Fitter, healthier and more productive
A pig
In a cage
On antibiotics

As I am now Another Suit on the Terrace™, this blog is on a permanent hiatus.

For your all your left-wing blogging needs, I recommend Larvatus Prodeo and those comrades listed on its sidebar.

And there is no explanation, no justification, that can excuse any nation from killing an individual who has broken the law. There never has been and there never will be.

I think they mean for. To say there is nothing that can excuse you from some thing is precisely the opposite of saying nothing can excuse you for it. The sentence as published says every nation must execute every individual who breaks the law: a ridiculous suggestion, and obviously a mistake because the editorial is strongly — and rightly — opposed to the death penalty.

The second:

The Howard Government has not questioned Singapore’s right to apply its own laws, and neither should it. We have simply, repeatedly, unavailingly begged for clemency.

With that one little word, The Australian admits what everyone knows: that it regards itself as part of the Howard Government. Or perhaps it’s just a telling typo.

Apparently, this is a caricature of Fred Leuchter, a Holocaust denier who developed technology for executing people.

At first glance, though, I thought it was someone whose politics are quite far removed: Bob Brown.

25 November is White Ribbon Day or, to use its full and official title, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. By wearing a white ribbon, men demonstrate their opposition to rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.

While almost every man is opposed to violence against women, we don’t say so as often or as loudly as we should. We need to make sure other men take issues like rape seriously. Some people would prefer to change the subject, deny that there is a problem, or (most disturbingly) pretend that men are the real victims. That’s not good enough, because it creates an environment that encourages and protects the perpetrators of violence against women. We need to make it clear that the so-called men’s rights movement doesn’t represent us.

The Australian White Ribbon Day committee offers some good reasons for men to wear white ribbons:

• We have heard about the pain and suffering that violence inflicts on women. We know that a fist in the face, a kick in the ribs, being forced into sex, having one’s daily life controlled and policed and tormented, we know that these are horrible things that should never happen;

• We care for our wives, our girlfriends, our sisters, daughters, our female friends, our co-workers;

• We know it is men’s wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends whose lives are limited by violence and abuse; and, whether we know about it or not, many of the women we know have been subject to men’s violence;

• We know that men don’t have to be violent, that men can do better, that men can be and often are loving, caring, and nonviolent;

• We want girls and women, and boys and men, to be free from the threat of other men’s violence;

• We know that we, and all men will benefit from a world free of violence against women, a world based on gender equality: in our relations with women, instead of experiencing distrust and disconnection we will find closeness and connection. We will be able to take up a healthier, emotionally in-touch and proud masculinity.

So this Friday, every Australian man should wear a white ribbon. You should take the opportunity to inform yourself about the problem, and think about what you can do (pdf) to prevent violence against women. And most importantly, if you are concerned about a friend’s behaviour — or your own — you should call the confidential 24-hour hotline on 1800 200 526.

Violence against women will only cease when men join with women to put an end to it.

[Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.]

SARAH FERGUSON: You cited the Blair Athol case in Parliament the other day. Were there lessons from that case that were influential in the drafting of the legislation?

JOHN HOWARD: No, I just mentioned it in passing.

SARAH FERGUSON: I don’t believe you mention anything just in passing. You must have had a good reason for mentioning it.

JOHN HOWARD: I know why I mention things. You can assert a contrary view, but you’re asking me the context in which I used it, I’m giving you the answer.

SARAH FERGUSON: What was that context?

JOHN HOWARD: In a debate.

SARAH FERGUSON: You didn’t just pluck it out of the air.

JOHN HOWARD: I knew about it.

SARAH FERGUSON: So what is it about it you think is interesting?

JOHN HOWARD: It illustrated something.

SARAH FERGUSON: What was that?

JOHN HOWARD: It illustrated how, in certain circumstances, people can double dip, if they are paid a redundancy and then claim in some way that their redundancy has amounted to an unfair dismissal.

But as Ferguson suggested, the Blair Athol case is significant not because of any double-dipping, but because “a black list was drawn up of union members who were targeted for dismissal.” However, they fought the company for four years, and in August their unfair dismissal claim was finally upheld — but Rio Tinto’s lawyers, Freehills, have been seconded to draft the WorkChoices legislation. They’ll make sure their clients can get away with it next time.

The 151 Academics’ submission to the Senate inquiry explains that the relevant part of WorkChoices is not designed to prevent “double dipping” — it’s designed to shield unfair, anti-union employers from prosecution (pp 12-13):

Employees who are dismissed for ‘genuine operational reasons or reasons that include genuine operational reasons’ will be prohibited from seeking a remedy because it is also harsh, unjust or unreasonable. ‘Operational reasons’ are defined as including ‘economic, technological, structural or similar’ reasons. If even one of the reasons for the dismissal is a ‘genuine operational reason’, the AIRC must find that an application pursuant to the harsh, unjust and unreasonable provisions is invalid. … For example, certain employees may be victimised and targeted for dismissal in a redundancy process. Such employees should not be denied access to unfair dismissal remedies. Moreover, ‘economic’ and ‘structural’ factors potentially go well beyond instances of genuine redundancy exemplified in the explanatory memorandum. For example, if an employer decided to replace award-covered workers with cheaper employees on the minimum standards, this would provide an economic advantage to the employer and could therefore constitute a genuine ‘economic’ reason to exclude any unfair dismissal claim under the Bill.

The Minister has explained that this provision is aimed at preventing retrenched workers from ‘double-dipping’ by obtaining redundancy pay on top of compensation for unfair dismissal. However, there is nothing in that provision of the Bill that refers to redundancy payments. If this were the purpose, then the legislation would only need to require that the Commission deduct redundancy payments from the maximum amount of compensation a worker could receive. In reality, such a provision would be unnecessary, since the AIRC already takes redundancy payments into account in determining compensation, as one would expect the parties to do in reaching a settlement. In practice, this provision would enable a worker to be dismissed in ‘harsh, unjust and unreasonable’ circumstances, by a firm of any size, if the firm could successfully argue that it was partly for ‘operational reasons’. The worker would be unable to lodge a complaint about unfair dismissal.

The Prime Minister has told Parliament that this provision is to ‘clarify’ the situation that arose when sixteen workers at the Blair Athol coalmine in Queensland were sacked. In 2001 the AIRC found that Blair Athol management had created a ‘black list’ of union members who were ‘singled out for termination’ via a redundancy process. Mine management ‘went about demeaning’ those targeted for termination; for example they were ‘allocated menial tasks such as chipping weeds with a hoe rather than using a weedicide as was normally the practice … and painting tyres with a broom as opposed to spray painting which was the normal practice’. The ‘strategy’, which according to the AIRC ‘could be likened to ‘blood sport’’, was ‘designed to force (unionists) to accept the redundancy package’. Management introduced a performance appraisal scheme which had ‘no procedural fairness or due process’ and in which a group of unionists were denied ‘opportunities to perform work which would have provided an opportunity to have improved their…rating’. It was then used as the basis for dismissing the 16 workers. Only a ‘whistle blower’ witness revealed the existence of the ‘black list’. The situation experienced by the workers is detailed in research analysis. This case was pursued by the workers under the unfair dismissal provisions. After numerous cases, appeals, further appeals and delays, most of the workers were reinstated and the case was settled with the unanimous approval of the workers seven years after the dismissals. Under the Bill, these workers would have been unable to pursue their claim.

Although the Blair Athol case identified weaknesses with the law, these had nothing to do with ‘double dipping’; rather, they were about the difficulties the blacklisted workers faced in obtaining reinstatement in a timely manner: justice delayed is justice denied. The proposed inclusion of these provisions would only worsen the inequity that occurred for several years at Blair Athol, and create opportunities for other unscrupulous employers to use this provision to contrive arrangements to dismiss workers for ‘economic’ reasons.

This is what WorkChoices is about. It’s a scheme cooked up by big business, and drafted by big business lawyers, to give them the right to sack union members or anyone else who speaks up about unfair wages or unsafe conditions.

The minister’s crime was to point out that using plastic knives on an aeroplane was a great inconvenience to passengers, while doing almost nothing to hinder terrorists. She gave some graphic examples to support her argument, including the violent use of a broken wine glass or a HB pencil.

Vanstone’s right — so why is Labor complaining? This is the Opposition’s version of crying wolf. If you demand resignations every time someone opens their mouth (even when a Minister criticises her own Government!) then nobody will pay any attention when heads really should roll.