Playing the gender card

You already know this is going to be about Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, gender, media and politics so I'm not going to blame you from clicking elsewhere... now.

All right. Hello, the two of you who are left.

I had a short stoush with someone on Twitter last week. This is quite unusual for me, because I'm used to whining into the ether that is the 140-character blue bird's blah stream and getting no response whatsoever from anything I say. (Actually, that's not true. I do get @ replies, comments, RTs and favorites but that's because I rarely say things that are controversial.) It went something like this:

So here's the situation as I understand it:

• Speaker of the House Peter Slipper once wrote a text message to his former assistant James Ashby describing female genitalia as shell-less mussels. 
• Slipper is currently under investigation for sexual harassment with regard to his conduct towards Ashby. The text was used to illustrate the sexualised nature of the exchange between the two. Ashby is gay.
• Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott proposed a motion to remove Slipper based on his 'sexist' text. Also because this would supposedly give the Coalition an edge in a hung Parliament.
• Prime Minister Julia Gillard responded in a way that is now famous, labelling Abbott a misogynist (see video below).

• Gillard was then accused of playing the gender card when it suited her.
• I got annoyed.

So it seems I got annoyed without actually clarifying what I meant by not trying to play a 'gender card' and taking it out of the equation. Because Gillard does play a gender card but by doing so, it should take gender out of the equation. I'll put it this way, Gillard cannot play the gender card unless it has already been played. It doesn't work unless it has already been played. So the smart thing for the Opposition to do is not bloody well play it. But intelligence has never been their strong suit and Gillard totally owned them in 15 minutes.

I almost clapped at the end of that speech. I'm not a Labor voter and I don't even like Gillard, but I respect her and I welcome her return to form because we need someone viable to be PM seeing as I've pretty much decided to leave the country if Abbott gets elected.

Other things I believe:

• Describing vaginas as shell-less mussels is not sexist. It's just embarrassing. And bad for the seafood industry.
• Even if the message were sexist, a text message that was never meant for the public domain should not receive the same weight as a political statement made for many: Slipper's perceived sexism is not equal to Abbott's.
• Abbott is not a misogynist. I think he has an outdated idea of what women can and can't do, which makes him sexist in an ignorant way but I don't think he goes out of his way to hate women. He just hates Gillard. He hates that she is not anything like what he believes a woman 'should be' (Christian and married with children, probably) and yet is Prime Minister.
• Women aren't suited to this type of politics. It's stupidly skewed towards a male idea of leadership and governance. Women need a paradigm shift that will allow the public to recognise their talents. At the moment these are being ignored because they are not prioritised by the male idea of what is useful in government and politics.

I want to share with you this great cartoon by Cathy Wilcox as well:

A note about Alan Jones
For those who need a quick overview: Julia Gillard's father died of shame: Alan Jones.

Something else I feel the need to tack on the end here: I do believe radio talkback host Alan Jones is misogynist. He has always been condescending about women and I actually believe he hates them and is prejudiced against them.

I don't believe he should have been hauled over the coals about his 'died of shame' comment, however. Although it was offensive I think it would have been made whether Gillard was male or female because that's how tactless Jones is. His following remark about people going easy on Gillard because she is a woman is patently wrong because she has certainly been given a harder time as a woman (can anyone think of a time a male politician has been made fun of in the general media because of his dress sense? Anyone?).

But he does deserve the heat he's getting now. The Gillard comment is what broke the camel's back. Gillard reacted because Abbott echoed the 'died of shame' comment in a different context. My partner believes he did this deliberately to get a rise out of her and show how emotionally unstable she was (possibly to link that to being a woman and therefore incapable of keeping emotion out of politics). Instead, she bit back with a very well composed retort. The tide then turned against both Abbott and Jones simultaneously.

Jones should actually have been fired/jailed/banished long ago for sedition (re: Cronulla riots), bullying and harassment. If that's not enough, there should be some penalty for hypocrisy. As soon as Destroy the Joint started picking off advertisers from his show, Jones started feeling victimised. Poor diddums. I wonder if he thought like that when he was the one encouraging people to act on their beliefs. I guess not.

So let me close this rant by saying I hate the idea we are playing a game with politics, the media and online opinion but I am learning to accept the way it must be. One can live in hope that it will all turn out for the best*, right?

* The 'best' meaning 'a country in which Tony Abbott is not the Prime Minister'. I have met the man and I don't like him.

Uighurs

I'd never heard about Uighurs before the recent trouble in western China. I received a shorthand understanding of the situation through Friday's edition of The Week, which is pretty much a summary of the news aimed at lazy people (they say 'busy', but I can tell you it's really 'lazy').

For those after an overview, the Uighurs are a Muslim ethnic minority that live in the far west of China. Earlier this year ethnic tensions exploded between the Uighurs and the Han Chinese (more than 90% of Chinese are of Han ethnicity). The riot was largely based on a false rumour that some Uighur men had raped some Han women.

The first part of the article basically profiled the Uighurs as a group, where they came from, and their history. I got to the part decribing where they live, Xinjiang: "the region's rugged, arid terrain is so inhospitable that it was one of the last areas on earth to be settled". I thought 'huh, why would the Chinese want to annex that?'.

Then it became clear: "Beijing wants the Han to control the political and economic levers of Xinjiang, which boasts rich mineral, gas, and oil deposits."

Why didn't you say so? This conflict is less about a clash of religion and culture than a political takeover for resources/economic gain. Am I right?

The idea of fair trade strikes me here. Instead of the Han persecuting the Uighurs (there are reportedly huge differences in the living standards of the two groups with Han Chinese receiving government perks) why work out a way in which to extract the resources while providing Uighurs with incentives to govern the area to Beijing's liking? At this point, the Uighurs get shunted from their homeland and have nothing to show for it. Yes, I'm oversimplifying the situation, but it really is 'why can't everybody just get along?!'

Forget the ethnicity of each group for a moment and think of it this way: a powerful group wants the land and resources of another, less powerful group. It doesn't matter that they're Muslim or Buddhist (think Tibet), just that they are different and therefore able to be labelled as the Other and easier to target.

In similar circumstances, the rest of the world can see that this is unfair and tend to react accordingly (again, think 'Free Tibet'). Unfortunately there's no sympathy for the Uighurs because unlike peace-loving Tibetan separatists, Uighurs proved to be aggressive separatists. And the non-Muslim world is stil divided about whether Muslims, en masse religious community, are peaceful or terrorists.

It just brings me to think that religion and greed have no place in this world if we are to think of peace as more than just a concept.

Poetry Smoetry

I write poetry occasionally. I don't pretend to be very good, but I often feel compelled to jot down a description of the way I'm feeling in words that are more weighty and evocative than your average.

That being said, I dislike reading poetry that seems contrived. I have a red flag for rhyming poetry, because rhyming poetry is often the refuge of people who don't really understand what poetry is (especially people who don't write creatively very often or at all). Hallmarks of a non-poet: the rhymes are unoriginal and forced.

So what is poetry? This is where I admit to being elitist and vague. My definition of poetry is an expression or description of a thought or emotion, or an event or scene that represents a thought or emotion.

As an example of what I mean, I believe that when Keats wrote about autumn, he was using autumn as a metaphor for impending death and by describing autumn scenes, it represented his acceptance and celebration of the period of his life prior to his impending death.

Hence, the 'poem' that I received as part of my cousin's wedding invitation is not poetry. It's just a rhyme politely saying they don't want any useless junk so please donate to their honeymoon travel fund instead:

In our home we have the things
That living together always brings
Toasters, tumblers we have bought
And because of this we thought
A honeymoon would be great
If wedding guests wish to participate
So we can ski overseas or travel far and wide
But never leave each others side
And when our honeymoon is done
We will thank you all for the fun!

There is, of course, another brand of poetry, which is the poem that just simply isn't very good. I will preface this rant by saying that I KNOW poetry is a subjective thing so what I don't find very good could be someone else's shining example of poetry in its best form.

Poetry that isn't very good usually contains one or more of the following:
Rhymes that are forced: If it isn't coming naturally, then it's not really representing a thought/emotion truly
Rhymes that don't make sense: Rhyme for the sake of rhyme is a crime
Metre that is forced: Creates an ugly disruption to the flow of the poem without adding meaning
Does not represent a thought or emotion: See purpose of poetry
Does not evoke a thought or emotion: Why read it?
Words or lines that don't add to the reader's understanding or investment into the poem or poet: Good poetry says what it needs to say in the number of words it requires to say it and not one more. Good editing will fix this; sloppy poets will be revealed through redundant words and lines
Lack of awareness of form: Just like putting a bandage on a wound does not make you a doctor, writing a poem does not make you a poet. I believe there needs to be an awareness of the purpose of poetry as a means to communicate or capture a thought or emotion, even if the only person to understand that thought/emotion is the poet.

Now, I know I should say egalitarian things like 'anybody can be a poet if they write poetry' to encourage more people to appreciate the form, but it truly is an art that requires dedication and practice and I don't want to denigrate the art by calling any old ditty a poem.

So, A for effort - you can rhyme 'fire' with 'desire' - but you have a long way to go before you're writing poetry.

Diet Coke is bad

I've just been analysing a few consumer items for a 'Green Day' I'm hosting at work. I've come to the conclusion that a can of Diet Coke from a vending machine is probably the worst thing you could buy (other than a uranium mine, perhaps).

Firstly, there are more environmentally-friendly beverage alternatives, so there isn't a true need to buy it.

Secondly, most of a can of Coke is actually marketing and packaging and energy consumed to get it to you.
- Aluminium for the can in particular has a high energy consumption.
- A vending machine uses a lot of energy to keep the product cool and the machine lit for marketing purposes.
- Fake sugar means you're keeping some chemical lab operating somewhere.
- It takes about three litres of water to make a litre of Coke.

Thirdly, the can, although recyclable, is not likely to be recycled if purchased at a vending machine due to the lack of recycling facilities in those types of locations (train stations etc).

And all you get is brown fizzy water that tastes gross.

Why do people drink that stuff?

Rich Women

I received a call today from a lady named Kate who had rung on behalf of Naomi Simson, founder of Red Balloon Days, the experience gift company. Kate opened her spiel with a reference to the BRW Rich List (whichever one is out now, they have so many it's rather boring...) saying that of the 200 people on the list, only two were women.

I feigned some kind of interest, as the call was more appropriately addressed to my editor (to whom I passed dear Kate), but then I thought about it some more. Why would only two women be part of the mega-rich?

My theory is that women do not go into business to make money as their ultimate priority. If we want to take a more stereotypical view of women, it's their caring nature that may prove the driver for their business. If this is the case, some rich list is probably not as important as being a responsible business and, for example, being named in the top 200 of the most socially responsible businesses in Australia (if there was such a list).

From my experience networking with businesswomen, plenty of them start their own business not to make lots of money but to make enough money to be sustainable so they could control other things such as their work-life balance, or do something that other businesses, under which they had worked previously, wouldn't let them do.

If you want a 'tough woman against staid corporate world' scenario, it may be that a woman who was constantly denied leave to care for her chronically ill daughter found it easier to set up her own business than fight the existing system. Sometimes they thrive, sometimes they struggle.

The other thing about being on the rich list is that generally you need to be at the head of a fairly sizeable company, and very few of these are self-made; names like Murdoch, Packer and Lowy don't appear in the top five as sole traders or as owners of the corner store. So the problem isn't that women aren't earning a lot of money (surely some are earning a pretty good salary...), but that women are not promoted to the head of large companies that they do not own for whatever reason you care to explain.

There are a lot of female entrepreneurs starting small businesses. Personally, I think the number outstrips men. Their businesses may be profitable, but the owners themselves may not be one of the 200 richest people in Australia. And a lot of them, I think, would say - 'so what? Business is good and I'm doing what I want to do.'

Those Muslims again

Christian Democratic Party
GPO Box 141
Sydney 2001
Phone 9114 6674

MEDIA RELEASE
TUESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2007

CLOSE ISLAMIC SCHOOLS

Macarthur CDP candidate Godwin Goh and CDP Party Leader Reverend the Hon Fred Nile MLC have applauded the efforts of local residents in opposing the construction at Camden of a school for 1,200 Muslim children.

Senior Christian Democratic Party members attended the Monday 5 November meeting at the Falcons Soccer Club where local residents overwhelmingly rejected the plan.

"Muslim schools in Britain and Europe are breeding grounds for anti-Christian and anti-Jewish hate and terrorism," said Godwin Goh. "The safest thing is to have no Muslim schools here.

"The advocates of exclusively Muslim schools want to impose educational apartheid. I am greatly encouraged by the local popular backlash at this attempt to breed Islam in Camden."

The Christian Democratic Party is campaigning for a ten-year moratorium on Muslim immigration and no more mosques.

Reverend Nile concluded: "Instead of opening new Muslim schools we should be closing existing Muslim Schools. The only way to stop Muslim brainwashing is for Muslim children to mix with non-Muslims at school.

"In the Bankstown Municipality, Muslim children will outnumber Christian children in ten years. The problems will be greatly exacerbated if Muslim children and Christian children are kept separate during their formative years. The answer is NO MUSLIM SCHOOLS."

((ENDS))

INTERVIEWS:
Fred Nile 0418 619 731
Godwin Goh 0414 463 138
Media spokesman 0402 558 947

* * * * *

WHOA. Did I miss that scripture class on tolerance or does that not get taught any more? This media release, which I assure you has been faithfully reproduced here UNABRIDGED, is just too outrageous for me to know where to start. I'll do my best starting from the beginning...

"Muslim schools in Britain and Europe are breeding grounds for anti-Christian and anti-Jewish hate and terrorism" - Evidence please! And while I'm here, might I remind Mr Goh that the biggest terrorist concentration in the UK/Europe in the past 50 years did not come from Muslim schools but from the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland?

"The advocates of exclusively Muslim schools want to impose educational apartheid" - You mean, unlike Christian schools? Or Catholic schools? Or, say, girls' schools or boys' schools? Or Montessori schools? - I mean, their type of education is really different from 'normal' schools...

"The only way to stop Muslim brainwashing is for Muslim children to mix with non-Muslims at school" - The only way to stop the CDP from brainwashing the public about Muslims is to stop issuing ridiculous, offensive and erroneous media releases.

Did the CDP ever stop to think that their hard line stance against Muslim schools and against the religion in general (reduction of Muslim immigration and "no more mosques") could lead to Muslims feeling, well, unwelcome here in Australia? Could it be that frustration from being unable to practice one's religion may push some of the more, shall we say, extreme faithful to lash out at those who curb their freedom? Is it so much of a stretch, then, to say that it is not the Muslim faith itself that incites "anti-Christian hate and terrorism" but the anti-Muslim sentiment peddled so ferociously at one religion by the very Christians who are accusing Muslims of hate?

Hypocrites, these CDP candidates! They are courting self-fuilfilling prophecies through their ignorance. I, for one, hope that the Muslim community has enough sense to speak calmly against this verbal attack and come off the better for it. And quietly go about their faith through whichever education they feels suits their child best and attend their local mosque as they see fit. And I hope we live in a society that remains free enough for them to do so without fear of retribution from an intolerant, uninformed "Christian" "Democratic" Party leader who has no right to have the title 'Honourable' preceding his name.

You may have noticed that I felt it necessary to print contact details of the perpetrators. Please, if you feel so inclined, tell them what you think.

Domestic Bliss

Slowly, over the course of my time living away from home, I have become domesticated. I've taught myself to cook, I like the hiatus that a load of laundry brings and there's something nice about the smell of the lemony vinegar cleanliness after I'm done scrubbing the bathroom. (Still can't stand ironing, though).

Furthermore, the more I learn about cooking, the more I learn about the food I eat. Healthy foods rule my thoughts when I cook, for I figure why bother spending all this time preparing and cooking when it's not doing anyone any good anyway? I resent my flatmate's addiction to pizza and 2 minute noodles. When it's her turn to cook, she submits to laziness.

This entry, however, is not about my increasing domesticity but the idea that domesticity can help relieve executive stress. I'm not saying all execs need to fire their gardeners and maids (especially if he or she can iron ten times faster than me) but perhaps stop and think about whether outsourcing help has eroded involvement in the home.

For example, if you hire a nanny to look after your kids, how much of their growing up will be influenced by their nanny as opposed to influenced by you? Similarly, if you hire someone to do your gardening, your cleaning, your laundry, your ironing, how connected do you feel to things you actually own?

It sounds weird, but every time I pluck a pair of socks from my drawer, I think about the last time I washed them and had to hunt down the other to make a pair. As much as I hate doing the ironing (because it takes me about 15 minutes to iron a shirt), I like seeing the creases steamed out of the clothes. And there's something quite satisfying about seeing all the dishes stacked in the dishrack at the end of the night instead of sprawled across the kitchen bench and knowing that I made it like that.

What's missing from an executive life (and I'm making assumptions based on the stereotypical executive) is the simple and easily achieved feeling that they've accomplished something. A typical executive has so many things in the air, so many people to manage and projects to focus on, that it takes a long time for things to end. Closure is hard to achieve. My solution: wash the dishes. The task ends in a matter of minutes. It's a methodical way to accomplish something. And to think about all those other people in the world - different races, different ages, different occupations - who are doing the same thing.

Fidelity

It's okay. The Chief has broken up with his girlfriend. Which is no small thing, as I believe he has been going out with her for four years. The last time he had troubles, Alias asked him if he truly loved her despite the problems. The Chief said yes. Alias told him to stick with her and The Chief duly followed his sage advice. Until now.

Only, I want to establish whether The Bear was instrumental in the break-up or whether she was a bit player until after the break-up. STILL none of my business...

However, we were talking about infidelity at writers group yesterday and discussing the interesting nature of the way people try to justify it. I think we all know someone who has been in a situation and the excuses that they dream up to justify their behaviour is intriguing to say the least. ("But we were meant to be!" is just one refrain).

I'm not a fan of infidelity. To me, it reeks of an inability to communicate. For me, that is already the death of a relationship. To define the term in my own words, I believe infidelity is a relationship or relational experience that one partner believes s/he has to conceal from the other during an exclusive partnership. This means that swinging couples, open relationships and people who are just dating around (or booty calling) rightfully fall outside the definition.

Further to that, who is to say that someone who is willing to cheat on someone to be with you won't cheat on you to be with someone else? I think that's a fair point. Not to say that infidels are infidels forever, but it's something to think about. The other thing to think about is that it takes two to commit infidelity - it is not wholly the fault of the other wo/man but a shared responsibility.

Okay, rant over. Now I have that Regina Spektor song in my head...

The Australia Test

The Australian government wants to introduce a test for potential migrants. The test will contain questions about the history and culture of Australia and also gauge the English skills and 'value system' of the applicant. Sense or xenophobia? Let's examine this idea from a few angles:

The idea itself is not a bad one. I mean, we can't expect that anyone who wants to emigrate can just waltz over here, wait around and then fill out a form without first displaying that their value system is akin to that of the people who already live here. It would also be handy, just to get around, to know a bit about the country you've moved to and be able to speak a bit of the language.

However, there are a number of problems surrounding the idea. The first question I would like to pose is: what is the motivation for introducing this test? Migrants already need to pass a 'points' test to determine whether they will be a valuable member of society. The points test includes, for example, their skills, their age, family connections and a history of criminal convictions. Obviously migrants who have a skill of which Australia has a shortage would be considered more valuable than one who has a skill that is in oversupply. Migrants who will contribute to society via employment are better than the elderly (who would be considered a burden to the health system) and you can kind of guess the value in the other attributes. Also, if you are very wealthy and not a criminal we reckon we'd be better off with you than without you.

So... the motivation for introducing this test seems rather political to me. Keep the 'riff-raff' out of the country via legal means, in a way. A former version of an 'Australia' test could be set in any European language that the tester chose. According to Mike Carlton's SMH column, former PM and federal attorney-general at the time, Robert Menzies once set a test for a known communist in Scottish Highland Gaelic in order to keep him out of the country. Which brings me to my next question -

Would most Australians pass the Australia test? If you randomly gave a test (in 'any European language' or otherwise) to an Australian citizen, even narrowing it down to a citizen who was born in Australia, would they be able to complete it? I don't think so. Full marks would be rare. I think maybe 40% of the population could answer questions on the name of our first PM, the rules of AFL or the number of Australian troops who died in WW2. Hell, I only know the answer to the first one. Besides, many Australians can't even spell and don't know where to place apostrophes (see Spelling 101), so they'd probably fail the English test anyway.

Speaking of which, isn't there just a tiny weeny bit of hypocrisy in British colonialism? Indigenous Australians never asked colonising Brits whether they could complete a test in 'any Koori language'. Those Brits just claimed the land and massacred the locals. Sure, we live in different times now ('civilised' or not) but the idea that this Australia test will allow people with knowledge of our history and culture and those with the same 'value system' and English skills in and keep those who fail out means that we'll be getting people that the government agenda deems desirable. Same old, same old. Where's the diversity?

Howard wants migrants to conform in as many ways as possible and yet pays lip service to keeping the essence of their former culture. What he means is for migrants to bring only the good things from their former culture, with the definition of 'good' determined by the government agenda. No wonder there are a bunch of alarmed people out there. For example, there are a number of Muslims who believe that this policy is designed to prevent any more Muslims entering the country. The barrier is not just religious, it favours migrants from an English-speaking background of a similar culture to Australia. Migrants from the UK, Europe and USA, in particular.

My conclusion on this matter is that you cannot tell anyone's suitability to citizenship by an Australia test any more than you can tell someone's intelligence by an IQ test. Sure, it might give a reasonably good idea of an applicant's suitability, but it misses out on some of the intangible things that cannot be expressed in the results of a test, things like passion for a nation, a willingness to become part of a community and to contribute to society. All I ask in return is: isn't there a better way to do this?

Power

I finished reading George Orwell's '1984' for the the first time a few days ago. I found it to be quite well-written and I liked a lot of the descriptions he used throughout the narrative ('beautiful rubbish' being my favourite). I also understood a lot of political undercurrents strewn from beginning to end and I recognise why the book was so important and groundbreaking - even now. Especially now.

On a personal note, however, I just do not understand the concept of power as an end. Having power means that you can do things, absolute power means that you can do anything you want. Having power and not using it defeats the purpose. It's like having a car and not using it - what's the point? It sits in a garage and gathers dust. Even if it looks pretty, if you never use it there is no point.

Dystopic novels tend to emphasise many things that, to me, seem pointless. Is the power there in case one would like to use it? Does having the power bring pleasure to some? If so, then there is a point. But in '1984', no one in power ever alludes to the possibility that they would like to use the power for anything other than to maintain power. Furthermore, no one seems to derive pleasure from having it. In fact, the opposite occurs - power is a grim reality and those in power relish the dourness of their possession. Pleasure is forbidden and those perpetuating the power do it out of duty. To me it's like drinking your own urine in order to urinate and then drink it again. Over and over.

Is Orwell commenting on the machination of society, that it exists only for a perpetual nothing? In my world, even the 'evil' people have a reason for doing the things they do. It may be stupidity, or a belief, or a pursuit of what they believe to be happiness. They wield their power in their 'evil' deeds as means to an end but power is never the end itself. Power is a vehicle, not a reason. Perhaps I am searching for reason where there may be none, which is why I do not understand the ultimate theme in '1984'.

Smoking is Fine

Yay to Sydney Council Rangers who now have the power to fine smokers who discard their butts on the street. Butt littering is a serious environmental problem that has been the focus of numerous educational programs to no avail. Now the council is getting serious by hitting smokers where it hurts most - their hip pocket.

Say all you like about litter in general, butts are the worst of a bad lot, simply because of their size, which can swim through gross litter filters, and their toxicity.

It is not difficult to dispose of used butts - most rubbish bins have ashtrays or you can devise your own portable ashtrays. Back in 2002 I was a volunteer for the Manly Environment Centre and spent a Saturday giving out portable ashtrays (little click top containers) to hundreds of people along the Manly Corso. I believe you can still get them for free at selected businesses. Otherwise, film containers work well, or even those Eclipse mint tins, which are airtight.

Now, if only they can start fining people who smoke while they walk, leaving a trail of non-smokers choking in their wake. Hire me!

Judge not lest ye...

At the moment I'm volunteering at Fairfax where a bunch of us are judging the WriteNow! competition for the Sydney Writers' Festival. WriteNow! is a high school writing comp for Year 7-9 specifically designed to fill a gap between primary school writing comps and the prestigious Sydney Morning Herald Young Writer of the Year Award, which caters to Year 10-12 students (apt opportunity for a rare brag that I was once a finalist of this Young Writer comp).

WriteNow! is run slightly differently in that the submissions are not open theme. Instead, SWF gets three authors to provide a 'story starter' and participants must continue the story in 1000 words or less. Prizes are awarded in six categories, a boy and girl from each Year 7, 8 and 9.

This is the second year that I've been a judge so I feel qualified to give some advice to budding writers, entered in not just this comp but similar ones around the world. Here are some tips...

• Follow the instructions. This includes presentation requirements e.g. typed on A4 paper, double-spaced, personal details provided, and adherence to the comp. This comp was based on a story starter but there were a few renegades who either wanted to write their own story or didn't adequately follow on from their chosen opener.



• Legibility is important. In addition to double-spacing, I would suggest a clear-faced font like Times New Roman (not my favourite, but standard) in 12pt BLACK (have you ever tried to read tiny single-spaced fancy yellow font on a white piece of paper?). No fancy/coloured fonts, no coloured paper, no illustrations, no decorations.



• Edit your work. Or get someone to help you. This means checking spelling and grammar. There are always well written works with spelling and grammar errors but when it comes down to deciding the winner, correct spelling and grammar has the edge. And don't just rely on your computer's spellcheck, really read your work.



• Make sense. We want you to be creative but your story still has to follow a logical sequence of events. Particularly in short stories, each character you introduce needs to have a function. Your ending must resolve all the situations that you (or the starter author) have mentioned.



• Be original. Easier said than done when you don't know what everyone else is writing. However, the general rule when responding to stimulus is usually to reject the first couple of ideas that come to mind. Don't assume anything about the stimulus, think of what it could be and brainstorm off that. Also, we have automatic rejections for bad endings such as "it was just a dream", "and then I died" as well as weak endings "and then I went home and mum cooked me breakfast".



• Choose your words wisely. Sometimes when you don't have a great idea, a sophisticated vocabulary can set your work apart from others. Don't use big words indiscriminately, know what they mean and use them effectively. And big words aren't everything - original descriptions and your own personal style count for a lot as well. Cultivate unusual similes and metaphors and use them sparingly. Be careful with detail - we really don't want to know the specifications of the car you were driving or what your mum cooked you for breakfast unless it is relevant to the story.



• Don't be afraid of your creativity. We're not going to think any less of you if your chracters go on some outlandish adventure (as long as it is logical and well-written). You don't need to qualify your writing with a moral or an "it was just a dream" ending. Characters do bad things, you can switch genders, people die. What's fabulous about fiction is that no one actually gets hurt.



• Adopt a style and/or genre. The stimulus will generally give you an idea of the kind of story that would suit. 'Wider' stimuli have the capacity to go anywhere - crime, romance, drama, fantasy, comedy etc. However, especially with WriteNow!, it is important to follow the style already provided by the starter author, including tenses and first/second/third person narratives. Choose the starter you are most comfortable with and follow the author's 'voice'.



• Avoid plagiarism and cliches. I know we live in a highly interactive world, but if you can avoid repeating the plot of your favourite movie or book you have a better chance of being original. Judges watch movies and read books too. Yes, even texts for younger audiences. Cliches are annoying and indicate that you can't think of your own way to say something.

At the end of the day, after a judge has read hundreds of stories, they're just going to chuck yours on the reject pile if they can't read it properly. It takes very little to annoy a judge when they've waded through hundreds of badly-written, unoriginal stories and it is very easy to throw out anything that doesn't immediately capture.

However, that being said, it is conversely also very easy to please a judge with an entry that has been well-written and is driven by a strong narrative, characters and a logical plot. Be commended and spin us a good yarn, eh?

P.S: And don't worry, we comb through the shortlist to ensure that everyone there deserves to be there. Then we have a massive debate about who we think should win, so rest assured that you really do have to be a good writer and please as many readers as possible to be a winner, therefore validating the award.

Spelling 101

Now I get to exercise the image-friendly nature of this blog technology. Today's lesson is about spelling. Everyone makes mistakes. Yes, even me. Being a journalist by trade, it's annoying when I discover my own spelling mistakes and I can only imagine that anyone who works in the media or in teaching has the same level of anxiety about spelling and grammar.

While I have my moments of typo-mania, there are some people who should be extra extra extra careful, such as signwriters. On the right is an example I saw today, poached from the Hoyts website advertising travel deals for Student Flights. Now, I don't know where in Australia Kadaku is but it looks like a good deal to me... This follows hot on the heels of yesterday's Daily Telegraph sub-heading about "Reece Witherspoon" (sic) who won the Best Actress Oscar. Strangely the rest of the article spelt her name correctly (Reese) so it was just the person who did the sub-heading who lacked the popular knowledge required of someone who works in a large media organisation like News Ltd.

Once upon a time I wanted to roam the streets of Sydney armed with a black marker, correcting the spelling and grammar of the city's worst offenders. Popular misspellings are fairly common words like 'calender' instead of 'calendar', 'stationary' instead of 'stationery' (the former means 'not moving' the latter represents pens and paper supplies etc). Then there's a raft of apostrophes that just shouldn't exist, like 'mango's'. The plural of 'mango' is 'mangoes'. Apostrophes should only be used to express possession e.g. 'Dr Witmol's Blog' or instead of a missing letter like contractions such as 'isn't' (is not) or 'o'clock' (of [the] clock).

We often laugh at weird phrasing that has been translated from another language into English (I wish I'd had my black marker for some of the menus I saw overseas) but when an English speaking country can't even understand basic spelling and grammar rules, we can hardly point the finger. It isn't like I'm trying to stop split infinitives from taking over the world - I just want people to know how to spell basic words (and if in doubt, consult someone who knows!) and know how to use an apostrophe. Learning the difference between 'your' and 'you're', 'to', 'too' and 'two' would be nice as well.

I could blame the proliferation of SMS and the internet for this dearth in spelling/grammar but the sad fact is that we need to grasp the initial concept before we can use and abuse it. Personally, I was never taught grammar at school and I believe this is a dying art due to bureaucracy and people putting it in the 'too hard' basket. What has happened is there are now teachers who don't know anything about grammar, teaching in a system that is slowly falling apart in the literacy stakes. Anecdotally I heard that some children in high school can't even indentify a noun in a sentence. In fact, I would say that children in non-English speaking countries get a better grammar education. Ironically, I learnt more about English grammar from French class than English (which I enjoyed but was geared towards analysing text). Perhaps this is why it seems more difficult for English speakers to pick up other languages; lack of their own (convoluted) grammar makes it harder to understand the concept of other languages' grammar.

Why is spelling and grammar so important? Simply, verbal communication represents meaning; spelling and grammar are like the laws of that meaning that can be manipulated according to the user's whim. When you misspell words or say something in a grammatically incorrect manner, it doesn't mean that you'll never be understood but rather that there is a greater possibility of being misunderstood. You'll give off a better impression and represent yourself and your views in a better light the clearer you communicate. How many times have you sent an email only to realise, after a terse reply, that what you wrote was ambiguous and taken wrongly by the recipient?

Which brings me to playing with language. I have no problem with people playing with language, be it pun-filled headlines, advertising or a witty joke. (Or not a witty joke like this one I made up that fails because it doesn't have a punchline or any real context - "Toilet bowls and W.C. Fields"). But what has to happen first is the establishment of an educated population who will be able to distinguish chartered language from played-with language. That way we can ask those pesky professions using jargon to undo us (law and politics are two that spring to mind) to speak in plain English and actually understand what they mean.

Multiculturalism in Australia

In a lunge for publicity Liberal MP Peter Costello has come out with this:

"There are countries that apply religious or sharia law - Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind," Mr Costello told the Sydney Institute. "If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia."


"Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia."

Fair 'nuff. Sounds good, even to a leftie like me. However, on the same topic he criticised the view that "[attaining Australian] citizenship did not mean having to give up culture or language or religion or opinions or love of their native country" as "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism". Hmm.

When a migrant comes to a country - any country, not just Australia - it follows that they accept the laws of that country and the consequences that breaking those laws entail. A recent example is the objections over death sentences of Australian drug traffickers abroad the past few months that tend to skim over the fact that it is clearly stated (in English) on immigration cards and airport signage that there are harsh consequences for drug trafficking in countries like Singapore and Indonesia. Whether or not you believe in the death penalty is irrelevant to your understanding of what could happen if you committed certain crimes.

Culture is another thing altogether and is often closely linked to religion. I have a couple of friends from Hindu families who don't necessarily believe in the Hindu gods but attend ceremonies which are synonymous with Indian culture. Another is Muslim and doesn't eat pig or drink alcohol but doesn't wear a burqa either. My own family practises a lot of Chinese customs. At the recent Chinese New Year celebrations, Dixon Street played audience to the traditional lion dance which included firecrackers being let off in the open, which is not usually allowed so close to the public. Exception is made for Muslims and Sikhs who are allowed to wear headdresses at school and at work which might otherwise contravene dress codes. I would say that Australia is a pretty tolerant country with no reasonable cultural exception denied.

Religion is tolerated to the extent that it does not contravene law, for example, religious practices such as "an eye for an eye" cannot be enacted as it is illegal; Australia does not practice corporal punishment. In a country like Australia, where the law is separate from religion, every person is bound by the law. Whether or not you choose to be bound by a religion as well is up to you, but you must obey the laws of the country first and foremost - it is the agreement you intrinsically make for remaining free in this country.

Language is important. While I'd emphasise that migrants learn to speak English, it is also important that they retain their native tongue as being bilingual is a real skill in a country that doesn't actively encourage the acquisition of another language. This helps with trade, tourism and indirect linguistic education. Opinions, well in a country that supports free speech, everyone is entitled to those. Love of a native country is only natural for some people but it would be foolish to think that affinity with another country would diminish their dedication to Australia. It's like being able to love your parents and love your spouse at the same time.

So, for Costello to suggest that retaining culture, religion, language, opinions and love of a native country is "confused, mushy, misguided multiculturalism" is a unfortunate choice of words. Diversity is what makes a society dynamic, it's what educates us to other worlds. Meeting someone from another country is usually an interesting experience, especially if they've retained some of the customs of their country that enables us to see how things are done elsewhere. From that we have the opportunity to take on board methods and behaviour or observe how an Australian upbringing might just be the best way to go.

Yes, new migrants should observe Australian law and consider whether coming here suits their way of life. But they must also be encouraged to retain their culture so we can learn and become a richer society. Law is not culture, Mr Costello. Never get them confused again.

Abort embryo? Retry? Fail?

Well, the debate on RU486 has become more than a political bunfight (which reminds me of a rather funny remark my history teacher once made "'2nd Mess War' stands for the second Messinian war, not a bunfight in the syssition"). I just want to start by defining the issue, which is whether the Minister for Health (currently Tony Abbott but extending to future MPs) should be able to override decisions made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). An MP is elected by members of the voting public, though his/her portfolio is assigned by the Prime Minister and the TGA is a government body consisting of a number of health professionals who assess and regulate the availability of products for use by the general public.

Hmm, MP and TGA. One of these has medical qualifications, the other has a political agenda. I really don't see how an MP should suddenly be able to override a body like the TGA, which has been set up precisely to monitor the administration of therapeutic goods and deal with its availability to the Australia public. The TGA are specialists in their field, an MP is a specialist in theirs - politicising. If we see politics over health, or even just expertise, then we are in danger of becoming slaves to agenda, which makes us no better than the sheep than the government thinks we are. (I, for one, will not stand for it... etc etc).

The issue has been taken further with the drug in question, RU486, which can be used for abortion among other things. The other things being treatment of Cushing's syndrome, endometriosis and a number of cancers (thanks Wikipedia). Abortion is a touchy issue all around the world. For the record, I am both pro-choice and pro-life. Very Trainspotting - Choose Life. Let me explain; I believe that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body and that she must be able to accept the consequences of her choice. Bringing a child into the world is no easy task, not just physically but mentally and emotionally and these aspects must be considered when a woman is pregnant. Of course the best case scenario is that the woman chooses to become a mother, whether she is to raise the child or pursue options such as adoption. Sometimes her choices lead her to conclude that her pregnancy is better terminated.

The biggest problem with the pro-life movement is that they do not take into account different circumstances, they believe in birth in any situation. Pro-choice campaigners are much more liberal, they do not say all embryos must die, rather they present options for the pregnant woman. That's what choice is, opportunity to decide. I wish that every choice would result in a pro-life decision, but I also understand that not all women feel capable of bringing a child into the world and respect her decision if she chooses otherwise. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion and pro-life shouldn't be about anti-abortion - after all, you are also taking to account the life of the pregnant woman. Presented correctly, both should be about informed decisions and the ability to pursue options.

Nobody should be allowed to bully a pregnant woman into a decision about her body; it is her body. And I must say that this has a lot to do with the 'pregnant body as public' conundrum. I mean, have you ever seen strangers stop a pregnant woman in the street to fondle her belly? People at parties tut-tutting about what Ms Pregnant is or isn't eating/drinking? Since when did being pregnant give anyone the right to invade a private body? Denying choice that could be available is well, fascism, really. And if you want to include the availability of RU486 in an abortion context, then essentially disallowing RU486 is just narrowing the choices available.

One point that poiliticians seem to be skimming over is that women are sentient beings who are fully capable of deciding for themselves. Just because RU486 is available doesn't mean there's going to be any more unwanted pregnancies. Having sex is a health risk. Getting pregnant is a health risk. Giving birth is a health risk. Terminating a pregnancy is a health risk. The onus should fall back on basic health education; ie "one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy and if you don't want to get pregnant have you considered contraception? abstinence?" If abortion is required, then unbiased information should be provided about the health risks of termination, whether termination takes place surgically or medically (RU486). The sooner as we all know and understand the risks, the sooner we'll realise that education beats politics hands down.

Now, get out of this abortion debate and see the RU486 issue for what it really is - a politician looking for power over the TGA.

New Water

The recent discovery of two freshwater lakes in Sydney has split me in two minds. One half is saying 'yay Mother Nature loves us! We're not going to die of thirst!', the other is rather sceptically declaring that we can't possibly look after these new water sources to the tune of doomsday music. So why the negativity?

For starters, despite the average citizen becoming a little more green-minded in the past few years, we still have a long way to go in terms of our resource consumption. The number of times I see reviews of plasma TVs just gives me the shudders because most consumers wouldn't even think to ask how much energy these entertainment beasts consume compared to your average cathode tube or even LCD or DLP technologies. But that's another story. To the average water consumer, the discovery of these lakes effectively gets us 'off the hook' temporarily. This is the last thing I want to happen because we lose the environmental pressure we've built up over the years and we lose momentum with regard to our water saving habits. There are certainly going to be short term-minded people who will resume their water-wasting ways with the belief that the lakes will save us from water shortage.

Secondly, apparently these lakes can sustain us for up to three years if our dams fail us, but they take five years to replenish. Replenish? From where? Wouldn't it be better to go to the source of this replenishment? And how do you know for sure that it can and will replenish? And I hate to point out that there's a two year gap between draining the lakes for our use and its full replenishment. Worst case scenario, we rape this source of water until it is unsustainable, unrenewable.

And finally, there needs to be a careful analysis of the lakes before we take any water from it. No natural water source exists alone; surely these lakes are a part of an ecosystem which needs careful examination before we can step in and claim our 'share' of water. Because even worse than that worst case scenario outlined above (okay, so I lied about it being the 'worst') is that we kill these water sources until it is unsustainable and unrenewable and we take down an entire ecosystem with it. An ecosystem which was probably very happy being hidden from human intervention and let's face it, human greed for resources.

All I can say is be careful, Sydney. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.

The Sad Tale of an Indian Girl

I read in the SMH News Review about the social problem of having daughters and the new social problem of technology that allows parents to see if the sex of their baby is female and an abortion if a daughter is confirmed ("A most serious calamity", 21-22 Jan, 2006). Briefly, having a daughter if you are a wealthy Indian basically means that when she is of marriageable age you will need to pay a large dowry when she hooks up with a husband and your business affairs are subject to the meddling of your son-in-law. It's the gender opposite of the poverty-stricken maidens looking for a rich husband a la Austen's world, except in this case the Indian women don't have the power of an English lord. A calamity indeed.

Writer Louise Williams notes that "in some of India's wealthiest districts as few as 750 girls are now born for every 1000 boys" compared to the national average of 930:1000. In one particular incident that brought a tear to my eye, a newborn baby girl was apparently flushed down the toilet of a passing train with her umbilical cord still attached. The girl was lucky - she suffered some bruises but is otherwise healthy and has been adopted by a family in a slum community. Other daughters will not even get the right to be born.

Two things worry me about the information in this article. One is the concept of being able to 'choose' a baby (see the film 'Gattaca') and the obvious gender imbalance it will cause in the next generation, not unlike China's one child policy that saw a similar rise in the ratio of male to female births (recorded births, that is - it is not known how many female babies died as a result of infantcide). Remember that this is occurring in two of the most populous countries in the world. Secondly, the article says "speculative work by the World Bank on China and India suggests a link between a high number of unmarried young men and crime, violence, prostitution and the trafficking of women." I would believe such a finding. Men can be competitive creatures and sometimes a sense of entitlement (to women, among other things) leads them to do things that destroy the person or people they are supposed to value. This is saddening.

I suppose what saddens me most is that using my rather Western/capitalist view on the situation, this does not make sense.

1. A life should not have a financial value


2. Men are no more valuable than women


3. Marriage should not be the sole path of life paved by a family for their offspring.


4. A family does not need to relinquish control to their son-in-law when they have a perfectly capable daughter (if only they'd had enough sense to educate her instead of not investing in her assuming that she would become her husband's property), or even pass a business or wealth into family hands at all, if they don't want to.


5. If there are less women in these societies, then a shortage should see the rise of their value, which in turn should see men with dowries. Why should a woman have a dowry when she has more choice of husband?


6. Why have a dowry at all? My understanding of a dowry is that when women used to outnumber men, a family would have to entice men to marry their daughter/s. Which also led to marriages that were more about how rich the family was rather than anything to do with the suitability of the daughter and man. It shouldn't happen in this day and age, especially when so many more women are financially independent and India is opening up (as a labour and trade market) to the world.

Okay, I know my opinions live in an idealistic world where gender equality exists unchallenged and a patriarchal culture of thousands of years is banished but they also acknowledge the simple commercial aspect of supply and demand. I thought this might be a transaction that the new Indian market might understand. Less women and more men mean that women become rarer and therefore more valuable and, you would think, more valued. Same with China. But instead there's an apparent increase in crime and violence, as if the two developing economies are coming to terms with the realisation that *shock, horror* patriarchal societies can be wrong and perhaps their respective societies need to get rid of this whole notion of business and wealth being a man's domain and instead embrace the new world order - women can be just as good if you give them a fair go. A rather Australian concept, don't you think?

When tradition is thrown out the window there needn't be a cause to discriminate between sons and daughters and their future impact on a family's finances. And I'm not saying there won't be trouble in ditching tradition but such a change is happening as we speak and I just hope that there will be fewer and fewer sad tales about Indian girls in time to come. I'm lucky enough to have two good friends of Indian heritage who happen to come from liberal families who have emigrated into a more liberal society. May this influence the new, burgeoning Indian society.

Diet & Exercise

Does anyone else think it's stupid that commercials for products that want to make tenuous links to being healthy always include "when taken as part of a balanced diet" or "as part of a regime of healthy diet and exercise"? I include products such as Nutella and slimming drinks in this spiel. Any health or slimming element would obviously come from the existing "balanced diet" or "regime of healthy diet and exercise" rather than the latched on product. I love my Nutella as much as anyone else but I'm hardly going to believe that any of its nutritious properties is the catalyst for improved health.

Green Pigs

I have no opinion on the newly-created fluorescent green pigs as yet. However, just caught this beauty off the letters section of smh.com.au and had to share:

"A green pig. Who gives a fig? Where are the green eggs? I'd gladly pay. I would eat them in the rain, I would eat them on a train, I would eat them on a tram, if I could eat them with this new green ham."

Sam-I-Am (aka Stephen Power) Sutherland

Motion Censors

There was a wave of it when the 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire' film came out and now it's clear to me that censorship is trying to grab the media spotlight once again. Recent proposals to ban the upcoming film 'Brokeback Mountain' and Sydney Festival act 'The Tiger Lillies' has finally brought me out in protest of arts censorship. I haven't seen either of the shows as neither are out yet but have heard plenty about both, so I won't go into specific details but rather examine some of the issues that have been raised in the prelude to their release.

For the record, 'Brokeback Mountain' is a film about two cowboys falling in love despite the homophobia present in their environs. The Sydney Festival program summarises 'The Tiger Lillies' using descriptions such as " seamy, satisfying mixtures of opera, gypsy song and Left Bank Paris, their songs describe pimps, prostitutes, drug addicts and other unsavoury characters in lurid detail" and finishes with "wicked fun and fiendish depravity!"

The hoo-ha over 'Brokeback Mountain' is well-documented in the USA when the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued it an "O" rating for morally offensive and a handful of cinemas declined to screen it. Apparently distributors UIP won't even try Malaysia, which has previously rejected 'Schindler's List', 'The Prince of Egypt' and 'Zoolander' for various, mostly religious, reasons. In Australia, the religious right, the most vocal being President of the Christian Democratic Party Reverend Fred Nile who decided to protest over the film's content and urged cinemas not to screen it here, implying that it was 'anti-family'. "I'll be making contact with similar pro-family groups to see whether there should be some action taken against it" he said to Daniel Hoare on PM (ABC Radio National). In the same segment, Gabrielle Walsh from the Australian Family Association said "they really need to make sure that people under 18 or families don't think it's just your standard western, and go in to see it."

The hypocrisy of these statements against the film is evident when you consider incidents such as paedophilia in the church and the lack of protest over violent films such as slasher flick 'Hostel' (which reached #1 in the US). It implies that while religious groups seem to have gotten over the possibility that violence in the media has no influence, gay flicks might encourage one into queerdom. Walsh's comment seems to imply that people see cowboy hats and want to see a film, although the nature of the movie is clearly evident on posters, trailers, cinema websites and other media. My two cents is that the film is probably more real than any other cowboy flick you've ever seen. I mean, forbidden love between two men in a conservative society seems more likely than shoot 'em ups at high noon. Besides, the two must face the consequences of their relationship. Would the church rather celebrate the facade marriage between Heath Ledger's character and Michelle Williams' character or the real love between the men? It seems the former, and in that decision you can already start to see what it wrong with some religious groups today.

In today's Daily Telegraph, Nile said of 'The Tiger Lillies', "I think it's serious that the Sydney Festival would select something like that. They try to present it as family entertainment this holiday season and it certainly doesn't fit that theme. It's sad it has been put in the Opera House, our icon. It denigrates the Opera House."

First of all Reverend, the Sydney Festival certainly did NOT "try to present it as family entertainment". Note to Nile; just because it is the school holidays doesn't mean that everything is for children. I wanted to go to 'The Tiger Lillies' but got turned off by the start time of 10:30pm. If that is show time for children then you should turn your attention to the more accessible TV shows that are shown at that time before raising a ruckus about an Opera House Studio cabaret act running for four nights. The Sydney Festival aims to present a broad spectrum of arts, from the spoken word of Saul Williams to the large scale Domain events. This means some of the program is specifically for children, some shows are suitable for all ages and some are specifically for adults. 'The Tiger Lillies' falls into the latter category.

At the volunteer briefing, director Fergus Linehan acknowledged the debauched nature of the show and outlined its previous reception elsewhere in Australia (some people walked out of Adelaide and Melbourne shows and demanded their money back) but justified his decision in bringing them to the Sydney Festival by saying that he thought Sydney audiences more receptive to this type of art and that he found it important for us to have access to this type of act. So your friendly Sydney Festival info booth volunteer is unlikely to recommend 'The Tiger Lillies' for those with a conservative disposition.

Secondly, Reverend, at what point can one lay claim to the Opera House and its program? Do you want three hours of unannounced betrayal, infidelity and suicide or an hour of publicised depravity? When I thought about going to see 'The Tiger Lillies' I knew exactly what I would be getting - it said so in the program and I doubt it has been misrepresented. However, I rue the day I went to see 'Madama Butterfly' on the basis of it being a 'classic'. It was boring and overhyped and I thought I was going to get something more moving and worthwhile than what eventuated. Denigration indeed. But, no protests as yet to this year's Opera House staging of betrayal, infidelity and suicide in 'Madama Butterfly'. I even hear it'll be the highlight of Opera in the Domain on the 28th, a free concert accessible to CHILDREN.

At the end of all this posturing is the question; at what point can religion interfere with the lifestyle of the non-religious? Or being more inclusive of the AFA, at what point can groups of people who want to protect the ignorant interfere with the decisions of the informed consumer? Surely if you agree with Nile's CDP and the AFA the easiest thing would be to make a decision with your wallet and not see the film or the show. But to stop these art pieces from even airing is not democracy. I am an educated, informed citizen of Australia and if a film or show is available for me to see and I want to see it, then what right does anyone have to stop me? As long as the nature of the entertainment has not been misrepresented, I don't see why groups like the CDP and the AFA shouldn't just let their members make their own informed decisions about what is and is not entertainment. The box office will have the last say.