Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
ASIO has made startling allegations - such as plots to kill, training soldiers or terrorists, forging documents and people smuggling - to justify the indefinite incarceration of dozens of refugees as security threats to Australia.
What really grinds my gears is when a colleague or superior refers to young people (like me) as a Y-Genner or Millennial. Even more annoying, is when they make this reference in terms of technology, computer literacy, or –God forbid – entitlement.
It’s not enough for the boss or the manager to already have it in it for you as you’re the new kid on the block. This is expected. In fact, if it was any other way, I would immediately consider the circumstance to be gravely wrong if management didn’t give a hand in helping toughen the exterior.
Professional character development aside, being pigeon-holed into a stereotype of how my actions and attitude is perceived is a hole I have always had difficulty digging out.
I’m sure I’m not alone in this sentiment. In the driest market the legal industry has faced in decades, it comes at no surprise that the young-ones are a threat to the established career climbers. Albeit in ways which one wouldn’t quickly assume.
Think about it. Young people, not just those born in the decade of the Y-Generation, are high on soft-skills. We read, we engage, we are able to type, browse the Internet, problem solve day-to-day technologies when they inevitably malfunction, and understand the idiosyncrasies of social media. Although, we lack in experience and the finesse which comes with the experience in our early careers.
Sure, most young people are computer literate and have the problem solving abilities to think out technology related challenges. This does not mean that those already established in their roles should rely on young people to solve their computer issues for them. Instead, the focus should be on how to transfer the coveted soft-skills to established employees while providing the younger generation of workers with the hard experience.
In other words, as a young person, I do not want to be known for my ability to fix your computer without you having to call IT down to look at it. I want to assist you in fixing your own computer issue while you also assist me in becoming a better employee. I’m no threat. I just want to be the value that you represent to the organisation. This is because I want to be more than the generalisation of the generation I was born into.
2 notes
This is a personal post.
Recently, I decided to move on from my position as Law Graduate at a firm on the Gold Coast. I made the decision for several reasons, some personal, some practical.
Now as I am moving on with my life (and admittedly fighting hard in a drought of legal jobs), it is crystal clear to me what kind of lawyer I want to become.
I write this now because it is terribly important as a student that you know and understand where you want to go before you enter into the industry.
For me, ethics makes up a big part of the lawyer I want to become. After having a huge discussion with a very close friend of mine, she said that it would be soon enough that I will be the jerk that most lawyers transform. I queried whether she had faith in my ability to stay true to myself. She simply replied that it wasn’t me she had no faith in.
While there are many, many lawyers in Australia whom are ethical and diligent professionals, there are a minority who do seem to make the profession eerily like a bad lawyer joke. Indeed, it appears that most of these minorities own their own law firms!
So upon my reflection, I wish to become a lawyer who is a brilliant person foremost. I love the law but I cannot make the commitment to sell off my soul for a career. And that is my choice.
I urge any students or those considering to study law (or even early career lawyers) to consider the same. We are all part of a profession which is suffering from depression and anxiety in the younger ranks – perhaps this is because no one ever seems to stop and consider the path they wish to follow?
As far as I see it, there’s no need to follow the tradition of going from high school to university, completing a few clerkships and then moving onto a graduate programme for admission. Young lawyers (like myself especially) need to experience life. We need time to work out where we want to go.
So in Elvis’s famous words, only fools rush in.
1 note
Abundant across social media platforms is political discussion. This is definitely a good thing. A great thing. As I see it, these discussions represent democracy in action and they encourage more informed political engagement (think: when was the last time you had an argument with a stranger on twitter and had to pull out Google search?). This ever increasing engagement with the electorate is something which is always needed to ensure that laws created by Parliament are a reflection of the “will of the people.”
There is just one minor issue, though. I have observed ever increasingly on social media platforms and most readily in the mainstream media is the confusion between conflicting political theories.
Often, you will see comments such as “commie” “letfy” “libertard” etc. (I would gladly provide screenshots of these sorts of offending social media posts, but I’m not that sort of person. If you want to see some real action, try: http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/)
The true political theories which inform many of our media’s commentary are far removed from their historical origins. For both an interesting and educational lesson on the correct use of these commonly used political phrases, try this clip: Left—right politics - Wiki Article (by SpeaksWiki)
In contrast, all you have to do is type “left-right politics explained” to get all kinds of colourful material.
But, could the confusion be borne out of ignorance or apathy?
These members of the public, when requested to clarify on social media, don’t seem to know or care for the discrepancies in their use of political lingo and the actual meaning of the terms they employ.
The important thing is that they get their message across. X doesn’t agree with me, so they are wrong.
I partly blame the mainstream media and the US media’s influence on the use of political lingo for the confusion. Indeed, libertarian means a different thing in US history. However, that isn’t fair on those who do use the terminology correctly and who enjoy the mainstream news media.
I guess it’s a product of a combination of ignorance AND apathy. Those who choose to ignore the true meaning of a set of ideas and philosophy will be bound to get it wrong. This is a depressing thought, as it defeats the positive outcomes of a politically engaged public.
That’s democracy I guess.
1 note
In law school, issues of gender equality, opportunity and pay gaps, and harassment all seemed far flung issues experienced by ‘other’ people. I personally had never had any gripes with the treatment I received, insofar as the treatment was connected with my gender.
Fast forward three years and I can easily perceive the treatment women receive in the legal profession.
Now I must note, I didn’t fly into the legal profession completely blind. I was warned. Several mentors, teachers and professional friends warned me about the ‘old boys club’ that is the legal profession. I simply thought, ‘how much worse than high school can it be?’
Growing up with a lot of male friends has, indeed, desensitised me from the persistent patriarchal attitudes of both young and matured men. Yet, I never had given the issue much contemplation as to the real effects these attitudes have on the ability of women to achieve.
The most readily accessible example I can point to is pay gaps. Just google ‘women in the legal industry pay gaps’ and you will be delivered with dozens of statistics on the pay gap between men and women in the legal industry. Whichever amount you use, there is a definitive gap of remuneration paid between men and women. Accepting this phenomenon as reality, it is valid to wonder just how the gap occurs, given that equal opportunity and fair remuneration are regulated into the workforce.
I have a theory. On the basis that in interviews women are generally more humble than men and men generally talk themselves up more than women, it is possible that these differences also occur when discussing remuneration with their employer. From this, it can be perceived that women would ask for less remuneration than men because they are more humble than men, and men do generally overestimate their value.
Disclaimer: this does not, in any way, justify the pay gap.
Instead, there is an evident need for gender sensitivity on the issue of remuneration. If preferential treatment were to continue in the legal workforce, the industry is missing out on 50% of its greatest minds due to being economically forced out.
In my opinion, both female employees and employers need to be mindful of the gap when discussing remuneration. It is not sufficient to agree to market rates when male employees in similar positions are paid higher than market rate.
Pay is not the end of the problems women face in the legal industry.
Divisive attitudes, such as an outdated sense of gender roles, also create issues for career progression for women. It is not appropriate for managers to suggest that female lawyers have more in common with the secretarial and support staff rather than the other lawyers (who happen to be all male).
Rather than direct discrimination, preferential treatment to males is still shown in the legal industry and can be one of the indicators of a stubborn patriarchal attitude.
As a young professional, I don’t have answers for these issues. All I hope to achieve is that the problem is recognised as such. The next step is moving forward without the attitudes that bind women’s opportunities and prevent them from seeking the same take-home pay as their male counterparts.
1 note
Twitter has been abuzz since the start of the Olympic coverage, with the observation ofAustralian commentators’ use of ‘girl/s’ to describe women competitors. The complaint that women have about this language is its capacity to diminish women’s athletic achievement and infantilise them. Many disagree with this interpretation, pointing out that our male athletes are also called ‘boys’ or ‘lads’. So why do many women feel so strongly about being called ‘girls’ in this context?
As the swimming has dominated Australian coverage in the early days of the Games, so too has reference to ‘our girls’ in the pool. In the ABC’s live blog for example, women swimmers Stephanie Rice and Alicia Coutts are referred to as ‘girls’. While these swimmers are aged 23 and 24 respectively, what about young women such as the 16-year old Chinese swimmer? Shiwen Ye competed in the women’s event in a time better than that of the fastest man in the men’s event. Headlines proclaimed ‘The Girl Who Left the Men in Her Wake’. I recognise that as a teenager and with her astonishing achievement, such a headline might be warranted – though I note that another article stated that her feat was ‘the first time for a woman’. The girl of the headline becomes a woman in the text. That this was the first time for a woman means that her age was not relevant.
One social research blog has identified use of such language as ‘gender marking’.
The way television stations and commentators frame sporting events linguistically also makes a difference, whether we realize it or not. By allowing commentators to continue to refer to many female athletes as “girls” is to say that they don’t deserve the same treatment as “men”, who are the “real athletes”. It perpetuates the stereotype that female athletes are at the end of the day, just “female athletes”. Inferiority is what is implied.
Unlike references to ‘boys’ or ‘lads’, reference to ‘girls’ rather than women occurs againstother charges of sexism in the Olympics. The Australian women’s basketball team travelled premium economy while the men travelled business. Attention on Leisel Jones’ weight has likewise been seen as sexist commentary.
There was also controversy in the lead up to the selection of the Australian flag bearer, when beach volleyballer Natalie Cook said that it was a ‘no brainer’ that the flag bearer should be a woman: the first since 1992. Other commentators believe however that gender equity would be best achieved by the appointment of a man.
In what might be considered to represent a more intrusive form of sexism, Olympic processes to test women athletes for their ‘woman-ness’ have also attracted criticism – not least because it seems that the basis of the testing represents disputed science.
While this seems like a lot of focus on women athletes in such a short period of time, that is probably because of the invisibility of women athletes and women’s sports in non-Olympic times. A casual read of the newspapers will reveal this reality, but it is also borne out by research (see eg: here; here; and here). Men’s sport gains far more exposure in media and attracts far more sponsorship, while women’s achievements are under-represented and attract less sponsorship.
It is this weight of ‘otherness’ of women athletes that I think prompts such a strong response to being called ‘girls’ in the Olympic commentary. At such a high profile event, surely it is time for our ‘girls’ to come of age?
But they didn’t mean any harm…
I doubt that any commentator is deliberately trying to belittle women athletes. My view on the use of this language stems rather from our apparently universal blindness to what it means to call a woman a ‘girl’ – in contrast to calling men ‘boys’ or ‘lads’.
I acknowledge that sometimes it might be OK to be ‘one of the girls’… I use the term to refer to my women teammates or close women friends. For former women team members now commentating on their sport at the Olympics, it may likewise be acceptable during an interview to refer to ‘the girls’. It should not however be presumed that any woman athlete can acceptably be referred to as a girl.
Attitudes to women that are subtly reflected in how we use language in public events such as the Olympics spill over into other areas of life – they reinforce gender stereotypes and are reinforced by them. For example, in one of my former workplaces, a senior (male) practitioner referred to me as ‘Miss Muffet’ in a meeting with a QC (who subsequently became a High Court Judge). I think that most people would recognise how damaging this was to me in this professional context; and also how it reflected my male colleagues’ views of my place in the (gender) hierarchy.
So perhaps this is the Olympics at which our commentators can take a stand, and work on their terminology: women athletes are women. Not girls, not ladies, but women.
Do you think ‘girls’ is harmless enough?
On immigration:
1. ‘Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.’
2. ‘These people aren’t so much seeking asylum, they’re seeking permanent residency. If they were happy with temporary protection visas, then they might be able to argue better that they were asylum seekers’
On rights at work:
3. ‘If we’re honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband … you find that he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss.’
On women:
4. ‘The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.’
5. ‘I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons’
6. ‘I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak’
7. ‘What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up, every year…’
On Julia Gillard:
8. ‘Gillard won’t lie down and die’
On climate change:
9. ‘Climate change is absolute crap’
10. ‘If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax.’
On homosexuality:
11. ‘I’d probably … I feel a bit threatened’
12. ‘If you’d asked me for advice I would have said to have – adopt a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about all of these things…’
On Indigenous Australia:
13. ‘Now, I know that there are some Aboriginal people who aren’t happy with Australia Day. For them it remains Invasion Day. I think a better view is the view of Noel Pearson, who has said that Aboriginal people have much to celebrate in this country’s British Heritage’
14. ‘Western civilisation came to this country in 1788 and I’m proud of that…’
15. ‘There may not be a great job for them but whatever there is, they just have to do it, and if it’s picking up rubbish around the community, it just has to be done’
On Nicola Roxon:
16: ‘That’s bullshit. You’re being deliberately unpleasant. I suppose you can’t help yourself, can you?’
(Source: whatistherundude.wordpress.com)
43 notes
Most of us have probably heard, in some shape or form, about the proposed Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill which entered parliament in its last week of sitting. Most likely, you would have heard the plethora of criticism from the mainstream media of the loopholes and exceptions given to religious organisations.
What most news articles don’t tell you is how the proposed Bill is a great step forward towards equality for Australia.
Before I get into the overwhelming positives, I will rehash some of the criticisms from the media the Bill has faced over the last few weeks. The most major (and headline-worthy) of these criticisms is the ‘broad and sweeping’ exceptions given to religious organisations to discriminate ‘protected groups’.
Some of my favourite headlines dealing with this criticism (and provided for you here to Google) include:
Then we have former NSW Chief Justice Spiegelman’s (rather well circulated) comment on the effects on free speech:
The Bill would impose unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech, making it unlawful to offend people, leaving Australia isolated from international norms.
Without much familiarity of the relationship of international norms relating to human rights and equality, most would agree with Spiedgelman’s comment. It is, however, erroneous. Equality works in harmony with all other human rights. A little known fact of free speech is that it is not unfettered, and the right, itself, has a long list of exceptions. Namely, hate speech and, of course, discrimination.
Yet we won’t allow truth to get in the way of a good argument. In Australia, of course we should have the right to offend those of vulnerable groups to the extent that great harm will come of them. My sarcasm can only be matched by the irrationality of the premise.
While many of these criticisms and speculated effects of the exception are rightly warranted, it is easy to become wrapt in the outrage of it all without regard to the bigger picture.
For the first time in Australia’s legislative history, LGBTI, the married, the unmarried, the impoverished, all religions, males, females, all races, and the politically affiliated are protected under the one legislative instrument. The first time in Australian history, we will have one Act to rule them all; to provide us all with the equality we have been so deserving of.
It is hard to miss the fact that the human rights and anti-discrimination protections are written FIRST within the new Bill, with the (rather long and tedious) exemptions towards the end. And yet tensions run high over the existence of such broad-sweeping exceptions.
I will now take this opportunity to speculate my own hypothesis. Tensions have been high on everything from the marriage equality debate, and matters dealing with the fact we have a child-less, unmarried, atheist Prime Minister, and a child-abundant, married, ‘too Catholic’ Opposition. The debate for a solution to a balance Australia’s ‘Christiandom history’ and its necessity for updated equality laws has been a difficult and dramatic one. At least in our Parliament (the issue of the constituents remains a discussion for another day).
In the grand scheme of things, the Bill is a well overdue work-in-progress.
The reason why I have such high hopes for equality law in Australia is simple, we have a working process. On 21 December, the Australian Federal Parliament received over 256 submissions in response to the exposure draft of this Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill everyone is now complaining about.
Groups from all walks of industry; from human rights, to the religious, to the interest, to the political. The demonstration of democracy in relation to this single proposed statute is both astounding and indicative of the necessity to work on this project.
No matter the faults, the loopholes and the playing politics. The Bill is a promising one and will, just like Whitlam’s Administrative Law reforms, shape the legal landscape from decades to come.
Of course, who said Rome was built in a day?
1 note
Oh dear. Some poor over-worked journalist has succumbed to scaring some of my most socially conservative friends into believing that Australia is in dire need of a Bill of Rights. While I am thankful for the help, there are a few (rather major) issues with the premise of the article. Unfortunately, readers have been misled into mistaking that the newly proposed (and updated) federal anti-discrimination laws are directly opposed to the right to free expression.
To set the record straight, this could not be further from the truth. Fortunately, I have been able to see a copy of the exposure draft to the proposed legislation and just like I assumed, the legislation is based upon the internationally recognised right of equality. That means that when discrimination based on a person’s gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, or membership of a social or political group, rather than based on the merits of the person’s actions (like whether they acted unlawfully or didn’t fulfil the job requirements), there would be grounds for a prima facie claim.
It is not related to free expression. In fact, free expression will probably remain as one of those rights we kinda sort-of not really have in Australia after the anti-discrimination legislation is passed. Although there are going to be anti-harassment provisions related to discrimination, it is understood that the anti-harassment provisions will be set in line with international standards and application in similar jurisdictions. This means that to be harassment, conduct will be required to be more than merely offensive (which is protected under international freedom of expression provisions, hate speech and other derogations exempted).
So before we go running to the hills, a deeper analysis on what is actually going on will be required.
There are also a number of issues regarding Australia’s international legal obligation called “non-refoulement” which prohibits Australia from deporting refugee claimants to countries where they would have a genuine fear of being persecuted for a Refugee Convention reason (e.g. Race, gender, member of a recognised group). The dynamic between Australian domestic law (read: Migration Act) and international law (Refugee Convention) is under a considerable amount of scrutiny in the High Court, now more than ever. Could this be a further progression legally (and politically) if the Court goes the same way it did in M47 in October?The Australian has reported today about the process by which the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (“DIAC”) returns asylum seekers without reviewing their claims for asylum (google “About 600 Sri Lankans have been deported since August after claims ‘screened out’” to get the article…
11 notes (via sunili)
Page 1 of 4
