| « | March 2008 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
cheekyHere's a lesson from the US the new oz govt. can do well to learn from :
Indigenous Peoples-Columbus Day - (A True Story) from kentf@earthlink.net (Kent)
In 1990, the Berkeley City Council passed a law changing the name of Columbus Day to Native American Day because Columbus wasn't nice to the Indians. Of course, no Indians were asked if they wanted the holiday's name changed or if they wanted to be called Native Americans.
In 1991, the Berkeley City Council changed the name again, to Indigenous People Day. A group of P.C.ers argued that Indians are not native to America but to Asia, so calling them Native Americans might be insulting to Asians. Of course, neither the Indian or Asian communities were consulted about this.
In 1992, the Italian American Anti-Defamation League gave the City of Berkeley their Insensitivity Award. The Italian-American group said that they agreed that Indians haven't been treated well, but that the Italians weren't the ones who did it, so why take away their holiday? Nobody asked Italian-American how they felt about renaming Columbus day.
In 1994, the Berkeley City Council changed the holiday back to Columbus Day.
In 1995, representatives of the Winnamucca Indians protested City Council meetings. They argued that Indians had never asked that Columbus day be renamed to honor Indians, since it had, the City Council couldn't take it back, less they become "indigenous peoples givers."
In 1996, the City Council changed the name to Indigenous Peoples - Columbus Day.
Currently there are people lobbying to rename the holiday Animal Rights Day.
uhm..Australians just celebrated Australia day on 26th Jan yesterday. There's an interesting snippet of why Australia never got discovered over here
(taken from alcorn@ist.flinders.edu.au (Robert B. Alcorn))
Hence the title of my post here. Of course you could read of their stray antics over here too - Twelve charged over Australia Day melee
Woman hit by tree limb awarded $718,000
YUN HEE CHOI'S friend thought the branch that fell on her unlucky compatriot who had been lying under a fig tree in Hyde Park was 1.5 metres long.
But Supreme Court judge Graham Barr - who yesterday awarded the Korean student $718,000 in damages - found the 15-centimetre-thick branch was more likely to have been between seven and eight metres long.
Mrs Choi suffered severe head injuries including a fractured skull, and had a titanium plate inserted in her head after the accident in December 2000. She sued the City of Sydney and the council's then parks contractor, Prestige Property Services, claiming it had been negligent in managing the trees.
The case in the Supreme Court highlighted the parlous state of the park's signature Hill's weeping figs, which was detailed in arborists' reports dating from 1988 and 1996.
Justice Barr yesterday cleared the council of negligence, but found the contractor liable.
The judge said the council knew about the condition of the trees. However, it had given a $2.4 million contract to a substantial, expert company in parks management. He said the tree itself was not diseased, and the branch problem would have been detected by proper inspection.
Under the council's Hyde Park tree management plan released last year, all 102 Hill's figs will be removed.
At the time of the accident, Mrs Choi was studying for an arts degree at the University of Sydney. Justice Barr said she "has suffered serious and permanent consequences which will materially affect her life".
contrast this with somewhere in HK:
tnp.sg January 25, 2008
HE had been looking for luck from a wishing tree.
But he was hit with bad luck instead - in the form of a falling branch.
Mr Choi Kam-yin, 65, is seeking compensation from the Hong Kong government after being seriously injured by the 8m-long branch, reported South China Morning Post.
In a writ filed in the Hong Kong high court on Monday, Mr Choi is seeking unspecified damages for injuries he suffered when one of the main branches of the Lam Tsuen wishing tree fell on him during Chinese New Year three years ago.
On 12 Feb 2005, Mr Choi suffered a broken hip in the accident and had been unable to walk since, said his lawyer, Mr Jonathan Man.
Mr Choi's son, Mr Choi Wing-cheung, claimed that his father had developed symptoms of a stroke after having an operation on his broken hip.
'My father could not recognise people... when he woke up after the operation,' he claimed. 'He can move only his left leg and arm, and the right side of his body is paralysed.
'He was a healthy man who could work and made about HK$7,000 ($1,200) a month before the accident.'
RUINED LIVES
The accident ruined not only his father's life, he said, but also the lives of the whole family.
He said: 'Since my father requires 24-hour care, we put him in a home for the elderly about a year ago.
'My brother, my mother and I have to rush to the home to visit him.'
Mr Man said: 'We are negotiating a settlement with the government. This writ is merely to protect his right to compensation, with the limitation period of three years nearing.'
The family said they had waited so long before taking the matter to court because they thought the Hong Kong government would offer them compensation shortly after the accident.
The younger Mr Choi claimed: 'The government did not actively offer us help. If the tree is managed by the home affairs department, it should at least have offered us an apology after the accident.'
Mrs Choi, the victim's wife, recalled that she had suggested her husband visit the wishing tree as she had cancer. The accident happened minutes after their arrival.
The younger Mr Choi said Chinese New Year was now a nightmare for his family, especially his mother.
'My mother still blames herself for making my father paralysed, as she was the one who suggested going to the wishing tree.'
