home .. about me .. photo gallery .. drawings .. poetry(1990-1) .. poetry(1992-5) .. poetry(1996 +) .. writing .. rants .. links .. rings .. mail me
.. 
Rants
This is where i get to put in my two cents worth on anything i care to express an opinion on. Points of view and opinions are not always able to be expressed in the outside world, but here i am the publisher so i get to say what i want. Good, eh?
Of course, you have the right to disagree with anything i say, and can always leave this site and not subject yourself to my opinionated commentary. Or even, better, you could write to me and express your own opinion on the matter (though i can't guarantee it won't get lost along with the steaming pile of junk mail i have to delete every day - but that's another rant).
Human Rights - What's that?
Unemployment - Go get a job, hippie..
Censorship - That old favourite..
Beauty - I don't like your fashion business, mister..
Political C******ness - ????
Politics, Anarchism and Society - Life, the Universe and Everything..
Fact File - It's a beautiful world we live in..
So what does 'human rights' mean anyway?
Any discussion of human rights can sound like some abstract, pie-in-the-sky notion, but it means something much more tangible when ordinary people have their rights violated and abused.
Rather than go into an in-depth discussion of human rights abuse, i'll just mention three cases which have stuck in my mind over the years, and let them speak for themselves.
Warning - some readers may find some of the following material disturbing. (It sure as hell upsets me.)
Marsinah was 25 years old when she and other workers went on strike at a watch factory in Java, Indonesia for a 20c a day pay rise. The military intervened in the dispute and summoned several workers to military headquarters for interrogation. On May 5, 1993 Marsinah went to the headquarters to look for some of her friends who had been summoned there earlier that day. It was the last time she was seen alive. Three days later her body was found in a hut at the edge of a field, bloodied and covered in bruises. She had been beaten, raped and sexually penetrated with a blunt instrument (wooden splints), causing severe internal bleeding. She had then been strangled.
The military took over the investigation so that any evidence of military involvement was covered up. Only one military officer was disciplined, for "failing to report a crime".
12 year old Manoj Singh was arrested in Delhi, India on August 18, 1991, on suspicion of stealing a purse. His 50 year old father Jairam Singh went with him to the police station. Both father and son were brutally beaten by the police and Manoj was forced to sign a confession. The father, with his hands tied behind his back, was beaten so severely that he died. He had been charged with no crime. When Manoj was examined two days later, his body was still swollen from the beatings and showed marks of the lathi (stick) used to beat him.
In October 1994, Huseyin Koku was quoted in a local newspaper criticising the governor in Elbistan, Turkey. The next day he was stopped on the street by men in plain clothes, believed to be police, and forced into a car. His wife Fatma went to the local police station, but they refused to let her see her husband. When she went back the next day, they denied having held him at all. The family made inquiries at several other police stations but were told nothing. On November 5, the family received a phone call. Huseyin’s 14 year old daughter answered the phone. She first heard men laughing, then her father’s voice pleading: "Do what you can to save me. They are going to kill me". Then she heard the sound of screaming.
Huseyin’s body was found six months later in a remote field. The exact cause of death could not be determined, but what was left of his body showed signs of torture.This sort of shit goes on all the time, every day somewhere in the world.
As you sit here reading this, someone is being tortured. Someone else is being raped in a police cell or shot dead in a back alley. Somebody is suffering just for speaking their mind, standing up for their rights, being the wrong race or religion, or for nothing at all.So, what are you going to do about it?
This is how i try to make a difference.
Even though it is extremely unfashionable and politically unpopular, i have to honestly state that i am in favour of censorship. Well to a certain extent anyhow, particularly when it comes to violence.
It has always been a gripe of mine that censorship of such things as television has always come down harder on sex and nudity than on violence.
I remember when i was seventeen, writing a letter to the local paper complaining about the selective censorship of tv movies. The local tv station ran the movie Risky Business (one of my favourite movies at the time) (sorry) on a Saturday night, with all the sex scenes, nudity and language edited out (which also ruined the punch line of the movie). While that annoyed me, it further pissed me off to see Sunday afternoon's movie The Norsemen, full to the brim with gratuitous violence including numerous stabbings, eyes put out with burning stakes, spearings, impalements and a final scene with a hawk gouging out a man's eyes. This was considered suitable viewing for kids at 2.00 Sunday afternoon, but a bit of nudity and language was too much for 9pm Saturday night.
At that hormone ridden age, my concern was to see more sex and nudity rather than less violence, but as the sexual content of mainstream tv has gotten progressively more explicit, so has the violence.
I now am in the frighteningly conservative position of agreeing with those that call for more censorship, especially with regards to tv. It's one thing to hire a video or go to the movies and see a violent film (hey, my favourite film is The Crow, so who am i to talk?) but it's another thing to have it directly pumped into your home. By the age of sixteen, the average American child has watched 18,000 murders on tv, the figure probably similar in this country.
Since television is fast becoming one of the primary influences on our society, greater attention needs to be paid to what message is being delivered.
And if supporting censorship on violence leads to more censorship on sex as well, then such is life. It shits me to see sexuality turned even more into a cheap and tacky marketing gimmick anyway. There have to be some taboos, even if only to be broken.
I'm only talking about tv censorship here. Censorship of the written word and other media are a much more complex issue, and there is too much danger of it being used to stifle free speech and dissenting opinion, especially depending on just who it is deciding on what's acceptable.
As to the censorship of lyrical content of recorded music, do we really care who little Trent wants to fuck like an animal? What's the point when language and violent content are just another marketing gimmick to sell a few more records? But on the other hand, there is again the danger of this sort of restriction being used to muzzle free speech. Jello Biafra has a point about the major record labels and their representatives volunteering to administer restrictions on cd's and the obvious conflict of interest with them policing independent and underground music. Still, i think it wouldn't hurt the underground music scene to be driven a little more underground again. The kids will find it. And probably enjoy it more for the digging.
And no discussion of censorship is complete without mentioning pornography. While i don't know of enough evidence to have a position on links between pornography and sexual violence, i do agree with those who say that criminalising porno will just drive it underground and remove any controls on the content. I also agree that depictions of sexual violence must be banned (though not confused with consensual BDSM), as well as kiddie porn, snuff and other things which test my opposition to capital punishment. Again, the problem will be with who decides on what is acceptable, and the distinctions between artistic expression and cheap gratification.
One idea i think is a good one is to make it mandatory to include with any pornographic material imported or produced, advertising designed to bring home an anti-sexual violence message. Cigarette packets are required to have a health warning, and we have the "if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot" message everywhere, so why not ads on porn like "if you don't take no for an answer, you're a gutless bastard" or something.
It'd be better than nothing.
This is an issue that just won't go away. Elections are won and lost on the issue and everybody seems to be asking why we have such a problem. Nobody wants to acknowledge that the unemployment situation is the way it is because that is the direction our society has deliberately chosen to follow.
At the supermarket, we now have to return our own trolley for a deposit, so that they don't need to employ someone to collect them. The banks are closing branches and now charge us counter fees to make us use automatic teller machines, in order to employ fewer staff. Manufacturing industries are encouraged to pursue 'lean' manufacturing principles and cut down on personnel costs. All through society the push has been to employ fewer and fewer people, so it's little wonder that we now find ourselves faced with a lack of jobs.
In earlier years, it was envisaged that this would lead to an easier life for everybody, with an abundance of leisure time for all. Instead, it has translated into a lack of meaningful employment for millions, who must exist on poverty level incomes which are constantly under threat from government cutbacks. It is now commonly accepted that there is not enough work for everyone, so why are those that miss out stigmatised and spat upon as losers and layabouts?
It doesn't have to be this way. If there are 10% of people here in Australia that are unemployed, why couldn't the working hours of the remaining workforce be reduced by 10% to allow for jobs for the others? Of course, it's not that simple, and the administration of such a change would be complicated to introduce across the board, but the main obstacle it would face would be a lack of will. A recent survey found that, while concerned about unemployment, 9 out of 10 working Australians would not be willing to take a cut in hours and pay to give someone else a job. Ah, the milk of human kindness.
Of course, not everybody wants to work. The old classic "dole bludger" scenario. And yes, i've known people who fit that description. So, what's the problem? If there was enough work for everyone who wanted it, those not willing pull their weight or make any contribution to the community would have something to answer for. But there isn't enough work to go around, so if some choose to forgo a comfortable income and live on a pittance in exchange for opting out of the drudgery of paid employment, where's the harm? And to force people into a job at the expense of someone who really wants to work is ridiculous. Still, it's always easier to blame the victim.
The Australian government, after cutting back and scrapping employment programs, is targeting the unemployed through tougher activity tests and job seeker "diaries". It claims that it will save millions in dole payments. But where are these savings going to come from? Are there that many people committing fraud and claiming multiple benefits? Or is the saving going to come from cancellation of benefits of those "not trying hard enough" to find a job? Do they expect these people to live on nothing? Are they going to suddenly find jobs where there are none? Are they just going to crawl into a corner and quietly starve to death? Or is crime going to be the only alternative left? Once the government and society have washed their hands of the people it doesn't give a damn about, leaving them alienated and resentful, where will this anger be turned? Who will you blame when some pissed off kid breaks into your house to steal your tv and stereo to get some cash? Or maybe they can just sell some drugs - easy money when there's so many people without hope. Just wait for the next round of headlines lamenting the growing crisis of youth crime. Perhaps we'll just follow the U.S. model and reduce the unemployment figures by instead filling up the prisons, thereby creating a new growth industry in the process.
Speaking of following the U.S., not long ago the head of a government sponsored task force on unemployment came out and said that the solution to unemployment in Australia was to reduce the minimum wage, and pointed to the US as an example of how low wages can bring low unemployment. (He neglected to mention that while unemployment is low in the US, there is also a massive and widening gap between rich and poor, with large numbers of 'working poor' slaving at two or three jobs and struggling to keep their head above water, as well as the enormous prison population.) The analyst said that lower minimum wages were the key to solving our unemployment problem, but that for it to work, our 'overly generous' social security system would need to be reformed..
Then of course there's "work for the dole". A reasonable idea surely - the government pays people a basic allowance to survive, but in return asks them to work for the hours equivalent to this allowance on a minimum award rate. And, to be fair, there are some merits to the scheme, allowing for some work experience for the long term unemployed. The problem with it is that the focus is not on providing opportunities for unemployed people, but on compulsion and rhetoric about the recipient's obligations to the community. Even the name "work for the dole" seems designed to appeal to those who will be happy to see those 'lazy dole bludgers' forced to get off their bums and earn their keep. Blaming the victim again. But the worst thing is that, despite any experience or training they may receive through this, it still doesn't do anything to create more paid work to reduce the unemployment figures and help people get a real job. In fact, when you think about it, for every five or so people working for this dole payment (which they would be paying out anyway), there's one full time worker who they don't need to employ. So they can pay out six dole allowances instead of five doles and a full wage. Call me cynical, but..
And let's not forget the corporate sector. I was sickened recently when a local company, in its submission for a quality management award, boasted how its efficiency improvements had enabled it to "downsize" its workforce by 66%. Sacking two thirds of your workers should be something to hang your head in shame over, not shout from the rooftops. It was recently found that much of the gain in "efficiency" produced by the current enthusiasm for "downsizing" (lovely term that), was actually gained from the remaining workers being asked to do unpaid overtime. Now that's a neat scheme, get rid of most of your workers, then force those who are left to do the work of their sacked workmates in their own time for nothing.
Either that, or just follow the lead of the Big Australian and shift your operations to Indonesia, where pay is dirt cheap and they send in the military to crush any attempt at industrial action (see Marsinah's story under human Rights above). Of course, it won't take long for them to shift the blame to the old racist rally cry of "bloody Asians, taking our jobs!"
And why does the government pretend to be interested in solving unemployment when, like any other large employer, it is actively in the process of getting rid of as many employees as possible? I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories about creating an underclass of unemployed desperate for work etc, but let's face it, each politician is interested in one job only - their own.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Well, actually it is in the hands of those who tell us what is beautiful and what is not.
There have been numerous books in recent years about how the images of beauty and fashion have been used as part of the backlash against feminism, as a way of keeping women down.
There may be some truth in that, but there's a simpler explanation also - money.
The entire advertising industry is constructed around the principle of telling us what it is that we desire and then convincing us that such and such a product will achieve it for us.
The plastic images of "beauty" we are force-fed constantly are another means of creating an image to which we all must aspire. The whole thing is a package, and if the product in question is part of that, we have to have it.
And an integral part of this is to make the ideal image as unrealistic and unattainable as possible, so that it can be set apart from normality, as something you can never be, even though you're expected to. Who would give a damn what Claudia, Cindy or Elle promoted if we hadn't been convinced that they were something better than us just because of the way they look?
And if that makes you feel inadequate and unattractive, so much the better. Contented and self-confident people don't have any need to compensate by buying useless products to make themselves feel better.
And the so-called women's magazines are the worst culprits. In a typical month's hypocrisy, one issue of Cleo (or was it Cosmo?) ran it's feature article on why 8 out of 10 women prefer to make love in the dark - because they hate their bodies and don't want to be seen. The article lamented the way so many women and girls hate their bodies and they way they look, and the way unrealistic images are foisted upon them. Yet the magazine contained all the same plastic images and two week wonder diets etc as always. The issue was even advertised on television with a commercial showing a wafer-thin model racing off a stranger on a train as it went through a tunnel (ie 'in the dark'), an ironic distortion of the subject. I guess nobody would need to buy these crappy magazines if they felt good about themselves either (not to mention the dictating power of the advertisers' dollar).
And it's important that no other form of success or achievement be allowed to detract from the need to be beautiful. Remember "Fat Fergie, the Duchess of Pork"? She was hardly what you'd describe as overweight, in fact she was probably below average weight, but it was a perfect opportunity to publicly ridicule someone who didn't meet the dictated ideal. (And didn't the magazines just lap it up!) The message was - no matter who you are or what you do, you're nothing if you don't look like a supermodel with a 'perfect' body. Diana, on the other hand, was much more 'perfect', while suffering from anorexia and bulimia. Shows exactly what's expected, doesn't it?
Of course, while males as sex objects are becoming more common, it's still harder to reduce the self esteem of men by application of excessive beauty standards in the same way as is done to women. Male culture still has too much emphasis on personal achievement over appearance for that to work (ie if you can't be attractive enough, you can still be rich, or strong or talented etc..) The beauty thing is easier to apply to the women they desire - ie a woman is only successful if she's beautiful, a man is only successful if his woman is beautiful.
It's all about money, and one way or another, they get you in the end.
Politics, Anarchism and Society
Despite my long standing identification with the punk scene, i have never been a believer in the idea of Anarchism. Like other -isms, which i generally mistrust as neat packages claiming to solve all the worlds ills, i believe the concept of Anarchism is somewhat flawed.Put simply, i don't agree with the premise that because governments have been responsible for a great deal of suffering, oppression and brutality, that therefore the very concept of government is inherently flawed and should be abolished.
I believe that there needs to be some form of government to exercise a measure of centralised control. Humans, or even small groups of humans, can't always be trusted not to act selfishly at the cost of others. Some degree of centralised control needs to be exerted to enforce codes of behaviour (ie laws) to protect people from each other and themselves. Without some form of authority to make and enforce laws, the resultant culture may be one in which the powerful are free to enforce their will on the powerless and defenceless without restriction (even more than now) - a different kind of tyranny.
To me, government is simply a formal structure defining the hierarchy of a society. Humans will find a means of establishing hierarchy (ie power over others) regardless of whether such formal structures exist. At least where such formal structures are in place, they are recognised and need to be justified (whether by reason or by force).
My view is that these structures need to be changed, not destroyed, by changing the value systems of the humans that comprise them. I believe that the problem with any government or society is that humans have, to varying degrees, the capacity for selfishness, stupidity and cruelty. The leaders of a society (be they in charge of government or corporations) will often be the most selfish and ambitious individuals from the society, who have clawed their way into power for their own ends, so the actions of a government will be a distorted reflection of the society it represents. Only by changing the standards of the culture will you change the limits of what the rest of society will let them get away with.
Humans also have the capacity for kindness, wisdom and compassion. My belief is that a cultural shift away from self-interest and towards concern for the wellbeing of others, including the non-human world, is the only way forward. I guess it's a case of raising the average standards of ethical behaviour and compassion, so that the extremes of selfish behaviour will not be so far into the red in terms of moral bankruptcy.
How this can be done i don't know, except to try to change attitudes over time as much as possible. (I think things have improved over the past 2000 years or so, in terms of things like the acceptability of torture and slavery etc, although i feel that events of the past few years indicate something of a setback). Plus, the people must be able to exercise some control over the government, to "keep the bastards honest".
The only answer i can see is to keep trying to push society in the right direction as much as possible, with whatever resources are available, and pointing out and decrying inequalities and injustices, along with socially and environmentally disastrous attitudes and practices.
Undermining the "greed is good" message being pumped at us at every possible opportunity is a good place to start.
Who the fuck thought up this ridiculous term?
Was it:
a) An ultra right wing bigot who wanted to turn the idea of respecting other people and their feelings into some sort of fascist thought police dogma, so as to make the loudest redneck bigots into champions of free speech?
or b) some pea brained politician or civil servant who couldn't get a grasp of the simple concept of respect any other way?
Either way, i think this is a term we should try our hardest to eradicate from our language.
Enough said.
home .. about me .. photo gallery .. drawings .. poetry(1990-1) .. poetry(1992-5) .. poetry(1996 +) .. writing .. rants .. links .. rings .. mail me