Strong Economy, Strong Communities

Last week I went to the ACL's Strong Economy, Strong Communities breakfast.  Two talks in particular are worth you taking the time to watch.

The first was by Professor Jonathan West. He spoke about how as a community we're so preoccupied by self interest that we can never take the larger view.  His story in this video about how the wine industry in Tassie opposed the expansion of the wine industry is mind boggling!



The second talk of note was that by Professor Ian Harper.  He spoke again about the need for things like trust and fairness as the basic building blocks to a strong community and also a strong economy.



They aren't long talks, but they will be stimulating!  If you want more information about the Tasmanian Election, and who to vote for, head on over to the Tas Votes website.

Read More

An open letter to the Tasmanian Parliament concerning Euthanasia

It is with much shock that I read of the tabling of the Euthanasia bill before our parliament today.  Not only that but the sponsoring members are our two most senior political leaders, the Premier and the leader of the Greens.

I urge you all to vote against this bill for a number of reasons.

Firstly, whilst on the surface, the argument that I should have the choice to end my life when I want in order to avoid suffering, whilst seemingly powerful when we scratch the surface we see some dire consequences to this line of thinking.

Firstly, it dramatically changes the role of doctors who instead of being promotors of life are now expected to be involved in the ending of life.  This is a dangerous element to add into the mix, not because Doctors are not trustworthy, but because people do silly things.  People take advantages of laws that give them legal protection for killing vulnerable elderly people.  In countries where Euthanasia has been legalised we see that the elderly are often too scared to go to the doctor to get treatment because they are scared that their doctor and their families have colluded against them in order to end their life.  No one should ever fear going to the doctors.  With Euthanasia legalised we have every right to fear our doctors appointments as we get older because them killing us becomes a viable option.

Secondly, I believe that as a society we can be measured by how we treat the vulnerable.  In this case vulnerable sick and elderly people.  Euthanasia sends completely the wrong message here.  It says that as a society we're more eager to send you off to an early grave than we are to care for you, and respect your life.  It says to the elderly, you are not a blessing to our community but a burden.  This is simply not something that I want any person to feel.

Thirdly, I find it odd that as a society we find suicide such a tragedy yet some feel that we should allow Euthanasia;  which is effectively old person suicide.  We have read recently about the tragic death of a young girl in Hobart who took her own life.  This is a tragedy and it is right that we be shocked and saddened by her death.  But I wonder if by the same logic we use for Euthanasia, then in fact we should see suicide as a great blessing.  We should be happy that this young girl took the choice to end her suffering, and escape her life.  Yes it might have been mental suffering and not physical (though I believe she was physically attacked at times), but she no longer faces those things.  She is free.  We should in fact, by the same logic that leads us to support Euthanasia, be encouraging people to commit suicide if they feel life has gotten to hard.

My right to chose is a powerful argument.  But it is not the only argument that has to be considered when looking at Euthanasia.  We have to consider the effects this will have on our society.  We have to realise the dangers and we have to stand up and say as a society that we are better than this.  That we value care over killing.  That we value life over death.

I hope you vote against the bill and I ask that if you decide to vote for this bill that you could provide me with your reasoning.  I cannot vote for a person who supports the state sanctioned killing of my grandparents by doctors.  So this issue is of great importance to me.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this.  I am praying that you will have great wisdom and understanding as you examine the issues.

Read More

How to vote tomorrow?

I've got one day left to figure out how I'm voting tomorrow. It's not an easy thing and much ink has been spilled over how Christians should vote.  John Dickson has this article where he outlines some guidelines for Christians.  They are helpful on one level, but on another I'm still left with some 'who to vote for' problems.  So what does Dickson say and how does that help or not help us?

Vote for others:

Dickson says,

"a Christian vote is a vote for others, not oneself. It is fundamental to the Christian outlook that life be devoted to the good of others before oneself..."

I get that on one level, but I find that hard to figure out on another.  For example I take it what's ultimately best for all people is to hear about Jesus.  I take it then, that a vote for others has to be a vote for a party that does not have a semi militant secular world-view at its heart no matter how nice their policies are in some areas.

Vote for the moral health of the community:

Basically he says, we need to figure out how our vote will reflect and shape the moral health of the community.  A fair point.  As an aside at this point, he argues that 1 Corinthians 5:12 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" means Christians have "no right to seek to impose a Christian way of life on a largely secular society."  This doesn't quite wash for me.  Firstly, it's hard to make Paul's statement in the context of church discipline a statement backing up how a Christian should live in a democracy.  Secondly, Christians don't impose a Christian way of life on a largely secular society ever or at all.  What we do is advocate for the best positions.  We advocate that the best marriage is between a man and a woman, we advocate that children shouldn't be killed before they are born, we advocate that euthanasia is more complicated than simply 'individual rights'.  We advocate that life is special and that people shouldn't be killed.  We advocate that we should be good stewards of our environment.  And on and on we go.  What happens after we state these positions is the government must make a choice.  It is and always has been the government that 'imposes' a way of life on those it governs.  If Christians do not advocate their views, then the government will impose/allow what we believe to be poorer ways of living life.  As it has done in places already.  What am I saying in all this.  That Christians should use their vote as part of their role as advocates for a better world.  The problem is... no one has the perfect vision.

Vote for the poor and the weak:

Next up, Dickson says that,

"in voting for the ‘other’ the Christian will principally have in mind the poor and powerless. We will use our vote for those who need our vote more than we do."

But I'm in a bit of a bind here too... How do I weigh the treatment of poor people (refugees and overseas aid) against issues such abortion and euthanasia?  I leave the marriage question out of this for a moment, because as I take it that these issues I've just mentioned are about the protection of people.  Yes the question of abortion and euthanasia might be framed in terms of 'individual rights', but in actual fact these questions involve the protection of people who cannot speak for themselves (babies not yet born, and the elderly who may be feeling rejected by family and society).  So too those overseas and fleeing who cannot vote for us to be more compassionate.  I have no idea how I can weigh up these things.  For me then, my vote therefore must be decided on other categories.

Vote for the gospel:

Here he says,

"Concern for the advancement of the Christian message throughout Australia, therefore, will potentially play a part in a Christian’s voting patterns.

Is one party better for the gospel than another?"

That's a good question.  And people will go either way on the answer.  I don't think the answer to that question can be discovered through individual policies.  A broader approach is needed.

Michael Tate (former Labor minister in the Hawke Government and now our neighbouring Roman Catholic parish priest) debated Andrew Wilkie at our church a few months ago around issues of church and state.  His view was that in the end the role of government is primarily about the distribution of wealth.  That is, the left wants to kinda level the playing field (tax the rich give back to the poor, very crude understanding I know) and the right wants to encourage incentive, some say let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (though that's an unfair understanding also I think).

And I think this provides something of a window into how I will decide to vote tomorrow.  If I'm voting along party lines then what I need to take into account is not policy but worldview.  Not abortion vs refugee but which party's worldview is best.  Which party has a less troubling set of guiding principles? And in part, if government is primarily about economics, then who has the best economic policy that allows us freedom as individuals to be generous, that creates work for people to do which from a Genesis 1 point of view is one of the best things we can give people.  Which party ultimately will not only allow churches the freedom to speak The Gospel but also the homosexual lobby the freedom to speak their gospel.

I'm still not sure how I will vote tomorrow but one thing I do know is this.  I will be praying for whoever wins and this is Dickson's final point.

Vote Prayerfully:

"A Christian vote is a prayerful one. The Scriptures urge believers to pray for leaders and for governments. And, ultimately, believers will see this as more important even than their vote.

I couldn't say it better myself.


What principles or ideas are going to shape how you vote tomorrow?

Read More

How Kevin Rudd lost my vote last night

Last night I saw Kevin Rudd twice on TV.  The first was at the Australian Christian Lobby's national webcast.  Here Kevin Rudd said this:



Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's address to Christians at the Make it Count 2013 Election Panel webcast from Australian Christian Lobby on Vimeo.

Now I don't mind if he changes his view on same-sex marriage.  For me same-sex marriage is not a deal breaker, however what is a deal breaker is what happened when I saw Kevin for the second time last night.  On ABC's Q&A I watched this interaction between Kevin and a local Pastor...




And here in lies my issue.  In the first video he said this...

"Many in the Christian churches may be disappointed with some of the decisions I have taken as prime minister or as a person, I have also undertaken those decisions in good and prayerful conscience, even though people in equal prayerful conscience may disagree with some of those conclusions."

That's all I'm really looking for in a politician.  Someone who can form views, advocate for them and respectfully disagree yet understand the other persons view.

But then when I got home, I witnessed one of the most cruel and patronising moments on TV that I've seen. Kevin Rudd unleashed an unfair, and wrong attack on this Pastor.  In fact he sounded more like a member of the gay lobby than a politician who had formed a view.  As he points out on Q&A in the video above, the New Testament has an ethic of showing love.  What Kevin Rudd forgot was that he has to do that with people he disagrees with, even on matters that he disagrees with people on strongly.

So What's clear is Kevin doesn't respect people, let alone love those, who've come to different prayerful decisions based on conscience.  And that is no quality I want in any member of parliament let alone the Prime Minister.  So I'm sorry Kevin, even though I own a Kevin 07 t-shirt, and was once a member of the ALP, you lost my vote last night.

As an aside my current sitting local member, Andrew Wilkie was present last night and I wish he'd given Kevin Rudd some lessons.  Wilkie is also in favour of same-sex marriage, but unlike Rudd, he actually does respect people who think differently to him and was able to put forward a balanced position that respects those who hold to the traditional view of marriage given he agrees with same-sex marriage.

Read More

Will I be like a racist?

So it seems that the past week and weekend has been particularly prolific on the pro same-sex marriage front with marches and all sorts of things happening.

On Sunday we found out about a group of doctors who have come out and said that it's bad for families.  Predictably we're told by others that this is wrong.  Either way there is more to marriage than children so I'm unsure of why we keep making marriage about children in this debate.  The debate will be won or lost on the issues of 'equality' and 'love'.  It has nothing to do with children essentially.  I even heard Penny Wong on QandA on Monday night rightly tell Joe Hockey that making marriage about children was dumb as people have kids without marriage.

Anyway, I noticed in this group of doctors was a prominent Victorian psychiatrist Dr George.  She happens to be on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.  She has now said she is not in favour of same-sex marriage.  This is former AMA chief Karen Phelps response:

Gay rights activist and former AMA president Kerryn Phelps said Dr George's position on the board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission should be reviewed

Essentially the argument goes, Dr George does not support same-sex marriage.  Therefore she can no longer be on the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because same-sex marriage is a right. And this debate is about 'equality'.  Which leads me to the title of my post.  I suspect in the next few years when the same-sex marriage bill is passed if you are opposed to it will essentially be like saying, 'all black people are stupid'.  Or something like that.  That is just like (rightly so I might add) we have moved against racism so we will move against 'homophobia', which will equal not being pro-homosexuality, especially same-sex marriage.

So what to do about this?  Well on one level what we're debating at the moment is the definition of a word.  The word is marriage.  At the heart of the debate is 'equality' in the law.  I still maintain that the best way forward is for the marriage act to be completely amended and renamed the 'civil union' act.  Then at law my marriage becomes a 'civil union' with all the same rights and benefits afforded to me from my marriage.  Then if I want to say I'm married.  Then I simply go to my church and have a religious service.  So at law I am civil-unioned.  On a religious level I'm married.  This would seem to be the option that makes everyone happy.  We all get equality and marriage is not redefined.

Failing this, which I think is likely, then Christians have lost their claim to the word marriage.  Marriage will come to mean, not a God ordained way of being, but a secular legal way of being.  In this case we will need to think about a new word to use that describes what we currently call marriage.  One man and woman united together for life.  Perhaps wedded or christian marriage or something.

Read More

Is Supporting Same-Sex Marriage brave?

The whole same-sex marriage debate is an interesting case study in how one side of an argument brilliantly co-opted the debate and will eventually win.  That is, it seems obvious to me that same-sex marriage is inevitable in Australia (graphic comes from this article).

I've been fascinated how those in favour of same sex marriage how brilliantly co-opted phrases like 'marriage equality' and 'equal love'.  Phrases that quite frankly as an Australian it is hard not to agree with.  After all we're all supposedly equal in our egalitarian country!  How dare the government discriminate like this.  It is brilliant political and social campaigning and those who oppose same-sex marriage have been left looking unloving, hateful, oppressive even.  I'm not sure if there was a possibility of appearing any other way.

Another part of the campaign is that it is 'brave' to come out in support of same-sex marriage.  For example Barrack Obama is said to be brave.  On Twitter last night after Channel 10s The Project did a segment on same-sex marriage people said it was brave for people to support it.  But surely to be brave there requires some form of danger?  Surely to be brave holding your view has to threaten your safety in some way.  As far as I can tell it would actually seem more brave to voice your opposition to same-sex marriage.  For example it would have taken a lot of bravery if someone on The Project last night had spoken up to defend people who do not believe same-sex marriage is legitimate.  In the midst of their rhetoric of its time for people who don't agree with same-sex marriage to 'get into the 21st century' it would take a brave man or woman to stand up against that.  Likewise on QandA on ABC often I hear questions and comments, especially from the host, in relation to this issue that requires bravery to stand up against.  So the gay lobby have been successful at co-opting their 'equal love' mantra, thus making anyone who stands against equality morally bankrupt and totally unAustralian.  In doing so they cannot claim that it is brave to agree with this.  No it is brave to stand against this view.

On an Melbourne Anglican side note I read in an article today this quote:

Reverend Gary Bouma, from the Anglican Church in Melbourne, said the Marriage Act was discriminatory. "It's dehumanising to tell someone their love isn't right," he said.

I would be keen to know what the ArchBishop makes of Rev Gary Bouma's statement and if he thinks this to be an unorthodox position what will be done about it. I'd also love to know how the Anglican church deals with priests who stray off message.  Perhaps Rev Bouma is on message?  This is a pertinent issue for me as I continue to discern my call to Anglican ordination.

Read More

Douglas Moo on the new NIV

The TNIV is being dumped and a new NIV will come out.

I was a TNIV fan. We use it in our Youth Ministry. It's very readable! I also like gender inclusive language where appropriate. It's one less potential barrier to a young girl reading the bible.

I came across this interview with Douglas Moo (who's commentaries are awesome) on the subject of the new NIV.

Read More

A Bill of Rights... more like a Bill for the Left

There is an excellent article in the Australian about the proposed bill of rights that the Rudd Government is thinking about creating. It shows good reason why as Christians we should advocate strongly against such a bill. The part of the article that I have quoted refers particularly to the Victorian rights charter, on which the national bill is said to be based:

The most stunning insight into this entire debate, however, is Brennan's recent and separate attack on Victoria's rights charter, supposedly the model for a national bill. Brennan's conclusion is that Victoria's law has failed its first test: the need to uphold freedom of conscience.

Brennan's concern was clause 8(1)(b) of the Abortion Law Reform Bill that, in defiance of Australian Medical Association ethics, overrode a physician's freedom of conscience and compelled a doctor who had a conscience objection on abortion to find and recommend to the patient a doctor willing to perform the operation. As Brennan said, the law requires "compulsory referral by a conscientious objector" or, in shorthand, leave your morals at the surgery door.

Brennan's conclusion is that Victoria's rights charter "failed spectacularly" to defend a core human right when it conflicted with the progressive-Left political agenda on abortion law and bioethics. He nails the issue: Victoria's law is not primarily about human rights. It is "a device for the delivery of a soft-Left sectarian agenda" and it will be discarded whenever "the rights articulated do not comply with that agenda".

In short, the rights debate is an ideological instrument for causes the Left knows the public may not embrace. Brennan sees it and said it.

To read the article in full, click here

To make your views about why this bill should not proceed, click here (HT to Wayne for the link)

Read More

Sex Education again

I've had some further thoughts relating this post regarding sex education in schools. My girlfriend is studying to be a PE teacher, and in Australia it is usually (at least when I went to school) the PE teacher who teaches sex education to the students. How would a Christian PE teacher handle being given curriculum that is so poisoned by the religion that is secularism that he or she simply cannot teach it? What provision do we have in Australia to be able to keep our job but reject something that is not as the secularists would have us believe simply a matter of fact. That is, as a Christian can I refuse to teach my Grade 5 class (full of 10 year olds) about Masturbation and Abortions making everything ok?? Can I teach about the many consequences of having multiple sex partners or the emotional toll sex and abortion can have on people. Can I teach about how sex is a beautiful thing, a wonderful treasure, and that whilst it might feel good having sex with just anyone, nothing beats sex between two people who are committed through marriage to spend all their life together. Can I reject the lie that secularism is neutral. Can I reject the notion that secularism is a balanced, neutral, rational approach, pro-human philosophy.

I think too many Christians, myself included sometimes, believe the lie that real truth is taught in the absence of God and that if you teach people about God you are teaching them about Religion which is just one part of their lives. I don't remember the Jesus saying he was only one part of life.

I know in myself that I feel uncomfortable arguing against secularism, and I think Christians can be unwise sometimes in the way they do this. But if I am honest, if I think about the source of my uncomfortableness. Then I think the only honest answer to why I feel uncomfortable is because I don't believe strongly enough that Jesus' view on the matter is right and that my role as his follower is to express it plainly and clearly and be willing to lose my job, my friend, my family for His sake. I pray that God would stop me from being so weak!

Read More

Obama's spending

My friend Joey alerted me to an astonishing fact about the Obama stimulus package in the USA.

"If you were to spend one million dollars a day for every day since Jesus was born until today you would spend less money than obama is planning to spend..."

That is amazing!

Read More

Abortion

There has been lots of debate in my new state of Victoria about new abortion laws that were been debated by the parliament. In the last few days they were passed by both houses of the Victorian parliament (see here). There have been strong reactions in the lead up to this bill been debated on both sides of the debate (pro-choice and pro-life). It is an emotional issue... it is easy to understand why.

What do these laws mean? They legalise abortion. As far as I'm aware a woman is now able to get an abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks (that's 6 months in). A 6 month fetus looks like this...


It seems difficult to me to argue that those 6 month old unborn fetus' aren't people. They look like little people to me. In fact, I'm led to believe that babies born 6 months premature can survive with close medical attention.

Another feature of these laws is that a nine month old unborn baby can be aborted with the consent of two doctors. A nine month old unborn baby looks like this...

Very human like in my opinion! In fact, I think that I was born about 3ish weeks premature, meaning I was close to being 8 months in the womb. I never made it to this stage before I was born... what's more is everyone reading this blog made it at least to 9 months. All of you could be legally aborted with the consent of two doctors now.

Issues
This is an emotive issue. But these are the two competing issues as I see it.

1. The right for a woman to chose
Australia is a Liberal Democracy. Libieraelism is concerned with preserving individual rights and maximizing freedom of choice for the individual. As a rule, Government should not restrict individual rights or choice. Democracy confuses Liberalism a bit because it opens up the possibility for the majority to abuse the rights of the minority. That is why we have courts and a constitution for example, which separate power and are aimed at protecting individuals rights being abused by the majority in power. As a general rule, I like the idea that Government's should be concerned with providing security which allows me to make whatever choices I chose. That is why I can chose to be a Christian and go to church and tell others about Jesus.

It is from this sort of perspective, I assume, that 'pro-choice' advocates approach the abortion debate. Governemnt should not, in their view restrict the rights or ability to chose that a woman has.

This leads to a number of issues which are under my second major competing issue.

2. The rights of the fetus
To figure out your answer to this question, you need to figure out what a fetus is. Clearly it is has the potential to become a human. Is it a human? Does it have the same rights as born humans? Those photos of a 6 month and 9 month fetus make the baby look very much like a human to me. So clearly this leads us to asking another question... What is a human? Do we define human by looks? Or by something else? Perhaps we define it by characteristics... like self-reliance, or self awareness, the ability to think critically... But then I think we would have to be prepared to 'abort' this...
So defining what is a human and when it has rights seems to be a matter of drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. Do you draw it at birth? Or at some point during pregnancy when the fetus looks more like a baby than a blob? Or at conception? I can't see how using man made humanistic categories this debate could ever be settled in a properly rational way.

What does God say about what makes a human human? Genesis tells us that we are human because God created us that way. When do we become a human? Psalm 139:13 says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." Which suggests to me that we must say that human life begins in the womb... probably at conception.

Baby v Mother
So what about when the rights of two human beings compete? This is complex for the humanistic liberalist! They seem to solve it in the case of abortion by not treating the fetus as a human. But I'm yet to see their category for coming to such a conclusion well articulated. I can certainly sympathise with someone who is faced with the choice of having an abortion or facing a very dangerous pregnancy which could lead to that woman's death.

A Christian Response...
This leads me to one of my main problems with the Christian response to this bill. We are in danger in becoming non-pastoral in our debate. By this I mean we are having an emotional debate about something as though it were just intellectual, and by doing this we could well be placing barries to the Gospel in front of hurting could-have-been mothers because they hear nothing but judgment from us. In saying this, I am in no way advocating silence on the matter. But I am led to wonder if we leave grace out of our abortion debates? It is one thing to strongly articulate your oppostion to a parliamentry bill. To advocate good reasons why the bill is not a good idea. But it is another thing to give way to our emotions and start calling people murderers.

I have heard a number of prayers which have labelled this bill murderous. I think that God does not like abortion, but He loves people who've had one. I believe he knows their pain and cries with them, he knows their brokeness and longs to heal them. And as Christians, he has given us the wonderful privellge of being messengers of this news to these hurting could-have-been mothers. We need to remember that having an abortion is sin, just like living for stuff, or lying, or being sexually perverted is sinful. They are all symptoms of people living against God. An abortion doesn't make someone more or less saved or unsaved. And when a person who has had an abortion asks Jesus to become a Christian their prayer only needs to be like any other person, "forgive me for living my own way and help me to live Your way." Not, "sorry for living my own way and having an abortion, please help me to live Your way."

I'm not angry that this bill has been passed. I'm sad that it was ever proposed. I'm sad that it got past, but I'm left to wonder, does it ultimately affect Christians primary responsibility? (which I take to be bringing the Gospel to the world). And I have to answer no. Just because parliament legalised abortion doesn't mean we can't preach the Gospel, doesn't mean we can't run free counselling services, doesn't mean we can't help people through a very emotional and tough time for them. It doesn't mean I deal differently with the girl in my youth ministry who's had an abortion or with the Christian kid who is getting picked on at school, or the boy with self-esteem problems. And it doesn't change their need to know Jesus or my ability to pray for them, rebuke them and encourage them.

So, I hope none of you have had an abortion. But if you have. I hope you come to know the love and forgiveness available to you in Jesus. Forgiveness that you need, not because you had an abortion, but because you have lived life your own way, not God's way. I can't even begin to imagine the emotional turmoil that you might have felt in coming to your decision, or after your decision. I can't imagine what it would be like to feel alone and feel trapped with a pregnancy. But God does. I hope that I am helpful to your recovery, not a barrier. I'm sorry that Christians (myself included) have made you feel judged, without knowing the first thing about you. God knows you, and I hope I can help you discover the God of this world, the God who made you and who loves you.

Read More

Phillip Jensen on the Child porn vs Art debate

Thanks go to Mike who linked to this article on the recent debate about naked child photos in art by the Anglican Dean of the Sydney Cathedral, Phillip Jensen. A good Christian perspective on the debate.

So how do we discriminate between "art" and pornography? The problem is usually posed in the impossible question - "where do you draw the line?" There is no answer. There is a thing called pornography and there is a thing called art. You can recognise the difference when the two extremes are put side by side, but there is no clear dividing line between the two. Beautiful art can be pornographic and pornography can be artistically beautiful.

Read More

Defending nude child photos

Here is a rather stunning video of the 6 year old girl (now eleven) and her father defending the photo of her that appeared on the front cover of the art magazine. I could be childish and say something about the fathers shirt and bow-tie... but i'll refrain in the interests of debate! Suffice to say I think that neither the father or the girl make many, if any good points as to why its ok. Certain when the girl says, it was more rude to show the photo blanked out on tv, than to show the photo at all... you start to wonder... but hey, she is only 11!

Read More

More 'acceptable' child porn... sorry i mean 'art'

A few weeks ago i blogged on the issue of children being photographed naked and published in the name of 'art'. See here.

Now i read today of more filth from the very liberal 'arts community'.

See these two articles for the full story, one from The Age and one from ABC.

Basically an art magazine has published naked pictures of a 6 year old girl on its front cover to protest the treatment of Bill Henson. On the inside of the magazine several more pictures are published. Somehow the publishers of the magazine think this is appropriate...

NSW Premier Morris Immea has threatened to withdraw the funding his government gives to this magazine. I think that is an appropriate step to take.

Kevin Rudd has said he 'can't stand' the photos. But whether or not he will take some strong firm action on this issue remains to be seen.

Read More

Shameful

Even though I've moved to Melbourne I like to keep up with the latest happenings in the local newspaper The Mercury. Yesterday, they had an article about a family that through a series of unfortunate events has been living in a broken down car on the Devonport foreshore for 5 months!! They've also had a dog and 6 puppies living with them in this car. To read the story click here. Perhaps this family could have done more to help themselves, who knows, however the thing to note when reading this stories is the comments. I noticed yesterday that they were quite harsh on this family, and indicated people cared more for the plight of the dog than the children or parents!! For example:

"Under no circumstances should the poor dog and her puppies be returned to these irresponsible people. If they're in such dire straits, why would they get a dog?? And then let her have puppies?? It frightens me to think that these people are the future of our country. I'd say there's more to the story about the 'friend' trashing their housing commission house. What a disgusting family. Please please please RSPCA, rehome the dog and her puppies in loving homes, rather than go back to these hideous people."

"These people are too dumb to accept offers of help because they like to play the part of the victim. I'm just thankful someone was smart enough to take the dogs away from them..."

The Mercury did a follow up story today about the harshness of the comments. Surely someone should give them a place to bed down for a while...? Click here to read it
.

Read More

Child Porn or Art...

An oldish man, I'd say he would be in the 45-55 year old range, invites a young 13 year old girl to his studio. We're not exactly sure what the conversations that take place between these two are, but we do know that the 13 year old girl ends up taking off her clothes and posing for naked photographs in front of this old man.

Don't be outraged, don't be disgusted, because this is ok in 2008. It's just art. You see after this old man takes these photos he is smart. He doesn't post them on illegal child porn websites but rather he gets them placed on the walls of a respectable art gallery. Every day people go into this gallery and look at the photos. Then he gets the Classification Board to rate his photos as PG...


In case you don't know what I'm referring to here, it's the controversy surrounding "artist" Bill Henson. Click here to read a news story on the latest developments. He is an old man who took photos of naked 13 year old girls and then published them in a series of photos. The artistic community - who I had some respect for but now seem to have lost all credibility - think that this is an ok situation because the final context in which the photos are shown is art which speaks of the child's vulnerability. When Kevin Rudd saw the pictures he said they were disgusting! He was right. Context does not justify all actions. Some are wrong in any context. We live in a society that takes a hard-line against paedophiles, and rightly so! Time for some consistency! Naked pictures of 13 year old girls are not ok in any context or circumstance!

Also, back to Kevin Rudd on this issue. He is quoted as saying this (see below) when standing by his statements that the pictures were disgusting:

"I ... said what my views are as a parent, I don't budge from that. But I'm not about to go around and start dictating to the legal authorities what they should or should not do," Mr Rudd told the Nine Network.

"Organisations like that are at arm's length from politicians. It's a matter for those bodies independently, including the legal authorities, to evaluate these matters and reach their own determination."

Kevin, come on. That is a cop out and it doesn't even make sense. You are the leader of the parliament. The Parliament is the sovereign law making body in the land. Its your job to make laws that the legal authorities go and enforce. You can make any law you like as long as it doesn't infringe the Constitution! I'm pretty sure making all 'disgusting' photos of girls and boys under the age of 18 completely illegal doesn't contravene the Constitution. So get some guts mate! Start making some hard calls and put the ultra left wing, naked 13 year olds is ok people back in their box.

Read More

"Magicians" in Local Government...

I read this article today in The Age about a local council here in Melbourne that employed a strange strange lady to review their management structures and ended up basically ruining the organisation! Check out these quotes from the article:

"I have a vast, vast array of interests," she says, spelling out her suitability for the job to The Age. "I'm a student of, you know, what life is. How does matter form? Why are we here? You know, philosophical issues."

She denies outing a homosexual staff member and volunteers that she is lesbian herself, but in a sexual relationship with a gay man. "It's fair to say that I am an interesting person," she says.

Read More

New template

I'm using a new template for my blog as of today.

I haven't liked the dots one I've been using ever since the beginning for a while now.

See how long I stay with this one... Is it better?

Read More

Politics + Paul Keating

These videos are great. Paul Keating expressing his mind on the politics of today in Australia.

Read More

Labor Party

I went along to my first ever ALP branch meeting last night. Basically every electorate has a few different branches which meet and discuss policy and politics. I found it very interesting! In about a week or so i should be a fully signed up member of the ALP. Sure i might not agree with everything they do, but i'm in there having a go. I'm really looking forward to meeting people and building some good contacts and making some good friends.

It should be great!

Read More