Counter

Counters

Current Trends in Social Justice

To start defining Social Justice is not an easy task Apart from the words needed to define such a concept, the minute we think of having defined it, even for the purpose of having a working definition, we also have boundarised the concept. We have, as it were, put fences up around it with the result that we can only discuss certain topics, but not others as they fall outside our definition.
This is one of the reasons that I do not want to define Social Justice. I do not think that such an important issue needs defining actually. When we talk to people over dinner, at work, on the bus, during a footy match or anywhere, we soon find out that we all have a very sharp and accurate sense of Social Justice. This is specially true if we express it in common terms and ideas with some basic facts to support the concept of justice. Let me give an example.
If we have a country, East Timor, just trying to come back from the brink of war and poverty, and wanting their fair share (backed up by International Law) of the Timor Sea gas deals,and if we, Australia, then use everything in our power to ensure that we ourselves get not only the best, but also the most profitable deal,then that may be good for Australia, but it is really greed and not social justice. You know that and I know that. We don't need complicated definitions to judge this as wrong.

This site is really your site. It is not only intended for those who can eloquently put a case, but also, and may be especially, for those who are willing to put their case or bring up an argument, since social justice affects all of us.
Personally, I am one of the many who are very wary of what politicians say and what they do. How they twist their words to suit their particular purpose. But it is not just politicians, other people in some sort of authority will do the same. We should analyse what these people say, or, rather, what their spin-doctors tell us.
A beautiful example is the federal treasurer. He was, and campaigned as such in the last elections, against toll roads in Victoria. Okay, this is not the time to argue against or for this, but it does imply that the federal treasurer thinks that we all should pay, through our taxes, for the building and maintenance of the roads. However, when it comes to Student-Union fees, he suddenly pushes the point that these fees should be voluntary, and, hallo, hallo, that the user should pay. Would he, as some economic commentators asked in The Age recently, allow the taxpayer not to pay for the excessive advertising with our taxes, as this taxpayer wouldn't use these ads.
Daily we hear statements which only produce inconsistencies with our basic concept of what is right and what is wrong.
Do not even think that this site is a politically-based site. Government, Opposition, Church, Bureaucracy and the Media all should be judged from time to time on the merits of their various statements. It is quite simple; Do their statements progress social justice, or are the utterers of these statements merely playing hide and seek with their own greed for more power and/or more influence? Do not kid yourself. You and I can answer that question. We do not have to be in Government, Opposition, the Church, the Bureaucracy or the Media to see whether social justice is being enhanced or not. If that was the case why do politicians keep referring to our capabilities when exercising our voting rights, and that we can have our say at the ballot box. Why only then? Why not now?
So, what are the issues?
In spite of the politicians' claim that our unemployment rate is the lowest for many decades, we all have friends or family who are working part-time and who would like to work a full week. What ever happened to the 40-hour week our parents fought for? Do we really think that working two hours in the morning washing dishes in a cafe é and three hours washing the same dishes at night constitutes a full day's work? People who work like this are called casuals, as you know. They are not counted as unemployed, and their "casual" employment can be terminated at an hour's notice. At the same time we read of highly placed technocrats and Ceo's who profess to work 60-plus hours per week. Is this social justice?
Although it appears from reading the newspapers that there is sufficiently written about the injustice of mandatory detention of refugees, if we don't keep pushing for an end to mandatory detention, it will not happen. Why not? Don't politicians have the same ideas about social justice as the rest of the community? The answer is that they don't. They work on the "security" and "law and order" angle to get re-elected. And that is what politics is all about. It is not much point, I think, to go back to all the wrong things done to refugees. We should now write and agitate about the situation today.

This site is for your comments.

Somehow it is quite disturbing when we read the list of outstanding social injustices. We still have the death penalty in countries close to our own. We still have hundreds of detainees in Guatanamo Bay. We still have no effective reconciliation gestures with the Indigenous population in Australia. We still have abhorrent poverty in Australia. And finally, we still have hospitals and other similar institutions relying on charity for important and urgent medical equipment, whilst the Government doesn't seem to know what to do with a surplus budget of billions and spends some millions on fancy advertising to get re-elected (you notice, here is that word "re-election" again).

I look forward to your comments.
For an alignment of social justice and feminism see "The Ethical State" click on the link http://www.mup.com.au

You Can't Change Your Culture

I strongly believe you can't change your culture. We all have different backgrounds which, in a sense, determines so much of our present thinking. What I mean by that is that we could reject any newly found or existing beliefs (let's call it religious belief for a second) today without any problem. What we cannot get rid of, whether we like to or not, is our cultural upbringing, i.e. that with what we grew up with and what was passed on to us via our parents and early childhood environment. May I give ye an example. I grew up in a staunch catholic family (actually going back 7 or 800 years). At present I would reject all the notions of candles, priests being dressed up, praying for the dead, singing by a choir, beautiful cathedral surroundings etc etc. However, if you put me tomorrow in a cathedral seeing the women lighting the candles and singing old sentimental songs and smelling the myrh and all that, I feel at home and probably cry with all the other people in the church.

I can, intellectually, dismiss all these things, but I cannot get rid of the way I grew up, the culture which formed me. To do so would be mental suicide and/or becoming some sort of psychopath. We have all been raised in different ways and that perspective on life excites me, because each of us, has the ability, therefore, to come at a problem from different angles. To me that is vital in any discussion. We all carry the rucksack of our background. I am a typical 'left-winger' (politicians would include me in the welcoming 'bleeding hearts society'). However, I have friends who are completely the opposite to me, conservative till the end in everything. We are great friends, and I also need his attitude to keep my balance of perspective. So, if I say that I agree with everybody, it is actually that I so much appreciate a different attitude towards a problem and am willing to listen, as I learn so much.