Love it or leave it, just don’t try and better it

One of the slogans accompanying the crude Australian nationalism that has surfaced in recent years is “Australia: Love It or Leave It”. This reproach is commonly directed at recent arrivals, particularly those of identifiably non-Anglo Saxon descent, who dare to challenge the status quo in any way.

The irony of the appropriation of a foreign slogan (in this case, one of American origin) as a expression of Australian patriotism need not be pointed out. The real concern I have with this slogan is its totalitarian undertones, which are surely counter to the democratic ideals that are almost universally regarded in this country. We are all supposed to “love” an invariably narrow perception of what it means to be Australian, one which a good many people who were born here and have lived here all their lives would likely not satisfactorily conform to.

Public debate is an integral part of any healthy democracy. What could be more Australian than the new arrival who enthusiastically engages with and helps to shape their community? Healthy patriotism is not about making everyone conform to some arbitrary ideal. The true patriot is one who considers how they can help make their country, whether it is by birth or adoption, an even better place. Some of their ideas will have merit, while others may be roundly rejected or even condemned – but this is all part of the democratic process.

Training them for train travel

A most welcome long weekend is on the horizon. You may yet see me at my most prolific, as I am aiming to make a post each day. Let’s see if I’m able to stick to this plan…

Anyway, what can I complain about today?

Well, the behaviour of some Perth rail commuters rather gets my gander up. I experienced the most extreme example of this some weeks ago, on the day of a football game of some significance. Upon nearing my stop, I made my way towards to the doors. As the doors opened, however, a vast horde of football fans stampeded in without any regard for the likelihood that some passengers may wish to disembark. I ended up having to continue to the next stop, then walk back to my intended destination.

I see less extreme variations of this same scenario repeated on a frequent basis. All too often, boarding passengers either stand directly in front of the doors as they open, thereby blocking the path for disembarking passengers, or worse still, barge their way straight past them. The time is long overdue for a passenger education program. It needs to be drilled into the minds of these inconsiderate passengers that not only is allowing passengers to disembark before attempting to board basic common courtesy, but it is also the most efficient means for both parties to complete their respective processes.

Another irksome factor, albeit a somewhat lesser one, is the insistence among standing passengers of congregating around the doors. If the carriage is not crowded, this is of little consequence, but during many a peak hour I have found myself trying to squeeze my way on board without being guillotined by the door. This has in fact happened to me more than once. Not only is it distressing, but it is also embarrassing. People point and laugh at you. Anyway, I appreciate that passengers who are only travelling one or two stops would be well advised to stick close to the doors. However, if everyone else were to move as far along the carriage as possible, it would greatly ease boarding and make the journey more comfortable for everyone.

Some years ago, Transperth had in its repertoire a recording of a rather stern female voice which periodically instructed passengers to “Please stand back so that other passengers can alight when the train arrives” and “Please move along the car away from the doors”. Naturally, these messages were systematically ignored, so simply breaking her out of retirement would unlikely prove effective. A more comprehensive courtesy campaign should be trialled – radio, television, print, the works. If it goes some way towards addressing these problems and fostering a greater degree of passenger courtesy, it will have been well worthwhile.

The East is Red – or any other colour you like

Despite the “confusion” over the role of the Chinese “flame attendents”, the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Canberra without major incident. As predicted, pro-China demonstrators were out in droves. The irony of them showing support for their country by means of a public demonstration was obviously completely lost on them.

I noticed that these demonstrators live in almost childlike awe of their country. They are oblivious to their Government’s oppressive policies and hypersensitive to any criticism of them, which they seem to regard as a personal attack on the Chinese people.

Any media report that portrays the regime in a negative light is systematically denounced as “biased”.

The irony is blinding.

Those naughty Nordics

While the name Rebecca St James will not be familiar to most, she is apparently a big wheel among afficionados of Christian Contemporary Music. Her regard in these circles stems primarily from the fact that her approach to pre-marital sex seemingly draws its inspiration from the “Just Say No” approach to drug awareness (and, incidentally, is likely to meet with a similar degree of success).

I have commented on this article in the past, but it incensed me to the degree that I have decided to revisit it on this blog. Specifically, it is the final line of the article, “I’ve got a lot of mainstream media attention even in countries like Norway that are not known necessarily for their morality” that raised my ire.

Evidently we are talking about a version of morality consistent with the Gospel according to St James, rather than one that accords with any objective measure of social cohesiveness. For when a rational comparison is made between Norway and St James’ adopted home country of the United States, it becomes abundantly clear which is the more “moral” of the two.

Just by way of example: Norwegians do not live in fear of the next school rampage. Recreational homicide does not rank among popular sporting activities. Norway looks after its citizens – medicine is affordable, and those requiring major treatment do not risk financial ruin. Norway does not execute the mentally handicapped, or anyone else for that matter. Norwegians are aware of their place in the world, as one country among many, and do not suffer from the delusions of exceptionalism. Norway is an egalitarian society, with its citizens entitled to a wage that they can actually live on. Finally, Norway outshines the United States over a range of other important social indicators, such as infant mortality, literacy, and life expectancy.

However, the difference that should be of greatest interest to St James is that Norway also boasts of substantially lower teen pregnancy and STD infection rates than the United States.

I was flogged by the nuns every day…but it never did me any harm

If anyone is reading this, they might rightly assume that I’ve been sucked in a vortex, or more likely simply abandoned this blog. The truth is, recent days have been notable for a marked lack of cooperation on the part of both my health and my computer. As the latter is now sorted and the former is at least servicable, let us proceed to the topic of this post.

I was reading an article recently about a proposal to impose financial penalties on parents whose children engage in criminal activity. There were a variety of responses to this proposal. Predictably, a recurring one was one along the lines of “How are we supposed to keep our children in line when the government/loony left/do-gooders/social engineers have taken away our right to discipline them?”

A couple of explanatory points before I proceed. As you may have gathered, the “right to discipline” is code for the imposition of corporal punishment (the possibility that parental rights might not be unconditional and that children may also have rights has apparently not occurred to these people!) Secondly, corporal punishment has not been specifically outlawed in the home in Australia – the law allowing “reasonable chastisement” of children has itself not changed since the 1930s, although the courts’ likely interpretation of the word “reasonable” obviously has.

I’m not going to turn this post into a general critique of corporal punishment. A multitude of publications have already covered the issue in significant depth, and I doubt that there is anything I could add. Instead, I will specifically address the notion that the possibility of corporal punishment is a prerequisite for keeping a child from harm.

I should disclose right now that I am not a parent. In the minds of many, this means that anything I have to say on the issue is terminally uninformed. Perhaps, however, my lack of first-hand experience will allow me to approach the issue from an unemotive perspective, without the need to try to justify my own actions in the process.

A common refrain of those claiming corporal punishment as essential is that it is needed to deter children from actions that may put themselves or others at risk. Common examples of such actions are of a child touching a hot stove, or running into a busy street. I believe this reasoning to be flawed. It is risky in the extreme for a parent to rely on the efficacy of their discipline to prevent their child from engaging in such actions. If they are too young to understand the danger, then they are likely also too young to form an association between the action and the consequence. Once they are old enough to understand the danger, they will avoid it of their own accord. In the meantime, the only effective means of protecting the child is close and constant parental supervision.

Obviously it is a long road from touching hot stoves to acts of juvenile delinquency. However, it surely goes without saying that if the only thing preventing a older child from engaging in a life of crime is the threat of punishment, corporal or otherwise, there are some serious underlying issues that need to be addressed – a quick-fix solution will not cut it. This is where the child’s nurturing, if any, and the values that have been instilled in them, if any, need to be taken account of. It is unrealistic to expect superior behavioural standards from children than those expressed by their adult rolemodels – and I have witnessed some absolutely shocking public behaviour on the part of adults, even while in the company of their own children. Perhaps this is where the focus of our attention should be.

It is undeniable that there have been significant societal changes since the days when corporal punishment was widespread and widely accepted – some of these changes have been positive ones, others markedly less so. Whether we like these changes or not, any new policies and practices need to be framed within their context. It is worth noting that the couple of dozen countries that have outlawed corporal punishment completely do not, in broad terms, suffer from delinquent behaviours to the same degree as those that have retained it. It seems likely that it is local cultural norms that are not only giving rise to higher levels of violent and anti-social behaviour, but also prescribing corporal punishment as the solution.

Okay, with that out of the way, I think a more light-hearted post is due, to act as a counterpoint to the more heavy themes explored to date. Until then, here’s a nice picture of some ducks to brighten up the blog: