Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Little Charlie Mullaley’s death is a good reason for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be suspicious of authorities

TW: this post deals with extreme child abuse and death

*Quick note: Warning to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander – names of deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait people wilk be mentioned. However, the perpetrator will be referred to as ‘scumbag’. It’s what he deserves

Charlie Mullaley was a darling little boy. Devastatingly, in 2013, his life was cruelly cur short by his evil stepfather.

The little boy was raped and tortured for fifteen hours. He sustained injuries all over his body from head to his feet.

Before the horrific attack, his mother, Tamica Mullaley was bashed on a street in Broome, Western Australia. The perpetrator was the same scumbag who took Charlie’s life.

Encounter with police

Things went from bad to worse. Police officers found Tamica sheltering in a neighbour’s carport. She was covering herself with a sheet and was bleeding.

As she was calling out for her father, the officers pressed her for a statement. Tamica spat and swore at the officers and was apprehended and put in the back of a paddy wagon.

Her father, Ted Mullaley begged police to take Tamica to hospital. The officers finally caved and Tamica was taken to hospital.

Ted Mullaley told SBS’ See What You Made Me Do, that Tamica would have died from her injuries without immediate medical intervention.

Despite pleas from the Mullaley’s, Charlie was left with his stepfather’s cousin.

Ted went to the hospital to pick up Charlie. But he was gone. He’d been taken by his stepfather.

That’s where little Charlie’s fate was tragically sealed.

We Mullaley family offered an apology

Nearly a decade later, Tamica and Ted finally received an apology.

Justice John McKechnie said that Charlie’s murder was one of the worst he’s encountered.

Attorney General, John Quigley offered an apology to the Mullaley family:

On behalf of the government, of WA, to Tamica and Ted, I am sorry for the way you were treated by the government and the WA police, both before and after losing baby Charlie.

Charlie Mullaley and Cleo Smith: two completely reactions from police and media

The Mullaley family contrasted the treatment of Charlie to Cleo Smith, a then – four – year – old who was kidnapped in WA last year.

Cleo’s disappearance got both national and international coverage. Police were on the case immediately and no resource was spared.

Was Cleo’s disappearance in the headlines because she’s white? I can’t say that for certain. But, I can’t blame the Mullaley family for feeling that way.

How are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people suppose to trust institutions?

Often, Aboriginal and Torres Strait people are howled down for bringing up racism.

Experiences of ATSI people are too often dismissed. We like to think racism – especially institutional racism – doesn’t exist.

But it clearly still exists. There seems to be still racial prejudice within law enforcement. This needs to be dealt with and snuffed out.

The media isn’t without fault, either. Where was Andrew Bolt when Charlie Mullaley was kidnapped and murdered? Rita Panahi?

To their credit, Sydney Morning Herald have at least written about the case. So has news.com.au.

And SBS should also get credit for their episode of See What You Made Me Do. But I think everyone else needs to do better. Much better.

We need to treat all missing children and domestic violence victims the same. All victims deserve justice.

Rest in peace Charlie. 💙

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Roe vs Wade has been overturned

US Supreme Court
Image: iStock

It’s happened. The Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe vs Wade on Saturday (Friday in the US).

The ruling means states have a right to restrict or outlaw abortion. Kentucky, Louisiana and South Dakota have ‘trigger laws’ that came into effect straight after the ruling.

A further twenty -three states are expected to outright ban or severely restrict abortion within a month.

Public reaction

The ruling has caused celebration and outrage.

Conservatives like actor, Kevin Sorbo and commentator Matt Walsh see this as a victory:

However, it’s also caused a lot of outrage. TikTok content creators in particular have been vocally outraged about the ruling. People are worried that this is only the start (more on that later). They have also pointed out pro – lifers’ hypocrisy.

Protests have taken place in Detroit, Michigan and Washington D.C. Protests erupted outside the Supreme Court straight after the ruling

Pro – lifers have celebrated.

Former president, Donald Trump told Illinois pro- life rally attendees:

The Court handed down a victory for the Constitution, a victory for the rule of law, an$ above all, a victory for life.

Donald Trump at Illinois rally

What else is at risk?

People are still fearing the fate of interracial and same – sex marriage. My stance hasn’t changed.

I believe that interracial marriage will always be safe. If SCOTUS tried to overturn it, they would become an unfunny joke around the world. Plus, there are African – American justices that are in interracial marriages.

However, like I said in an earlier post, I think Obgerfell vs Hodges may be on shaky ground. There’s even some fears that anti – sodomy laws will come back.

While I think the latter is absurd, I think LGBTQ+ Americans’ rights are at risk. It wouldn’t surprise me if Obgerfel vs Hodges is reversed. Next of kin laws, family laws (adoption, etc) will be vulnerable.

And what about trans and non – binary people who seek gender – affirming treatment? Given the endless debate on trans issues, it wouldn’t surprise me if their rights end up beibg infringed upon.

If SCOTUS is pro – life, how about rethinking the Second Amendment?

Text reads Second Amendment
Image: iStock

The overturning of Roe vs Wade was about control, not lives. If it was about lives, how about sensible gun regulations? How about preventing primary (elementary) school children from being massacred?

How about buying back AR15s and other semi and automatics? I’m sorry, but abolishing Roe vs Wade and doing nothing about endless gun violence doesn’t make sense to me.

What about health care, social safety net, etc?

The covid pandemic hit the US hard. More than one million covid deaths have been recorded. Approximately 300,000 have been directly linked to covid.

Furthermore, thousands die each year due to not having access to healthcare. So, what about universal healthcare? I mean, it’ll save lives. So, taxes should fund universal healthcare, right? 45,000 a year die from a lack of healthcare, (I think. Don’t quote me on that).

We’ll have to wait and see the full impact of this ruling. But to me, it’s clear, this is largely about control, not preserving life.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

New South Wales and Victoria’s premiers promise free pre – K

Children eating at a table in childcare
Image: Pexels

In two Australian States, early childhood education could get a shake up.

The Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria are promising free Pre – K for four – year – old children. It will take place five days a week.

Victoria’s Premier, Daniel Andrews plans to implement the change by 2025. However, NSW Premier, Dominic Perrotet won’t implement the change until 2030.

In a joint statement, the premiers said:

It will mean that, in the next 10 years, every child in Victoria and NSW will experience the benefits of of a full year of play-based learning before the first year of school.

The premiers also claim that free Pre – K will not only benefit children, but also working parents.

Pre – K will take place in preschools in both states.

NSW Minister for Education and Early Learning, Sarah Mitchell said the policy was… “the right thing to do for our kids”.

Australian children need better in education

According to Sydney Morning Herald, Australian children aren’t doing well in education.

Australia ranks 32 out of 38 OECD countries in child well – being. Australia ranks 39 out of 41 European Union (EU) and OECD in education outcomes.

Standards in literacy, numeracy and science have been declining over the past decade.

Early childhood education is shown to improve education outcomes. Children can experience these benefits across their schooling.

Education psychologist, Claire Rowe expressed concerns to Andrew Bolt about making Pre-K compulsory.

However, she did point out one positive. Children who come from dysfunctional families will be able to find security and attachment with early childhood educators.

Children who live in poverty will benefit greatly from free Pre – K.

The economic burden early childhood education had on parents

One reason why there’s a push to make Pre – K free is to release the burden from parents. Too often, the cost of early childhood education cancels out any financial benefit of working.

So offering some relief to parents makes sense.

Will it be compulsory?

According to the ABC, neither premier is planning to make Pre – K compulsory. Of course that can change in the future. Frankly, I doubt it ever will be.

Good start, but more needs to be done

I think this announcement is a vote grab for next year’s state elections. Having said that, I don’t have anything against free Pre – K. If it helps children and unburdens parents, then great.

However, I think there are bigger issues facing early childhood centres nationwide. Like children left hungry or given poor quality food in early childhood education centres.

So, let’s get the standards of quality early childhood education up again. Make sure that all early childhood education centres are properly staffed.

The governments need to make sure all early childhood education centres have the resources – including funding for food – that they need.

Let’s not have early childhood educators buried in endless paperwork. Just allow them to nurture and educate the children. And, of course, they need to be paid properly.

What are your thoughts on free Pre -K? Good idea? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

More people choosing to study humanities despite price hike

Image: Pexels

More Australian students are applying for humanities degrees, despite price hikes that the Coalition government implemented in 2020.

Sydney Morning Herald reported a nine per cent rise in admissions for humanities. Some people choose these courses simply because of personal interest.

Australia National University (ANU) higher education policy professor, Andrew Norton criticised Coalitions’ push toward certain courses:

Why would you do something that doesn’t interest you, just to have (A)$10,000 to $30,000 [debt] over a lifetime? Even though it hasn’t changed the choices of prospective students it does mean they’ll have many extra years of HELP [Higher Education Loan Program] repayments.

Coalition raised humanities fees during pandemic

In response to COVID in 2020 – 2021, the Coalition Government shook up university course fees.

The (supposed) aim was for future students to choose ‘job ready’ courses. As a result, degrees fees for courses, including teaching, clinical psychology and nursing decreased 42 per cent.

However, other courses’ fees skyrocketed. Humanities and Communications went up 113 per cent. Law degrees went up 28 per cent.

One of the reasons why fees to degrees like Arts rose so drastically was because Government contribution to the fees had plummeted.

How did universities view the changes?

Opinions on these changes varied among universities. Regional universities favoured the changes, largely because the Coalition Government dedicated 3.5 per cent increase in funding. As a result, more student places were available.

Many universities showed mild concern. However, no university wanted to rock the boat by protesting, due to wanting the funding increase.

Was this an attack on free speech?

Were these changes simply about funding courses based on need? Maybe. I think it was a bit more sinister.

The hikes in fees aimed courses that often explore sociology, culture and politics.

And, university politics are seen as far left-leaning. I can’t help this was part of the reason why humanities and Communications wer hit so hard.

Universities have been pressured by the Menzies Institute to be more ‘balanced’ an$ promote Western values.

Now, I can’t say for sure the pressure from the Menzies’ Institute is directly linked to the rises in some fees, but I still wonder. I mean, why not just decrease some fees, but leave the others? This is why I get a niggling that culture wars were a factor in this decision.

Young people already have enough debt

Man holding master credit card
Image: Pexels

It’s almost universal that young people in the West will have debts. It might be a car loan, credit cards, and later, house loan and mortgage. Unfortunately, university fees have become another massive debt.

Financial adviser, Max Phelps told news.com.au that while HELP debt was important, so were others. He said that credit cards and personal loans should be given priority over HELP debt

So, what if HELP loans are never paid back? This would backfire on students, universities and the government, wouldn’t it? It’s a no – win situation.

Going back to what Professor Andrew Norton told Sydney Morning Herald, of course students – school leavers and mature – aged students – are always going to choose courses that would interest them. So, the fee rises on Humanities and Communications were for nothing.

What are your thoughts on the fee changes? Fair? Unfair? Let me know what you think below.

Categories
News Opinion/Commentary

Roe vs Wade was always at risk

US Supreme Court, Washington D.C
Image: iStock

Quick note: This post isn‘t about my views on abortion. Instead, I want to focus on the possible repercussions.

This week, Politico revealed leaked documents that confirmed SCOTUS judges’ plans to overturn Roe v Wade. Next month, SCOTUS will make the final ruling.

This will take abortion legislation away from Federal law and back to the States.

At least twenty States will criminalise abortion outright if Roe v Wade is overturned. It’s speculated that Texas will push forward snap legislation to outlaw abortion in most circumstances.

1973 ruling

In January 1973, a large majority of Supreme Court judges (7 – 2) ruled to restrict states’ ability to outlaw abortion.

This was in response to a 1970 court case, ‘Jane Roe’ (real name, Norma McCorvey) and Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade.

The Supreme Court disagreed with McCorvey’s demand to exclusive abortion rights, but agreed that a woman’s right to choose, to a degree, was in line with the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time, Justice Harry A Blackmun wrote:

We… conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Justice Harry A Blackmun

Dobbs vs Jackson: the trigger

Last year, Dobbs vs Jackson challenged. Mississippi’s strong abortion restrictions.

Jackson Women’s Health Organisation argued the unconstitutionality of the Gestational Age Act. The 2018 Act criminalised abortions after fifteen weeks. Medical emergencies and foetal abnormalities were the only exceptions.

This contrasted from Roe vs Wade‘s stance that abortions can be performed for up to twenty – four weeks without State interference.

The US District Court ruled in Jackson Women’s Health Organisation’s favour. The law was ruled unconstitutional and had to cease.

Pro choice protest where a protester holds sign: “Keep abortion legal”
Image: iStock

What other rights are at risk?

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, then what else can be overturned?

Commentators have speculated that same – sex marriage and even interracial marriage could be up for scrutiny.

Personally, I highly doubt that interracial marriage will be attacked. I mean it’s 2022. People realise that people can marry each other regardless of race, yeah?

In contrast, I think Obgerfell vs Hodges is vulnerable.

I remember when news came out that SCOTUS granted same – sex marriage across all fifty states. People, (including me), put a rainbow filter on Facebook profile pictures.

However, not everyone was celebrating. Conservative commentators slammed the ruling, arguing that marriage was not a constitutional right. Not surprisingly, the same commentators hyperventilated when Australia was in the full throws of debate too. But I digress.

Same – sex marriage has also clashed with religious freedom. The one case that comes to mind was Kim Davis, a marriage clerk who was jailed after refusing marriage licenses to same – sex couples.

Owners of wedding cake businesses claimed that they faced hefty fines after refusing to make a wedding cake that a same – sex couple requested.

Given that SCOTUS has a conservative majority, it may be a nervous wait and see. From Australia, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for LGBTQ+ Americans that Obgerfell vs Hodges isn’t overturned.

Only time will tell what will happen in the US. Things can massively change for a lot of people.

What do you think? Do you think Roe v Wade will have repercussions on other rights? Let me know your thoughts.

‘Piers Morgan Uncensored’ and the privilege of free speech

Last Tuesday, Piers Morgan Uncensored debuted on Sky News Australia.

In the intro, British commentator, Piers Morgan railed against censorship.

…I’m going to be constantly celebrating the one thing you can’t abide; free speech. And that’s real free speech, not your kind of free speech where you’re opinions are allowed. Anyone with a different opinion has to be shamed, abused and cancelled; their careers and reputations destroyed. No, free speech is supposed to be the bedrock of any real democratic society. The kind where it’s OK to disagree. It’s alright to respect and tolerate each other’s views. It’s even OK to go for a beer with someone you’ve just spent a whole hour arguing with about the burning issues of the day.

Piers Morgan Uncensored, from 26 April 2022, Sky News Australia

Former US President, Donald Trump was Morgan’s first guest.

Topics centred around the culture wars

So, what ‘hot topics’ did Donald Trump and Piers Morgan talk about? As Secular Talk’s Kyle Kulinski said, it was largely culture war topics.

The main topics Trump and Morgan covered included:

  • Trump’s ban from Twitter and Elon Musk wanting to buy the company
  • ‘What’s a woman and swimmer Lia Thomas (yawn!)
  • The British Royal family (mainly Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
  • Golf
  • Trump’s claims that the US 2020 election was rigged (again)
  • Russia and Ukraine
  • Trump starting his own platform (Again?)

Trump gushed about Queen Elizabeth II, saying she was ‘incredible’ and comparing her to Mother Teresa.

Of course, Trump and Morgan bashed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Trump said Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should lose their royal titles. He also crudely suggested Prince Harry’s and Markle’s marriage wouldn’t last.

In talking about Olympic swimmer and transwoman, Lia Thomas, Trump fumed saying “people, won’t stand for it” and that it was “ridiculous”.

What does Piers Morgan Uncensored say about freedom of speech and privilege?

Riveting stuff, eh? Trump and Morgan was talking about stuff people have been talking about ad nauseum for years.

Of course, there was no mention of hormone therapy transwomen go through or the guidelines that sports bodies have. There never are. But I digress.

Like Kyle Kulinski said in his video, the topics Trump and Morgan discussed were surface level topics. They didn’t challenge the status quo. In fact, it was the opposite. They maintained the status quo. Heck they ARE the status quo!

If anything, Piers Morgan Uncensored proves free speech is in tact for the privileged. Piers Morgan is not a victim. Neither is Trump. According to Wealthy Gorilla, Piers Morgan’s net worth this year is around US$20million.

Piers Morgan was always going to be able to continue working in the media after he stormed off stage on Good Morning Britain in March last year.

Overall, I don’t think Piers Morgan Uncensored is a bad show. Actually, Piers Morgan is a good interviewer. However, I sense he’s going to become a broken record very quickly. I could be wrong.

Did you see Piers Morgan Uncensored? What did you think? Feel free to put your thoughts in the comments below.

Categories
Gender/ sexuality

Katherine Deves proves that anti – trans activist have no legitimate argument

Image: iStock

Last week, Warringah Liberal candidate, Katherine Deves caused outrage over past anti – trans comments.

In tweets that are now deleted, Deves compared trans activists to Nazis and the opponents of ‘trans ideology’ as being opponents of the Holocaust.

She also spread fears of parents of transgender children being at risk of creating a ‘Stolen Generation’. I think she might’ve been alluding to Vancouver father, Rob Hoogland.

And then there was allegedly this tweet:

…half of all males with trans identities are sex offenders

From an allegedly deleted tweet from Katherine Deves

Since these revelations, Deves apologised and claimed she received death and rape threats. This is reprehensible and shame on anyone who takes part in that behaviour.

Was the tweet about prisoners? Liberal senator, Matt Kean argued with 2GB’s Ben Fordham on whether or not Deves specifically was alluding to prisoners or transwomen in general. I think Kean took a step too far accusing Deves of comparing transgender children to sex offenders.

Despite pressure, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison refused to ban Deves and has defended her right to free speech. However, Mr Morrison has also backpedaled any plans to ban transwomen competing against cis – gender women.

Deves’ comments not a surprise

It was only a matter of time that someone made comments like Deves.

Since same – sex marriage was acheived in 2017, trans and non – binary people have been the new bogey people.

All of a sudden, trans and gender non – binary people are predators, brainwashing children, etc.

Trans debate: just history repeating itself

Does this sound familiar? It should to LGBTQ+ Australians. During the same – sex marriage debate, LGB+ people were frequently accused of brainwashing children.

The Safe Schools curriculum was falsely portrayed as teaching young children about sex toys and masturbation.

Same – sex parents were often seen as detrimental to children’s welfare, despite the lack of peer reviewed studies that supported the claim.

I believe that this debate is largely another attempt to demonise a minority. And, just with the same – sex marriage debate, opponents of trans and non – binary acceptance prove that they lack a strong argument. This is proven by Deves’ hyperbole.

The language in the debate

From WordPress Free Images

Is it just me? Has anyone else noticed the language used in the gender debate? Notice that the term ‘transwomen’ is rarely used by critics? It’s always ‘biological men’ or that someone was ‘born male’.

No discussion about transition. I wrote about Royal Children’s Hospital’s stance on children and transitioning and steps often taken in my last post.

There has been a lack of discussion on the effect of hormone therapy on trans people. Why have these factors been largely ignored in the debate?

Look, I could meet Deves half way if she said that transwomen athletes should have a certain amount of transition before competing against cis – gender women. I also think everyone should be protected from predators, regardless of the gender identities of perpetrators or victims.

However, I don’t think this is what this debate is about. This is about looking for another pariah. Another minority group to spread fear and lies about.

The cat’s out of the bag now. It just took Deves to go one step too far to expose it.

What do you think about Katherine Deves’ comments? What do you think about transwomen sport? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Categories
Gender/ sexuality

The fear – mongerimg about trans and non – binary people has no basis

Image: iStock

The Trans Day of Visibility was on the 31 March. The day aims to acknowledge the achievements of trans and non – binary people. It also highlights the discrimination trans and non – binary people still face.

Transgender and gender diverse people are the hot topic of the day. Unfortunately, ‘issues’ like Lia Thompson winning in swimming take up a lot of time on social media, media and for policy makers.

So does children transitioning. This is despite Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital stating that gender affirming treatment is done in two stages.

Stage one takes part under the age of sixteen. This includes social transitioning, affirmation and, yes, puberty blockers. These parts of transition are usually reversible.

Stage two of gender affirming treatment only takes place when is a child is sixteen or older. This stage includes hormone treatments and surgery. At this stage, treatment is largely irreversible.

No one is ‘turned’ trans

Commissioner for LGBTQ communities, Todd Fernando, emphatically denies that anyone is ‘turned trans’ due to affirmation of trans and gender diverse identities.

He wrote in The Age that the existence and bodily autonomy is “not up for debate”.

Gender affirmation can save lives

Let’s cut to the chase. Affirming trans people’s identities can save lives. Fernando linked a number of studies that suggested that gender affirmation, including puberty blockers are life saving to many trans and gender diverse youth.

Young trans and gender diverse people who undergo gender affirming hormone therapy and puberty blockers are less likely to experience depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.

Psychology magazine, Psychology Today reinforced this belief. After reviewing sixteen studies Jack Tarbi MD concluded:

…the body of research indicates that these interventions result in favourable mental health outcomes.

Jack Tarbin MD MHS, Psychology Today, January 24 2022

In contrast, non – affirming actions can end in disaster. This is why there has been such a strong push to ban so – called ‘conversion therapy’, including against trans and gender – diverse people in Australia.

Fear mongering about trans and gender non – binary people is (recent) history repeating itself

LGBT rainbow Pride flag
Image: iStock

I’m not trying to be disrespectful. And I’m not trying to play the No True Scotsman card.

However, I’m sceptical of the stances of some LGBTQ+ people. It’s strange to me, for example, that a transwoman would want to ‘debate’ people like Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder on whether they should be referred by their preferred pronouns.

I mean YouTuber and transwoman Blaire White debated what people should refer to her as ‘she’.

Remember the fear – mongering over Safe Schools teaching young children about sex – toys? How gays and lesbians were accused of ‘indoctrinating’ children? And don’t get me started on the slippery – slope arguments against same – sex marriage.

My point is, the fear – mongering over trans and gender non – binary people is history repeating itself. Children are being used as pawns (again) and it seems most arguments are just misinformation. Again.

I think the evidence is clear. Falsely demonising trans and gender non – binary people does harm. If we really care about children, we have to accept them for who they are. Including if their trans or non – binary.

Categories
Opinion/Commentary

Children left hungry in childcare centres

Young children sitting down at a fable eating friit from lunchboxes
Image: iStock

This is infuriating.

According to Herald Sun, some childcare centres spend A65c on food per child. The food is often low in nutritional value. 

Some childcare coordinators and cooks admitted that they never spent more than A$5.00 of food a day. Some spent as little as A$2.15. That includes snacks. 

A Newscorp investigation revealed food offered children included: bread and butter and packet pasta. None of the food had any protein. 

In a United Workers Union survey, 2o% of directors and cooks thought the food budget wasn’t enough. 60% of respondents even bought food for the children out of their own pocket. 

In a private Facebook group, a commenter fumed:

I feed my dog more a a day than the budget I get. If parents knew they’d be appalled.

Dietitian from University of Queensland, Bonnie Searle witnessed children asking for seconds, but the food had run out. 

Searle also saw deceptive menus. Menus would advertise “gourmet sandwiches”, only for children to be offered Vegemite or jam sandwiches. 

Sometimes, childcare providers gave children fruit that had become brown and slimy.

Searle condemned centres for lack of nutrition:

A big plate of fruit is not going to keep children full. They need some fat and protein. The food groups we did not see enough of were vegetables and meat. 

Children who don’t get enough food or the right nutrition ran the risk of not being able to regulate their emotions or concentrate. 

Could this be contributing to rise in in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnoses?  Now, I do believe this is a genuine disorder, but it does make you wonder.

Why don’t parents just pack children food?

When I was reading about this, some people asked why can’t parents just pack their children food? Well, apparently, many centres don’t allow it for fears of allergic reactions. 

If this is the case, then everyone is in a no – win situation. 

It’s not good enough.

End private childcare and have it properly funded

People have told me a lack of food in childcare is neither surprising or uncommon. Coordinators of private childcare centres put profits over the well – being of children. 

If this is the case, there is one solution. The government has to fund childcare 100%. No more private providers. They obviously can’t be regulated properly. This goes for the aged care sector as well. 

When people bring this up, protesters complain and ask why should they pay for other people’s children? So what if you don’t have children? Do you have nieces? Nephews? Children of friends who call you their cool “aunt” or “uncle”?

I don’t have children. Most adults, including myself want to see children thrive. Children need a healthy environment, including healthy food. 

The National Quality Standard

In 2010, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) introduced the National Quality Standard. These were very strict and very detailed.

Since the Liberal National/ Coalition Party has been in power, these standards have been watered down. While Standard 2.1 covers a “healthy lifestyle”, there is no specific demand that a childcare provider must provided healthy food or water, like it did when the Australian Labor Party were in power. 

Maybe they should at least bring that standard back. And hold ALL centres to that standard. Children deserve it. 

 

What do you think about childcare? What improvements should be made? Do you think they should all be government run? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Using social media and blogging for change: Influencer advocates for people with a disability

Image: Canva

Want a light – hearted story?

Peta Hooke is a social media influencer.

People may look at the terms ‘social media influencer’ and have certain ideas. Chances are, Peta Hooke doesn’t fit those ideas.

She has cerebral palsy and uses a an electric wheelchair.

Hooke uses Instagram to advocate for people with disabilities.

At first, Hooke was hesitant. She told ABC Life that she feared that Instagram wasn’t a safe place for people with disabilities.

I remember when Instagram became a thing in my friendship group in the summer of 2011. At the time, Instagram didn’t feel like a safe space for someone like me.

Hooke worried that Instagram was just another platform for the privileged.

Hooke joined Instagram

Hooke ended up joining Instagram. She created a heavily private account and she admired attractive influencers.

She then started a podcast and used Instagram to promote her advocacy.

She said utilising Instagram made her “sick with dread”.

Despite her fears, no one laughed at Hooke. In fact, she has built up a supportive community of followers.

Using social media for advocacy

Since building a following, Hooke has used her daily life and content to educate and change minds. She also aims to expand what people define as having a disability.

She wants to inspire people with disabilities:

I hope through my presence on Instagram I am implicitly encouraging other disabled people to find the same power.

People with disabilities need visibility. And chances

Black woman in wheelchair on a footpath down the street
Image: iStock

When I first read about Peta Hooke, I thought it was great. People with disabilities: physical, intellectual or mental need a chance.

They need chances to live and to work, just like anyone else. Unfortunately, people with disabilities are over represented in unemployment statistics.

Having people with disabilities visible and mainstream is important. People need to realise that people with disabilities are just people. They may need a little help or slight adjustments. They can be a baser to society when given the chance.

Challenging beauty standards and influencer culture

It’s great that Hooke uses her platform to challenge beauty standards and influencer culture. People are becoming more and more aware of the damage social media can do. For years, people have worried about teens and influencer culture’s impact on their self – esteem and mental health.

Creator and former Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has even admitted that platforms like Instagram were made to be addictive. Algorithms are deliberately programmed in a way to make certain images popular.

A call to able – bodied people

Anyone can be a part of the change. For those in privileged positions, please consider supporting content creators from marginalised communities.

Like, share and follow their content. Show other people the talents and abilities of people with disabilities. And for those who do support content creators with disabilities (including my followers), thank you very much.

.