"While you weren't looking, your freedom went up in smoke" - a good headline for an opinion piece. Makes one expect an interesting argument about erosion of our freedoms. The freedoms that matter - such as the freedom from arbitrary arrest and lengthy detention without justifiable evidence, such as the freedom of information to enable us to make rational decisions, which is consistently undermined by governments, such as freedom from torture, which is being forgotten in the so-called war on terror.
But no, the author of the article - Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs - laments the loss of such freedoms as smoking whenever and wherever you chose and allowing junk food commercials aimed at children. Chris is unhappy about the "nanny state" which impinges our "freedom" by smoking bans or restrictions on ads for junk food. And what important freedoms they are - being free to ruin your health and kill yourself whenever you chose, and pay a small fortune to the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry for the privilege of being able to do so. Children having the liberty to be bombarded with ads for things that are bad for them, and enabling another multi-billion dollar industry to make more money.
The fact that Berg wants to argue against smoking or advertising bans is not objectionable per se - he's entitled to his opinion. What is objectionable is the use of the language of "freedom" in such an inappropriate way. Freedom is a powerful term. It has a history steeped in struggles against tyranny and oppression. It is associated with defending human dignity, civil liberties and economic opportunities.
While being able to smoke wherever one likes may be a "freedom", it is quite a different sort of freedom. It is a freedom only in a sense that we are all free to strip naked, paint our bodies indigo and jump head first off the nearest sky-scraper. We are "free" to do it, but it is a really bad idea. It is certainly not a right to be defended, it is not a freedom in the sense of civil liberties. It does not offend human dignity to prevent a person from behaving in such a manner.
Smoking or watching junk food ads is in the same category. The "freedom" that is infringed by bans on these activities is not any meaningful individual freedom.
But even if one were to adopt a very wide notion of freedom, where the freedom to smoke can be considered a legitimate right, Berg's argument would still be doomed to failure. Because if freedom to smoke is to be viewed widely, freedom not to smoke must have at least an equivalent breadth.
As the US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas put it "my freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin." A person's right to smoke can be unlimited only if it remains a strictly self-regarding activity. As soon as it becomes other-regarding action it must be limited so as not to impinge of the freedoms of others.
So the freedom of non-smoking bar or restaurant patrons not to inhale harmful second-hand smoke will limit the smoker's freedom to kill himself at that particular venue. I won't even go into more complex assessments of freedom (eg. one person's freedom not to contribute to or be otherwise impacted by the healthcare of someone who deliberately harms himself by smoking). The point is that if Berg wants to talk about freedom, he cannot take a one sided view. He must consider the interactions between different types of freedom.
Smoking is no more and no less than an addictive, harmful habit. Any person can choose to do it, but that does not mean that it can be legitimately elevated to the status of a freedom worth defending.
October 29th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Health and Welfare |
one comment
Mr Howard is once again going on about how States are bad hospital managers and how, because the Commonwealth contributes about half the funding to state hospitals, it would like to have more input into their operations. I won't argue with the contention that State governments are not always great managers of hospitals. Hospitals need money and some governments (State and Commonwealth) prefer to use their funds for more important things than public health - such as corporate tax breaks, increasing their budget surpluses, building casinos or advertising themselves. In that regard, State governments are unlikely to be any better or any worse than the Commonwealth government.
One can wonder why the Howard government, which is responsible for undermining medicare, demolishing the Commonwealth dental program and doing precious little to advance public health during its time in government is suddenly showing such an interest in our state hospitals. Could it have something to do with the advice given by the Liberal party pollsters that Howard's best chance to cling to power is to attack the States? Perhaps he hopes that by pointing the finger at the States we'll forget the damage his government caused to public health or that, thanks to his government, most of us now have no choice but to purchase ludicrously expensive private health insurance, which increases the prices and decreases the benefits every year. (Anyone who wants to see the "advantages" of such privatised system of health, should take a look at US health expenditure, which is by far the highest in the OECD, but the level of health in that country is below the OECD average).
It is not clear why Howard thinks that his government would be well placed to contribute to management of hospitals in any event. In the article cited, he as good as admits to knowing only about NSW hospitals - because that is the State where he resides. That was the whole point of having States in the first place - the government closest to the governed should have the most responsibility for management of smaller units (eg individual hospitals). The further the government, the less able it is to manage the smaller units, but it may be better placed to manage larger units (eg. medicare). This may not always work in practice, some State governments can be dreadful hospital managers, while others may be quite good. But that is the theory on which the Australian system of government was built.
Howard complains about States having control of hospitals when the Commonwealth contributes almost 50% of the money for hospitals (incidentally, doesn't it mean that it has half the responsibility for under-funding of hospitals?), but he is forgetting two very important things. The first is that it is not the government's money. It is our money, the taxpayer's money. We want it used for our benefit and most of us don't much care who uses it, so long as it is to benefit us. Unless Mr Howard can prove that he can do a better job using our money for our good (and bombarding us with ads doesn't qualify), he can spare us his whining. The second very important thing is the Australian Constitution. The States run the hospitals because there is no constitutional Commonwealth power for this activity. And yes, it is true that specific purpose grants allow the Commonwealth government to bring to its aid the oldest law of all - "he who has the gold makes the rules", but the bottom line is, if Mr Howard doesn't like how the powers are distributed between State and Commonwealth, he should hold a referendum so we, the Australian people, have a say about his attempts to undermine our constitutional system.
Better yet, perhaps he can focus on performing his job properly. With five interest rate rises since 2004, food prices skyrocketing and housing affordability at its lowest level ever, there ought to be plenty to do. He could even try doing something about the fact that almost half of all Australians now can't afford necessary dental care.
September 30th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Health and Welfare, States |
no comments
Usually we lock people up because there is evidence that they are guilty. Under terrorism laws this principle has been inverted.
Dr Mohamed Haneef has now been in detention for some 10 days. He has not been charged. Worse still for much of that time, his lawyers have not been told what exactly the accusations against him are. The right of the accused to know the case put against him is one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice. It is difficult to see how Haneef's lawyers can put a coherent case to the magistrate who keeps extending his detention, if they don't even know what the evidence against their client is (or if there is any, for that matter).
The anti-terrorism laws have created a situation where the federal police are allowed to keep on detaining someone precisely because they don't have enough evidence to charge him (not even prove the case against him, just charge him). One can only wonder at the incongruity of the system where it the very lack of evidence of guilt becomes the justification for continued detention.
Terrorism is a serious concern, but so are the basic civil rights and liberties. Serial killers or serial rapists cannot be treated in the way that Haneef has been, they cannot be detained without charge for almost two weeks and without being given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Of course, in the present climate, attempted acts of terrorism create far more public fear than serial murders or similar crimes. One could easily think that it is a fair bargain to (at least apparently) gain some safety by turning a blind eye on civil rights violations. But danger comes in different forms and in our eagerness to avoid one danger we ignore another. Arbitrary and protracted detention, coercive interrogation, wrongful imprisonment or torture are all dangers that cannot be ignored simply because, for the moment, we are more scared of something else.
Those who think that they have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide should remember the paradox of anti-terrorism laws - at the moment Haneef is being detained because there is not enough evidence against him to even charge him. And if such a paradox is acceptable in one set of laws, how long will it be before it is implemented elsewhere?
July 12th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Law, Terrorism and war on terror, Health and Welfare |
6 comments
I just saw a 7.30 report regarding an inquiry into health department conduct in relation to a report recommending PET technology for cancer patients. PET stands for Positron Emission Topography. The technology is widely acknowledged as the best way of ascertaining the status of and diagnosing some cancers, including breast cancer and prostate cancer, the most common cancers in women and men respectively.
The transcript of the broadcast is not yet on the ABC site, but it reports on a paper prepared by cancer experts in 2000, which stated that PET was "safe, clinically effective and possibly cost-effective". The health department apparently edited the report adding the word "possibly" before "clinically effective" and adding an introductory paragraph stating that the effectiveness of the technology has not been proven. As a result, the Medicare committee did not approve Medicare funding for the use of technology for breast and prostate cancers (one scan costs over $800, so it would be cost-prohibitive to most) and instead requested a 7 year study into the technology. The seven years are now over, the experts know that the technology works as well as they knew it back in 2000. In the meantime, one has to wonder how many cancer patients received inappropriate or ineffective treatments, experienced more difficult or longer recovery or even lost their lives because of the actions of the health department (and, in accordance with the principles of responsible government, the Minister for Health).
Interestingly, tampering with the experts' report only came to light because of persistence of one scientist who fought to obtain information from the Department, including going to court when his FOI applications were rejected and "accosting" Howard in the street. His actions brought the matter to the attention of the Senate and there is presently a Senate Inquiry into the health department conduct. The results of the inquiry are expected next month.
I'll update this post once the transcript of the 7.30 report is published, but it is frightening that a government department would act in a manner that would delay by 7 years access to potentially life-saving technology.
July 9th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Health and Welfare, Misconduct in politics |
no comments
In the previous post I commented on the government plan to "quarantine" a part of the welfare payment to parents who are considered not to be spending enough money on essentials for their kids and what the move meant in terms of using welfare as a means of control.
The federal cabinet approved the plan, also including a provision to cut welfare payments of parents whose children don't attend or play truant from school. It plans to cross-check Centrelink records and school attendance records to identify children who have not been attending school. Presumably such checks will need to be carried out on regular basis for the plan to work and the government hinted that the job would be outsourced to the private sector.
Naturally, ensuring that children attend school is of great importance. But, again, the proposal is about coercing and punishing people who are economically and socially vulnerable, rather than introducing reforms aimed at providing appropriate services and counselling to both parents and students to encourage school attendance. Without focus on affecting social change, the plan is likely detrimental consequences. Consider a student who is discouraged by having to turn up to school in second hand daggy clothes, with second hand books and with no lunch money. Consider the student who stops attending school because he has trouble understanding school material and has no one at home to lend any help. Consider a student with behavioural problems that his parents are unable to adequately cope with. Or even consider a student who feels schooling is pointless because his parents are too stupid or too apathetic to encourage education.
Is this student going to be assisted by his parents having even less money for clothes or books? Is the student likely to be encouraged to attend school or to perform better by being singled out as a delinquent by the government's welfare laws? Are the parents likely to be any more encouraging towards their child because they are singled out as bad parents?
While a punitive or coercive approach may be justified when all other approaches have been tried and failed - the government has not attempted to encourage school attendance or appropriate spending on essentials for children by putting in place positive programs, education or counselling. During the last eleven years the government has done nothing to remedy any of these social ills. It has gone from doing nothing to absolute control and coercion.
There can only be one conclusion - the government's plan is not about bettering the lot of neglected children. It is about control. It is about punishment. It is about treating all welfare recipients as meriting suspicion and being incapable of reforming without coercion. It is about equating poverty with social criminality. The plan is reminiscent of the Elizabethan (as in Elizabeth I) poor laws - the "deserving poor" get our help, anyone defined as "undeserving poor" is put in a pillory or whipped through the streets (or in our more modern version get their payments cut and get labeled as delinquents).
July 5th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Health and Welfare, Family, Education, Social control |
no comments
I have deferred writing about the Howard government action on child abuse in indigenous communities as I am still in two minds about it. However, one aspect of the plan involves quarantining a portion of welfare payments received by indigenous families to be spent on essentials for children. While the concept of ensuring that children are adequately provided for is attractive in principle, I have wondered about the extent to which this provision will be used to monitor, control and intrude into the family life of welfare recipients and exactly how far the government would be willing to take that intrusion.
Well, if recent reports are true - very far indeed. In fact, the government is reportedly planning on extending that provision nation-wide. Plans reportedly discussed in Cabinet would see laws allowing government to "quarantine" 40% of a family's welfare payment if parents fail to spend the money on essentials like food and rent.
There can be little doubt that parents have a duty to adequately look after their children. But does that mean that a government should be able to dictate how they spend their money? How would the government know whether the parents are failing to spend money on food and rent? How can it know without significant intrusion into their private lives? If the government is to regulate the amount of money spent on food, should it not also regulate what sort of food is purchased? When you think about, feeding your kids only hamburgers and chips is probably worse for them than missing a meal. Should the government make sure that kids have their three serves of veges every day? Should it force parents to spend more money on buying healthy food and less on soft drinks? Should there perhaps be a government inspector assigned to supervise every welfare recipient's trip to the local supermarket?
Yes, I'm being a tad facetious, but the plan is, in essence, to use welfare payments as a means of very close social supervision and control. The persons singled out for this treatment are one of the most vulnerable groups within society. There is of course no logical reason why only welfare recipients should be required to properly look after their children. They are targeted by this plan because the government can most easily control them through controlling their income (for now, that's not to say other groups aren't to follow).
As with the intervention in indigenous communities, the plan is one of coercion. The subjects of this coercion are singled out because they are less economically or socially secure secure. If the government was interested in long-term reforms to foster responsible parenting, it may have focused its attention on parenting, nutrition or budget-management education and counseling for families who are struggling to properly care for the children. It may have preferred to give families in difficulty tools to turn their situation around rather than controlling and directing their expenditure. It may have even (gasp) looked at whether the welfare payments are adequate for giving the children the appropriate opportunities and care.
Of course, use of welfare for social control is not new. But the extraordinary level of intrusion and micromanagement is. It suggests that control rather than meaningful reform is the aim.
July 3rd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Health and Welfare, Family, Social control |
no comments
A federal system of government (ie. a system of state and commonwealth governments) has many advantages. One of its disadvantages, however, is the ability of a government to pass responsibility or blame for various defaults to another government (eg. commonwealth to state and vice versa). The game of pass the responsibility is more likely to be played when the state and commonwealth governments are of different ideological persuasions…or if one of them is facing an election.
Thus, it is little wonder that this game is being played out again, over the state of Australia's healthcare system. Newly released reports indicate that elective surgery waiting times have gone up since 1999 and the state of dental health across the country is such that one in five Australians have moderate or severe gun disease and about a third avoid going to a dentist because of the high costs involved. Poor dental health can have significant consequences on physical and metal wellbeing and can lead to the patient requiring hospitalisation or contracting fatal infections.
Having dumped the commonwealth dental health program upon being elected in 1996, the Howard government now blames the deplorable condition of dental health in Australia on the States. Tony Abbott accused the States of acting like "glorified beggars" or "spoilt children", saying that "dental waiting lists remained high across the country" and that "these remained a state responsibility."
One might have thought that a nation-wide problem suggests that something may need to be done on a federal level, but passing the responsibility to the states is obviously a more attractive option. Kevin Rudd promised to re-establish the commonwealth dental health program, as part of the emphasis on preventative health. Whether that would ameliorate the problem is unclear, but this approach is likely to be more productive than the finger pointing that the government is engaging in.
It is little wonder that the governments' approach to the question of waiting lists for elective surgery was basically the same - denying that under the federal-state agreement, the commonwealth government underfunded the hospitals by $1.1 billion per year, shifting the responsibility back to the States.
Who is right and who is wrong is not the question. Perhaps both levels of government are at fault. But one thing is certain - our health is too important to play a game of pass the responsibility, even in an election year.
June 30th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Rudd and Labor, Health and Welfare, States |
3 comments
On 7 June 2007 the Victorian Law Reform Commission released the final report into Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption.
Among other recommendations, the LRC recommended that same-sex couples not be discriminated against in access to assisted reproduction (such as IVF) and adoption and recognition of parenthood. As the law presently stands only women who are "medically infertile" may access IVF, a child can have only one mother and one father, and only heterosexual families may adopt.
The Bracks government indicated that it would consider the recommendations and make a decision about legislative changes by the end of the year. For all its other flaws, the Bracks government has had a fairly good record on gay and lesbian rights. The Howard government is another matter.
Howard government reaction
The staunchly Catholic Tony Abbott immediately indicated his opposition to the proposals, stating "if possible children should have a mother and a father, not just two mothers or two fathers. I'm not attracted to the Victorian Law Reform Commission's view."
He called the LRC recommendations "a sort of misguided political correctness" and stated "I don't, as a general rule, think that gay couples should be adopting."
Howard, having just defended Catholic church interference in politics, added a few comments of his own:
"Children should have a mother and a father … it gives children the best opportunity in life …"
"I'm not saying gay and lesbian people don't display enormous affection towards children. I think there are certain benchmarks in our society that should be respected and adhered to and practised and that's one of them."
He also called for a uniform approach to fertility treatment and adoption across the country (ie lets all do it my way) and ruled out the possibility of Medicare coverage of IVF treatment for women who were not medically infertile (social engineering is so much easier if you control the purse-strings).
The circle of prejudice
The Howard government approach is an example of self-perpetuating prejudice. That prejudice becomes apparent if one looks at the statements made by Howard and Abbott and simply asks "why".
Why is it that "children should have a mother and a father, not just two mothers or two fathers"? (note the use of the words "not just", suggesting that two mothers or two fathers is an inferior arrangement).
Why is it that having a mother and a father "gives children the best opportunity in life"? Is there any evidence that children from same-sex families do worse in life that children from heterosexual families?
Why is it that a heterosexual family is on of the "certain benchmarks in our society that should be respected and adhered to and practiced"? Who sets those benchmark? Who decides which benchmarks should be respected and adhered to? Who decides whether a traditional heterosexual family is one of those benchmarks?
The concept of the traditional family, its "benchmarks" and the respect demanded for those benchmarks have their roots in prejudice. Prejudice against gays and lesbians, whose sexuality was traditionally condemned as criminal or perverted or both), prejudice against single parents, prejudice against families that did not fit into the religiously-defined traditional family. The nuclear family was defined by the exclusion of those families that were the victims of the prejudice.
The bigotry of the past is then used to perpetuate the prejudices of the present. The Howard government statements display this circular reasoning:
why shouldn't gays and lesbians have children? -> because children should have a mother and a father -> why? -> because it is one of the benchmarks that should be respected/adhered to -> who established it as one of the benchmarks? -> people who thought that gays and lesbians shouldn't have children.
All the government is doing is using the prejudice of the past (which it agrees with) to justify and disguise its prejudice in the present. It is not about rejection of "misguided political correctness", it is about embracing discrimination, inequality and hatred. It is about rejecting equal rights for people on the basis that the person they love is of the same sex. "This is how we've always done it" is not a good enough excuse to justify attitudes that have no place in the modern society.
June 9th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Human rights, Howard government, Health and Welfare, Gays and Lesbians, Family |
3 comments
Threats of "consequences" by Cardinal Pell did not sway members of the NSW Legislative Assembly, which voted overwhelmingly in favour of repealing the ban on therapeutic cloning. Pell was unapologetic about his conduct, stating that he hoped that the upper house "will be better informed" and vote against repealing the ban. Presumably "better informed" means more receptive to the dictates of the Catholic church. Perth Archbishop Hickey apparently decided to add a few threats of his own, stating that Catholics who vote to allow therapeutic cloning should not go to communion and stated that he would consider excommunication as a sanction.
It is difficult to imagine how in a secular society like Australia such religious trespass on political matters could be considered appropriate. John Howard, however, was quick to come to the defence of the church. It seems he does not object to church interference in politics, so long as it is consistent with his own ideological views. Speaking on ABC radio he said that Pell and Hickey are "entitled to express their views".
He's right. They are entitled to express their views. What they are not entitled to do is to force their views onto others. They are not entitled to threaten "consequences" and they are not entitled to coerce. They are no more entitled to use the might of the catholic church to attempt to sway the democratic process than their predecessors were entitled to use the torture chambers of the Inquisition to sway the political, social and scientific processes.
Howard's defence of this conduct reveals his hypocrisy. He has been very outspoken about what he perceived as international interference in Australia's internal affairs (ie justified international criticisms of his governments breaches of human rights law) and he continually attacks unions for real or imagined interference in politics (in fact in the same interview he made a completely unsubstantiated allegation that union bosses on daily basis direct Labor how to vote). Interference it seems is only ok if it is in line with his own ideology and does not involve criticisms of his government. He can't have it both ways. And neither can Pell. If he doesn't want politics interfering in Catholic doctrine, he should keep his doctrine out of politics.
June 7th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Religion, Health and Welfare |
3 comments
A few days ago I criticised Cardinal George Pell over his plans to force educators in Catholic schools (which receive government funding) to take a "vow of fidelity". It seems that compelling educators to surrender their intellect and will to the church is not enough for Pell. He'd like politicians to do the same or face the "consequences".
The NSW parliament is debating repealing the ban on therapeutic cloning, with a conscience vote expected tonight. It is hoped that research, presently prevented by the ban, may lead to cures for serious and debilitating conditions. However, curing disease by using stem cells does not sit well with the catholic doctrine, which holds that life begins at conception (what happens to that life afterwards appears to be of far less interest to the church).
Cardinal Pell seems to have decided that it was legitimate for him to force his religious doctrine on Australian legislators. In what can only be described as a threat, he warned the MPs subscribing to Catholic faith that there would be "consequences" if they vote to overturn the ban. What those consequences are is unclear. Pell has apparently declined to reveal whether he was threatening to excommunicate those MPs who dared to cast their vote in accordance with what they think is in the interest of their electorate rather than what is in accordance with the catholic faith. Perhaps he was alluding to the fires of hell rather than any earthly sanction.
The point is that Pell's conduct is quite extraordinary. He would be the first to complain of political interference in church doctrine if such interference occurred. No doubt he would make an eloquent argument about the need for the separation of church and state, about freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and about how politicians should not interfere in matters of faith. And he'd be right. However the separation of church and state is a two way street. Politicians should stay out of religious doctrine and ministers of religion should stay out of politics (unless of course they are elected to political office). Pell's conduct reveals a contempt for the institution of parliament and a disrespect for the electorate. Voters elect their representatives on the basis of their policies (most of the time anyway), not on the basis of their religious belief. Pell's attempt to coerce parliamentarians to vote in accordance with religious doctrine shows a disregard for this principle.
Lets not forget what happens when religion and politics or science merge. Lets take a look at the Islamic states, lets remember the religious wars, the Inquisition and religious violence through the history or the less violent, but no less instructive, story of Galileo. There too the catholic church wished to stand in the way of progress, insisting that the doctrine of men was the word of God and threatening "consequences" for following the path of progress rather than of religion.
Thanks for reading
June 6th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Religion, Health and Welfare |
no comments
RSS
