One night last year The Partner and I happened to be in on a Friday night, and we happened to have the TV on Channel 1 when one of the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life came on TV, completely unexpectedly. We were hooked from that moment on.
7 Periods With Mr. Gormsby is a saga in 7 episodes about a highly dysfunctional, low-income boys school with weak leadership, a lot of pretend new-ageyness, and (even more frightening) some teachers who believe the new age crap. The relief teacher for the naughty class has just fled back to India after the local troublemaker drew a cartoon of her fellating a cow; enter Mr. Gormsby, an ex-army ex-India-brigade schoolteacher who is famous for using the cane on a student teacher, and whose ideas haven't changed since the 1940s. He has no tolerance for any of this "Maori mumbo jumbo mummy didn't breastfeed me until I was six personal instrospection nonsense".
In a political environment where political correctness has long since trumped real correctness, the screenplay for Gormsby was a breath of fresh air -- nothing is sacred, and yet unlike South Park, everything is nonetheless treated with respect. Gormsby's character is offset by the good-natured but trouble-making Hohepa, and despite their backgrounds the two somehow see eye to eye. Gormsby doesn't go over so well with the rest of the staff, though, but the rest of the staff can't even get their act together with each other.
There are two series of the show, and it is well worth getting both, because this is one storyline that can cope with the extra seven episodes.
My favourite of all the scenes, though, is the human relationships spelling test. Think: "Abortion. Abortion. This classroom is an abortion. Buggery. Buggery. Since Pissant has been principal, this school has gone to buggery".
Showing posts with label NZ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NZ. Show all posts
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Reflections: Walking the social tightrope in another country (part 2)
So clearly, neither country is perfect, but The Partner and I have chosen Australia for now -- it will be a few years, I'm thinking. We like it here, a lot, but it is interesting living in a country that is historically such a sibling rival. We get teased about our accents, and we get called sheepshaggers (though that really is the Aussies, not us), and we are expected to give a shit about the rugby (apart from seeing embarrassing drunken fans here, I don't).
On the flipside, it is pretty damn hard to have an opinion about anything in either country (and particularly about any differences between them) without being offensive, when you are a guest and there is a well established rivalry. I don't mind this, I am well aware that I am a guest here, and that I owe loyalty to New Zealand, and courtesy to Australia, but I am an opinionated person, and when questioned I will respond. Take it as read, though, that I consider the higher quality of living, the better pay, the better healthcare, the wider range of cultural events and the better weather enough--I am still here, after all. Where I criticise when provoked, the criticism is well thought out, and not a kneejerk reaction to things not being like at home. It is only a criticism of that one issue, though, I love your country and am grateful for the opportunities it has provided me.
On the flipside, it is pretty damn hard to have an opinion about anything in either country (and particularly about any differences between them) without being offensive, when you are a guest and there is a well established rivalry. I don't mind this, I am well aware that I am a guest here, and that I owe loyalty to New Zealand, and courtesy to Australia, but I am an opinionated person, and when questioned I will respond. Take it as read, though, that I consider the higher quality of living, the better pay, the better healthcare, the wider range of cultural events and the better weather enough--I am still here, after all. Where I criticise when provoked, the criticism is well thought out, and not a kneejerk reaction to things not being like at home. It is only a criticism of that one issue, though, I love your country and am grateful for the opportunities it has provided me.
Reflections: Walking the social tightrope in another country
I am one of the net migration of 650 Kiwis a week to the 'lucky country', a move that was once famously described by David Lange as "improving the average IQ of both countries". This is the fifth country I have lived in, so I have a little experience living in other cultures, but this is the first place I have deliberately and explicitly chosen.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love New Zealand, it is where I grew up, and it will always be 'home', but when there are few opportunities in specialised IT roles, large student loan debts, high taxes on upper middle income earners, and the feeling that because you are not a sportsperson, you are unappreciated, well, I think you will find a lot of people like me will leave. And that is before we even start talking about the fundamentally broken healthcare system, the bad weather, and the fact that often the only place you can see a good show/concert/play is Auckland, a monstrosity of a city with no public transport.
Having said, that, though, Australia is not perfect either. Their elected leader has somehow got them involved in a war no-one agrees with, and he has refused to sign the Kyoto protocol because of the breaks given to third world countries. There are major issues with water here, and pretty soon many industries (like rice and dairy) are going to come to a crunch point. And frankly, the sports thing is even worse here than at home.
continued in next post
Now, don't get me wrong. I love New Zealand, it is where I grew up, and it will always be 'home', but when there are few opportunities in specialised IT roles, large student loan debts, high taxes on upper middle income earners, and the feeling that because you are not a sportsperson, you are unappreciated, well, I think you will find a lot of people like me will leave. And that is before we even start talking about the fundamentally broken healthcare system, the bad weather, and the fact that often the only place you can see a good show/concert/play is Auckland, a monstrosity of a city with no public transport.
Having said, that, though, Australia is not perfect either. Their elected leader has somehow got them involved in a war no-one agrees with, and he has refused to sign the Kyoto protocol because of the breaks given to third world countries. There are major issues with water here, and pretty soon many industries (like rice and dairy) are going to come to a crunch point. And frankly, the sports thing is even worse here than at home.
continued in next post
Rant: New Zealand gave women the vote, and then did nothing else (part 3)
Not only is birth control expensive in NZ, you have to see a doctor twice a year to get it (for anything other than condoms), and they are expensive too. Tubal ligations are fully funded, but there is a waiting list and they are more dangerous, more invasive, and more permanent than vasectomies (which are not funded, unless there are exceptional circumstances).
On the flip side of the coin, fertility treatment is easier to get if you smoke, if you or your partner has been voluntarily sterilised and changed your mind, or if you prefer not to have sex with a man. A couple that has no specific, diagnosed infertility has to wait five years before they can get help, making pregnancy and birth riskier, and the parents five years older.
So, in New Zealand, abortion is actually cheaper to acquire than any other form of birth control. There is no safe, reliable birth control for any woman who eventually wants children, but has anything wrong with her intestines at all (or indeed for teenagers who routinely drink too much, shag someone random, and throw up their pill). On the other hand if you want to get pregnant, you should make some poor choices there, too.
Frankly, I agree with the handwringing politicians, that New Zealand does need a unified approach to reproduction, including a review of the old laws, but since these things cost money (and NZ doesn't like to spend money on women's health), and they might get the government voted out, I'm not holding my breath.
On the flip side of the coin, fertility treatment is easier to get if you smoke, if you or your partner has been voluntarily sterilised and changed your mind, or if you prefer not to have sex with a man. A couple that has no specific, diagnosed infertility has to wait five years before they can get help, making pregnancy and birth riskier, and the parents five years older.
So, in New Zealand, abortion is actually cheaper to acquire than any other form of birth control. There is no safe, reliable birth control for any woman who eventually wants children, but has anything wrong with her intestines at all (or indeed for teenagers who routinely drink too much, shag someone random, and throw up their pill). On the other hand if you want to get pregnant, you should make some poor choices there, too.
Frankly, I agree with the handwringing politicians, that New Zealand does need a unified approach to reproduction, including a review of the old laws, but since these things cost money (and NZ doesn't like to spend money on women's health), and they might get the government voted out, I'm not holding my breath.
Rant: New Zealand gave women the vote, and then did nothing else (part 2)
My rant on reproductive choice in New Zealand was spawned by an article I read on the state of NZ's abortion laws. Under the law, New Zealand women are not supposed to have abortion-on-demand, even in the very early stages of pregnancy, and so most women who get an abortion in New Zealand most women who have an abortion do so because to have the baby would 'severely adversely affect their mental health', which is patently bollocks. This law also means women have to jump through a number of hoops to get an abortion. The article quotes male experts acknowledging that the law doesn't work, but notes that the government doesn't want to touch abortion law because it pisses people off. This is a law that has not been reviewed since 1977.
New Zealand has a high abortion rate, and a high teen pregnancy rate, and the lawmakers in that article are wringing their hands and claiming that to really solve the abortion problem, we need a unified reproductive strategy. Having been a victim of NZ's present reproductive strategy (I was offered an IUD as my "best option" despite never having had children, wanting them, having a bleeding tendency and having an autoimmune disorder), this made me fume: In New Zealand, birth control options are the pill, the mini-pill, depo-provera (which is seen as being unsafe in many countries) condoms, copper IUD, hormonal IUD (if you pay yourself), and sterilisation. Even if you pay yourself, you cannot get the patch, the implant, the nuvaring, or any of the lower-estrogen pills, and if the pill that works best for you is not one of the ones the government thinks is okay you are going to pay a fortune for it.
continued in the next post
New Zealand has a high abortion rate, and a high teen pregnancy rate, and the lawmakers in that article are wringing their hands and claiming that to really solve the abortion problem, we need a unified reproductive strategy. Having been a victim of NZ's present reproductive strategy (I was offered an IUD as my "best option" despite never having had children, wanting them, having a bleeding tendency and having an autoimmune disorder), this made me fume: In New Zealand, birth control options are the pill, the mini-pill, depo-provera (which is seen as being unsafe in many countries) condoms, copper IUD, hormonal IUD (if you pay yourself), and sterilisation. Even if you pay yourself, you cannot get the patch, the implant, the nuvaring, or any of the lower-estrogen pills, and if the pill that works best for you is not one of the ones the government thinks is okay you are going to pay a fortune for it.
continued in the next post
Rant: New Zealand gave women the vote, and then did nothing else
New Zealand, despite being the first country in the world to give women the vote, has a really crap record when it comes to womens issues. Some of the lowlights include:
continued in next post
- Well after the Helsinki convention was signed, doctors were performing cervical cancer experiments on women and girls without their knowledge or consent.
- In a completely separate incident, readings of screenings were botched for years in one region of NZ -- as a result of this NZ women now do not have adequate privacy protection for their smears or their medical records, as they are all part of a research programme to improve cervical screening.
- Despite NZ's purported interest in preventing cervical cancer, anyone who wants the vaccine there has to pay for it themselves.
- Herceptin, a breast cancer drug, inadequately funded in NZ
- Haemophilia patients (mostly male) have access to a wide range of treatments and uncapped funding, while rheumatoid arthritis (mostly female) patients have only recently gained access to world class care under strict funding guidelines.
continued in next post
Rant: Hone Harawira is a racist bastard (part 3)
In the end, though, the thing that is really wrong with this is that Harawira has not suggested an alternative. The children that are being abused are not being removed from their homes, as they would in other Australian families, because of the 'stolen generation' policy. The situation for aboriginal women and children is bad, and getting worse. While Howard's plan has some major flaws (in my ill-educated view abolishing the permit system and making this a land issue is one of them), it is also clearly and firmly saying that the abuse has got to stop. It is putting sensible steps in place to make sure aboriginal children are at a minimum fed, clothed, and not exposed to alcohol and pornography (personally, I think that a portion of the money that all welfare recipients receive should have to be spent on food, clothing and/or healthcare, so just call me a bitch), and it is doing it in a way that does not involve creating another stolen generation.
My embarrassment and irritation does not end with Harawira, however, in the end he is a publicity-grabbing fool and nothing more. The New Zealand press, however, had some coverage that was as cheap as an underarm bowl, for example pairing these two images (NZ Herald):
Nice to see they could find good press shots of each of them. And then there was this crap, which by dragging everything else into the picture, and glossing over the fact that Harawira is an MP completely misses the point: It is not okay make personal attacks in politics, and something has to give for aboriginal women and children (To be fair, there was also some very good opinion coverage; see for example: here, here, and here).
In the end, though, let's face it: Hone Harawira was elected in an electorate whose only constituents are those of a certain race. Now just who is a racist?
My embarrassment and irritation does not end with Harawira, however, in the end he is a publicity-grabbing fool and nothing more. The New Zealand press, however, had some coverage that was as cheap as an underarm bowl, for example pairing these two images (NZ Herald):
Nice to see they could find good press shots of each of them. And then there was this crap, which by dragging everything else into the picture, and glossing over the fact that Harawira is an MP completely misses the point: It is not okay make personal attacks in politics, and something has to give for aboriginal women and children (To be fair, there was also some very good opinion coverage; see for example: here, here, and here).In the end, though, let's face it: Hone Harawira was elected in an electorate whose only constituents are those of a certain race. Now just who is a racist?
Rant: Hone Harawira is a racist bastard (part 2)
Not only was Harawira's attack ad hominem, it was also factually wrong (contrary to Harawira's claim it hat not been ten years since the report was released, the inquiry was only started last year).
Howard gave Harawira's comments all the attention they deserved (precisely none) at least in the press, and members of Harawira's party (and indeed his family) called for him to resign. Not only has Harawira not resigned, he has refused to apologise to anyone but his political party for his comments.
sorry this one is short, was doing some fact checking and couldn't write much; continues in next post
Howard gave Harawira's comments all the attention they deserved (precisely none) at least in the press, and members of Harawira's party (and indeed his family) called for him to resign. Not only has Harawira not resigned, he has refused to apologise to anyone but his political party for his comments.
sorry this one is short, was doing some fact checking and couldn't write much; continues in next post
Rant: Hone Harawira is a racist bastard (part.1)
Recently, the prime minister of Australia announced some pretty drastic measures to try and reduce violence against women and children in aboriginal communities in Australia. I have opinions about these measures, not all of them favourable (but not all unfavourable either), but this post isn't about my opinion, it's about the opinion of an MP in NZ.
Hone Harawira came out and called John Howard a "racist bastard" the day after the policy was released, claiming:
Now, this may provide us some insight into the domestic violence statistics among Maori, but for a New Zealander living here in Australia this kind of commentary coming from a NZ politician and being reported as far away as India is fucking embarrassing. Political commentary is one thing, and Harawira would have been well within his rights to malign the policy as racist, but an ad hominem attack that is not even provably true just isn't okay in any civilised discourse, much less international politics
continues in next post
Hone Harawira came out and called John Howard a "racist bastard" the day after the policy was released, claiming:
"If I was an Aboriginal man in the Northern Territory I would feel like absolute shit right now, I would have the leader of my country saying I am an alcoholic, I am into pornography, I am into sexual abuse. All I would want to do is go out and smash someone"
Now, this may provide us some insight into the domestic violence statistics among Maori, but for a New Zealander living here in Australia this kind of commentary coming from a NZ politician and being reported as far away as India is fucking embarrassing. Political commentary is one thing, and Harawira would have been well within his rights to malign the policy as racist, but an ad hominem attack that is not even provably true just isn't okay in any civilised discourse, much less international politics
continues in next post
Friday, June 15, 2007
Rave: I love Melbourne
As some of you might know (hah, like anyone is reading this anyway) I recently moved to Melbourne. Now, I was kind of worried, because everyone I talked to (apart from Martin, who is living here and can't have the kind of life he can have at home) told me I was going to love Melbourne, and always exactly like that, with the emphasis on the word love. Normally when something is talked up up to me like that, I find whatever it is a disappointment.
Well, today I realised how much I really, truly love this adopted city of mine. I walked out the door, and it was foggy, and I thought "oh hey, it's foggy. Cool!". Those of you who lived with me before, or indeed know anything about my previous home city will know that it is notorious for fog. Anyone who lived there with me will know that my reaction to the fog was anything but "Cool!". It's true. I love Melbourne so much, I even love the fog.
Loving Melbourne as much as I do has made me realise that I never really settled in to my previous home. I loved the people there, and I was in many ways loath to leave, but I was always disenchanted with the city itself. It was muddy in the winter, and humid in the summer. The winter fog often did not lift. The terminal rain in winter really slayed me. I lived in that town for ten years, and it was never really home -- there was no loyalty, and no love lost.
I've been in Melbourne six months. It really shouldn't be that different to where I was before. In some ways, relying on public transport, and living in rented accommodation, and having fewer friends, I should find it more difficult here. There are no mountains here. And yet... I love Melbourne, even on foggy days. Here there are concerts, and art galleries showing things that interest me, and local artist markets and loads of good cafes within walking distance of where I work and live and there is public transport, and it doesn't rain for days on end. Here I saw a band that I thought were cool back when I first heard their song while I was living at home, and who I never thought I would see (Eskimo Joe), and they were awesome. Here I saw a band I fell in love with on TV (INXS), again, and they were awesome, again, and I will never forget the concert (but that is a whole other story). Here I saw the guy from Black Books -- and if it weren't for my workmate I wouldn't even have known he was coming. Here, if I had a radio, I would hear Placebo played (and with a station like Triple J, we must do something about a radio). I will always associate Livin' by the Day by Dilana with getting used to here, and it is one of my favourite songs.
None of that would make a difference, though when my many of my friends and none of my family are here, if it weren't for one thing: Melbourne was a choice -- and a good one at that.
Well, today I realised how much I really, truly love this adopted city of mine. I walked out the door, and it was foggy, and I thought "oh hey, it's foggy. Cool!". Those of you who lived with me before, or indeed know anything about my previous home city will know that it is notorious for fog. Anyone who lived there with me will know that my reaction to the fog was anything but "Cool!". It's true. I love Melbourne so much, I even love the fog.
Loving Melbourne as much as I do has made me realise that I never really settled in to my previous home. I loved the people there, and I was in many ways loath to leave, but I was always disenchanted with the city itself. It was muddy in the winter, and humid in the summer. The winter fog often did not lift. The terminal rain in winter really slayed me. I lived in that town for ten years, and it was never really home -- there was no loyalty, and no love lost.
I've been in Melbourne six months. It really shouldn't be that different to where I was before. In some ways, relying on public transport, and living in rented accommodation, and having fewer friends, I should find it more difficult here. There are no mountains here. And yet... I love Melbourne, even on foggy days. Here there are concerts, and art galleries showing things that interest me, and local artist markets and loads of good cafes within walking distance of where I work and live and there is public transport, and it doesn't rain for days on end. Here I saw a band that I thought were cool back when I first heard their song while I was living at home, and who I never thought I would see (Eskimo Joe), and they were awesome. Here I saw a band I fell in love with on TV (INXS), again, and they were awesome, again, and I will never forget the concert (but that is a whole other story). Here I saw the guy from Black Books -- and if it weren't for my workmate I wouldn't even have known he was coming. Here, if I had a radio, I would hear Placebo played (and with a station like Triple J, we must do something about a radio). I will always associate Livin' by the Day by Dilana with getting used to here, and it is one of my favourite songs.
None of that would make a difference, though when my many of my friends and none of my family are here, if it weren't for one thing: Melbourne was a choice -- and a good one at that.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Rant: David Bain: A life (needlessly) lost
Unlike the rest of New Zealand, and maybe because I am not there, I don't believe I know for sure that David Bain did or did not murder some or all of his family on June 22 1994. I have heard all sorts of theories, from "he did the lot, and might just off Joe Karam while he's at it" through "his Dad shot the family, but he shot his Dad" right up to "he is inncoent and his Dad did it" and the conspiracy theory "they burned the house down, and someone important did it and wants this to go away". I'm pretty certain the guy is innocent (in no small part because you would have to be one scary, talented individual to protest your innocence for 13 years if you did it), but only he (and depending on what you believe, his dead family and God, oh, and maybe the conspiracy theorist's murderer and police) really know.
The justice of the matter is, though (since the truth, for once, is irrelevant) it that it really, truly does not matter whether he did it or not. There is no way that based on the evidence he should have been convicted of all five murders (or even one of them), and thus he has spent nearly thirteen years in jail unjustifiably (well, maybe fewer than thirteen, but at least since the first appellate court rejected his appeal). I, like the privy council, do not blame the judge or the jury at the trial, they had a shit of a job, and I am sure under the circumstances they did the best they could. The same cannot be said for the police, I don't think, and it certainly cannot be said for the court of appeals, who appear to have taken the path of least resistance at every possible opportunity. Woe for NZ that we no longer have any international courts above our own internecine, incestuous little judicial affairs.
Now there is all the scrap about whether he should be re-tried (the privy council said yes, but that it was up to the local courts to decide what would be in the best interests of the public), or indeed whether he can have a fair trial (a decision on this is expected to be made later this month). There is also the question of compensation, for which apparently present laws state he would have to prove his innocence.
In all the hue and cry, however, we seem to have forgotten that it is not just David's family who wrongfully had their lives cut short, it is David as well. This is a man who spent 13 years, from his early 20s to his mid 30s, in jail (not known for it's pleasant environment) in jail for a crime he should never have been convicted of. He's never held a job, owned a cellphone, had a long term relationship, had the chance to have a family, surfed the web because he felt like it, had the chance to vote on a reality TV show--the list goes on. He has been locked up not just through his own early adulthood, but also through a time of great change in the world. While he was in jail, he went from an adolescent looking young man, to a man who is suddenly middle aged.
To be fair to David, he learned a marketable trade in jail, and seems to remarkably well adjusted. He has job offers (which is a good thing, given he hasn't a cent to his name, being wrongfully convicted of this has even taken his inheritance), and he is learning to cook. He has a supporter in Joe Karam, and many others as well.
Just because he is taking it well, though, does not excuse us from knowing our criminal justice system has made him into a not-guilty 34 year old man who feels "It is nice to have different drinks and hamburgers and things to choose from". Our justice system, with no right, not only took this man's life, but kept it long after the court of appeals had seen evidence that should have released him.
Should he be retried? Probably not. Should he be compensated? Absolutely. Even if he did do it, he should not have been in jail for a good chunk of the time he has. The government, the justice system, and we as electors and jurors owe him more than we can ever repay for those years. What is the most scary thing about this case? That it is likely not the only one, and jail does Bad Things to people, often. Something is very wrong, here, and I don;t know how to fix it.
David, you have my apologies for not finding out how to support you. You have my apologies that our justice system was prepared to leave you in jail to cover it's own ass. Most of all, though, you have my apologies that you needlessly lost not just your family, but your own life.
Update, 21 June 2007: Apparently the NZ judicial system has not had a big enough piece of David Bain yet. The decision to retry him was reached today, and so we are going to waste yet more of his life (though how they are going to get a jury that will even consider convicting, I would love to know).
The justice of the matter is, though (since the truth, for once, is irrelevant) it that it really, truly does not matter whether he did it or not. There is no way that based on the evidence he should have been convicted of all five murders (or even one of them), and thus he has spent nearly thirteen years in jail unjustifiably (well, maybe fewer than thirteen, but at least since the first appellate court rejected his appeal). I, like the privy council, do not blame the judge or the jury at the trial, they had a shit of a job, and I am sure under the circumstances they did the best they could. The same cannot be said for the police, I don't think, and it certainly cannot be said for the court of appeals, who appear to have taken the path of least resistance at every possible opportunity. Woe for NZ that we no longer have any international courts above our own internecine, incestuous little judicial affairs.
Now there is all the scrap about whether he should be re-tried (the privy council said yes, but that it was up to the local courts to decide what would be in the best interests of the public), or indeed whether he can have a fair trial (a decision on this is expected to be made later this month). There is also the question of compensation, for which apparently present laws state he would have to prove his innocence.
In all the hue and cry, however, we seem to have forgotten that it is not just David's family who wrongfully had their lives cut short, it is David as well. This is a man who spent 13 years, from his early 20s to his mid 30s, in jail (not known for it's pleasant environment) in jail for a crime he should never have been convicted of. He's never held a job, owned a cellphone, had a long term relationship, had the chance to have a family, surfed the web because he felt like it, had the chance to vote on a reality TV show--the list goes on. He has been locked up not just through his own early adulthood, but also through a time of great change in the world. While he was in jail, he went from an adolescent looking young man, to a man who is suddenly middle aged.
 |  |
To be fair to David, he learned a marketable trade in jail, and seems to remarkably well adjusted. He has job offers (which is a good thing, given he hasn't a cent to his name, being wrongfully convicted of this has even taken his inheritance), and he is learning to cook. He has a supporter in Joe Karam, and many others as well.
Just because he is taking it well, though, does not excuse us from knowing our criminal justice system has made him into a not-guilty 34 year old man who feels "It is nice to have different drinks and hamburgers and things to choose from". Our justice system, with no right, not only took this man's life, but kept it long after the court of appeals had seen evidence that should have released him.
Should he be retried? Probably not. Should he be compensated? Absolutely. Even if he did do it, he should not have been in jail for a good chunk of the time he has. The government, the justice system, and we as electors and jurors owe him more than we can ever repay for those years. What is the most scary thing about this case? That it is likely not the only one, and jail does Bad Things to people, often. Something is very wrong, here, and I don;t know how to fix it.
David, you have my apologies for not finding out how to support you. You have my apologies that our justice system was prepared to leave you in jail to cover it's own ass. Most of all, though, you have my apologies that you needlessly lost not just your family, but your own life.
Update, 21 June 2007: Apparently the NZ judicial system has not had a big enough piece of David Bain yet. The decision to retry him was reached today, and so we are going to waste yet more of his life (though how they are going to get a jury that will even consider convicting, I would love to know).
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Rant: And we wonder why we have trouble getting chicks to do computer science?
I was talking to one of my supervisors a couple of days ago, and she was telling me how something as simple as a programming competition had turned a kid's life around. This kid is a teenager, very, very bright, and interested in computers. Here in good old kiwiland, tall poppies tend to get their heads cut off unless they are sportspeople or religious weirdos (or both), so this kid was having a pretty rugged time of it at school, especially because computers are his thing, because you know, computers are geeky. This kid was suicidal, until he did a programming competition and met other kids like himself -- coming out of the closet now means admitting you like computers, apparently. Nonetheless, this child is, in fact, a boy. Because more than 90% of the people who are interested in doing a degree in computing in New Zealand are boys, if our first year is anything to go by.
There are lots of reasons as to why this might be, including, but not limited to:
The third company plays on a local cultural legend, where the North Island of New Zealand was fished up by a young man sitting in the canoe that is the South Island. In this advertisement, a young caucasian lad hauls New York, Paris and London from the sea on a length of rope, "harnessing technology". Would it have been so harmful to use an image of a young girl drawing her friends closer and tying the lines of communication? I guess so.
This ad is far from the most offensive to my geeky sensibilities, however. The local telecommunication giant advertises their ISP arm, "Xtra" with a team of stereotypical geeks called the xtra-ordinaries. These guys are a team of socially inept geeks that not only contribute to the suicidal tendencies of the young man mentioned above, but leave or role model or room for a young woman to see herself as part of the technology industry.
These guys are being promoted as the image of ocmputing by the major national carrier in the telecommunications industry. They magically appear in bedrooms at night, they drive around in a clapped out van, and they have nerdy names for each other. I'm fairly confident in my own person and in my choice of a career in computing, and these guys make me a little embarrassed to be associated with the profession. What hope do I have of doing the part of my job that is encouraging young women to take up a career in computing when this is the image they, their peers, and their parents see on TV every night?
As a partially publicly funded national carrier, I would hope that this doesn't last too long, and that Telecom is asked to at least make a hot-but-nerdy-girl xtra-ordinary too. We're short if IT professionals in this country, and having one girl xtra-ordinary could make life easier for everyone who might want to pursue a career in computing. No doubt, however, Telecom thinks that poking fun at geeks is inordinately clever, and the series of ads will continue for years.
There are lots of reasons as to why this might be, including, but not limited to:
- The lack of games on the computer that appeal to girls (with 'The Sims' and some of the new PlayStation titles things are changing, slowly)
- Maths and computing teachers generally being male
- A lack of visible female role models -- we hear about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but only rarely about Helen Greiner and Grace Hopper
- The bad attitude of some male computing instructors and students toward their female students/colleagues.
The third company plays on a local cultural legend, where the North Island of New Zealand was fished up by a young man sitting in the canoe that is the South Island. In this advertisement, a young caucasian lad hauls New York, Paris and London from the sea on a length of rope, "harnessing technology". Would it have been so harmful to use an image of a young girl drawing her friends closer and tying the lines of communication? I guess so.
This ad is far from the most offensive to my geeky sensibilities, however. The local telecommunication giant advertises their ISP arm, "Xtra" with a team of stereotypical geeks called the xtra-ordinaries. These guys are a team of socially inept geeks that not only contribute to the suicidal tendencies of the young man mentioned above, but leave or role model or room for a young woman to see herself as part of the technology industry. These guys are being promoted as the image of ocmputing by the major national carrier in the telecommunications industry. They magically appear in bedrooms at night, they drive around in a clapped out van, and they have nerdy names for each other. I'm fairly confident in my own person and in my choice of a career in computing, and these guys make me a little embarrassed to be associated with the profession. What hope do I have of doing the part of my job that is encouraging young women to take up a career in computing when this is the image they, their peers, and their parents see on TV every night?
As a partially publicly funded national carrier, I would hope that this doesn't last too long, and that Telecom is asked to at least make a hot-but-nerdy-girl xtra-ordinary too. We're short if IT professionals in this country, and having one girl xtra-ordinary could make life easier for everyone who might want to pursue a career in computing. No doubt, however, Telecom thinks that poking fun at geeks is inordinately clever, and the series of ads will continue for years.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Letter to Antonio
Antonio probably never knew how much of a difference he made -- hell, I never knew until he died -- but he made a huge difference to my life. He died suddenly and I never got the chance to say goodbye, and even though I only got to Scotts once a week at most, I still miss him.
Here is what I would say if he were here to hear it (and being Italian and therefore maybe Catholic, I can but hope he is reading this from somewhere):
Dear Antonio,
You probably didn't even know my name, you always addressed me as Bella (which, by the way, was very flattering), but I wanted to thank you for the difference you made in my life. By being unfailingly cheerful and polite, and most of all warm, you always cheered me up. You remembered Mike and I, and you always knew what we would order. You always made sure we were looked after. "Ciao Bella, what you want?" is not a call that will easily echo its last in my mind. It's going to take some time to feel completely at home at Scotts again, and not feel sad. We won't stop going though -- that would be a dishonour to your memory.
And it was not just our lives you touched -- I wish you could see Scotts since your death -- it is full of flowers, and your picture is on the door -- three times. Your special blend of professionalism and informality will not be easily forgotten (did you know Italian greetings are de rigueur at Scotts for all staff? I'm sure you did but I didn't until I read your obituary in the Waikato Times). People loved you, Antonio, and though we did not know you outside Scotts, we loved you. We cannot imagine how hard it must be for your nearest and dearest.
I wish I had known your funeral was to be a public affair -- I would have liked a chance to pay my last respects to you, to the Scotts team, and to your family. I would have liked the chance to cry for you -- I have come very close many times. Most of all I would have liked the chance to say goodbye. Unfortunately, I did not know I would have been welcome (knowing your nature I should have known), so I did not go along. So instead, I send this letter out into cyberspace, hoping you can read it whereever you are, and know that you made my life better, and that if I could I would give you another hug (like at Christmas time). You were an amazing, special man, Antonio, and I, a mere customer, feel your loss keenly.
With love, and rest in peace
Dana
Here is what I would say if he were here to hear it (and being Italian and therefore maybe Catholic, I can but hope he is reading this from somewhere):
Dear Antonio,
You probably didn't even know my name, you always addressed me as Bella (which, by the way, was very flattering), but I wanted to thank you for the difference you made in my life. By being unfailingly cheerful and polite, and most of all warm, you always cheered me up. You remembered Mike and I, and you always knew what we would order. You always made sure we were looked after. "Ciao Bella, what you want?" is not a call that will easily echo its last in my mind. It's going to take some time to feel completely at home at Scotts again, and not feel sad. We won't stop going though -- that would be a dishonour to your memory.
And it was not just our lives you touched -- I wish you could see Scotts since your death -- it is full of flowers, and your picture is on the door -- three times. Your special blend of professionalism and informality will not be easily forgotten (did you know Italian greetings are de rigueur at Scotts for all staff? I'm sure you did but I didn't until I read your obituary in the Waikato Times). People loved you, Antonio, and though we did not know you outside Scotts, we loved you. We cannot imagine how hard it must be for your nearest and dearest.
I wish I had known your funeral was to be a public affair -- I would have liked a chance to pay my last respects to you, to the Scotts team, and to your family. I would have liked the chance to cry for you -- I have come very close many times. Most of all I would have liked the chance to say goodbye. Unfortunately, I did not know I would have been welcome (knowing your nature I should have known), so I did not go along. So instead, I send this letter out into cyberspace, hoping you can read it whereever you are, and know that you made my life better, and that if I could I would give you another hug (like at Christmas time). You were an amazing, special man, Antonio, and I, a mere customer, feel your loss keenly.
With love, and rest in peace
Dana
Sunday, August 21, 2005
A much belated tribute to the first true leader of NZ
It is a week now since David Lange died in hospital, leaving behind five children, and a couple of wives (well a wife and an ex-wife). The whole thing made me inexplicably and immediately very sad; I have been busy and only just really had time to think on why I have been so sad about it.
I think there are two reasons, the first of them personal, the second...patriotic, I guess. And this coming from a person who has never had a patriotic sentiment in their stunted life.
The personal reason why I'm feeling deeply sad about the death of a man who I never personally had anything to do with (and who appears to have run off with his speech writer later in life) is that he was, for me, a childhood prime minister. He came to power in 1984, the first year I can remember as having had a number, and stayed in power until I was near the end of primary school, in 1989. So, like all things from one's childhood for me he feels like the "real" prime minister, despite the fact I am about to vote in my third general election (and I don't think I have voted for the person who got in even once).
The patriotic reason is much more simple, though. There is no doubt that Lange was an impressive orator, and an extremely intelligent man. He was also a man of much personal inspiration and responsibility; he put himself through law school by working at the freezing works because his dad was a GP in a poor area and didn't charge people enough to pay for his son's education (funny how you learn a lot about the people who have made history around the time of their death).
None of this, however, would have made him a great or important prime minister, or someone to inspire patriotism. What does make him important and patriotism inspiring, however, is the fact that he dragged NZ kicking and screaming into a sense if independent nationhood. There are elements in today's society who will disagree with me and say that (for whatever reason) Lange did not do anything like enough... I don't want to touch this issue with a barge pole.
NZ, from colonization until the end of WWII was largely a colony of the British Empire, going where Britain went and referring to England as "home" -- even those who had never been there. After WWII, we developed a not dissimilar relationship with the US, as evidenced by our involvement in the SE Asian wars. Lange was the person to break this tie, and he did it in a way I feel we can all be proud of as NZers -- he said no to nuclear weaponry, and he put this naysay into legislation. This set NZ apart from the US, and has resulted in a certain amount of punitive ostracism from trade agreements and such. It also resulted in an act of war by the French government, which was dealt with diplomatically. In this single act, Lange enabled us as a nation to have something important to stand for, and gave us a choice in things like whether to get involved in the most recent Iraq conflict (and, quietly, thank goodness we didn't; the idea of terrorists blowing up Auckland just sends my fear about the cost of infrastructure in a small country like this reeling).
Interestingly enough, two days after Lange died we went on our first training exercise with the US military since the nuclear ban came in. Interestingly enough, the National party is promising to "review" our nuclear free status should they be elected this year.
Farewell, David Lange, and thankyou, whereever you are, for giving me something to be proud of as a NZer. Thankyou for giving NZ a choice. And thankyou, perhaps, for deciding who I will not vote for in this election (a question that has been vexing me greatly for some time).
I think there are two reasons, the first of them personal, the second...patriotic, I guess. And this coming from a person who has never had a patriotic sentiment in their stunted life.
The personal reason why I'm feeling deeply sad about the death of a man who I never personally had anything to do with (and who appears to have run off with his speech writer later in life) is that he was, for me, a childhood prime minister. He came to power in 1984, the first year I can remember as having had a number, and stayed in power until I was near the end of primary school, in 1989. So, like all things from one's childhood for me he feels like the "real" prime minister, despite the fact I am about to vote in my third general election (and I don't think I have voted for the person who got in even once).
The patriotic reason is much more simple, though. There is no doubt that Lange was an impressive orator, and an extremely intelligent man. He was also a man of much personal inspiration and responsibility; he put himself through law school by working at the freezing works because his dad was a GP in a poor area and didn't charge people enough to pay for his son's education (funny how you learn a lot about the people who have made history around the time of their death).
None of this, however, would have made him a great or important prime minister, or someone to inspire patriotism. What does make him important and patriotism inspiring, however, is the fact that he dragged NZ kicking and screaming into a sense if independent nationhood. There are elements in today's society who will disagree with me and say that (for whatever reason) Lange did not do anything like enough... I don't want to touch this issue with a barge pole.
NZ, from colonization until the end of WWII was largely a colony of the British Empire, going where Britain went and referring to England as "home" -- even those who had never been there. After WWII, we developed a not dissimilar relationship with the US, as evidenced by our involvement in the SE Asian wars. Lange was the person to break this tie, and he did it in a way I feel we can all be proud of as NZers -- he said no to nuclear weaponry, and he put this naysay into legislation. This set NZ apart from the US, and has resulted in a certain amount of punitive ostracism from trade agreements and such. It also resulted in an act of war by the French government, which was dealt with diplomatically. In this single act, Lange enabled us as a nation to have something important to stand for, and gave us a choice in things like whether to get involved in the most recent Iraq conflict (and, quietly, thank goodness we didn't; the idea of terrorists blowing up Auckland just sends my fear about the cost of infrastructure in a small country like this reeling).
Interestingly enough, two days after Lange died we went on our first training exercise with the US military since the nuclear ban came in. Interestingly enough, the National party is promising to "review" our nuclear free status should they be elected this year.
Farewell, David Lange, and thankyou, whereever you are, for giving me something to be proud of as a NZer. Thankyou for giving NZ a choice. And thankyou, perhaps, for deciding who I will not vote for in this election (a question that has been vexing me greatly for some time).
Monday, July 11, 2005
Rant: New Zealanders really are disappointing sometimes
In the past five days there have been numerous war-related historic occasions:
At an individual level, some new Zealanders have chosen to attack mosques in Auckland, our largest city. Six mosques were desecrated, one of them ending up with the text "RIP London" spraypainted on the wall.
This pointless act of destruction and disrespect, particularly so near the anniversary of a time where the world's Muslim community was itself the internationally recognised victim of terrorism, makes me very sad. I hope these people are not people who are old enough to reme4mber when we New Zealanders experienced terrorism on our shores; I hope that experience would dissuade anyone fr0mrandom political violence. Still, I had hoped that we, in New Zealand, might be more tolerant and avoid a backlash reaction. Sadly, that has not been the case.
What is worse, however, is the opinion cartoon in today's Waikato Times, a provincial newspaper that nevertheless reaches a significant chunk of the nation's population. I have never found this newspaper to be a particularly intellectually inspired publication, and I never buy it myself. However, today it arrived in the letterbox as part of a promotion, where we are to receive it free for a week. I am sad to say that my opinion of it has not been even slightly improved; in fact I think less of it today than I ever have before in my life.
The cartoon in question shows two views of a generic entrance to the London Underground, one labelled 1941, and the other labelled 2005. In the 1941 picture, a man looking at the sky is running into the underground. In the 2005 view this same 'everyman' is running back out.
My partner and I both have friends and loved ones in London, or who happened to be in London at the time of the attacks. We were travelling at the time of the attacks, and we each spent several tense hours waiting to hear whether those we cared about were safe. One New Zealand family is still waiting to hear about their daughter. So many New Zealanders have been through the same thing this week (New Zealand has much closer ties to the UK than the US, and so this tragedy has seemed much closer to home than 9/11). Nevertheless, our experience, shock, and sadness must be tiny compared to that of Britain, and London in particular. It is disgusting for a cartoonist to make light of this, and even worse for a newspaper to print such a thing.
However, the cartoon does not stop there. It also denigrates the fear felt by Londoners, and the sacrifices made by servicepeople, families, and civilians during WWII on 60th anniversary of the end of the war. I don't doubt that the newspaper has some readers who are among those, who made these sacrifices, either.
Needless to say I have sent a letter to the editor of the paper telling them that free week or no free week I will not be subscribing to their paper now or in the future.
So, so far we have had people attacking the places of worship, a religious leader using the attacks for political capital for his party, and a newspaper making light of the whole thing. I really hope that we will see a vast improvement in the attitude of certain New Zealanders at all levels in the next few days.
P.S. I didn't start this as a political blog. If you're reading I apologise. I will try to write about something less inflammatory next time.
- The 60th anniversary of the end of WWII
- The 20th anniversary of the bombing of the rainbow warrior (arguably the only act of war -- or terrorism -- perpetrated on New Zealand since colonisation)
- The 10th anniversary of a massacre of Bosnian Muslims in former Yugoslavia
- The London terror attacks
At an individual level, some new Zealanders have chosen to attack mosques in Auckland, our largest city. Six mosques were desecrated, one of them ending up with the text "RIP London" spraypainted on the wall.
This pointless act of destruction and disrespect, particularly so near the anniversary of a time where the world's Muslim community was itself the internationally recognised victim of terrorism, makes me very sad. I hope these people are not people who are old enough to reme4mber when we New Zealanders experienced terrorism on our shores; I hope that experience would dissuade anyone fr0mrandom political violence. Still, I had hoped that we, in New Zealand, might be more tolerant and avoid a backlash reaction. Sadly, that has not been the case.
What is worse, however, is the opinion cartoon in today's Waikato Times, a provincial newspaper that nevertheless reaches a significant chunk of the nation's population. I have never found this newspaper to be a particularly intellectually inspired publication, and I never buy it myself. However, today it arrived in the letterbox as part of a promotion, where we are to receive it free for a week. I am sad to say that my opinion of it has not been even slightly improved; in fact I think less of it today than I ever have before in my life.
The cartoon in question shows two views of a generic entrance to the London Underground, one labelled 1941, and the other labelled 2005. In the 1941 picture, a man looking at the sky is running into the underground. In the 2005 view this same 'everyman' is running back out.
My partner and I both have friends and loved ones in London, or who happened to be in London at the time of the attacks. We were travelling at the time of the attacks, and we each spent several tense hours waiting to hear whether those we cared about were safe. One New Zealand family is still waiting to hear about their daughter. So many New Zealanders have been through the same thing this week (New Zealand has much closer ties to the UK than the US, and so this tragedy has seemed much closer to home than 9/11). Nevertheless, our experience, shock, and sadness must be tiny compared to that of Britain, and London in particular. It is disgusting for a cartoonist to make light of this, and even worse for a newspaper to print such a thing.
However, the cartoon does not stop there. It also denigrates the fear felt by Londoners, and the sacrifices made by servicepeople, families, and civilians during WWII on 60th anniversary of the end of the war. I don't doubt that the newspaper has some readers who are among those, who made these sacrifices, either.
Needless to say I have sent a letter to the editor of the paper telling them that free week or no free week I will not be subscribing to their paper now or in the future.
So, so far we have had people attacking the places of worship, a religious leader using the attacks for political capital for his party, and a newspaper making light of the whole thing. I really hope that we will see a vast improvement in the attitude of certain New Zealanders at all levels in the next few days.
P.S. I didn't start this as a political blog. If you're reading I apologise. I will try to write about something less inflammatory next time.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Rant: Fundamentalism at it's most offensive
So, one of my intellectual pursuits is following the antics of the so-named Destiny Church and associated political party in New Zealand. Yes, you heard me right, this is an outfit that has completely missed that whole separation of Church and state that was decided hundreds of years ago with the blood of political and religious martyrs. I have to bless the folks at google news for setting up the news alert thing; it makes my life so much easier to just get the stuff in my email.
Anyways, after watching the horror unfold in London, wondering if my chief PhD supervisor and close friend was okay, wondering if Mike's sister was okay, and generally feeling alternately weepy and ill, I got this link in my inbox.
The background to the story is that the Destiny political party has just announced its candidates for the upcoming general election in New Zealand, and are touring the country having "rallies" where they spew doctrine. The star attraction at these rallies is Brian Tamaki, the charismatic-but-creepy leader of the church side of things, who is not standing as a political candidate at all because he is "called by god to do higher things".
While Tamaki described the London attacks as "despicable" and "tragic" (yeah, he's a real genius, that man) he also had this to say:
Now, while I am far from being a young drinker, teen mother, prostitute or veteran of the abortion clinic (and most of that I cannot claim credit for, I had a good upbringing and great opportunities), I nonetheless see a lot of problems with many of those laws. The prostitution law in particular seems to me to have been counterproductive, though I don't have a better solution to the situation. Having said that, though, Tamaki calling this terrorism makes me very angry. These laws were deigned to allow people civil liberties in most cases, and can hardly be said to have killed or maimed innocent people. To compare this kind of lawmaking to the tragedy suffered in London is an insult to the families of the victims, the emergency services, and to any thinking person who was saddened by what they saw on the news. And Tamaki is the leader of a church, with his followers blindly accepting and agreeing with what he says (I say this from experience -- I have friends who were normal, reasonable people until they got involved).
Preaching of this kind is not only rude and disrespectful, it is dangerous. If a person feels persecuted by their government, particularly in a religious way, what is the accepted response these days? Al Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, SPUC, and the IRA are all example of just how dangerous a group of people can get when they believe (rightly or wrongly, and I am not going to get into what I think of each of those individual cases) that they are religiously wronged. I wonder, if someone who agrees with Tamaki plants a bomb in some public building and kills a number of people in protest against "terrorism against the family", whether Tamaki will consider that "tragic and despicable", or whether he will declare it a victory of God, and I wonder whether he will feel any responsibility for the lives lost. I hope I never have to find out.
Anyways, after watching the horror unfold in London, wondering if my chief PhD supervisor and close friend was okay, wondering if Mike's sister was okay, and generally feeling alternately weepy and ill, I got this link in my inbox.
The background to the story is that the Destiny political party has just announced its candidates for the upcoming general election in New Zealand, and are touring the country having "rallies" where they spew doctrine. The star attraction at these rallies is Brian Tamaki, the charismatic-but-creepy leader of the church side of things, who is not standing as a political candidate at all because he is "called by god to do higher things".
While Tamaki described the London attacks as "despicable" and "tragic" (yeah, he's a real genius, that man) he also had this to say:
"What people in New Zealand don't realise is we have been enduring a type of terrorism of another kind - acts of terrorism against the family."He claimed that the civil unions bill, teen pregnancies, legalisation of prostitution, and abortions and the lowering of the drinking age to be terrorist acts by the state against the "family".
Now, while I am far from being a young drinker, teen mother, prostitute or veteran of the abortion clinic (and most of that I cannot claim credit for, I had a good upbringing and great opportunities), I nonetheless see a lot of problems with many of those laws. The prostitution law in particular seems to me to have been counterproductive, though I don't have a better solution to the situation. Having said that, though, Tamaki calling this terrorism makes me very angry. These laws were deigned to allow people civil liberties in most cases, and can hardly be said to have killed or maimed innocent people. To compare this kind of lawmaking to the tragedy suffered in London is an insult to the families of the victims, the emergency services, and to any thinking person who was saddened by what they saw on the news. And Tamaki is the leader of a church, with his followers blindly accepting and agreeing with what he says (I say this from experience -- I have friends who were normal, reasonable people until they got involved).
Preaching of this kind is not only rude and disrespectful, it is dangerous. If a person feels persecuted by their government, particularly in a religious way, what is the accepted response these days? Al Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, SPUC, and the IRA are all example of just how dangerous a group of people can get when they believe (rightly or wrongly, and I am not going to get into what I think of each of those individual cases) that they are religiously wronged. I wonder, if someone who agrees with Tamaki plants a bomb in some public building and kills a number of people in protest against "terrorism against the family", whether Tamaki will consider that "tragic and despicable", or whether he will declare it a victory of God, and I wonder whether he will feel any responsibility for the lives lost. I hope I never have to find out.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Rant: Who can be married by the law, and who should be
Copied from another blog I write.
As part of the university community I have recently been to a debate about the upcoming civil unions legislation, and the related legislation which proposes to treat marriage, civil union, and de-facto relationships (where de-facto is defined as who-knows-what) all the same.
This is all well and good, but I actually choose to be in a de-facto relationship without all the strings and hassles of marriage; if I wanted to be married I would get married (or civil-unioned/unified/whatever). I don't want the state to say I can't get married, and I certainly don't want the state to marry me without my consent.
And, of course, at any such discussion, there are religious militants. Who believe that extending the right of a formally registered legal union to gay couples is to fly in the face of god. To devalue marriage. To support the minority to the detriment of the majority. To teach our children that being gay is okay, when in fact it is an insidious and evil lifestyle choice.... And other such arguments.
Now, far be it from me to say all religious or Christian people believe these things; I believe (and fervently hope) that this kind of attitude is a minority of Christians. Certainly in my experience, it is a minority viewpoint.
There are numerous arguments that I have seen against viewpoint, including that the statues against homosexuality are also in a book of the bible that says a person who steals cread should be stoned to death, and that the Christians are trying to enforce their (minority) viewpoint down the throat of an apathetic majority.
I don't believe any of these arguments will be heard, any more than I believe what I am about to say will be heard. But I have an argument that centers on a fundamental of Christianity. That fundamental is free will, God gave us free will to do naughty things. If we do those "naughty" things (leaving aside for the moment whether homosexuality is a sin), and don't repent, and it will make God sad, but that is our choice. Now, I know we have laws against murder, and I know we have laws against other crimes too, but the vast majority of the ones that relate to the bible are crimes that have victims; that in some way take away the right of other people to use their free will. Homosexuality, if it is a sin, hurts only the sinner, and takes away no-one's right to make their own choices.
So, given that the government is bound by a human rights act, and is bound to treat all people equally, and that homosexuality is morality, and that God himself did not legislate our morality, but rather gave us a choice, isn't it only responsible and fair governance to allow people to have a union that does not involve church or tradition, and that allows them to marry the person they love, regardless of that person's gender?
As part of the university community I have recently been to a debate about the upcoming civil unions legislation, and the related legislation which proposes to treat marriage, civil union, and de-facto relationships (where de-facto is defined as who-knows-what) all the same.
This is all well and good, but I actually choose to be in a de-facto relationship without all the strings and hassles of marriage; if I wanted to be married I would get married (or civil-unioned/unified/whatever). I don't want the state to say I can't get married, and I certainly don't want the state to marry me without my consent.
And, of course, at any such discussion, there are religious militants. Who believe that extending the right of a formally registered legal union to gay couples is to fly in the face of god. To devalue marriage. To support the minority to the detriment of the majority. To teach our children that being gay is okay, when in fact it is an insidious and evil lifestyle choice.... And other such arguments.
Now, far be it from me to say all religious or Christian people believe these things; I believe (and fervently hope) that this kind of attitude is a minority of Christians. Certainly in my experience, it is a minority viewpoint.
There are numerous arguments that I have seen against viewpoint, including that the statues against homosexuality are also in a book of the bible that says a person who steals cread should be stoned to death, and that the Christians are trying to enforce their (minority) viewpoint down the throat of an apathetic majority.
I don't believe any of these arguments will be heard, any more than I believe what I am about to say will be heard. But I have an argument that centers on a fundamental of Christianity. That fundamental is free will, God gave us free will to do naughty things. If we do those "naughty" things (leaving aside for the moment whether homosexuality is a sin), and don't repent, and it will make God sad, but that is our choice. Now, I know we have laws against murder, and I know we have laws against other crimes too, but the vast majority of the ones that relate to the bible are crimes that have victims; that in some way take away the right of other people to use their free will. Homosexuality, if it is a sin, hurts only the sinner, and takes away no-one's right to make their own choices.
So, given that the government is bound by a human rights act, and is bound to treat all people equally, and that homosexuality is morality, and that God himself did not legislate our morality, but rather gave us a choice, isn't it only responsible and fair governance to allow people to have a union that does not involve church or tradition, and that allows them to marry the person they love, regardless of that person's gender?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)