History is written by the victorious Mr Pyne

Christopher Pyne: Education Minister. Source Flickr (edited)

Really! Really Mr Pyne. The Australian History curriculum doesn’t “celebrate” Australia enough. The whole subject is about teaching the history, development and transformation of Australia into the state it is today. It covers everything from political, cultural, social and natural events. The fact that during the ice age you could walk from Victoria to Tasmania, does not need to be celebrated. It’s just a fact. The abhorrent treatment of the Indigenous population isn’t something that should be celebrated either (and I hope that no classroom in Australia does celebrate it). But ANZAC day. It is not celebrated enough? Really!? Let’s look at it.

ANZAC Day. A National Day of Remembrance, which is also a National public holiday. A day in which every capital state’s Remembrance Day march is televised live. Sporting codes celebrate it with particular matches. Local councils hold numerous events. Even if you were NEVER educated in Australia, being in the country on the 25th April, it would be pretty damn difficult to not recognise that the day signified something. It’s a day of public demonstration of remembrance that rivals (and arguably is more prominent) than Christian messages and symbols at Christmas.

So tell us, Mr Pyne, in what way is ANZAC day not being celebrated at the moment? Remembrance Day stretches beyond the history classroom; from examining letters and texts from the time of the diggers in Gallipoli in an English classroom, to Australia’s geopolitical alliance with UK in a politics class, to having the day off school or a special Remembrance Day assembly. Celebration of western influence over Australian culture is celebrated widely in the history and general academic curriculum of Australian schools. The change you’re proposing, Mr Pyne, is one of ideology and methodology.

The individuals heading up this exercise, of not rewriting the curriculum, but proposing a rewrite, are objectively biased. There is the conservative education commentator Kevin Donnelly, and who just so happens to be a former chief of staff to Liberal minister Kevin Andrews. Then there is Ken Wiltshire who publicly supported the Coalition since the 2010 election. Though it is Pyne’s public statement that he wishes to remove the “partisan bias” from the National Curriculum (by what, making it your own conservative partisan bias?). Even more shockingly, is the way in which these academics wish to change the methodology of teaching. This is a quote from Kevin Donnelly:

“[the current] curriculum airbrushes Christianity from the nation’s civic life and institutions and adopts a postmodern, subjective definition of citizenship, one where ‘citizenship means different things to people at different times and depending on personal perspectives, their social situation and where they live”

So you want kids to stop questioning and developing an understanding of what citizenship means contextually, socially and how it can be a dynamic thing, and instead memorise a textbook definition of what citizenship is! Yet he also claims he wants a ‘child centric view’ of learning. It is clear here that his political views of what should be taught and how it should be taught (to make sure it is enforced) is the most important aspect of reform. Politics first, education second.

It may have been Foucault who started the philosophy of “history being written by the victors”, but Mr Pyne, you sir, are becoming living proof of this theory.

Don't mention the boats!

Source: Flickr

During the 2013 election, the Coalition (now in government) proudly and loudly informed the public about how many 'illegal' boat arrivals had occurred. They even erected a billboard stating how many arrivals there had recently been. Yet once the Coalition government has come into power, any information about asylum seeker arrivals by boat has been quashed, repressed and hushed up under the guise of 'National Security'.

Scott Morrison delivered weekly press reports on Operation Sovereign Borders, which just involved a lot of 'no comment' statements, and the phrase "we don't discuss issues of national security to the media". Now it has been hinted that there will just be a weekly email.

Does the government even listen to the rhetoric that it's feeding the media? No issue of 'national security' that threatens the viability of Australia being a safe and secure sovereign nation has ever arisen because of a discussion of asylum seeker arrivals by boat. The media has always reported heavily on arrivals at Christmas Island, and no damning national secrets have been released that put Australia in jeopardy. If the government was wanting to protect a state secret (i.e., a new military ship it had in the area) it would redact and omit that fact, not state to the media that it was covering up the entire operation. The fact that they are stating to the media that they will make no comment is a glaring admission that don't want to discuss the issue, not that they can't discuss the issue.

The Liberal/National parties political handling of asylum seeker arrivals by boat is, quite frankly, insulting. Run an election campaign on it, then once in government, embroil the whole thing in the issue of 'National security' and don't let any discussion about it circulate in the media. Except only when it so suits you to manipulate the figures. Then, the problem is gone!

A defence to the 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms.

For Freedom! -  Source: Flickr

a political opinion has always had a strong view against the 2nd Constitutional Amendment Right in the United States. Yet here we will try and analyse a reasonable justification (yes that's correct!) for keeping the second amendment. This is because there is some reason for the right to bear arms, on the basis of self defence.

The argument that will be analysed is:

"The right to bear arms ensures the natural rights of self-defence, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defiance of the state" 

So, here it goes. 

Premise: We have a right to defend ourselves from others and the state. 

To defend yourself from others seems like a reasonable justification. If others attack, you have a right to self defence. While the law of self defence has changed substantially through the ages, most modern notions of self defence are based on the actions of defence being proportional to the threat. That means if someone threatens to fling a banana skin at you, you can't pull out a rocket launcher and blow them to smithereens. Laws already limit the use of the 2nd Amendment right to make sure it is used only in proportional circumstances, otherwise a punishment will be given. But the government doesn't allow for the ownership of nuclear or chemical weaponry. This is because these kind of weapons would never be able to be successfully proportionally used against the threat of others.

So far then we can say that personal weaponry (like small arms) is useful in defending yourself against others. 

What about defending yourself against your government? Well, as much as gun enthusiasts love to tote about how they can keep the government to account through the barrel of their gun, the governments vastly superior army, military, technology and resources will always, always win. 

A massive problem: There is thus an inequality in what arms can be owned.

Because the government already restricts to a significant degree what kind of weaponry may be owned,  the right for the average American citizen to defend themselves from the wrath of the almighty government is useless, unless the state allows citizens to own weapons of the same grade as the state. 

Conclusion

The state may grant you a 'right' to defend yourself from others and from the state (which it then prevents you from doing so by means of other laws). The right to bear arms in your defence can include hitting your opponent with the arms of a stuffed dead bear, or a weapon that fires metal bullets at hundreds of km an hour.

Your right to bear arms is just an extension of your right to self defence by any proportional means necessary.

*** Note: This blog does not endorse the US 2nd Amendment Right: The Right to Bear Arms.