What Colour Skin Do Hobbits Have?

This may seem like an innocuous enough question, but it does have serious ramifications for the filming of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit by none other than Sir Peter Jackson. Jackson was at the helm of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and won an Oscar for his efforts. The much anticipated prequel to those films has run into myriad of problems as backers try and get the two-part film made.

The most recent controversy to afflict the film relates to a Pakistani woman being knocked back for a part as a Hobbit extra in the film. According to the casting agent the young woman, Naz Humphreys, was not "light-skinned" enough for the part of a hobbit. Hmmm....

This got me thinking. I have not read The Hobbit since I was a kid. So, it was time for a little research.

There are three types of hobbits: the Harfoots, the Fallohides, and the Stoors. Generally, hobbits are between 2 and 4 feet tall. The Harfoots are the most numerous, the Stoors are the next most numerous group, and the Fallohides are the smallest group. The Stoors are a little shorter than the others, they are also a little broader, and they are particularly fond of water and things associated with water like boating. Presumably, the additional outside time might suggest that perhaps a more tanned and darker complexion is possible. In contrast, Tolkien went to some length to set out that the Fallohides were generally fair-skinned and taller than other hobbits. The Fallohides also had close links to the elves (some inter-breeding perhaps?)

Interestingly, the advertisement that went into the Bay of Plenty newspaper looking for hobbits required men to be no more than 5ft7in and women of no more than 5ft2in in height. The ad also required women to have fairer skin tones. Although, Jackson and his company, Wingnut Films, have steadfastly maintained that there was never any such instructions given to the casting agent.

In any event, common sense in 2010 would dictate that even if you were trying to recruit potential hobbits of the fairer skin variety then you would be very explicit in making your brief one where you were seeking to cast Fallohides and not Harfoots or Stoors. Needless to say, the casting agent was fired. It is unclear as to whether Humphreys ended up scoring a part as an extra in the film.

This post is not actually about discrimination in the 21st century, rather it is to clarify what skin colour is most prevalent among the hobbit groups as described in Tolkien's works where hobbits make an appearance.

Wikipedia has a good overview of Hobbits.

Obesity and Airline Travel...

Obesity is a problem that extends beyond just the health implications. It can be a factor in many matters from employment to travel. In this case, travel.

A Canadian woman has been given a full refund for having to endure a 1 hour and 45 minute flight from Halifax to Ottawa in Canada. The woman, Janet Ogilvie, was forced to squeeze into about 25cm of seat space after the obese woman sitting in the seat next to her also took up half of her seat as well. The plane was fully-booked and Ogilvie decided that she did not have any choice but to endure the very cramped and uncomfortable conditions. In fact, to her credit Ogilvie did this without complaining to the woman sitting almost on top of her in order not to embarrass the obese woman.

Nevertheless, Ogilvie did complain on getting off the Porter Airlines flight. But, in essence she was told to suck it up, get over it, and there was no chance of a refund. Great customer service skills there Porter Airlines. You know what they say, "A happy customer tells five others of their experience, an unhappy customer tells more than twenty people about their experience".

Airlines in Canada have to supply a second seat at no extra cost to passengers with disabilities. Obesity is a disability. However, this does not mean that passengers with disabilities can front up at the airport and just get on the plane. The way the regulations are written require that passengers with disabilities notify the airline of that disability so that appropriate measures can be taken to facilitate the comfort of all passengers on the flight. Technically, it is my understanding, where an obese passenger fronts and check in without having notified the airline of their requirements for an additional seat, the airline can refuse to board that passenger.

Ogilvie received her refund and a more extensive apology of sorts from the CEO of Porter Airlines.

Kretek Cigarettes, the US, and the WTO...

The Indonesian kretek export sector is destined to take a big hit as the ban imposed on flavoured tobacco products by the US kicks in. The ban is going to significantly, and adversely, effect sales and foreign reserve income from the export of clove flavoured cigarettes between Indonesia and the US.

For the Government of Indonesia, the The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 is going to see about USD 6.5 million in foreign reserves income dry up almost instantly. Therefore, the government has determined that the US Act is in breach of US obligations under WTO agreements and is seeking WTO assistance in resolving the dispute. The essence of the Indonesian claim is that the US is illegally discriminating against Indonesian products (kretek cigarettes). The legal issues will be interesting to watch as they unravel before the WTO Dispute Settlement body in Geneva.

I am not a smoker. I would be happy if smoking was banned on a global scale. That said, I do appreciate that some people may claim to be happy smokers and content with their addiction and any harm that it might be doing to them and those around them. I also appreciate that tobacco is big business and employs a lot of people. This is most definitely the case in Indonesia where labour is cheap and labour laws are not always enforced as they have been enacted (even with the creation of a labour court). The cold hard reality is that many Indonesian workers, and mostly women, will be likely to become redundant now that the US market for clove cigarettes is to all intents and purposes closed for business.

An unfortunate consequence of the enactment of this US Act is not that smoking companies will not be making any money, but rather that this will be used to downsize and make redundant workers who can least afford to become redundant. In the big scheme of things this legislation is going to have noticeable social and economic impacts in the small communities that roll these clove cigarettes for the US market.

I am not confident that the cigarette companies or the Indonesian government will be able to mitigate the hardships that some workers will be forced to endure as a result. With a little bit of help to re-train and re-skill  many of these soon to be redundant workers could remain valuable contributors to a brighter economic future for Indonesia.

Obesity Discrimination?

Sooner or later airlines were undoubtedly going to require obese people to purchase two seats if they wanted to fly to their destination. Air France and KLM will charge obese passengers 75% of the cost of a second seat. Essentially, this is the cost of the seat without the taxes thrown in.

Air France and KLM are claiming that the obese passenger two-seat policy is for safety reasons. The key safety reason being that the obese person cannot be safely buckled into one seat. The policy is one that applies to fully booked flights only at this stage (for tickets booked after 1 February 2010 and for flights after 1 April 2010 - April Fool's Day joke?). According to Air France and KLM, where a flight is not fully booked, the obese passenger will be given a refund on the purchase price of their second seat.

The dimensions of aircraft seats range between 43cms and 44cms wide, and this seems to be the key safety measurement if the two-seat policy is going to work.

Nevertheless, the question is how is the policy going to be enforced? Do travel agents have to make a determination at the time a ticket is booked and paid for as to whether the prospective passenger is obese? Or will it be a requirement for all Air France and KLM flights that when booking a ticket a passenger must supply a doctors certificate stating their weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), and perhaps critical measurements when sitting (will they fit comfortably in a 43cm or 44 cm seat)? Or are the airlines going to not only weigh one's checked in baggage but require the passenger to jump on the scales as well?

The mind boggles.

My guess is that not all airline passengers are going to be concerned about this development. In fact, I am guessing that there will be plenty who fully endorse the move and wonder why it has not happened sooner.

USA & HIV / AIDS -- A Travel Decision...

It seems that the US has finally decided to make its decision to overturn the ban on HIV infected people travelling to the US a reality. President Obama has signed an order that will see the ban lifted from early next year. Hopefully, the other dozen or so countries that continue to ban HIV infected travellers will soon follow the US lead and remove the bans in their respective countries as well.

HIV / AIDS treatment has come a long way since the early eighties. So much so, that it is more a chronic illness than the death sentence it once was. People are living much longer with proper treatment, and the majority are able to live full lives and make lasting contributions to the communities in which they live. To discriminate against them on their HIV status is wrong.

Interestingly, there has not been a single HIV conference in the US since 1993. The ban on HIV+ travellers has meant that HIV+ researchers and activists would not have been able to attend to participate in any conference held. If you want to be the leader in any endeavour then you must act like the leader. This decision to remove the ban on HIV+ travellers is definitely a sign of leadership in the fight against HIV / AIDS.

The Halal Products Bill -- Islamization by Stealth?

Whenever Indonesia debates a new law or an amendment bill that infringes upon civil rights or has been drafted to address a specific religious requirement, a parallel debate arises about whether or not the bill is an attempt at Islamization of Indonesia. Sometimes, the concerns raised are legitimate and sometimes they are not.

The morality based bills such as the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code which would ostensibly ban public displays of affection between men and women, including married couples, is one such example. Another example, was the passage of the Anti-Pornography bill, as the bill to all intents and purposes seemingly restricts the freedom of expression particularly in the arts. A further example is another bill currently before the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) on film. This bill certainly ups the ante with respect to censorship and what is permitted to be made, let alone what might negotiate any censorship board.

However, it is the Bill on Halal Products that seems to have drawn the ire of many as a direct and not so stealthy attempt to impose Sharia law on all of Indonesia's citizens and not just the majority of the community that identifies as Muslim. Halal in a very general sense means that the product is one that is permitted for the purposes of consumption by Muslims.

This bill in essence sets out what must be done in order for a product to be classified as halal, and then once an application is made for certification as halal, and then how that product is to be packaged and labeled. The bill does not prevent the production, distribution, and sale of non-halal (or haram / prohibited) products. Once again, the bill sets out how a product comes to be classified and labeled as halal. Presumably any company seeking to have a leg of ham classified as halal is going to fail in their application. However, this does not mean that the leg of ham cannot be sold.

In many ways the halal symbol or label is no different from the "healthy heart" symbol that you can find on products that have successfully passed the certification process stipulated for the symbol to be applied. This is also similar for products that now carry symbols that say they are certified suitable for diabetics or people with high blood pressure or products that are certified dolphin safe.

The difference is that in most cases the symbols attached to products are certified by independent bodies and are not regulated in law beyond a very basic minimum. For example, in Australia there are laws that require that the claims of a product be substantiated. This would mean that if a producer offered a cure for cancer, then that claim would need to be substantiated. If it could not be substantiated then this would be a breach of the prevailing laws and regulations.

So, in that sense the bill is hardly Islamization by stealth. The adding of a halal seal to products will provide a guarantee to discerning Muslims that the product they are about to purchase meets some exacting standards with respect to a products halal-ness or lack thereof. Nevertheless, this might depend on how independent the certification process is and how independent those involved in the certification agency are.

Currently, it would seem that the Indonesian Ulama Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) will play a primary role as the peak Muslim body in Indonesia. Then again, how independent can the body be when its role is specifically to certify what is and what is not halal for a specific religion?

A far greater threat would be a local ordinance, such as the one recently pushed through in Bogor as it attempts to become a halal city, which prohibits the slaughtering of pigs within city limits. This would seemingly increase costs as any pork products would have to be brought in from other places and not sourced locally. An argument might conceivably be made that this ordinance is a breach of a constitutionally guaranteed right to not be subject to discrimination. Whether anyone picks up the baton on this one remains to be seen.

Going forward, it seems likely that this debate is going to arise ever more frequently.

The Armless Man, The Bank, and A Thumbprint...

Sometimes one has to wonder about bureaucracy or perhaps bureaucrazy-ness and the truly bizarre results that can eventuate through the literal interpretation of rules. A Bank of America branch in Tanpa, Florida, refused to cash a check being presented by an armless man because he would not provide a thumbprint.

Now, it is not rocket science in terms of being able to work out that a man with prosthetic arms and hands is not going to be able to provide a thumbprint. So, the teller refused to cash the check unless either he came in with his wife or he opened an account. Unfortunately, the wife was not anywhere near by and the man did not want to open an account. He did however show two forms of identification. This, though, was not enough as the clincher here was that he had to, according to the bureaucratic rules of the Bank, provide a thumbprint. Simply, no thumbprint, no cash.

Bank of America has since issued a statement noting that the policy is sound and that the thumprint requirement is only for those that do not have an account with the bank. However, they also added that in the circumstances the Tanpa branch should probably have made an exception for the armless man.

The question now being posed is whether the rights of the armless man have been violated under the provisions of the US Disability Act. In general the act has been enacted to ensure that people with disabilities are not discriminated against. In very simple terms, demanding a thumbprint from an armless man would seemingly be a breach of the armless man's rights.

France, Muslims, Hijab, Banks, and Discrimination

France has certainly been pro-active in dealing with this one over the years. The French government has banned head scarves or the hijab and other religious clothing from primary and secondary schools in 2004. More recently, Muslim women wearing burqinis have been barred from public swimming pools on health grounds. And now, Société Générale refused to let a 24-year-old female Muslim customer enter the bank, unless she removed her headscarf. This was for security reasons.

The following video goes into the details.

Homosexuality -- Not Normal -- In Queensland

Queensland is a bright and sunny place that is known to be good one day and perfect the next. However, it would seem that it is neither bright and sunny not good one day and perfect the next when it comes to the adoption of children by same-sex couples. Reforms to the adoption regime in Queensland is set to continue a ban against same-sex (homosexual / lesbian) couples from adopting children.

This was a pleasing development for Dorothy Pratt, the Independent MP for Nanango. In Pratt's view, homosexuality is not normal. I am guessing she also believes that homosexuality and lesbianism is a disease that can be cured. It is a sad state of affairs when we discriminate against a sector of the community based on their sexuality with respect to their ability to be parents.

The first and foremost considerations should be that of the child. Therefore, if this is the paramount right, then the consideration moves to whether the applicant(s) to be would make a good parent(s). It is a sad indictment when righteous do-gooders hide behind the idea that God ordains only parental relationships with children that involve a married mother and father. The idea that a child cannot be given a balanced view of the world with two fathers or two mothers is naive at best. The reality is that children can and will have interaction with role models outside of their immediate families.

The law is alive and is constantly changing. So, as we move into the brave new world of the future, it seems almost certain that at some point Queensland will have cause to revisit this issue. And, perhaps at that time all Queenslanders will be given the right to adopt where they are deemed to be suitable parent material.

Thus endeth the sermon for Friday.

The Pornography Law -- Judicial Review

This has appeared previously on the en.hukumonline.com website - here.

The debate on the pornography law seems to be a never ending one and is set to continue in the Constitutional Court on 23 February 2009. On 9 February 2009, in a move without any fanfare or announcement, eleven individuals filed a petition in the Constitutional Court seeking a judicial review of the Pornography Law. The petition seeks to have Articles 1(1), 4, and 10 repealed as constitutionally invalid.

The petitioners, among others, include Billy Lombok (Minahasa Christian Gospel Church), Jeffrey Delarue (Indonesian National Youth Committee of North Sulawesi), Janny Kopalit (Manado Catholic Youth), Goinpeace Tumbel (North Sulawesi Indonesian Christian Youth Movement), Bert Supit (Minahasa Cultural Council), and Charles Lepar (Manado Inter-Church Youth Forum). To represent them in the judicial review process, they have engaged O.C. Kaligis as their lawyer.

The substance of the petition is not surprising and is representative of much of the debate on the validity of the pornography law to date. The first claim as it relates to Article 1(1) is that the definition of pornography is too broad and as such is all-encompassing. The petitioners are arguing that such a broad definition will catch legitimate art and other traditional cultural practices under the definition.

The crux of the argument is that with such broad cultural diversity in Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke that it is unfair to have such a broad definition. Simply, what is acceptable in Papua might not be acceptable in Aceh. But, that lack of acceptance must not see the conduct criminalized as pornography or indecency.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether the Constitutional Court reads the pornography law as a whole or only the individual articles. The reason for this is that the government continues to maintain that the law specifically protects certain art and cultural traditions under other articles within the law. The petitioners despite representing an eclectic mix of church and youth organizations, they are also artists who feel that they have a legitimate grievance here in light of some of the art that they produce, such as carvings and paintings, would seemingly fall foul of the definition.

An angle adopted by the petitioners, and worthy of note, is that as working artists who earn a living and support families from their artistic income the pornography law discriminates against them and in essence violates their right to work. This is the substantive argument against Article 4.

The problem, as the petitioners see it, with Article 10 is that the article is open to multiple interpretations. The petitioners seem to focus on the term “depict nudity” and the definition may vary from one region to another in terms of what is considered to depict nudity. The argument seems to rely, similarly to Article 1, on the fact that Indonesia is a country with a rich history of pluralism and cultural diversity.

However, in a generic sense the term, depict nudity, is not problematic. Simply, what is depicting nudity in Aceh will still be depicting nudity in Papua. The difference is whether or not the current law would provide an exception for the depiction.

On the sides to this petition there are still many within the community that take issue with the pornography law. One issue that continues to arise is related to enforcement and how law enforcement agencies, irrespective of whether they are the police or the Office of the Public Prosecutor, intend to enforce the provisions that many consider to be problematic.

At various times both the National Commission for Women and the National Commission for Human Rights have invited law enforcers to discuss in detail the proposed implementation and subsequent enforcement of the provisions of the law. These organizations generally focus on the broadness of the definitions and the all-encompassing nature of these definitions as the basis of their rejection of the provisions of the law. In this case Article 4 was also noted as being most problematic.

However, the police see the law as a valuable tool in combating crimes related to pornography. Nicolas A. Lilipaly, Head of the Pornography, Indecency, and Morality Unit at the Metro Jaya Police Headquarters, is unequivocal in stating that the Pornography Law has enhanced the police’s ability to deal with pornography, which had to date been dealt with under provisions of the Indonesian Criminal Code.

In another interesting aside and also related to the pornography law, the Chief Judge of the Central Jakarta District Court, Andriani Nurdin, stated that where laws exhibit weaknesses then the duty falls to the court to exercise their discretion and interpret the provisions as they appear or to create the law where the legislation remains silent. There is likely to be some serious questioning of this kind of judicial activism of the bench from the community, particularly if the courts were to use their discretion in ways that clearly exceeded the intent of the parliament when drafting the law.

This latest installment in the debate on pornography is certain to keep the issue alive within the community.

(RAB / SH)

A Victory for Common Sense?

A victory for common sense is a rare thing in these days of heightened terror and loathing of all things. However, when one does come along it is worth writing about and discussing. Raed Jarrar has just one a sizable payout from two US transportation officials and JetBlue Airways for being forced to cover-up a T-shirt that had Arabic script printed on it. The case stems from a 2006 flight on JetBlue airways from JFK Airport in New York to Oakland in California.

The Arabic script on the offending T-Shirt said something along the lines of "we will not be silent". I am guessing that the majority of people flying on that day and on that flight probably could not read Arabic and had no idea what the t-shirt said. Nevertheless, in their infinite wisdom the transportation officials and the airline required Jarrar to cover up his t-shirt before allowing him to fly.

Presumably, the necessity to cover up the writing was so as not to scare other passengers. The stupidity here was that the officials and JetBlue suggested to Jarrar that wearing a t-shirt with an Arabic script was like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, 'I am a robber'". Stupid is as stupid does! I wonder if the t-shirt had been in French or Russian or Cambodian or Vietnamese or even Indonesian would there have been a need to cover it up? My guess is, No.

Adding insult to injury Jarrar was moved from a seat at the front of the plane to a seat at the back. I guess out of sight out of mind.

It seems that people never learn the error of their ways. This kind of profiling continues through to 2009. On 1 January 2009 a family of Muslims was removed from a flight as a security threat because 2 members of a party of 9 were discussing how safe it was to be seated next to the engines. This caught the interest of other passengers who reported the discussion and the whole family was removed from the AirTran flight. Eventually, they were cleared of any wrongdoing but were still not allowed to board the flight and were not permitted to fly with the airline. For more details check out Spruiked: Djak Style and here.

Stupid is as stupid does.

HIV / AIDS, Microchips, and Papua

The Papuan Provincial Government has drafted a Regional Regulation that includes an article that requires certain people living with HIV / AIDS to be micro-chipped. This seems to fly in the face of other measures that Indonesia has taken to reduce the stigma associated with being HIV positive. Indonesia has laws and regulations in place that make it illegal to discriminate against people living with HIV / AIDS in the work place and the general community.

The article defines "certain" people as being those that are "aggressive". Aggressive in the context of the regulation are those that are aggressively seeking out sexual partners and presumably spreading the virus without informing their prospective partners of their HIV status.

I am not sure how the microchips are going to prevent the aggressive individuals that are so micro-chipped from having sexual intercourse or infecting others. At best the microchips will allow authorities to track movements and general locations where these aggressive people are. I just do not see how the microchips will alert a potential victim to the HIV status of the micro-chipped person.

The idea of chipping aggressive people is just so subjective in nature that it is difficult to see how it can possibly work without falling foul of the constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination. Who is to decide what constitutes aggressiveness and how is aggressiveness to be measured?

There is something that seems to be inherently wrong in tagging people within certain groups. I wonder how long it will be until there are regional regulations that require the micro-chipping of people from marginal groups such as the homeless, minority faiths, gays and lesbians, expatriates, to name but a few.

I am sensing that there will undoubtedly be plenty of concerned citizens and NGOs that will band together to challenge the validity of the regional regulation. Tagging people is just wrong, at least, to my mind.

Racial and Ethnic Discrimination

The House of Representatives (DPR) passed the Bill on the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination on 28 October 2008. The bill has been in the process of being passed since 2005 when it first arose as a DPR Initiative. Indonesia already has a racial discrimination law, Law No. 29 of 1999, which is the enactment of Indonesia’s responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The premise of the bill is that everyone is born the same in the eyes of God and that everyone is equal before the law. Nevertheless, these aspirations now have a little more gravitas as they have been codified into law. The need for the codification is that all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination are contrary to the principles contained in Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The definition of what constitutes discrimination is broad and can be civil, political, economic, social, and cultural. Race and ethnicity are also defined. The point of eliminating discrimination is to promote and ensure harmony, peace, and security, among others. Discrimination is defined as any action that seeks to distinguish or differentiate individuals or makes exceptions for individuals. The bill and the Elucidations are silent on what impact this might have on any affirmative action programs that may arise in the future.

The bill also regulates hate speech and vilification in Article 4.

The supervision of the provisions of the bill is to be done by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM).

The bill provides for compensation claims in the event that a citizen has been discriminated against. The claim can be either as an individual or as a class action where there are multiple claimants. Claims are to be lodged at the District Court.

The criminal sanctions in the bill allow for terms of imprisonment of between 1 and 5 years and fines of between IDR 100 million and IDR 500 million. The penalties for corporations attract a premium of 1/3.

Once the bill enters into force all current racial and ethnic discrimination laws remain in place unless they contradict the provisions of this bill. If they do, then the provisions of the bill will prevail.

The bill will come into immediate force once it is enacted.

Women In Combat Roles -- Australia

The argument has traditionally been that women can not serve in direct such as the infantry and artillery gunners to name but two. It appears though that Australia is considering ditching those gender-based restrictions in favor of physical assessments.

The Australian Defence Forces remain predominately a male domain. Nevertheless, women make up a touch over 13% of the total number of personnel.

It will be quite an achievement if the ADF can remove gender-based barriers on women serving in direct combat roles and replace them with a set of physical characteristics that do not automatically exclude women. The current Minister of Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, seems to be in favor of the idea.

I am not sure that it has the GI Jane / Demi Moore thing happening here but I have always thought that the primary consideration in putting women into combat must be can they do the job that is being asked of them.

I am sure there are those out there that see only disaster in having men and women serving in the same direct combat units. However, if the ADF is truly a professional force then men and women serving in the same combat unit should not be a problem.

The decision on whether women will serve in direct combat will ultimately depend on the results of the Defence Science Technology Organization (DSTO) and their report. I hope the DSTO makes it possible for women to serve in direct combat roles. Women join the ADF for the same reasons as men, to serve their country, and women must be allowed to serve in all the same ways that men are permitted to do.

Polygamous Marriage in NSW

The New South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, has unequivocally stated that polygamous marriage is not going to see any legislation that will recognize the practice. Simply, polygamy is illegal and will remain so.

There have been recent rumblings from within the Muslim community in NSW that recognition of polygamy is the right thing to do because some clerics in Australia and particularly NSW that are performing polygamous marriage ceremonies. The argument then goes, well seeing it is already happening then it is necessary to recognize that it happens in order to protect the rights of women in a polygamous marriage. This seems to be the introduction and recognition of a prohibited practice by default.

On the contrary, rather than recognize that polygamous marriages are being performed, the government must be proactive in ensuring that the community is aware that polygamy is prohibited and will not be recognized legally. In fact the government needs to make sure that liaison officers are in place in the community, if they are not already, to educate the community to the prevailing laws.

Perhaps rather than asking the government to recognize polygamous marriage by default perhaps a better line of attack is to look at whether or not the lack of recognition is a form of discrimination. The emphasis that modern politics puts on political correctness means that chances of success, although remote, might be better than just saying "make it so".

Then we must take this political correctness to the extreme and recognize polyandry as well. What is good for the gander must also be good for the goose as well.

Polygamy is not going to be recognized any time soon in Australia or in NSW more specifically and I am OK about that!

Political Correctness or Good Public Policy?

I am prone to wasting too much time surfing the Internet instead of doing the things that I probably should be doing like my work. Yet, my surfing hobby teaches me much and I learn lots of interesting "stuff". Most of this "stuff" will only ever be of any use if the makers of Trivial Pursuit update the questions to include more recent irrelevant factoids for me to excel on.

However, as I was surfing I came across this article on washrooms. More interesting was the fact that one of my fellow bloggers and a Polar Bear to boot had actually blogged about this already in a posting titled "Washroom Wars". The Polar Bear and I, although originating from the same iceberg, often have to agree to disagree on certain things but always respectfully disagreeing. I must confess that I enjoy reading the Bear's take on the things that interest and concern him as many of these things also interest and concern me.

Anyway, enough on the Bear and onto the topic at hand.

The story is this. La Trobe University has decided in its infinite wisdom that there is a need for Muslim only washrooms on campus. The idea of this kind of segregation was destined to be met with calls of bias and discrimination. I am glad that my fellow Australians have not disappointed me and have taken issue with this and sparked a much needed debate on exactly what course multicultural Australia is going to embark on into the future.

The washrooms have special security arrangements where entry can only be granted on the entry of an accepted push-button code. The University and the Muslim community have stated that this is essential to Muslim prayer rituals. This is simply not true! Muslims have special washing rituals that they must complete before prayer, but none of these require Muslim only access to a washroom. Washrooms would only need to be modified in order that it would be easier for Muslims to wash their feet rather than having to hoick the leg over the waist-high hand basin!

This is a slippery slope that leads to an inevitable backlash as others demand special privileges based on some perceived need that may not be borne out by the reality of the request. This is not about providing a special prayer room! I have no problems with special prayer rooms. Most Christian denominations have been granted special prayer rooms to conduct their business and this should be no different for Muslims!

The question that needs to be asked here is a simple one. Where do we draw the line in the sand on this one? Do we accept that there should be separate Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Adventist, Pentecostal, or whatever else someone wants to claim, washrooms. Do we accept that trains and buses need to include special sections or carriages for Muslim passengers or more exclusively Muslim women?

This is a small step from the segregated past that many had thought we had left behind. This is but a small hop, skip, and a jump from male only schools, stolen generations, white and non-white swimming pools, or heaven forbid the White Australia Policy. This is a policy that exacerbates community divisions rather than moving towards healing them.

I wonder what sort of multicultural Australia I and the better half are returning to raise the kid in.

Ban the Babies

This was part of a choice heading from the Sydney Morning Herald which in full reads "Ban the babies, say air travellers". This very worthy news piece was based on a survey of 2400 Australian travellers on the totaltravel.com website. A whopping 81% of respondents to this very worthwhile survey said that babies and presumably the baby's parents should be segregated on long haul flights.

The primary reason offered up here by respondents was that listening to a baby cry for 12 straight hours is no fun. Really, are you kidding me? I have not seen a baby cry for 12 straight hours but whatever.

Sitting next to or in close proximity of someone with questionable hygiene standards is also the proverbial pain in the arse from what I can tell. Have you ever had to sit next to someone who flicks of their shoes and then have the heady aroma of toe jam float around you and the cabin for 12 hours or so. Nope, lucky you! But my take would be that these hygiene-challenged individuals should also be segregated for my flying pleasure.

It is only a small leap before we want to start segregating people based on other supposed differences..."Sorry sir, but you have blue eyes you may only sit in rows 21 to 25"..."Sorry ma'am but it says on your ticket that you weigh 65 kilograms, you may only sit in seat number 10D, we have to keep the aircraft balanced you know!" Ohhhhh, the discrimination of it all!

We should never forget that at one time we were these screaming cantankerous little buggers we call children. Give the parents a break you only get to enjoy their pain for a mere 12 hours, they get to enjoy it for the whole holiday!

Wake up and smell the coffee, order another wine, whack in the headphones and chill to the latest movies or the latest groves without having to leave your seat. One thing airlines have become so much better at is in flight entertainment. So, get your money's worth there and stop worrying about the screaming kiddies! Have you ever noticed that with the improvements in in-flight entertainment there has been a corresponding decrease in the level of service provided by the flight attendants - how bizarre?!?! :)

Happy Travels!

Constitutional Court and the KPK

Yesterday, the Constitutional Court handed-down its decision in an application for judicial review of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi / KPK) and not surprisingly the decision rejected the application. The question before the Court was whether or not the provisions of Article 29(d) of the KPK Law was in breach of the non-discrimination provisions contained in Articles 28D(3), 28H(2), 28I(5), and 28J(1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Article 29(d) stipulates that the leadership of the KPK must have an undergraduate law degree or some other degree and at least 15 years experience and expertise in either the fields of law, the economy, finance, or banking. On face value these conditions would be discriminatory against those who do not possess either degree or experience. However, the Court after hearing (in reality this was read as it was written) the testimony of the House of Representatives (DPR) the Court held that conditions such as these did not represent discrimination but were in fact reasonable objective measures to determine the ability and capability of prospective candidates for KPK leadership positions.

To get to this point the Court relied on the Human Rights Law (Law No. 39 of 1999) which defines discrimination in terms of religion, ethnicity, race, grouping, social and economic status, sex, language, or political affiliation. Nevertheless, a creative advocate might be able to make sustainable arguments that social and economic status effects one's ability to gain an education and therefore this would serve to discriminate against them in later opportunities.

The simple reality is that corruption is not always simply being paid of or receiving a 'bonus' for your illicit assistance in gaining an advantage. Sometimes corruption involves myriad complex financial transactions as the perpetrators seek to cover-up their illegal deeds. This in turn means that not all people possess the necessary qualifications, experience, or skills to do the job at hand. Generally, the little people's concerns about the KPK relate more to the commitment of the leadership to eradicate corruption than the qualifications that the leadership holds. Most people want to see corruption reduced and where it still occurs be severely punished and if this means that people have to hold a degree and 15 years experience to qualify, then so be it.

Actions speak louder than words (well, I am sure I read that somewhere). So, perhaps if we all took a little responsibility ourselves in this regard and said no to corruption in spite of the personal inconvenience that this might cause us, then we would all be just that little bit closer to reducing corruption

Enough of the Soap Box for today...