Archive | June, 2011

Fools for love

19 Jun

In love, the person is always the fool, emptied of prudence, his (sic) desires evident to the world, his transgressions revealed to all, especially to himself. Thomas Moore

Fools for Love is a collection of stories about love that went wrong.

Practically everyone has a break-up story, or knows someone who has. Break-ups are commonplace, but the individual experience of a break-up is unique. Even though everyone going through it describes similar emotions, one of the characteristics of an ending is that it feels as if this is the first time any human being has suffered in quite this way. Just like it felt when we fell in love.

Here is Bernard’s story in his own words, minimally edited for continuity. Names have been changed.

Well, we were married for thirteen years, fourteen years probably because our daughter Josie was about 13 when we separated.

She’s my oldest, then there’s the boys. It was always hard work but I just assumed that with six kids that we’d always be together.

I expected that to happen. Being Catholic made it a bit more “that’s the way it is.” If you’re unhappy you put up with it and Marianne was Catholic too.

Anyhow, we had some bad times, hard times because my ex wife’s a really, really bad spender. I’d think we owed no money and we owed ten thousand dollars or five thousand dollars and we wouldn’t have it to pay. Credit cards and blah blah blah, so we were always under pressure financially, always looking for something better and more money. There was non-stop pressure.

So we’d hit a brick wall and then she’d say “Well, you go and have a couple of days at your brother’s place,” or something like that. “That will give you time to think,” she’d say. So I’d do that.

One night when she’d said to do that (my brother lived not too far down the road) I was sleeping on his lounge and a client rang and said he needed some information that I kept at home. I said, “OK, well I’ll go and get it.” So I rang home and got my daughter and said along the lines of, I said “Where’s mum?” And she said (she was about 12 or 13), “Oh she’s gone out with a girlfriend.” So I said, “Well, tell your Mum that I’ll come home and pick up John’s file ‘cos he wants something out of the file.” She said all right and then she went to bed. Well, when I got home my wife was in bed with another bloke.

So. I was. I was out of the house to help pay off, help our problems and she just had a boyfriend and that shattered me.

I stayed awake all night.

She told me to go, he was in the bed with her. He was a guy called Martin, and I was just devastated so I went back to my brother’s. I couldn’t sleep. First thing in the morning my sister in law Claire gets up and I started to talk. I said, “I had to go home last night to pick up something and Marianne was in bed with a bloke.” And she said “Well, obviously she’s got a boyfriend.” I hadn’t thought of that, I just thought we were having a bad time so everyone sort of knew bar me that I was a mug.

So I rang Marianne’s mum and dad up and said, “Well, I’m going back home I’m throwing her out of the house. Bugger this.” And then they stepped in and said, “Well these things happen,” blah blah blah and Marianne put on the tears so I moved back home and let her stay.

Anyhow that was the beginning of the end of the marriage and I don’t know how long it had been going on before that. Obviously for some time cos it wouldn’t have been the first time she’d organised me to get out of the house because she’d had this bloke lined up again. Instead of her going to his place he came to my place.

All the kids were there, but they were little so they were in bed. So a few months later she did the same sort of thing again. She said, “I’m going to stay with my girlfriend.”

I always believed her, yeah. I only found it out to be lies later. If she’d catch herself out she’d just tell lies. It was so obvious. She’d forget how many lies she told. It was easy ‘cos I believed her but it wouldn’t have been so easy for her to get away with it if I’d been the third party looking in instead of being the injured party.

So a few months later don’t know how many to tell you the truth, might have been three or four she said, “I’m going to my girlfriend’s to spend some time with her.” They were all people she used to play golf with and I got a phone call and I answered the phone and they said, “Is that Martin?” I said, “Oh, no.”

It was my phone.

It was a travel agent and then the people on the other end sort of twigged and got a bit evasive so they didn’t say much but it just made no sense it was a travel agent on the other side of town and I said to my friend who had access then to information he shouldn’t have, but it happens, and he checked for me.

I thought something’s not right, Marianne’s supposed to be at a girlfriend’s. He checked the aircraft departures and she’d taken off  with some bloke again for a week’s holiday and told me she was at a girlfriend’s.

So that was the sort of thing and then she’d come back and say, “I’m leaving you,” and I still tried to get her not to leave. But that was how she left me, then she moved out and we had no money. I had a small income, a reasonable income, but with six kids we had no money and her spending would make sure anything we had had to pay the debts and so she moved out but she rented a place for three or four hundred dollars a week and she just didn’t have it. I used to help her out and go round there and give her money and try to get her to come back home.

A big house, a lovely house and then she said to her bloke, I don’t know for sure, I’m surmising, “I’m free now.” And she took Kyle with her who was then two and a half or three he’s now nineteen or twenty so that’s seventeen years ago, and the girl she used as the babysitter and as soon as she was available all the time the guy shot through.

I don’t know what happened there. All I know is from the time she walked out on me for this bloke he was hardly around. They broke up almost straight away cos why would you want a woman with six kids? It was all right as a bit on the side but no value when she’s available as a full time partner so that hardly lasted and then there’s this old bloke called Bob that Kyle used to talk about who was on the dole

I asked Kyle “Who’s Bob?” and he said, “Oh, he’s an old bloke that’s helping around the house comes and does a few things around the house.

Bob turned out to be another swimmer she was screwing who she ended up marrying because she got him on the rebound. Bob was somebody else’s. She told another set of stories about here’s Bob doing this and this, helping me out.

Bob had a partner I don’t think he’d broken up with his other girlfriend. Bob was a swimmer but he’d left swimming as well, cranky old bastard. He was a schoolteacher and once Mark left Marianne Bob was on the scene.

So next thing you know she got kicked out cos she didn’t pay the rent for all this time. Next thing you know she had to let go of the house so she did a runner and moved in with Bob.

I didn’t have Kyle he was with his mother. My daughter was staying with my sister in law and I had the other four boys who were like 7, 9, 11, and 12. I was looking after the boys and working.

 Yeah. And when Marianne said she was moving out I said, “Well, take what you need out of the house because you’re moving.” So she took everything. All we had left in the house was an esky with some milk and a broken down toaster and three beds for five people. I just slept with the boys. Nothing else in the house. Oh, and the dryer, no, the dishwasher, not the dishwasher, the dryer and the washing machine. There wasn’t any room on the truck to take them so she come back and I said, “You can’t have them I need them to wash the kids clothes.” So we had a fight about the washing machine and the dryer so I had a washing machine and a dryer and a foam esky to put some milk in and a broken down radio. TV and all the furniture in the whole house was gone. A few broken cups and saucers that’s all we had. Very interesting time.

Oh, I don’t know.

I was distressed and then she moved in with Bob. I found out about Bob because what did she do, she did something, oh yes she embezzled money from a company she was working at. She was writing cheques and taking the money and the police come looking for her and this detective rings me up and says, “Blah blah blah,” and I said she wasn’t with me she left seven months ago to live with her girlfriend and the cop said they were looking for her and I said, “Well she’s living with her girlfriend,” cos she’d told me that in Hampton or Fernleigh or somewhere and he said, “Well she’s not living with her girlfriend she’s living with her boyfriend in Kingston.”

I said, “That can’t be right.”

He said, “Mate, I’m telling you.”

So that’s how I found out where she was living. So I was dropping her off to go to her girlfriend’s and she was just walking round to Bob’s place but I didn’t know that for a month or so. Till the police told me. So she ended up getting arrested for embezzlement. I don’t know how she got out of that. Cried poormouth, her Mum and Dad did something about it, but she was guilty of stealing checks and cashing them.

So then she moves in with Bob. Next thing you know she’s pregnant to Bob and she didn’t tell me she was pregnant my brother in law told me. I’ve got no sense of time here but it was five or six months after she moved out. I’d lost my job I had no money, I’d no work I’d sold the house because the house had such a mortgage on it that we had no money at all. Rented a little dump and I mean a dump, a little timber cottage with the boys and I had no source of income cos I’d lost my job. So I had a few clients, about a hundred clients or so and I was working at the dogs as a bookmaker’s clerk and anything else I could get just to a bit of work. One of my cousins worked at this shipping company and he gave me a few hours work doing this and that so that was my source of income. Nothing consistent.

I’d drop the boys off at school and because I didn’t have a job, oh I had a job for a little while and I put them into day care at first go to work then pick the boys up at five and go home. Then I couldn’t get another job cos everyone wanted me to work stupid hours and I had to get the boys to school and pick them up. So I made sure I had no appointments at two o clock or finish at two o clock make some tea for them and maybe go and see someone else in the evening or whatever so I just worked around what had to be done.  Brendan was the only one in high school the others were in primary school and my brother in law then who’s also divorced from Marianne’s sister now said to me, “Oh Marianne’s pregnant.” I said, “No, she can’t be pregnant.” I said, “Everyone knows except me, she hasn’t told me she’s pregnant.” He said, “Oh sorry I didn’t know maybe I shouldn’t speak.”

So I was talking to her Mum and they all knew and I said something along the lines, “Oh now that Marianne’s pregnant.” So she was, it came up when I saw her mother and she said, “Oh you now these things happen.” Again. It’s always when it’s their kids these things happen, when it’s you you’re the worst one in the world, that was the really funny part about it. When Ed and Tania broke up Ed was the biggest bastard in the world because Tania gave him a bad time and he found a girlfriend and got a second job because he was trying to keep things going and it was impossible and Ed was the biggest bastard they’d ever met because he did that to Tania. When Marianne did that to me “These things just happen”.

So it was good to see how the rules changed for people. Anyhow so I was never going to get divorced, never believed in divorce but then when that happened I rang my lawyer and I said, “Look, Marianne’s pregnant, just file for divorce. This is stupid. I don’t believe in divorce but this is ridiculous. She’s pregnant to somebody else, just file for divorce.” I filed for divorce she didn’t bother to come to the court. We put in an application to the judge to say I’d had the kids all the time, this is what I do.

Marianne never refuted anything cos she was busy getting on with her new life with Bob. She had Kyle, and then when she got pregnant, my daughter  went to live with her for a while. That didn’t last long because of her and Bob and we set it out, there was nothing to refute in the Family Law Court I got the kids and the judge said, “Well, can you do that?” and sort of laughed so I got the kids. Course I only had the kids as long as she’d let me have them the father can’t take the kids if the mother says she should come back and look after the kids you just lose them.

Well, she said she was going to come back but she didn’t. She never wanted the kids anyhow she just said she wanted them. So I got the kids and then every six months I’d make them go and see their mother because she’d never take any time to come and see them. So I’d take them over to her place and go and see mates while I dropped them off for a few hours. If I didn’t do that she virtually never came near us.

In all that time I was working on getting her back all the time. She’d sort of leave the door ajar to make sure she could manipulate me. I still loved her. Yeah, I’d say so. Yeah. Um, I really didn’t but I thought I did because she’s my wife and so on and this took about five or six years.

Well I thought it was love. But I looking back now, if we’d have stayed together she would have destroyed us. The best thing she ever did to me was leave me. It just took me seven years to realise it.

And we had tos and fros and she’d manipulate me any number of times, she needed money, she need this and I’d help her out I’d do that and she’d just manipulate the situation.

After about two or they years they moved. They bought a bakery. Bob couldn’t boil water let alone be a baker so it was a recipe for disaster but they had the bakery. Plus Marianne had no head for business.  Michael, who’s now 22 was about 8 or 9, they’d had him for a couple of years she’d talked him into coming up for a holiday with them then she talked him into staying with her so I lost Michael then, so she had Michael and Kyle and I had the other three boys and my daughter was in Sydney. So I didn’t see much of them, the kids would come down for a holiday now and then I just had the three boys and the others were with her for two years but any time she still manipulated me when she needed something.

The business failed and they came back.

I hadn’t given up hope because I was still trying to get her to come back. I wasn’t seeing anybody else as I had the kids I didn’t have much time for anybody else and I had no money then, renting, kids were at school I cooked and washed and blah blah blah so my life revolved around the kids really but I had to still leave them to earn a living so I’d feed them of a night and then say to Michael who was about 12 or 13, mind the kids I’ll be back in two hours. I’d go out and see a client and come back. Course my boys got a bit wild in that time because they didn’t have dad around and they took advantage of it you know what teenagers are like, 11, 12 year olds are like.

I still had my dream of getting her back and having our family again. Yeah.

Anyhow this went on for about six or seven years. And what happened was, I met Christine she used to do massage at the squash club. Christine and I have been together about well it’ll be eight years in December. I’d known Christine from squash so I knew her fairly well but she was married to Morgan then who she came back from overseas with, but then she separated from Morgan and she had the children. We had a Christmas party at the Ram’s Head hotel and she’d been single twelve months or so and we were just together and we were all at a table talking and I don’t know, we just got together chatting and I asked her out the week before Christmas and Marianne was coming back to live nearby, she said and then she didn’t come back again. Her and Bob were just separating then some domestic violence from what I understand.

At that time Morgan was about to be posted overseas, they were separated so it was a bit awkward cos he’d moved out of the place he was renting and was staying with her before he moved cos they got on fine, he’s a nice bloke. So we went out and then she said, “We can’t go out for a while, Morgan’s here till the end of January.” I used to still get massages from Christine because I was already doing that every fortnight sore from squash and everything else and that was her job. So we started going out and then we only went out two or three times and I was very hesitant. I liked her and she was a good sort and she said to me one night, “Well I’ve got something to say to you.” We were out for dinner and I though ah well, here we go nobody’s going to stay with you that long you’ve got these kids. I thought oh well, it looks like I’m getting the flick here.

That’s all right, I was going out with someone else I knew, I was just dating it wasn’t that serious and we’d been out two or three times. Christine says, “Oh, well what do you want to do with us?” I said, “I don’t know what you mean?” She said, “Well I don’t want to muck around, what do you want to do?” I said, “Well I like you, I want to keep going out with you OK?” So we didn’t muck around and we started going out together and then, barely after that, Marianne rings up and she says to me, “I’m coming back to live you’ll have to give me a hand.”

So I said, “I’ll help you set up and live near the boys.” I thought that’d be good if their mother came back and lived near the boys cos she had two young kids to Bob, so it’d be good for the boys if she lived somewhere near us and they could see their Mum. Which never eventuated. She said, “Well I need you to give me a hand to get started,” and I said, “Well its no good anymore, I can’t do that I’m going out with somebody I’m with someone, I’m sorry its just not right now I can’t do it.” And she blew up. “Go on,” she said, “ignore your children and your family and kids and worry about your girlfriend.” I thought that was a good call, she’d left me for two or three blokes had two more kids, remarried had another boyfriend in the meantime and was coming back and I was the one who did the wrong thing.

So she abused me. So then I didn’t hear from her. I was seeing Christine, I’d go over there we’d go out, but I’d always come home. Christine didn’t like that much. I just wouldn’t move in. I did my own washing, even though we were together I’d been single than for six or seven years and the boys were fairly young then compared to now, teenagers so we just gradually stayed together longer and the boys got older blah blah blah.

That was the first time I said no to Marianne. Yeah. I suppose it was a relief yeah.

I’d never been interested in anybody else before Christine I went out with a few people but I wasn’t interested it was more like friends, and I’d also decided never to get married again. I’d been married, I wasn’t going to get married again. And Christine’s the only other person I would say, that would have had me, I think, decide to get married again. So then we just started as a couple and by the time I was fifty we were a couple. But I wouldn’t leave anything at her place she had the shits about that. I didn’t take the kids to her place either. We had our house where they stayed they were older now so I’d go back everyday and be there in the morning and everything else, watch the boys, do everything.

Marianne never said anything about Christine. Not about our relationship, I don’t know what she said to the kids but we’ve had a couple of words about some of my boys. We’ve sat down and she goes into tears and carries on. My ex wife’s still going on 17 and she’s fifty this year I think.

I don’t think she’s with anyone now. No, not that I know of She’s been re partnered a couple of times but after Bob there was a guy called Jim, she was with him for some time, she’s bad with relationships because she’s such an air head she’s so manipulative that people just walk. You can’t defend Bob, he belted her I’m sure I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, you can’t defend it but I can understand why, she pushes you to the limit all the time. She was of those people that does push you to the limit. She told Kyle he ruined her relationship with Bob and then he was ruining it with this new bloke so Kyle rang up and said can I come home to live with the others, and I said course you can.

But Christine said he’s too young to live with his brothers he has to come and live with us cos we’d finally moved in together. So she was really good. So he did and that strained our relationship for a few years. It took a long time for Kyle and Christine to get on. They get on good now, but it took a long time so she took that on. He was in all sorts of strife at school, smart arse.  Kicked out of school but we got him in another school and that was fantastic for him, turned him around.

So that’s pretty much the story and I’m good now life’s good now with me and Christine and all the kids are grown up doing their own thing and business is good. I never hear anything from Marianne the boys go see her sometimes. It wasn’t easy but I never want to go through any of that again.

Ξ

The fool and the lover are inseparable, so much so that if a person doesn’t behave at least a little foolishly, perhaps they aren’t really in love.  

In love people rediscover the fool’s childlike innocence. In love, that innocence is expressed as trust. It’s frequently one of the things people take themselves to task for when love goes awry. Then we can feel like the worst of fools. Naïve, stupid, childish and humiliated to have believed we could trust someone who’s betrayed us.


Is Turkey now showing the Way?

17 Jun

Guest post today by Gerard Oosterman, artist, farmer and blogger.

Turkey promised to keep it’s borders open for the people fleeing the violence in Syria. Many thousands of Syrians have crossed into Turkey. TV footage shows men, women and children walking into that country.

Even though Turkey is a country with a large population of over seventy million and already coping with an overflow of many other nationalities, it has not lost its humanity in doing the right thing by extending its hospitality to those so much worse off.  They are quickly opening disused buildings and building camps, and constructing a temporary hospital.

If Turkey can do it, where is our compassion?

Lack of ‘humaneness’ is what seems to doggedly divide Australia from most of the rest of the world, with a deeply ingrained hostility towards others. It is especially directed to those hapless victims of endless wars that somehow managed to make it anywhere near our shores.

Our present minister and previous government ministers have exalted in, ‘we must make conditions here as harsh as possible as a deterrent’. The general gist of the messages from our governments has been constant: “No-one, we repeat, no-one should come here on the understanding they will be treated with compassion or care if they jump the ‘queue’ or come ‘illegal’ by boat,”  is what they are saying. The political leaders are well aware that those sentiments will be well rewarded with the approval of thousand of voters.

The latest threat of sending at least 800 refugees to Malaysia just about takes the cake in the manoeuvring of our desperate government keen to further our whipped up xenophobia. The fact that this whipping might be translated to a caning in Malaysia is seen as a mere bagatelle, easily overcome with a few soothing words of a promise that it would most likely not happen. The UNHCR seems less convinced.

While the conversation is continuing and a flurry of visits to New Guinea and Nauru are intended to underline our tough stance once again, some might question where this dreadful fear comes from. Is there something in our history that gives us clues?

We couldn’t do much wrong by visiting our most recent history of how we treated children, both in our mother country of the UK and in our own.

Having just seen the film “Oranges and Sunshine” and previously read David Hill’s “The Forgotten Children”, I wonder if  one day we might admit there was something rotten going on in our culture dating back perhaps hundreds of years. I know of no other country that deported over 130, 000 children in recent times. I also know of no other country that then allowed the further destruction of those children in the Australian institutions that were supposed to care for them.

Is it is the history of bullying children and sending them into the hierarchical system of English boarding schools? The public (private) schools with their corporal punishment, and the degrading treatment of those who grew up in the ‘British system’ of parenting and educating?

This seems to go to the very heart of why Australia has never managed to shake off that bullying that defined us from the very start.

Yet, when it comes to cattle or suicidal whales we get teary-eyed, ban the export of cattle or stand in the sea for days stroking dying whales. Where is the stroking for the flotsam of humans cast on our shores?

Last Monday’s ABC’s Four Corners showed bullying and degradation at the very core of our armed forces. It is totally ‘us’ and not just the isolated few of ‘them’.  Howard, Ruddock, Abbott, Gillard, Morrison, Bowen. What chance did they all have growing up if they were indoctrinated into a system of bullying?

For Australia to regain its humanity it needs to take a good look in the mirror and reject the notion that we are somehow a fair and just nation. We are not. We might become fair, hospitable and friendly only if we dare to look at our inherited demons and reject the bad and accept and nurture the hidden good.

In the meantime we should take a leaf out of Turkey’s book. We will not turn them away, is what the Turkish Minister for Immigration is reported as saying. They are human beings in distress.

I can’t even imagine one of our politicians saying that.

Gerard blogs at  Oosterman Treats Blog

Gillard’s premature enunciations

17 Jun

The Gillard government’s announcement of its plan to spend 12 million taxpayer dollars on an advertising campaign to sell the carbon tax  beggars belief.

The carbon tax is by no means a done deal. The multi party committee on climate change may not arrive at a consensus. The proposed carbon tax may not progress to the legislative process. The Independents without whom Gillard cannot function are enraged, both by the proposed advertising campaign, and the presumption of their compliance upon which it is based.

Informing these key players just one hour prior to making the plan public would seem to be yet another unwisely arrogant move. While in itself it will probably not affect the Independents’ committment to the negotiations, the move does imply a degree of government contempt for the process, and an assumption that the decision is already in the bag.

Perhaps one of the motives behind this bizarre campaign to sell something that does not yet exist, is a hope that if the public can somehow be convinced by the mere announcement of this campaign that it’s a certainty, the multi party committee will be forced by public opinion to reach the consensus the government wants. Independent Tony Windsor said the advertising decision bordered ”on asking us to endorse publicly funded propaganda”.

This type of tortured magical thinking is quite characteristic of the Gillard government, from the day twelve months ago when it became the Gillard government up until now. Think the East Timor solution, the Malaysia solution, and the carbon tax Gillard was never going to introduce till she changed her mind about it.

Gillard’s assumption that the carbon tax outcome is so certain that the government can already commit 12 million dollars to explaining it is mind-boggling, anyway you look at it, and everyone is scrabbling to find a rational explanation for the move.

Gillard has acquired a reputation for putting the cart before the horse. She did not consult with East Timor before assuming their willingness to take our cast off refugees. The Malaysian solution was announced way before those negotiations were settled, indeed they are on going, and we have no idea what that outcome will be. Now she wants to sell a carbon tax that does not yet exist. Isn’t that false advertising?

Although Gillard appears outwardly calm and in control, her consistently premature and inappropriate announcements reveal an underlying profound anxiety and lack of control. She continues to indulge in premature enunciations that leave everyone embarrassed and unsatisfied.

Gillard may not believe in God, but she seems to believe in some kind of supernatural force, because from day one, her government appears to have operated on a type of blind faith in itself that has no connection with reality. The arrogant assumptions as to the outcome of the multi party climate change committee negotiations is yet one more example of this excess of self belief, now looking increasingly more desperate in spite of Gillard’s outward efforts to appear calm while the boat lurches sickeningly yet again.

In circumstances such as this, Gillard’s much remarked inability to express appropriate affect becomes a positive advantage.

Magical thinking was intrinsic in the overthrow of Kevin Rudd: who else but those with their heads in fairyland would have believed for one moment that Rudd would just go away?  Instead he’s been a fierce and constant thorn in their side, and will continue to be so, publicly undermining, destabilizing and dividing just by his very existence.

Polls reveal he is considered a better contender for PM than is the woman who deposed him. Anybody could have seen that coming, but not, it appears, those who chucked him out. Actions have consequences, and frequently they aren’t the consequences you hope for. Any first year psychology student could have predicted the consequences of that coup.

“I have taken control” Gillard brayed 12 months ago when she ousted Rudd, claiming that the government under  his control had “lost its way.”

If this is an example of taking control, if this is a government that’s now found its way, beam me up Scotty.

The government’s motives in announcing this ad campaign are unfathomable. The use of public money to fund a campaign about something that does not yet exist is nothing more than a cynical exercise in propaganda. It will backfire, as has much else this government has done so far.

Accolade for the AFP

16 Jun

Australian Federal Police this week busted a paedophile ring, seizing images of child sexual abuse including rape, bondage and torture. Watching the AFP spokesman at the press conference held to announce the seizures, I couldn’t help but wonder, how do they do it?

How do the men and women of the AFP deal with viewing images that are any reasonable person’s worst nightmare, as part of their daily routine?

I’ve experienced a fair bit of secondary post traumatic stress as a consequence of working with adult survivors of child sexual abuse. You have to be able to go there, you don’t flinch, you don’t turn away, you’re the listener who shares the journey. Looking into the dark side takes its toll: it’s powerful, it’s scary, and you underestimate it at your peril.

I’ve never had to look at anything like the horrors the AFP uncover. How do they feel when they go home at night, their minds crowded with images of rape and torture of the young? How do they manage to have any faith in human nature, after seeing first hand what human beings are capable of?

The Internet offers the ideal environment for paedophiles to connect with each other and engage in their vile commerce. Keeping pace with their proliferation must in itself be a challenging task.

Many of us would find it impossible to view images child pornographers disseminate, especially those at the far end of the continuum. Even thinking about what they might look like makes my gut churn in protest. It takes a certain type of courage and a rare kind of determination to commit your working life to bringing these people down.

It isn’t a job that brings them glory, and mostly we never see their faces.

For my money, if anyone deserves the term unsung heroes it’s these women and men. I think we should all honour them for their willingness to descend into the abyss and fight the monsters that dwell down there. If anyone renews my faith in human nature, it’s people who’ll face down the dark side in the interests of us all, and particularly in the interests of the most innocent and the most vulnerable among us.

So this post is dedicated to the men and women of the AFP who take on this battle. I salute you.

When Management Decisions Get in the Way of Productive Workplaces

16 Jun

Guest post today by Dr Stewart Hase 

It constantly amazes me, despite all we know about human behaviour, that managers can still get the implementation of change completely wrong. Psychology may not be a completely exact science and there is much we don’t know yet but it is better than whim. Moreover, there are some things for which we have ample evidence. For the purposes of this article, these are that employees more fully engaged in their work and more productive if: their job satisfaction is high; the culture is essentially democratic; they are valued; intrinsic reward is the norm; they feel they have autonomy in their work; relationships are fulfilling; the work has meaning and purpose; and there is optimum variety in the work.

It has also been shown that as little as a fifth of all employees in developing countries are fully engaged at work and, hence, fully productive. More importantly, workplaces are potentially psychologically unhealthy, if not managed well, and this has considerable impact on those who work there. There are dire consequences indeed of managers not being aware of what is required to develop and maintain a positive workplace culture. And it is the management of an organisation that is fully responsible for the culture.An experience I once had with an organisation has reminded me of the fact that managers make decisions based more on the quirks of their personality than they do on evidence from the scientific literature. For example, a high controlling, autocratic, punitive, aggressive, micro-management style will result in very specific decisions when it comes to day-to-day management and, in this case, the implementation of change.I was asked to assist a group of people cope with change in their organisation. The program was, inappropriately, called Change Management. The brief for the job was that a change initiative had come a little unstuck and that a group needed help with dealing with the outcomes of the process. Immediately my antennae started quivering. When things go wrong in an organisation it is often decided to conduct a training program rather than look at the reasons for the problem. It is easier, or more comfortable, to implement a training solution than the higher complexity of a systems solution.Closer inspection and on commencement of the ‘training’, the situation became clear. Had senior management carefully designed a change process designed to create enmity, negativity, angst, and dysfunction, they could not have done better than what occurred through incompetence.

The organisation had implemented a quality system and a new quality team to review the work of some 300 others. The change process, if you could call it that,: was completely ‘top down’; had no stakeholder consultation or involvement; devised a system of performance management for non-compliance; produced a complex and ambiguous manual that was intended to be a living document (like the law) on which to base decisions of compliance; created a lengthy adversarial system to manage the inevitable disputes over the decisions on non-compliance; was implemented in a culture that used email to deliver quality reviews due to the distributed nature of the organisation; and there was no attempt to make informed decisions after a lengthy trial when things clearly were not working, other than to conduct a change management program for the quality team (not the whole organisation).

In short, all the tenets of implementing successful change were ignored. This resulted, predictably, in: a classic in-group – out-group situation with all the enmity that this causes, especially against the quality team; high levels of stress for everyone; a high level of angry rather than co-operative disputation; team leaders protecting their ‘turf’ by defending non-conformance formally and informally; avoidance of personal contact between the quality team and the other employees; an adversarial culture; job insecurity; reduced job satisfaction; poor relationships; and alienation.

This could have been completely avoided had senior management bothered to read the change management literature or obtain advice from someone who did. Sadly, this was probably not likely to occur given the personality of the senior manager implementing the change.

The ‘change management’ program very quickly became a strategic planning exercise, based on the needs of the quality team, and was extremely successful. Unfortunately, we needed to have the whole organisation in the room and conduct a search conference, or similar process. Perhaps then we might have made a difference. As it stands this organisation will fail to function at an optimum level for a very long time. Worse it will remain an unhealthy workplace with all the sequelae that it entails. And all due to management by personality.

Dr Stewart Hase

Guest author Dr Stewart Hase is a registered psychologist and has a doctorate in organisational behaviour as well as a BA, Diploma of Psychology, and a Master of Arts (Hons) in psychology.

Stewart blogs at stewarthase.blogspot.com

Pilger’s “The War You Don’t See” censored in the US

14 Jun
John Pilger NS head shot

Image via Wikipedia

(Thanks to PW for telling me about this.)

John Pilger‘s 2010 documentary The War You Don’t See has been banned from a planned screening at the US Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe.

The film is an investigation into the media’s role in war; the ethics of “embedded” journalism, and the rise of the electronic battlefield. Pilger investigates the media’s role in promoting government propaganda such as the weapons of mass destructions claims used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The Lannan Foundation is a private family foundation dedicated to financially supporting projects that encourage freedom of inquiry, imagination and expression. Pilger was due to attend the screening of his doco in Santa Fe, and then to speak on US foreign policy, censorship and free speech. He was notified that his film screening and his appearance had been cancelled only 48 hours before the event, and has been given no explanation by the foundation as to why this decision was taken.

Speculation round the blogosphere is that the doco is far too close to the bone, embarrassing the US and other governments. However the Lannan Foundation has not been squeamish in supporting dissenting voices in the past, and they are renowned for their support of liberal causes.

Those who would repress and censor debate always fail to realize that in the West this is impossible. We have the Internet and we have bloggers. Any attempts to silence only make everybody more noisy. I understand half of Pilger’s doco has appeared on YouTube since the Santa Fe ban.

This action has tarnished the Lannan Foundation, and made something of a mockery of their claims to support freedom of inquiry. One can only speculate on the kind of pressure and the sources of that pressure, that have caused this extremely wealthy private organisation to take this action.

It’s only outcome will probably be to arouse much wider interest in the film, and further  aggravate anyone who cares about free speech, like bloggers, who will chatter on about it just like this.

All power to the blog!

Gillard turns her private life into public spectacle.

14 Jun

In the Drum this morning, Annabel Crabb critiques an interview on Sixty Minutes last night in which Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her partner Tim Mathieson are questioned, apparently mortifyingly for the viewer, about their relationship. It’s degrading, Crabb concludes, and though I didn’t see the interview, I’m sure Crabb’s assessment is spot on.

The  question we need to ask is how desperate is this Prime Minister that she allows herself to go on prime time television with her partner to subject both of them to degrading interrogations about their personal lives?

Julia Gillard seriously damaged the dignity of the office of Prime Minister by  the manner in which she assumed it. Remember her breathless, hysterical claims that we had lost our way, and she had taken over to help us find it again? It sounded then as if the country was on the brink of destruction thanks to Kevin, and Gillard was here to save us.

Now she seems incapable of exercising any of the  discretion and restraint one would hope was second nature to a prime minister when it comes to her personal life and her intimate feelings.

You can’t blame the program. They’re after ratings like any other commercial television station. The responsibility for this self inflicted public humiliation lies solely with Julia Gillard. Its a timely reflection on her lack of judgement, her lack of wisdom, her lack of character, and her increasing desperation about her plummeting popularity, that she now exposes her intimate life for public spectacle as a last resort.

At the very least it’s tacky and embarrassing. At worst, it’s proof that the country is not in serious, capable hands, and that Gillard’s capacity for unwise silliness (first demonstrated in that Women’ s Weekly airbrushed photo shoot) and her lack of sophistication and political judgement are more deeply entrenched than we feared.

Gillard’s world first: state sanctioned trade of children

14 Jun

The Gillard government’s deal with Malaysia on asylum seekers has taken yet another turn. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has now conceded that he will decide whether or not to send unaccompanied children to that country’s refugee camps on a “case by case” basis. In coming to this decision he has dramatically shifted from his original position that all unaccompanied children who arrive here by boat will be sent on to Malaysia.

This backflip raises many questions, of which two are particularly pressing. The first is, what criteria will the Gillard government use to determine which unaccompanied children to export to Malaysia, and which to allow access to refugee processing in Australia?

In the Malaysian camps unaccompanied children are at risk of physical, sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse leading to long-term psychological and physical ill health. They are at risk of exploitation of all kinds, as well as inadequate nutrition, and inadequate education. In short, they are at risk of a complete loss of childhood, to which the UNHCR Convention on the Rights of the Child (yes, we signed that too) states all children are entitled.

We have failed to protect children in Australian detention centres from extensive and long-term harm. How then do we propose to exert any influence over their treatment in another sovereign state?

We need to know as a matter of urgency just what guidelines the Gillard government intends to use to enable it to judge which unaccompanied child is suitable for exposure to these risks in Malaysia, and which child is not.

Will there be a checklist test of a child’s resilience? How has this minor withstood the traumas he or she has thus far endured? Reasonably well? OK, off to Malaysia.

Is the assessment to be left to officials in the Department of Immigration? Or does the government intent to employ experts in child psychology and psychiatry who will present informed opinion on which child has a better chance of survival in Malaysia, and which child does not? I use “survival” in a broad sense, not necessarily referring to their death, though that possibility cannot be discounted.

Protocols such as the Gillard government needs now, will create a groundbreaking global benchmark for the establishment of innovatory assessment processes for child asylum seekers who arrive unaccompanied in Western countries. The processes will necessarily be designed to determine the type of personality unaccompanied minors must have, in order to be judged capable of surviving the dangers of camps in countries that are not signatories to any human rights conventions. As far as I am aware, no such assessment process of lone children seeking asylum exists anywhere else in the world.

The second pressing matter we need to consider is that Chris Bowen is the legal guardian of all unaccompanied minors who arrive here seeking asylum. The welfare of children in his care must be his first priority if he is to fulfill the legal, ethical and moral requirements of guardianship.

How would we deal with any other legal guardian who subjected his or her charges to risks of this magnitude? We would find it entirely unacceptable that a guardian would consider putting any child in his or her care on a continuum of risk that includes rape, exploitation, hunger and death. We would likely incarcerate such a guardian. We certainly would not allow them to continue to be responsible for children who have no one else to take care of their wellbeing.

Does Bowen therefore have a conflict of interest in these circumstances?  If his duty is first towards the vulnerable children in his care, might this not conflict with Gillard’s demands that he send any of these children to Malaysia?

Bowen has been quick to point out that the numbers involved are few. We aren’t looking at sending very many unaccompanied children to fend for themselves in Malaysia. This situation may change with the government’s recent decision. Denied income from adult cargo, smugglers may well resort to moving boatloads of minors, with the selling point that they do have a chance to stay in this country and it’s well worth the risk.

When Scott Morrison complained about the burial of drowned asylum seekers and their babies it looked as if we had reached an ethical and moral nadir in Australian politics. Now the Gillard government has again shifted the goalposts in the game to see who can stop the boats. Nauru is looking like the lesser of two evils.

What does it say about the character, competence and complete moral turpitude of our politicians, that the best choice they can come up in this situation has to be between two evils?


You watched the Australian cows – now watch what they do to human beings in Malaysia

10 Jun

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1172940415

WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS IMAGES OF EXTREME CRULTY TO HUMAN BEINGS AND MAY DISTURB SOME VIEWERS

SO THIS IS WHERE YOU’RE SENDING ASYLUM SEEKERS AND UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN IS IT GILLARD?

They cane refugees there don’t they? But wait! Gillard and the U.N. can stop them! Yeah!!!

Gillard and the UN have triumphed over the domestic laws of a sovereign state!! Watch and learn, punters! Watch and learn!

Oh, the feminists must be soooo proud of our first female PM!

BTW -WHERE THE HELL IS GET UP?

Gillard continues to pretend that the UN matters

10 Jun

It should be obvious to everyone by now that  being a signatory to a United Nations convention doesn’t mean anything in real terms.

Unless the UN is about to start hauling recalcitrant signatory countries before an international court, the conventions aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Especially in a country that doesn’t have a bill of rights in the first place.

As proof of this, since 2002 the UNHCR has been castigating Australia about our treatment of asylum seekers. That’s ten years of being publicly reprimanded for our disregard of the Refugee Convention, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We breached these conventions ostensibly in the interests of protecting our totally unthreatened sovereignty. In reality it was done in the interests of self serving careerist, and immoral politicians.

Have we taken any notice? Have we been shamed? Who is there among us that really gives a stuff what the UN thinks of us?

John Howard started it by complaining that UN committees critical of his government’s stand on indigenous affairs and refugees were unfairly treating democratically elected governments. Howard didn’t acknowledge that the purpose of the UN was to look out for democratic governments that are also disregarding of human rights, as if such institutions couldn’t possibly exist:

Those who had argued before the UN that mandatory sentencing laws or native-title legislation were racially based were wrong, and it was absurd to let a foreign group decide such issues from afar. ‘ I mean, can’t these things be resolved by Australians in Australia and not us having to dance attendance on the views of committees that are a long way from Australia,’ Mr Howard said.

Things have gone down hill from there.

In a breathtaking act of hypocrisy, the Gillard government now expects us to believe that the UN has some control over Malaysia. Although the Gillard government continues to ignore the UN’s complaints about our treatment of asylum seekers, she simultaneously seeks its support to sell her Malaysian solution.

You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t give a damn about the UN’s opinions on our breaches of the conventions, you can’t then claim that their approval of the Malaysian solution carries any weight at all, let alone makes such an agreement safe and sound.

The UN conventions mean nothing. They are entirely dependent on signatory countries implementing the undertakings. Nobody really gives a stuff about a bad report from a body that has no legs and teeth. This is a post UN world. Catch up, Gillard. We see right through your spin.