Author: DokterW

You only need to watch a few TV ads to understand that Australia is somewhat segregated when it comes to gender — or so it seems. As many advertisers have seemingly made up their minds that the product they are spruiking will only attract a specific gender.

Some ads take it a step further. One ad that is for blokes and one ad that is for housewives (that is how they are stereotypically presented in the ads) — yet spruiking the same product.

It might not be fair to judge a country based on how gendered TV ads are there, but it is difficult not to.

Which is why I am sadly not shocked that March 8 seemingly went unnoticed here in Australia — apparently only treated as any other Saturday.

On that day this year the [UN] theme was “Equality for Women is Progress for All.”

Yes, you figured it out, Saturday March 8 was International Women’s Day.

I’ve tried to find out if there were any big events around Australia that day, but I could only find information* about a Women’s Day Breakfast in the big cities.

An event hosted two days before the actual International Women’s Day. Conveniently — or maybe inconveniently is a better term — during a weekday when most people are either busy going to work or academia. At the price of $75 ($60 if you are eligible for a concession).

I am honestly not trying to be negative, but it’s difficult not to be. Such an important event should be hosted on the actual International Women’s Day and be accessible for everyone to attend.

While in Norway the annual International Women’s Day event had an impressive attendance in Oslo. About 10,000-15,000 people showed their support for equality. In a town with a population of about 634,463 and a country with only (as most Australian would put it) 5,136,700.

That is something I often hear Australians say, that Oslo is just a small town in a small country. Yet they managed to engage over ten times the amount of people that attended SlutWalk in Brisbane, a city with a population of about 2,189,878 in a country with 23,405,803.

I can’t for the life of me remember when that many people gathered for an event or protest in Brisbane recently.

The last time there was an event that had a 5-digit gathering in Brisbane we have to look all the way back to January 30 in 1920 — also known as Black Baton Friday.

Imagine if 10,000-15,000 people had flooded Brisbane CBD to take a stand for equality on March 8 — International Women’s Day. That would’ve been impressive.

Of course, that number is based on the population of Oslo.

To modify that number to fit with the population in Brisbane we should’ve had about 34,500-51,750 Brisbanites standing up for equality.

Now that would’ve been an impressive event that would’ve send out a loud message to Australia, and even the world, that we want equality — now!

But alas…

Photo credit: Jude

* There where a few other events, but they pretty much were based on the same theme, breakfast, lunch, etc.

When I read in Foreign Policy that Kremlin has stated, “Vladimir Putin stressed that in case of any further spread of violence to Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, Russia retains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population of those areas,” it sent chills down my spine.

It might sound a bit dramatic to say we might be on the brink of World War 3, but if you have any knowledge in history, it is difficult to avoid noticing some similarities to what happened in World War 2.

What Kremlin has stated is basically a paraphrase of the justification Hitler used to invade Poland in 1939. To protect German-speaking people who live in Poland due to the loss of land after Germany being punished for what they did during World War 1.

Which raises the question, are we now seeing history repeating itself before our very own eyes?

To be honest, I really hope not. Then again, we humans seem to be incapable of learning from our mistakes — so buckle up.

Even Prime Minister Tony Abbott seems to be shaking in his budgie smugglers over this. So much he has told Russia to “back off” from invading Ukraine.

Which is a bit of fresh air. Suddenly the government cares about what is happening abroad. Instead of being frightened by those boat people (most democratic countries refer to them as refugees).

But maybe that is why he is so concerned. If another war erupts, Australia might have to deal with more refugees — and we know how the current government feels about them.

Not to mention that this might be a resurrection of the good old Red Scare which made Australia believe that the Vietnam war (a civil war turned into a proxy war), if not stopped, would turn Australia into some kind of communist hellhole.

But the sincerity of his concern falls short, even though it seems well-meaning.

“You cannot just cross the border of another country with military force,” Tony Abbott said on Bolt Report Sunday morning.

“This is not the kind of action of a friend and neighbour.”

Seemingly forgetting that the [Australian Navy breached Indonesian waters six times][4]. After such an act I find it difficult to believe Tony Abbott is in any position to criticise another country breaching a neighbouring country’s border.

With that said, maybe this can be a lesson our government can learn from, that breaching another country’s border, a neighbour and friend, can never be excused or tolerated.

We can only hope that [Ukraine is left alone][5]. They have endured enough. Nor do the world need to experience yet another war that might be devastating. Even though if some of our younger generations do seem to need to experience a world at war to appreciate what they have — which is what happened after World War 2.

Image source: Geysar Gurbanov

“Sharing is caring,” I have been told. An idea that has had a massive impact on how we now use the Internet. It is part of what is often referred to as sharing culture (participatory culture).

It is also related to what is known as Web 2.0. The term dates back to 1999. Not describing a new version of the web technologically, but how users of websites were given the ability to be part of content production.

Social media has increased the impact on how we use the Internet and how content is shared. We are now our own editors and publishers. The middleman has almost vanished.

It has given anyone with a connection to the Internet a voice. An ability to share their views on certain topics. Making it more difficult to censor speech — even though some countries still try.

Unfortunately that feeling of freedom has made us forget that, even if the Internet seems like a place where the participants make up the rules, laws still apply to what we do online.

When sitting at home, typing, seeing text emerge on the computer screen, we seem to be oblivious to how far that communique can reach.

It is as if with the inability to physically see those who read what we have written, we willingly ignore the fact that more than a few friends will read our communique — let alone share it with their friends.

It is said that if something is troubling you, sitting down and writing about it can be very cathartic. That of course does not mean it will be more cathartic by publishing it for the whole world to see — even though it might feel like it then and there.

Posting something online do not need to be nasty to land you in a whole heap of trouble. Even a poorly executed joke can cost you dearly. As Dana Snay discovered, it cost here dad, Patrick Snay, US$80,000.

If you want to share something about yourself, go ahead and do so if you are comfortable with the fact that it can be read by almost everyone on the Internet — and that what is made available online can be permanent.

However, when sharing something about someone else, it can become a bit murky.

The first thing to consider is to respect someone’s right to privacy. Ignoring that can lead to them being annoyed and even hurt, but push it too far you might land yourself in legal trouble.

Which leads to my second, and maybe most important, point. The risk of defaming someone.

FindLaw Australia (I urge you to read this if you spend a lot of time on social media) has written an article about how being too candid and vindictive online can land you in court for defamation.

They also list what constitutes as defamation within Australia:

• State that someone is corrupt, dishonest, or disloyal
• State that someone is suspected of committing, or alleged to have committed an illegal act
• Ridiculing an individual
• State that someone has a contagious disease, is suffering from insanity, or say something that is likely to cause the person to be shunned or avoided, even if there is no suggestion of bad character

Sharing might be caring, but it does not give you the right to be careless with what you share.

Not all of your dirty laundry need to be aired out in the public. That of course does not mean you should sit there in silence, as there are other ways to communicate with someone that might be able to lend you an ear.

How about next time you feel the need to talk to someone, you sit down and have a private conversation with them — be it face-to-face or via email.

Supporters of Sheila Oakley wanting the identity released of the police officer who shot a taser barb in her left eye marched to Logan police station today.

Before walking to the police station the supporters had gathered outside her home on Jacaranda Avenue.

Ms Okaley’s brother Joseph thanked everyone showing up to support his sister.

“They are still wearing it [the taser]. I’m just not too happy with that.”

Sam Watson said they are demanding to learn the identity of the police officer who tasered Ms Oakley, to have him suspended immediately, an urgent investigation to be set in motion and that he should be charged for assault causing grievous bodily harm.

“We are going to give the police seven days to respond to these demands.”

Ms Oakley said she was grateful for everyone coming to show their support before the marched started.

“Thank you very much.”

After Ms Oakley handed in the petition with demands to the Superintendent at Logan police station the supporters walked back on Jacaranda Avenue towards her home.

A smaller group decided to continue the march from Jacaranda Avenue on to Railway Parade. Then to Station Road using the underpass at Woodridge Station.

Continuing down Croydon Road to end their march at Ewing Park.

All the way from Logan police station they had police escort.

 

 

The ninth G20 summit will be held at Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre on 15 and 16 November this year.

The event has not been universally welcomed with joy and excitement. Instead, some seem to view it with fear and loathing — such as yours truly.

This is mostly due to the G20 (Safety and Security) Bill 2013 (G20 law), a bill that will impact important civil liberties and can affect innocent bystanders if they are near protests that get out of hand. Many fear an overreaction by police as seen during the G20 summit in Toronto, Canada 2010.

Scott McDougall, Director of Caxton Legal Centre has grave concerns about the potential for the G20 to get out of hand, due to the potential mis-use of incredibly broad police powers.

In the bill, eggs are labelled as projectiles and not allowed in the declared areas, nor are you allowed to carry with you glass jars. So if you plan on making french toast with jam that weekend, you might want to be careful where your buy and carry these food items during the G20 summit.

Mr McDougall says the bill allows police to search anyone in the declared area without having to form a suspicion that an offence may be committed.

“Even a basic search under the [G20] law, extends to searching the contents of any item found on the person — this includes their mobile phone.”

During the G20 summit, Scott McDougall says the Caxton Legal Centre will have independent legal observers out on the street.

“In order to maintain a completely independent role [Caxton] will not be giving legal advice to any individual or groups in the lead-up to the G20 — protest groups have to get legal advice from other centres,” he said.

“[That means we are] in the position to proffer evidence that is completely independent.”

Scott McDougall understands that the broad role of the police under the G20 law creates a logistical nightmare for the police, which further worries him. He thinks logistical problems will result in unnecessary  arrests.

When looking back at the G20 summit in Toronto Scott McDougall says,  “Not wanting to scare, [but] there is considerable scope for innocent peaceful protesters to be caught up with the law.”

He says people need to think carefully about wearing black clothing. Wearing all-black at a protest is called black bloc. It makes it difficult for police to identify protesters in a large group.

Given the broad scope of the bill, anyone wearing black might become a target for search and arrest if the police are looking for someone fitting that description.

Scott McDougall hopes that Brisbane will not witness a repetition of what happened in Toronto, Canada 2010. He hopes the police activity in the G20 is not guided through paranoia, but common sense and professionalism. This would show that our police are able to exercise restraint and good conduct, setting a standard for future G20 summits in other countries.

Useful links

g20 the org

The Qld G20 legislation

Caxton’s web site

Westender’s story on planning for G20

More than 200 people attended a Candidate Forum in West End last night, to meet 10 of the 11 candidates standing in the forthcoming Griffith by-election. Here are some images from the Forum.