![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipSunday consisted of two great presentations at the local Unitarian Church. Bilal Cleland, the Human Rights Coordinator of the Islamic Council spoke on religious bigotry and particularly on bigotry against Muslims. Cleland was a great speaker - particularly noting how Muslims have become the marginalised 'other' in Australian society, a position previously held by SE Asian people, and how there is a populist assumption that does not differentiate between Muslim fundamentalists and Muslim secularists. Cleland also drew attention to the long history of Unitarian support for religious freedom.
Following that the Church conducted a public forum on the need for an Australian Bill of Rights, with Jess Healy, the Democrats youth spokesperson, Brian Walters, the legal spokesperson for the Greens, and Greg Connellan, President of the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties. I toned down the great sense of optimism at the forum by reminding those present that there are many people who do not support universal human rights and such people have resources which they will use against any campaign to introduce such rights.
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
More at the UK's The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html
Record this moment. I agree with Kennet and Doyle. A bailout to dodgy transport companies is not the solution.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/19/1077072779093.html
Tram, train subsidy doubles
And I reckon Martin Ferguson has it right too. You don't lie to the electorate if you want to be re-elected.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/21/1077072891949.html
Key seats at risk and toll debacle to blame: ALP
I'm so glad I don't work for the Victorian Parliamentary Labor Party anymore.
Sometimes when you operate from principles rather than feelings you have to support things that you may not be entirely comfortable with. Argue against this - from first principles.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/21/1077072892905.html
Loophole allows stripteasing minors
Erudito has alerted me to those who just can't get enough Hobbits. All three LOTR films in the same session. The Sun Cinema Yarraville is doing it every day until March 3. Which would seem to make Saturday 28 (or Sunday 29) The Day to do it. Fellowship starts at 10am.
Following that the Church conducted a public forum on the need for an Australian Bill of Rights, with Jess Healy, the Democrats youth spokesperson, Brian Walters, the legal spokesperson for the Greens, and Greg Connellan, President of the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties. I toned down the great sense of optimism at the forum by reminding those present that there are many people who do not support universal human rights and such people have resources which they will use against any campaign to introduce such rights.
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
More at the UK's The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html
Record this moment. I agree with Kennet and Doyle. A bailout to dodgy transport companies is not the solution.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/19/1077072779093.html
Tram, train subsidy doubles
And I reckon Martin Ferguson has it right too. You don't lie to the electorate if you want to be re-elected.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/21/1077072891949.html
Key seats at risk and toll debacle to blame: ALP
I'm so glad I don't work for the Victorian Parliamentary Labor Party anymore.
Sometimes when you operate from principles rather than feelings you have to support things that you may not be entirely comfortable with. Argue against this - from first principles.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/02/21/1077072892905.html
Loophole allows stripteasing minors
Erudito has alerted me to those who just can't get enough Hobbits. All three LOTR films in the same session. The Sun Cinema Yarraville is doing it every day until March 3. Which would seem to make Saturday 28 (or Sunday 29) The Day to do it. Fellowship starts at 10am.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-23 04:10 pm (UTC)That almost seems to indicate a challenge ;P Not sure it's one I'm up for seeing as I've just seen them.
As for the Bill of Human Rights - at least it's a start which I suppose is better than nothing. Maybe more will happen after the next election, hoping that Howard is not elected again :(
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 07:53 pm (UTC)That was my feelings as well - nine hours of Hobbits! It may be just a bit too much. Still, I'll ponder on the idea...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 08:07 pm (UTC)Various
Date: 2004-02-23 05:24 pm (UTC)Tolls -- the economic argument for road tolls is, only if there is a rationing problem (i.e. extra car imposes a real congestion cost on other cars). It works for CityLink, London CBD, etc. Can't quite see that for Scoresby. (It also works better if there is a substitutable form of public transport. Ditto.)
Pentagon -- are we sure this is not scenario playing? The military does it all the time (let's imagine ...). It is just that (1) the scenarios are way ahead of IPCC predictions, (2) no conceivable policy action about warming could do anything in that time frame anyway and (3) current European temperatures are still not as high as they were in the Medieval Warm period (and won't be until vineyards become doable in Kent and Brandenburg).
Re: Various
Date: 2004-02-23 08:00 pm (UTC)I'll agree with you there! He sold some of the electricity companies (for example) well over price and now they're really struggling....
Pentagon -- are we sure this is not scenario playing?
And what if it is? The Pentagon plays realistic scenarios.. If they consider the causes probable enough to map out the effects there is cause for concern.
current European temperatures are still not as high as they were in the Medieval Warm period (and won't be until vineyards become doable in Kent and Brandenburg).
Ahem!
http://www.looksmart.co.uk/explore.jsp?path=30505,686889,705474,605717,681659,1158484
;-)
Re: Various
Date: 2004-03-02 04:42 pm (UTC)But not all scenarios come to pass, or even close. That some warming is likely to take place seems a reasonable inference from the evidence (and I liked the vineyard list). The level of warming, degree of human involvement, consequences, capacity to affect are all much more speculative and the way some advocates carry on is enough to make me suspicious -- it is too convenient for all sorts of agendas.
Judicial power
Date: 2004-02-23 05:35 pm (UTC)That is before you get into arguments about which rights. Will it include only 'negative' rights, or will 'welfare rights' get added? Will it include a right to private property? A right to freedom of association incompatible with the arbitration system? Once it is obvious one is 'cherry-picking' rights, that then gets in the way too.
Re: Judicial power
Date: 2004-02-23 08:05 pm (UTC)That's possibly the best argument I've heard so far. Although as one of the speakers said on Sunday if you want to end complaints about "judicial activism" the best solution is to state, unambigiously, what the rights of individuals are.
That is before you get into arguments about which rights.
The general discussion was that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be the one embodied in law.
The Greens have the following, which seems fairly close:
http://www.michaelorgan.org.au/300_issues_sub.php?deptItemID=16
Ditto for the Democrats:
http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/billrights/
Re: Judicial power
Date: 2004-03-02 04:29 pm (UTC)Although as one of the speakers said on Sunday if you want to end complaints about "judicial activism" the best solution is to state, unambigiously, what the rights of individuals are.
They're dreaming. Any Bill of Rights increases judicial power because there will always be boundary issues.
The Greens' draft includes 'welfare rights'. Having judges decided how much education children should have (for example) is judicial activism run rampant.
The Democrats' draft fails to include property, without which most of the rest is emptied.
Then there is the 'if it was left out, that means it is not an important right' line of judicial intepretation. Which is why the US Constitution has an explicit clause to the counter effect.
I remember Gary Johns explaining to me he defeated a Bill of Rights proposal in the Qld ALP by lining up would-be politicians against the lawyers on the judicial power argument. Strangely enough, the former turned out to be a majority. In a political party, who'd have thought it?
The US Bill of Rights makes sense in a very particular institutional, historical and cultural context. And their judicial appointment processes are designed to cope with the implications.
Re: Judicial power
Date: 2004-03-02 05:42 pm (UTC)*nods* I agree with you on this - I was just presenting the counter argument.
Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that there needs to be some "isocratic" mechanism to ensure that "democracy" does not become a "tyranny of the majority". I do consider the US Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc, real milestones in institutional history.
If you have an alternative, or at the least ways to limit the possibility of judicial activism, I would welcome it.
Tyranny of the majority
Date: 2004-03-03 03:21 pm (UTC)In Australia, at the Commonwealth level we have federalism, bicameralism with the second House elected by a quite different method, independent judiciary, rights against confiscation without compensation, establishment of religion, pluralistic institutions, long democratic traditions. These are quite effective barriers against majoritarian tyranny. Indeed, on some issues, efforts have been quite effective at blocking majority wishes (capital punishment in past times and immigration policy and indigenous policy come to mind: Howard may have broken the anti-majoritarian barrier on illegal entry but he still runs a larger immigration policy than has majority support and continues differentiated indigenous welfare).
One of the reasons I am sceptical about the Bill of Rights push is that it seems to be an attempt to extend majority-blocking for dubious reasons, manifesting intelligentsia dissatisfaction with an electorate who doesn't 'cooperate', an intelligentsia whose politics seem to be increasingly dominated by ways of circumventing electoral vetoes (e.g. global governance, attempted de-legitimation of dissent). More power to judges just seems part of the same agenda.
Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-23 05:40 pm (UTC)Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-23 08:08 pm (UTC)That logic starts from the effect and then recursively claims that this justifies the cause. Besides, 'adulthood' is not a legal concept it is a scientific (biological/neurological one) - the legal term is 'age of majority', when a person (almost invariably an adult already) accrues citizenship rights.
Or to put it another way... Are there any good reasons why 16 and 17 year olds shouldn't be citizens?
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-23 09:43 pm (UTC)The need for 'guardians' to approve of a 'minor' working in the sex industry enables greater expolitation than should these individuals be responsible for their own choices. They are legally empowered with the right to engage in mutual sexual acts; why not pay the rent in the same way? Except that we find it 'socially' somehow not right.
I am not comfortable with the concept of being 'an age' to be entitled to do something - yes we need boundaries, but competence and emotional maturity are not measured in birthdays.
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-24 02:56 pm (UTC)I think you are absolutely correct over your statement concerning guardians and with the statement that competence and emotional maturity is not measured in birthdays. In the latter instance, I can certainly provide backup research material of the extreme variation in cognitive and moral reasoning in young adults.
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-24 03:30 pm (UTC)Research on brain waves and cognition is good, it helps connect the patterns of predictable behaviour and counteract some of the less acceptable actings-up. Experience in child care has been my research. Their cognitive development is not only determined by thier own motivation but by the examples provided for them - moral reasoning is both internal instinct and external expectation. I would be interested to see what others have 'officially' come up with. Concur! Spent a lot of time in the nature/nurture debate (don't start!!) :))
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-24 04:16 pm (UTC)I tend towards the cognitive science approach - Piaget and Kohlberg in particular and the emphasis on formal operations. They note of course that the capacity to engage in formal operations has a neurological basis which equates with post-pubescent states, but they also note that most people don't use it. 'For environmental reasons' Kohlberg wryly notes...
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-24 04:35 pm (UTC)But then for most of our lives we only use 45% of our brains (do I have that right?????) - and the amount of graymatter we actually engage in operational activities decreases as we get older - peaking at roughly 36-46 months old??!!! My stat's are old and probably off, but you get the gist!
So if brain activity/function is related to adulthood, we are responsible about age 4, and geriatric about 10 (just before things start to get really interesting with the physical body and the emotional impact of 'childhood' sets in!
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-25 02:20 pm (UTC)It's not the amount of gray matter that is used, but the connections made that is critically important. For example, in early childhood (as Piaget showed through numerous experiments) a perceptual change in quantity is treated as a real change in quantity. Likewise they do not understand ordinal or cardinal properties of a number, they confuse spatial and temporal parameters, they have no idea about Euclidean coordinates and.. (this is the important one)
they don't understand the difference between moral reasons and arbritrary rules...
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-25 02:40 pm (UTC)My formal study of this seems light years ago - do you have a site for piaget that I could check out (if I wasn't dancing every night I would rummage through the boxes of developmental pyschology texts!)? this is spot on with your PhD, yes???
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-26 02:28 pm (UTC)True, the existential philosopher Sartre made significant mileage out of the concept of 'the look' as empirical evidence of 'the Other'. Hardly what one could use though for formal justifications, tho'...
This is a good introduction to Piaget
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/piaget.html
and Kohlberg
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-02-26 02:38 pm (UTC)Enjoy the hobbits-overload if you decide to subject yourself ... perhaps see you in a couple of weeks!
Re: Adulthood and stripteasing minors
Date: 2004-03-02 04:16 pm (UTC)Any age of majority is going to be somewhat arbitrary, since moral & emotional development varies. If one assumes that majority shouldn't be a completely abrupt break, it seems to make sense to have a 'lead up'. 16/17 seem to be good 'lead up' years.
It would also probably even further complicate the lives of teachers to make 16-yr old legal adults.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-23 06:15 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 08:10 pm (UTC)I remember seeing 'Three Colours' back-to-back and that was really good... I'm not too sure whether this is just too much for a single sitting... Still, we know you're a pervy hobbit fancier ;-)
Re:
Date: 2004-03-01 06:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-24 12:32 am (UTC)and like...the climate. don't even get me started. i seriously think this planet is going to end up like all those sci-fi movies. i don't want to ride a dune buggy :(
climate change
Date: 2004-02-24 12:36 am (UTC)The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
This is simply a ploy to boost the US defence industry. There's no scientific basis to the date of 2020 - except perhaps it's the year GWB will be ready to retire after he's changed the constitution because of the amazing security crisis!
Re: climate change
Date: 2004-02-24 02:58 pm (UTC)OK, I understand that interpretation. My initial reading of it was a group of people were tired of Bush ignoring the scientific evidence and tried a pitch at something he feels strongly about.
Climate change
Date: 2004-02-24 04:12 pm (UTC)The full report can be found here...
http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/download/1/417492/0/pentagon-on-climate-change.pdf