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.

Laura Norder: Perth’s pinup girl

No, I’m not dead. I’ve just been preoccupied, that’s all.

We’ve just had a state election, one that added a new dimension to the word “uninspiring”. As is typically the case in this state, there was no small degree of chest-beating about “getting tough” on the criminally inclined.

If you were to read Perth’s daily newspaper (there’s only one), or watch a news bulletin on commercial television, you could forgiven for assuming that Perth’s streets are in a state perpetual anarchy and you are liable to be slaughtered should you be sufficiently foolhardy to leave your house after sunset. Lurid pictures and emotive headlines are par for the course, and naturally all reporting on crime trends has a negative slant, regardless of what the statistics are actually telling us.

So what are the statistics telling us? Well, first of all, and contrary to widespread belief, the state’s crime rate is not “soaring”, “skyrocketing” or “ever increasing”, to quote some of the adjectives I have heard used. The incidence of crime against the person has been relatively static in recent years. The incidence of crime against property has decreased markedly. However, there are some specific areas within these categories that have exhibited an increase – and unfortunately it is precisely these areas that the media latches on to when it wants to convince the public that things are out of control.

It is true that the incidence of crimes against the person is somewhat higher in WA than in the remainder of the country (the incidence of property crime is closer to the national average). This is despite WA having an incarceration rate well above the national average, and higher than that of any other state. Unfortunately, it seems that the best our elected representatives can propose to deal with this situation is more of the same – send yet more people to prison for longer periods, with the assumption that it will somehow make them better people.

It is my view that the argument that our relatively high rate of crime against the person can be attributed to inadequate judicial sanctions is one that cannot be sustained. Something else is clearly amiss here. Why does our rate of violent crime remain relatively high while we are sending a greater proportion of our population to prison than other states? I don’t know what the answer is. Perhaps we would serve ourselves better if we were to direct our efforts towards establishing and dealing with the causes of violent crime before it actually happens, rather than obsessing over how to appropriate retribution against the perpetrators. Unfortunately, though, there are rather few votes in this approach.

Hail mother motor, hail piston rotor, hail wheel

Ever had a multitude of ideas for a post bubbling in your head all day, only to find that when you finally get the opportunity to articulate these thoughts, you have lost all momentum? I suspect this is going to be one of those posts. Let’s give it a good Aussie try anyhow.

Now, the price of petrol is an issue over which a great deal of political discussion has centred this year. Fuel prices have been steadily increasing for some time, culminating in a price point that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Naturally, motorists are clambering for relief. It has been suggested that the government should reduce the excise it imposes at the point of sale. This is a misguided suggestion, for a couple of reasons, Firstly, the upward trend in global oil prices is going to continue regardless, so any relief will inevitably be short-lived. Secondly, it surely goes without saying that the shortfall in revenue that this would cause would have to be made up elsewhere.

No. Seriously, the only way we can lessen the effect of the vagaries of oil prices on our collective hip pockets is to reduce our dependence on the stuff.

Yesterday’s lead article in West Australian predicted a population boom in Perth over the next few decades, and gave pointed examples of public infrastructure that are unable to cope with our present population numbers. What I found concerning was that among these examples were references to the current degree of traffic congestion and the difficulty experienced in locating a parking space. If the goal is to create a sustainable and people-friendly city, then making it easier for people to drive is probably the worst thing we can possibly do.

Perth’s public transport renaissance needs to continue. The network’s coverage and efficiency have improved dramatically in the past twenty years, and this has been reflected in a substantial increase in passenger numbers. Still, there is a significant segment of the population who would never contemplate leaving their car at home, and the next stage of the revival should be to encourage these individuals to change their habits. It is true that the public transport network struggles to adequately service some of the more far-flung parts of Perth’s vast urban sprawl. However, it is also true that there are people who insist on driving even where public transport is a perfectly viable option. I attribute this attitude to a number of local cultural factors. Firstly, there is still an apparent perception among some that public transport serves, or should serve, as a residual system for people who are unable to drive for one reason or another. Secondly, the situation of being bound by bus and train schedules is often an anathema to those who are used to being able to come and go as they please – even where services are a mere 10-15 minutes apart. Finally, some people just don’t like sharing their personal space with strangers.

It is imperative that these attitudes be addressed as part of Perth’s focus on a sustainable future. Obviously it will never be possible to provide high-frequency public transport services to all corners of Perth’s metropolitan area – for this we can thank the short-sighted urban planning policies of the 50s and 60s. However, it is my ultimate hope that where the option of public transport does exist, it will be the natural choice for everyone.

The Political Compass

In describing the political beliefs of people, parties, and organisations, we have a habit of applying either a “liberal” or “conservative” label. This is a problematic dichotomy in that these labels can only be meaningful when considered in reference to the established norms of the society concerned. An individual who identifies as a “conservative” in one country may have a fundamentally different political perspective from one who is considered “conservative” in another. In many Western countries, the liberal/conservative and left/right distinctions are often used interchangeably, when in fact they need not necessarily refer to the same set of social and economic convictions. Further diminishing the meaningfulness of this distinction is the fact that in middle America the word “liberal” is widely, if unwittingly, used as generic term of disparagement.

The Political Compass offers an alternative continuum on which the beliefs of individuals may be compared. This system proposes two axes – the traditional left/right distinction, and running perpendicular to this, an authoritarian/libertarian scale. An individual’s political stance can be expressed in terms of where their beliefs place them on these two axes. This provides a more meaningful method of comparing individuals, being less open to ambiguity and consequent misinterpretation.

The site, usefully, plots the candidates in both recent and forthcoming elections in several different countries. It also gives the visitor the opportunity to plot themselves on the continuum by asking a series of questions relating to their personal beliefs. Obviously these questions can never be completely value-neutral, and hence some degree of cultural bias is inevitable (the site’s creators openly state that it is intended for use in Western democracies). Of course, it is also the case that even within a particular society, a proposition will be open to varying interpretations.

Naturally I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to take the test myself, so here is my result:

The red dot is where I supposedly sit. So much for the moderate views motivated by a sound balance of empathy and pragmatism that I believed I held.

Faded cows and confused curtains

It may come as a surprise to some that the question of Daylight Saving, settled years ago in most other jurisdictions, remains a political hot potato in this state. At present we are in the midst of a three-year trial of DLS, to be followed by a plebicite (commonly referred to as a “referendum”, although this isn’t strictly correct as no alteration to the Constitution is required) to ascertain the degree of public support for continuing the practice.

Naturally I have my own views on the matter – not particularly strong ones, but I do know which way I will be voting. However, I will be content with the outcome regardless of what it happens to be. I just hope that by the time the plebicite rolls around, everyone will understand both the rationale and the mechanics of Daylight Saving and be able to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, there are indications that we are still someway short of this point.

DLS opponents claim that they have moved beyond the comically misinformed arguments of yore about faded curtains and confused cows. In light of the arguments that have been presented recently, however, some have perhaps not moved as far as they think. A recurring refrain against DLS is that “we already have enough daylight here as it is”. I struggle to understand what is meant by this. Obviously, DLS makes absolutely no difference to the duration of daylight experienced each day. In any event, the assumption that Perth somehow receives more daylight than other parts of the country can be immediately dispelled by simply referring to a map:

It seems that some have trouble grasping the fact that Perth (1), owing to its higher latitude, actually receives less summer daylight than Tasmania (2).

Perhaps opponents are in fact attempting to refer to the number of hours of sunshine, rather than daylight, that Perth receives. It is true that Perth is Australia’s sunniest capital, but again, the time our clocks display has absolutely no bearing on this!

At its simplest, DLS need only be understood in the simple terms of whether the preference is for the hour of daylight to be in the morning or in the evening. We will then be adequately equipped to have a meaningful debate and to make an intelligent decision when it comes time to vote on the issue.

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.

A boycott of Olympic proportions

For what it’s worth, my two cents on the subject of Olympic boycotts.

The consensus among at least some athletes is that they will not be pawns of the government on this issue. This is in itself a morally sound position – in a democratic society, it is not the place of the government to make such pronouncements. The decision should be left to individual conscience. In any case, they need not worry. The position of the government, unsurprisingly, is that they do not favour this course of action.

However, the athletes should be aware that they may yet end up being unwitting pawns – not of the Australian government, but of the Chinese authorities. There is a significant risk that China will interpret global participation in the Games as an indication of international approval of their domestic policies. The hope that placing China in the spotlight would help ensure a greater degree of individual freedom for its citizenry turned out to be misguided. As the recent events in Tibet demonstrate, China has shown little inclination to improve its human rights record, despite increased scrutiny from outside. Such inaction should not be rewarded. Until it cleans up its act, China should not be permitted to participate in the Games, let alone host them.

Filth! Filth! It’s all filth! Sinful, sinful world!

Thanks to this article here (yes, it’s from News Ltd again, my apple-logies for that), I can confirm that South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson was, in fact, not misquoted. His justifications for censorship really are that spurious.

Atkinson obviously hasn’t read the “Computer Games and Australians Today” report which parliament commissioned in 1999. If he had, he would know that his concerns about the possible greater impact of interactive entertainment are unfounded. In any event, it is disturbing that he is seeking to base the law of the country on what, to him, is still an unsubstantiated premise.

He then continues on to say that any access restriction technology is likely to be compromised by children. I would raise three points in response to this. Firstly, if they are expert enough to break the access restriction, then they’ll certainly know how to obtain the game through illegitimate channels, rendering any censorship regime ineffective. Secondly, his claim that “Today’s children are far more technologically savvy than their parents” may be true in a general sense, but if he believes that the skills of children that are able to circumvent such access protection measures are anything less than extraordinary, it indicates that he knows little about the technologies he so readily dismisses. Thirdly, even if we were to accept the second point as valid, if a parent is unwilling or unable to control the games their children play (or for that matter, their Internet activities), then surely the only appropriate course of action is to physically prevent their children from accessing the technology altogether, rather than seeking to cripple it for everyone else by advocating unjust and ineffective censorship legislation?

He then tries to terrify us with accounts of currently-banned games which, he seems to imply, would be granted the proposed R-rating. In fact, at least three of them, Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, Narc, and Blitz: The League, would likely be banned in any case. From my understanding of their content, all three could be deemed to promote illegal activity, which cannot be accommodated at any classification level.

Atkinson needs to realise that computer games are not kid’s stuff. The average gamer is aged in his or her late twenties. It is a mature medium with a predominantly mature audience. That Atkinson takes such a casual attitude toward banning adult games is a cause for great concern. It is a compelling fact that, were the same standards applied to The Godfather, widely perceived as being the finest motion picture of all time, the adults of Australia would be legally barred from seeing it.

Won’t somebody please think of the children?

I’m on a roll today…

Now, I’m no gamer – on the rare occasions that I play a computer game, it is invariably a quick blast on some crusty retro classic. However, I do have an appreciation for the medium and believe it should be accorded the same respect as other forms of entertainment, hence this post.

A little background to begin with. In the mid nineties, Australia introduced a mandatory and legally binding age classification system for computer and video games, broadly similar to the one already existing for films and video recordings. However, there was one important difference. Unlike films, for which the highest rating available is the R18+ classification, the highest possible rating for games was capped at MA15+. As a result, to this day, any game deemed unsuitable for a 15-year-old can not be legally sold to anyone, adults included. This restriction is in stark contradiction to one of the principles that supposedly guides Australian censorship decisions, namely that, to the greatest degree possible, adults should be able to see what they wish.

How did this slightly ludicrous state of affairs arise? The primary justification offered at the time was that interactive entertainment *might* have a more profound impact on the participant than passive entertainment. However, the report “Computer Games and Australians Today”, commissioned by Parliament in 1999, found no evidence that this is the case. The motivation for basing censorship legislation upon this unsubstantiated premise was largely the fact that, at the time, the balance of power in the Australian Senate was held by Brian Harradine, a deeply religious independent senator who, as it happened, was also a stalwart of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards and notoriously pro-censorship. His favour was no doubt viewed by the Government as a prerequisite for carrying out their legislative agenda.

Now, at last, the reform of this absurd regime is on the agenda. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is to discuss the possibility of introducing an R18+ rating when it meets this month. There is, however, a fly in the ointment. The Attorney-General of South Australia, Michael Atkinson, has already publicly stated that he is opposed to the proposal. Unfortunately, standing practice is that unanimity is required among Attorneys-General for legislative change to occur.

Disturbingly, according to one of Michael Atkinson’s spokespeople, his perception of the type of material that would be accommodated under the proposed R-rating for games is of “computer-generated pornography and depictions of extreme violence“. This is absolute nonsense and I can only hope that he has been misquoted. As Atkinson is surely well aware, the criteria for the games rating would be exactly the same as that applying to the R-rating for films, under which pornography and extreme violence are expressly excluded. Indeed, under the present guidelines, if a game were to contain content of an equivalent impact to that of a classic R-rated film such as, say, The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, or Apocalypse Now, it would be banned in Australia.

Will Atkinson be successful in sabotaging this much-needed reform? Or will the adult gamers of Australia finally stop being treated like children? We shall soon know.

Viral ignorance

The inaugural (proper) post. Huzzah.

You have probably heard about a rather nasty chain email entitled “Australian Apology to the Aboriginal Population”. You may have even been unfortunate enough to have received it from one of the less enlightened contacts in your address book. As a matter of principle I will not reproduce the text here, but if you haven’t seen it, it can be readily located by means of a Google search. The email first appeared when the “Bringing Them Home” report was released, and unsurprisingly has reared its ugly head once more following the real Apology of the 13th of February.

I was anticipating receiving the email from one person in particular, and sure enough, it arrived in my inbox last week. I toyed with the idea of responding with a rebuttal of the “points” it raised, but as he had rather foolishly sent it via his work email (which I believe is his only account), I decided against it, as doing so could further increase his risk of detection and its associated consequences.

There are a few things that particularly strike me in regard to the content of this email. For example, it is obviously blatantly eurocentric in tone, and it blithely ignores the reality that the removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities persisted until the early seventies, and the legacy of this persists to this day.

The main problem though, is this: The claims it makes are an unmitigated load of bollocks.

Contrary to the claims made in this email, Aborigines do not get free travel, free weddings, or free loans. Their car loans are not paid off for them in the event that they default on the payments – this myth has been doing the rounds since at least the mid-eighties, but it is no more true now than it was then. There is no anthropological evidence that any Indigenous peoples were ever cannibals. And unsurprisingly, though more than a few people seem to be incapable of grasping this, the majority of Indigenous people traditionally lived in fertile coastal regions. Not out in the desert.

Is the depth of ignorance among those distributing this email genuinely this profound? Or are they simply trying to justify their own prejudices?