Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Why is it Relevant?

Why is it even mentioned?

A SMH article (SMH link) describes the successful suit of a Muslim woman against her employer, a bar, for discrimination.

She sued because she was going to be forced to wear a tight uniform that was too revealing and made her feel "like a prostitute".

She won the case because the male staff were not made to change to a similarly humiliating uniform.

A couple of questions?

Why is it mentioned that she is Muslim? It has nothing to do with how she won the case. It was a case of sexual discrimination.

The wording makes it clear that a pivotal point was that the men didn't have to wear a similar uniform. Would it be OK if the men had to sleaze themselves for the job too? I suspect it would. Our community has lost its moral compass and the only way we can measure things are the woefully inadequate "consent" and "equal"

What is a Muslim woman doing serving alcohol in a bar anyway? This is why the mention of her religious background is weird. Good Muslims have nothing to do with alcohol.

Do we get to pick and choose which aspects of our religion we will sue others over and which we disregard when it suits us.

Should religious tolerance be extended to those who don't practice their faith consistently?

Some good questions there.
Probably some good answers somewhere.

But, I suspect, not to be found in the British law courts or with this particular Muslim woman.

Wednesday, 3 June 2009

Air Tax Controversy

Civil liberties groups are protesting the inclusion of a Oxygen Levy, or Air Tax, in the Australian Government's recent federal budget.

Buried in the fine print the levy has been largely unnoticed until now.

Margot Leifft of the Citizens Rights Coalition says, "It's only a small percentage now but it opens the door to further increases. Free air is an inalienable right."

The federal Treasurer disagrees, "A responsible government will tax the carbon a citizen puts into the atmosphere and a legitimate government can tax the oxygen you take out."

The coalition is researching to take a case to the supreme court, but it seems to be a long shot.
"There is nothing in the constitution, no case, no precedent. We've been right through the UN's declaration of human rights, and at the moment we can't find it clearly stated."

"What is clear is that the current laws were not framed with an oxygen levy in mind," he said in an issues paper released yesterday.

Couldn't happen?

Tell me this is isn't the same logic


Note that only 50 years ago the majority of boys were circumcised, surely the conclusion must be that the law rests on the assumption of the complete and utter legality of circumcision.

You will find the same underhand argument in the case of the ordination of homosexual ministers in the Uniting church in Australia and the redefinition of Marriage to include homosexual etc unions.

What was common territory and universally assumed was not spoken of, hence a bit of fancy footwork can paint it as an area of doubt, or a grey area for interpretation.

Dishonest and Distasteful.

Be honest and just say, "We want to change everything."