Arvamus nr. 2

Toimetuse poolse tekstitoimetamisega pole päris rahul. Mõtteid on muudetud. Aga jah, toimetamine ei allu minu kontrollile.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12356

Originaal:

Colonial hangover won't digest Julia Gillard

I have often wondered why it is that the Australian people don't seem to like their first female prime minister. Is it really just because of the Carbon Tax? Or the fact that Julia Gillard made a strong political move and joined forces with the Greens and Independents after elections? Or is it really that Julia Gillard is the “Liar” Australians won't digest? Or the emotionless Julia Gillard. You would think that the nation would be proud to have a strong female figure in politics, but that doesn't seem to be the case with Australia and with Julia Gillard.

In politics there is plenty of male power and few female leaders. Though we are discussing gender equality the reality from all around the world is showing only a handful of strong, independent female leaders. The most prominent female politician is probably current chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel who's doing all in her power to keep the Euro-zone intact.

Then we have Iceland's prime minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, also the world's first openly gay head of government of the modern era. She was brave enough to stand up for the protection of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. From Asia there is a new political figure Yingluck Shinawatra who is set to become Thailand's first female prime minister. There are female queens and presidents, but those roles don't carry heavy burden of politicians everyday life. The burden lies on politicians. And in politics women won't get flowers and open doors just for looking pretty.

I really do think that even now in 21 century it is harder for women to move towards power and leadership as the club is still full of male testosterone - and men are not giving up their ruling willingly. Another thing is with women who have made it – like Julia Gillard. Public opinion hasn't still quite figured out how to picture their first female Prime Minister. Maybe the Australian mindset wasn't quite ready for a woman-leader, who is not married, living together with her partner, not having children, red-head and ruling the country?

She's quite the opposite to the former colonial mindset which was more about men who were the family heads, main supporters, leaders and decision makers. Women stayed in the home and took care of family, prepared meals for their children and husband. Australian women gained voting rights to all adult women for Federal elections from 1902 (with the exception of Aboriginal women in some states!). Time is now 2011, but smart female political figures are still rare.

Julia Gillard has made it the big way, but still she has to face questions like “Can not married women be a good representative of Australia?” (question asked by a teenage girl in ABC-s Q&A show) or face extremely hostile audience while answering to questions from people all over the country about Carbon Tax. I felt deeply moved at how well our Prime Minister has kept her balance despite various crowds hostility with sophisticated language skills and also smiles and friendliness.

You hear it said so often that Australia is a country down under and going backwards – in tackling Climate Change in government level that spell got broken. Gillard has shown that she is the leader of a great country that is looking forward and moving forwards. Applause.

We all know that Anthony John "Tony" Abbott will keep on selling to everybody the idea of the Prime Minister being the biggest liar of all times by promising before elections no carbon tax.

Julia Gillard forming the government by the support of the Greens and Independents changed the whole picture. And that is also quite something indigestible for many as traditional two-party system was broken into a hung parliament, which is in itself an absolutely democratic move formulated under leadership of Julia Gillard.

Tony Abbot did not sell his policies well enough and that counts for his own misfortune and bad negotiation skills. I reckon it is definitely time to forget and forgive to our Prime Minister saying no to carbon tax before elections as the election result was something neither of our big parties were anticipating.

Politicians must make compromises while having in mind what is the common sense and better good for the whole countries future. Maybe in future multicultural Australia will see even more hung parliaments as it would be quite naïve to think that two-party system could represent all the voices and diversity of multicultural Australia.

Julia Gillard has shown at least twice good leadership, firstly by forming hung parliament and secondly by accepting carbon tax. She has been also a master of navigating in the stream of negativity. A strong unmarried yet educated, independent women as leader is something many Australians still don't want to accept. Being a women is not a weakness and she has proven that. After all she can't be perfect, she is a politician.

Bakteriaalne reaalsus

There is hope. For everybody.

Käisin hambaarsti juures. Naeratusega on kõik korras, aga... Sain valusa hoobi, reaalsus lõi vastu pead.
Nimelt oli mul igemetega probleeme ja iseenesest polegi see nii hull - vaid teadmine, et kui bakter asub igemete kallale, siis igemed ei taastu enam kunagi... Sügavalt kurvastav, et kuidas ma selleni jõudsin. Ei, kõik on korras ja hambad suus, aga...

Mäletan, et kunagi oli mul probleeme hammaste krigistamisega. Seda põhjustas mõtete rohkus ja stressi üleküllus. Selle probleemi ma lahendsin.

Igemebakter hakkab sind ründama samuti stressi tõttu, mida soodustab ka nt suitsetamine, kohvi, alkohol jne. Jah, tunnistan, et probleemile eelneval ajal oli elu stressirohkem ja suitsetamist enam.

Nüüd on mu uued sõbrad pehme hambahari, hambaniit, suuvesi.

Hakkan enam vaatama valge veini poole, tervislike teede poole. Kohvist siiski ei loobu - Melbourne's on see lihtsalt liiga hea. Ja pealegi, ma olen pigem nädalavahetuse kohvi jooja. Ja suitsetamine, mida ma niikuinii olen teinud vaid sotsiaalselt saab veelgi valusama löögi.

Ps! Hambaarsti juures käik oli väga suurepärane kogemus! Nii sõbralikku ja naljatlevat doktorit pole enne kohanudki. Ja külastused ta juurde jätkuvad, sest tegelikult suundusin ta poole tarkusehamba tõttu. Vähemalt üks neist tuleb välja tõmmata - sest ega ma polegi nii väga tark.

Luik ja vares ja vares ja luik

Gay marriage reform New York style

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12265

Mu esimene inglise keelne arvamuslugu Austraalia meediaruumis.

Gay marriage reform New York style

They made a brand new start of marriage, right there in old New York... Maybe that's how Frank Sinatra would have sung his most famous song 'New York, New York'. The city that never sleeps has proven it's the best place for the statue of freedom. After years of lobbying and campaigning same-sex couples have made it clear, it's about love, equality and freedom for them and they've eventually gained legal rights for marriage. And yes, legal rights to marry instead of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Why construct something dividing for society rather than to make marriage work for everyone? New Yorkers, after decade of battle are opening Marriage for all members of society.

The Australian Marriage Act from 1961 defines marriage as ‘...the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.’ Pitifully same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country are also not recognised in Australia. Australia has locked the doors for marriage and happiness for the gay community and seems not to know where it has hidden the keys.

Looking back into history, Denmark in 1989 was the first country in the world to successfully pass a same-sex union bill. From there many countries in Europe started to legally accept same-sex relationships as well countries all over the world. For Australian LGBT-people fight for equal rights turned into fright under Howard's prime ministership starting from 1996 until 2007. During the same period 28 countries around the world were changing their legislations in favor of same-sex relationship recognition while Australia proved to be country going backwards. Even though the government has changed since then, acceptance towards same-sex couples has less improved. The most crucial element for LGBT movement, the equal right to get married, is at a standstill.

In response to question about equal rights and same-sex marriage federal MP Martin Ferguson announced that while not supporting same-sex marriage, the Gillard Government supports a nationally consistent framework for relationship recognition to be implemented by the States and Territories. Victoria, ACT, NSW and Tasmania have established relationship recognition schemes and relationships recognised under these schemes are now recognised in a wide range of Commonwealth laws. The Government will continue to encourage other jurisdictions to develop such schemes. It seems like the Government is dealing the issue with the prudence principle almost like trying to solve some zigzag puzzle. Eventually the question is just about freedom and equality.

And if we are thinking about equality and freedom, then why not to move towards gender-neutral marriage instead of creating various forms of relationship recognition schemes, different in every state and territory? If John Howard was able to change Australian Marriage Act in 2004 how come it is impossible to change it in 2011 to make it embrace more modern Western values? The Australian Marriage Act shouldn't be a secret pact that just applies to chosen heterosexuals. Marriage should be freely available for everybody in society regardless of sexuality. Same-sex couples are totally capable of voluntarily entering into a life together by getting married just as are their fellow opposite-sex couples.

In same-sex marriage the state of New York provides a good comparison for Australia. The polls results in both sides have constantly shown growing support for same sex marriage over the past years: 58 per cent of New Yorkers were in favor of same-sex unions in 2011 (comparing to 34 per cent in 2004). The Galaxy poll, which Australian Marriage Equality lobby group commissioned, showed that in June 2011 around 75 per cent of respondents agreed it was inevitable that Australian laws would be changed to allow same-sex marriage.

In the same way there seems to be common support towards same-sex marriage among Gen-Y’ers like me. For researchers in New York it almost became necessary to add the question “Why do you even ask?” option into polls. In Australia, ABC’s Q&A program with its Gen-Y audience showed like-wise unanimous support towards same-sex marriage. It seems that the difference between New Yorkers and Australians is that politicians in the U.S. made a move based on the growing support and actually ended discrimination through marriage institution. And that what it is - a form of discrimination, where heterosexual relationships are in favor and same-sex couples are considered second-class. Unfortunately.

If anyone asked where Australia would erect it's statue of freedom, to Adelaide, Melbourne or Sydney then maybe the best way to build freedom would be through abolishing discrimination in law all over the country. Even slight changes in wording can create a more positive approach. How about removing 'exclusion' from the Australian Marriage Act and replacing it with 'inclusion'. Just a word – but a world of difference.

If they could make it there, you know, we could make it just about anywhere...