As someone who asked the question of whether British-born Tony Abbott is eligible to sit in the Australian Parliament back in 2014, I feel the pain of punters who are tired of the ‘section 44’ story. In those days, we who raised the s.44 question were mocked as “birthers”, a nasty distortion, as I explained here.
Articles from oecomuse
The federal government response to the Referendum Council proposal for a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament was delivered in the form of a joint press release. The statement is attributed to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Attorney-General George Brandis, and Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel Scullion.
The government decision
When I started this blog in 2013, it was to debrief from the coming tsunami of nasty policy and toxic dishonesty that I was sure would inevitably flow from an Abbott government. Two years later, in 2015, I did not assume that Malcolm Turnbull would be an honest and statesmanlike Prime Minister.
One of the most enduring objectives of western scholars is to define the parameters of any debate within their field of expertise. This is then countered by another scholar who wishes to emphasise the boundaries within which their own expertise will shine. In this way, an endless and largely redundant struggle for supremacy in a particular discipline is perpetuated.
Oooh he’s a little blondie like I was, says my niece, who has a little blondie of her own now. He’s not the little blondie running around anymore says his great-great auntie, who recently saw my boy, her 15-year-old nephew, for the first time since he was a toddler.
I got the bit about the Prime Minister feeling under siege, from the weird array of weaponry at his Monday press conference. I understood he was projecting his worst fear – losing face – by posing with gas-masked muppets.
The federal government is in a spot of legal bother. This may seem like the old cliché about the builder with the unfinished home renovation. But for tradies, the explanation is obvious. Work for paying customers is prioritised because it puts food on the table.
There are specific ethics considerations around research with human subjects. These words may – and should – conjure up images of white people measuring the noses and lips of Aboriginal children, and stealing the skulls of their ancestors. Of Henritta Lacks, and the Tuskagee Experiment. Of electric shocks administered to same-sex attracted people.
[This article was first published by Independent Australia on Tuesday 23 May 2017]