Reasonable Bystander

Views and opinions of a GenX observer of life. Opinions posted are my own as are the prejudices, biases and other human failings disclosed by those opinions. Feel free to leave your thoughts on what I say but be prepared to back your opinion up.

[reasonable-bystander]

Peter Slipper the Clown Prince of Parliament?

I have been reading with some consternation now for the last few weeks about the carryings on of the current Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia the Honourable Peter Slipper.  To me it would seem that he is intent on reducing the office of speaker to a laughing stock.

Since being appointed to the role by the Gillard led minority Labor government now independent formerly Liberal National Party MP Peter Slipper has reintroduced robing and a ceremonial processional from his office to the chamber once a week.  He obviously equates the theatre associated with his role as speaker with importance.

His antics have, however, been lambasted in the local press - and by local I mean Australian press and he has become a favourite of cartoonists and satirists nation wide.  Why are you doing this to the hitherto respected office of speaker of the house?  In the words of a former - former liberal party candidate who made it as an independent- 'Please explain.'

I saw a cartoon in the Sunday Mail recently which captures the sentiment over the Honourable Speaker's 'reforms' in his efforts to elevate the profile and no doubt in his mind if in no one else's the importance of his role in the Parliament.  The cartoon had a staffer asking the robed,  jewelled, wigged and crowned Slipper whether he was going to be arriving at the parliament in a horse drawn carriage to which Slipper replied 'What? have we no unicorns?' or something to that effect.  Clearly if he is not actually living in his own delusional fantasy world full of fairies and unicorns the perception of the public is that clearly that is precisely where he is.

Ostentation and ceremonial excess aside I now read in the newspaper that members of the House are being ejected and excluded from the House on points of order as trivial as failing to wear a jacket in the chamber. I suppose this should not be surprising from the man who arrives in white tie and ceremonial robes but what is this doing to Australia's international reputation?  If the democratic foundation of our system of government is being held ransom to such ridiculous behaviour by its speaker what must other nations think of these goings on?

Who would take an interest in such things? Well might you ask.  If you consider that Australia and the goings on of its parliament and of those who presume to govern us is of no concern to anyone else then Australia and those who presume to govern her never will be of any consequence.  What is needed in government is the expectation that the actions of those in power and of those who wield power however fleeting it may be are held up to scrutiny not only by the electorate which delivered them to such high and lofty office but by others outside the electorate with whom they, in the name of this great nation, and by that I mean 'they' collectively might have cause or even need to interact. This includes our trading partners and our partners in security.  What must the Chinese be making of this?  I shudder to think.

Scrutiny of the leadership of this great country of ours discloses a very sorry and disappointing state of affairs which extends far beyond the office of Speaker and the excesses of the current holder of that office.  That said, however, the behaviour of the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives is symptomatic of the disease which is presently gripping Australian politics as a whole. Those that are in it at the moment are in it for themselves and are pushing their own agendas serving their own political and personal ambitions, feeding their own egos and lining their own pockets.  Australian politics and the behaviour of the present crop of Australian politicians is disgraceful no more pointedly demonstrated than by the conduct of the keeper of order in the House - the Speaker of the House the Honourable Peter Slipper.

[reasonable-bystander]

Marriage, sexuality, discrimination and give a damn.

Since the institution was first developed marriage has been between unmarried members of marriageable age of the opposite gender.  Those raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition will recall being taught that the purpose of marriage is to legitimise the union of two people for the purpose of bringing forth the next generation.  Other traditions took a more political approach looking upon marriage as a tool for consolidating power by building family ties with similarly influential or powerful families.  Whatever the reasoning for it marriage was always between a man and a woman again for reasons of procreation and ensuring that property acquired by reason of all this power-broking stayed within the family line.  Family was an important thing.

Then when society became more complicated and populations larger and it was necessary to regulate the conduct of human affairs by legislation the various legislative instruments dealing with marriage and its nature and characterisation reflected the age old formulation of one man and one woman.  Sure there was a gloss put on the definition such that in Australia under the Marriage Act 1966 marriage is defined as 'the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others voluntarily entered into for life'. 

The churches still look upon marriage as a sacrament but people can get married these days without intervention of the church as long as they fall within the legislative definition of marriage set down by the legislature.  Religion no longer has a monopoly on marriage yet people still get married according to traditional religious ceremony and observance.  Why? Because that's what it means to get married to them and the tradition in which they were raised.

Now for as long as marriage has been around so have relationships that were like marriages but were not solemnised as such.  These common law marriages or marriages in effect but not under the law are what we now call de facto marriages or to use gender neutral terminology de facto relationships.  These relationships are maintained by people who could under the eyes of the law get married because they fulfil the legislative requirements and into which children have been born but for one reason or another the parties to the relationship have chosen not to have their union solemnised as a marriage.  For generations these arrangements were looked upon as subordinate or inferior to marriages.  Again this was usually due to problems of inheritance or moral concerns originating in religious tradition.

None the less de facto relationships have over the centuries come to stand on equal footing with marriage at least in the eyes of the law and now there is little in the way of distinction between how marriages are treated and how de facto relationships are treated for the purposes of inheritance, property, health-care, education, you name it.  Of course the rules concerning de facto relationships are a little looser than those prescribed for qualification as a marriage. For example you don't have to be of the opposite gender to be a party to a de facto relationship. Nor do you have to be exclusive with the other party or parties to the de facto relationship. You can be a party to a de facto relationship even if you are married at the same time. As long as the fundamental elements of mutual intimacy, trust and voluntary union are there it's a de facto relationship. 

Now add to the mix civil partnerships and civil unions and you have all the hallmarks of a marriage without the label. You have exclusivity, you have voluntary union, you have solemnisation, you have registration as long as you fit the legislative description and qualifying requirements you are good to go.

Why is it then, when all that is missing is the label and when the treatment is exactly the same under all there relevant laws, that homosexual couples (that is gays and lesbians) insist that it is a fundamental human right of theirs to change a tradition that has persisted essentially unchanged since before recorded history? It's not as though you can call it an dog when it is not a dog, never has been a dog and is in fact a crocodile. Just because you assert it to be your inalienable human right to change the fundamental character of the institution which the label defines doesn't make it so.  Calling it 'gay marriage' cements the distinction - doesn't it?  

Now don't get me wrong - I don't care one way or the other how you want to live or what you want to call how you are living but just because you want to call it Champagne doesn't make it Champagne - it's still sparkling wine unless it came from the Champagne region of France.

All of this is of course a storm in a tea cup.  Does legislatively extending the term 'marriage' to encompass unions between members of the same gender devalue the marriages of people of the opposite sexes? - Of course not. Just like recognising the status of de facto relationships does not undermine the relationships of those who have chosen to marry.  But artificially changing our language and traditions in order to accommodate a minority who could never have availed themselves of the label in the first place in the name of political correctness undermines the value and integrity of our language and insults our intelligence particularly when the religious traditions refuse to recognise marriage between members of the same sex as valid under their doctrines and beliefs.

I read a staggeringly insightful comment today which went along the thread of 'why not abolish the distinction for everyone and call them civil unions open to all and for those who want marriages they can have clergymen officiate.  After all, except for very recent times, religion has traditionally had authority over the institution.'

Now that may seem like a retrograde step to some but is it really?  I for one don't think so.  Marriage, civil union, civil partnership, Champagne, sparkling wine, dogs or crocodiles people will call it what they want which is for the most part dictated by how they were brought up - their own family tradition - never underestimate the influence of family.

[reasonable-bystander]

The world wide web is a sensitive place

I was recently involved in a discussion on Gizmodo about a recent defamation claim made on the Australian Tech and lifestyle forum ZGeek.com.

The thrust of the article is that the world wide web is a dangerous place to shoot from the hip when commenting or ranting about things because it invites the sensitive or litigious internet user to make a claim for defamation in relation to the offensive post.

Whilst that may be true it is limited to those circumstances in which the identity of the person at whom the rant or offending comment is aimed being identifiable by other readers of the comment whether by name or through some identifying particulars mentioned in the post.  It is not enough for a disgruntled reader to say 'I resemble that remark!' and be able to run off and file a claim in the court of their choice.

Of course anyone can file a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction the question of course then is - will the claim stand up to scrutiny?

Now this may cause some initial difficulties for webmasters who are served with proceedings complaining of offensive comments on the websites for which they are responsible but in the ordinary course of goings on on the web the post is going to have to be pretty brazen to make it defamatory against all but the most famous of celebrities and then the usual defences against defamation will apply such as truth, reasonably held opinion, editorial comment, contextual truth, satire, hyperbole and vulgar invective to name but a few.

Now if you like the internet and comments made on sites such as ZGeek and its ilk to a pub where individuals enter into animated discussion about this and that and the other then as a source of authoritative opinion the pickings are pretty slim unless you go to one of the major news sites or press agencies.  There aren't too many defamation cases arising from comments overheard by someone at the pub even really big pubs.

In my opinion this obsession with what is said on the internet about Joe Bloggs and his dog is just a little precious.  Back in the days before the world wide web and discussion forums where frank exchanges of views took place down the pub over a few beers people rarely got their noses out of joint over comments that were made about whether what they did was right wrong or otherwise and when they did differences were sorted out by a frank exchange of views and not litigation.

Maybe I'm getting a old or perhaps people are getting a little thin skinned and soft because what is said is in print.  I reckon that before people start getting their noses out of joint about what might be said online they should consider the authority with which it is said and the quality of the source of the opinion.

Anonymity online is great but there is no substitute to standing behind what you say by putting your name to it.  Owning your comments gives them credibility and you character and invites anyone who wants to challenge your viewpoint pause for thought because you are standing behind what you say.  Anonymity isn't cowardice but it does detract from the authority ascribed to what is said.  Guest177 says X Y and Z is hardly compelling even if it is offensive, insulting or distressing.

For what it's worth my view is that folks need to harden up just a little bit and rise above the muckpit some corners of the internet provide for anonymous ranting.

John Smith