No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

The Long Barrier

By skepticlawyer

Someone listened to his cricket coach as a kid

A British soldier has described how he picked up a Taliban hand grenade which landed at his feet and threw it back towards the enemy.

Rifleman James McKie was on a tiny rooftop in Sangin. He and two of his platoon could hear the bullets fired by the Taliban below bouncing off the roof.

The 29-year-old soldier had just finished firing back when the grenade thrown by the insurgents bounced off his platoon commander and landed just a foot away from him.

He heard a small pop, “like a fire-cracker,” before he saw the grenade land.

The young soldier, originally from New Zealand, made a split-second decision that was to save his life and those of his two comrades on that roof. He picked up the grenade, and threw it back.

“I saw the grenade, and my first thought was that I knew I had to get it away from us. And my second was ‘I hope this doesn’t hurt too much’,” he says, with a wry smile.

Obviously well-schooled in forming ‘the long barrier’, Rifleman McKie (who is Kiwi originally) ‘got behind it’, fielded it and threw it back. Who knew that cricketing skills had such a direct military application:

Approach the ball at speed and as you get into line with the ball, twist your upper body, leading with the shoulder furthest from the ball.

Bend both knees, so that the knee of the leg nearest to the ball touches the ground, but it is also next to the back of the heel of the other leg.

With fingers down and head forward, pick up the ball and then stand back up ready to deliver an overarm throw.

Don’t, however, try this at home. Except with a cricket ball, of course; that’s all right.

Mummies and Daddies

By Legal Eagle

I was interested to read today that a woman has failed in her legal bid to stop her former partner from encouraging their six-year-old daughter to call his new partner “Mummy D”. Unfortunately the judgment doesn’t seem to be available online yet.

[The mother] said encouraging the term of endearment was ”an incendiary action” by her former partner and his new partner, even though it was followed by the initial of the stepmother’s first name and they had agreed not to encourage the simple use of ”mum” or ”mummy”.

But Justice Christine Dawe refused to grant the order, saying it was impractical to require the father to stop encouraging the stepmother and the child to use the term ”Mummy D”, and could have led to further litigation.

”Weighing all of the factors up, and particularly that the child has in the past used the expression ‘Mummy [D]‘, and on the basis that I am not satisfied from any of the material before the court that the use of the expression ‘Mummy [D]‘ by the stepmother would undermine the mother’s relationship with the child, I am not satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child [to grant the order],” the judge said.

”I also accept that, at her age, she will develop and in future will be likely to, or may well possibly, adapt to calling each of her step-parents by their first names rather than using expressions of either ‘Mummy’ or ‘Daddy’.”

Patrick Parkinson, a family law professor from the University of Sydney made the following comment about the decision:

”There are limits to what any court can do. You can’t regulate every aspect of family life through court orders,” he said. ”We’ve got to grow up and stop thinking every breakdown can be resolved by the court.”

The case had probably cost the parties a lot of money, time and anxiety, but there was not much that could be done to stop such changes occurring after divorce except to respect the other people involved and recognise their role in a child’s life, he said.

Parkinson is right on the money – there are limits to what the law can achieve. I wish people thought about that more often. I mean, how could such an order be practically enforced? What happens if the child calls her stepmother ‘Mummy D’ of her own volition, despite the court order? How can this kind of thing possibly be good for the child?

I’ve never had a relationship breakdown, but if I did, I would do my best to make things as amicable as possible for the sake of the children. Of course it takes both parties to achieve this, and I know it isn’t always possible. I know a woman whose ex-partner screamed at her and physically threatened her at handovers of their child, and then, when the child recoiled from the father, he accused his ex-wife of “turning” the child against him. (Could he not see that he was turning his own child against him by his behaviour? Apparently not. Of course, this lack of insight was part of the reason the marriage failed in the first place.)

In any case, people just have to accept that their former partner may well find a new partner and that this new partner will have a role in their child’s life. It takes a little compromise on everyone’s part, and the parent who won’t compromise may find that the very thing they fear occurs and they end up alienating their child because of their attitude.

Ari and Mohammed are now friends

By DeusExMacintosh

The Israeli military cancelled a planned raid on a Palestinian village after one of its soldiers posted details of the operation on Facebook.

The unnamed soldier revealed the time and place of the raid and the name of his unit on the social networking site. He said on his status update that his unit planned a “clean up” raid.

The soldier was court-martialled and sentenced to 10 days in prison. He was also ousted from his battalion and relieved of combat duties.

“On Wednesday we clean up Qatanah, and on Thursday, God willing, we come home,” the soldier wrote on his Facebook page. Qatanah is a village in the West Bank near Ramallah.

His Facebook friends and fellow soldiers reported the post to the authorities.

The decision to cancel the raid was made by commanders after it was feared the leak would put the unit in danger. The operation went ahead several days later.

- BBC News

Jacob’s Ladder

By DeusExMacintosh

It was all polite smiles and meticulous protocol as Jacob Zuma met the Queen yesterday afternoon. But just hours before he left for his state visit to Britain, South Africa’s flamboyant President revealed what he really thought of his hosts.

In an astonishing interview given shortly before he boarded his flight to London, Mr Zuma launched a scathing attack on the British, accusing them of being cultural imperialists with colonial attitudes who still viewed Africans as “barbaric”.

“When the British came to our country they said everything we did was barbaric, was wrong, inferior in whatever way,” he told The Independent’s sister group of newspapers in South Africa. “Bear in mind that I’m a freedom fighter and I fought to free myself, and also for my culture to be respected. And I don’t know why they are continuing thinking that their culture is more superior than others, those who might have said so.”

The catalyst for Mr Zuma’s remarkable outburst was criticism from a number of British columnists who questioned the President’s polygamy, a common and accepted practice among South Africa’s Zulus…

However, at a state banquet last night, Mr Zuma praised the help Britain had given South Africa in its transition to a new democratic government. “We cannot forget the extraordinary role they [the British people] played at the forefront of a global movement for a free South Africa, as the global anti-apartheid movement has its roots in this country.”

His comments in the interview threatened to overshadow what was supposed to be a three-day visit to strengthen ties between Britain and South Africa. Gordon Brown stood alongside the Queen to greet Mr Zuma and the two leaders will hold talks today…

For his opening meeting with the Queen and Prince Philip on Horse Guards Parade, Mr Zuma wore a long coat and black suit to protect him from the March chill. In South Africa, the 67-year-old often greets dignitaries wearing the traditional Zulu dress of leopard skin loincloth and shield. Mr Zuma’s Zulu heritage may also have provided the impetus behind the Queen’s gift to him of a mounted bronze stag and a book entitled Hunting And Stalking Deer. A representative from Mr Zuma’s office, however, admitted he had no knowledge of the President being interested in hunting.

Mr Zuma’s gift to the Queen was a sculpted chess set depicting traditional Zulu warriors – although he soon discovered that a similar present had been given to the Duke of Edinburgh by his predecessor Nelson Mandela years earlier. Noticing the hand-painted ceramic set on display in the Palace Picture Gallery, a slightly crestfallen Mr Zuma remarked: “Oh, that’s another set.”

- The Independent

Okay, so I couldn’t resist it either…

UPDATE: My apologies to those eagle-eyed readers who have noticed the corrected funnie. As SL has kindly pointed out, Ian Smith was the racist white prime minister of Rhodesia, PW Botha was the racist white prime minister of South Africa.

Such a jaunty little tune

By skepticlawyer

Amanda Palmer sings and performs in the same tradition as the artists in Cabaret, with jaunty and up little tunes about death, destruction, weird sex and squick. Once part of The Dresden Dolls, she had a large hit with Coin Operated Boy and has since done various other things, including a musical attempt to revive the flagging fortunes of Leeds United Football Club (now sadly languishing in the 3rd Division).

A friend pointed me to the video below, which, I think, combines ‘all the above’ in about equal measure (death, destruction, weird sex and squick). It made me laugh, but in the same way that large chunks of Python make me laugh: with a creeping sense of, oh no, you mustn’t, it’s cruel!

Palmer’s response to the blanket refusal of UK radio stations to play the tune was to point out the following:

I suggested that I might be allowed to play it if I just slowed it way down and played it in a minor key. Think about it. If they heard the same lyrics against the backdrop of a very sad and liliting piano, maybe with some tear-jerking strings thrown in for good measure, would they take issue?

She’s got a point, especially considering the success of Ben Folds Five’s Brick, which does the appropriately sad lilt with a side-serving of ‘rite of passage’. Interestingly enough, Ben Folds is often Amanda Palmer’s producer, so it’s clear that neither disapproves of the other’s approach. They just approach the topic differently. I suspect Palmer’s above comment is a tongue-in-cheek reference to Brick, which even gives us some strings.

Alternatively, Ben Folds just prefers to write sad songs, while Amanda Palmer just prefers to write happy songs. Even about poor old Leeds United, who may have missed the transfer window for all time.

A Welcome to Lawyers’ Weekly readers

By skepticlawyer

Some of the people who write this blog are actually organised. I, alas, am not one of them.

Unbeknown to me, this blog was prominently featured in this week’s issue of leading trade magazine Lawyers’ Weekly. The article discusses several sites across Ozblawgistan, including Stephen Warne’s professional negligence blog (you’ll notice he’s featured on LE’s blogroll) and several we hadn’t discovered, including this fabulous site, done by cartooning lawyer Paul Brennan. Two more specialised sites are also featured: Stephen Page’s divorce blog and his LGBT law blog. Three of these were unknown to me, which not only goes to show my lack of organisation, but also the diversity of Australian blawgs. I’m especially taken with Paul Brennan’s site. Do take a look at it — some of the cartoons are very funny.

Lawyers’ Weekly includes a very nice interview with Legal Eagle, which I’m very glad of as I wasn’t around to assist — the magazine contacted us while I was in the US. 

So, with that out of the way, it’s probably time to invite lurkers to introduce themselves, if they’ve got a mind to do so. Our stats have gone silly this week so we know you’re out there. I realise this kind of thing can sometimes fall flat, but if you found this blog via Lawyers’ Weekly, or have just been quietly reading over time without joining in, we’d like to invite you to leave a comment below.

Contemptuous spam

By Legal Eagle

Believe it or not, it’s now possible to commit contempt of court by soliciting your supporters to send hundreds of e-mails to the judge.

The case arose when a salesman, Kevin Trudeau, who apparently sells weight loss cures via infomercials on US TV was taken to court by the US Federal Trade Commission for deceptive advertising. The Chicago Tribune reported:

Gettleman [the judge] found Trudeau in contempt last year for using deceptive advertising as he marketed his book “The Weight Loss Cure ‘They’ Don’t Want You to Know About.” He told his audience the book detailed “the easiest method known on planet Earth,” when in fact the book required followers to not eat meat, poultry, starch, fast food or microwaved food, among other rules, and called for hormone injections.

In an effort to sway the judge to his favour, Trudeau asked his followers to e-mail the judge telling them how the cure had changed their lives. Well wasn’t that a mistake? The Chicago Tribune piece continues:

Gettleman came to a boil last week after Trudeau used an Internet radio broadcast and his Web site to urge supporters to e-mail the judge with messages about how Trudeau’s products had changed their lives.

Some 300 Trudeau fans responded, crashing the judge’s e-mail account and leading him to find Trudeau in criminal contempt of court. On Wednesday, Gettleman called the e-mail attack a deliberate attempt to “harass, intimidate and influence” him.

According to Virulent Word of Mouse, the judge turned on his computer in court so that counsel could hear the “bings!” as the e-mails hit his inbox. Have a read of the Virulent Word of Mouse post, it’s very funny.

The judge ordered Trudeau to serve 30 days in custody for contempt of court.

(H/T Heath Gibson)

Privacy and WAGS

By Legal Eagle

I have to say that I never really understood where the acronym WAG came from – I had to look it up on Wikipedia, and I found that it originated as a descriptor of the Wives And Girlfriends of the 2006 English World Cup soccer club. Anyway, I’ve noted that our press has started referring to the wives & girlfriends of the Australian cricket team as WAGs. The woman who I have seen described as a WAG most often appears to be Michael Clarke’s fiancee, Lara Bingle. Her main claim to fame is that she appeared in the ad which asked Where the bloody hell are you? I’ve never had much interest in that kind of thing – the only reason I know who she is is because I like cricket.

Anyway, I saw that Bingle plans to sue footballer Brendan Fevola for releasing images of her taken in the shower some three years ago:

Lara Bingle’s decision to sue Brendan Fevola over the distribution of a near-naked photograph of the swimwear model strikes a blow for women’s rights, says celebrity agent Max Markson.

Bingle decided yesterday to sue the controversy-plagued AFL footballer for allegedly distributing the revealing picture, taken on a mobile phone during the pair’s brief affair in 2006.

Markson confirmed Bingle will take action against for the Brisbane Lions forward for breach of privacy, defamation and misuse of her image after the steamy photo appeared in this week’s Woman’s Day.

I understand that Fevola was distributing the picture amongst his football colleagues and friends, whereupon it found its way to Woman’s Day.

The thing which has amazed me is the venom which has been directed at Bingle for taking this action. This morning, Bingle’s agent, Max Markson, was interviewed by Jon Faine on ABC 774 (excerpt of interview here). Faine asks Markson, “So she’s happy for an image without her clothes on to be circulated as long as she’s paid for it?” In response to Markson’s comment that Bingle hasn’t done fully nude photographs as far as he’s aware, Faine says, “But she has taken her clothes off and posed for men’s magazines?” Markson responds that Bingle has successfully sued Zoo magazine for using unauthorised naked shots of her in the past. “So she’s happy if she’s paid for photos of her?” persists Faine.

Kristen, a talkback caller later takes Faine to task, pointing out that it’s Bingle’s choice that is at issue (atta girl Kristen). In response, Faine says that says that Bingle is just using other people’s moral outrage to protect her brand.

To extend Faine’s argument to a more shocking situation, would Faine argue that if a prostitute is raped it isn’t a problem? After all, a prostitute has sex with random men all the time anyway, and perhaps her problem is that she wasn’t paid in this time? I very much doubt that Faine would argue that. He needs to think about the logical ramifications of his argument here. Just because Bingle makes her living by posing in swimsuits doesn’t mean that she deserves to have naked images of herself taken without her consent disseminated around the Brisbane Lions football club.

And some of the comments on the various articles about Bingle instituting legal action! Apparently the photo was taken when Bingle was in a relationship with Fevola, and he was married at the time. She was 19 years old, and claims that she didn’t realise he was married. A few of the comments exhibit the view that Bingle is a slut and deserves what she got. (No, of course it’s not the married man’s fault that he had an affair, it’s all the woman’s fault.)

The point is that this photo was take without Bingle’s consent (it’s clear that she didn’t want the picture taken from the small version in the linked Herald Sun article). And when Fevola distributes the picture to all his mates, that’s a form of harassment and bullying. It was non-consensual. It’s arguable that its distribution is intended to humiliate and belittle her. It doesn’t matter whether she’s a WAG and a swimsuit model, or that she was having an affair with Fevola at the time. No one should have to put up with that kind of thing.

In terms of defamation, there is precedent on the release of naked photographs where the intention is to subject a person to ridicule and contempt. In Shepherd v Walsh [2001] QSC 358,  Sonia Shepherd successfully sued the publishers of a magazine called The Picture, after it published a nude picture of her. While the picture was of Ms Shepherd, she did not consent to its publication, and it was in fact sent in by her ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend in revenge. There are also parallels with the case involving Andrew Ettingshausen, a famed rugby league player, who successfully sued GQ Magazine after it published a nude photo of him without first seeking his consent. At trial, he was awarded $350,000 in damages, but damages were reduced to $100,000 on appeal (see Australian Consolidated Press Limited v Ettingshausen (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 13 October 1993, Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Clarke JA).

The question will be whether Fevola intended to subject Bingle to ridicule and contempt, or whether he merely sent the image on to a few mates and it got out of hand.

I note Bingle has also claimed breach of privacy – I’ll be very interested to hear where that claim goes. The case could be said to be reminiscent of Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA 236, where Mr Procopets distributed explicit images of Ms Giller to friends and family after their relationship broke down. As I’ve discussed in a post here, the Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to decide whether there was a tort of invasion of privacy. I’ll be interested to see what happens with this one.

‘For War is a Drug’

By skepticlawyer

O wad some Power the gift tae gie us 
To see oursels as ithers see us! 
It wad frae mony a blunder free us, 
An foolish notion.

From Robert Burns, To a Louse

The course Burns commends has, of late, become unfashionable. Instead of observing others unlike ourselves and reporting back, we have been enjoined to comment on things within our ken and to leave others alone. Sometimes those who wish to comment on others–on those unlike themselves–are even chased away with sticks. Whole critical industries are devoted to writings from this or that minority group, or this or that victim group, forgetting that the first task of all imaginative literature (in which I include cinema) is to engender empathy in the reader or viewer, to make us imagine people and places at least partly unlike ourselves. It’s even better if the writer can engender readerly empathy for things wholly unlike us or outside our ken. Homer even makes you pity his horses.

This focus on the local and familiar has, of course, diversified literature at the expense of its imaginative depth. Our writers are licorice allsorts, but none of them can make you care about their human characters as much as you care about one of Homer’s horses. We seldom have to dust off our willing suspension of disbelief and ask whether the writer pulled off the high wire act or not, for the simple reason that most writers no longer try walking across Niagara Falls on a length of rope. This, I think, is a loss, and while diversity is nice, it is only nice, and perhaps it is time to reward imaginative power again.

A good opportunity to sample a large imaginative vision is to watch Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, to date the only decent film about the Iraq War. This film succeeds because it honours warriors without expecting that they should be other than what they are. Unlike the preachy failures Redacted and Syriana, Bigelow’s film is painted on a much smaller canvas: a three man bomb-disposal squad in Iraq when the IED war was at its height (2004) and it seemed that the United States was getting nowhere. The Burnsian skill of Bigelow’s film is that she gifts us a woman’s vision of warriors, and does so with extraordinary skill and psychological insight. Some people, unfortunately, find this threatening:

What’s the point of this metaphor? It’s that I’m still coming to grips with how a woman could possibly have dreamed up this spartan American soldier in Iraq, who, while obsessively romancing death as a bomb-squad ace, outdoes the most extreme images of machismo ever produced by mainstream America. While Wayne set the testosterone standard in playing characters who lived to fight, his guys also found time to love women — Ethan’s Martha (Dorothy Jordan) in “The Searchers” and the Ringo Kid’s Dallas (Claire Trevor) in “Stagecoach,” to name two.

When they bonded with young, earnest boys, Wayne’s men became meaningful mentors — Gillom Rogers (Ron Howard) in “The Shootist” couldn’t have grown up without the wit and wisdom of Wayne’s John Bernard Books. But Will, with his Wayne-ian steely gaze, his laconic ease at the portals of death, and his patented hero saunter, loves “just one thing,” as he tells his baby boy before leaving him, maybe forever, to return to the killing fields of Iraq. And it isn’t women or kids.

The same critic goes on to complain about an absence of rom-coms at this year’s Oscars. A woman director, it seems, is to be penalised for seeing men as others see them, for giving us Burns’s gift. It is very sad. This despite the greatest imaginative art being about the ability to get inside other people’s heads, you know, like Tolstoy did to  Anna Karenina and Jane Austen did to Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. 

It is also fashionable, these days, to pretend that all soldiers come back from the front damaged beyond repair, unable to become full and fit members of society again. It is similarly fashionable to run down what they do while at the front. In America at least, this quinella no longer puts bums on seats, hence the failure of Redacted and Syriana. The Hurt Locker–apart from its deliberately confined vision–captures the extent to which some men are extraordinarily good at war, and that this skill does not make them bad men or cruel men, just different men from the common run of man (and woman) hood. The line ‘war is a drug’ comes from Chris Hedges, and is featured as part of a larger quotation at the start of the film:

The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.

Will James (Jeremy Renner) may be crazy brave, even drugged on war, but he is very good at what he does. And he likes it. He is also less good at other things: the scene where this consummate warrior is all but defeated by the Wal-Mart cereal aisle back home is chilling in its intensity and power. He is not, however, a bad father–that is made very clear. He just likes other things more than fatherhood. Quite a lot of men do; ditto with women and motherhood. It may not be fashionable to say this, but it remains true.

James is joined by Sanborn (Anthony Mackie)–a sane and seasoned operator–and Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), the squad’s newbie. Sanborn is initially hostile to James, partly because he thinks he takes too many risks and partly because James’s predecessor in title was popular and well liked, not least of all by Sanborn himself. At one point he and Eldridge seriously consider manufacturing a ‘blue on blue‘ incident, so irritating does Sanborn find his new commander.

This hostility is diverted when the three men encounter a group of British mercenaries hunting down high ranking members of Saddam’s erstwhile government, featured–as you may recall–in the form of a deck of cards. Led by Ralph Fiennes, the Brits have gone Lawrence of Arabia native, and the Americans initially mistake them for insurgents. When this misidentification is overcome, the mixed group finds itself under fire from real insurgents, and there then follows fifteen minutes of the most suspenseful cinema you will ever see. This is broken by unintentional humour that is never forced or contrived: Fiennes’s character coyly reminding Sanborn that, ‘ah, we’re on the same side,’ or a soldier’s rifle jamming because the ammunition cartridge has been soaked with blood (necessitating extensive spit and polish in order to be made serviceable again).

Kathryn Bigelow is being heavily tipped for the Best Director Oscar. If she wins, it will be because she has held a mirror up to an aspect of humanity and made us see things we didn’t notice before. That’s the best, I think, we can expect of the narrative arts: they remind us what real life is like, if we’re willing to be reminded.

Science, religion and how things came to be

By Legal Eagle

I think I’ve said before that I was raised by scientists. When possible, I try to explain things scientifically to my children. Obviously there’s a limit to their understanding at this point, but when they were scared of thunder and lightning recently, I told my daughter it wasn’t monsters (as she feared) but electricity in the sky, caused by hot air hitting cold air.

When my daughter was asking why ice turned into water, I explained the concept of change of state to her. I explained that ice, water and steam were all made up of the same little tiny invisible pieces, but the difference was in how fast they were moving. The explanation ran thusly:

When the water was made cold, the little pieces got much more still and close together (making the water solid – ice). When the water was made hot, the little pieces whizzed around very fast and were very far apart (making the water gas – steam). When the water was normal temperature, the little pieces were able to move around quite a lot, slipping and sliding, making them liquid. Then I drew a diagram to show the difference. My daughter then copied my diagram herself and showed her father, and explained it to him. Daddy, who is also a scientist, was most impressed.

My mother was over and observed the diagram. “I think they should teach change of state as soon as possible,” she said approvingly. “It’s a fundamental concept. Instead, they don’t introduce it until Year 10.” I was totally shocked.

How far should we try to teach things scientifically to our children? What kind of credence should we give to other explanations (myth or religious explanation)? When I was telling my daughter about the lightning, I said that some people in the olden days thought there was a big man called Thor sitting in the clouds throwing lightning bolts down like spears, but this wasn’t true. Still, his name is where we get the name of thunder from (the proto-Germanic word *thunaraz gave rise to Old Norse Þorr, German donner, Dutch donder as well as Old English Þunor which turned into thunder).

The Australian reports today:

School students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.

The curriculum, obtained by The Weekend Australian, directs that students from primary school through to Year 10 be taught the scientific knowledge of different cultures, primarily indigenous culture, including sustainable land use and traditional technologies.

I find it very interesting that indigenous myth and legend incorporates important information about the land and the people’s observations about the environment about them. It’s a valid form of knowledge. But…it isn’t really science, except in the most broad terms (in that it is an observation about how the world works).  I don’t think indigenous myth and legend should be taught as science.

Science means “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.” Scientific method means carrying out experiments to ascertain how the world works. It is a particular product of the Western Enlightenment.

The idea is that you put up a hypothesis as to how a particular thing works, and you test that hypothesis. If you are seeking to establish the impact of sunlight on plant growth, for example, you may do a “control” experiment where you put a plant in normal conditions to show what happens if you change nothing. Other plants may be in the dark or in half light. Then you take the data and you draw a conclusion from it. It’s important to keep in mind Karl Popper’s “falsibility”. You can never actually confirm a scientific hypothesis, but if you disprove your thesis, it is decisive: it shows the thesis to be false. What can a scientist conclude then? A scientist can only conclude that for the time being the facts seem to be consistent with her thesis and thus her thesis has not been disproven.

Aboriginal myth and legend is not a series of scientific experiments. It is a religious, legal and spiritual explanation of the world which depends upon faith and cultural practice. Some of the elements of that explanation may match up with conclusions of the Western scientific method, which is very interesting, and shows that some parts of myth and legend may have a basis in empirical observation.

My parents recounted that when they visited Uluru, they were told by the non-indigenous guide in reverent terms that a particular cave was “Mala putu” (Mala’s pouch or the pouch of the female hare-wallaby). That’s not a scientific explanation of the cave, and it is not the pouch of the female hare-wallaby. However, some people believe that explanation, and their faith is fine by me. Just don’t try to pass it off as science or reality.

My worry is that if you start putting such observations up as science, you may end up having to give fair play to other non-scientific explanations of the world. Specifically, you are leaving it open to people to start claiming that their particular religious explanation of how the world was created is “scientific”. Do you end up having to give fair play to Ken Ham’s “Creation Museum” as “science”? Because that ain’t science. It’s faith.

I think the reason behind the desire to put indigenous culture into science teaching is a desire to make up for the oppression and ill-treatment of indigenous people in the past. There’s no doubt that indigenous forms of knowledge were disrespected, and indigenous people were written off as “savages” who were not worthy of being treated as equal human beings. (Although I note that whitefellas learned pretty quickly to be respectful of blackfella knowledge if they got stuck in the bush or needed a tracker to follow someone). But you don’t need to say that indigenous beliefs are scientific in order to give them respect.

Just because woo-woo is believed by people who have historically been victims doesn’t make it any less woo than the Abrahamic religions. It’s still woo, not science.