Notes: Saturday, July 31 to Tuesday, August 3, 2010

"Probe into 54 baby deaths rejected by Victorian Parliament"

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/thread/1280475251.html

Mr. Warner on the problems with Anglicanorum coetibus

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32847

Counterpoint to "Neuroscience suggests heterosexual monogamy is best"

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/were-just-swingers-after-all-20100730-10zsn.html?skin=text-only

I link to the article in question because it's wise to be aware of the arguments which opponents of the natural law and its dictates in these matters will raise, though the article is rather weak and unbalanced--the author cites double the number of pro-polyamory/polyamory-sympathetic sources relative to anti-polyamory sources, and he fails to ask the obvious question of how even in the (false) Darwinian account of man's origins it can be the case that nature would select for behaviour which, by fuelling 'sexually-transmissible infections' (as I understand the correct term now is), is at least in that way destructive of the species. One doesn't have to be an expert for that problem to occur to him, and the journalist's apparent failure to think of it is all the more inexcusable given this extract from his article:

Rather than jealousy (which in severe cases, can be treated, Ford says, "like a phobia"), polyamorous people are said to experience something they call "compersion", which means, in simple terms, to take pleasure in your partner's pleasure. Such an arrangement is reasonably common among gay male couples, who, as Ryan writes, recognise that "additional relationships need not be taken as indictments of anyone".

Well you know what else is 'reasonably common among gay male couples'? Genital warts. Syphilis. H.I.V./A.I.D.S. (see ACON's website for more). For a more critical response (though one with which I still don't fully agree, because of its Darwinist perpective) see the letter entitled "Multiple partners may be natural, but so is arsenic" in the letters section of today's Herald.

"There's no harm done being a working mum"

"MUMS can return to work within a year of giving birth without harming their babies' development, a landmark report shows."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/theres-no-harm-done-being-a-working-mum/story-e6frf7l6-1225899728657

I want to keep that article for future reference, though as you might expect I dispute the findings (well, except for things like "[w]orking mums have higher income, ... than their stay-at-home counterparts"--they needed a thousand-child study to tell them that mothers earning money earn more money than mothers not earning money?!).

Findings of a study on I.V.F.-conceived children's health risk factors

From the Pulse column in the Health section of last Saturday's edition of The Weekend Australian's Weekend Professional supplement:

Bad week for . . . [sic]

CHILDREN conceived by IVF: Swedish research indicates they have an increased risk of cancer. The study followed 26,692 children born after IVF during 1982-2005. These children had 1.42 times the risk of developing cancer than children not conceived after IVF. That risk equated to 53 cases, compared with an expected figure of 38. High birth weight and premature delivery were among other risk factors found by the study, online in the journal Pediatrics.

Pediatrics

2010;doi:10.1542/peds.2009-3225

(Kallen B, et al)
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/good-week-for-mothers-pregnancy/story-e6frg8y6-1225898707091]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
3.VIII.2010

Notes: Thursday, June 17, 2010

Two articles on abortion and politics

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/health-minister-nicola-roxon-attacks-opposition-leader-tony-abbott-on-abortion-issue/story-fn3dxity-1225880561340
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/bid-to-raise-abortion-during-parental-leave-debate-angers-senators/story-e6frgczf-1225880471463

Body of the first article (it's not too long):

FEDERAL Health Minister Nicola Roxon has launched an attack on Tony Abbott and his religion, accusing the opposition leader of letting his "personal beliefs" in Catholicism affect policy formulation.

Ms Roxon fired the salvo during question time today when discussing Labor's commitment to an "expanded and improved pregnancy, birth and baby hotline".

"We want to provide help and information and choice to women, not give them a lecture," the health minister told parliament.

"This is in stark contrast to the complete failure of the leader of the opposition's own baby, and that was the national pregnancy support helpline."

Mr Abbott's helpline was established in 2007 after he failed as health minister to stop the introduction of the abortion pill RU-486.

Opponents argued the groups selected to formulate the advice to be provided on the helpline were biased because they followed Catholic teaching and were openly pro-life.

Ms Roxon said Mr Abbott allowed his "personal beliefs to interfere and get in the way of providing completely accessible and non-judgmental public services".

"Mr Abbott doesn't live in the real world," she said.

The attack comes after the Rudd government warned Australians that the latest opinion polls showed Mr Abbott could win the next election.

Frontbenchers lined up to label the opposition leader as "too risky" for the top job.

Excerpt from the second:

A bid by Family First leader Steve Fielding to turn a parliamentary debate about paid parental leave into one about abortion has angered fellow senators.

A largely bipartisan Senate debate about the Rudd government's paid parental leave scheme became heated today when Senator Fielding introduced amendments dealing with abortion.

He called for a stricter definition of a mother's eligibility in the event of a late-term abortion, to ensure those women are not eligible for any paid parental leave.

“Drug addicts and welfare cheats can go out there and get themselves pregnant and then after 20 weeks have an abortion and still pocket the government's cash,” Senator Fielding told the Senate.

The debate moved to the difference between stillborn babies and those that had been aborted.

“We don't need assurances, we need to make sure this is in the law,” Senator Fielding said.

“There may be mums out there who want to cheat the system in an horrific way.”

"Groups seek Federal protection for Catholic education"

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21937

Excerpt:

Catholic Education Commissions have joined the Federation of Parents and Friends Associations in a combined push for six Federal commitments that will ensure Catholic education remains sustainable.

The Queensland Catholic Education Commission (QCEC) issued a statement outlining the demands that have come from the Federation of Parents and Friends Associations and the National Catholic Education Commission (NCEC).

These are that:

•Catholic schools and systems should have a direct (funding) relationship with the Commonwealth Government, underpinned by legislation.
•Catholic schools and systems from 2013 have, at the very least, access to the same funds, indexed to government school costs, as currently available.
•Catholic systems have the
capacity to distribute funds to schools according to need. •Funding levels must be indexedannually, using a transparent mechanism, to ensure that Catholic schools and systems are able to meet the rising costs of education.
•Funding for students with disabilities must be increased towards parity with government school funding.
•Capital funding should be increased for educationally disadvantaged communities and areas of population growth.

As the only commenter at that article said:

Why do these organisations still call themselves Catholic Education or Catholic Schools? They're of little use to the CHurch Mission.

Posted By: John Streaky Bay SA

It sounds to me like a recipe for driving the final nail into the coffin of genuinely Catholic Catholic education in Australia.

H.H. The Pope on the theology and philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas

Here's an interesting allocution by the Holy Father (this is the text of the relevant item in today's Vatican Information Service e-mail bulletin):

***

THOMAS AQUINAS: INTER-RELATION OF PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY

VATICAN CITY, 16 JUN 2010 (VIS) - In his catechesis during this morning's general audience, Benedict XVI continued his presentation of the figure of St. Thomas Aquinas, "a theologian of such importance that the study of his works was explicitly recommended by Vatican Council II", he said. He also recalled how in 1880 Leo XIII declared him as patron of Catholic schools and universities.

The Pope noted how Thomas Aquinas focused on the distinction between philosophy and theology. This was because in his time, in the light of Aristotelian and Platonic thought on the one hand, and the philosophy of the Church Fathers on the other, "the burning question was whether ... a philosophy elaborated without reference to Christ and the world of faith, and that elaborated bearing Christ and the world of faith in mind, were compatible or mutually exclusive".

"Thomas", the Holy Father explained, "was firmly convinced that they were compatible, and that the philosophy elaborated without Christ was awaiting only the light of Jesus in order to be made complete. The novelty of Thomas, what determined his path as a thinker, was this: to demonstrate the independence of philosophy and theology, and at the same time their inter-relation".

For the "Doctor Angelicus", the Pope went on, "faith consolidates, integrates and illuminates the heritage of truth acquired by human reason. The trust St. Thomas places in these two instruments of knowledge (faith and reason) can be explained by his conviction that both come from a single wellspring of truth, the divine Logos which works in the area of both creation and redemption".

Having established the principle of reason and faith, St. Thomas makes it clear that they follow different cognitive processes: "Reason accepts a truth by virtue of its intrinsic evidence, either mediated or direct; faith, on the other hand, accepts a truth on the basis of the authority of the revealed Word of God".

"This distinction ensures the autonomy of the human sciences, ... and the theological sciences. However this does not mean a separation; rather, it implies mutual and advantageous collaboration. Faith, in fact, protects reason from any temptation to mistrust in its own capacities and stimulates it to open itself to ever broader horizons".

"Reason too, with the means at its disposal, can do something important for faith, offering it a triple service which St. Thomas summarises thus: ... 'demonstrating the foundations of faith; using similitudes to explain the truth of faith; rebuffing the objections that arise against the faith'. The entire history of Christian theology is, in the final analysis, the exercise of this duty of the intellect, which shows the intelligibility of the faith, its inner structure and harmony, its reasonableness and its capacity to promote the good of man.

"The correctness of theological reasoning and its true cognitive significance is based on the value of theological language which, according to St. Thomas, is principally a language of analogy", the Pope added. "Analogy recognises shared perfections in the created world and in God". Thomas based his doctrine of analogy, "not only on purely philosophical arguments, but also on the fact that, with the revelation, God Himself spoke to us and, thus, authorised us to speak about Him".

The Holy Father highlighted the importance of this doctrine which, he said, "helps us overcome certain objections raised by modern atheism which denies that religious language possesses objective meaning and holds that it only has a subjective or merely emotional value. In the light of the teachings of St. Thomas, theology affirms that, however limited, religious language does have meaning".

St. Thomas' moral theology retains great relevance in its affirmation that "the theological and moral virtues of man are rooted in human nature", said Pope Benedict. "Divine Grace accompanies, supports and encourages ethical commitment but, according to St. Thomas, all men and women, believers and non-believers, are of themselves called to recognise the requirements of human nature as expressed in natural law, and to draw inspiration therefrom when formulating positive law; that is, the laws produced by civil and political authorities to regulate human society.

"When natural law and the responsibility it implies are denied," he added, "the way is thrown dramatically open to ethical relativism at an individual level, and to totalitarianism at a political level. Defending the universal rights of man and affirming the absolute value of the dignity of the person presupposes a foundation: and is not this foundation natural law, with the non-negotiable values it contains?".

"Thomas", the Holy Father concluded, "presents us with a broad and trusting view of human reason. Broad, because it is not limited to the area of empirical-scientific reason but open to all of existence and therefore also to the fundamental and inescapable questions of human life; trusting, because human reason, especially if it welcomes the inspiration of Christian faith, promotes a civilisation which recognises the dignity of the person, the inviolability of his rights and the cogency of his duties".
AG/ VIS 20100616 (830)

***

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Gregory Barbarigo, Bishop, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Notes: Friday, May 28, 2010

Unrest among the Nationals over Mr. Abbott's paid parental leave policy

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nats-keeping-mum-on-parental-leave-20100527-whuo.html?skin=text-only

Here're some excerpts from the article in today's Herald:

The policy is unpopular throughout the junior Coalition party for a variety of reasons but nobody wants to cause a split so close to an election.

One Nationals MP, Darren Chester, has gone public, telling Parliament yesterday that providing paid parental leave with nothing for stay-at-home mothers was discriminatory.

''It sends a message to the community that the government places more value on the offspring of working mothers than on the offspring of stay-at-home mothers,'' he said.

Mr Chester advocated a scheme in which mothers would be paid to stay at home until the child was ready for school. ''Returning to work and putting children into childcare often creates a giant money-go-round where no one is happy,'' he said.

[...] Several sources told the Herald the Nationals do not like the concept because it breaches the pledge to not increase taxes as well as offering nothing for stay-at-home mothers. There are a lot more stay-at-home mothers in the country where more families get by on single incomes.

''It's not the flavour of the month with us,'' said a senior National yesterday. Another said the party disliked the concept but considered the Rudd government a greater problem. To split publicly over the policy would hinder its goal of defeating the government, he said.

Views on paid parental leave are being vented internally as Parliament debates the Rudd government's $263 million taxpayer funded scheme. It will pay carers the minium wage of $453 a week for 18 weeks.

[...] Two National Party MPs, Kay Hull and Mr Chester, complained about the Coalition policy during Tuesday's party-room meeting, prompting Mr Abbott to declare the party had to move on from the Howard government view that mothers should stay at home with their children.

At the same meeting, Mr Abbott stressed the need for unity. In addition, the Nationals have already threatened a split on amendments to renewable energy target legislation.

In Parliament yesterday, Mr Abbott said women should not be forced to choose between career and family.

Mr Abbott had wanted to announce payments for stay-at-home mothers as part of his budget address-in-reply but was overruled by the shadow cabinet.

Discussion at CathPews on the increased frequency of late-term abortions in Victoria

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/thread/1274929592.html

National Observer: Article on John F. Kennedy

The National Observer ("Australia's leading current affairs quarterly specialising in domestic and international politics, security-related challenges and issues of national cohesion") has been brought to my attention, and I thought I'd bring it to your attention too. It looks like a good publication. The latest issue has a review by Mr. R. J. Stove (an Australian Traditional Catholic and occasional commenter at this blog) of the book The Making of a Catholic President: Kennedy vs. Nixon 1960. Here's an excerpt:

At least Ku Kluxers avoided the responsibilities of cognitive stature. More subtle and equally obstreperous was the Protestant intellectual establishment of 1960, for which Kennedy’s presidential hopes meant a flagrant attack on the so-called "separation of church and state". Never mind that the US Constitution’s First Amendment, ostensibly guaranteeing this separation, guarantees no such thing. Never mind that outside America, Protestantism usually scorned church-state rifts (as the histories of Edinburgh, Geneva and Pretoria show). Never mind that Jefferson — usually credited with demanding "a wall of [church-state] separation" — was no Christian at all, but a crypto-Jacobin, Bible-doctoring Deist. Jefferson’s views have no more relevance to any Christian nation’s beliefs than do those of the nearest imam, bonze or lama (who, unlike Jefferson, does not claim Christological expertise). These uncomfortable data mattered nought. JFK called himself a Catholic; Catholics owed their first allegiance to a foreign power; ergo, JFK owed his first allegiance to a foreign power. On this syllogistic theme, America’s Protestant press devised seemingly inexhaustible variations, many of which displayed an obsessive terror that Kennedy, if elected, would prohibit contraceptives. (The press either did not know or did not care that every Protestant church in the world prohibited contraceptives until 1930.)
[italics in the original]

See also Mr. Michael Baker's recent website posts "ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT ON THE AMERICAN BISHOPS, JOHN F. KENNEDY & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" and "MORE ON ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT, JOHN F KENNEDY & THE AMERICAN BISHOPS" for related comment.

"WA Premier against pre-abortion ultrasound"

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21573

From yesterday's issue of the daily CathNews e-mail bulletin:

West Australian Premier Colin Barnett does not support a Liberal backbencher's call to make women seeking abortions first undergo 3-D colour ultrasound imaging and view the foetus.

Mr Peter Abetz, who made the proposal at an anti-abortion rally at Parliament House in Perth on Tuesday, said a study in the US had shown that 89 percent of women committed to having abortions had not gone ahead with the procedure when shown 3-D colour ultrasounds of the foetuses they were carrying, according to an AAP report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr Abetz also would like to see a 48-hour 'cooling off period' after women have applied for an abortion, the report said.

But Mr Barnett told Fairfax Radio on Wednesday that he did not support mandatory ultrasounds.

"I understand what Peter is saying, but I think that would put a huge amount of personal pressure on someone who is already going through somewhat of a personal crisis, so I don't support that." [...]

On the Novus Ordo Missæ and one of the anathematisms of the Council of Trent

The following comment was made at Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog:

@MichaelJ: I would certainly say that the translation is defective and expresses a falsehood.

I did not say that the translation was free of defects of accuracy but meant that the resultant text is free of intrinsic defects, meaning defects of faith, and that anyone who says otherwise is anathematized by decree of the 7th Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned…let him be anathema.

Comment by C. — 27 May 2010 @ 6:06 am
[italics in the original,
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/uk-bishop-with-priests-using-new-translation-wordy-but-a-huge-improvement/#comment-206816]

Note the wording, though: Not just "approved", but "received and approved", which was also the teaching of an earlier Council (I can't remember which one). A recent issue of The Fatima Crusader dealt with this in one of its articles. The N.O.M. might have been approved (though even on that point doubts have been raised--see the S.S.P.X.'s American District website and Iota Unum, especially the translator's footnote in the Sarto House English translation), but its staunchest defenders could not say that it is a received rite--as everyone knows, it was cobbled together by a committee. Hence that anathematism does not apply to the N.O.M.

Joshua on the Carthusian Rite

http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/05/placeat-sancta-trinitas.html

This post of his contains some interesting information about that Rite. Joshua mentions parenthetically that

It is a little-known fact that the wise Carthusians retain their own proper form of the Roman Rite, having reformed it in 1981, to produce a new edition of the Missale Cartusiense. Amongst many other appealing features, it contains:

•no penitential rite other than the Carthusian Confiteor;
•substantially the traditional one-year lectionary (with Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia or Tract, and Gospel);
•no modern Offertory prayers;
•none of those modern Memorial Acclamations;
•a rubric specifying that the Eucharistic Prayer is normally said secretly, others ordering it be said with hands extended in the form of the cross;
•no response "For the kingdom..." after the Embolism;
•and finally the Placeat.

and the whole post is worth reading.

Here's a comment I've left there:

Cardinal Pole said...

Thank you for this information about the Carthusian Rite, about which I have wondered.

"Well may we pray that this fine prayer is re-inserted into the Ordinary Form of the Mass!"

Indeed.

Friday, 28 May, 2010
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Friday in the Octave of Pentecost, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, May 27, 2010

Two newspaper letters on Mr. Abbott's paid parental leave policy

Here's a good letter, published, in slightly different forms, in today's issues of both The Sydney Morning Herald (which published it under a sneering little heading) and The Australian:

What's wrong with Libs' picket fence?

''A true conservative moves with the times,'' says Tony Abbott (''Abbott tells Libs to forget Howard and back parental leave'', May 26). Was this an unscripted comment, or has he lost his dictionary?

A true conservative retains those traditions and values that have stood the test of time. Mothers caring for babies and toddlers - at least until age two or three - is such a tradition, and studies show children greatly benefit. Most of those mothers will return to the outside workforce when their children become more independent.

Mr Abbott wants to punish conservative mothers. Unless they return to paid work by the time their babies are six to 12 months old they miss out on his generous maternity leave of up to $75,000, financed by a great big new business tax which all of us would pay for with increased prices.

This policy is discriminatory. It is also harmful social engineering. Think again, Tony.

Roslyn Phillips Tea Tree Gully (SA)
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/identity-fraud-puts-australian-lives-in-danger-20100526-wdv2.html?skin=text-only]

Social engineering
From: The Australian May 27, 2010 12:00AM

A TRUE conservative "moves with the times", says Tony Abbott ("Abbott's plea on paid parental leave", 26/5). Was this an unscripted comment, or has he lost his dictionary?

Actually, a true conservative retains those traditions and values which have stood the test of time.

Mums caring for their babies and toddlers at least until the age of two or three is one of those traditions, and studies show children greatly benefit from it. Most of those mums will return to the workforce when their children become more independent.

Abbott wants to punish conservative mothers. Unless they return to paid work by the time their babies are six to 12 months, they will miss out on his generous maternity leave of up to $75,000, financed by a great big new business tax which all of us would pay for through increased prices.

This policy is discriminatory. It's also harmful social engineering.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/social-engineering/story-fn558imw-1225871771262]

And here's an even better one, from The Australian's "Last Post" section of its Letters page:

Shame on Tony Abbott for espousing a paid parental leave scheme which treats stay-at-home mothers as second-rate. His policy will further encourage women to be careerists who leave the raising of their children to institutions - de facto orphans, as it were.

Ann Crawford, Tynong, Vic
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/last-post-may-27/story-fn558imw-1225871773755]

Tynong is, of course, the veritable 'capital city' of Catholic Tradition in Australia.

More from Joshua on liturgical matters

"The History of the Mass":
http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/05/history-of-mass.html

Mr. Muehlenberg on abortion

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/05/26/more-scenes-from-the-abortion-wars/

Excerpt:

... late-term abortions have skyrocketed at the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne after Victorian laws fully legalising abortion were passed in 2008. Three late-term abortions a week are now performed at the hospital. Doctors and nurses are feeling “traumatised” as a result. This even appeared on a Seven News segment ...

The news item really botched the story, claiming almost all such abortions were necessary to save the life of the mother. This is in fact rarely the case, and both baby and mother are generally perfectly healthy. ...

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Thursday in the Octave of Pentecost, A.D. 2010

Mrs. Shanahan on discouraging stay-at-home married mothers while encouraging stay-at-home unwed mothers

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-tax-on-workers-to-bolster-welfare-mums-wont-help-growing-class-of-disadvantaged/story-e6frg6zo-1225842745315

Mrs. Angela Shanahan had an interesting column in last Saturday's edition of The Weekend Australian. Here are some excerpts:

Almost 30 per cent of Australian children are born out of wedlock, mostly to 20-something single mums. Many never marry and will probably be reliant on income support for large chunks of their lives.

[...] The flip side of the growing number of ex[tra-?]nuptial births is the so-called marriage gap, the modern phenomenon in which girls who have tertiary education and are generally ambitious are the ones who are getting married. This is unlike the past when the home-centred, less educated 20-somethings would have married and had children. In fact most tertiary-educated women are married by the time they are 30 and try to have the first child quickly because their window of fertility is fast narrowing. Importantly, the marriage gap has resulted in two classes of mothers: those who are married and live in stable relationships and those who aren't and probably don't.

There has been optimism that the divorce rate has levelled off, a good thing because it means fewer of those women now marrying will end up single mothers. However, the marriage rate is plummeting, so there will be a disproportionate number of children on the bottom end of the economic scale.

This is, and will continue to be, a huge drain on the welfare system. According to The Australian's social affairs writer Stephen Lunn, women receive two-thirds of income-support payments -- mostly parenting payments -- and in the future a disproportionate number will not have partners. Government and the opposition should start thinking about the consequences of this.

In his book Battlelines Tony Abbott states the disproportionate numbers of children in the bottom income deciles are the reason behind his maternity leave push: get the people at the top of the tree to have more kids.Unfortunately, we will need a lot more than maternity leave for the ones at the top to fix this problem because the disproportionate exnuptial birthrate at the bottom end of the economic spectrum will make the figures on children in poverty only worse.

There is another part of this seesaw. Larger stable families in the middle who in the past could have had long periods living on a single income can no longer afford to do so. They are taxed as individuals. The so-called family tax benefit part B has been means-tested and there is no real taxation relief for these families, let alone the kinds of freebies that come with a social security card.

[...] However, no one has thought of any way to substantially alleviate the problems of tax disadvantage with which families have to cope. It seems that luring more middle-income mothers into the workforce is all they can think of. But a second income is often a much resented necessity and not always the career choice it is portrayed as.

[...] Meanwhile, the welfare problem is huge and it's going to get bigger. So it is not a case of the married stay-at-home mums v the salaried mums that are the two great blocks of women in two different family types, as is often portrayed in the one-track ideology of the media mentality.

It is the single, welfare-dependent mothers who will never marry and the rest; one group supporting another.

Abbott emphasises that married middle-class women should be able to work and have more children. But the taxes of those married mums forced to work are paying for a growing number of children of single mums.
[my square-bracketed interpolations]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
24.III.2010

On the Herod's profile of Ms Broderick

A very disappointing piece of soft reporting, little better than a puff piece really, by Ms Nikki Barrowclough on Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Ms Elizabeth Broderick appeared in The Sydney Morning Herod’s Good Weekend magazine on Saturday. It revealed very little about her that one would not have been able to infer otherwise, and failed to probe critically into exactly what it is that Ms Broderick stands for. For instance, Ms Barrowclough asked Ms Broderick how well-versed in academic feminism the latter was, but she let her dodge the question so that the reader is left none the wiser as to whether or not she has any grasp of feminist theory. And needless to say, there was no interrogation of Ms Broderick on her recent absurd assertion that “[t]here is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right”, nor did it give us any clue as to what, if any, religious convictions she might hold, despite the fact that this might have been raised in connection with the death of Ms Broderick’s mother. One might object that it’s just a weekend magazine, but if one compares this to the relentlessly critical recent piece on a visiting Creationist one might wonder why they can’t be more even-handed.

The article did, however, do readers the service of alerting us to two of Ms Broderick’s latest pre-occupations: getting men to do more housework, and getting men to consider part-time rather than full-time work, encapsulated in “her view that couples sharing more of the home duties can also lead to a change in workplace culture.” The latter shows just how out of touch she is, since there are plenty of men working both part-time and full-time, and those working only part-time probably would take full-time work if they could find it. And as for the former, a more equitable division of total work done might be achieved by encouraging mothers to do fewer hours of paid work. Nonetheless it will be interesting to see how Ms Broderick pursues this agenda.

The article did reveal one thing to the credit of Ms Broderick and her family, though: they do not have a television!

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Cantius, Confessor, 2008 A.D.

On the Draft Inquiry Report into Paid Parental Leave

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/parentalsupport/draft

The Productivity Commission (P.C.) has published its Draft Report into a paid maternity leave scheme. The report recommends eighteen weeks of taxpayer-funded leave, transferable between the mother and father (or the ‘two mums’ or ‘two dads’), with a further two weeks paid leave for the other spouse.

Let me begin by confessing my own prejudices in the matter. Now I am not an economic rationalist, so I have no problem with the government expropriating resources for the purposes of providing public goods or owning natural monopolies, for example. But I do have an a priori presumption against the government levying taxes simply for transferring resources from one citizen to another. This is because, for one thing, for each dollar transferred, the full dollar does not flow through to the intended recipient, because of the expenses involved in making the transfer. Given that even charities that use a lot of volunteer labour find it hard to crack the ninety-five cents per dollar barrier, one can expect that the final benefit to the recipient of government transfer payments will be considerably less than this. Or in other words, in order to give an extra dollar, the government must initially take more than one dollar.

Secondly, there is the question of the proper relationship between justice and charity. In an ideal situation in which Church and State are united, the Church would provide welfare payments through its charity arm. I explain more fully my thoughts on the implications for justice of the P.C.’s scheme in my previous post.

To sum up: taxation for nation building can easily lead to a contribution to the common good, whereas this is not necessarily the case with simple transfer payments, since they represent merely a different dividing-up of resources i.e. the former deals with the size of the ‘pie’, while the latter is just a different way of slicing it up.

I encourage you to read the report for yourself (or at least the Overview, Recommendations and Chapters 1 and 6) rather than relying on the largely uncritical, even unquestioning, reporting of the media. What annoys me the most about mainstream coverage of this issue is that opinion columnists, by the very nature of their work, are the ones who have the least difficulty combining family and paid-work duties.

As one reads the report, it is clear that the primary end of this scheme is to keep mothers ‘attached to the work-force’. This is clear also from the statements of the likes of Ms Broderick. Now the Report does not come right out and admit that ‘work-force attachment’ is the primary end. It lists several advantages of such a scheme. But maintaining work-force attachment is the only one of these advantages that cannot be achieved by other means. The advantage of a longer period of nursing, for instance, does not depend on who pays for the time off from work that is necessary to allow for it. Another of its supposed advantages is that it will

promote some important, publicly supported social goals, and in particular, the normalcy of combining a caring role for children and working.
(Overview, p. XIV)

But this really amounts to the same thing as maintaining attachment to the work-force. Now at least it cannot be said that the P.C. failed to recognise that support for such an aim has its limitations:

This rationale for paid leave is more contentious than others, because while survey evidence suggests most Australians would like to see the introduction of statutory paid parental leave, many also oppose it, especially when it is made clear that the scheme must be paid for. Nevertheless, it is an important rationale for the Commission’s approach.
(Overview, p. XVIII, my emphasis)

Note the presumably unintended humour of the highlighted portion! The Report elaborates a little on this end when it states its desire to

provide a strong signal that having a child and taking time out of the paid workforce for family reasons is viewed by the government and the community as part of the normal course of life, and work, for parents, rather than a nuisance. A scheme that intends to signal such normalcy should be structured like other normal leave arrangements, such as those for recreation, illness and long service leave, rather than being structured as a social welfare measure.
(Overview, p. XXIII)

But such a signal is quite artificial. A long period of maternity leave is a heavy burden for employers, particularly small businesses. Making the scheme taxpayer-funded is merely a transfer of (part of) the incidence of the burden from businesses to taxpayers. No doubt part of the necessity of trying to make it look like another entitlement of the same kind of ‘normal leave arrangement’ as holidays or sick leave is because of the contempt and resentment that many working mothers have for the present ‘baby bonus’ (I speak from personal experience). We can perhaps detect some of this resentment when we read that

Barb McGarity referred to the ‘false assumption’ that paid maternity leave is a ‘cash handout’, arguing that it is employment leave:
… just as paid sick leave or compassionate leave or paid long service leave are employment leave. It is not welfare. Nor is it a baby bonus, and the two should not be confused, as they are separate issues. (sub. 83, p. 2)
(Ch. 6, p. 13)

But a cash handout is exactly what this is, however you try to dress it up. It is a classic example of what one economist recently called ‘churning’, or ‘money in, money out’—you pay some tax, the public service skims some off, and then you get it back later (minus the public service’s take).

Furthermore, the P.C. did not fail to note that there are those who oppose this scheme not only for materialistic reasons (wanting to avoid extra tax) but also for the social implications:

While many participants in this inquiry say they would value these kinds of social impacts, not all agreed. Some prefer to organise their lives around a more traditional gender division of responsibilities or see having children as a private choice with parenting to be organised as individual parents feel is appropriate.
(Overview, pp. XXIII-XXIV)

Mr. Adam Johnston put it well in his submission to the Inquiry:

… my concern with the whole concept is that it makes yet another part of private family life a public commodity and public controversy. Additionally, it generates yet another transfer payment (if provided by the Government) or will involve the quarantining of still more of our income (if financed by superannuation-style contributions). (sub. 63, p. 1)
(Ch. 6, p. 14)

But we can hardly begrudge the P.C. for ignoring such concerns; it is just carrying out the will of Swan, Gillard and Macklin (the latter of whom describes it as a “personal crusade”). Nonetheless, I eagerly look forward to someone explaining to me how it is just that the taxpayer at large, rather than the father, should pay for mothers to discharge their maternal duties. My comment at Ms Dunlevy’s blog has been published but has received no response.

As for the notion of ‘giving mothers more choice’, some choice it is, when stay-at-home mothers get $7 000 less than their working counterparts. This is the ‘choice’: keep yourself ‘attached (chained?) to the work-force’ or be a second-class citizen, as implied by the $7 000 differential. What a joke. (Actually, stay-at-home mums would be third-class citizens, since the ‘first class’ is of mothers whose employers already have paid maternity leave, since they will get the eighteen weeks of taxpayer-funded leave on top of any present benefits!) The P.C. acknowledges that one of the submissions did indeed raise the point that

much of the talk around ‘choice’ with child care ignores the choice many parents want to make: that of being the primary carers for the babies and very young children. (sub. 197, p. 4)
(Ch. 6, p. 11)

But, again, we can hardly begrudge the P.C. for sweeping aside such objections. It was quite honest about its aims and intentions.

So the stars are really aligning for the neo-feminist intelligentsia. They will soon have their working mothers bonus (sorry, working mothers entitlement), and one from their ranks now occupies Government House. What next, one wonders?

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Comments on the death penalty and paid maternity leave

Here are two comments that I have submitted to The Daily Telegraph's website:

***

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,24401719-5001031,00.html

"I do not want retribution from the justice system I simply want justice"

The illogic of this statement is breathtaking. Justice means each person getting what he is owed, such that good deeds are appropriately rewarded and bad deeds are appropriately punished. So as far as the 'bad deeds' side of the ledger is concerned, justice is retribution.

"i do not think that is what we get today"

You're right about that! We get ham-fisted attempts at deterrence and rehabilitation, but justice is a big non-no. The justice system is now nothing more than an arm of the welfare system.

"There's nothing wrong with the current system which also provides relatively instant closure for the friends and family of the victims."

Every time Bryant attempts suicide or makes some protest and it's reported in the media the horrors of that day are brought back for the families of his victims. There will be no closure till he dies.

"There's also something intuitively wrong to me in taking away somebody's entire existence for a single act, no matter how wrong"

Please explain this intuition. And you aren't taking away the person's whole existence, just the earthly existence of which he deprived another.

***

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/suedunlevy/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/are_children_about_economics_or_love/

What paid maternity leave advocates have failed to demonstrate is why it is that taxpayers should pay mothers to take time off to be with their children. Let me put it this way: I agree with the proposition ‘that mothers should have time off from work in order to be with their children’, but there is a step missing in the logical sequence from this proposition to the proposition ‘that taxpayers should pay mothers to have time off from work in order to be with their children’. I have only ever seen pro-paid leave commentators assert that mothers should have time off from work and then assert, as though it followed from this, that this time off should be taxpayer-funded. You do this throughout your article, Ms Dunlevy. But this is a non sequitur. Is it not the father’s duty to earn the money to cover this time off from work? If it is about love, not economics, then why is any additional financial support necessary?

Or, to look at the matter from another angle: Sex Discrimination Commissioner Ms Elizabeth Broderick asserted recently that “There is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right” and we know that she is of the opinion that this leave should be taxpayer-funded (source). Presumably you would agree with this, Ms Dunlevy (please correct me if I am wrong). Now a human right is something that someone is owed in justice. I agree that a mother has a right to financial support while she is out of paid work caring from her children. I think that this right should be fulfilled by the husband. The paid maternity leave advocates think that it should be fulfilled by the taxpayer. But since taxation is the expropriation of resources, how can a mother be considered to have a right to other citizens’ property?

Furthermore, a right is implied by and dependent on a duty. A right to paid leave implies a duty of taxpayers to fund this leave. Certainly a mother without an husband to support her is entitled to expect that the community will support her, but this is an obligation pertaining to the virtue of charity, not a duty pertaining to justice.

Reginaldvs Cantvar

More on paid maternity leave

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/suedunlevy/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/are_children_about_economics_or_love/

Rather less pleasing, though, was Ms Sue Dunlevy’s piece in the same paper last Friday. The article’s headline was ‘Are children about love or economics?’, yet Ms Dunlevy reported on paid maternity leave without seeming to recognise that it is her and those of her ilk who fail to realize that if children are about love then there should be no need for such paid leave. Furthermore, she failed to explain how new mothers can be considered to be owed, in justice, pay for discharging their maternal duties. I would love to see someone explain how, in Ms Elizabeth Broderick’s words, paid maternity leave can be considered a ‘basic human right’. The closest Ms Dunlevy comes to such an explanation is in the following parts:

Unions NSW says women need at least six months off work so they can breastfeed their baby to World Health Organisation standards.

Agreed. But why should the taxpayer pay for this? Covering this time off is the husband’s duty.

And the NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People Gillian Calvert says a parent should be paid to stay at home with the child for the first two years or the baby’s brain won’t develop properly.

I agree that the mother should stay home with her child for (at least) the first two years. But there is a step missing in the logical sequence from ‘mothers should have time off’ to ‘taxpayers should pay mothers to take this time off’.

fathers as well as mothers need paid leave to make a contribution to their child’s upbringing.

Again, I agree that mothers should be with their children. That taxpayers should pay for this has not been demonstrated. As for fathers, they contribute to their children’s upbringing by working a reasonable number of hours per week.

[Families Minister Ms Jenny Macklin] sees it as a way of honouring children, of giving back to parents some time to do the things that really matter in life _ [sic] bond with their children.

Please Ms Macklin, explain to me why it is other taxpayers who should pay for this.

Economists might consider such practices economically sinful but every parent knows the rewards of building a strong relationship with a child takes longer than 14 weeks and is much more valuable to society than the tax a parent would be paying if he/she was at work.

Agreed. But the same step in the same logical sequence is still missing.

And at the risk of giving the impression that I have a one-track mind, I could not help but transpose into the context of abortion some of the statements in the report:

If we settle for a minimalist scheme we’ll be short selling our daughters and our granddaughters.

Killing 50 000 of them in utero each year does much worse than this.

[Families Minister Ms Jenny Macklin] sees it as a way of honouring children

An even better way of ‘honouring children’ would be to shut down the abortion industry.

Reginaldvs Cantvar

"There is no question that legislated paid maternity leave is a basic human right."

So says Ms. (I use that title reluctantly) Elizabeth Broderick, one of Australia's chief political correctness commissars (from whose ranks comes our next Governor-General).

What nonsense.

But in the interests of trying to work out whether there could possibly be some logic beneath what appears on the surface to be a perfectly absurd statement, let's think it through a bit. How might compulsory paid maternity leave be justified?

1) The State ought to support families: yes, but it does not follow from this that paid leave is a basic right (indeed, if done through the tax system it only means a transfer of welfare among families, not an increase in overall welfare)

2) Since child-bearing is done by women, no paid leave would mean relative discrimination against them: but the husband does share in the burden of lost wages, and in any case, paid paternity leave would probably be the next step.

I see no conceivable basis for paid maternity leave as a human right. And what is truly sinister about this is that, since one infers from a right a corresponding duty, it implies that mothers have a duty to be in the paid work-force. And this is a cruel lie. What we see here, and have seen over the last forty or so years, is feminists like Ms. Broderick serving as tools in the hands of the economic rationalists, for whom work-force participation is a key variable in the frenzied pursuit for economic growth.

Reginaldvs Cantvar