Category Archives: Society

Doctrine vs Doctrinaire

Posted on by
Reply

The recent “debate” surrounding the Federal Government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill was a staggering example of political overreach combined with poor policy management. It was also a stark reminder that although we live in a secular, pluralistic and liberal democracy, some politicians cannot refrain from bringing religion into the Parliament and on to the Statute Books, even where there was neither a strong mandate nor an overbearing need to change the existing law in the way the Government attempted.

As far as I can tell, the Bill was originally intended to give people of faith additional protection against discrimination on the basis of their religion. But when linked to related Sex Discrimination legislation, it would likely have given religious institutions some degree of protection against claims of discrimination in the areas of gender and sexual orientation, particularly in respect of children’s access to education and in relation to employment by faith-based organisations.

If that wasn’t worrying enough, the Bill was underpinned by a controversial “statements of belief” provision. As drafted, this would have granted a person immunity from prosecution for the consequences of their words or actions if such deeds were based on a “genuine” religious belief. I find this particularly troublesome, not because I think people should be vulnerable to persecution for their faith; rather, it sets a dangerous precedent for what religiously-motivated people may feel emboldened to do in the name of their particular faith, especially where their actions cause actual or genuine apprehension of harm (the “God told me to do it” defence).

The shift from doctrine to doctrinaire is all too palpable. It’s one thing to believe in Transubstination, yet another to use a public platform (including social media) to proclaim that “gays will burn in hell”  unless they renounce their ways. The problem with a very literal application of ancient religious texts (most of which are open to wide and sometimes contradictory interpretation) is that this approach does not allow for any concept of progress (scientific, cultural, societal). It also gives rise to extreme forms of fundamentalism, such as banning music or refusing to ordain women priests. History has also shown us that people purportedly adhering to the same religion frequently disagree, leading to turbulent schisms, violent sectarianism and untold bloodshed. Then there are the religious death cults that kill themselves and their children for the sake of achieving their own “beliefs” (in which their offspring surely couldn’t have been compliant or willing participants).

As Luke Beck wrote recently in The Conversation, “There is broad agreement a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of their faith or lack of faith. However, the extent to which religion should be a licence to discriminate against others remains enormously contentious.”

This putative “license” may be an unintended consequence of the Bill, but the implications, should it be enacted, could be far-reaching: archeologists being sacked for saying the earth is older than 6,000 years; anthropologists for saying that the first humans were living 2 million years ago; astronomers for saying the earth orbits around the sun…. And that’s just in the area of science.

I understand that a person of faith may have a deep-seated belief against birth control, or pre-marital sex, or alcohol, or tattoos, or marriage equality – but that doesn’t mean their faith should impose their choices on the rest of the population. (Just as people of faith aren’t being forced to consume booze or get inked against their will.) As it is, religious institutions enjoy significant tax benefits, public funding and legal exemptions, and this current “debate” is bringing some of these discrepancies into sharp focus.

The last time I looked, here in Australia we aren’t living in a theocracy, people of faith aren’t being fired from their jobs because of their religion, and secularists, agnostics and atheists aren’t calling for places of worship to be demolished. What the latter do expect is people of faith not to use their beliefs either as a pretext to justify any form of discriminatory, pejorative or harmful acts or statements, or as a protection against being accountable for their words and deeds.

Next week: When is a print not a print?

Gratitude and the Great Recharge

Posted on by
2

As I ease myself back into regular blogging following a summer hiatus, I’d like to begin by expressing an enormous sense of gratitude.

Last November, when I mentioned I was taking a break from blogging, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of readers who contacted me to check I was OK, several of whom let me know how much they appreciate reading my posts. To each of them (and they know who they are) I am extremely grateful. It’s that level of connection and feedback that helps to make the effort worthwhile.

One of my objectives in going offline for a few weeks was to take stock after nearly two years of disruption, and come back refreshed and re-energised. Like many other people, I was feeling drained and demoralised after multiple lockdowns, extended social disconnection, pitiful political failures, and increasing verbal (and physical) assaults on our notions of liberal democracy. I badly needed a change of perspective.

I was trying to come up with a suitable tag to summarise this goal, and realised that so many terms I thought of have come to be associated with pejorative meanings: the Great Reset, the Great Awakening (or Awokening, depending on your viewpoint), and the Great Resignation were among them.

So instead, I landed upon the Great Recharge.

For me, it evokes a physical energy boost, as well as a mental reframing on how to reflect on the past two years, and identify a way forward. The latter is about more than developing a coping mechanism. It is about retuning my responses to the information we are bombarded with – daily news, social media, advertising, propaganda, mis- and dis-information – and not letting it annoy me or provoke me. Because that is the reaction that the protagonists are looking for, and many of them are not being honest about their agenda, their vested interests, or their sponsors and backers.

As a result, I am trying to block out what is unimportant (not worth the effort of engagement), and not worry about those things I don’t have any immediate control over. By prioritising what really interests me, I feel I can be more creative, positive, enthusiastic and energising. Hopefully, I can be more connected to what really matters (and in the end, focus on what gives me joy). That way, I believe I can create less stress and inflict less emotional damage by not perpetuating the negative energy generated by protagonists who only want their audience to rise to the bait.

If I don’t like something, and as long as I’m not being forced to watch, read or listen to it, then I can simply choose not to give it air time. (“If you can’t say something constructive, it’s better to say nothing.”)

It’s not always easy  – look at all the trash talk, sledging and character assassination that permeates politics, sport, academia, culture and media. It’s pervasive, corrosive, and debilitating – and what makes it worse is that most times, the perpetrators are being paid to bad mouth the targets of their bile. Perhaps we can take a lead from Rafael Nadal, and let the ball do the talking….

Next week: Startupbootcamp Virtual Demo Day – Decarbonize

Opening Up…

Posted on by
Reply

This week, Melbourne is trying to get back to some semblance of normality, following 11 weeks of the current lock-down. But it’s far from “business as usual”.

Based on casual observations, people were desperate to queue up for personal grooming services, restaurants and outdoor shopping. (I did see at least one classic mullet, but I wasn’t sure if it was a fashion statement or just another case of Covid hair…)

Despite the latest changes announced by the Victorian Government over the past week, the ongoing public health provisions mean there will still be a “work from home” directive, retail and restaurants will be subject to density limits (and vax certificates) and masks will be required indoors.

One cafe in my neighbourhood, which has kept going during lock-down with serving takeaways, is deferring opening up for dining-in because they can’t get enough staff. This demand for talent within the hospitality sector means that employers are having to offer sign-on bonuses and higher wages.

While this should be good news for job seekers, the resulting upward pressure on staffing costs will likely trigger a rise in inflation (and higher interest rates?), and possibly further disruptions in supply chains.

Added hiring shortages will come from those employees who have used the lock-down to reassess their career options, and have decided to change jobs – also known as the “Great Resignation”.

Even among those employees who are returning to the office, many of them are only intending to be there 2-3 days a week. This will create a mid-week bulge in the CBD, with various knock-on effects: traffic jams, cramped public transport, and erratic trading patterns for small businesses in retail and hospitality. Employers will also be stressing how they maintain productivity levels with the adoption of extended weekends.

Finally, some industries such as tourism and international travel will take several months to get back to pre-pandemic levels – expect to see steep prices while capacity and supply remain constrained.

Next week: Crypto Regulation in Australia

 

 

Living in limbo

Posted on by
1

Please forgive the self-indulgence, but not only is this the 9th week of Melbourne’s 6th lock-down, we now hold the world record for total number of days under “stay at home” orders. I know we love our sporting superlatives and gold medals down-under, but surely this is one title that even the most fanatic supporter of our fair city wished we had conceded (to Sydney, perhaps…).Of course, I understand why we find ourselves in this situation – the government fears that the COVID pandemic will overwhelm the local health system if the virus is allowed to run riot, and before a sufficient proportion of the population has been vaccinated. Clearly, lock-down has helped to reduce the total number of cases and deaths per capita compared to many other countries. And vaccinations appear to be mitigating the impact of the Delta variant, depending on what numbers you track.

However, while most people I know have generally been supportive of the public health measures, the effect of continued lock-down is taking its toll on peoples’ income, mental health and general well-being. It feels that our collective nerves are frayed from the shifting goal posts (in terms of targets and milestones), the continued in-fighting and bickering between the States and the Commonwealth (and with each other), the constant blame games, and the drip-feed of information (despite the daily press conferences and media updates).

This current lock-down, which was initially expected to last a week(!), has been particularly hard to endure. Especially so for the majority of people who, hitherto, have been prepared to buy in to the lock-down measures (albeit somewhat reluctantly and not necessarily willingly). But to be told by our political leaders and their public servants that the growth in case numbers (and the lock-down extension) is due to members of the public breaching the public health orders (“AFL Grand Final parties”) or not complying with the lock-down measures (“household visits”) is extremely galling for those “doing the right thing” – it’s all stick, no carrot. At the same time, in the vast majority of alleged infringements there does not appear to be any consistent approach to penalties or other consequences. (So, why bother with compliance, since the lack of enforcement can lead to the law falling into disrepute?)

The government has long since given up the idea of achieving zero cases, yet seems unwilling to give much relief to people who are fully vaccinated and who have consistently observed the lock-down measures, other than the prospect of small picnics outdoors. Increasingly, the lock-down itself feels like a blunt instrument – why not apply it in a more targeted fashion, rather than a blanket measure? By now, it looks like a game of whack-a-mole as outbreaks keep popping up again (and again) in the same “settings”.

I appreciate that the government wants to keep us safe, and overall I’m extremely grateful that we have not seen the sorts of health statistics witnessed elsewhere. But by maintaining the prolonged lock-down, our elected leaders and their civil servants risk wearing out our patience and burning up any goodwill they may have accrued in the process.

We are living in a sort of limbo, with severe restrictions on the one hand, and uncertainty/anxiety on the other. Among other things, the current situation makes it very difficult to plan any trips to visit family and friends inter-state, let alone abroad. (I’ve not seen my immediate family overseas for nearly 3 years.) While I am extremely thankful that I don’t work in the “front line”, and I am very fortunate in being able to work from home, the inability to meet in person after such a lengthy hiatus does mean some of those relationships have become impaired or have become a little harder to manage and maintain.

Anyway, as I look forward to a second birthday under lock-down, I try not to look too far ahead, maintain the daily routine and walks (and enjoy the occasional glass of wine).

Next week: “What Should We Build?”