Taylor Swift – 22 (Meth Dad stay magical remix)
Via Press Gang @ Zen Arcade
Espresso yourself
My morning view
About a year ago, I did the unthinkable. I bought a home coffee machine of my own free will. I’d been in the vicinity of one before when it was forced upon me by an overenthusiastic aunt at Christmas who thought it might be fun for me to make everyone “cuppacinos” when the family came to visit. As ‘thoughtful’ as this gesture was, it’s like giving an office assistant a photocopier, a marine biologist a fish tank, or an industrial worker a Tonka truck. It’s a toy! It was small with plastic bits, in all the wrong places (note to manufacturers: steel should be on the inside). The machine would melt in an instant if it reached a third of standard extraction temperature. It was a user-unfriendly, miniature steam squealing machine that made mediocre coffee. I often fantasized about dumping it in a back alley in Newtown and then speeding off; laughing maniacally (this may or may not have happened).
Last year, I was faced with a dilemma. Unexpectedly, my local closed for an extended period over Christmas. I found myself wandering around aimlessly, increasingly decaffeinated, becoming weak and desperate. It was time to reconsider my self-imposed sanction. I sheepishly went online, looked at all the coffee machines and then looked at my budget and then looked at all of them again. I wanted a Giotto (“The professional’s choice at home”). I bought a Sunbeam Piccolo. I figured after years of making coffee on machines that ranged from the sublime to those held together by duct tape, I could pretty much drive anything. And let’s also acknowledge the ridiculousness of owning a coffee machine that’s worth as much as a small second hand car.
I wasn’t expecting much but at least this time around I was open-minded (some might say deprived) and more than pleasantly surprised when it delivered me a close to commercial grade crema. In that moment the unthinkable turned into the drinkable. My toy’s status went from temporary to permanent. Obviously the machine isn’t perfect (it’s still plastic with bits of steel stuck on the outside) but I don’t care because for a humble $99 I get to have sweet aromatic espresso every single day.
Just don’t tell my local.
Human rites
Picture credit: UN Vienna
Religious freedom is covered under Article 18 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This article ensures that the atrocities carried out during World War II are never to be repeated. As part of that surety, governments are strongly encouraged to condemn religious persecution and to protect religious freedom.
That is so long as the practice does not contravene any laws or impinge on the rights of others.
In June a German district court found that non-medical circumcision impinges on the rights of a child. The case in question involved a four-year-old Muslim boy who underwent the procedure and suffered severe complications necessitating hospitalisation. Neither the parents or the doctor were found to be negligent but the act of circumcision itself was found to be unconstitutional. The court stated that while they found religious freedom “would not be unduly impaired” – that is the child can decide to be circumcised when he is older – circumcision for non-medical reasons violated the constitutional protection of a person’s “fundamental right to bodily integrity”.
In the eyes of the law, bodily integrity trumps religious freedom.
The ruling caused outrage amongst groups of Jewish and Muslim people, who demanded immediate legalisation of religious circumcision. Chancellor Angela Merkel responded that she didn’t want “Germany to be seen as a laughing stock”, as the only country in the world that did not allow Jews to practice this ritual. Germany has strongly supported the position of Jewish people following the horrors of the Second World War. The legislation is currently going through parliament.
In the eyes of the Bundestag, religious freedom trumps bodily integrity.
The practice of religious freedom and the right of bodily integrity are clearly at odds with each other. According to the judge, the integrity of religious freedom is not at risk here; however the religious practice clearly is and this raises some really interesting questions. Does removing one religious practice violate the integrity of the religion? Should a child be denied the right to a ritual that assists to identify them with their family and religious community?
These are difficult questions with no clear answers.
The power of vulnerability
A very funny and insightful talk by Brene Brown Ph.D about her decade long research on vulnerability and how vulnerability affects humanity.
The weekend espresso: The legal legacy of Mabo
Eddie Mabo
Photo: courtesy of James Cook University.
Today marks twenty years since the historic Mabo ruling by the High Court of Australia, which found that Australia’s settlement and subsequent law were erroneously based on terra nullius. Australia was not an empty land: it belonged to the Indigenous people. The High Court decision righted a wrong in Australian history. However twenty years on the pre-existing property rights of Indigenous people have still not been recognised.
Marcus Priest writes in the AFR how the High Court, state and federal governments have undermined the development of native title and disempowered Indigenous people. The High Court identified native title as being a sui generis, which was defined by laws and customs frozen in time at the point of sovereignty. This means subsequent court rulings were limited by underlying native title’s inferiority to other forms of title and created an industry of lawyers and anthropologists who existed entirely on the legal process.
The federal government has not delivered on its commitment – originally from the Keating government native title package – to cover half of the compensation costs of state governments that come from extinguishment of native title by the validation of non-indigenous tenure.
Both tiers of government have treated this important property right as a form of social welfare, which has seen the debate about native title fall into the hands of welfarism.
Marcus concludes with a quote from an Indigenous elder who learned that while his native title was recognised it was still subjected to pastoral leases and other property interests. ‘But I thought we had got our land back?’ he said.
I thought so too.
