Government caught in cover up

https://medium.com/@MarkJAttard/reef-in-danger-c35323b78185?source=linkShare-57bf32bb736d-1464696533

This is what sport is all about. 

A story to inspire young people everywhere. 

https://medium.com/@MarkJAttard/bethany-hamilton-courage-personified-5b1c9ca69d55?source=linkShare-57bf32bb736d-1464693796

A recent edict against the wearing of wigs has upset some barristers in Victoria. 

https://medium.com/@MarkJAttard/wigs-or-not-49d9405ca20d?source=linkShare-57bf32bb736d-1464686275

Why is gluten important? Or is it?
https://medium.com/@MarkJAttard/why-gluten-63daa3328eec?source=linkShare-57bf32bb736d-1464530048

(Pollan on cooking) “But even better, I found, is the satisfaction of temporarily breaking free of one’s accustomed role of producing the one thing – whatever it is you sell into the market – and being the passive consumer of everything else.”

This is the second article I draw from Michael Pollan’s book “Cooked”. Today we look at why “cooking” is being replaced with industrialised food processing. 
Research has confirmed that in Western economies all over the world, people are cooking less and buying more prepared meals. By “cooking” we mean combining a number of ingredients to make a meal, we do not mean placing a plastic wrapped meal in the microwave oven and heating for the required time or heating a frozen pizza. 
On average in the US, the average household spends 27 minutes a day on food preparation. That’s less than half the time spent on cooking in 1965. This isn’ t all bad news, as modern industry has freed us from the drudgery of preparing a number of ingredients such as onions (which come chopped and frozen) as do carrots and a wide variety of vegetables. Canning has also allowed industry to prepare for us a number fruits and vegetables and certain meats and fishes. 
But should we be so complacent about industry encroaching on this essentially human activity? Today industry is prepared to usurp all aspects of food preparation save the eating. When industry cooks for you it adds ingredients that are not readily available in the suburban kitchen. These ingredients or chemicals help either preserve the food for its trip from factory to table, or improve its appearance or taste. They tend to use much more sugar, fat and salt than we would in the kitchen. This is why it is called (accurately) “”processed food”. 
Fast food and processed food has led to high levels of obesity, reduced nutrition, diabetes and other chronic diseases. 
The availability of convenient and fast food has led to an increase in “”secondary eating”. Primary eating is what we used to do at meal times, 3 times a day. Secondary eating is the constant eating or grazing we do with packaged food or fast food any number of times a day. Of course, as secondary eating increases, the importance of primary eating diminishes. And so the meal time institution is relegated to dustbin of history, just like sewing, darning, knitting and whole range of activities we used to engage in that have now been replaced by industry.
This led one commentator to say that to reduce the incidence of obesity and diabetes in the Western world all you need do, is have people eat only meals and food that they have cooked or prepared themselves. In this way, not only do we reduce the quantity of food that is consumed but we also guarantee more nutrition and less chemicals, fats, sugar and salt in our diet. 
It is a paradox that while the activity of cooking is on the decline the popularity of cooking shows is increasing. In other words, we are more prepared to watch others cook than to cook ourselves. Why? Why don’t we watch shows about sewing or darning or knitting? 
Many theories abound, but the one that resonates with me is that cooking has a deep appeal to us as humans. The notion of preparing ingredients, applying heat or water to transform them into a meal and the sharing of that meal is wired into our psyche. 
And as modern technology and industry take us away from this human activity, cooking retains a psychological or emotional power over us. 
The importance of the shared meal is not to be overlooked. It is a time for connecting with your family and friends. Making eye contact, engaging in conversation or debate. Sharing experiences, listening, taking turns, learning to reason and just learning. 
In a world where reality is being replaced by virtuality, where social media is really anti-social, let’s not forget the sense of achievement, dare I say it, euphoria, one feels from preparing a tasty meal and sharing it with friends and family. 

I am currently reading David Crystal’s “”A Little Book of Language”. Crystal has written an expert guide to language and linguistics. 
I am currently reading about the effect of modern technology on language. For example, let’s look at the “@” symbol. 
In the 1970s when Ray Tomlinson sent the very first email he inserted the “@” sign into email addresses. 
Today it not only appears in email addresses but it is also a handle for certain social media. 
In English we refer to it as the “at” symbol. But the same symbol has attracted different interest and descriptions in other countries. 
For example, in Denmark it is thought the “@” resembles an elephant’s truck and that is how they refer to it. 
In German, it is thought to resemble a monkey’s tail and that is how they describe it or little monkey. 
In Greek, it is called “papaki” or little duck.
In Hebrew, it is called a strudel. 
The Italians call it “chiocciola” meaning snail. 
The Chinese believe it looks like a mouse. 
In Finland, it is either “miukumauka” meaning miaow or “kissanhnta” meaning cat’s tail. 
In Korea, it is called “golbangi” meaning sea snail. 
In Russia, it is said to resemble a dog or dog face.
English can be so unimaginative. 

(Pollan on cooking) “But even better, I found, is the satisfaction of temporarily breaking free of one’s accustomed role of producing the one thing – whatever it is you sell into the market – and being the passive consumer of everything else.”

I have just finished reading Michael Pollan’s “Cooked” and am excited by what it has taught me about the ancient art of cooking. The theme of the book is that cooking involves the transformation of meat and plant matter, and the four transformations coincide with the traditional elements namely earth, wind, fire, and water.
The subtitle of the book is “”A Natural History of Transformation”. In the section dealing with fire, Pollan explores traditional whole animal barbecue as practised by the pitmasters from the Southern states of the USA. In exploring transformation by water he explores the world of stews and braises. In the section dealing with air, he looks at  bread baking, because after all, isn’t a loaf of bread but trapped air. Finally, in the earth section he takes us through a fascinating journey through the world of food fermentation. 
Michael Pollan is an acclaimed US journalist, who was recently included in “Times” 100 most influential people in the world. His books always appear in the New York Times bestseller list and “Cooked” is no exception. 
I have never read a cook book or a book on cooking, but I could not put down Pollan’s book. Over the next few weeks I hope to share some of the insights I gained from the book in the hope that it will spark your interest in this activity which is increasingly being seen as mundane and boring. 
I recommend “Cooked” to anyone interested in a fascinating and insightful read.
Let us begin our review of “Cooked” with a look at the humble but ubiquitous onion. Ever asked yourself 
“”Why do I always find myself chopping up onions?”
Rest assured you are not alone. Onions represent the “starter” for meals all over the world.  
If you begin your pot dish by sautéing chopped onions, carrots and celery in butter or sometimes olive oil you’ve made a “mirepoix”, which marks your dish as French. 
If you begin with a mince of onions, carrots and celery sautéed in olive oil (and perhaps add some garlic, fennel or parsley) then you’re beginning an Italian dish with a “soffritto”, (in Italian soffritto means underfried).
But soffritto with one “f” and “t” – “sofrito”is Spanish and normally includes onions, garlic and tomato in place of celery. Cajun cooking begins with onions, garlic and bell peppers.
If you begin with diced spring onions, garlic, and ginger you are moving towards Eastern cuisine, as this is an “Asian mirepoix”.
In India a “tarka” comprises diced onions and spices sautéed in clarified butter or ghee.
Returning to our question about why we spend so much time chopping onions. Scientific research has revealed that low, slow heating of vegetables, breaks down the long chains of proteins into their constituent amino acids, some of which like glutamic acid are known to give foods a meaty savoury taste called – “umami”.
We were all taught that we can perceive four tastes namely salty, sweet, bitter and sour. Now we know there is a fifth taste – umami and like each of the others there are receptors on our tongue dedicated to detecting its presence. 
Named after “umai” which is Japanese for “delicious”, umami was recognised as a fully fledged taste by the Japanese in 1908. It was discovered by a chemist named Kikunae Ikeda who was investigating the flavours emitted by dried Korbut, a seaweed used as stock in a number of Japanese dishes. 
Umami was not recognised as a separate taste in the West until 2001 when scientists discovered the separate receptors on the tongue that detected umami.

More to follow ……

Picture courtesy of bbc.com
As a lawyer and person concerned with social justice and the rule of law I have watched with a mixture of interest and dread the recent machinations both here and abroad over Australia’s overseas detention camps. 
These camps were originally established as offshore processing centres, to manage the influx of asylum seekers bound for Australia. In reality, very little processing is done at these camps. Virtually no resettling of refugees occurs in the host country or any other country. They have become detention centres where refugees are kept for indefinite periods of time.
These camps predominantly on Manus Island and Nauru are operated by Australian contractors, such as Transfield. The contractors and the host countries are paid $millions by the Australian government to keep the camps operational and to keep the refugees away from our shores. 
In recent times the highest courts in two countries have ruled on the legality of these camps. The Australian High Court ruled that Australia’s detention camps in Nauru and the agreements between the Australian and Nauruan governments to establish and operate these camps are valid and supported by the Australian Constitution. 
On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea (PNG), has held that the Australian government’s camp on Manus Island was not supported by the PNG constitution and therefore needs to be closed. 
How two different nations could arrive at opposite conclusions on the same issue is instructive. 
The Australian decision concerned a Bangladeshi woman known as plaintiff M68 who had been brought to Australia from Nauru for medical treatment late in her pregnancy. Her child was born here. She had a baby daughter. She effectively represented 37 babies born in Australia but condemned to indefinite detention in the squalid conditions on Nauru (and Manus Island).
The case brought by the Human Rights Law Centre challenged the validity of the commercial arrangements that established and operated these camps and the constitutional support, if any, for these arrangements. 
Even though the proceeding had been on foot for several months, in mid 2015 there was a sense of panic in the government’s ranks, when it became apparent that their defence of this challenge was not certain. Under the law as it stood, the Australian government stood to lose this case and throw into doubt their multi-billion dollar arrangements in Nauru and possibly PNG. 
The solution was to pass wide-sweeping retrospective legislation to ensure the government’s tracks were covered, back to 2012.
So it came to pass, that on a cold wintry day in June 2015, the Abbott government introduced and passed an amendment to the Migration Act. The date, 25 June 2015, will go down in history as the infamous night that s198AHA became law. I say “night” because despite Parliament’s busy schedule (what ever happened to legislation enshrining equal marriage rights for all citizens??) s.198AHA passed both Houses of Parliament in under 24 hours. The amendment was passed with bipartisan support, just 4 months before the case was to be argued before the High Court. 
The unsettling aspect of this manoeuvring by the government was the sheer breadth of this amendment. What does section 198AHA say?
“(1)This section applies if the Commonwealth enters into an arrangement with a person or body in relation to the regional processing functions of a country.

(2)The Commonwealth may do all or any of the following:

(a)take, or cause to be taken, any action in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country;

(b)make payments, or cause payments to be made, in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country;

(c)do anything else that is incidental or conducive to the taking of such action or the making of such payments.

(3)To avoid doubt, subsection (2) is intended to ensure that the Commonwealth has capacity and authority to take action, without otherwise affecting the lawfulness of that action.

(4)Nothing in this section limits the executive power of the Commonwealth.

(5)In this section:

action includes:

(a)exercising restraint over the liberty of a person; and

(b)action in a regional processing country or another country.

arrangement includes an arrangement, agreement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether or not it is legally binding.

regional processing functions includes the implementation of any law or policy, or the taking of any action, by a country in connection with the role of the country as a regional processing country, whether the implementation or the taking of action occurs in that country or another country.” (my emphasis)
I despair when I read such unfettered expansion of government control over individuals. Read it carefully. The government can take any action or do anything it pleases, in respect to its detention camps either here or overseas even if such action deprives a person of their liberty; open-ended without any restrictions or oversight and retrospective. 
In February, this year the High Court in a 6-1 decision held that the government’s detention camps on Nauru were valid and legitimate by reason of s.198AHA and always have been since 2012. Further, s.198AHA was valid under the Australian Constitution. 
The High Court ruled that once asylum seekers are relocated in another country they were out of reach of Australian law. Only Justice Gordon in her dissenting judgment, was prepared to acknowledge Australia’s control over these operations, the funding of these camps with Australian dollars and the extensive control over the Nauruan government exercised by our government. 
The following day, Daniel Webb from HRLC had the unenviable task of telling mother M68 that she and her daughter, now a year old, had to return to an uncertain future on Nauru. 
But the Turnbull government’s euphoria was only to last a couple of months because across the waters to our north an important case was working its way through the justice system in PNG. Sometimes forgotten, the case commenced in 2013 by PNG’s opposition leader Belden Norman Namah, sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Australia’s detention camps on Manus Island. 
The camps that were reopened to human traffic in 2012, ostensibly to process asylum seekers, saw virtually little, if any, processing activities and became inhumane camps of indefinite detention. Namah was concerned at the violence shown towards detainees, the levels of self-harm and suicidal ideation expressed by refugees. There was not one but two cases of self immolation, detainees setting themselves on fire. 
The PNG’s defence of this challenge was funded by the Australian government. 
As happened in Australia, and no doubt, on advice from the Australian government, the PNG government also passed (last minute) legislation to improve its position in the challenge before the Supreme Court. 
The PNG constitution is of more recent origin than the Australian constitution. It is a modern document a creation of the the 20th Century rather than the 19th Century. 
Unlike the Australian constitution the PNG constitution contains a charter of human rights. Section 42 of the PNG constitution provides that no person may be deprived of his personal liberty. Pretty simple if not elegant. 
Despite the machinations of the PNG government to maintain the Australian camps, in what was a courageous decision (given the $millions injected into the PNG economy through these camps), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the camps were unconstitutional and should be closed. 
Two countries, same issue, different results. All plaudits to the PNG Supreme Court. PNG can hold its head high in international human rights circles. 
Australian law remains the law and must be respected. But the process followed by our politicians, the breadth of the relevant amendment, its deliberate attack on human rights ie “”exercising restraint over a person’s liberty”, its retrospective nature should provide cause for pause. 
Where will such flagrant disregard for basic human rights end? In the back of our minds, we say “But it will never affect me?” Are you sure? 
How is it that we are subject to a law that in most common law jurisdictions would be viewed as offensive and excessive legislation. 
Isn’t it strange that PNG should be handing Australia a lesson in human rights and social justice?