All well and good, but...

Nick Xenophon started his political career as an MP in my local constituency here in Adelaide, where he ran for office as an Independent on his "No Pokies" (meaning banning poker machines) platform. Although he was voted in, mainly because he was the only alternative to the Labor / Liberal (read: Communist / Fascist) duopoly in our electorate, he never succeeded in his stated goal; and Australia being a nation of compulsive gamblers he found his efforts largely opposed by the community at large, and it cost him quite some popularity over his term. So it comes as no surprise that as a Senator he initially supported the idea of censoring against gambling sites, and quite a few of us were waiting nervously for his decision since he effectively held balance of power in the Senate.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I have to wonder how much his decision to vote against the censorship regime was therefore an effort to regain political popularity, as opposed to any genuine ideological opposition to internet censorship. Certainly a lot of people will now decide they like him for his stance, while the Christian / Family lobby groups, who are self-righteously convinced they know best how the rest of us should live, are now likely to disown him. If this is indeed his motive, it remains to be seen whether he abides by his decision at the final vote or does a back-flip if those noisy bigots put enough pressure on him. So I'll be reserving judgement until I hear the actual announcement that this entire farce has been permanently shelved; only then would I consider voting for him.

The great barrier brief fief chief's beef grief.

Alas it came and went too fast.

RE: the kittens

@Paul: Won't someone PLEASE think of the kittens?

I *AM* thinking of the kittens. Unfortunately, I now have an erection. (Nothing I can't deal with with a below-table shuffle)

Just one question: Does this mean that twice as many kittens are going to have to die?

An historical comment behind

@AC 11:21 - agreed. But wouldn't it have been even more awesome if his parents had named him Xander. Imagine having two famous names from ancient history (and civilization), not to mention initialing the Instruments of State, Treaties, Memoranda, ... mwha even the SeX Par T would have to love him.

sex party

*snigger*

Who's exploited?

"The Australian Sex Party exists to represent the interests of businesses who make money from the exploitation and degradation of women"

I love that line. "The exploitation and degradation of women". It' s used by puritans and feminazis all over the world, apparently. Doesn't it just get under your skin and make you want to revolt against such vile businesses that would do such a thing to these poor, helpless women? Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how consensual-sex pornography exploits or degrades women. The women acting certainly don't seem to have any problem with it. Personally, I think those people who complain that it's degrading to women are the ones who are degrading women by acting as if those women are hurting themselves but are too stupid to realize it.

Those same puritans and feminazis like to say the same thing about strip clubs, too -- they exploit and degrade women. Every time a woman has the audacity to show a little skin (whether it's in porn, at a strip club, wearing a bikini at the beach, or simply wearing a midriff-baring shirt), these people claim it's degrading. Contrast that to the woman showing the skin who feel it's sexy and liberating. It sounds like a jealousy issue to me. Those who are against it are only against it because they can't do the same thing and get the same reaction. Either that or they're bible thumpers who say that showing skin is the work of the devil and the skin barer is going to hell and will bring all of society with her (remember: showing skin = bad, killing people = good).

Let's face it. Pornography and strip clubs DO exploit people, but it's not women they exploit. It's the men who are quick to part with their money that are exploited. What pornography and strip clubs show is not the degradation of women, but the empowerment of women. They are clear and undeniable illustrations that when it comes to sex, women have all the power. And when it comes to non-sexual issues, women still have all the power if the men think there's even a microscopic chance of having sex. So let's be honest about it. People aren't against pornography and/or strip clubs because they're exploitative or degrading to women. People are against them because in those areas, women use their bodies and/or sex to get what they want, and those people would be more comfortable if women used other means to get what they want (money, intelligence, fear/intimidation, etc) -- anything but body/sex.

let he who is without sin ....

cast the 1st stone.

"The Australian Sex Party exists to represent the interests of businesses who make money from the exploitation and degradation of women"

whereas the church has such an exceptional history of treating women as equals...

now what was the name of the 1st female pope again ?

Totalitarians can be disporportionately effective

Given that "recent polls .. show[ed] just 5 percent and 4 percent respectively believe that internet filtering should be in the hands of ISPs or Government," this bandwaggon went a surprisingly long way.

@ Sarah Bee

Though it's appropriate to point out that by no means are all women exploitative, it might have been better had extreme factions of the feminist movement concentrated more on liberating from their preconceptions men who had been conditioned into chauvinist behaviour patterns rather than seeking to emulate them with calls to empower women.

@ Sarah

"I'll restrict myself to saying that I think that represents an awfully restricted absolutist view of an incredibly complex issue."

I apologize if I offended you, as that certain was not my intention. Re-reading my comment, I can understand why you might think that, but I don't see myself as having an absolutist view. I just haven't met anyone who can give me any legitimate reason for their opposing viewpoint (their viewpoint being that porn, strip clubs, and skin-baring clothing are exploitative and degrading to women). All of the people I have heard from use one (or more) of these three reasons:

1) "Because it is". I immediately ignore this crowd because that's not a valid reason. If you can't tell me why you object to something, then I cannot consider it a legitimate objection.

2) "It makes men think of women as sex objects". This group obviously has no idea how men think. Whether a woman is nude or clothed, having sex or filing her taxes, men will see her the same way. If a man sees a woman as a sex object when she's showing some skin, he'll see her as a sex object when she's completely covered as well. The clothing she is or isn't wearing is irrelevant.

3) This last reason is specifically regarding skin-baring clothing: "It makes young girls think it's acceptable and encourages them to dress the same way". This, however, is not a legitimate reason, either. The fact that young girls may start wearing the same clothing does not explain why someone finds it degrading. Do I think young girls should be wearing midriff-exposing shirts or short skirts? No. But that doesn't make it degrading or exploitative to women.

I have no doubt that there are women who are forced into the sex business, and that there are many who enter the sex business because they feel they have nowhere else to turn. I wholeheartedly agree that those two groups are exploited. But what percentage of the sex industry does that account for? Am I just being overly naive in thinking that it's a very small percentage?

If you have an opposing viewpoint, or can point me in the direction of one, I'd love to hear it because I'd honestly like to understand why so many women are against porn and strip clubs.

"God kills a kitten every time someone masturbates"

It has to be said - their religion desn't like pussies.

@Daylight Savings

@Kate: "we don't have daylight saving because that extra hour fades the curtains."

If anyway does not believe the above (sarcastic) quote, it's true. This is an actual response from the then-in-charge National Party during the first QLD Daylight Saving referendum.

As for the "Christian" party, what are *they* worrying about? Obviously if we QLDer are such God-fearing electorates, there's no way the "Sex" party will win any seats - so where's the problem?

The Feral Solution

"God kills a kitten every time someone masturbates"

Look like there is a solution to the feral cats the plague native wildlife in large areas of Australia.

re:Re: Who's exploited?

I agree with everything you say sara

ok course I always agree with you cos it microscopicley increases my chance knowing you intermitley

QLD and sex education

I'm not sure that rural Queensland is any more or less prudish or bigotted than the rural areas of any other state in the country but it doesn't have a city like Sydney or Melbourne to balance out the headcases. Having the National Party in charge for 30 years certainly didn't help. "Sir" Joh was the biggest headcase of them all.

I went to high school in Queensland in the late-80s when AIDS was really getting started. What do you imagine was "Sir" Joh's response to calls for greater education in schools about the disease?

"We're not changing the curriculum. Teenagers shouldn't be having sex and what they don't know won't hurt them."

I kid you not.

His other great quote was to a female journalist who asked him a difficult (read: embarrassing) question in a press conference: "don't you worry your pretty little head about that. You just go and find yourself a nice husband and forget all this."

And he was corrupt. Along with half the police force.

Gotta love Queensland.

Still though, it does have some beautiful beaches.

Ironic?

I don't understand why it would be "hugely ironic if Labour cannot now pass its laws on censoring the internet, at the same time as seeing a pro-sex party gaining its first seats in the Federal legislature." Surely for the two things to occur at around the same time is to be expected - where's the irony?

On my knees for jesus - with my mouth wide open.

Australian Christian Lobby ought to be following True Christian Biblical Principles and reintroduce the Temple Whores, to serve God and the Priests and Priestess's.

At my chuch - the Charlton Combined Christian Peoples Political Party - we have men and women cuing up for the positions.

May the love of Jesus be with us all.

Amen

Paster Fanny.