THE SINS OF THE PAST
Entertainer Rolf Harris is back in court on more charges of ‘inappropriately touching’ some young people many years ago.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Why? He is already in jail for similar offences, surely that’s enough punishment for an old bloke, even if they do prove more offences from the long past.
Or is it simply more people coming forward in the hope of getting some of the big payouts in compensation?
Without condoning their actions, the sort of offence Mr Harris – and a number of church officials – are facing are offences that have occurred throughout history, in every society in every part of the world. Indeed in many countries and cultures this sort of thing has not even been considered to be wrong.
It shouldn’t happen, sure, but what is the point of going over something that happened last century, unless it is in the hope of getting compensation of some sort?
If that is the case, the people who really deserve compensation would be the women in the past whose lives were severely damaged because they became pregnant while still single – and why not a campaign by women who say their lives were badly damaged by the hurtful treatment by other girls when they were primary school students? And then expect someone to give them compensation.
This ancient scribe is not condoning what happened to many young people in the past and would have been most upset if it had happened to my girls (it might have happened but never mentioned) but surely the incidence of ‘inappropriate touching’ has been around since year dot and most people were able to ‘just get over it’.
And how can a handout of money erase any damage that might have been caused last century?
YOU CAN BANK ON IT
There is no doubt the big banks are furious that our government wants some of their huge profits to shore up the country’s finances but they can only blame themselves. The majority of tax payers have lost trust in what was once considered the solid backbone of business.
The Australian banks are among the most profitable in the world and for good reason: their dealings are protected by the Australian government, that means you and me, the taxpayers of this country, and that means they can borrow money internationally at lower interest rates than banks in most other countries.
The boards of our big banks will surely know that there is pressure on our government to either create a national ICAC or at least to hold a Royal Commission into the Big Banks because of regular reports of misdeeds in the banking and insurance sectors. They would be most unwise to take on a battle with our elected government with such a threat hanging over them.
And, although it is comforting to know our banks are sound, we also have to recognise that they are responsible for the worrying amount of household debt in Australia.
Once, the banks depended on the community putting their savings into bank accounts for which they received a small but welcome interest payment – but the banks realised that instead of paying interest on those savings they would make lots more money if the citizens borrowed money from them and then had to pay a very high interest charge.
This has led to many households being in almost permanent debt to the banks and that is a real worry. The Reserve Bank says the national debt in association with the property boom has placed the nation into record levels of debt. That means that even a minor recession could have a huge impact.
A SENSITIVE ISSUE
There should be general support by the Federal Government for the approval of ‘same sex marriages’.
Although there should be support for the union of two people, no matter their sexual orientation, it is a sensitive issue.
Your ancient scribe came from an era where things sexual were not a subject for discussion but it was generally accepted that a baby with dangly bits was a boy and one lacking dangly bits was a girl – and that was it. There was no other classification.
All that has changed since the introduction of the contraceptive pill and any eight-year-old girl knows more about human reproduction than her great-grandmother ever knew. It is a much healthier situation.
Yes, it is a sensitive subject – but it is asking too much for the proposals of the “same sex marriage’ issue to also consider my sensitivities?
I am a wordsmith, using the most expressive language in history, and when I write the word, say, ‘banana’ or ‘moon’ I would expect the reader or listener to know what I am talking about. And when I use the words ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘son’, ‘daughter’, ‘grandmother’ and ‘sister’ for example these are words that are gender specific. They give a straightforward meaning. If you asked me to buy some bananas you would not expect, say, a watermelon.
So why stick to the word ‘marriage’ when there is are old words that really means the same, ‘spouse’ and ‘spousage’. It would tell the same story but with a slightly different image than ‘marriage’. It might seem old fashioned but marriage once meant a union between a man and a woman. That doesn’t imply that there is anything untoward towards a different sort of union. It is simply a different word for the same thing.
It could save a lot of confusion and it would probably be accepted by all but the opponents who have a religious objection.
Why not? If we are being asked to legalise the union of two people it is surely a sensitive issue. Why not consider the sensitivity of literate people who simply like words to portray a clear meaning.
- Ray Williams has been a Post columnist since retiring from the newsroom in 1993.