaries with hair length, skirt length, sock choice, shoe style, the colossal shirt in/out battle, accumulation of badges with slogans pinned with pride to blazers, jumpers and hats, colourful expression of dress during sports days, nail polish, hair dye, make-up in all its forms, jewellery....the list is endless, as is the journey of personal identification and discovery. somehow all the above was simply chalked up to "youth" and was largely seen as harmless, which it is, and necessary.
contrast that with this article in today's age outlining how a young muslim schoolgirl had her headscarf airbrushed from a school photo. the reasoning? so it wouldn't stand out. not surprisingly, "the islamic council of victoria is urging the [parliamentary] inquiry [into dress codes and school uniforms] to support a 'fundamental right' to freedom of religious observance as it applies to dress." rg went to a state school with people who wore crucifixes around their necks as a display of faith; honestly, how is this different? moreover, how can people honestly think it is different?
the islamic council of victoria committee member sherene hassan has said, "it was reasonable for a school to demand headscarves match the uniform, and there was nothing to stop muslim girls from participating in sport, if schools allowed them to wear tracksuit pants under skirts." fair and reasonable, no? if a student had been enduring chemotherapy and lost their hair, would a scarf or hat they chose to wear be airbrushed from a group photo because it sets them apart? if a student had an accident or leg prosthesis of some kind that caused them concern, or was the source of mockery, would a school argue a case that they couldn't wear trackies because the majority of students don't? doubtful.
how can a community expect tolerance if generations are being shown that discrimination is acceptable, most notably because of religious expression or belief? rg sees this behaviour as a contemporary version of the "she asked for it, did you see what she was wearing?" justification for rape; if you don't want to get picked on or discriminated against, don't wear hijab. rg's mind boggles at this anti-logic.
rg has a catholic and public education history. neither doctrine of education or values was immune from students pushing the boundaries with hair length, skirt length, sock choice, shoe style, the colossal shirt in/out battle, accumulation of badges with slogans pinned with pride to blazers, jumpers and hats, colourful expression of dress during sports days, nail polish, hair dye, make-up in all its forms, jewellery....the list is endless, as is the journey of personal identification and discovery. somehow all the above was simply chalked up to "youth" and was largely seen as harmless, which it is, and necessary.
contrast that with this article in today's age outlining how a young muslim schoolgirl had her headscarf airbrushed from a school photo. the reasoning? so it wouldn't stand out. not surprisingly, "the islamic council of victoria is urging the [parliamentary] inquiry [into dress codes and school uniforms] to support a 'fundamental right' to freedom of religious observance as it applies to dress." rg went to a state school with people who wore crucifixes around their necks as a display of faith; honestly, how is this different? moreover, how can people honestly think it is different?
the islamic council of victoria committee member sherene hassan has said, "it was reasonable for a school to demand headscarves match the uniform, and there was nothing to stop muslim girls from participating in sport, if schools allowed them to wear tracksuit pants under skirts." fair and reasonable, no? if a student had been enduring chemotherapy and lost their hair, would a scarf or hat they chose to wear be airbrushed from a group photo because it sets them apart? if a student had an accident or leg prosthesis of some kind that caused them concern, or was the source of mockery, would a school argue a case that they couldn't wear trackies because the majority of students don't? doubtful.
how can a community expect tolerance if generations are being shown that discrimination is acceptable, most notably because of religious expression or belief? rg sees this behaviour as a contemporary version of the "she asked for it, did you see what she was wearing?" justification for rape; if you don't want to get picked on or discriminated against, don't wear hijab. rg's mind boggles at this anti-logic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)