Posted on

The Citizenship Conversation

It hasn’t been going very well for our Aussie politicians, has it? That’s because of the big question mark hovering over the “Aussie” bit as many of them are apparently discovering they may not be as Australian as they first thought! Yes, I know, not being aware of one’s citizenship status seems like a bit of a stretch to me too but those of them caught up in the mess are looking a tad shell-shocked, which leads me to believe that it’s entirely possible that a foreign or dual citizenship issue hadn’t occurred to them when they entered the Australian political arena.

If born here, and one’s birth registered here, it is entirely likely that one would assume that one was Australian, right? Regardless of where one’s parents and/or grandparents came from, yes? Well that’s what I would think too but it is not unheard of for parents to also register their child as a citizen of the country of their own birth as well, thus granting them dual citizenship or even full citizenship in some cases, with the country of their parents’ birth. That was the case with a couple I knew many years ago; Mum was Australian, Dad American but they were living in Australia when Daughter Number Two was born. They had her registered as an American citizen. Oh well, seems she didn’t enter politics so no problem.

It’s also possible that parents, who have done the dual or foreign citizenship thingy with their offspring, may not have told them about it, leaving the child/children to discover it for themselves somewhere down the track, like when they decide to enter politics. One has to be an Australian citizen to enter politics in Australia,  but if all the Australian politicians caught up in this mess are to be believed, none of them had the foggiest idea. Seems the citizenship conversation was one they never had with their parents. But why would they  even think to ask? As in “Hey Mum, am I an Aussie citizen?”

“Well, funny you should ask…because you’re actually not. You see, if you’d been born a girl, we would have just named you after Great Grandma Zanillya, which would have been easier I suppose, but when you turned out to be a boy we decided to have you made a citizen of that tiny Eastern European country, which we’ve never been able to pronounce, that she came from instead. It was a respectful acknowledgement thing, you know? And she was so excited. At least we think she was…she didn’t speak any English so it was a bit hard to tell.”

“You had me made a citizen of a country you can’t even pronounce??!”

“I can spell it though, hang on while I write it down for you.”

Nope, it’s highly unlikely that someone who was born and bred in one country would think to question whether they were possibly a citizen of another. It’s just not something that would normally come to mind.

Meanwhile in Australia, political careers are plummeting as more and more of those in office are being found to be there “illegally” because despite their being born here, they have some vague connection to a foreign country via parents having been born overseas and/or being eligible for dual citizenship as a result. At last one of them apparently gained foreign citizenship via his mother so he’s Italian or something now, and he didn’t even know it! Well that’s what he claims anyway.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? I’m fairly certain I’m an Australian citizen but I may not be, despite the fact that I was born here, as were my parents and grandparents.

Seems that doesn’t mean a thing anymore…

 

 

 

Posted on

The Gift of the Jab

Misinformation is a problem at the best of times, and unfortunately, the Internet is full of it. People with no solid background in science, medicine, or healthcare are some of the worst offenders when it comes to misinformation because they often manage to package themselves as “qualified” or “professional” when they actually aren’t either and this is a real problem because they inevitably attract followers via those looking for answers when things go wrong.

They are kind of like cult leaders, I think,  with an over generous dollop of pot-stirrer (to attract controversy) thrown in for good measure and are very good at roping in the type of people who will readily believe whatever they read or hear and in the case of parents looking for something to blame when their child is not born perfectly healthy…well they’re just fodder for these self-styled “professionals”

Top of the list right now are the anti-vaccers. On the off chance you don’t know who they are, anti-vaccers are are loudly vocal group advocating that parents forgo vaccinations in the interests of their children’s health. They have proclaimed that vaccinations are full of poisonous toxins and are to blame for such conditions as asthma, schizophrenia, autism and eczema and that’s just for starters. No doubt there are other health issues out there just waiting to be labelled as vaccine-induced too but those I have mentioned above are the most common baddies at the moment. The anti-vaccine advocates would have you believe that it is actually good for children to contract nasty preventable diseases because, basically, they are “non-threatening” illnesses and once the child recovers they will have a natural immunity. Ri-ight, except that “recovers” is the debatable word here.

Let’s do a whip-around of those “non-threatening” diseases, shall we? We’ll start with Measles, Mumps and Chickenpox. Yes, children have caught these and most of them recovered, but measles and chickenpox can leave pockmark scars that don’t go away. Mumps can leave boys sterile. Adults who are unfortunate enough to contract these diseases are a lot sicker than if they had had the diseases as children. Adult males who contract mumps are more highly likely to end up sterile.

Next on the list is Diphtheria. This highly contagious bacterial disease attacks and causes inflammation of the mucus membranes. It also causes the formation of false membranes in the throat, which seriously hinders breathing and swallowing, as well as potentially fatal heart and nerve damage via the bacterial toxins in the bloodstream. Tetanus is another bacterial nasty which causes severe and painful spasms and rigidity of the voluntary muscles and locks the jaw. There is no cure. Tuberculosis (TB, Consumption) is a bacterial infection that especially infects the lungs. Symptoms are fever, coughing fits that get more severe as the disease progresses and death is usually caused by eventual haemorrhage. The most common form, Pulmonary Tuberculosis, has caused millions of deaths. And let’s not forget Poliomyelitis (Polio). This infectious viral disease attacks the central nervous system, causing paralysis. Those making a recovery are left crippled. Many ended up in an iron lung, a big metal device which provided prolonged artificial respiration. Before vaccination, hospitals had a lot of these.  And then there’s Whooping Cough, a highly contagious bacterial disease characterised by compulsive coughing. Also know as Pertussis, it is usually fatal in babies and toddlers. Seriously, who would do nothing to prevent their child catching one of these when the means to prevention is readily available???

The advent of vaccination means these diseases have, thankfully, all but disappeared in developed countries. The bacteria that causes them is still present in our world but the controlled dose of lab-grown versions of them means we can be safely “infected” but not catch the disease, let alone die from it! But vaccination is most effective when everyone gets it and that’s where those refusing to vaccinate their children are causing so much damage. A vaccinated child coming into close proximity with an unvaccinated one who is sick can still contract the disease and can then pass it on to others, like babies not yet old enough to have begun the vaccination program, those with other health issues and the aged and it is often fatal for them.

In an extreme effort to promote non-vaccination, anti-vaccers have propagated a rabid campaign of misinformation which has caused a lot of confusion for some parents who naturally want to do the best by their children. This is very unfair. Interestingly, many of the anti-vaccination supporters soon lost their fervour when the Australian Government imposed welfare cuts and the non-payment of other government assistance to those refusing to vaccinate their children. Funny that! But with the reintroduction of many of these nasty but preventable diseases, due to a stubborn and misguided group of individuals opting out of vaccinating, some hefty action needed to be taken  and withholding the government handouts these people enjoy was probably one of the most effective actions it could have taken.

Because money talks.

Posted on

The Gender Thingy

Gender issues have been all over the media a lot lately, haven’t they? What with LGBTI, gender fluidity (what exactly is that anyway?), the Same Sex Marriage debate and the contentious Safe Schools program, you could not be blamed for fessing up to being genuinely confused about the whole thing.

But let’s start with the basics. Just about everything on the planet is either male or female. Nature dictated this so that species could breed, be they plant or animal and sexual orientation forms in the womb and that’s that. Generally speaking, that orientation means an attraction to the opposite sex but sometimes it orientates toward same sex. Nothing wrong with that. Still with me? Okay, good.

Anyway, still generally speaking, primary school-aged children tend to avoid their opposite sex classmates on the whole because, well, they each think the other really gross when they are that age! This phase only lasts though until the hormones kick in and they begin to see each other in a whole new light. This would probably be the same deal for those attracted to their own sex. But as I said, orientation begins in the womb and while little kids aren’t necessarily consciously aware of which way their attraction goes, subconsciously they are.

Right, but the trend at the moment appears to be getting started on little kids early and “educating” them about gender thingies that they would barely understand because they are just too young to really grasp the complex issues of sexual orientation. Let’s face it, they are just too young to fully grasp sex, full stop! Hence the brouhaha over the Safe Schools program that was packaged as an anti-bullying campaign when it really wasn’t about that at all.

Anyway, there seems to be a big a focus on prompting primary schoolers to think too much about which way they lean, with a big emphasis on LGBTI and that’s probably not a great idea with kids of that age. Inherently they probably know their own leanings , even if they are not overtly conscious of them, so do they really need to be influenced (pushed) toward what’s currently on trend? Has anyone ever thought to ask a primary schooler what LGBTI and/or a same sex relationship actually is? Kids being kids, they probably have a completely different interpretation of what it’s all about and the social engineers driving the program have no idea! No surprises there.

But let’s face it, kids are easily influenced. I went to a Catholic primary school and in Year 2 every little girl in my class (me included) decided we wanted to be nuns when we grew up. All, that is, except the one who was double-jointed in almost every joint in her body (we were so jealous) who wanted to be an acrobat. Either that or a famous actress who would star as an acrobat in movies about circuses (yes, I know, but we were only seven at the time) and one other who was hell bent on being an air hostess, as they were called at the time. But the rest of us were going to be nuns because we liked our nuns at school. They were wonderfully mysterious and about as holy as one could get! What was not to love? The reality, of course, was that none of us would end up running off to join the convent but at the time we were surrounded by nuns and were unwittingly influenced and that was without any pressure or programs to get us into the mindset.

But today there are books and programs geared towards getting young children to identify with their sexuality and if they can be coerced into identifying with something other than heterosexual they are celebrated. That’s enough to get any little one’s attention! I suspect the push toward getting female school children out of uniforms that are dresses and into long pants and shorts might be connected, even if the powers that be deny it till they’re blue in the face!

Certainly, teaching tolerance of others at an early age is a good thing and a child leaning towards an LGBTI identity should be able to feel safe at school and comfortable with who they are, but does that mean all their little classmates have to follow the same orientation? It doesn’t, but the program doesn’t seem to recognise that obviously heterosexual kids have the right to feel comfortable in their own skin too, and that’s what has rubbed so many people the wrong way, who are then wrongly labelled as homophobic or something.

Primary schoolers really don’t need the hassle of having to tackle complex sexual issues that they are still years away from really understanding, so please stop!

It’s messing with their little heads.

Posted on

The “M” Word

Buzz words have become a bit of a thing, haven’t they? Some even find their way into the dictionary eventually, but while “marriage” has never really attracted buzz word status, if prefixed with “same sex” you get the the buzz word of the moment; same sex marriage.

Okay, fine, so that’s three words (buzz phrase maybe…?) but those three words have been dominating the media in Australia for quite a while, with the promise of a plebiscite being followed by a non-compulsory postal vote that won’t necessarily have any impact on changing the current Marriage Act, which would allow same sex couples to marry.

Confused? Me too, but the nation appears to have split into two very distinct groups regarding this matter and both are steadfastly defending their right to their opinion and how they intend to vote.

On one side of the fence are those in favour of same sex couples having the right to legally marry, granting them the same rights as opposite sex couples. The “Yes” voters really want this, hence the lengths they have gone to in the hope of convincing the rest of the nation to vote with them, hence the barrage of text messages to mobile phones, the Facebook posts, the protest marches, door knocks and a whole lot of other vocal shenanigans to put the “Yes” vote perspective out there. Fine, that’s all well and good, right?

Except with those on the other side of the fence. That’s where the “No” voters are holding fort and they are just as passionate in their opposition to changes to the Marriage Act as the “Yes” voters are for it. They just haven’t been as noisy or demonstrative about it.

The “No” voters oppose changing the Marriage Act to allow same sex couples to marry because they believe it will cause a domino effect which will open the door to other changes within society that they aren’t comfortable with. They are predicting further complications, like someone using the changes to the Act to attempt to marry their cat or their goldfish or the stunning frangipani tree in their backyard. Admittedly, people wanting to marry something other than another person would have to be in the minority but if that passion for the frangipani burns hot enough, all they’d need is a smarty pants lawyer who can find a loophole blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back! And that’s one of the biggest issues with the “No” voters; the smarty pants, loophole-finding lawyer!

Oh, and the rainbows. Once a popular non-political thingy, the rainbow now appears to be monopolised by the “Yes” campaign. Actually it has been a symbol of homosexual pride for a while now but I see where the “No” group is coming from here. Once just a pretty decorative element on clothing, rear window and bumper stickers, and anything vaguely to do with the hippy scene, it has now become somewhat of a political statement. The “No” crowd really object to the rainbow being used in that way and they want it back.

But meanwhile, where are the pollies in all of this? Well, you’ll find them perched precariously atop the fence separating the “No” voters from the “Yes” voters and waiting to see who gets the greatest number of votes and then side with them accordingly. But I think the truth is that none of our pollies want to go down in history as being the guy who changed the Marriage Act! Especially if it does open the door to further issues that blur the lines of that to which society has become comfortably accustomed. There will be sufficient “No” supporters out there to say “Ah ha! We told you so!” And then they will not vote for the guy that changed the Act which will probably mean he can kiss his political career goodbye. He won’t like that. Unless, of course, there is an overwhelming number of “Yes” votes which will guarantee his political position is as safe as houses. But remember, an overwhelming “Yes” vote via the postal vote does not guarantee the Marriage Act will change in the foreseeable future…

Plans to wed the frangipani might have to go on hold.

 

Posted on

Site News

Hello readers!

Lisa Ashurst is currently unavailable for blogging or managing comments. She has since moved house and is having a minor glitch with the areas internet set-up, but she will return soon. She has left me in charge to temporarily manage the site for her and has asked me to tell you all, “I have not stopped writing or blogging, I will return!”

In the meantime, feel free to enjoy her previous blog posts. Thank you for understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience.

Regards,

Alex Ashurst
Ash Tree Hill Creative Consultancy.