We are two people with different beliefs who are united in our support of harm minimisation drug policy, and the Medically Supervised Injection Centre in the Cross in particular – Graham Long, Pastor of The Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross, and John August, non-believer and President of the NSW Humanists.

We both shake our heads at the level of shock jock inspired superficial analysis that passes for comment.

I (Graham Long) meet the effects of addiction on a daily basis and more than most people, sit with those who’ve lost hope and conduct a lot of funerals.  The ’shock jocks’ who carefully craft simple answers to complex questions get a shock themselves when they find I’m against their conservative, prohibitionist approach to drug laws.

Together with the Wayside Chapel, I’ve long supported the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.  For those who can see past emotional arguments, the facts are astonishing.  The streets of Kings Cross are largely clear of needles.  At one time 130 needles every day were collected around the Chapel – nowadays, since the MSIC, one or two needles a day is a bad day.  Ambulance call outs to overdose have been reduced by 88%.  Deaths on the street have been reduced to about 10% of ten years ago.

The group that most longs for drug law reform are parents who’ve lost children to addiction.  They know as only grieving parents can know that their children might have lived if the they had been offered help.  They know that if we’d spent a fraction of the resources that our ‘war on drugs’ has cost that many people might have lived and found their way back to life.  Dead people never rehabilitate and return to the mainstream.

My approach is informed by Christianity; my whole faith journey is about love and the need to love every person as if they were my son or daughter, brother or sister.  Once the church once dangled people over the fires of hell to control them – but now that no one believes in hell, shock jocks dangle people with threats of the end of the world with equal effect.

I (John August) have a passion to see the world in a way that is free of emotional sentiments which prevent objective evaluation.  Much as I see the good in some religious belief – like what drives Graham – some religious belief seems driven by the “er-yuk” or “how-dare-they”sentiment.  It has a vested interest in branding people as well as behaviours as evil; requiring punishment, criminalisation; ever increasing control and little understanding.

We will never rid our society of the problems of addiction through laws and prohibition; the required changes are much more far reaching.  The most we can do at present is reduce the tragic results.  Many initiatives are criticised because the outcomes are less than perfect – but an improvement doesn’t have to make things perfect to be worthwhile.

Some people only see the tragedies that still occur, and are blind to the ones we’ve managed to avoid.

In spite of our differences, we stand side by side in our support for the MSIC.  We deplore the human waste that addiction brings and the double standards that prompts the expenditure of mind boggling amounts on the ‘war’ on drugs.  To spend in excess of $100K pa to keep someone in jail is a ludicrous policy for people who need help with mental illness and problems of addiction.

Neither of us have any political alliance with Kristina Kenneally, but we share an admiration of her.  Ms Kenneally has achieved more than a mini-bus load of prior Premiers in the matter of humane drugs policy.

Although the electorate is in no mood to hear it, this Premier has exercised extraordinary leadership, achieving results in areas that have been the cause of paralysis in the labour party for many years.  In the face of floods and the hurricane in Queensland, the Premier there was suddenly seen for her strength of leadership.

Ms Kenneally is made of the same stuff; leading what everyone says in a lost cause against all odds with dignity, courage and integrity.

We hope a Liberal Government will not take to these initiatives with a wrecking bar and call it ‘leadership’.

Interviewed yesterday on the Kyle and Jackie O show (which probably says it all),  Peter Madden ruined my otherwise delightful Wednesday morning with narrow-minded BS.

His short-sighted view on the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade made me want to throw my shoe at his head.

Let me start with a direct quote from his press release issued yesterday, entitled ‘From the Streets to the Stadium’. (I must point out that the spelling and grammatical errors bothered me even more than his point-of-view, so I have corrected throughout).

“The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is live pornography,” said Madden.

“It is a brash display of a lifestyle and corrupt social morals that many Australians do not agree with.”

Let me stop you right there.

A brash display of lifestyle and corrupt social morals? Since when is a celebration of freedom and life that spews glitter and rainbows a brash display of moral corruption? I’ve been to many Mardi Gras parades in my time, the first of which when I was fifteen and with my family, and I have never felt uncomfortable or disgusted. I’ve never seen “live pornography” displayed, or blatant drug abuse in the streets or at parties. I know it goes on, but it goes on everywhere.

Madden goes on to say “at the same time, there is evidence that indicates that more drugs are sold and distributed on Mardi Gras night than any other night of the year.”

Have you partied in the Cross on a Friday or Saturday night? Have you been to a NYE celebration in the Rocks? Have you been to a music festival? Just because there aren’t as many arrests, or drug-related hospital admissions, doesn’t mean it’s not going on. Trust me.

He says that Mardi Gras is “a night on which Hyde Park is strewn with bodies of drunken teenagers, when there is violence in the streets”. Manly Corso, anyone? The Mean Fiddler?

He then admitted on radio this morning he hadn’t attended many, or was it just the one, parade – so his entire perception of the event is based on one night at Hyde Park where he saw an intoxicated young girl dressed in a French Maid outfit, and hearsay.

This morning he also said that it was clear “our society had become sex-crazy; you can hear people sing about it in songs all over the radio”.

Mate. Our society has not *become* sex-crazy, it always has been. It’s just now we have more mediums and freedom of speech to express it.

Sex sells. You should know that, you fueled your own sex addiction by paying for prostitutes before becoming a Christian Pastor. I won’t reference every decade in history, but blatant prostitution has been around forever. They just didn’t have Snoop Dogg and Mickey Avalon to sing songs about it in the 16th Century.

When somebody goes on record to air their opinions on homosexuality publicly, and says that they are “not a pious bigot”, and “loves homosexual people as I love all people,” do not then put the word “the” in front of the word “gays”. Anybody who refers to a minority sector of our community as “the gays” clearly has a problem with it, which I would suggest spans far greater than his idea to cage in the gay and lesbian community.

He continues, “We don’t tolerate criminals, peadophiles or drug dealers. You can’t just tolerate all kinds of activity in society. We need boundaries in order to protect our young people. We are the guardians of the next generation – we must do everything we can to give them a wholesome, balanced start to life.”

Is Madden suggesting that homosexuals should be placed in the same category as criminals, pedophiles and drug dealers? He can’t even spell ‘pedophiles’. Is he suggesting that same sex couples and individuals can’t provide adequate guardianship to the ‘next generation’?

Yes, he is.

In summation, Peter Madden wants to see “the Mardi Gras relocated to a stadium, where they can have THEIR parade and floats away from OUR streets.” He adds that it would greatly reduce services currently required to contain the “problems” at the Mardi Gras, and hence the cost to the taxpayer.

OUR streets?

You mean, heterosexual people’s streets, Peter? I

do believe that OUR streets also belong to homosexuals. And, even though homosexuals aren’t entitled to marriage, reduced health care premiums and tax breaks, they DO pay tax. They are just as entitled to use the streets of Sydney as any other taxpaying citizen.

Finally, Madden says “In short, it is anarchy right here in the centre of our city, and the Mardi Gras organisers and militant homosexual lobby would have us believe that this behaviour is acceptable.”

It is acceptable, whether you like it or not. It’s part of life. It’s here for life. So instead of jumping on your soap box and pissing everybody off, why don’t you preach acceptance.

Isn’t that the Christian way?

The Australian Christian Lobby doesn’t get to run a monopoly on ethics.

Many people in Australia seem to think that because Aboriginal people seem to get ‘more government handouts and benefits than white Australians’ or because ‘they get preferential treatment in many areas of society … over other Australians because supposedly they are a minority’, there is no inequality.

Those arguments are simplistic, absurd and inexcusably ignorant of Australian history.

Yes, some Aboriginals do get benefits – health care concessions, lower interest rates on home loans, and so on – that most of us don’t, but so what? Most Aboriginals are in a very different situation to the rest of us, particularly us white Australians. We don’t tend to be discriminated against when seeking employment. We generally live longer and healthier lives. We don’t have a history of being oppressed.

Frankly, Aboriginal Australians are among the most disadvantaged indigenous people in the world. I defy anyone to prove otherwise. While it’s true that they live in a civilised, technologically advanced, democratic country, for much of their history since colonisation they haven’t been treated like Australian citizens (they’re still not recognised in the Constitution) and have been left to live in third world conditions.

There’s a line in a Blue King Brown song that says something like, “White man holds the key to black man’s identity”. I used to disagree with this, thinking that Aboriginals needed to stop allowing themselves to be victims. I was wrong. It’s white Australia that is treating them like victims, like children, thinking that we know best and they should do what we tell them to; that they should assimilate and be white like us (if only in lifestyle).

There are no simple solutions, and assimilation or segregation is not the answer. Continuing to throw money at the problems, many of which white Australians have created, will not repair 200-plus years of damage.

But we can start with trying to understand their culture; to understand why they may be reluctant to sever a traditional connection with their land in order to find employment in our larger towns or cities; to understand the challenges they face every day, even the ones who do move away or have long since lived in our cities; to understand the underlying causes behind the violence and the drinking; and to accept that we have a responsibility to help them so that one day they don’t need special programs or benefits to enable them to simply live.

So to the haters out there: No, Madeleine didn’t have a political agenda and she wasn’t after more money for Aboriginals. She was after better understanding of what her people face every day. She was asking for all of us to help her people stand up and overcome Aboriginal disadvantage, to take some responsibility for helping Indigenous Australians where successive governments have failed.

She was asking us to be the Australians we like to think we are, but too often are not.

(This post was originally published at Discord and Dissent).

Join the conversation: @bflatdim, @socialscapegoat

But (there’s always a but) I can’t help but notice the troubling irony that Mackillop’s canonisation served as a distraction from the important issues she devoted her life to solving.

Herein lies my problem with the way Mary McKillop’s sainthood was portrayed in the media: it focuses more on the Sainthood than it does on the Saint. It seems people care more that they finally have an Australian Saint than they do about her selfless devotion to the least fortunate in the community.

At the risk of sounding like another soulless atheist, surely we should be celebrating Mary Mackillop’s charity work, her commitment to education (especially for women), her bucking of the authority of the church – her determination to relieve the suffering and improve the standard of living of the less fortunate. Why is it that the only time charity work is deemed newsworthy is when Australia’s first saint is being ordained? Surely we should be celebrating all the people who follow her fine example – not in the name of God, but in the name of solving-the-fucking-atrocities-of-the-world.

I can’t help but see the irony in Mackillop’s canonisation dominating our media coverage at a time when we’re sending troops into Afghanistan & committing them to a decade-long stay, when there are still millions of displaced people in Pakistan, when there are millions of children living below the poverty line, and millions of people fleeing civil war, political & religious persecution. There’s nothing like the sainthood of one of Australia’s greatest humanitarians to distract from humanitarian issues. Had we been celebrating her achievements rather than her Papal recognition, there would have been greater opportunity to give some much needed exposure to the kinds of people MacKillop was trying to assist.

There seems to be a tendency in the media to characterise the Catholic Church as being just the Pope and the Cardinals, rather than the bloke who stands next to the St. Vincent de Paul truck in Parramatta on a Saturday night, the people who provide beds and counseling for the homeless, halfway houses for women escaping domestic abuse, who provide care for the Indigenous communities or legal aid and advocacy for the homeless.  The media prefer the institution and the spectacular over the substance – it is the ultimate betrayal of Mackillop’s devotion to making people’s lives better, and an insult to those who have followed in her footsteps.

I am told by friends from within the Catholic community that a number of Catholic churches in the community heavily emphasised Mary Mackillop’s charity work in their services – describing her worth as a tough, principled Catholic role model, rather than the pomp and the miracles – but clearly none of these ceremonies were deemed worthy of the media’s attention.

Apart from the massive inequity of religious & cultural media coverage in this great land, equally problematic was Mackillop’s portrayal in the press as a “Miracle Worker”. I have been told that a number of Australian priests and faithful within the Catholic church have a difficulty with the canonisation process, especially when it comes to the proving of miracles. It is a difficult thing to explain in a world that deals just in empirical fact.

In the week leading up to her canonisation the media temporarily suspended their dedication to fact checking & impartiality – reporting what can only be described as “alleged coincidences” as “proven miracles”. The ABC reported “The Pope’s decision to grant Mary MacKillop the divine title came only after it was proven by church experts that she had been responsible for two miracles.” The word “proven” and “miracle” are contradictory and ought never to be used in a sentence – especially not by a journalist.

I’m not saying Catholics shouldn’t celebrate Mary Mackillop’s canonisation – people should feel free to celebrate her sanctification in whichever way they deem fitting. I’m not even saying it shouldn’t get media coverage – it should, along with the beatifications of people belonging to all faiths, including community workers who don’t belong to a faith but carry on anyway, in the name of justice & equality for all. But it seems hypocritical that one woman should receive so much media attention when there are hundreds of people doing fine work with people in the community who are not deemed worthy of the media’s attention.

Here’s something for you all to consider: Father Bob Maguire would be ideal as Australia’s next saint. He has  pissed off major Church figures, has helped the poor immensely and I am told – conducts the most awesome Mass anywhere. And maybe next time, if the opportunity came again to nominate great Australians for sainthood we would honor the subject by focusing on the issues they dedicated their lives to.

The media has an obligation to balance and fairness, but that the only time charity work is deemed newsworthy is during the Canonisation of Australia’s first saint is neither balanced.

While many lobby groups will claim the outcome as a victory, the verdict is testament to the arcane, outdated, and offensive laws that commands a court has more control over a woman’s body than she does.

Moreover, if nothing else, I hope this case highlights for everybody Bligh’s complete and utter betrayal of her principles.

Queensland’s Premier claims to be a proud feminist, but not only has she failed to change Australia’s abortion laws,  she actually quashed a bill put forward by her own party to legalise abortion.

So it’s all the more insulting that she failed to oppose this lawsuit, hiding behind the empty defense of  “letting the law take its course”.

And so Tegan was abandoned by the government – young, scared, and unprepared to be a mother – well aware that she would be unlikely to find a doctor who would be prepared to get around the prerequisite that abortions only be performed to preserve the life or the physical or mental health of the mother.

Tegan and her partner were a desperate couple with little choices.

Moreover, Brennan and Leach followed the law. They declared the drugs at customs, and were cleared to use them for their stated medical purpose

In her refusal to change the law, Anna Bligh is letting a very loud, offensive minority run public policy in Queensland, prioritising popularity polls over the well-being of her citizens.

Let’s not forget Pastor Danny Nalliah last year said that Victoria’s February bush-fires were the result of the state’s “incendiary abortion laws”; or Tony Abbotts comments prioritising reducing the number of abortions performed each year over the low life expectancy of people in Indigenous communities and third world aid.

Yet there are thousands of children living in foster care, and abusive homes who are continuously neglected by DOCS who don’t follow up on  cases, and by the government and opposition who have refused to reform, or increase funding for child protection forces.

In fact OCSET (the Online Child Sex Exploitation Team) lost one third of their paltry annual budget of 7.5 million dollars in order to fund testing for the internet filter.

So much for child protection.

It’s a cardinal sin.

Until the government shows that it is really dedicated to child protection and not the eternal redemption of their parents – neither the states nor the Federal Government should dare to tell women who have had abortions that they are sinners.

The law states abortions should be carried out only if the physical or mental health of the mother is at risk (tellingly – there is no definition for what constitutes “mental health”) and yet a safe alternative to surgical abortions already exists.

Legalising RU846 would decrease the trauma and increase the health, well-being and safety of pregnant women – but the government refuses to consider it, for fear of triggering an abortion epidemic.

No woman, (regardless of what the loony right will tell you) contemplates an abortion casually.

No one undergoes a surgical or non surgical abortion on a whim.

All surgery is traumatic, particularly the kind that involves the aborting of a child.

It is an insult to all women that they are forced to stand before God a Judge and have him decide how she should treat her body.

This is not some vague concept.

On Bligh’s watch, two people were charged with trying to procure abortion drugs which are perfectly safe and legal in the Ukraine – a process of which they wouldn’t have had to go through if RU846 were legal and Queensland’s abortion laws actually supported its women.

The ultimate insult? On the day of the trial, Anna Bligh posted a photo  of herself on twitter with a young mother and her  baby whom she had visited in Townsville Hospital.

This so called “proud feminist” who heralds from the left faction of Queensland’s Labor party has betrayed her gender and her citizens that she would rather children be born into poverty or neglect, or persecute mothers for taking matters into their own hands than providing women with safe, legal, affordable options.

Let us not forget what role Bligh played in all this.

In 2004 80% of women favoured their right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It’s 2010 and nothing has changed.

If Bligh won’t legislate in a way that reflects community standards and expectations, Queensland – you’re best option is to vote for someone who will.

A north Queensland woman and her partner have been charged with intent to procure an abortion.

They will face court tomorrow following charges laid under the state’s anti abortion laws.

The woman could be facing up to seven years for intent to procure a miscarriage, her partner faces three years for assisting her.

Under current common law ruling in Queensland, the only legal grounds for an abortion are for cases where the threat to women’s physical health is at stake, or if the pregnant woman is suffering from a mental illness.

(Because only the mentally ill would get themselves into this situation.

Rape, incest, spousal abuse,  and poverty aren’t factors deemed worthy of consideration under the law).

It is crazy to me, that in 2010 women are still being treated as state-owned incubators whose sole purpose is to pump out babies.

It is even more disturbing that a woman has to stand before a judge and have the courts decide what she shall do with her own body.

Moreover, this case threatens to set a dangerous new precedent.

In the committal hearing which took place last year,  despite also being charged with trying to procure abortion drugs,  the police prosecution argued that under the law they only needed to prove that the woman intended to procure an abortion.

The prosecution argued they did not need to prove whether the abortion had allegedly taken place, or even whether the woman was pregnant, just that the intent to commit abortion was there.

This precedent could be used similarly to laws in the US which make miscarriages illegal.

Yes – if a woman is faced with the loss of her baby via miscarriage, she can be charged.

And don’t laugh this off as an arcane law that would never be prosecuted: in January this year a pregnant woman in Iowa was arrested and charged with “attempted feticide” when she fell down the stairs.

She was held in jail for two days, and the charges were only dropped because she was in her second trimester, not the third – which is when the law comes into force.

And before you think “yeah, well, it’s Iowa”, remember that this law exists in 37 states in the US.

Utah introduced a fetal “homicide” law during March this year that applies throughout the pregnancy.

Bligh teams up with the anti-abortion lobby

Premier Anna Bligh and her ministers are running a campaign of misinformation, claiming (untruthfully) that the charges relate to the way the abortion took place – the woman allegedly procured abortion drugs (which are not illegal in Australia) from the Ukraine via her husband’s sister.

The Queensland state government and the anti-abortion lobby are arguing that the charges were laid  because the woman did not have a prescription from her local doctor.

This is a blatant falsehood.

The woman and her partner are being charged under the state’s anti-abortion laws, not drug related laws.

But along with these outright lies & deception, Bligh is running a widespread campaign of misinformation about the abortion drugs claiming they are unsafe.

Sure enough, the media began reporting the case using terms like “black market abortions” and “illegal drugs”.

The drugs allegedly procured by the woman are neither illegal, nor unsafe.

Moreover, these drugs are statistically safer than any other drugs that you can order online such as Viagra, (yes, interfering with God’s will for your body seems to relate only to the female form).

Of course has it not occurred to anyone that if Queensland’s laws didn’t make it nigh impossible (or Bligh impossible) to procure an abortion, women wouldn’t be forced to buy drugs online.

Queensland’s arcane abortion laws ignore the women who are in the most need of help

These arcane laws are not only offensive, they ignore the thousands of women trapped in abusive relationships.

Those who have been assaulted or raped.

Those who have been the victims of incest.

Or  those who simply cannot afford the cost of an abortion, let alone the cost of raising a child.  (In Cairns, it costs up to $810 upfront for an abortion during the first trimester — of which only around $250 can be claimed back on Medicare).

I’m not pro-abortion. I’m pro choice.

No child should be treated as a burden.

I believe that all children that are brought into this world should be loved, and cared for by parent / parents that are willing and able, who love their child, and want to make a better life for them.

And no matter what the conservative lobby tells you, reforming Queensland’s abortion laws will  not result in women running around aborting babies willy-nilly.

No woman who aborts their baby makes that decision casually.

Any person who argues to the contrary once again paints women as cold, callous, calculating and irresponsible sexual deviants.

Besides which, I find it more than just a little hypocritical that there are thousands of Australian children sitting in foster homes, that could be raised in a stable home by loving parents if only the Federal Government would look past their own religious prejudices and make it legal for gay, lesbian, and transgendered couples to adopt.

That these children remained neglected and uncared for is negligent at best, and the government should be made criminally responsible in these matters.

It seems the government only care that children are being born, not what happens to them once they’re out of the womb.

Which is why DOCS remains in a state of disrepair, and rather than trying to protect the thousands of children that are molested, assaulted or raped by a family member or friend each year, the government is channeling billions of dollars into a web filter in the name of political control child protection.

Of course, as was pointed out by blogger Bogannette – no matter what I write here – the NeoCons will interpret everything I write as “Hi – I’m Claire, and when I’m not killing babies I’m worshipping Satan. Oh how I love killing babies! I kill babies morning, noon and night! I hate babies! I hate babies almost as much as I hate men. I really hate men. Especially white, straight, Christian men. The most oppressed men in the world. OK gotta go cut off some dicks and eat some babies! Catcha! Praise Satan!”

There has never been a more important time to stand up for choice. Please join GetUp’s Campaign for Choice and sign the petition.

Keep the government’s rosaries off our ovaries, and away from our judicial system.

Join the conversation:
http://www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
http://www.twitter.com/ClaireRConnelly

So it’s little surprise that during the election both parties attempted – and generally succeeded – in avoiding the issue altogether.

What most people found surprising is Julia Gillard’s belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Whether or not she’s simply towing the party line or this her genuine belief is unknown, and it is the same for all members of the ALP.

Even Penny Wong – Australia’s first openly gay member of cabinet – is reluctant to talk about her own thoughts on the matter, stating on the ABC’s Q&A that:

“I have a view that you join a team, you’re part of the team…”

Obviously the teams policy is a big fat no on Marriage Inclusion.

The ALP’s policy on Marriage Inclusion directly contradicts it’s stated objectives in it’s National Constitution.

Consider these:

“Social Justice and equality for individuals, the family and all social units and the elimination of exploitation in the home.” – Number 11, Objectives, General Rules (As amended August 2008).

“Equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law.” – Number 12, Objectives, General Rules (As amended August 2008).

“Elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location or economic or household status.” – Number 16, Objectives, General Rules (As amended August 2008).

Given that each of these objectives mention in one form or another that people should be treated equally – and number sixteen even says Labor is committed to the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality – it’s simply amazing that the ALP continues to hold the outdated belief that Marriage should be between two people who through pure chance have different pairs of chromosomes. (For those that don’t get it, between a Male and a Female).

It’s equally amazing that they offer no justification for this clear contradiction of policy and promise, and believe you me I’ve attempted to get someone to offer me some.

The Coalition is adamantly opposed to the idea of Marriage Inclusion too, though being a socially conservative party it’s easy to infer why.

Obviously no party can stick to all it’s objectives, (look at any political party’s stated aims and actions and you’ll see that) and hope to be elected.

It’s not as if the ALP is at all backwards on social issues.

But why with three of it’s objectives clearly showing that they should be in favour of Marriage Inclusion are they not?

On the same episode of Q&A that Penny Wong stuck to the team line Graham Richardson said:

“There are a lot of people in the Labor Party who don’t agree with this stuff.”

That sums it up really, Democracy in action anyone?

However Labor (with the assistance of the Liberals and Greens) has recently made some progress in ending real discrimination; from Kevin Rudd changing -literally- hundreds of little things to NSW recognising the right of children to have two legally recognised parents – regardless of sexuality – to Tasmania recognising overseas and intrastate same sex marriages.  (It’s ironic that Tasmania recognise same sex marriages that take place anywhere but in their own state).

So it’s hardly fair to say, call Penny Wong a traitor for instance, when the ALP actually does do positive things in this area.

They’re just slower than many would like.

It should be noted too that the Coalition isn’t exactly behind the times either.

Like the ALP there are people within the party who accept the idea of Marriage Inclusion, and have fought actively for gay rights, but being a predominantly Conservative party it’s hard to see them accepting Marriage Inclusion.

I believe it’s likely that the ALP will – in the next few elections even – adopt Marriage Inclusion as a policy platform – it’s hard to not expect it when the Greens keep growing and eating away at their vote.

Labor realises this and will have to adopt some of their policies, Marriage Inclusion in one form or another is – in my opinion – likely to be one.

But even so that doesn’t excuse the fact that currently the Labor party refuses to justify it’s view that marriage should remain as is, untouched by modernity.

Justify it they must.  Not only does it contradict what they say the ALP stands for – potentially misleading people – it’s also commonly quoted that Sixty Percent of Australians believe that Marriage Inclusion is desirable.

If the ruling party is going to deny the majority view it should at the very least offer justification for doing so.

Of course there’s no real rational justification for opposing Marriage Inclusion, which is probably why none is offered, by either party.

Join the conversation:
http://www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
http://www.twitter.com/ChaseStevenss

Certain members of the Liberal party are complaining, (wait for it), that the not-so-faceless men and women of the twitter-sphere and blogger-sphere are being mean to them!

Yes, the Liberal Party are more concerned about arguing on the internet than coming up with viable alternatives to leadership LIKE HOW TO BETTER RUN THE COUNTRY!

First journalists and now the internet?

The internet.

Really?

I’ve seen where this path leads, and let me tell you – it ain’t pretty.

Is it just that we’re in the middle of a fairly righteous post-election hangover?

Or is it that the Liberal party have nothing to do because Tony still thinks he’s on the campaign trail?

Yesterday, @JoeHockey tweeted “I admit I am losing faith in Twitter (& BLOGS) because the anonymous commentary is often banal,nasty and meaningless….” (yes, much like the things said in Parliament) , “no name =cowardice.”

Today @ScottMorrisonMP tweeted “RT @ScottMorrisonMP: @latikambourke people know who I am – If they want to attack my policies they should be up front about who they are.”

Talk about a bunch of whingers!

First of all, I hate to get all pedantic but the people on twitter / facebook / blogs are not nameless.

The majority of twitterites tweet under their own names, and even if they don’t, they have bios explaining who they are, what they do, where they blog, and often their political persuasion. Blogs do this as well.

Who are these so-called “faceless people” they’re talking about?

Besides, a point well made is a point well made – just because it doesn’t have a byline attached to it doesn’t make the opinion of said person irrelevant.

I don’t know what frustrates me more, the fact that their proposition is factually incorrect, or the fact that the whole thing is so petty.

Over the years, we have heard a certain politician say that Australia is being swamped by Asians.

A whole sector of the population have been told they aren’t allowed to marry  because their sexual preferences don’t meet the  personal / religious tastes of the people elected to represent their best interests.

Women have been told they are betraying their gender by choosing not to marry and for seeking income equality, and they’ve been told they’re betraying their children by going back to work after having a child.

Fatally ill Australians have heard they will have to suffer long agonising, painful, deaths because the politicians elected to represent their health and welfare seem to be more concerned with their eternal salvation.

We have had to put up with asylum seekers who have suffered poverty, famine, civil war, and political persecution being labeled as terrorists, dole-bludgers, and job-stealers who are all secretly conspiring to convert every single Australia to Islam and make them live under Sharia law.

And we have to tolerate Bob Katter saying he “would walk to Bourke backwards if the poof population of North Queensland is any more than 0.001 per cent.”

If we want to complain about mean, vindictive, banal, nasty things being said about people we should be pointing the finger squarely at Parliament and yelling “hypocrites!” at the top of our lungs!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

After all the mud that was slung by both parties during the election, they’ve set the yardstick of bad behavior impossibly high!

If Tony Windsor can call Barnaby Joyce “a bloody idiot” on national television – really, why would anyone expect the people of the internet to behave themselves?

I have a suggestion – if our politicians want people to stop making fun of them they could try spending more time doing a good job and less time complaining on twitter.

Short of that they could start by setting a good example for everyone by conducting themselves professionally, even in opposition.

I get the feeling that petty arguments such as these are being used to fuel a conversation about politician’s right to privacy, even though I’m pretty sure they forfeited that right the day they entered the public sphere.

But why now, all of a sudden are our politicians crying foul?

People have always said nasty things about politicians (mainly because politicians are pretty nasty people), but until now, they weren’t around at the time to hear them.

With the invention of the internet and sites such as twitter – people can direct their complaints / abuse directly to the person they are complaining about.

I suspect this backlash is a product of the social media revolution that our politicians have been flung into head-first, kicking and screaming without first applying a filter and a bit of common sense.

Much like online journalists long ago learned not to read the comments section, it took print journalists a while to learn it’s probably best not to get into a sparring match with trolls who can’t spell, let alone string a proper sentence together – when their papers made the leap into the online universe.

So too our politicians need to harden up and learn a little common sense.

And so, I have put together a comprehensive list of “how to deal with copping abuse on the Internet”:

Rule one: If they can’t spell, don’t yell. Seriously, if the not-so-faceless-person hasn’t bothered to run a spell check past a 140 character tweet, it’s not worth replying to.

Rule two: Don’t even bother replying to any tweets that don’t directly address your policies. You’ve cut out about 1000 tweets right there.

Rule three: Set a limit on how much time you spend on twitter. I know it’s addictive, but you’re just setting yourself up for a fall if you spend too much time on social media sites. Only a sadist would do this.

Rule four: Exercise your right-to-reply with caution. Don’t be too aggressive, and don’t (dare I say it) – be liberal, with your replies. Yes, you have the right to reply, but too many replies (even well worded ones that makes sense) tend to make you look like a precious tool who has to have the last word who is more concerned with your reputation than you are with getting the job done. Less is more.

Rule five: Remember, we live in a democracy. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if that opinion is completely wrong, moronic, utterly irrational or offensive. Kind of like @Wendy4TheSenate is entitled to say that gay parents raising a child is tantamount to child abuse, or that gay citizens may be equal under the law but not under God. Think about this for a second. Consider that your views are just as offensive as the people bothering you on facebook, take a deep breath, and let. It. Go.

Rule six: If you can’t stand the heat – deactivate your twitter / facebook account. You are a politician. You have an important job to do. Australia is frustrated by the government and they are entitled to let off a little steam. If you’re that much of a narcissist that you can’t cop the odd narky tweet – just don’t use social networking. It’s that easy.

And last, but not least -

Rule seven: Stop complaining about people being mean to you on twitter/ blogs /facebook.

It makes you look like a pansy boy.

On the surface, I can understand how this statistic may be alarming, but it leaves out two crucial facts.

1) The 6310 people mentioned in the first part of the article are only the people that arrived here by boat.

The majority of illegal immigrants in Australia are the 50 000 illegals that arrived here mainly by plane, and mainly from the UK, (according to the Australian Parliament Library).

“Boat people” make up roughly 12% of that figure.

2) The rest of the 6235 asylum seekers were found to be legitimate refugees according to the UN Refugee Convention (yes, that tricky little document that causes all sorts of annoyance for our government), and Australia’s immigration laws.

I thought the government (and Australia) would be relieved that only 1.18 per cent of asylum seekers are found to have fraudulent claims, (destroying the myth of those dodgy illegal immigrants stealing our jobs and clogging up the queues at Centrelink simultaneously).

Much further down in the article (in the part seldom reached by most people), the article explained that 5105 of the 5646 asylum seekers that arrived here by plane last year were also found to be legitimate refugees.

But once again the statistic was spun and twisted, explaining that the government had sent home “only 541 applicants regarded as illegal entries”.

Even the language is insulting – “regarded as illegal entries”, like some schmo at Border Protection looked at them and said “alright, you look skinny enough, you can stay”, completely ignoring that we have strict guidelines for processing asylum seekers, and the long, arduous, complicated task of processing them to begin with.

Articles such as these reflect the massive chasm between policy, and rhetoric.

Fear mongering articles like this, laced with liberal rhetoric plays on the fears of citizens thoroughly polled and tested to appeal to their exaggerated, irrational, yet easily manipulated paranoia in order to win elections.

Here’s one of the worst kept secrets in Canberra:

The truth is, if the government really wanted tighter immigration laws – they could change laws to create them.

They could rescind from the UN Convention and live by old Johnny’s slogan of “we will decide who comes to this country and the spirit in which they come” – or whatever similar bigoted nonsense he spruiked back in the day.

Even if Tony Abbott had become PM, not an awful lot would have changed unless he was prepared to change the law – which in the current tedious political atmosphere would be unlikely.

And so before we even had time to process what all this really meant, this manipulated statistic made it round the internet, even repeated on twitter by respected journalists such as Mia Freedman.

It really makes my blood boil.

The sole purpose of the “refugee myth” is to associate a false sense of security with the candidate who appears to have the tightest control over our borders.

Never mind that people who arrive here by boat make up less than 1% of the “illegal immigration problem”, if you can even call it a problem.

According to the Australian Parliamentary Library,  “the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive originally by air (96% – 99%). Boat arrivals only make up a small proportion of applicants.”

The irony, once again – is rife.

Moreover, in comparison to other countries, Australia’s “refugee problem” is minuscule.

In 2009 Australia received 6,170  asylum applications while  in the US it was 49,020, France 41,980, Canada 33,250, UK 29,840 and Germany 27,650.

By the end of 2008, there were 42 million recorded forcibly displaced persons worldwide, including 15 million refugees.

Australia’s “influx” represents 4.11 per cent of that figure.

Yet all this still doesn’t address the fundamental issue of why Australia’s refugee policies are, for the most part humane (if you leave out that bit about asylum seekers sitting in detention centres for up to 10 years waiting to be processed… and the exclusion, and bigotry they experience from the community once they are granted protection visas), why the government continues to perpetuate such a publicly inhumane attitude towards asylum seekers.

For this, I really have no answer, and the only “rational” excuse I can come up with is that it’s easier to win elections by creating a common enemy.

I don’t know whether to be reassured by the fact that Australia is actually granting the majority of  asylum seekers refugee status, or ashamed that our government’s spiteful rhetoric is designed to conceal this fact.

I also don’t understand why both sides of our government continue to equate “illegal immigrants” with “Muslim terrorists”, when the majority of illegal immigrants are overstayers, (comprised of about 50 000 people) mostly from the UK.

Australia has a large, thriving community of Muslim citizens (ahhh, yes that small but crucial word – citizen), and yet both sides of the government still seek to marginalize one of Australia’s largest cultural communities.

Aside from the obvious racism, I also find it utterly moronic.

Surely there are votes to be had here?

Any logical politician seeking to win an election would surely want to take as many demographics under their wing as possible (yes, even Muslims).

Votes don’t discriminate.

Follow us on twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/SocialScapegoat
http://www.twitter.com/ClaireRConnelly