Dare I point out that if your husband was in a unionised work place you could make your views known about the measliness of 2 days paid paternity leave without risking your husband's position.

In my experience unionised work places are more likely to offer conditions like
- paid parental leave
- paid carers leave
- more generous long service leave
- more concern over safe working conditions
- pursuing employers to pay workers compensation to injured workers
- paid over time - rather than you are staff - you get paid enough to work all night

Remember that some of the largest supporters of the IR reforms are the large mining companies like Xstrata and those of the Rio Tinto Group. BTW the largest shareholder of Rio Tinto is Her Majesty, the Queen.

Best of luck with your family.

What you have shown is that there are serious problems at home.
You discuss serious problems while cleaning your teeth and meddle in what your husband should be doing, negoting on behalf of his family. You wear the pants while he works.

oh please GlenWriter your full of it.
Great piece and great post lucky buggar on the beach.

Rebecca
Good on you. Please send a copy of this to John Howard, Kevin Andrews and Peter Costello. Not that you will get any sympathy from them as this is the brave new world they want for all of us. Workchoice - you get to work under whatever conditions the boss determines or you can choose to have no job. Don't worry, according to John and Kevin there are just thousands of jobs out there just waiting for someone like your husband. Too bad if you are unskilled or can't move because of something like family commitments

The argument that people will upskill to get a job where they can bargain for their working conditions is a little glib.

How long does it take to train for a professional job? Well often kids chose their subjects in year 11. They finish high school then spend 4 years at university. Then in a technical field might need 2 or 3 years experience to really be in a position to command a good salary.
So the workers at the peak of their bargaining capacity have 7 years training behind them and are probably in their late 20s or early 30s.

The other point about bargaining capacity is if you are a world expert looking to change employers in Australia you probably have no bargaining power because your skills are often not transferable to another employer. Know a fellow who faced just this problem.

Those people who have a weakened bargaining capacity are

- those in regional areas who are committed to the area through family or real estate
- skilled workers who skills are no longer flavour of the month
- skilled workers with no alternative employers near by

I can remember my father was a professional engineer working for a government department in the 1960s. His wages remained the same for the whole decade and he often used to grumble that the government wouldn't negotiate with them because they didn't draw attention to their pay claim by striking. [No point in striking as you wouldn't notice that they weren't working]. There is precedence not to trust the generosity of government departments in pay negotiations.

So what is the purchasing power of a salary that remains unchanged for a decade. Pretty grim, even though mum went back to work, by the end of the decade it was really tight feeding and clothing her ravenous teenagers. This was most pronounced because 2 kids finished university and started working the year Whitlam came to power and wages rose.

I worry about families who are just starting the mortgage, babies, school thing.

None of this is hardly surprising.

Due to a sustained attempt to demonise, malign and vilify fathers, then fathers have become almost criminalized, or they are now regarded as being second-grade parents or second-class citizens.

*Few government web-sites or government literature will now contain the word “father”, while the word “mother” will be frequently mentioned.

*No political party to my knowledge has a written policy for fathers, or even for men or boys.

*One high profile federal senator has a number of portfolios including “Work and Family”, but does not even have the word “father” contained anywhere in her web-site.

*There are a number of books recently released on “parenting”, that do not even mention the word “father”.

*Many organisations continuously repeat words such as “women and their children”, but never words such as “men and their children”

*There are a number of academics and feminists who could only be regarded as anti-father, as they will never say a positive word about fathers.

*It is almost impossible, (or extremely difficult), for a separated father to have custody of a child, or even have 50/50 shared parenting.

So it’s not that surprising that some businesses do not acknowledge or value fathers either. They are simply following government, academics, feminists etc

This article infers that the father should be of use to the mother and the new-born baby (i.e “a measly two days to care for his new-born child and wife, who had just given birth.”).

Maybe the father should be of use to the mother and the new-born baby, but recent research into fathers reveals that if the father spends about 2 weeks in close contact with the new-born baby, it helps to create a deeper emotional bonding between the father and the child. Even special hormones can be released in the father’s body during this time, which are believed to play a part in this emotional bonding process.

But any possibility of such deep emotional bonding occurring between the father and the child is surely something feminists would want to avoid

Whilst I understand and generally agree with the sentiments in this article, I believe it misses one very important point: Paid Maternity Leave (and indeed, Paternity Leave) is a fundamental human right and should be government provided. I do not believe there should be any expectation on employers to provide paid parental leave (whilst it is nice if they do) and this increased expectation will lead to discrimination against women of child-bearing age (of which I am one).

The federal government has increasing budget surpluses over its term. All levels of government in New South Wales (Federal, State and Local) provide some form of paid maternity leave to their employees... but it can't be provided for employees in the private sector who contribute the most money to government revenue??

The fact that the federal government can afford to provide $4000 to employees who have unlawful dismissal claim under their WorkChoices legislation, but it cannot afford either paid maternity (or parental leave) or decent ongoing childcare subsidies to enable the return to work of mothers.

For the federal government to continue to refuse paid maternity leave (or parental leave) is discriminatory to the majority of women who are employed in the private sector. It is also a narrow-minded and short-sighted policy. In 10 years time Australia will reach a population crisis where there will be very few new entrants in the workforce supporting an ever increasing ageing population. Surely an holistic approach to population and work policy (and indeed long term taxation requirements) would be more sensible - ie: providing paid leave and childcare subsidies to working families now as an incentive for a sustainable future workforce?

I just wanted to make a supplemental post to make two points. My initial post was not a response to Timkins, but a response to the initial article.

With respect to the comments made by Timkins, I wanted to make this point: Your comments are very disappointing. Your comment about feminists was a deplorable generalisation. Furthermore, you obviously fail to recognise the simple fact that most women would WELCOME a greater input by fathers in the lives of their children. Unfortunately for many fathers, their work requirements have to take precedent because they become the primary bread-winner. Every study on the workplace and women's participation has indicated that women would like more workplace access, further that where women work they also do practically all the unpaid housework and child-rearing as well (essentially the equivalent of more than two full-time jobs).

It is important to recognise that there is no avoiding career breaks for women when they have children. For men, taking leave at the birth of a child is an option. For most families it is a necessity that one parent keep working to pay the bills. We should be focussing on providing conditions to address this imbalance. It is a very interesting, yet again disappointing fact, that many women today will still have insufficient superannuation to retire on, mainly because of the career breaks they need to take at the birth of their children. Surely we should be celebrating families of all varieties rather than making divisive and inappropriate comments about "feminists".

Redma,
“Your comment about feminists was a deplorable generalisation.“

I have read much feminist literature, but I have found the most minimal evidence of persons who refer to themselves as being “feminist”, that are in support of fathers, or who regard fathers as being of equal importance as mothers. Instead I have found the most extensive evidence of fathers being regarded as a second grade parent only, as well as extensive evidence of demonisation and vilification of fathers, and I have also found the most extensive evidence of lies, half-truths, misinformation, biased research, advocacy research, and hypocrisy within feminism.

The author seems to say that she is a “feminist” (ie. “After an abridged feminist lecture on the sexual division of labour” ), but in this article the word “I” is mentioned 34 times, (ie. as a type of “me-ism”) but there is nothing in the article to say how important it is for the father to be with the new-born baby, so that the father can bond with that child.

I think that feminists would rather have their fingers cut off, or their tongues torn out than write or speak of fathers bonding with their children. From what I have read of feminist literature, fathers bonding with their children would be total sacrilege, and the only real importance the father has is sperm-donor and pay-packet to the mother.

“Furthermore, you obviously fail to recognise the simple fact that most women would WELCOME a greater input by fathers in the lives of their children.”

Could you please reference the studies that show this, as I have seen at least 2, large-scale, recent Australian studies that show a very different story.

Could you also find the government, academic or feminist web-sites or literature that mentions the word father as well as the word mother when talking about parenting, (and not "partner" instead of "father" etc), or mentions phrases such as “men and their children” as well as “women and their children”.

[NB. I don't automatically believe something just because it comes from someone who calls themselves a "feminist"]

Bravo Rebecca, excellent article and letter to your husband's boss.

Unfortunately, the pendulum seems to have definitely swung against workers of both genders and their families, at least for the time being. I fear that many of the hard won gains by collectivised labour (like maternity and paternity leave per se) are likely to be trampled in the coming neo-Dickensian nightmare being perpetrated for our own good by the government that we deserve.

But that doesn't mean we should just roll over and shut up about it, either ;) The pendulum will swing back, sooner or later. Perhaps we need to descend once again into a Hobbesian industrial scenario where each takes as right the best *he* can get and bugger everybody else... and eventually people will get sick of that and start cooperating again. As far as I can tell, currently Capital has Labour bent over and assuming the position.

No wonder so many people are evidently so miserable!

I live in hope that the old dialectic will soon swing into action, and women and men of all persuasions can cooperate better in a more sustainable world.

It is right to conclude the new regime of re-regulation - nay, Over regulation, of the labour workforce will impact on families on more fronts than just family leave - Rebecca should be grateful her partner consulted with her about the probable impact the offered contract might have on their family life - many blokes would not have.

For a set of laws put up on a platform of flexibiltiy and fairness they contain a lot of regulations banning particular types of agreements - many of them come with penalties for both the worker and the employer; so the negotiating parties are free to negotiate openly and maturely on only provisions the government sees fit to permit - no flexibilty there.

If workers and empoyers agree on - unfair dismissal, union right of entry,the right to collectively bargain in the work place, or anything else the MInister does not like - penalties can be imposed -

We are free to negotiate up to a point; and once the term of the agreement is expired, there is no obligation to re enter an agreement and the fall back position is the imposition of the 5 basic elements enshrined in the bill.

The AWA will rule and then expire to leave workers with the bare minimum.

Rebecca'a concern about parental leave is valid - but it is only one small part of of the thrust of this package designed to bring about a new era of management prerogative.

THese laws more than anything underline the stupidity of the electoral process and to some degree the electorate - we vote on the campaigns and not on the underlying philosophies of the party; it has been self evident the desire for this type of worker control was uppermost in the minds of the government - the same can be said of the Kennet regime, although he did make some infrastructure improvements - these laws may be Howards undoing but a great deal of pain will be felt by those least deserving of it before changes can be made.

A really good article that had me on the edge of my seat. I admire your spirit and guts! But I totally agree with Redma, maternity leave should be a "god-given right" funded by the goverment. That would be a win win situation for both parents and private enterprise.

Glenwriter you sound suspiciously like one of those medieval Islamic fundamentalists who thinks giving birth to a girl is the fault of the mother.

I agree maternity leave should be a God-given right.
Employers would then not employ women because they cost too much and only employ men.
Has anyone met an employer who does not look anywhere but the economical bottom line? Economics and "being the most economical against a competitor" runs the nation.
That is why full-time employment is going down and part-time employment is going up.

It seems that someone does not believe what employers do.
Don't you believe in truth. Do you believe that employers actualy think of people and their welfare and look after their employees and their families and babies yet to be born more than they do shareholoders, profits, the sharemarket and expansion of their own wallet and business.
We have a man on $10million plus another million dollars a year looking after Telstra and all he seems to be doing is sacking people.
Maybe you should go to him and plead the maternity leave case that materrnity leave should be increased. i bet Telstra shareholders won't want it increased even though a lot of them are women.
When Telstra is sold more employees will be sacked as there will be more shareholders trying get their shares to rise.

For those who were not fortunate enough to have a proper caring father in their childhood, the answer is a good psychologist or alternative therapy, because your boss is not your father, nor is he a welfare agency or a milking cow - he is just a person with whom you conduct business.

Imagine you paid the plumber to fix two taps, but he took your money and fixed only one, claiming that he has mortgage and young children to take care of...

An employee should respect themsleves by asking for a decent wage to begin with and not working overtime when that is not part of their contract - doing otherwise will damage not just themselves, but also their familes, other employees and their families and the unemployed who will not get a job because the one is working as two. One should not, however, ask to be paid for something they did not do and time they did not spend working - that is not just and would only serve to lower their self-esteem.

The situation should never arise when one has to compromise, accepting employment with unreasonable pay and conditions (such as safety and hassle-free work environment): and for that, desperation must be removed from the equations!

It is the employee's responsibility to live within their means and save for a rainy day and future plans (such as a baby or holidays), but it is also the government's responsibility to ensure a minimal, though frugal, standard of living unconditionally for everyone, regardless whether they work, can work or wish to work [within the prevalent employment conditions], so that desperation is never a factor and employment is only pursued for one's extras and luxuries, not for the basics.

The way to do this fairly, is for EVERYONE to receive a basic living-allowance from the government (either as cash or tax-offset), creating the solid base of safety on which free and healthy business and employment relationships can be built.

Yuyutsu your last post paraphrased the sentiments of Mr Justice Higgins when he heard the Harvester Case in 1907. This eventually led to our arbitration system. Its briefly described at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1386432.htm as

"STEPHEN LONG: Australia's most famous wages decision didn't stem from an industrial dispute. It was the product of protectionism. To escape the imposition of an excise, HV Mackay, maker of the Sunshine Harvester, had to establish that he was paying a fair and reasonable wage.

The task of deciding what was fair and reasonable fell to the first president of the then arbitration court, Justice Henry Bourne Higgins. And he decided that the market price of labour couldn't set the standard.

Instead, Justice Higgins said the only appropriate yardstick was a basic wage fit to "meet the normal needs of the average employee, regarded as a human being in a civilised society."

As marriage was the "usual fate of adults", Judge Higgins said a fair and reasonable wage should provide enough to keep a family in frugal comfort."

Sand Between My Toes,

Thank you for the very interesting reference!

Justice Higgins was indeed among the most advanced social-thinkers of his time, but now we are a century ahead, more experienced and more open to new ideas, and our environment also is no longer the same.

Today's employers and shareholders no longer enjoy a wall of tariffs, they already pay taxes like anyone else (if not more), and in any case, there is no reason to hold them (or any other particular group) responsible for solving the world's injustices and creating a humane society.

The human right to basic, frugal comfort, has nothing to do with employment.
One rationale to justify it is as follows:

Due to the changes of the modern era, it is no longer feasible to live simply on the land without using money, say as hunter-gatherers or even farmers: civilization is everywhere without escape; all land (and waters) is titled and/or fenced; land taxes are imposed; and if you enter somebody else's land, you will be arrested for tresspassing. Even if you do find a patch of land (where? Antarctica? the middle of the outback in 50C heat?), the degradation of the environment due to the accumulating industrial greed and folly will not allow you to subsist from that land without modern tools, materials and equipment, that cost money.

There is no way back of course, but society, which is represented by governments, is therefore responsible to compensate individuals for their current predicament, and provide them with the alternative means without which life is no longer possible - money.

This government handout, to every human - regardless of their employment status, should therefore be viewed nor as a wage, neither as a compassionate favour, but as legitimate and deserved compensation.

This rationale of fair compensation is on top of the obvious social benefits mentioned in my earlier post and of reducing the levels of stress, anxiety and crime.

If its a well paid job then why is UNPAID leave such a problem? You want your husband to earn the big bucks and to get EXTRA benefits. How fair is that to co-workers that might never want kids. It does not sound like give and take to me. How about offering to sacrifice 5% of the annual salary in exchange for additional annual leave which can be used for family time. Or is the flash car and the dinners out more important than family time?

Regards,
Zero Sympathy.

P.S. I have two small kids, a morgage and I employ people

It's a very good point you make Rebecca; with the appalling handling of the IR legislation by the Coalition Government; what other glitches might there be? The Coalition has not allowed for adequate debate and is just in the process of ramroading the legislation through.

I'm wondering Rebecca, when you do have a son or daughter will your husband be able to take them to school sports on the basis he may have to work on Saturdays?

Sand between my toes, I am of your faith, and consider your posts to be full of experience, wisdom, and knowledge. I do not have the ability to explain in the detail that you do, my beliefs, however mine mirror yours, in every way, it is refreshing to read your posts so good to know that the way we think is being so well represented. I thought it important to let you know you have a tremendous amount of community support, please keep up the good work, and I will chime in with support, in this climate of oppression, we must stick together. Hope you will be attending the Rights at Work campaign on Tuesday, as many Australian workers, and supporters will, cheers mate.

Whilst I generally support and appreciate the sentiments put forward by Sand Beneath My Toes, I would just like to emphasise one point in reference to Harvester that appears to be overlooked. The Harvester Decision set the basic MALE wage. It was to "support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort". This related to a male wage earner supporting a wife and two dependent children. Harvester essentially put in place wage discrepancy for men and women doing the same work that was to continue for decades to come (let's face it, we still have pay equity decisions today, I point to the fairly recent Librarian and Child Care worker decisions).

Yuyutsu wrote:

<<but it is also the government's responsibility to ensure a minimal, though frugal, standard of living unconditionally for everyone, regardless whether ...they "wish" to work>>

Yuyutsu most of what you write demonstrates a very well informed and reasonable mind. But I must take issue with one phrase in your post which I quoted: "regardles of whether they wish to work".

It should be clear that if people are guaranteed an income even if they don't 'wish' to work, it will breed laziness and social parasites. "Why should I work ? I get $xxx from centrelink anyway and after all, I can do lots of cash jobs to top it up"

The International Harvester case is historically interesting, but is not relevant to todays world. No matter what we "think" governments or employers should do, the money has to come from somewhere.

Now, those of us who employ people would know how easily a profit can (and does) turn into a "loss" simply by slow and/or inefficient work attitudes.

NO CUSTOMERS, NO BUSINESS.
They would also know, that no business survives the loss of customers, and that it is very competitive 'out there'. Not being able to make 'your' product for at least a comparable price to your competitor, does not leave the consumer much choice but to choose theirs if the quality is reasonable and they can save some bucks.

BALANCE NEEDED.
In the end, just and fair wage solutions have to be a balance of competing interests. Ideally all (Employers and employees) should have the same goal, the prosperity of the company which gives them all a living. Greed at either end of the scale will destroy this.

Perceptions will vary also about 'just' returns for time/money invested. When we hear the "boss" has a holiday flat on the Gold Coast, when they hint of 'things slowing down' but the Boss's son rolls up next day in a brand new 4WD... does not help the balance process or the perceptions. Neither does numerous 'sicky' long weekends by employees.

Renewed hearts and minds is the answer.

Boaz,

Don't we all wish for renewed hearts and minds?
it is harder though, for those stressed and anxious, who are worried whether they will find food and shelter tomorrow, to find peace wherein their hearts and minds can be renewed.

I wonder whether you believe in the inherent goodness of every being?

Is the world, with so many greater troubles, scared of those few genuinely-lazy people who are willing to live simply and frugally so they do not have to work? lazy people already have and will continue to have their dishonest ways to avoid working: should making it honest hurt anyone?

Those people who do not wish to work include (the list is certainly not exhaustive):

* most lazy people, whose laziness is just a cover for a physical weakness without formal medical diagnosis, or who do not wish to admit such weaknesses.
* those wanting to work - but not under the conditions currently offered in the job-market.
* those wishing to work without pressure.
* those wishing to study informally in order to become professional and start their own business.
* those preferring to take care of their grandchildren/nephews/nieces.
* those wishing to devote their time to charitable and/or religious causes and/or just to help others without concern for financial reward.
* those wishing to spend their life in prayer and meditation.
* those who prefer to spend their time here in the forum, contributing good ideas for a better society.

The possibility of "cash jobs to top it up" does not arise (unless you refer to tax-evasion, which is a crime and should be dealt with accordingly), because EVERYBODY will receive this handout/compensation from the government. This handout will only allow you to live frugally, so if you want more you will have more incentive to work part-time/casual and earn more from the first dollar: no problem with it so long as you pay your taxes.

The very fact that people do not HAVE to work, is the best guarantee that those choosing to work will be respected by their employer and receive reasonable conditions!

Yuyutsu,

I understand your logic but disagree. Too many times idle hands create problems for their families, neighbours and the wider community.

I would prefer a system in which the government has no role in supporting the unemployed and the unemployed are instead required to rely on the good will of families, neighbours and the wider community (or else get a job). This would ensure that even though a person may be without work they still have to cultivate and maintain a significant amount of good will and social capital.

Of course with the tax level as it is the government is actively destroying job opportunities which is not a very bright activity for them to be engaged in.

Regards,
Terje.

Yuyutsu

I believe in the inherent goodness in people - having worked for many years in the welfare sector I met many people from out and out criminals to drug addicts to disabled to immigrants, refugees and more. In all that time I was only threatened twice (circumstances not relevant here) the overwhelming majority of people simply wanted to do the right thing, some simply didn't know how (background so distorted from the reality most of us live with).

Anyway I agree with your proposal - why hurt the majority because of the very few who don't want to work. A basic frugal income is civilised and in this wealthy country very affordable. Decent and fair working conditions are also affordable - we need to put a cap on exorbitant executive salaries ($59 Million is absurd and an insult to all other workers).

Yuyutsu - I enjoy the reasonable tenor of all your posts - keep up the excellent work.

Yuyutsu
your posts are indeed refreshing.. you often have a very different POV, continually enriching our experience here.

* most lazy people, whose laziness is just a cover for a physical weakness without formal medical diagnosis, or who do not wish to admit such weaknesses. (They should get diagnosed)

* those wanting to work - but not under the conditions currently offered in the job-market.(They are spoilt :) Not the governments problem if jobs are there and they don't want them)

* those wishing to work without pressure. (huh ? life 'IS' pressure)

* those wishing to study informally in order to become professional and start their own business. (informally is too difficult to responsibly monitor by Gov but I recommend the NEIS scheme if still going. I did it... gov funding for 12 months after formal training in business)

* those preferring to take care of their grandchildren/nephews/nieces.
(Totally agree on this one, as long as the caring is "needed" But payment is family responsibility not Government)

* those wishing to devote their time to charitable and/or religious causes and/or just to help others without concern for financial reward. (Religious causes should be self funded)

* those wishing to spend their life in prayer and meditation. (must weigh up whether they can support such a life, not government responsibility)

* those who prefer to spend their time here in the forum, contributing good ideas for a better society.

Now THAT last one I agree with :) but then...thats because I enjoy it so much. Seriously, that also should be self funded. My business makes much less due to the time I spend here :) The most I hope from Government is that someone will notice our various points and act on them.

Cheers

Boaz,

I am afraid that 350 words cannot allow me to fully cover each case, so guidelines and principles to remember are:

1. this plan primarily benefits the working, their employers and part-time workers, while material benefits to the non-employed are minor.

2. the "government" means the collective representation of society: the body we elected to fulfil our dreams and aspirations.

3. society is morally responsible for its past and continued actions: with the majority pursuing a particular lifestyle (western-mainstream), doing so because it promises a standard of living that is "more than frugal", and since legislation is geared toward that lifestyle, practically prohibiting others (eg. such lifestyles that do not require money) or otherwise rendering them unfeasible, it should at least compensate individuals for being bound by those laws - especially those who otherwise would be happy with a frugal standard of living. I believe that this will be as obvious to future generations as it is obvious for us today that "slavery is not on".

More specifically:

* obtaining a formal medical diagnosis (and being categorized, even stigmatised, thereby) is a lifestyle choice: not fair to impose on others! Also, current medicine may not recognize the condition [correctly].

* those not willing to work in present conditions, support others who want to work in reasonable conditions.

* life should be glorious - not a pressure! those who are happy with the little they have, should not be pressured by the "MORE" culture.

* government controlling what one studies is dangerous: they will only subsidise what they want people to believe and practice.

* you are right that government should not support religious causes: but it is different than supporting individuals who wish to pursue a religious lifestyle [frugally]. Also, besides religion, what about other charitable works?

* those wishing to spend their life in prayer and meditation will bless society rather than curse it.

* By spending time in this forum, I also earn less, and with my plan implemented, I also will end with less in my pocket - so I cannot be suspect of "personal interests".

Keeping a biologically inferior non-Celtic-Anglos in a generational pool of unemployment securing a sound number of ready-to-work-for-near-nothing slaves,hight financial gains and simply jobs for the privileged is a usual Australian story attracting no word in this forum so far.

Recently, as this pool is being made ready to accommodate more AUSTRALIANS, some fuss occurs.

Every folk worth their government.

Rebecca,good on you-AWAS will be a real headache in the future for working Australians . i shudder when i hear about the secrecy provisions that can be written into them .
We should all be contacting our school curriculum makers to insist school leavers at least have a grasp of the implications of AWAS they might have to sign for their first job, [ if that is what the boss wants] ! If it needs to be a separate subject then so be it .

QUOTE: the "government" means the collective representation of society

RESPONSE: What a quaint notion. However I don't think its ever been true and I doubt it every will be. Government is the sole institution of society with a legal right to be violent. That is its defining attribute. It represents "society" no more or less than the major religions, the radio talkshow hosts or Coke Cola.

No lunch-breaks please, no extra-payments on Christmas (Jesus was from Jewish origin, was he?), no maternity leave fuss – negotiate if you were ready to suppose New Year present to Spring holidays if, again, any at all.

The more rednecks – the better Australian future for British passport holders!

However, does it matter for those-in-a-pool already?

Terje,

First, your quote was out of context from what I wrote, in response to Boaz who was repeating "not the government's responsibility". I therefore urge you: assuming (at least for the time-being) that you agree with me that society has certain responsibilities toward individuals (the alternative being fascism), who if not the government should, in your opinion, be practically carrying out those responsibilities on society's behalf: the major religions, the radio talkshow hosts, or Coke Cola?

As for the point you raised, I wonder how a democratic society could elect and maintain in power a violent government? isn't it (however unappealing) that the majority of society today is violent enough to keep a violent government in place to represent it?

Now my turn to take things out of context...

MichaelK,
"no extra-payments on Christmas (Jesus was from Jewish origin, was he?)"

- great idea, since based on historical evidence, Jesus was born around June; and being Jewish, he would never sanction the pagan holiday that is now annoyingly called after him "Christmas", which is in fact based on the return of the Sun-God after the winter solstice.

Terje, You are full of it, but at least your consistent mate, none on these pages can argue with that notion. Consistently unfair, lacking compassion for your fellow man, greedy, mean and tricky, it must be hell being you, you are one person who should be diagnosed.