Infertility and acceptance

This is one of those personal topics that I tried to keep separate - I'm not exactly sure why though...

I am an infertile woman, I am married to an infertile man.  Neither of us has been told that there is absolutely no hope, neither of us have been told that we should just give up - the chances are immesurably slim (when adding both our problems together), but the doctors try to keep our hopes up and refuse to tell us that it's not possible...

Infertility is a curse - a huge, horrible curse that lies across our sex-life, our marriage, and our happiness.  We've been coping with it a long time now, and we've actually become quite adept at managing our expectations, but the reality remains that it's just not going to happen for us, save for a miracle (and I don't really believe in miracles, despite how hard I try).

I spent a lot of time tonight commenting on an article at The Guardian. It was an amazing article, and well worth a read. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/06/i-know-the-pain-of-infertility-and-talking-about-it-helps.  We need to talk about infertility, we need to appreciate that there are stages of infertility, that there are stages of acceptance.

For those suffering through infertility - you need to know that it's not your fault, you need to know that you are worthy, you need to know that you're not being punished.  I spent so long thinking that I was being punished, that if I could just be good enough, worthy enough, I would be rewarded with what I really wanted.

It's not about worth - other than the self-worth you apply to yourself.  Your worth is not measured by how fertile you are.  I have a lot to offer this world, but I did once think that I could only measure that worth by my fertility, by how much my potenital children could learn from me.  I am so much more than that - I can be so much more than that.

I absolutely want to declare at this point that I have experienced very nasty, horrible thoughts towards those more fertile that I am. It was very hard not to - because I assumed that I was less worthy, because if I had been worthy enough, if I had been 'mother-material' then it would have happened for me too.

It just doesn't work like that, does it? We all have our burdens to bear. My burden has been infertility, perhaps a greater burden would have been to be able to get pregnant, only to realise that I wasn't, or couldn't be, the parent my child needed me to be. More than feeling unworthy in myself, I'm not sure I could have handled the realisation that I wasn't enough for my child, for the one person in the world I was charged with protecting. Surely that would have been the harder task...

I'm still not completley happy being childless, but I have come to appreicate that you can't always get what you want - and there is value in that lesson too. 

Drones and Summary Execution

How is it possible - in any sense of the imagination, that our society could believe that drone strikes are either necessary, required, or in any way justified?

It's 6 June today.  6 June 1944, D-Day, 70 years ago.  How on earth could we ever tell those men who fought for our freedom that we value their sacrifice so lightly that we have retained absolutely no concept of the rule of law?

I'm pretty sure that those men would have been similarly appalled at the threat to our way of life (to the extent it can be said to exist). The fact that we have forgotten what they fought for, the fact that we seemingly no longer value the right to a trial, evidence, and conviction prior to punishment speaks absolute volumes.

Yes, I too am concerned about being blown up in my neighbourhood market - but I am not so concerned that I am willing to throw away thousands of years of logic and due process on a whim. That right is what our forefathers fought for.

There is absolutely no justification for drone strikes - none.  The fact that any government of ours should support them is appalling - and scary.  I honestly, literally, shook in my boots earlier today when I finally realised what crimes were being committed in my name.

If you break the law, if you plot against the government, if you commit a crime - you should be charged, come before a jury of your peers, and, if found guilty, be sentenced.  There is absolutely no justification for summary punishment - the entire idea goes against everything we should believe in, everything our forefathers fought for.

Further reading: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/05/two-australians-were-killed-by-us-drones-of-course-thats-our-business

Wider aim...

I have, to date, tried to keep this blog to my political musing.  I thought that my purpose was better served by separating the various parts of my psyche and sharing my thoughts only on discrete issues.  The result, however, has been for me to fail to convey any cohesive sense of who I am, or what influences my thought processes.

And so, this post marks the end of that demarcation. It also serves to demarcate the end of my strict reliance on proof.  It's a blog - it's my opinion.  Disagree if you will - I welcome that, but as long as my original thoughts are based in logic and I know that I can support them - then challenge away!  Fight me - I welcome that, I encourage that - I want to convince you, and I want you to convince me (I'm under no illusion that I'm right - I want to be proved wrong)...

Here we go!

Empathy in modern society

A thirteen year old was charged with stealing two cigarette lighters.  Hauled before the courts, public opinion is divided on the efficacy of using the legal system to deal with a comparatively minor offence.  Is it possible that he could have been dissuaded from a life of crime with a simple warning, or was it really necessary to bring the full force of the legal system down upon him to set an example? 

This incident raises two issues.  The first is the ability of the public to comment upon criminal law matters with a very scant knowledge of the facts.  In any news article we are presented with a very short précis of all the evidence brought before the court.  Yet even with such scant information we believe that we are entitled to an opinion about whether or not the judge made the correct decision. 

Even if we could form an opinion without knowing all the facts - what could possibly be the justification for reporting on such a story at all.  Are we to believe that all thirteen-year-olds are career criminals in the making and should be dealt with as such?  At the very least the fact that he stole cigarette lighters invites us to speculate that he was either planning on committing arson, or using them for some other nefarious purpose – after all, what else could a thirteen year old need cigarette lighters for!

The reason is, of course, distraction.  If they make us afraid of thirteen-year-olds with cigarette lighters then we aren’t focussed on the real ills in our society.  Children with access to fire are the least of our worries.

The second issue is the more concerning, as the reaction to that story proved.  Are we so in lack of empathy as a society that we would rejoice in seeing a thirteen-year-old dealt with by the courts for such a minor infraction? 

Criminality is a reflection on us all.  What drives another human being to break the social contract should be a question we ask ourselves constantly – and yet it’s not.  We sit back and say, ‘well I’ve had it tough too, but I’d never steal something, I’d never break the law, I’d never do that’. 

How can we really be so sure that we wouldn’t?  If we’ve never lived the life of the person we are judging, how can we be so sure that we wouldn’t do exactly the same thing in their position?  We’d like to think that we wouldn’t, but how can we be so sure unless and until we are faced with those same circumstances?

If we want to live in a community then we need to consciously practice empathy.  We don’t have to agree with the choices that our peers make, but we at least have to appreciate that there may have been a reason for them making the choices that they did.  If we believe that their reason is misguided, all we can do is try to educate them - try to push them in a different direction.  

Without empathy, all we do is shout our opinions at them and threaten them with punishment.  Shouldn’t we have learned by now that threats of punishment just don’t work?

In defence of Brisbane

You know, one could say that you're not much of a looker yourself Mr de Botton - but I'm sure you're a very nice person and I'd never call you ugly.  Brisbane might not be 'pretty' on the surface, but if you got to know her, I think you would come to love her as I have.

Of course it could be argued that the aesthetics of a city, as opposed to an individual, are open to critique as they are the product of the conscious choice of the city's planners, but that is not quite true.  Whereas an individual's appearance is largely a product of their genetic inheritance, so a city's is a product of it's history.  Founded in 1824, Brisbane is less than 200 years old and yet you seek to compare her to grand old dames, millennia in age.  In that sense it could be said that she is currently going through the kind of awkward puberty that we all must endure.

Time is but one factor.   A city's beauty should not just be measured by it's outward appearance, but also by the people who choose to call her home.  I think I objected most to the use of the word 'ugly'.  To my mind this word describes not only appearance, but also character.  I appreciate that wasn't your point, but I still felt the sting of the insinuation that nobody could possibly love her because she is so ugly.  I love her.  She is vibrant and friendly and warm and caring and it doesn't matter to me that she's got a few, superficial, blemishes.

I thought the point of The Philosophers' Mail was to provide news with compassion, truth, justice, complexity, calm, empathy and wisdom.  To that end, you could still have made the point that we need to have a discussion about design and civic beauty, but done it by focusing on the positive characteristics of a city still finding herself and urging her to consider the choices she will one day make.

Here, I'll give you a hand.

Brisbane is a city coming of age.  Blighted by some poor choices in the past, which still stain her landscape, she could yet rival the great cities of Paris or Siena.  This will only be possible if her leaders accept that good taste is not relative. Thankfully she is populated by committed, hard-working and forward-thinking people who are willing to leap to her defence.

* This post refers to an article published today at http://www.philosophersmail.com/280314-utopia-design.php and promoted by @alaindebotton via Twitter.

Call for Campbell Newman and Jarrod Bleijie to resign

It's been nearly six months since I've written.  My silence wasn't driven by apathy or lack of time, but more a sense that I needed to wait and see how this played out.  My concern levels have been steadily rising but I kept quiet - waiting and watching.

This morning I woke to discover that the Premier of Queensland believes that I am a criminal.  My alleged crime?  Daring to represent those accused of criminal offences and, shock horror, expecting to be paid for my services!  To be fair to Mr. Newman he did try to limit his comments to lawyers who represent bikies, but the principle can be universally applied to all criminal defence.  Somehow, in his twisted mind, a lawyer can be complicit in criminality simply by doing their job.

I am an Officer of the Supreme Court of Queensland, that is, I am admitted as a Solicitor.  My primary duty is to serve the administration of justice and uphold the rule of law.  I take this duty very seriously.  Sometimes, when that duty conflicts with my duty to my client, then I cannot continue to represent that client - my duty to the court is paramount.

Not only am I personally offended by the Premier's comments, I am both appalled and frightened that both he and the Queensland Attorney General seem to have absolutely no idea how our legal system works.  Hundreds of years of checks and balances thrown out on a whim because it's popular or politically convenient.  I could perhaps forgive Mr Newman, but Mr Bleijie has a law degree - he's been trained to understand how and why the system is the way it is. It's not perfect, but there are good reasons why it has developed as it has.

Let's take a look back at some of the things Campbell Newman and Jarrod Bleijie have been saying over recent months (most of it in relation to the absolutely insane, poorly drafted and downright scary "bikie laws").

Campbell Newman on judges who apparently live in ivory towers, The Australian (25/10/2013) http://goo.gl/X0aZwb:

"They go home at night to their comfortable, well-appointed homes, they talk amongst themselves, they socialise together, they don't understand what my team and I understand, and that is Queenslanders have had enough."

Those judges were previously lawyers.  As a lawyer, I can tell you that I spend my working life in and around criminal courts, and yet you seem to think that I just don't get it.  I see it, day in and day out.  I see the regret, shame, mental health problems, drug addiction, family breakdowns, stress, disgust and sometimes sheer idiocy in my clients.  I cannot help but see the impact that has on the victims of crime (I see them in court, see the pictures of their injuries, read the Victim Impact Statements).  I also see the impact on the community as a whole (yes, I live in this community too). I am not blind, but I am compassionate and I believe in the rule of law.

One of the foundations of the Westminster system is the Separation of Powers between the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive...  Quote from the same article linked immediately above:

Mr Newman also dismissed the premise of the separation of powers - between the government and judiciary - saying it was "more of an American thing", and that the parliament's decisions were "supreme".

Mr Newman, if you have such a limited understanding of our system of government, you should resign - right now.  You do not deserve to hold the office of Premier of Queensland if you do not even understand the separation of powers.

Which brings us to the presumption of innocence.  The bikie laws reverse the presumption of innocence so that if you are accused of criminal association, you have to prove your innocence (http://goo.gl/sg9SCV).  On top of this, the Attorney General recently had the hide to suggest that the fact that the charge had to be proved in court, notwithstanding the reversal of the presumption, was a safeguard to ensure that innocent people weren't caught up in this witch hunt (http://goo.gl/2JpV26).

Okay, so now we've got a Premier who doesn't know that the Separation of Powers is a critical foundation of our system of government, and an Attorney General who has absolutely no regard for the presumption of innocence.  And that's not to mention that the VLAD laws are so poorly drafted that nearly anybody could be caught up and accused of criminal association.

Here's what you really need to know:  the police can come knocking on your door, allege that they have evidence you associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs, charge you and hold you with a presumption against bail, under the threat of mandatory sentencing if the charges are proven (remembering that you have to prove your innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove your guilt).  Moreover, Legal Aid do not provide assistance for bail applications, and it's a bit of a lottery as to whether you would get assistance for your substantive matters given current, restrictive funding policies, which include a merit test.

The general public like to think that they have nothing to fear from these laws if they are law-abiding - that is simply not true.  The police aren't infallible, sometimes they get it wrong.  There is no reason to expect that they won't come knocking at your door.  If you have the deck stacked against you, and no legal representation, how are you going to prove your innocence?  Legal Aid won't come to the party if they deem that your case has insufficient prospects of success.

I really wasn't going to get into all this because I have faith that the High Court will overturn these egregious laws - but when the Premier of Queensland calls me a criminal, and he and his ministers demonstrate such an appalling lack of understanding about the justice system and our system of government as a whole - I just can't remain silent.

Mr Newman and Mr Bleijie - on behalf all fair-minded and sensible Queenslanders I hereby call for your respective resignations.

Don’t be an idiot on Saturday…

I used to pride myself on the fact that the thing that I loved about politics was that everyone was entitled to their opinion, and that I enjoyed the debate, for its intellectual stimulation alone.  I liked the idea that I could say just one thing that could potentially make someone re-think their position, or go away and research it a little more.  Similarly, they might say something that made me think again, as I was never under the misconception that I knew it all, or that I had nothing left to learn.

This election though I have watched closely and read widely, and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would even consider voting for the Coalition.  If you read beyond the Murdoch press, and look at the policies, the answer is so very, very clear – and I can only assume that those who do not see it have been brainwashed by our dominant press. But the fact that I think I see it so clearly has itself caused me great concern, because it is against my basic nature to be so self-assured.

I’m not just talking about the press in this election campaign – I’m talking about the press for at least the last 3 years who, unhappy with the result of the 2010 election, campaigned fervently for an ‘election now’ for at least the first 12 months of the Gillard government.  Then, when that didn’t work, they sought to de-stabilise Julia Gillard with constant leadership speculation.  Am I saying that Gillard never did anything wrong – I’m not, but I am saying that I don’t think that she was given a fair chance, nor fair credit for her achievements.

The opportunities offered by a hung parliament were well and truly squandered by the Coalition who waged a 3-year long war on the legitimacy of the government (i.e. a 3-year long dummy spit).  A hung parliament is the best outcome that the people of Australia can hope for from an election – it means that no one party can push legislation through without scrutiny, and without compromise.  If you were really and honestly truthful with yourself – do you actually believe that either party has all the answers – that you agree with them 100 percent? 

We have all hoodwinked by John Howard’s “mandate”.  John Howard claimed a mandate for the GST – but when I handed out ‘How to Vote’ cards for the Democrats in the next election – I had so many people tell me that they would never vote for the Democrats again because they’d allowed Howard to push the GST through the Senate.  They had voted the Dems into the Senate specifically because they believed the Dems would block the GST.  Howard never had a mandate – he was just the least, worst option at the time for PM, and people thought that they’d made appropriate safeguards in the upper house, only to find that Meg Lees rolled over at the drop of hat.

So why is Murdoch so anti-Rudd/anti-Labor (or at least perceived to be)?  It is not about the NBN, though I suspect that is also a factor – it’s because Labor tried (or at least threatened) to restore balance to media ownership.  Their proposed media reforms were minor, though perhaps ill-conceived, and Murdoch wasn’t having a bar of it, because it would reduce his power, wealth and influence.  Giving Rudd another chance to pursue those reforms is something Mr. Murdoch cannot allow. 

Howard campaigned in 1996 on a platform of removing the media cross-ownership laws, thereby allowing Murdoch to diversify from print.  I remember speaking up in my first year ‘Intro to Sociology’ class about the bias I had observed in the press at the time, and being made aware for the first time that I could not blindly trust the news without questioning the potential bias of the author.  It was a lesson I learned well, because I now read widely and inform myself from a variety of sources.  But when Labor tried to scale back that reform to a relatively miniscule extent, the outcome of this election was decided.   Giving Labor another term would lead to the risk that they would actually succeed in this reform, or potentially seek to go even further.

Why is media ownership such a big deal?    I live in Brisbane.  I walk into my local supermarket, or newsagent, and all I see are newspapers owned by Murdoch, shouting out the Murdoch line.  Even if I don’t open those newspapers and read the stories, I’ve still be assaulted by the headlines and assume that my vote won’t matter, because the result is already a foregone conclusion.  As much as it would be nice if every voter had the time and inclination to research the issues for themselves – that is simply not the work that we live in.  Murdoch himself acknowledged (though, admittedly in 1967), that no one person should control the media, but now he is the one who controls it, his position has changed.

Democracy only works when the populace are informed – but the risk is that when one person or group of people control the media, we cannot be properly informed because we only ever see one side of the story.  The claim that Murdoch owns 70% of the print media has been ‘allegedly’ debunked, because he doesn’t actually own 70% of newspapers – but he does own the newspapers that 70% of the population read – and that’s not to mention his other business interests running a similar line.  To argue that his level of media ownership is insignificant is ‘splitting hairs’.

One of the responses to suggestions that Murdoch has driven this election is that he supported Rudd in 2007 – so why should we question his support of Abbott this time around?  It is true, that the Murdoch press jumped on the Kevin ’07 bandwagon – but was that simply because the result was already a foregone conclusion, and jumping on board sold more papers?  By that stage John Howard was so on the nose with voters that he lost his own seat (only the second time in Australian history that an incumbent Prime Minister lost his own seat).  Is it really such a stretch to believe that it was in Murdoch’s interests to support Kevin at the time?  

I was seriously disappointed in the ABC this week when, on ABC RN Breakfast with Fran Kelly, Anthony Albenese categorically set the record straight about why Chris Bowen was not present at the ALP launch (he was receiving an award from the Coptic Church in his electorate, which engagement was arranged many months in advance).  Yet, on the ABC News that night, the claim that Chris Bowen was absent because he was fighting for electoral survival in his Western Sydney seat was repeated again, even after it had been proven untrue.  If I can’t even trust the ABC, then who can I trust? 

No-one.  The answer is that we can trust no-one.  We have to simply research the issues ourselves, and accept that our allegedly ‘free press’, is nothing of the sort.  The ABC has gone soft because they know they’re on the chopping block if Abbott wins.  The Fairfax press is holding out to a large extent, and trying to offer balanced coverage, but have a maximum of 30% of the market share, and no real influence given their limited market.  I’m not even sure that I can trust the polls, because I know how easily that they can be manipulated simply by the way that a question is phrased, or who you put as the number one option. 

So, to get back to the point, do I actually think that you’re an idiot if you vote Liberal on Saturday?  I don’t, but I do think that you are a victim of the state of the Australian press.  Please inform yourself.  Please read beyond the Murdoch press.  Please listen to the international community about the state of our economy.  And please, please, please, don’t assume that the result of this election is a foregone conclusion.  You’re vote counts – you can make it count.