For the first few thousand years that human beings walked on Earth the only sound was them chipping away with chisels as they recorded their language and religion on the face of rocks in places like Egypt, Angor Wat in Asia and deep in the jungle of South America. Today, linguists are still teasing out the messages of long lost languages.
Over the following centuries humankind learned the art of war and eventually created the industrial revolution. An observer of Earth might have noted villages becoming big cities and smokestacks belching smog and we certainly learned to create wooden ships propelled by the wind in their sails to cross oceans - and discover new lands. But it was still a silent Earth. We did nothing to announce our presence in the Universe !
All that changed with the dawn of the twentieth century. A man named Marconi discovered that running electric power through resistors and valves enabled a radio signal to pass through the air and be recovered at a great distance. At first, this curiosity had limited application. In 1912 it added drama to a great sea tragedy. The luxury liner Titanic was making its first Atlantic crossing when it hit an iceberg at night. Its radio operators were sending distress calls and distant ships were racing to its aid, but within sight another ship was closed down on a calm sea and its crew were actually seeing the distress flares and rockets from the Titanic. They thought these were entertainment for the passengers, never thinking that the ship could be in trouble because it was deemed " unsinkable ".
This ships radio operator was asleep in his bunk and refused to arise and turn on his radio. When the rescue vessels finally arrived they found the fifteen hundred dead passengers and crew floating in the sea, killed by the chilling cold.
The advent of radio changed the world. It quickly became a source of entertainment for the masses. Commercial radio delivered music and news to homes across the world and radio connected countries where landlines were impossible. Then, midway into that twentieth century vision joined the sound of radio and the world embraced a new media - television. From every city of every country on earth sound waves bombarded the ether and bounced away into space.
The momentum of life quickly followed. The airplane brought mass, cheap travel and the age of rocketry allowed us to venture into space. The " computer " changed everything. In what seemed the twinkling of an eye we found ourselves with a " Smartphone " in our hand that connected us to the world, and as these decades slipped by the signals of planet Earth continued to boom away into space and announce our presence to whoever and whatever may share the Cosmos.
We even set up a " Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence " - SETI - and invited any aliens who respond to drop by and visit us. For some strange reason we assume that such creatures would be both benevolent and friendly. Perhaps that is naive !
We would do well to remember how we behaved when we were the explorers visiting new lands. We considered those we met as inferiors and we promptly placed our flag on their beaches and claimed the new country for our king or emperor. We assumed the right to any riches it contained and we carted away gold, silver, spices or anything that took our fancy. Worse, we imposed our laws and our religion on what we now called our new " subjects " and in many cases we forced them into the hold of our ships and carried them away to be sold in slave markets - where their labour would return us a profit.
It is too late to undo our declaration to the universe. For more than a hundred years our signals have been radiating through space and it may be many more centuries before they reach the outer limits of this infinite universe. Perhaps that may one day catch the attention of some other form of life and if so it may take a similar time measure for that entity to respond.
We hope that such an encounter delivers a better, kinder mix of civilizations than the history books recount of when we were the enlightened ones making new contacts !
Sunday, 31 July 2016
Saturday, 30 July 2016
" Managing " Prisons !
It is abundantly clear that the New South Wales prison system is dangerously under sourced. We know that three prisoners are being crammed into cells designed for a single inmate and at the end of each court day the crop of newly convicted and sentenced prisoners is unable to find a prison bed. Often they are held for days in court cells or moved around suburban police stations with the cops being responsible for buying in McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken to keep them fed.
The state prison population reached 12,700 in July. It increased by twenty-one percent since 2001 and on present indications it is expected to hit 13,500 by early 2017. That will be an unsustainable figure and the state government allocated $ 3.8 billion for prisons in this years June budget.
The reason we have this overcrowding is complex. The state closed several old and archaic prisons that were little changed from the days of transportation. There was an expectation that prison numbers were dropping, but this coincided with a sharp increase inn the numbers held on remand. It seems that the courts slowed and more cases were contested. Perhaps the quality of defence lawyers improved. Somehow many court cases seem to take a lot longer these days and serious crime in rewarded with longer prison terms.
It doesn't take Nostradamus to predict the outcome if we allow our prisons to degenerate into " hell holes ". The overseas experience is clear. Riots ! Fires ! Rebellions ! Killings ! The festering conditions of too many people crammed into too little space must have an impact on the unfortunate warders tasked with guarding them and it doesn't take long for the rule of strength to rise to the top within the prison population itself.
We are already seeing that with Islamic State sympathisers gathering their numbers to form attack gangs to forcibly convert other prisoners to the Islamic religion. A ruthless and numerous clique are able to impose intolerable threats to those they are unable to mentally withstand a threat to their lives. We have seen an instance where boiling water was poured on such a prisoner and an Islamic code carved into his body with a razor blade.
The danger is that this form of coercion can quickly get out of control. We know the problems of separating rival gangs in the prison system but the number of Jihadists is growing quickly and fanatacism makes them impossible to control. Those converted often serve their new masters slavishly.
The state has a duty of care for those the law insists in putting under their control. Along with incarceration comes a requirement that the prisoner will be housed, fed, clothed - and kept safe. That person has been put in the care of prison staff for the purpose of rehabilitation and has the expectation that on release they will be physically unharmed. They certainly have a right to retain their original notion of religion.
One prisoner in the New South Wales prison system is at high risk of having that duty of care violated. Renas Lelikan if a thirty-eight year old Kurdish journalist. When he returned to Australia he was accused of being a member of the PKK - the Kurdish Workers Party - which is in conflict with Islamic State and is consequently classed as a terrorist group. Lelikan was accused on fighting for the PKK, convicted and given a prison sentence.
Strangely, the PKK are allies with the very forces Australian troops are training to fight against Islamic State, but because our laws do not discriminate against which side fighters from this country join, all are classed as terrorists - and face prison.
So we have the weird situation that a man who supports what we consider the " right " side in this conflict is in prison and under threat from a vast number of Islamic State sympathisers who have every intention of causing his death because they see him as their enemy.
If this man is murdered in prison, the state will most certainly have failed in its duty of care. Every single day he remains in the general prison population increases the risk and it is totally unacceptable if the state simply sits on its hands and pleads overcrowding as its inability to act.
That duty of care responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who head the command structure !
The state prison population reached 12,700 in July. It increased by twenty-one percent since 2001 and on present indications it is expected to hit 13,500 by early 2017. That will be an unsustainable figure and the state government allocated $ 3.8 billion for prisons in this years June budget.
The reason we have this overcrowding is complex. The state closed several old and archaic prisons that were little changed from the days of transportation. There was an expectation that prison numbers were dropping, but this coincided with a sharp increase inn the numbers held on remand. It seems that the courts slowed and more cases were contested. Perhaps the quality of defence lawyers improved. Somehow many court cases seem to take a lot longer these days and serious crime in rewarded with longer prison terms.
It doesn't take Nostradamus to predict the outcome if we allow our prisons to degenerate into " hell holes ". The overseas experience is clear. Riots ! Fires ! Rebellions ! Killings ! The festering conditions of too many people crammed into too little space must have an impact on the unfortunate warders tasked with guarding them and it doesn't take long for the rule of strength to rise to the top within the prison population itself.
We are already seeing that with Islamic State sympathisers gathering their numbers to form attack gangs to forcibly convert other prisoners to the Islamic religion. A ruthless and numerous clique are able to impose intolerable threats to those they are unable to mentally withstand a threat to their lives. We have seen an instance where boiling water was poured on such a prisoner and an Islamic code carved into his body with a razor blade.
The danger is that this form of coercion can quickly get out of control. We know the problems of separating rival gangs in the prison system but the number of Jihadists is growing quickly and fanatacism makes them impossible to control. Those converted often serve their new masters slavishly.
The state has a duty of care for those the law insists in putting under their control. Along with incarceration comes a requirement that the prisoner will be housed, fed, clothed - and kept safe. That person has been put in the care of prison staff for the purpose of rehabilitation and has the expectation that on release they will be physically unharmed. They certainly have a right to retain their original notion of religion.
One prisoner in the New South Wales prison system is at high risk of having that duty of care violated. Renas Lelikan if a thirty-eight year old Kurdish journalist. When he returned to Australia he was accused of being a member of the PKK - the Kurdish Workers Party - which is in conflict with Islamic State and is consequently classed as a terrorist group. Lelikan was accused on fighting for the PKK, convicted and given a prison sentence.
Strangely, the PKK are allies with the very forces Australian troops are training to fight against Islamic State, but because our laws do not discriminate against which side fighters from this country join, all are classed as terrorists - and face prison.
So we have the weird situation that a man who supports what we consider the " right " side in this conflict is in prison and under threat from a vast number of Islamic State sympathisers who have every intention of causing his death because they see him as their enemy.
If this man is murdered in prison, the state will most certainly have failed in its duty of care. Every single day he remains in the general prison population increases the risk and it is totally unacceptable if the state simply sits on its hands and pleads overcrowding as its inability to act.
That duty of care responsibility rests on the shoulders of those who head the command structure !
Friday, 29 July 2016
That Other Election !
The eyes of the world are firmly focused on November's election to choose the new President of the United States of America. At the end of the year the Secretary General of the United Nations - Ban Ki-moon - completes his turn and the process of finding a replacement is well under way.
Strangely, the United Nations is not a " Democracy " in the way we usually understand that terminology. The organization has one hundred and ninety three members who we would expect to have individual equality, but that is not the case. It is a little like the characters in " Animal Farm ". Some are just more equal that others !
When the United Nations was mooted at the end of the second world war there was a problem. Five countries were armed with nuclear weapons - and so the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France formed an " inner circle " and each was allowed a " Veto " to remove any matter of their choice from discussion by the forum. They were also made permanent members of the Security Council.
Selecting a new Secretary General runs a strange course. These five countries are referred to a " P-5 " and they nominate people who will be acceptable to them and who they hope may also meet the requirements of the other P-5 members. At present there are twelve nominations, and five of them are women. This is a break from tradition. Past Secretary Generals have all been male. None of these present contenders for the job are citizens of any of the P-5 member countries.
This is time of mulling and horse trading. Eventually the P-5 will settle on a choice acceptable to all and that person will be presented to the 193 member General Assembly for ratification. By protocol, all other nominees will withdraw their application to speed that person selected into office.
This list is not yet complete and former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has asked the Federal Government to forward his name as a possible contender. Rudd is considered controversial for the job and while the government has agreed to give it consideration, it is not high on the rate of urgency.
Some may contend that whoever fills the shoes of the Secretary General has the most difficult and powerless job on the planet. He - or she - will face a constant battle to beg, borrow or steal both people and money from the member countries to try and keep the agencies of the United Nations running - and saving lives.
The task is legion. The World Food Programme is always on the brink of disaster, trying to move food through armed blockades to keep refugees from starving to death. The World Health Organization is at the forefront of stopping contageous diseases from ripping through the world. It has had success against Malaria but one of its greatest triumphs was stopping Ebola in its tracks in Africa, and now it is battling Ziva of a wide front.
Civil war in both the Middle East and Africa has brought that UNHCR logo to prominence in the tent cities the UN has created to house and shelter the refugees fleeing to safety with just the clothing on their backs. Along with providing food and shelter it is the UN that is providing schools to try and deliver at least a rudimentary education for the children whose lives have been shattered - and it is United Nations agencies tasked with finding refugees new homes in other countries.
The Secretary General has the task of wheedling and shaming the governments of member countries into contributing soldiers to expand the " Blue Berets " of the troops fighting under a United Nations mandate to separate warring armies in civil wars from decimating helpless civilians. It also has a hand in trying to right labour abuses which verge on outright slavery - and then there is the World Bank and its ability to place money where it will raise living standards.
The Secretary General must be a very remarkable person. Part diplomat. Part magician. It must be terribly vexing to go to conferences where heads of state big note themselves by publicly promising worthwhile donations, only to have them renege as soon as the spotlight of world publicity moves elsewhere.
The American Presidential election is certainly important, but perhaps it pales into insignificance when compared to the task one person will be handed by years end. The task the United Nations Secretary General undertakes probably decides the life or death outcome for more citizens of planet Earth than the ruler of any individual world country. Hopefully, the P-5 will choose well !
Strangely, the United Nations is not a " Democracy " in the way we usually understand that terminology. The organization has one hundred and ninety three members who we would expect to have individual equality, but that is not the case. It is a little like the characters in " Animal Farm ". Some are just more equal that others !
When the United Nations was mooted at the end of the second world war there was a problem. Five countries were armed with nuclear weapons - and so the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France formed an " inner circle " and each was allowed a " Veto " to remove any matter of their choice from discussion by the forum. They were also made permanent members of the Security Council.
Selecting a new Secretary General runs a strange course. These five countries are referred to a " P-5 " and they nominate people who will be acceptable to them and who they hope may also meet the requirements of the other P-5 members. At present there are twelve nominations, and five of them are women. This is a break from tradition. Past Secretary Generals have all been male. None of these present contenders for the job are citizens of any of the P-5 member countries.
This is time of mulling and horse trading. Eventually the P-5 will settle on a choice acceptable to all and that person will be presented to the 193 member General Assembly for ratification. By protocol, all other nominees will withdraw their application to speed that person selected into office.
This list is not yet complete and former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has asked the Federal Government to forward his name as a possible contender. Rudd is considered controversial for the job and while the government has agreed to give it consideration, it is not high on the rate of urgency.
Some may contend that whoever fills the shoes of the Secretary General has the most difficult and powerless job on the planet. He - or she - will face a constant battle to beg, borrow or steal both people and money from the member countries to try and keep the agencies of the United Nations running - and saving lives.
The task is legion. The World Food Programme is always on the brink of disaster, trying to move food through armed blockades to keep refugees from starving to death. The World Health Organization is at the forefront of stopping contageous diseases from ripping through the world. It has had success against Malaria but one of its greatest triumphs was stopping Ebola in its tracks in Africa, and now it is battling Ziva of a wide front.
Civil war in both the Middle East and Africa has brought that UNHCR logo to prominence in the tent cities the UN has created to house and shelter the refugees fleeing to safety with just the clothing on their backs. Along with providing food and shelter it is the UN that is providing schools to try and deliver at least a rudimentary education for the children whose lives have been shattered - and it is United Nations agencies tasked with finding refugees new homes in other countries.
The Secretary General has the task of wheedling and shaming the governments of member countries into contributing soldiers to expand the " Blue Berets " of the troops fighting under a United Nations mandate to separate warring armies in civil wars from decimating helpless civilians. It also has a hand in trying to right labour abuses which verge on outright slavery - and then there is the World Bank and its ability to place money where it will raise living standards.
The Secretary General must be a very remarkable person. Part diplomat. Part magician. It must be terribly vexing to go to conferences where heads of state big note themselves by publicly promising worthwhile donations, only to have them renege as soon as the spotlight of world publicity moves elsewhere.
The American Presidential election is certainly important, but perhaps it pales into insignificance when compared to the task one person will be handed by years end. The task the United Nations Secretary General undertakes probably decides the life or death outcome for more citizens of planet Earth than the ruler of any individual world country. Hopefully, the P-5 will choose well !
Thursday, 28 July 2016
Awarding Punishments. !
It was a sad story, but only too familiar through all stratas of todays society. Harriet Wran, 28 was the daughter of former New South Wales state premier Neville Wran. Estranged from her family because she was in the grip of an uncontrollable drug habit she was arrested by the police investigating a Refern murder.
It seems that Harriet Wran accompanied her boy friend Michael Lee and Lloyd Edward Haines to a known drug den in the city with the intention of obtaining drugs. Wran knocked on the door and lulled the drug dealer to open up because he contended his caller was " only a girl ". Her companions rushed in, intending to commit a robbery and in the ensuing fracas the dealer - Daniel McNulty - was killed.
Then came the inevitable apportioning of individual charges and this investigation dragged on for over a year, and during that time Harriet Wran was locked away in a high security female prison. Her case was sensationally played out in the media and inevitably the the reporting was coloured by the individual political bias of the media proprietors. Harriet was fortunate that her family stuck with her and as a result she was served by top lawyers and attended by gifted psychiatrists and social workers. She was also at high risk of personal attack behind bars and the sensational nature of this case will make rehabilitation eventually difficult.
The presiding justice had a thorny issue to decide. Justice is never clear in the eye of all beholders. It is much easier if the offender is a " nobody " and the decisions attract little media attention, but that was never going to be an option in the Wran case.
The DPP decided to charge Harriet Wran with " harbouring and maintaining " her boy friend when they went on the run. The Justice handed her a one year sentence. She was also charged with " robbery in company " and awarded a two year minimum prison term. She was not charged with murder because both her companions pleaded guilty to that charge - and are awaiting sentencing.
With time served and credits for good behaviour it is quite likely that she may be granted her freedom in a matter of days. Her time in prison has certainly broken the drug nexus and her loving family can be expected to cushion her return to personal freedom. The sentencing Justice opined that he had every expectation that there would be no further criminal occurrences.
To a fair minded person that is probably a very reasonable outcome to what can happen when normal behaviour becomes deranged by drug cravings. That expedition to Redfern had the intention of committing a robbery. They were desperate for drugs beyond the money available to make a legitimate purchase and Wran took no part in the killing of the dealer. The culprits have admitted their guilt - and will be punished accordingly.
The only jarring note is the fame connecting to the prisoners father. It raises the question of whether those close to the public eye should be treated differently to what some may refer to as " ordinary members of the herd " ! The question in some minds is whether Harriet Wran got off lightly - because of who she was ?
There is no doubt that she was legally better represented by the family engaged lawyers rather than having legal counsel drawn from the pool of freshly minted lawyers on low salaries available to the courts. But that is a very normal hazard of justice. Some of the biggest criminals are also very rich people - and they deploy their wealth accordingly.
In the end, it rests in the hands of whatever Justice draws the case and has to try and juggle together the contrasting ends of justice and mercy. He chose to give a twenty-eight year old woman a chance to return to a normal life and perhaps create a future family. There is a very good chance that she will never again cross the law, but the curse of drugs is rife with temptation.
It seems that Harriet Wran accompanied her boy friend Michael Lee and Lloyd Edward Haines to a known drug den in the city with the intention of obtaining drugs. Wran knocked on the door and lulled the drug dealer to open up because he contended his caller was " only a girl ". Her companions rushed in, intending to commit a robbery and in the ensuing fracas the dealer - Daniel McNulty - was killed.
Then came the inevitable apportioning of individual charges and this investigation dragged on for over a year, and during that time Harriet Wran was locked away in a high security female prison. Her case was sensationally played out in the media and inevitably the the reporting was coloured by the individual political bias of the media proprietors. Harriet was fortunate that her family stuck with her and as a result she was served by top lawyers and attended by gifted psychiatrists and social workers. She was also at high risk of personal attack behind bars and the sensational nature of this case will make rehabilitation eventually difficult.
The presiding justice had a thorny issue to decide. Justice is never clear in the eye of all beholders. It is much easier if the offender is a " nobody " and the decisions attract little media attention, but that was never going to be an option in the Wran case.
The DPP decided to charge Harriet Wran with " harbouring and maintaining " her boy friend when they went on the run. The Justice handed her a one year sentence. She was also charged with " robbery in company " and awarded a two year minimum prison term. She was not charged with murder because both her companions pleaded guilty to that charge - and are awaiting sentencing.
With time served and credits for good behaviour it is quite likely that she may be granted her freedom in a matter of days. Her time in prison has certainly broken the drug nexus and her loving family can be expected to cushion her return to personal freedom. The sentencing Justice opined that he had every expectation that there would be no further criminal occurrences.
To a fair minded person that is probably a very reasonable outcome to what can happen when normal behaviour becomes deranged by drug cravings. That expedition to Redfern had the intention of committing a robbery. They were desperate for drugs beyond the money available to make a legitimate purchase and Wran took no part in the killing of the dealer. The culprits have admitted their guilt - and will be punished accordingly.
The only jarring note is the fame connecting to the prisoners father. It raises the question of whether those close to the public eye should be treated differently to what some may refer to as " ordinary members of the herd " ! The question in some minds is whether Harriet Wran got off lightly - because of who she was ?
There is no doubt that she was legally better represented by the family engaged lawyers rather than having legal counsel drawn from the pool of freshly minted lawyers on low salaries available to the courts. But that is a very normal hazard of justice. Some of the biggest criminals are also very rich people - and they deploy their wealth accordingly.
In the end, it rests in the hands of whatever Justice draws the case and has to try and juggle together the contrasting ends of justice and mercy. He chose to give a twenty-eight year old woman a chance to return to a normal life and perhaps create a future family. There is a very good chance that she will never again cross the law, but the curse of drugs is rife with temptation.
Wednesday, 27 July 2016
Tragedy !
One new born is dead and another is severely brain damaged after an incredible accident at Bankstown/Lidcombe hospital. It was discovered that one outlet in one of the hospitals eight birthing operating theatres was connected to the wrong gas. Instead of delivering Oxygen, it supplied Nitrous Oxide, commonly known as " Laughing gas " !
The supply of hospital gases comes from the industrial giant BOC limited and there are strict protocols in place in all medical establishments. All these procedures are now under review but it is worrying that this error remained in place for many days and that a great number of babies passed through that particular birthing centre successfully with the defect still in placer without suffering harm.
It seems that giving a new born oxygen is unusual. Most have a very healthy natural birth and it is simply not necessary to give oxygen, but where the birth is both difficult and lengthy a shot of oxygen can rejuvenate the baby. In this case, the oxygen probably stood unused as a standby during the many days it was incorrectly connected.
That Nitrous Oxide is also a standby gas. If labour is protracted and the mother is becoming distressed a little " laughing gas " can cause relaxation and dull the pain. Somehow, and against all protocol the gas line to the supply room managed to get connected to the wrong bottle - and nobody noticed.
This is the sort of medical disaster that strikes fear into all hospital administrations. You can be sure that when this news broke a special check was carried out on the gas connections and spigot labelling in birthing centres from Cape York to Tasmania. The fact that this is a cause of death that broke new ground - means gas protocols need to be tightened to ensure that it never happens again.
That is no solace for the victims. One baby is dead and another is in a critical condition with severe brain damage. It will result in a coroners enquiry and the protocols in place will be tightly examined to try and pin down exactly where this error occurred. It may be human error and there may be latitude in how things are labelled, but the entire system needs to be fine tuned because what has just happened is unacceptable.
The victim families must feel that fate was being cruel. It was just sheer good luck that many babies passed through that particular birthing centre procedure room with the incorrect gas connection before their turn, and many more after the first sign of damage was misdiagnosed. Both gases are colourless - odourless. Any reactions to gas are of an uncertain nature.
It is said that we live - and we learn. Just one of those unforseen hazards that an unkind fate can deliver - when we least expect it. What is important is that we close the door on repeat performances.
The supply of hospital gases comes from the industrial giant BOC limited and there are strict protocols in place in all medical establishments. All these procedures are now under review but it is worrying that this error remained in place for many days and that a great number of babies passed through that particular birthing centre successfully with the defect still in placer without suffering harm.
It seems that giving a new born oxygen is unusual. Most have a very healthy natural birth and it is simply not necessary to give oxygen, but where the birth is both difficult and lengthy a shot of oxygen can rejuvenate the baby. In this case, the oxygen probably stood unused as a standby during the many days it was incorrectly connected.
That Nitrous Oxide is also a standby gas. If labour is protracted and the mother is becoming distressed a little " laughing gas " can cause relaxation and dull the pain. Somehow, and against all protocol the gas line to the supply room managed to get connected to the wrong bottle - and nobody noticed.
This is the sort of medical disaster that strikes fear into all hospital administrations. You can be sure that when this news broke a special check was carried out on the gas connections and spigot labelling in birthing centres from Cape York to Tasmania. The fact that this is a cause of death that broke new ground - means gas protocols need to be tightened to ensure that it never happens again.
That is no solace for the victims. One baby is dead and another is in a critical condition with severe brain damage. It will result in a coroners enquiry and the protocols in place will be tightly examined to try and pin down exactly where this error occurred. It may be human error and there may be latitude in how things are labelled, but the entire system needs to be fine tuned because what has just happened is unacceptable.
The victim families must feel that fate was being cruel. It was just sheer good luck that many babies passed through that particular birthing centre procedure room with the incorrect gas connection before their turn, and many more after the first sign of damage was misdiagnosed. Both gases are colourless - odourless. Any reactions to gas are of an uncertain nature.
It is said that we live - and we learn. Just one of those unforseen hazards that an unkind fate can deliver - when we least expect it. What is important is that we close the door on repeat performances.
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
Balancing The Family !
The relentless march of Science is ever pushing back frontiers. The coming of the IVF world ensured that many childless couples were able to conceive and complete the traditional family circle. It is an area of argument with some of the churches bitterly opposed to any actions that they claim interfere with the natural birth cycle.
Now a new proposal is about to send the IVF contenders to the barricades. One of the contentious points of the IVF programme is its ability to manipulate the sex of the child, and this is already covered by strict regulation. There are some loopholes. It is logical to close out genetic diseases such as Haemophilia, which is a bleeding disease that usually runs in the male line of ancestry. Where this is present, families would be wise to ensure that they have female children.
Now it is proposed that a " balancing factor " be allowed in family planning. Manipulating the sex of the first child born to a women will still be forbidden, but should the family find themselves with two children of the same sex - and desire a third ? Then they should have the right to choose that third child to be of the opposite sex to the other children.
It sounds simple and clear cut, but as usual the devil is in the detail. A century ago family life was very different. The average courtship led to an engagement, then marriage and later a family arrived. It was all very orderly, but that is not the world of today. About half of todays children are born out of wedlock and many parents have no intention of ever getting married. Many are home births and it seems certain that not all are legally recorded.
Just imagine the complications if a man with a couple of kids from a broken marriage got together with a woman in a similar situation - and they both wanted one of their union - of a preferred sex ? Whenever we make a new rule, be sure to first examine all the contingencies that can arise - because it is certain that many will crawl out of the woodwork.
The one thing that is certain is that we are a manipulative lot and whatever rules are put in place will be gamed by many. The really big question is whether Australians have a preference for one of the sexes and how that would play out if child sex selection became a de facto lottery.
We have only to look to China for the answer to that question. China forced its one child policy on its huge population out of necessity. Girls were undervalued. They became someone elses wife. Boys had the responsibility to care for their aged parents and grand parents, and the wife they chose was forced to carry out these duties. As a result, hundreds of thousands of girl childs were aborted after conception and China became a country of boy children.
The end result was tragic. China has an over balanced population and many men are destined to never find a partner - because of a huge female shortage. At the same time the demographics have changed. The people have moved from agrarian villagers to city workers and this ageing population lacks a social security net.
Fortunately, Australia is not reliant on its children for family support, but our planners would be wise to think long and hard before setting sex selection in motion. They first need to be sure of the final outcome. Whatever rules they put in place are unlikely to colour the outcome of whatever eventually evolves !
Now a new proposal is about to send the IVF contenders to the barricades. One of the contentious points of the IVF programme is its ability to manipulate the sex of the child, and this is already covered by strict regulation. There are some loopholes. It is logical to close out genetic diseases such as Haemophilia, which is a bleeding disease that usually runs in the male line of ancestry. Where this is present, families would be wise to ensure that they have female children.
Now it is proposed that a " balancing factor " be allowed in family planning. Manipulating the sex of the first child born to a women will still be forbidden, but should the family find themselves with two children of the same sex - and desire a third ? Then they should have the right to choose that third child to be of the opposite sex to the other children.
It sounds simple and clear cut, but as usual the devil is in the detail. A century ago family life was very different. The average courtship led to an engagement, then marriage and later a family arrived. It was all very orderly, but that is not the world of today. About half of todays children are born out of wedlock and many parents have no intention of ever getting married. Many are home births and it seems certain that not all are legally recorded.
Just imagine the complications if a man with a couple of kids from a broken marriage got together with a woman in a similar situation - and they both wanted one of their union - of a preferred sex ? Whenever we make a new rule, be sure to first examine all the contingencies that can arise - because it is certain that many will crawl out of the woodwork.
The one thing that is certain is that we are a manipulative lot and whatever rules are put in place will be gamed by many. The really big question is whether Australians have a preference for one of the sexes and how that would play out if child sex selection became a de facto lottery.
We have only to look to China for the answer to that question. China forced its one child policy on its huge population out of necessity. Girls were undervalued. They became someone elses wife. Boys had the responsibility to care for their aged parents and grand parents, and the wife they chose was forced to carry out these duties. As a result, hundreds of thousands of girl childs were aborted after conception and China became a country of boy children.
The end result was tragic. China has an over balanced population and many men are destined to never find a partner - because of a huge female shortage. At the same time the demographics have changed. The people have moved from agrarian villagers to city workers and this ageing population lacks a social security net.
Fortunately, Australia is not reliant on its children for family support, but our planners would be wise to think long and hard before setting sex selection in motion. They first need to be sure of the final outcome. Whatever rules they put in place are unlikely to colour the outcome of whatever eventually evolves !
Monday, 25 July 2016
The " Crunch " Factor !
The latest terrorist attack in the German city of Munich left nine people dead - many of them children -and a further twenty-one with survivable injuries. The killer was eighteen year old Ali Sonboly, He was a dual nationality German/Iranian with no known contact with Islamic State.
There are claims that he was shouting " Allahu Akbar " which is Arabic for "God is Great "as he sprayed bullets at victims. This seems to be the main claim that he was an Islamic terrorist. In the greater number of other killings claimed by IS the killers have loudly shouted this phrase as their justification for murder.
This scene of carnage was at a McDonalds family restaurant and it seems a bogus advertisement may have attracted an unusually large crowd of young patrons with the offer of free giveaway food coinciding with the exact time the attack took place. The killer then ended his own life with a gunshot to the head.
When Islamic State began their war on the world they proved to be adept at attracting publicity. Their methods were extreme and repulsive to most people, but they would have had a certain appeal to those desensitized by violent video games and the many in our midst with extreme psychiatric problems. They offered a new and violent way to hit back at society. It is quite possible that those with absolutely no interest in religion are using the Islamic State credo as some sort of badge of honour.
One of the avenues of appeal - is the publicity it ensures. This Munich attack brings headlines around the world and this eighteen year old Ali Sonboly has become an instant celebrity. Had he simply murdered any ordinary Munich citizen it is unlikely that the case would have made it beyond the local newspaper but now he has entered the pantheon that will be constantly mulled over by the great and powerful.
What is so awful is the certainty that we can never mount a certain defence to protect the population against this sort of infamy. Someone with a concealed weapon can walk into any location with a mass of people and simply start killing. Sometimes escape is an option, but that seems reserved for dedicated IS cadres. Many with bizarre psychiatric grievances either expect to be eventually taken down by the police or end their life by their own hand.
Perhaps the nearest replication of the danger spreading across the world is comparison with the long ages when the streets of Ireland were darkened by "the troubles ". That too was a religious war, but it also masked items of "payback " for civil issues and even the romantic upheavals that endue in all societies. It served as "cover " for the dormant excesses that a civilized society keeps under control.
The people of Ireland simply had to adjust to a bomb in a public place without the slightest warning. They had to accept that the religious divide ran deep and there was no such thing as neutrality. It was a religious war and it was also a tribal war - and there was no quarter. Everybody wanted it to end, but nobody wanted to be the first to give ground.
What we are now seeing is the great religion of Islam at war with itself. A fanatical breakaway Wahabist movement has emerged out of Saudi Arabia and is determined to force its way of life on the rest of the world at the point of a gun. The end result so far is massive death and destruction in the Middle East and a tide of refugees last seen when the second world war ended.
It is likely that this IS phenomenon will run its course and be rejected by moderate Islam, but its ability to use the world publicity machine to exploit its successes is drawing in converts and many of these are simply the misfits of society. When the people with psychiatric illnesses deliver an atrocity in the west, IS is quick to claim the credit. This seems to bring more weirdos to flock to the IS banner.
It is quite clear that we are not changing our lifestyle. We live in a dangerous world and today any sound of a shot in a public place sees people take immediate cover. We are more watchful of our surroundings and others and we now tend to avoid places of evident danger. Anywhere people are massed is now a danger point.
But we are also pragmatic. Even a hundred deaths in a city of millions is small compared to the overall risk of accidental death. What we can't stop we must learn to endure - and that is exactly what is happening in western countries. The headlines are awful, but when it comes to the crunch very little has actually changed !
There are claims that he was shouting " Allahu Akbar " which is Arabic for "God is Great "as he sprayed bullets at victims. This seems to be the main claim that he was an Islamic terrorist. In the greater number of other killings claimed by IS the killers have loudly shouted this phrase as their justification for murder.
This scene of carnage was at a McDonalds family restaurant and it seems a bogus advertisement may have attracted an unusually large crowd of young patrons with the offer of free giveaway food coinciding with the exact time the attack took place. The killer then ended his own life with a gunshot to the head.
When Islamic State began their war on the world they proved to be adept at attracting publicity. Their methods were extreme and repulsive to most people, but they would have had a certain appeal to those desensitized by violent video games and the many in our midst with extreme psychiatric problems. They offered a new and violent way to hit back at society. It is quite possible that those with absolutely no interest in religion are using the Islamic State credo as some sort of badge of honour.
One of the avenues of appeal - is the publicity it ensures. This Munich attack brings headlines around the world and this eighteen year old Ali Sonboly has become an instant celebrity. Had he simply murdered any ordinary Munich citizen it is unlikely that the case would have made it beyond the local newspaper but now he has entered the pantheon that will be constantly mulled over by the great and powerful.
What is so awful is the certainty that we can never mount a certain defence to protect the population against this sort of infamy. Someone with a concealed weapon can walk into any location with a mass of people and simply start killing. Sometimes escape is an option, but that seems reserved for dedicated IS cadres. Many with bizarre psychiatric grievances either expect to be eventually taken down by the police or end their life by their own hand.
Perhaps the nearest replication of the danger spreading across the world is comparison with the long ages when the streets of Ireland were darkened by "the troubles ". That too was a religious war, but it also masked items of "payback " for civil issues and even the romantic upheavals that endue in all societies. It served as "cover " for the dormant excesses that a civilized society keeps under control.
The people of Ireland simply had to adjust to a bomb in a public place without the slightest warning. They had to accept that the religious divide ran deep and there was no such thing as neutrality. It was a religious war and it was also a tribal war - and there was no quarter. Everybody wanted it to end, but nobody wanted to be the first to give ground.
What we are now seeing is the great religion of Islam at war with itself. A fanatical breakaway Wahabist movement has emerged out of Saudi Arabia and is determined to force its way of life on the rest of the world at the point of a gun. The end result so far is massive death and destruction in the Middle East and a tide of refugees last seen when the second world war ended.
It is likely that this IS phenomenon will run its course and be rejected by moderate Islam, but its ability to use the world publicity machine to exploit its successes is drawing in converts and many of these are simply the misfits of society. When the people with psychiatric illnesses deliver an atrocity in the west, IS is quick to claim the credit. This seems to bring more weirdos to flock to the IS banner.
It is quite clear that we are not changing our lifestyle. We live in a dangerous world and today any sound of a shot in a public place sees people take immediate cover. We are more watchful of our surroundings and others and we now tend to avoid places of evident danger. Anywhere people are massed is now a danger point.
But we are also pragmatic. Even a hundred deaths in a city of millions is small compared to the overall risk of accidental death. What we can't stop we must learn to endure - and that is exactly what is happening in western countries. The headlines are awful, but when it comes to the crunch very little has actually changed !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)