Speakers and crowd at the Equal Love National Day of Action
Yesterday I attended the Equal Love National Day of Action in Brisbane. I estimate that around 200-300 people attended, although I’m prone to overestimating when counting people. (For the record, I’m also prone to overestimating when catering for a party, so you’ll never go hungry at my place.) A number of my friends from Twitter were these as well and it was great to be involved in something that is very important and very now.
Something I feel needs to be shouted from the rooftop is that despite some media reports, the protesters were not all gay and lesbian people. Australians everywhere need to realise that straight Australians also support this movement and the right for same sex couples to get married.
Either: marriage is a religious rite, held exclusively by clergy; or: marriage is between two consenting adults. That is all.
I had never really thought about it this way until I read it yesterday. If it is the former, then as an Atheist my marriage is a sham and a fraud. If marriage is a religious rite, as the churches and other interest groups are quick to proclaim, then we shouldn’t have gotten married.
Natalie and I got married because we love each other and we wanted to proclaim that love to the world. We also wanted to officially record that we were committed to each other. We had a civil ceremony held by a marriage celebrant (Natalie’s godmother actually) and it was beautiful. It had nothing to do with God, Allah, Jehovah or any other deity.
If we are allowed to have a wedding and be atheists, then why can’t same sex couples (regardless of their religious beliefs) have this option too. We live in a secular world. Marriage must be between two consenting adults of any sex, any race, and any creed.
It’s a shame Kevin Rudd doesn’t see it that way, but there is something you can to do help.
There is currently a Senate Enquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, the bill being recently introduced into the Senate by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young. (Readers will know that I don’t agree with the Greens on everything, but this is something I can get behind.) Make a submission to the enquiry and make your voice heard. Tell other people you know about this.
Let the rest of Australia know that this isn’t fair and cannot stand the way it is. Let those who think they are alone in their support know that they are not, so that we can all come together as one voice. Together, we can beat this oppression and bring about a monumental change to the rights of all Australians.
Let’s do this now. It’s the 21st century after all!
Girls who are attending private school dances are being required to wear bike pants, tights, leggings, etc with short skirts or dresses as part of a new dress code. The Courier-Mail’s headline cries “School Dance Dress Shock“. Clicking through gives you an even better headline for the article.
Bike pants dress code for school dances to ward off sex
I can only assume they are very unflattering bike pants then.
The article reports that this decision has been made amid concerns that inappropriate touching by boys will lead to criminal charges, and that this rule has been brought in to “ reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted”. The report goes on to explain that the girl’s schools had asked for the rules to be changed, as previously this type of apparel wasn’t allowed. Perhaps this was a leftover of the late 80s push to consign leggings to the past forever.
It seems sensible to allow leggings, tights. This has become the fashion over recent times and it fits into the appropriate dress code for a school dance. Mini skirts and bare legs really don’t need to be the realm of 14 and 15 year old girls. This way they can wear the current short skirt/dress fashions but with appropriate covering that a private school requires. Win-win I would have thought.
The claims that this would reduce incidents of sexual assault seems strange. Sexual assault is not accidentally touching a girl inappropriately because there was nothing in the way, like bike pants. Sexual assault is the act of touching a person inappropriately (or other such things) and whether bike pants are in the way or not, it’s still assault. Perhaps the idea is that the boys are not going to be ‘provoked’ by the bare flesh temptation brought about by the short skirts. I don’t think that would stop randy boys from thinking about sex, but randy boys doesn’t mean sexual assault either.
Adolescent boys and girls have always had the hideously difficult task of growing through from innocence to sexual maturity. It’s not always pleasant and can be very awkward. Having been a randy teenage boy at one stage, I know what it was like for me. I was never interested in sexually assaulting someone though.
If a guy is going to sexually assault a girl, it’s because he is a pig and can’t control himself (or chooses to not control himself). No amount of Lycra will stop them.
Good on the schools for having and updating their dress code, but lets not turn it into a panacea for sexual assault at school dances. Education and modelling of correct and appropriate behaviour from older men is one way that we can get the next generation to treat all women with respect and not do the wrong thing. Report anything that you see immediately. If you are attacked, don’t be afraid to speak up. We need to support the victims of sexual assault to help them get the justice they deserve.
A dress code – good idea, but not the end to sexual assault.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently been asked to comment on her views regarding Reproductive Rights and Family Planning, including abortion. Rather than summarise, here is the YouTube video of the question and her answer.
There will be those who disagree with her view and you are entitled to that right. I am with Secretary Clinton on this one. It must be the individual’s right to choose whether abortion is suitable for them. Providing good family planning advice, including information about contraception and safer sex practices is important no matter where you live. Providing the tools for girls and boys, men and women to make sound and informed decisions is much more important than running scare mongering campaigns.
Teaching kids about sex is just as important as teaching them about other physical health issues and perhaps even more so in some cases. They are not resistant to hormones and need to have the information available to think for themselves. Providing them with age appropriate education in a safe environment is important. If parents want to opt their children out then we shouldn’t stop them. But we shouldn’t allow a group to force their views on abortion, sex education or family planning on anyone else.
If your deity, your moral values or your ideological view of society says that it is wrong to have an abortion, then you do what you need to do. Let other women decide for themselves and do whatever they decide they need to do.
I’ve been thinking more about the issues I mentioned in my previous post on child discipline. The consensus (that being two commentators, for the record) is that any form of physical discipline is abuse. So it appears that I’m old fashioned and probably should never have children myself. It’s also been suggested to me that physical discipline only comes from the parent’s frustration/anger at the child not following directions. So now I’m wondering, should people need to sit a parenting test and get a licence?
That might seem far fetched and out of touch, but lets think about this for a minute.
It seems that the courts and the child advocate groups have decided that you cannot discipline using excessive physical force. So where is the line in the sand? Some say that any force is excessive. Some say that using a weapon (for example, a belt or a cane) is where the line should be drawn. So already we have a blurred line from which to work from. So lets clear it up.
Lets make it illegal to use any force against a child. No hand smacking, belts, cords, canes, hitting or slapping. Nothing.
Parents are then left with reason, talking, positive parenting techniques and all sorts of other stuff that the Super Nanny would probably prescribe. How is the average Australian parent meant to keep abreast of the currently worlds best discipline techniques? If parents are only to use whatever means the child advocacy groups feel is best, then what options are available?
Lets gather all people who are capable of having a child and license them. Then they can do a course similar to a first aid course, a basic parenting course. Make them sit through a course teaching all the current parenting techniques and demonstrate the use of them through role play. If they pass, they get a licence and are now allowed to have children. Perhaps if you fail you are sterilised temporarily until you can pass. We don’t want just anyone having a child.
What if we make it a requirement to attend a yearly refresher to keep their skills up to date? That’s a revenue raiser for the Government or child advocacy groups, who could tender for the right to teach these courses. Imagine a generation of parents being taught by Hetty Johnson the rights and wrongs of child rearing, as well as the world in general. Sounds like a fun Sunday afternoon.
We need to carefully consider what we teach in these courses though. Twenty years ago people would have laughed to suggest that using a cane or belt on a child would get them into court. Not any more. So what is to say that some of the current worlds best practices are not going to go the same way in another twenty years? Could the naughty step been seen as psychologically damaging to the child in the future, and we’ll have to go to court for using that too?
It has almost gotten to the point where its too hard to have a child and bring them up. Perhaps belting your child is too far. One wack on the bum with a hand would seem to be the level of physical discipline that should be the line. But remember if you give that smack all they have to do is complain and they’ll be taken away to a much better place.
Foster care. Because that’s where we aspire our future generation to go.
A Northern Territorian father has lost his five year old daughter and been fined $1,000 for disciplining her with a belt. She has been placed into inter-state foster care, despite the court hearing that they had a “wonderful relationship”. Well I’m sure she’ll thrive being a ward of the state, away from her Dad wondering just why he doesn’t love her any more. Brilliant work guys, just brilliant.
Magistrate Greg Cavanagh said that the assault on the girl was “outrageous”.
“The trust that is given to adults and to fathers to bring up and nurture their young babies is a very precious thing indeed – the most precious responsibility and trust you’ll ever have,” he said.
“You have abused that trust and you have abused your love of her by giving her a beating.”
Yes, you heard correctly. Smacking your child with a belt four times is a beating. We don’t know the specifics of the belting, but there has been no mention of excessive force or injury being inflicted on the poor little girl. But magistrate Cavanagh wasn’t finished there.
“In this modern age, physical punishment of children is seen to be barbaric,” he said.
“I’ll bet you she screamed and cried when you did this to her.”
You bet she screamed and cried, just like I did when I got a smack. Generally as a last resort and after much reasoning and intelligent conversation. Because five year olds do reason fairly and justly, and always follow direction. I’m right, aren’t I?
I never understand those who look in from the outside and judge others. I would agree that smacking your child around (or your spouse or anyone) is not on. Violence in the home is never welcome and should be dealt with promptly and with full force. But when did the right to discipline children with a smack with a belt get taken away? I don’t remember signing up for that.
Some wacko commented today on the couriermail.com.au website that a belt was a “Criminal Weapon.” The last time I heard of a belt used as a weapon was by Michael Hutchence, and that was on himself in a Sydney hotel room.
Too soon?
As long as there are no other issues surrounding this case (and who knows, it’s not like the media to just gloss over a few chunks of data that they aren’t interested in, is it?) then there needs be serious reconsideration of whether foster care is the right route to take. It’s seems a tough road to send a child on.
Do you think I’m nuts? Actually agree with what I’m saying for a change? Why hide away anonymously reading when you can actually TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK. Leave your comments – I do read them and often respond.
Plus sitting on the fence will leave you with splinters.- Nicholas
