Murderous or merciful?

Who can decide if she has the right to die?

Euthanasia literally means “good death” in ancient Greek. And true, the death may be peaceful. But, for those individuals who valiantly choose assisted suicide to end their lives, the retort from anti-euthanasia (or religious) groups will surely be furiously loud and unwelcomingly disturbing.

As reported by the ABC, some Australians are spending thousands of dollars to fly to Mexico seeking liquid pentobarbital, a drug which is said to causes a painless death in humans in less than an hour. The drug is used legally across the world, predominantly to anaesthetise and euthanise farm animals and pets.

In Australia, criminal law prohibits active voluntary euthanasia, with considerations made for this law only in the Northern Territory. However, in other developed countries like Holland, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are openly practiced and widely accepted part of medical practice. And why? Because Holland is a secular nation, and although some may ague the opposite, unfortunately Australia is not.

The rationalisation for the practice of euthanasia practice is considered, and completely justified: “I don’t want to die with a total loss of dignity, incontinent, barely able to see and stand up, suffering…”.

                                                                                                                                 -Bron Norman, 65

And why should anyone have to? More importantly, why should they be forced to exploit a drug that is used for animals? This does not seem dignified. Nor does waiting for death.

In discussing the immorality of refusing a person their right to die, John Töns article in Online Opinion is entirely relevant and legitimate. If Veterinarians will put down an animal if it is determined that there will be no hope of recovery, then “dogs get a better deal than us humans”. It is unjust that one man may be forced to die un-expectantly, alone and in pain in Australia, and nurtured and surrounded by loved ones in another, such as Holland.

This issue is sensitive and complicated, but we must address it. Who can decide for others that they have no right to die? Just as there must be a significant context for the assisted suicide to permit, so to should there be respect for the wishes of those who make this difficult decision.

Conservative students beware…

“Unfortunately, some teachers are not subtle in expressing their Left-wing bias, being quite militant in the expression of their views and intolerant of dissent… evidence of blatant bias is far from rare in the school system.”

 

A 'militant' left-wing teacher?

 

 

 

This is an extract from Dr Mark Lopez’s article that was published in The Australian. It is a vehement evaluation of the so-called left-wing political bias of teachers in the Australian education system.  As a humanities tutor himself, it is easy to see his political bias. However, it is hard to believe that his students would not be exposed to his less-than-subtle right-wing stance. His argument stipulates that the teachers of the children of the future are liberal fanatics and that any student who possesses an opposing conservative view does not stand a chance at achieving academically.

A Federal inquiry into academic freedom is underway, and according to The Age, Dr Lopez is not alone in his political bias beliefs regarding the education system. In 2006, acting Education Minister Julie Bishop apparently identified “left-wing ideologues…straight from Chairman Mao”. And in his submission to the inquiry, Kevin Donnelly – a conservative education consultant – suggests that students leave school “culturally illiterate and ethically challenged”, all thanks to pesky liberal repression.  

Dr Lopez has some suggestions to fix this issue of bias. One of which is to cut the VCE text list from 30 to 20, with 10 texts to be selected by the ‘left’, and 10 by the ‘non-left’. What a great idea. Let us reduce the range of literature, and let us hamper diversity. And better yet, why don’t we declare the remaining texts ‘left’ or ‘right’. After all, things really are black and white aren’t they? There is no grey space, no room for students to have convictions on both sides of the political spectrum. And of course, all literature has an identifiable political agenda, doesn’t it?

Students everywhere, prepare to be brainwashed by your left-wing extremist teachers and subversive literature.

Sure, teachers will most probably have their own political beliefs. But, I find it hard to believe that any educator who truly understands ‘education’ will unwittingly crucify a student who expresses an opinion that differs to their own beliefs. In fact, in my own experience, all of my teachers have encouraged free thought and expression, with one rule only: back up your argument. Unfortunately for Dr Lopez can’t seem to do this.

If the political bias truly does exist in the education system, then I doubt it is anywhere near the level that Dr Lopez will have us believe. However, I suspect that he may be a tutor to avoid if political bias is not your major. Especially if this is one of his convictions:

 “Like the characters Winston Smith and Julia in George Orwell’s classic anti-totalitarian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, students with non-Left views need to learn to outwardly conform to inwardly remain free.”

Hm, okay, does this mean you’ve already claimed this text then Mark?

The attire assault continues…

Clem's Dress

Despite having no law to stipulate dress-codes in a public place in the state of Kentucky, yet another assault on freedom of self-expression, like that of Flint’s, has taken place in a shopping mall.

According to the website Pinoy Showbiz Central, Kimberly Clem, an American college student, has been escorted from the Richmond Mall by a security guard.

Her dress was deemed too revealing and provocative to be worn in public. Ironically, she puchased the dress in that very mall.

This is the latest attack on freedom of expression in America. And as the repression of expression continues, the future of freedom in the nation is called in to question.

Flint, say ‘hello’ to your new sherriff… Joan Rivers.

Criminal or casual?

Fear not citizens of Flint, your streets are now safe. There are no low-slung pants baring boxered bottoms to harm you any longer. Forget about the exceedingly high rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery in yours, one of America’s most dangerous cities. These can be addressed after the more serious, attire related, issues are tackled.

David Dicks, the new police chief of Flint, Michigan has imposed a ban on low-riding pants. He deems donning this attire to be ‘immoral self expression’ . Failure to adhere to the ban may result in a fine, full-body search or arrest. Admittedly, the thought of wearing pants below your behind is quite ridiculous. But, the idea that what people choose to wear on a daily basis can be governed by the State blatantly contradicts the Star-Spangled Banner ‘land of the free’ ideology.

Flint is not the first town, nor Michigan the first state in America whose leaders have attempted to impose these dress codes on their people. Louisiana, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia and Atlanta (mostly states with a high percentage of African-American people) have each endeavored to rid the streets of the baggy pant trend. Why, this dress-code dilemma has become so relevant that even Dr Phil has weighed in on the issue.

Unsurprisingly, most media commentary on the pants ban, such as Allan Miller’s Sp!ked-Online article, has generally ridiculed this prohibition of self-expression. The low-pants epidemic may be a crime deserving of the highest punishment, but only in trashy magazines or if it is inflicted by Joan Rivers on the red carpet. If low riding jeans are repressed, then what will follow? Stripes and spots? Fluro? Freedom of speech?

In a town that quite clearly has other criminal issues to focus on, why waste police resources hindering a freedom ( in a ‘free country’ ) that preceding generations have fought so hard for?

Religion in Politics: exercise or exorcise?

Bobby Jindal

Before he quashed the guesswork about the future of his political career, Bobby Jindal caused a blip in the Republican’s radar in the lead-up to the American presidential election. He has highlighted how the Church can influence affairs involving the State and the People, which begs the question: what role does religion really play in politics?

As John McCain is yet to choose his vice-president running mate for the election, speculation in The New York Times about who the chosen one might be pointed – albeit briefly – toward Jindal. At 37 years-of-age (which is near infancy in political years), this Indian-American is the current governor of Louisiana and has been elected as a member of the U.S House of Representatives. Born and raised a Hindu, he has since converted to Christianity, the religion with the strongest following in the States. He is a man with great potential you might say.

But alas, in late July Jindal announced that he would not be running for vice-president of the Republican Party. Although, this was not before his 1994 essay detailing the events of an exorcism of his friend – which he participated in – surfaced for public scrutiny. The controversy of this essay lies with Christian law allowing only bonafied exorcists to perform the ritual, and only in the most dire circumstances.

His actions may have broken holy decree over a decade ago, but I am inclined to think that whatever his religious beliefs and actions are and may have been, his political beliefs should be the decider of his suitability to lead such a powerful Western country. Some responses to his essay give thanks to him for his honestly and willingness to share the details of the ritual with the public. Other responses have been rather adverse. This is one of the latter…

Whether or not his essay, and the public’s vehement response to it, lead to Jindal’s renouncing of the VP speculation, David Corn’s suggestion on Mother Jones that he should be required to openly discuss his religious beliefs and practices with the general public poses the question: to what extent can a public figure keep something sacred….well, sacred? And just how much can these sacred beliefs influence a politician’s popularity?

Religion may provide hope and sanctity to those who believe – much like a good policy for a party member in an election battle. But, I suggest the relationship between the two should remain as such: the holy as the water and the politics as the oil. This way they can meet in the same bottle of ideology, but fully never combine to corrupt the status quo.