Why do bosses - and some workers - hate workers?

That question is a simplification, of course: not all bosses do - in fact, the first person I met (back in the 80s) who I knew was a member of the ALP was a business owner, and he argued that what businesses needed was knowledge of what the conditions for pay etc would be, not unfair conditions for workers. Also, my current manager is great - as a manager and as a human being.

However, too many bosses do have a history of treating workers unfairly (underpayment, unsafe conditions, etc) - and some of this is aided and abetted by . . . (drum roll) . . . workers, and some unions.

My experience is that many people in their 30s and, to some extent, 40s want to demonstrate how capable they are at meeting society's expectations and norms - no matter how wrong those expectations or norms may be (if it's not that, they have a martyrdom complex and an urgent need for psychiatric help). Thus, for instance, such people - including women - will say "oh it's just expected that people will work overtime", or "being available is just normal". Well, apart from that being an utter lie (see here), it also shows weakness of mind and spirit, utter gutlessness, and it DIRECTLY enables the abuse of others (see here, which also applies to any partner who glibly assumes - despite no illness or dependents - that they have a right to be supported and looked after). This, combined with the idiotic focus of union reps on money only, rather than work-life balance (were they all men who agreed to that? If so, they were utter morons - and incompetent at their job - and many I've spoken to now just go straight to "it's normal practice" or "what's in your contract?" without even thinking to ask if the expectation is reasonable), has actively supported bosses' erosion of workers' conditions.

Taking a longer term look, this dates back to the Combine Harvester case that set Australia's minimum pay principle (and the clueless moron who lost continued to think people should get paid by status, irrespective of whether that meant they could live or not, for the rest of his life). In fact, it goes back further - probably to the invention of slavery, and further.

At times, particularly with some people I worked for last Century, there is a distinct sense that they resent paying workers - I even saw one such manager carry on about how generous they'd been paying a sacked worker what he was legally entitled to, as if they were being generous by complying with the law!

There is a grave misconception in the minds of such abusive people that workers are desperate and - in the words of the Combine Harvester moron - "lesser" people who are, or should be, grateful for the merciful munificence of being granted the stub of a used cigarette from the mouth of the most holy "greater" man to enable the subsistence of them and their entire family. (whoa . . . I need to cut back on the sarcasm tablets).

And those "greater" men are being, as I wrote above, actively aided by some workers (all of which is similar to Bob Menzies saying words to be effect that he didn't need to take some repressive measures as the greatest monitoring and pressuring for conformity in Australia existed in suburban living rooms - I'm still trying to find the exact quote).

As I've written elsewhere:

Beware the enforcers of conformity - those small people who, sharing the banality of evil, cannot abide that others may demonstrate that doing the same as everyone else is not compulsory.

I count militant unionists in the category of those aiding bosses, on the basis of complete and utter political ineptness and lack of foresight generally (one of the reasons for pushing checking workplaces in homes was getting companies to pay for it - but companies now just say "we expect you to have that or arrange for it to be present at your expense" - showing the ****wits in the unions who said that were COMPLETELY outmaneuvered). (Oh - and all union voting should be by secret ballot.)

There are a whole host of similar problems in society, including excessive use of police checks and qualifications (and missing police checks in some fairly obvious situations), failure to try to learn from those who have worked longer (glitzy toys don't change the fundamentals in most cases, and those who think something more than 5 years old is out of date are incompetent), thinking that matters depend on a few projects and not decades of experience, those who judge a CV only on the last few years, etc. Not only are such attitudes NOT helping society, they are actively HARMING society, and the individuals in it.

On the part of those who are on the receiving end of such abuse, stand up to this as best you can (at least question it), avoid lifestyle vulnerabilities (have a small house, live within your means, and save and pre-pay for as much as you can), and support those who are trying to make the world a better place.

There is another aspect to this: the fact that, if we adjust for unpaid overtime, few businesses in Australia or the USA are actually making a profit. I recently heard a manager say "don't enter time beyond your minimum hours" - despite us not getting paid for those extra hours unless overtime has been pre-agreed. That request puts workers at risk, as they have no evidence of unpaid overtime for any future discussions on pay etc. I suspect the claim was based on the managers' KPIs, and that is yet another set of problems.

I'm going to finish with a Bob Menzies  quote:

A man may be a tough, concentrated, successful moneymaker and never contribute to his country anything more than a horrible example. A manager may be tough and practical, squeezing out, while the going is good, the last ounce of profit and dividend, and may leave behind him an exhausted industry and a legacy of industrial hatred. A tough manager may never look outside his own factory walls or be conscious of his partnership in a wider world. I often wonder what strange cud such men sit chewing when their working days are over, and the accumulating riches of the mind have eluded them.

Anyone in modern business or the neoliberals listening?

Humans, Humanity, and Human Rights - Chapter 1 (G)

This project commenced with a conceptual outline, published on Saturday 1^st December, 2018, at: https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2018/12/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html

I’ve decided I’ll post each chapter in its first, raw state, and you, Dear Reader, can see if my later research (probably long after I've finished this first version, in my retirement, should I be fortunate enough to actually get to retire) led to any change. (You can also think about the points I am making.) 

I've come up with an initial structure of the book (no guarantees it won't change), and will add the links to each chapter in the latest installment as they are published. Owing to the size of each chapter, I will have to publish this using the sub-chapters. Links below, and also here.

• Foreword (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/03/humans-humanity-and-human-rights-intro.html)
• Chapter One – Introduction to Concepts and Early Humans
  

  A.  Human Evolution and Human Rights (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/03/humans-humanity-and-human-rights-intro.html)I've started creating an audio version of the book, and the first interim video is on YouTube at https://youtu.be/zyd4LR_nudw.
  
  B. The benefits of human rights (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/03/humans-humanity-and-human-rights-intro_8.html)
  C. Words - definitions of human, human rights, and humanity(https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/03/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html)
  D. Potential Criticisms of the Idea that Decency and Fairness are Beneficial (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/03/humans-humanity-and-human-rights_24.html) 
  E. Our genetic neighbours, early (gatherer-hunter) humans, and being humane (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/04/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html)
  F. Population growth, and moving out of Africa (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/05/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html)
  G. What perspective does psychology and other modern thinking contribute?(https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/06/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html)
  H. What perspective does modern human rights theory/understanding contribute? (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/07/humans-humanity-and-human-rights.html)
  I. Summary / conclusions
  Chapter One: What I don't currently know to my satisfaction 

• Chapter Two – Civilisation: The Domestication of Humans
• Chapter Three – Empire: The Concentration of Power Begins
• Chapter Four – Human Rights: The Concentration of Overarching Power Unravels
• Chapter Five – What Does the Future Hold in Store?
  Partial preview (https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/03/humans-humanity-and-human-rights-preview.html)
• Chapter Six – The Soul: The Influence of Spirituality and/or Religion on Human Rights
• Chapter Seven – For the Pragmatist: Using / Applying All This “Stuff”
• Chapter Eight – Change: the Soul and the Bane of Humans, Humanity, and Human Rights
• Chapter Nine – My Last Trick: Ending . . .

*****

Chapter One – Introduction to Concepts, and On Early Humans

G.  What perspective does psychology and other modern thinking contribute?

G.1 IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

To begin with, I am NOT a psychologist, and thus NONE of the following should be considered a professional opinion (my University qualification is in a completely different field, one notorious for lack of emotional intelligence and competence at human interactions, so in no way gives the following any weight.

I have limited knowledge of the field. I actually don’t have that field in my list of what I wanted to ideally study before I wrote this book, but I’ve bumped into it from time to time (e.g., when trained to work as a volunteer phone counsellor around three decades ago, and a partner and some friends are counsellors, and I’ve sought help on a few occasions through my life), and have a certain amount of amateur (very much amateur!) interest.

However, I should also say that I have some doubts about, shall we say . . . the “state of perfection” of that profession – I consider, as with all areas of knowledge, there is more to be learned, and thus the field can maybe benefit from a little scrutiny and challenging. (In particular, I suspect modern thinking is too hidebound on topics such as the soul, research can be too simple for complex topics, and has possibly moved farther away from Jung than it should – but I endorse the attempt to objectively gather and use evidence.)

Interim note for first edition: notwithstanding the above, I do have some reading lined up on this topic, as well as a few books I wish to buy and read, so I am anticipating that this sub-chapter may be subject to extensive review. Then again, I have a stack of history, human rights, and philosophy books, and one “history of human rights” book, in those two categories, so the same may apply there as well.

G.2 Needs

So let’s look at this from the perspective of: what were the needs of that time, long ago?

Well, the first and most obvious need is physical survival – food, water, shelter, safety. This would require knowledge of what is safe and what is dangerous, where enough can be found, and what risks exist and how they can be manage.

(By the way, Paul K Chappell has argued convincingly that motivation is more important than just having needs – the link to his video is in the footnote below. [1] )

There is a tendency among many modern people to think of such skills as if they were simplistic, but I recall an interview where an Australian indigenous elder clearly knew about the benefits of having drinking water that has been kept free of human contact, a principle that my home city of Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) has held to, and that other cities overseas are rediscovering. These required skills were not only about personal survival, but also about ensuring that those people you loved survived – if you have significant others in your life now (not everyone does),look at them and consider whether you would entrust their survival to a superstition, or to hard work applying the best skills you had available?

I consider it highly likely that early humans were similar – our genetic forebears, primates, have well developed social structures and a group instinct: why would we have suddenly lost that? In other words, we would have been driven by the capacity to love – a characteristic that I consider science underestimates in sentient animals (I have at least one book lined up to buy and read on this topic).

To develop on that further, I consider Maslow’s famous Hierarchy of Needs would apply. I’ve seen that Hierarchy, developed on the basis of Maslow’s observation of what already existed, in several forms, but for now, I wish to point out that, above the physical needs there comes a set of emotional needs that are satisfied by “good” human contact (not by the “tough love” nonsense). Tribal humans today gather for storytelling and entertainment, and have a wealth of social interactions – the film “Ten Canoes” is an excellent example of that.

(We also do that today – gathering in theatres and public places for millennia [consider the Ancient Greek plays, Shakespeare, and so on] became gathering around radios in the early 20^th Century, TVs in the late 20^th Century, and our “devices”-oh, oops . . . well, that last gathering may be through the ethers, rather than physical, but it still is a form of gathering – one not as well managed, perhaps, as older forms.)

The values (or “norms”, if you prefer, Dear Pedants) of such times would have involved survival, for sure, but also social harmony and happiness. If people were too unhappy, they would possibly have committed suicide or gone to another tribe, but they would not have been able to contribute at their best – remember, this is early, gatherer-hunter societies of humans that I am considering: I think this all started to be skewed when empires started developing, and possibly, to some extent, during the earlier development of agricultural civilisations. But initially, I argue, respect for human dignity would have been an unstated principle, respected and fulfilled to the extent permitted by circumstance and human strengths and failings.

It would, on the other hand, have been quite possible that survival constraints prevented – or limited the number of people – who reached the self-actualisation stage, but . . . when I look at some of the “mystics” in India and Tibet, many of them seem to have got to self-actualisation without much in the way of physical stuff.

For that matter, self-esteem and self-actualisation are pretty much internal states of existence, unrelated to having an excess of other needs beyond what is needed for survival.

All of that means that, in my opinion, second generation rights (to simply, these are about physical quality of life), first generation rights (simplifying again, these are about interactions between people), and third generation rights (in the sense of collective rights) would all have existed (apart from anything else, because they are inherent to every human being) and would, to quite an extent, have been met by the early groups of humans, to degree that they could (i.e., some groups would have been better at that than others).

They just may not have been able to put all of that into words.

G.3 Transactional analysis

Transactional analysis [i] , developed by Eric Berne in the 1960s [2] , seems to me to have been fairly big in the 70s and 80s, but we don’t hear so much about it nowadays (I wonder if newer, flashier “products” have incorporated Transactional Analysis’s ideas, much as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has been incorporated into so many things [often without acknowledgement]? Then again, it did crop up when I last sought counselling [over stress]).

The basic notions of transactional analysis are:

·         we each have three internal states of being that we can “enter” (express may be a better word – I don’t have any of Dr Berne’s books at hand [they’re probably still in storage]):

o   parent – which can be either critical or nurturing;

o   adult – our mature or “ideal” self – comfortable, reasonable and assertive; and

o   child – which can be creative, playful, or adaptive.

·         people can interact with each other from one or more of these various states of being: these are termed transactions (hence the term for this system). Where these are mismatched, for instance, problems can result, and where the motivations are ulterior, the transactions are termed “games”.

There are some well-known diagrams for these concepts, including the fantastic cover of at least one of Dr Berne’s book. Looking online now, it seems that these concepts have been developed and refined, so they’re still applicable – at least in the field of human interrelationships.

A couple of examples of modern versions of these diagrams are at:

·         the three states (typically drawn as a vertical arrangement of three circles, resting on each other): try https://mypersonalhomesite.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/functional-ego-states.gif?w=300&h=179;

·         the interactions: http://lifestoogood.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TA1.png, and a dynamic at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TransactionalAnalysis.gif.

Now, I wrote: “at least in the field of human interrelationships”. My opinion is that this form of analysis would give considerable personal insight into the interactions that were used to realise or undermine human rights – from either the start of human existence, or from a fairly early stage.

Certainly by the time we were making tools or “domesticating” fire our mental development would have been advanced enough for multiple facets / layers to exist. However, I consider it likely that complexities already existed, as I consider there is a fair case to argue that they exist in primates and the hominids we evolved from – in particular, the existence of personalities, and some of the collaboration I mentioned earlier – including political organisation, getting rid of bullies, etc as mentioned in Sub-chapter E - Our genetic neighbours, gatherer-hunters, and being humane.

However, in terms of gaining an understanding of the history of human rights, I’m not so sure this adds anything to this Chapter (interesting though I find it).

G.4 Other perspectives

There are a range of other psychological theories / perspectives that could be used to examine this further, but I doubt that many of them would be of greater use than transactional analysis.

The one exception to that is an exploration of consciousness.

Now, I consider it a trap to mistake being able to articulate one’s consciousness for the existence of one’s consciousness – that is, being able to describe conscious/unconscious/group unconscious is not the point at which they come into existence (just as the idiots in school who thought they were being suave and sophisticated by trying to argue about whether Newton “invented” gravity or described an existing phenomenon – seriously, they existed!).

What does change, however, as one masters language, is an improvement to one’s awareness and ability to use, work with, and develop one’s various stages of consciousness – including moving things from one’s unconscious to conscious (there’s a whole set of discussions around group consciousness that I may try to add in for a future edition, but I’m still working on that at this time, so not yet, in terms of this first [rough] edition).

I am a big believer in the advice to “know thyself”, and have been consciously and very deliberately working at this since I was a teenager.

Furthermore, as I have learned more consciously about human rights, including how to articulate them, I have been able to personally realise them more, and help others to realise them.

This, I consider, is the great lesson at this stage of human development: not being conscious of, let alone articulate, human rights is major problem – and quite possibly is why early bullies were able to suppress human rights initially.

So, let’s move on to human rights theory.

---

[1] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvqwrcdx9bg

[2] There is some commentary on the influences of other psychologists – including Freud on Dr Berne’s development at http://www.ericberne.com/transactional-analysis/. The comment that Dr Berne saw Freud’s id, ego and superego as NOT phenomenological is interesting – to me, at any rate.

---

[i] See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transactional_analysis&oldid=899824164,   https://www.britannica.com/science/humanistic-psychology#ref179248,   http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/ta.htm,   and   https://www.wordnik.com/words/transactional%20analysis.

On Eric Berne, see http://www.ericberne.com/transactional-analysis/,   https://www.britannica.com/science/humanistic-psychology#ref179249,   and   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Berne&oldid=899826602.

Intergenerational inclusivity (and future proofing work)

I recently attended a workshop on "intergenerational inclusivity". Overall, this was a good workshop, with suggestions on good approaches (such as the reverse mentoring my current manager is so good at), effective words for conversations, PROPER succession planning (too often it's just another incremental add on, part of position description scope creep), identifying and encouraging younger talent, and so on.

However, one attendee commented about the difficulty of getting older people to move out of "the pipeline" - particularly older women, in their mid-60s. A comment was made about using things like financial incentives to get them to move on - which is a backhanded acknowledgement of the financial situation many women in my age bracket find themselves in.

I've fairly fortunate in that I have a particular technical skill (that I have been trying to pass on for ten years now), and there is too much focus on status and management generally in such planning, but the comment does show a few issues. (A warning: after too many years of having neoliberal governments stuff up life for just about everyone, the following comments show my anger.)

• Firstly, this shows the financial penalties discriminating against women (my equal favourite manager still shares that ranking because he gave me a 30% pay rise - and I didn't need "guidance on better negotiating" to prevent that prior discrimination from happening, I needed an inherently unbiased system . . .  and so does everyone else, so it's not the alpha character crowing about how far they can **** up the wall getting the kudos and the dollars); 
• Less obvious is the stupidity of Australian housing (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), which focuses - being mostly provided by private industry - on the sectors of the market that provide the most profit, and ignores the smaller sectors. I've never bought a house for a range of reasons, but the poor design (too big and glitzy / flash) and shocking construction (inept or non-existent insulation, so expensive to operate - and vulnerable in heat waves; also, not durable - basically what I would consider flimsy [I like stone, ideally, or "greener" concrete designed to last 200 years]) are a big part of the story. In the case of older people, the financial risks around moving into a smaller house (which are generally utterly misunderstood or ignored in economics articles) as well as the lack of choice (due to the aforementioned private industry problem) are key parts of it, but I also consider people should:
  (a) stop thinking about homes as a way to build wealth - all the international treaties about rights to housing are based on security and shelter, not getting rich; and
  (b) for those who want a family, consider buying their retirement home first, renting that out, and renting a family home while they raise their kids - which makes it easier for housing stock to go on to the market for families, and provides some stock for older people (whether couples or single). This would also be immeasurably aided by allowing tiny homes -on stumps if necessary - in people's backyards, which provides a rental incomes for the house owner (for parking rights, if the home is mobile), allows those with less money to own a home (it might have to be demountable, if it doesn't have wheels), and enables provision of housing stock quickly - and can offset housing slumps if builders learn how to do this PROPERLY (with good insulation!!!). Some US cities are even using this to address their homelessness crises. It also helps to reduce urban sprawl with the least angst;
• The growing gap between the age at which one needs to either stop or slow down, and when one can access a pension or one's superannuation - which shows how out of touch with reality some elites are (either that, or they want older people to die miserably, commit suicide or wind up homeless beggars - do they know NOTHING about domestic violence, discrimination, etc? Are they set in  "hubbie will look after her" heteronormativity? Are they just bloody stupid?)
  My home state has introduced some measures to address this, but I consider that more needs to be done structurally; 
• The self-righteous stupidity of those who think people should HAVE to work at being self sufficient - which is largely about their own selfishness, in my experience - they hate people they consider to be "bludgers", as well as anyone who has different (e.g., humanistic) life values. They also have a complete and utter lack of understanding of what life is like for most people on the lower ¾ of the income spectrum - and especially the working poor, and those who are forced (e.g., through ill health - and I have to admit my health is no longer too brilliant) on to some form of social security. These upper class neoliberals are basically agents of hate - although they probably don't understand that.
  I also have to point out that there are some people in this category, particularly middle class people, who genuinely want to ensure taxes are spent on others with greater need; and 
• The incredible blocks and obstacles to older people being able to work - such as work insurance, which politicians have wrung their bloody hands about, but DONE NOTHING - because they want private industry to pick up the ball! If (neoliberal) YOU change the retirement age, and private insurers dither, YOU, government, have a moral responsibility, in the interests of good governance, to fill any gaps so people can LIVE - or, again, do you want older people to starve to death / die on the streets / commit suicide / wind up as homeless beggars? (or work in the local supermarket, as I have seen more and more doing?) Even if people have families, not all have a good relationship, and setting up a system predicated on reliance on family is facilitating elder abuse.
  On top of that, ROBBING people of the ability to tend for themselves while they are still capable of doing so for financial reasons is bad for their wellbeing and health (and thus an AVOIDABLE health system cost) and an affront to human dignity.

Trying to get anyone to listen on this is one of the most frustrating areas I've encountered in activism - and I consider ageism underlies the problems, things like wrong assumptions that older people all own their own homes, are financially well off, have offspring etc who will not resent the imposition of having to provide for their elders AND are willing to sacrifice their self respect, etc, etc, etc.

And the problem is just going to get worse.

We need to start implementing a proper approach to work (future proofing work, I term it), based on skill clusters (but for ALL ages, not only young people [and I wish the ****s would release more of the details, but they won't even acknowledge my emails) and cycles of jobs throughout one's life.

I recently met with my local Federal MP - progressive, most definitely not neoliberal (a member of the opposition party, in fact), a great representative - to discuss a couple of matters, and this was one of the issues.

The discussion was fantastic, and shows - again - why people should not be cynical about their MPs!

What I learned included:

• European and other nations have made the move to "lifelong learning funds", which enables part of what I am seeking (see here, here [and here], and here [and, slightly off-topic, here]); 
• the term for the counsellors I want to see is "transition counsellors" (and couldn't find a good, generic, information-based link on this - just commercial ads); 
• the German coal industry implemented a transition plan before they shut down part of that industry in the 90s (and will do the same as they now aim to shut down the entire industry), so that only a few workers didn't have another job to go to - as opposed to our terrible practice of waiting until people have been thrown on to the unemployment heap, lost their savings, health, possibly their family, and their dignity as people, before we cram then into a cookie cutter social security system that isn't (better steps were introduced after a local power station here was shut down, but  not everyone is back in work yet - several years later, despite retraining [and I wonder if ageism and other forms of discrimination are the issue . . . ]) - see here, here, here, here, and here; and
• that this gets into the area of insecure work generally (see here), which is a clear health risk (so again, moving to that form of work - which reduces consumers' ability to spend - also increases costs through health risks and problems).

So, where to from here?

Well:

1. I can refer to overseas practices and better terminology in everything I do from here on (which will almost inevitably include emails to politicians ☺ ); 
2. my home state is asking for submissions on job seeking, so I can tidy up the above and make a submission on the situation for older workers, lifelong learning, transition counselors (and plans), etc (I'm back to work soon, though, and have to manage my energies carefully, so I may not be able to make the submissions - or quality of submissions - that I want to); 
3. I received some guidance on how to work towards this through my union; and 
4. I hope to be able to art of a political party's policy committee on these matters (and also tiny homes).

Now, Dear Reader, how about you?

PS - we also need to start seeing work as a marathon, rather than a sprint at the fastest pace we can do to satisfy our neoliberal masters 

A thought bubble: sovereignty vs. human rights

Note: I'm writing this to try to clarify a thought that came to me. This is still a work in progress, and will be until I finish resolving the problems in the argument. 

*****

One of the points of contention in international relations is the issue of sovereignty, and how much - and in what way - agreements and other nations will and can / may "acceptably" breach sovereignty.

The ultimate breach of sovereignty is probably warfare - physically invading another nation and death and destruction. This can, in some cases, have repercussions that continue for decades.

As I started writing that, I was thinking of the USA's wars and other violent involvements in Central America, which led to instability and such appalling social conditions that thousands of people are fleeing  ironically, to the nation that caused the problems, the USA (see here, here, and here). The histories of Europe and post-Civil War USA, however, are probably better examples. In Europe's case, hate and violence between some nations has been passed on through generations (with a concomitant length of war, in some cases - e.g., here) and war has had a role in the creation and ending of many nations, and the USA is still plagued by racist hate from the time of its civil war.

There are other forms of breaching other nations' sovereignty as well - perhaps most notably, in the current clime, the issue of interference in elections - which has occurred for decades before the 2016 US Presidential election, including US actions in the 1996 Russian elections, Iran (1952), the Philippines (1953), and - perhaps most notoriously of all - Chile (1973), and competing US, USSR and sometimes others influence in Italy (1948), Korea (1948), and Palestine (2006), and the USA's misreading of circumstances and subsequent devastating actions and influences in Viêt Nàm in the 50s and 60s.

The USSR probably considers the military "intervention" by the Allies in the Russian Civil War in 1918-19 (which saw over 5,000 Allied deaths [and a Russian death toll in the millions]) as foreign interference - and remember that these events can leave long trails through history, trails that interweave with current influences and can either blow up spectacularly (as in the now former Yugoslavia), or transform (for instance, the ending of apartheid in South Africa).

These military interventions are not always bad: I consider the fight in World War (part) Two (WW2) against the evils of nazism to have been necessary - avoidable, had nations interfered effectively and well with Germany's sovereignty, or even enforced the Treaty of Versailles, but, once it become inevitable, necessary.

And that is a good point to start moving on to other forms of influence - specifically, law, international law, and human rights - all of which had been evolving and developing for centuries beforehand - perhaps most notably the Paris Pact of 1928, which was the basis of significant charges after WW2, but also the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (although those were agreed to partly to reduce the escalating cost of modern warfare - specifically, "expanding" bullets), and some  aspects of the League of Nations.

At this point, we start to see law and agreement governing the interaction of nations, basically edging the world out of thuggery towards mature interactions. On the basis of the real individuals who suffer during war, directly and indirectly, I consider this a good thing. (There are also benefits socially, environmentally, and even economically.)

However, not all nations agree to such restraints - such as nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. In that instance, the wrong of violently invading another nation (through WW2) is clear and quite apparent: it is perhaps, less clearcut in the case on political interference and "covert" actions.

I would sum the latter example as a conflict between one nation's political aims and will, and another's political aims and will, with one nation being dishonest about their political aims and will. 

There are international agreements on many things - and they have wide benefits, as is the case for instance, with navigation agreements for sea and sky, or postal agreements, and health. Less widely known, sadly, are the benefits from health agreements, and subject to some dispute - from shrinking but noisy minorities within some nations - are agreements about refugees and environment (e.g., the agreements that remedied the ozone depletion problem).

Many of these agreements have options for nations to object to parts, or to withdraw.

So, irrespective of one's view on the content, there is a system which seems to be based largely around the choice of nations (which do not necessarily encompass the views of all citizens of that nation).

Where this becomes greyer is:

(a) ius cogens status laws; and
(b) the Responsibility to Protect / Will to Intervene.

ius cogens is something that has become so widely accepted, that it doesn't matter if someone objects, they will still be expected to comply with that. An example if the prohibition on murder, which is so widely established that, even if the laws banning it were to suddenly disappear overnight, the prohibition would still be respected by decent, "everyday" or "normal" people.

Another example is the ban on slavery, although that two millennia old (at least) struggle is still continuing, as slavery has changed its form and some people are diluting the struggle by flippant use of the term for other problems.

Responsibility to Protect / Will to Intervene is based on the notion of "never again" that first received widespread use / support after WW2, when the genocides and other abuses of the nazis became widely known; the term Responsibility to Protect was developed and formalised after such atrocities did occur again - in Bosnia, and Rwanda, with the term Will to Intervene being developed - but not formalised or even widely used - to cover the fact that nations continued to seek excuses to avoid taking action - currently being displayed by the world towards burma's genocide of the Rohingya. (The term genocide was developed by Raphael Lemkin to describe what had happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, the core remnant of which later became modern Turkey, in World War (part) One.)

Now we get to the thought bubble I'm working on developing.

Let's go back to the notion of laws against murder suddenly disappearing, and suppose - for the purposes of this exercise - that one nation embraced the lack of such laws.

Would you be happy to go to that nation? I consider most people would say "no, that would be dangerous".

Would you be happy with that nation trying to get your nation to also remove your bans on murder? Again, I think most people would say "no".

This illustrates - somewhat extremely - the concerns everyday people have about failing to respect sovereignty. In real life, of course, it is not as clearcut as that, as most people's concerns are based on fallacies (especially around refugees [e.g., see here] and what other religions and cultures are like - which is rich, diverse, and NOT monolithic), and the politics are often based on power and the imposition of one's culture on others - a problem the USA is notorious for, especially with regard to economic and social security matters (It's record on human rights is patchy - some good, some bad, some neutral).

In real life, the politics often appears, in my opinion, to lag behind the will of the people. Many people wanted action taken in Bosnia long before anything was done, for instance. Many people wanted action in Rwanda while it was happening as well - and some action (such as bombing the radio station that was broadcasting incitement to hate and violence) would have been effective, but the world had ignored and misread the signals so thoroughly that there wasn't enough time for large scale intervention before Rwandan rebels ended the genocide themselves (before going on to commit another).

Why? For a range of reasons very capably explored and explained in Samantha  Power's book "A Problem  from Hell" (Pub. Basic Books [“a member of the Perseus Books Group”], New York, 2013, ISBN 978-0-465-06151-8; previously published HarperCollins in 2003 and 2007), which, for the purposes of this article, I will summarise as "concern about votes" (aka political power).

Now, let's change the perspective a little. In that nation which now allows - perhaps even encourages - murder, perhaps sitting in the international naughty corner and ignoring the rest of world, at what point do you say "enough is enough" and take action?

Ignoring the naive who would talk about that nation's need to improve itself, reactions would range between "never" to "immediately", with most people probably trying to determine a rational or reasonable basis for when to act. Then the debate would turn to "what form of intervention should this take", with some arguing for targeted sanctions only, some for wider sanctions, a few for military gungho-ism, and some for progressive escalation from the first to the last option.

In everyday life, without considerable education, some people will not even call the police when they hear domestic violence, as shown by Samantha Power's book: similar education (aka - action to trigger "imagination") is often needed to get people to want to take action against atrocities - I'm not sure that's about avoiding one's own casualties, as many people too often don't think about that or assume their forces will be more effective, but there is some sort of head-in-the-sand attitude problem - or an assumption that they cannot have an influence.

Where support for action grows is when the effects on oneself of a rowdy or disruptive neighbour becomes apparent - in the thought bubble I'm rolling around, perhaps some people start arguing for allowing murder in your nation, or start acting on the basis that "they can do it, so why can't I?"

In real life, severe internal problems in one nation can affect trade and economics, cause a spread of instability, and ultimately lead to war - as happened with Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, and central Africa in the 1990s.

We're all interconnected, and we cannot afford to overlook our neighbour's problems. We're entitled to consider what we should be doing, realistically, but wilful blindness is not an acceptable option. And that applies from the level of the individual through to the world community of nations.

(On a lesser scale, the USA is currently experiencing the return of problems it created in Central America, which is a perfect example of this interconnection.)

One of the problems here is, in democracies, that people can take some time to realise the seriousness of problems, and that can lead to the election of politicians like those who delayed the USA's entry into World Wars One and Two.

There are a couple of solutions here.

The first is for a better flow of information - not just quantity and timing, but also quality - from both media and governments. This gets into a whole other set of issues currently being played out in Australia through the debate over police raids on media.

The second is for some prior discussion and pre-agreement on triggers, actions and reasonable approaches to impacting on nations' sovereignty. Fortunately, we've done that, and have the multi-cultural, multi-religion based Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United  Nations and UN Security  Council, which are based on, in part, the following, from the UN Charter:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

 . . .

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

 . . .

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

The UN can seem frustrating and unwieldy, and there are things to fix there, but some of the slowness is because of grappling with issues such as balancing human rights and sovereignty. 

Now we just need to get everyone aware of all this . . .

Accidental hate

One of the biggest problems with the struggle to achieve Equal Marriage is that, right back at the start, when the evil  John Howard actually passed legislation banning Equal Marriage, there was an opportunity to register a protest and challenge that law. The main opposition party at the time, however, meekly and subserviently acquiesced - and it was later discovered that they had consulted with same sex advocates who had abused their position by promulgating their personal hate of any sort of marriage, not for a moment thinking that same sex/same gender relationships would be the victims.

At around the same time, there was at least one trans advocate who, in the quest for a widening of the anti-discrimination provisions around gender identity documents [Note 1] to include the non-operative parts of the gender continuum, as well those who - for financial and/or medical reasons - may not be able to have surgery (which has been particularly problematic for, for instance, F2Ms - see here for some terminology), tried to argue that surgery was "wrong", and created - in effect - "freaks". It was offensive - not only to post-operative trans people, but also to their partners, who were also being subsumed into some sort of morally reprehensible "freak-hood". The person concerned claimed it was "a political tactic", but it was stupid, regressive, and EXTREMELY harmful to sections of the TGD community. Their intentions were undoubtedly good (the neochristians have a saying about that), but the result was discriminatory - it was a case of unintended discrimination, or, to use a more colourful turn of words, perhaps we could term it as "accidental hate".

The wrong of the hate of the Department of Births, Deaths and Marriages is now likely to be overcome - after almost two decades of suffering on our side, and nothing of any gain on theirs.

This is GREAT news, but . . . the media release refers to surgery in a slightly derogatory way. Is someone still promulgating hate, or only a part of the picture?

When you're on the receiving end of so much bigotry for so long, it is understandable that people may resort to any tactic at all to achieve their aims, but when it is done at the expense of other people (as, for instance, was the case with the trans advocate who tried to use brain research to wrongly shunt trans people into the category of intersex [Note 2] - thereby trivialising their valid needs and making the accomplishment of their needs harder, just as those who respond to the "Black Lives Matter" with the trivialising and diluting 'all lives matter' rubbish also do ), it is wrong, and no achievement of rights as all.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

If you achieve human rights or better consideration in one area, but at the expense of others, you are merely shuffling the hate around, not dealing with the fundamental problem.



Note 1

To give some background on this, the anti-discrimination provisions we succeeded in having passed included non-operative trans and gender diverse (TGD) people as well as post operative for a number of reasons (including the fact that others would not be able to differentiate, and the requirement of a real life test for those who wish to have surgery): however, Births, Deaths and Marriage clearly had problems with not discriminating, and advocated fiercely - and, whether they knew it or not, effectively hatefully -  against carrying that over to the provision of documentation (despite the presentation of clear and compelling arguments for doing so - by us and others [this is a particular issue for intersex people]), which was restricted to post-operative people - and was problematic for many reasons. 

Note2

The trans advocate concerned was, I should point out, extremely effective in at least one other area, however. (Also, the intersex response was also problematic, but I see that as an outcome of trying to survive against hate that included the trans action. This is, perhaps, similar to the hate many LGBTIQ+ people feel for religion, which has been the leading front of hate for millennia - understandable, but excludes and antagonises LGBTIQ+ people of faith.)