Loving in Japan

Greetings from Tokyo. 

One of the interesting things about being in a different place is that different social norms and customs generate a commercial requirement for different types of services. 

Many single people in Tokyo live in small studio apartments, not much bigger than a student dorm room. They choose to do this to have personal privacy rather than to live in shared accommodation like many inner city dwellers in Australian cities. 

You can hear your neighbors! You need a love hotel. 

So you are single in your 20s. You pick up at a bar. You live in a dog box with clothes hanging from the ceiling and not enough room to swing a cat. 

You aren't going to impress your new friend at home, and with some enthusiastic intimacy, you will break a whole bunch of rules with your neighbors. 

What do you do? Go get a room. And thankfully, a whole industry called love hotels will rent you a really nice room for a perfectly decent price for either 3 hours ($40-50) or overnight.

Where are these love hotels? Right around the corner from the nightlife districts. It's a great example of the market delivering supply to satisfy a need. 

Let the market do its job - there is so much we can learn from other countries

Government report on micro-betting misses the mark again

Today the Federal Government's draft review of the 2001 Interactive Gambling Act was published.  I have a particular interest in this legislation as I used to be in the online gambling industry.  Now I am just an interested observer, and I'm still surprised at the misunderstandings that exist, like this big one...

Recommendation 25: Because of the greater harm associated with ‘micro-betting’ from a problem gambling perspective, ‘micro-betting’ should be prohibited irrespective of the electronic medium (that is, telephone, internet, etc.) by which the bets are placed.

You'd think this would be based on some research, or merit, wouldn't you?

Fear trumps evidence, again

In the same section of the report,

• Racing and Wagering Western Australia noted that: ‘in-the-run micro-betting’ ... would be akin to games of chance for the majority of the target audience and expose greater risks of problem gambling ...

AND

• Betfair noted: According to a report conducted by the UK Gambling Commission in 2009, there is no evidence that online in-play betting (including ‘micro-betting’ after an event has commenced) poses a “specific, identifiable risk to problem gambling as opposed to other forms of betting or online gambling.

So, a government department makes a scary claim, and a private organisation quotes a reputable study, but the report chooses to go with the scary claim with no evidence.

It's no wonder I got frustrated when I was in this industry.

The scary claim is wrong.  Plain wrong.

After the release of the report, various people have come out to have their say, including "independent gambling researcher, Sally Gainsbury" on the ABC.  She said:
"If you are looking at something that's like ball-by-ball betting on outcomes that are popping up within a game, this is a form of gambling where gamblers could chase their losses, could spend more than they intended, and it really could be an excessive form of gambling,"

Sorry Sally, but you are just guessing.

A screen shot of our micro-betting - live, real, online

Why do I know? Because I am the only person in Australia who has actually operated micro-betting, legally on the Internet.

Our company provided microbetting services to Ladbrokes, the UK's largest betting company.  And the results were clear.  These microbets were just novelty bets.  The punters placed small wagers.  They didn't increase their bets, and everyone just treated it as a bit of fun.

Our business made a very small profit - much less than we had expected - because the bets were small, and the punters' losses were very controlled.

Eventually, Ladbrokes replaced our service with an in-house product, and because we couldn't offer our service to an Australian operator, we went out of business.

You can lose more, faster, with the TAB!


What really makes me shake my head about all of this is that the betting we were offering is no faster than what is available right now with the TAB in any of the States.  Any day, you can place a bet every couple of minutes on a race.  On a Saturday, that would be at least every minute.

The microbet that we were offering is only available every 4 minutes or so - the average time it takes to play a game of tennis.  So, it's actually less likely to be a form of betting where punters will chase their losses than our beloved horse racing.

I have no qualms about being out of this business, but I do have concerns that wild claims will be believed over solid evidence.

We should be able to rely on our public servants to make considered decisions based on fact and not fear-mongering.



Let me know what you think


Mark S

Atheist Convention - just a thinly veiled phrase for anti religion. So come out and say that.

I'm finding myself increasingly puzzled by the Atheists. This week Melbourne hosted the Atheist Convention. Essentially as Richard Dawkins said that is a convention of non believers. So I'm trying to think of any other situation where people have a convention to show that they DON'T believe that something exists.  Nobody holds "Tooth Fairy non believer" conventions, so why hold a "Judaeo Christian God non believer" convention?

Is it a reason convention?

Perhaps it's less dramatic to hold a conference on reason and logic but isn't that what Atheists are supposed to stand for. Aren't they simply people who have considered all the reasoned evidence and have concluded that there is no god. Aren't they just trying to emphasize the importance and value of critical reasoning?

I'm all for logical reasoning and objective evaluation of the facts. But the focus of an Atheist convention is the narrow topic of objectively analyzing whether there is a god, and everyone agreeing that there isn't one.

So does being an Atheist mean you make a commitment to Atheism?

Atheist are just as committed to their belief in atheism as believers in other religions are in their deities. And yes, it does include an element of belief because even when we analysts assess data we still have to form a view based on the most likely interpretation, and we have to leave open the possibility that there is a better one.

Yet being an atheist requires a commitment to the conclusion that there ain't a god. That sounds awfully close to a value system to me.

Atheism looks just like another religion

I have this debate with a number of people about what makes a religion. Given that you can believe in any number of religions or cults (religions without many followers) involving none, one or many gods, doesn't a fervent commitment to Atheism look just like a fervent commitment to any other religion?

The Atheists say no. But then again, we are back to opinion based on belief. I say that Atheism is actually the belief that religions based on a God are harmful and wrong.

Frankly, I think there is some merit in that argument, but it moves an Atheist from being a non believer to being an anti-religion campaigner. It makes Atheism a system of thinking based on the unshakeable view that there is no God.

That looks awfully like a religion to me.

Call it for what it is: the anti religion convention

Maybe  "non believer" is tame, "Atheist" is strong and "Anti religion campaigner" is likely to set lynch mobs on you. That could be why the real anti religion ethos isn't front and centre.

I think that's a shame because it is clouding the issues. If the campaigns are really about removing subsidies for religious institutions, then say it. If the campaigns are really about ensuring that every child at every school is taught the scientific facts of evolution, then say it. If the focus is on casting aspersions on the mental capacity of anyone who believes that there is a God or Gods, come right out and state it.

The whole Atheist movement is confusing. There are some very valuable contributions being made to society by Atheists because of the way they understand the world, but I don't see how it matters whether they are Atheists to make those contributions.

After all, if there is no God, then believing or not has nothing to do with it. 

Let me know what you think

Mark S

One Direction mania - symmetrical faces, endorphins and sex

One Direction: the latest superstar boy band

British boy band One Direction have arrived in Sydney, to extraordinary scenes of screaming teenage girls reminiscent of the Beatles in the 60s, the Bay City Rollers in the 70s and Take That in the 90s.  So, why does this happen?

Attraction and symmetry - they are pretty boys

At an evolutionary level, Cute boys offer the potential for ideal genetic material.  One way to measure this is via symmetry.  Leonardo da Vinci's famous "Vitruvian man" demonstrated the perfect symmetrical figure. More recently, a number of studies have shown that perfectly symmetrical faces present a guide to health and strong genetic material.

I've tested this theory out on the five One Direction boys compared with my own face.  I score a rather paltry 90.5% symmetry score, while the boys range from Niall on 92.6% to Zahn on 96.6%.  Given that this was conducted with publicly available photos on an online tool, it isn't exactly scientifically rigorous, but it certainly heads in the right direction.

On a somewhat more subjective level, there is general agreement among teenage girls that these fellow are "hotties".  That proves that part of the argument than, they are attractive! Therefore, they would make ideal mating material.

Screaming, excitement, endorphins and sex

So, the boys are attractive. Yeah, we know that.  What about the screaming? Well, endorphins are a substance that is released during a variety of situations including exercise, excitement, pain, love and orgasm.  They are similar in structure and effect to opiate drugs.  Of these alternatives, for a teenage girl, excitement and love are two of the most attractive options.  So, when you combine a "crush" on a beautiful boy with the excitement of seeing them, you have the recipe for a release of endorphins.

Where does the screaming come in?

There are a variety of theories why girls scream at the boys in the band.  Certainly it is some combination of expressions of excitement, joy, and (immature) sexual desire.  Once it starts, that only heightens the endorphin release.  Due to the opioid effect, that encourages more of the same behavior, to receive more of the opioid.  The process is the same as for drug taking, and for orgasm.  In some ways, although they are unlikely to be aware of it, this is a young teenage girls form of simulating some of the same positives they will hopefully receive from sexual orgasm in years to come.

So it's all good then - let's all get carried away with some euphoria

If you believe the conservative dogma that young women should be mild mannered, meek and quiet, then you'd be critical of any form of "out of control" response, at any age.  I don't subscribe to this view - I prefer to encourage all of us to experience the full range of human emotions.

Some people will actively seek out pain through experiences like Tough Mudder, others will experience physical and emotional pain that is not of their choosing.  Fans become obsessed with their football teams, and scream at the players.  When people have sex, it can be done with a degree of control, or total abandon, releasing more endorphins. And everyone can benefit from energetic exercise.  All of these experiences, whether good or bad, are part of who we are.

Thanks girls and thanks One Direction, you've brought yet another human experience to bear.  Let your endorphins run wild.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

There is no place for racists like EnergyWatch's Ben Polis. Boycott them.

Ben Polis is a racist. Source: Herald-Sun

The racist and sexist comments on Facebook by Energy Watch CEO Ben Polis are completely unacceptable. What is more concerning is that a young entrepreneur feels he can laugh off any criticism by claiming they are "private comments". It is exactly this sort of justification that allows racism, sexism, homophobia as all forms of bigotry to flourish.


Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The growth of social media has seen an explosion in the number of bigoted rants, jokes and pictures being publicized. This doesn't mean that society is becoming less tolerant. What it means is that the intolerance that exists in private in living rooms, bars, pubs, community and sporting groups and workplaces is being exposed to full view.

The cliche is that sunshine is the best disinfectant, so this exposure is an important step in stamping out these abhorrent attitudes.

Boycott EnergyWatch

Congratulations to the Melbourne Football Club for canceling its major sponsorship deal with this bigoted man.

I call on my very own football club Melbourne Victory to do the same. There is no place for this sort of sponsor at our fantastic multicultural club.

And as individuals we should boycott EnergyWatch (I feel ashamed now to have recently used their services). There are plenty of other energy brokers to choose from.

Don't let bigots get away with their comments

When you see a racist, sexist, homophobic or other bigoted comment on social media, don't ignore it. Bring attention to it.

You will probably receive a barrage of criticism but call attention to that as well. Being prejudiced needs to become socially unacceptable within people's hearts. It is only be calling attention to it that the mood will change.

Thank you for being a high profile racist Ben Polis - you have become the lightning rod for all of us

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Articles
Melbourne sponsor Ben Polis in racist rant storm
Demons dump EnergyWatch after Ben Polis's racist rants

Finally, even News Ltd concedes drug laws need to change

When a popular commentator such as Eddie McGuire calls for change to drug laws in a News Ltd tabloid like the Sunday Herald Sun, you know that public opinion is shifting.

McGuire's article:"Time for national debate on evil drug trade" is a major shift for a News Ltd paper.

Yes, it is time for Australia to seriously look at decriminalising drugs

As readers of this blog will know, I've consistently advocated decriminalisation and regulation of drugs.  The first article on this topic "It's time for a national debate on drug laws - decriminalise and regulate" said many of the same things as McGuire.

I'll repeat it again. Let's regulate, tax and manage.

The more recent article "Challenge the narcotics convention" discussed a very practical issue that our lawmakers will need to face to move down this path.

Who will take the lead?

So, now that we have the conservative tabloid contemplating change, will we see anyone from the Liberals supporting these calls? Given the Baillieu government's tough on crime stance, it still looks like the Victorian government is calling the shots from the old fashioned anti-drugs, anti-crime playbook.  Maybe, a kingmaker like McGuire can influence from the inside.  Working for James Packer as he does, he certainly has the connections, and I'd encourage him to have those quiet conversations that are so necessary to make political change happen.

On the Labor side, the social conservatives who still make up so many of the supporters are reluctant to head down this path either.  With Prime Minister Gillard under fire from multiple directions, it's highly unlikely she would be willing to take this issue on right now.

And the Greens have also been reluctant.  While their constituents are most likely to support a different drugs policy, the leadership hasn't wanted to be seen as a bunch of hippie pot smokers.  Again, from a pragmatic perspective, it's understandable, but with recent disappointing poll results for the Greens, I hope they can be encouraged to take more courageous action on socially progressive issues like drugs.  Especially now they can see that drug legalisation is becoming more of a mainstream view.

We will benefit by changing our approach

As Eddie points out, if we choose to spend money on "rehabilitation, advertising and teaching", society will end up millions (or up to $5 billion) in front of where we are now.  Thank you Eddie for bringing this thinking to the Sunday Herald Sun readers.  We need them on board to make these changes happen.

Let's keep discussing drug law reform sensibly.  We will get there.  We will benefit once we do.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

A new era in politics after Queensland

The greatest landslide in Australian political history.  The election of 2012 will go down in the annals, and will be debated for decades to come.  I believe it is a watershed.

Time for a new party

Two weeks ago on Q and A, this question was asked by audience member Ralph Panebianco to Malcolm Turnbull:

"Malcolm, I think there should be a new political party in Australia. It should be socially progressive and economically rational... will you create it for us?"

Mr  Panebianco is right.  The Roy Morgan State of the Nation for 2012 reported that: As a nation, Australians are increasingly open-minded and ‘liberal’ and 'Australians are becoming more progressive'.

It also reported that after economic issues, the most important issues facing Australia are government, political and human rights.

So, we need a party that considers BOTH the economy and Australia's liberal and progressive social attitudes.  That sort of a party would represent most of us.  And it just doesn't exist.

Labor represents a dying breed

There are some very good people within the Labor Party (as there are also within the Liberal party and the Greens), but the Labor movement itself is far less relevant any more.  It was born from an era when manufacturing was the largest employing sector.  It isn't any more, and it is shrinking all the time.

It was also born in an era when workers viewed the bosses as the enemy, and power was heavily biased in favour of the employer.  Labour unions were needed. In the late 19th century and much of the 20th century, the power struggle between workers and bosses continued.  This was a hallmark of the Industrial age. Labour parties fought for and achieved much needed rights for workers. Indeed, because of the changes the ALP has achieved in IR laws in Australia, the balance of power is more equal.  The ideals of the labour movement are still relevant, but the movement itself has achieved most of its goals.

Now, the Industrial Age is over in advanced economies like Australia.  We are now in the Information Age, and the power relationships between workers and bosses are thoroughly different.

Queensland could never have voted this way if Labor was as relevant as it was 

Yes, there were very specific Queensland issues that influenced the rout yesterday.  Yes, Anna Bligh's government was punished for a raft of actions that were condemned by Queenslanders. But even some of the safest Labor seats fell.  This is virtually unthinkable.  The numbers don't lie - only the staunchest of Labor supporters stuck by the ALP.  And there are far fewer staunch supporters of the ALP, because the labor movement isn't relevant to them any more.

We need a new political movement.  We need a party that represents what Australians actually want - rational economics and a progressive society.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Carl Katter fights back. Support him.

On Monday, I called on all Australians to:

Be loud. Reject homophobia. Reject Katter. Reclaim the fair go.

Today, Carl Katter (Bob's half brother) has done just that, and more.  He has got loud, with this ad, and he has made it clear that this is not about gay rights.  It is about rights for all of us.


He said it's not OK for politicians to get away with hatred and bigotry.
He said that we shouldn't have to put up with politicians seeking election by appealing to the worst in human nature.

We must support diversity. It's OK to be who you are.

He also said we should be electing politicans who support diversity and tell young Australians it's OK to be who you are.


This is a clear cut issue. Carl is right and Bob is wrong.  I've struggled with being different to others.  I have many friends who have struggled with being different to others.  I have friends and family members right now who are really struggling with being different to others.

All Australians deserve respect.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

Homophobic Bob Katter shines a light on bigotry. Fight him!

Bob Katter's attack ads against Campbell Newman are a radical throwback to Pauline Hanson's attack on migrants. By using wedge politics, he is seeking to shift the agenda towards his bigoted anti-gay views.


When Hanson tried this, she succeeded in moving the agenda to an anti-migrant stance. It was harmful, and only now are we beginning to see a more balanced discussion, and more active inclusion of recent migrants into mainstream Australian culture.

Fight back against Katter

Don't let Katter achieve his ends. This deserves the vitriol that has poured out against him. The voices of equality must be heard louder than the scared little voice of an old bigot.

Support the Facebook groups. Add your comments to the criticisms. Write to politicians. Whichever is your choice. Just be loud and be often.

It's our fair go under threat

Katter and other establishment politicians often argue for the Australian concept of the fair go. They are right about that.  it has to be a fair go for all. A fair go for Aboriginals, British migrants, Construction workers, Disabled people, Economists, Financiers, Graziers, Homosexuals, Iraqi migrants ...

You get the picture.

By seeking to place any group below any other, this denies a fair go to all of us. We are all members of minorities. No group in Australia can claim to being Australians. Katter's discrimination panders to those who want to deny rights to others. Yet by doing so, they deny rights to their own little group.

No wedge politics

Australia is a fabulous country, because of our diversity and fairness. Don't let anyone take that away.  Katter will gain support from this attack. He may be elected. However, we must make wedge politics as socially unacceptable as smoking in offices or drink driving.

Be loud. Reject homophobia. Reject Katter. Reclaim the fair go.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Age discrimination must stop

It's illegal and it's stupid.  Experienced, talented people aged over 50 are being discriminated against in the workforce. This week, the Financial Services Council released a report showing that more than a quarter of workers aged over 50 experienced direct discrimination.  This follows on from a report in 2010 from the Australian Human Rights Commission saying the same thing.

Before I go on, I have no preference for older workers over younger ones.  I have worked with (and continue to work with) fantastic people in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.  I've also worked with incompetent people at every age bracket as well.

Yet, older workers are worthy of particular comment.

There are lots of over 50 workers, and will be lots more

Our society is ageing, and over the next 10 years, this will become more and more apparent as the baby boomers move through their 50s, 60s and 70s.  There are a lot of these people.  So why on earth would an employer decide to reject a huge cohort of workers? Surely that's just reducing your choice when there are so many people in that bracket

Older workers have experience

It doesn't matter how you cut it, if you are older, you've had more years to learn.  Not everyone who is older is wise (there are plenty of grumpy old men and women who haven't seemed to have learnt anything), but, by definition, it is almost impossible to have experience if you are young.

Older people want to work

Research has found that older men in particular place a high value on their work as a key part of their identity.  They don't want to give up working.  They have often had children, who have left home, and their work is one of the most important ways that they can feel that they are still valuable to society.

(On the flipside, the Financial Services Council report identified that older workers might need to compromise on their salary and title expectations.)

So many older workers are very effective

The Catholic Church forced Father Bob
Maguire to retire at 78.

Here are some older workers you might know.  Warren Buffet, Ban Ki Moon, Aung San Suu Kyi, Matt Groening, Clint Eastwood, David Stratton, Father Bob Maguire ...

In fact, the list could go on for hundreds of pages, because there are so many effective people who are aged in their 50s, 60s, 70s...

These people are dedicated, they value their work, they want to do a good job.  As an employer, I want to choose the best person for the job.  These people are the best at their job.  And because they care about what they do, they are most likely to be stable.  A 55 year old might give you 10 years of solid service.  What's the likelihood of a 22 year old giving you that long? If they are the right person for the job, then hire them, and let them work as long as they want.

No discrimination. None.

We have spent the entire 20th century breaking down barriers for women in the workforce, and despite making huge improvements, we are still not there.  We cannot afford to have any discrimination against older workers, as we have had against women (and many other groups) for so long.

It is time to value people for what they can contribute, and genuinely not discriminate, particularly on the basis of age.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Challenge the Narcotics convention

Richard Branson is in favor of drug law reform

I don't much like tattoos and men wearing their undies above their jeans. Other people dislike grunge, heavy metal and the Kardashians. All of these offences against taste are personal choices, with no impact on others. There have been suggestions that each should be banned or restricted, but such claims are regarded as frivolous.

There are many personal choices with no impact on others that are restricted or prohibited

Although those examples of behavior are allowed, almost every society restricts some behavior that is a personal choice. In every case, it is argued that allowing the behavior is harmful to society. Generally, it's a false claim. Blasphemy, homosexuality and topless bathing are all examples that have been banned in Australia and are still banned in some parts of the world.

Alcohol, gambling and drugs are other examples. Each has positive and negative consequences for the user, and yes, when misused, they have negative consequences for society. Yet drugs are prohibited while gambling and alcohol are not.

Prohibition does not work

Prohibition of alcohol failed terribly in the 1920s
Prohibition of gambling in Australia failed
Prohibition of drugs has failed

Like many countries, Australia is a signatory to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) which covers drugs with morphine-like, cocaine-like, and cannabis-like effects.  As a result, we are bound to abide by its restrictive principles.  Perhaps the Convention was appropriate 50 years ago.  It is no longer the right approach.

Australia should cease being a signatory to the Single Convention

A new approach to drugs is required in the 21st century.  For Australia to have the flexibility to pursue such an approach, we can longer be bound by the Single Convention. We have shown that by legalising gambling, and regulating it; by legalising alcohol and regulating it; by legalising tobacco and regulating it - that our society benefits.

We should take the same approach to drugs with morphine-like, cocaine-like, and cannabis-like effects, as well as other psychotropic drugs.

I would like to see a new approach to drug management globally.  The place to start is to dismantle the existing structures as they are causing more harm than good.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Why I'm wrong and so are zealots like Santorum

If there is one thing I am sure about, it's that there are a lot of things I don't know.  Coming from a Science background, that's just sensible - if there is uncertainty around a topic, well, we just have to live with that.  When we get better information, then, we can be more certain - until then, I can have opinions, but I know that my opinions are simply educated guesses on the world.

Why I am sure that religious zealots like Rick Santorum are wrong

So, while I can live with uncertainty, there are a lot of religious zealots in the world who cannot.  Instead, they claim that their faith is right.  Their claims just lack logic.

In our world of 7 billion there are around 2 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus and 500 million Buddhists.  Each of these believe different truths about the world.  Each is absolutely confident in their faith about those truths. So, they can't all be right.  In fact, because they are absolutists, they must all be wrong.

(As an aside, the Christians might like to claim that majority rules, and because there are more of them, they must be right.  I'd be reluctant to use that line of thinking dear Christians, as the growth rate of Islam is faster than Christianity, so at some stage in the future, this would mean the Christians would have to concede that the Muslims are right!)

Rick Santorum: a religious zealot

Which brings us to Rick Santorum, campaigning on "faith, family and freedom".  His view is that his biblical faith is a truth.  It's a view that was held by George W Bush and by millions of Americans (and other Christians around the world).  But he also claims that he is right and Muslims are wrong with claims such as “We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”

So, we have different groups passionately claiming they are right, just because ... well, because they say so.  That's why it is so clear that they all must be wrong.

Why it's important that I am not right

Being absolute about the state of the world prevents people from investigating how things can be done differently or better.  If one believes that a deity has cast the world in stone, there is no motivation to improve.  And whether there is, or isn't a God doesn't affect this either.  At its worst, holding such absolute views leads to violence, discrimination and terrorism - and this has been going on for thousands of years.

As productive members of society, we must remain questioning, thoughtful beings, not blind followers of others, or of a text written hundred or thousands of years ago.  By being respectful to alternative opinions, the likelihood of sectarian violence decreases close to zero, for their is no faith to have to protect.

The more I have learnt over the years, the more confident I am that I don't know a lot of important things.  I'm also confident that I should keep searching for a little better understanding, and not rely on blind faith.

The world needs leaders who encourage us all to question and grow, and not to be religious fundamentalists.  Rick Santorum (like Osama bin Laden) is wrong.

Let me know what you think.

The Iron Lady only had partial rights to do what she did

Meryl Streep deserves great praise for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady", despite the screenplay itself lacking from its superficial coverage of each of the important events in Thatcher's political life (unfortunately a more fulsome coverage would have run for too long for the average Oscar contender). She shows the leadership qualities that gained Thatcher her steely reputation, but also exposed the arrogance that is a leader's greatest enemy.

The fine line between leadership and tyranny

We want our leaders to lead.  We don't want them to dominate, terrorise or control our lives.  I don't agree with Thatcher on a range of her policies and approaches, but I respect her for stating her perspective and for being elected by the British people.  What I don't respect is her belief that her way was the only way.

As a hard-line conservative, Thatcher believed that all people had a responsibility to work, to earn an income.  Yet she went further, by stating it as a duty. 

"when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!" 1

This debate plays out in all democracies, and there is certainly truth to the sentiment - without people choosing to be productive, society would have no progress.  However, Thatcher puts her perspective as an absolute.  It is this "moral absolutism" that is of concern, rather than the view itself.

When leadership gives way to righteousness

Thatcher's downfall is often portrayed as the infamous cabinet meeting in which she chastised her colleagues as children.  While this obviously had a role to play, the (almost) equally famous resignation speech in the Commons by the Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, made it clear that it was Thatcher's refusal to consider any alternative views on integration with a European monetary union that was actually to blame.  As he said...

"Cabinet Government is all about trying to persuade one another from within". That was my commitment to Government by persuasion--persuading colleagues and the nation. I have tried to do that as Foreign Secretary and since, but I realise now that the task has become futile...The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real--and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned.

We can all take the lesson that leadership is no longer leadership when nobody is following any more.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

What we wear is a personal choice. Simple as that.

Recently, the issue of what people should be allowed to wear has been raised in Australia, yet again.  The range of arguments are always based on some pre-conceived idea that one person knows better than another.  Frankly, I can't fathom why anyone would have the arrogance to impose their views on what people should look like.

The burka - it's the woman's choice - like any other dress code

On Q&A on Monday, muslim woman Susan Carland was asked her view on women covering their face.  Her response reflected a mature, balanced view.

" in the end I think a person or a woman should be able to choose how much of her body she shows to other people and if she wants to cover her face and she feels comfortable with that and the laws of our society say that she can, then get over it. You know, I might not feel comfortable looking at people with a face covered in tattoos and a Mohawk but that’s their prerogative. If they want to dress like that, then that’s my issue if I can’t deal with it.

So, Carland is saying that it's the responsibility of the person viewing the individual.

I don't like tattoos, but that's my problem

Like Susan Carland, I'm not a big fan of tattoos, and like her, I agree that is my issue.  I have nothing against Collingwood footballer Dayne Beams, or Miss Bombshell, with all of their ink.  Yes, of course it projects an image - and they are entitled to project that image, and dress their bodies in that way.

Who cares what Kate Ellis wears? Other women apparently

Kate Ellis in Grazia

Last year, Kate Ellis appeared in a fashion spread in Grazia magazine, and last month she appeared on the front cover of the Fairfax press Sunday Life section.  In both shoots, she was dressed in what would generally be called fashionable clothing - including tall heels.  Now Kate Ellis is the Minister for the Status of Women, her appearances in those magazines have attracted scores of comments - mainly critical.

Today's Sunday Life carried a follow up article on the controversy. Women had written in with comments such as "the wearing of super-high stiletto heels represents women as vain, attention-seeking, foolish and potential victims".

Really?? Kate Ellis responds in the article that she wears similar clothes to the office as she wore in the Sunday Life shoot.  So, because she is tall and attractive, women are imposing their own biases.  Again, it's their problem, not hers.

How many times do we need to say it - no woman is a "victim" because of what they wear.  Praise be the Slut Walks

Boston Slut Walk, May 2011

The more times we read comments that accuse women of being victims because of what they wear, the more respect we should all have for the Slut Walks. I've blogged about the issues of dress codes and the Slut Walks before, but the message isn't getting through.

When strong, intelligent women such as Kate Ellis are criticised for dressing as she does, women certainly need a strong voice to stand up for their rights.  Slut Walks are continuing around the world - in cities as diverse as Boston, Seoul and Delhi, and long may they continue.


People will judge you based on what you wear, but that's their problem.  Be who you want to be.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

It's time for a national debate on drug laws - decriminalise and regulate

According to 2009 calculations, the war on drugs in Australia costs $4.7bn. That's slightly more than the entire compensation package for the carbon tax. The debates about drug laws have been topical for decades, and it's time we looked closely at them again. The current system isn't working, and it's illogical.

If we want to minimise harm, shouldn't we prohibit the most harmful drugs? Probably not.

The argument for prohibition centres on the harm caused by drugs.  If this really was the reason, then the drugs that are prohibited should be the ones that are the most harmful.  Unfortunately, this isn't what happens.  A paper published in the Lancet in 2007 by Professor David Nutt from the University of Bristol showed that the drugs that are most harmful are not the ones that are prohibited.

The following chart shows 20 substances ranked by harm, as assessed by a nine category matrix of harm and expert assessment. I have added the two orange bars to divide the drugs into three equal categories.

As you can see from their findings, the banned drugs cover the most harmful such as heroin and cocaine to the least harmful such as ecstasy.  It also shows that our most popular legal drug, alcohol, is in the most harmful category - even worse than tobacco.

So, if we want to ban the most harmful drugs, we should ban alcohol.  Of course, that was tried in the 1920s and led to catastrophic crime in the US.  It was a trial that failed.

What's the next alternative? Should everything be legal? Maybe.

There are many proponents of the legalisation approach, including many countries.   Robbie Swan's article in the Canberra Times this week explained that the results have been overwhelmingly positive.

Calls for legalisation have come from a range of respected sources such as doctors.  GP, Wendell Rosevear was quoted at the Australia 2020 summit saying "I want to give drug addicts choices and I want to legalise all drugs in Australia."

There is a better alternative - regulate and tax.

In between these options of prohibition/enforcement and legalisation, there is another option.  We can regulate, tax and manage.

Those who are in favor of small government oppose regulation on principle.  I'm not one of those.  Well regulated industries are commonplace in Australia, and they generally work well.  Our pharmaceutical industry is carefully regulated.  Why shouldn't the recreational drug industry be the same.

I won't try to suggest the best methods of regulating drugs - but I support Robbie Swan's perspective in the Canberra Times article:

Over the past few decades the use of all recreational drugs has been on the increase except one tobacco. Cigarette smoking is the only recreational drug use that is in decline and that is because governments have control over the product including its packaging, point of sale, price and, most importantly, public health and education campaigns.

Let's start this debate.  Let's make it sensible, and logical.  Rather than prohibiting a randomly chosen set of substances, let's regulate all recreational drugs for the benefit of all.

Let me know what you think

Mark S


Correction: The article originally stated that "The most notable of these is Portugal, which legalised personal possession of drugs in 2001." Portugal decriminalised drugs, they did not legalise them.

Autism - Not a disability - But more common that you might think.

Neurodiversity

One of the most misunderstood neurological conditions is the Autism Spectrum.  I admit I certainly had a very weak understanding until recently.  The most important lesson is that: "Auties" are not disabled.

Why is this so important? Well, in the May Federal Budget, the Government announced over $2b of investment into mental health services (excellent). However, a lot of this money focuses on treating disorders, rather than assisting individuals to recognise and cope with their differences.  Autism is a classic case.

What is Autism Spectrum? It's not a disability. 

There are a lot of different definitions of Autism Spectrum.  Some get lumped in with the disabilities, as shown by the announcement of the $146m Helping Children with Autism package by Senator Jan McLucas, who is the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers.  Here, Autism is bundled together with Down Syndrome, cerebral palsy, Fragile X syndrome, and moderate or severe vision or hearing impairments, including deafblindness. The package is fantastic, but the connection with disability is quite inappropriate.

Here is a much better definition from Open University, UK:

Autism involves three characteristic areas of difficulty. 

• People with autism find it hard to interact socially with others or to make friends...
• They also have communication difficulties...
• Lastly, people with autism tend to have narrow interests...

If you want to take a quick quiz on what is real about autism, click here for a great little exercise.

Auties and Aspies are different to "neurotypicals" - it's neurodiversity

Over the last decade, there has been a growing understanding that some people are wired differently to the norm.  The phrase for this difference is neurodiversity.  Here are a couple of definitions:

People experience the world differently based on their neurological attributes, which are equally valid, unique, and socially beneficial experiences of the world that should be celebrated.

The world is going to need all of the different kinds of minds to work together
- Temple Grandin
[Temple Grandin is a world expert on animal behavior and consultant to the livestock industry.  She is also autistic, and an advocate for autistics.  (For a great 20 minutes, watch her TED talk, especially the last 3 minutes of Q&A)]

Nearly 3% of the population may be autistic

Over recent years, the proportion of people with autism has been rising.  Well, actually, the proportion hasn't changed at all - it's been our improved understanding and measurement that is revealing how prevalent it is.

In 2002, estimates for autism spectrum were around 0.6% (CDC)

In 2010-11, according to Autism Victoria, 1% of people are on the autism spectrum.

But the most recent data from Yale Child Studies Center expert Dr. Young Shin Kim, has shown a prevalence rate of 2.64%. This study in Seoul is predicted to be very similar in other countries and cultures.

So, with nearly 3% of the population having autistic characteristics, that's a lot of neurodiversity to embrace.  If we see autism as a valuable asset to our society, everyone will be richer for it.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Homophobia and rape of lesbians in Africa places pressure on FIFA over Qatar

FIFA is proud of its record in addressing racism in football. The Say No to Racism and Fair Play campaigns have been publicised around the world. Despite this, a report in yesterday's New York Times has shown that homophobia is still rife, and FIFA has not progressed.

Lesbians routed from Nigerian World Cup squad

The NY Times article, In African Women’s Soccer, Homophobia Remains an Obstacle, reported on the entrenched anti-lesbian attitude of the Nigerian national coach, Eucharia Uche, who "used religion in an attempt to rid her team of homosexual behavior, which she termed a “dirty issue,” and “spiritually, morally very wrong.”".

Even more damning is the removal of players from the Nigerian team by former technical assistant for Nigeria, James Peters, who said he had "removed some players from Nigeria’s women’s team last year, “not because they were not good players, but because they were lesbians.”"

"Corrective rape" of lesbians is condoned in South Africa and Zimbabwe but the Chosen FEW are a shining light

The article reports that lesbians are beaten and raped in South African and Zimbabwe, as "corrective treatment". One particularly shocking example was the attack on Tumi Mkhuma, of Johannesburg's Chosen FEW, who was raped and left pregnant. "After losing her baby, she said she twice tried to kill herself.

The South African organisation, the Forum for the Empowerment of Women (FEW) was established in 2002 to support LBT rights. Their football team, the Chosen FEW, is comprised of 25 young black lesbian women from townships in and around Johannesburg, who are all activists for the rights of lesbian women in South Africa You can read more about this fabulous side and support the FEW here.


Shocking prevalence of corrective rape is placing pressure on FIFA

ESPN's E:60 program also investigated the issue of corrective rape in South Africa, and uncovered some shocking facts. 80% of South Africans believe homosexual sex is wrong, and they use this as an excuse to rape lesbians. Last year, a women's support group reported that there are 10 new cases of corrective rape each week in Cape Town alone.

Mvuleni Fana was raped in a stadium after
practice when she was 16 because she is a lesbian

The ESPN program (watch here) interviewed a number of inspiring, strong South African women who had been raped. But it is the story of Eudy Simelane which has attracted most notoriety. Eudy was 31 years old, a former national player, a respected coach and openly gay. She was gang-raped, and stabbed to death. Her friend is of no doubt that the crime was committed because she was a lesbian. And the chilling interviews with young men who said such things as "Lesbians get raped because men want to correct them and put them in the correct direction" leaves you in no doubt that Eudy's rape and killing were deliberate and homophobic.

Within this context, there were calls for FIFA to use the 2010 World Cup in South Africa to make a similar stand against homophobia as it has against racism. The Women's World Cup starting in Germany this week is being used as another opportunity to press this case.


But FIFA - what will you do about Qatar?

With this pressure starting to build on FIFA, President Sepp Blatter has been asked to justify why Qatar would be awarded the 2022 World Cup when same-sex relations carries a 5 year jail penalty. On one hand, his response was encouraging:

“It’s another culture and another religion, but in football we have no boundaries. We open everything to everybody and I think there shall not be any discrimination against any human beings, being on this side or that side, left or right or whatever. Football is a game that does not affect any discrimination. You may be assured … if people want to watch a match in Qatar in 2022, they will be admitted to matches.”

But, on the other hand, when he was asked what gays should do to avoid being sent to prison, he replied:

"They should refrain from any sexual activities.”

Surely President Blatter, if there is no discrimination, all people should be allowed to have sex after a great match they have watched at the World Cup - gay or straight

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Safe injecting rooms - a necessary step towards harm minimization

Drugs is an emotional issue. At one extreme are those who argue for a zero tolerance approach. At the other extreme are those who argue for legalization of all drugs. In between - where most people can agree - is the need to minimize harm.

When it comes to minimizing harm from heroin use, safe injecting rooms are a proven solution.

Research findings now show the value of safe injecting rooms

In Sydney, Vancouver, Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany, safe injecting rooms have been a success.

Insite in Vancouver

Results from Vancouver showed:

• Decreased public injection
• Reduced dangerous syringe sharing
• Reduced HIV risk behaviour
• Reduction in publicly discarded syringes
• Increase in addicts seeking treatment and detox
• Reduction in measures of public disorder
• Less bacterial infections such as cellulitis and endocarditis

A major cross-national study by Australian and Dutch universities showed that:

Findings ... have been encouraging. In some areas public nuisance has been minimized, the number of overdose deaths and complications from non-fatal overdoses have decreased, BBV risk behaviour has decreased and health and social functioning of clients have improved.

The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has also published statistics over its decade of operation that confirms the value of the facility:

• 3,500 overdoses managed without a single fatality
• Publicly discarded needles and syringes has halved
• 80% reduction in ambulance call outs to Kings Cross
• More than 8,500 referrals to health and social welfare services.

The Australian and Dutch study identified a range of measures that should be adopted to minimise harm from heroin use.  They concluded:

The trial of supervised injecting centres in Australia represents just one new intervention within a much broader existing harm reduction framework. Additional and complementary interventions may include the distribution of naloxone to drug users, low threshold methadone, needle and syringe exchange in prison, pre-release methadone programmes for prisoners, the facilitation of IDUs to move to non-injecting routes of drug use and the expansion of opioid pharmacotherapies. 

So with so much evidence, why is there opposition to safe injecting rooms?

Based on the facts, politicians, lawyers, health professionals, police, and even church leaders support at least a trial of safe injecting rooms. (Read more from The Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform)

So why is the Sydney facility the only one in Australia?

Perhaps it is because the only political party to treat drug issues as a core policy is the Australian Sex Party. 

A key Sex Party's policy is to Legalise and increase the number of medically supervised injecting rooms.  

Given all the evidence, this just seems so sensible.


So, who would oppose harm minimisation and safe injecting rooms?

The FCV doesnt' represent
the views of learned churchmen
such as Rev Harry Herbert

Well, at present, there are two main opponents - the Family Council of Victoria and the Victorian Liberal Government.

The FCV is a collection of anti-abortion, anti-drug, radical Christian groups. They do not represent the mainstream view of the churches in Australia. In fact, the Sydney injecting room is run by UnitingCare, and headed by the Reverend Harry Herbert.

So, the Victorian Liberal government is choosing to align with a radical group of Christians, who don't represent the majority of churchgoers, so that Ted Baillieu can say: "We haven't supported injecting rooms, we won't support injecting rooms"

It just doesn't make sense.

Harm minimisation should be a core focus of any public policy.  Safe injecting rooms are critical to minimise harm for drug use and should be introduced without delay.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Baillieu is taking Victoria back to 1875 - truly Victorian - truly fucking outrageous

Please be advised that this blog contains swear words (like the one in the title).  Small children and Mr Baillieu are advised to please not read it.

Baillieu as a 19th century Victorian: it looks like the
Sex Party Vic election video had it spot on

With a one seat majority on the floor of the Victorian Parliament, wouldn't you think that Premier Ted Baillieu would want to govern for all. Instead, he is leading the most dramatic charge towards social conservatism this State has seen for a very long time.

He says it's about law and order.  Let's take a look at Baillieu's own rap sheet after only 6 months in office.

Rejection of safe injecting rooms

Despite overwhelming evidence of the value of safe injecting rooms, and the support of the local community in Richmond, Ted Baillieu said "We haven't supported injecting rooms, we won't support injecting rooms, and I don't support the normalisation of any of this sort of behaviour."

It is clear that his focus isn't on law and order with a decision like that.  In fact, law and order is much better served by having a safe injecting room. Mayor of Yarra, Alison Clarke and Councillor Stephen Jolly understand their community.

Cr Jolly said "We can't just put our head in the sand and close our eyes to harm minimisation approaches. It's not good enough."

Well, Ted Baillieu is happy to act like an ostrich on that one.


Passing discriminatory laws

Only yesterday, I wrote about the Victorian Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2011 that allows churches and other faith-based groups including religious schools to discriminate.  They don't have to justify discrimination as an inherent requirement on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity.


It was yesterday's blog, so I won't repeat it, but you can access it here.

This Bill certainly has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with very outdated social policies, particularly those associated with the old fashioned church.  Ted's upbringing at the Anglican Melbourne Grammar has obviously influenced him.  According to the school's own website, its second Headmaster, Edward Morris chose the motto "Pray and Work" in 1875, and supported the principle that education and religion go hand in hand.

Thanks to Mr Morris, we are now able to date Ted Baillieu's philosophy to 1875.


On the spot fines for swearing. 

Fucking hell, of the three examples this is the most absolutely outrageous. The Attorney-General Robert Clark and Ted Baillieu seem quite proud of their $240 on the spot fines for “Uses profane indecent or obscene language or insulting words”.

When this trial was introduced in 2009/10, there was a 67% increase in offences.  Well, fuck me, if that isn't just a $1.34 million money grab.

88% of offences were males aged 18-59, and since most of the offences were on the street, it's clear that young males will be the most targeted, as they are the ones out having a good time.

Even the director of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival is taking a wait and see approach.  As comedian Will Anderson tweeted, "Suddenly my show is going to cost me a lot more next year."  Can you really imagine the MICF without a decent smattering of fuck and cunt - some of which is directed at the audience!! "I'm sorry Rich Hall, but that's profane and indecent - Officer, please hit him up for $240"

Tim Minchin sings "Fuck the Poor" at the MICF gala

In India, Toronto, Jerusalem, and New Zealand, and other locations around the world this decision has been reported and is turning Victoria into a laughing stock.  What, those nice Australians who swear all the time, and even launch major tourism campaigns with "Bugger"...!!


Stop fucking up Melbourne - we are proud of who we are

Melbourne is one of the most vibrant and interesting cities in the world. We are a city of culture, edginess and spirit. This is one of the most livable cities on the planet.

Ted Baillieu doesn't trust the good people of this State to create and maintain an outstanding society that is envied by the world. He wants to impose nanny state restrictions and 19th century morals.


Wake up We've moved on to the 21st century because what we have built for ourselves is better than some nostalgic view of the time of Queen Victoria.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

R18+ computer games makes sense. Support the new classifications. Fill in the survey.

This week the government announced the draft Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games.  The government media release stated that "Extensive public consultation in 2010 on whether there should be an R18+ category for computer games revealed overwhelming support for its introduction."  The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) will decide whether to approve an R18+ classification for games at their July meeting.

This is a call to arms! Support the R18+ classification.  Fill in the survey

Let's all get behind these sensible and mature changes to the classification of computer games. As TV, movies, websites and computer gaming all merge into one, there is no sense in discriminating.

As part of the engagement process, the Australian Government has released a survey to register your opinions to these new classifications. PLEASE FILL IN THE SURVEY HERE

Kudos to the Australian Sex Party for a committed campaign

The Australian Sex Party has run an excellent campaign to promote these changes to computer games classifications.  It was the only political party to campaign on these issues at the recent Federal and State elections.  Without parties such as the Australian Sex Party, there would be little debate on these issues.  Or worse, the loud voice of the Australian Christian Lobby would be heard over the voices of the many.

As the Attorneys General stated, there was overwhelming support for this change to the classification - yet the only political party to voice the thoughts of the majority was the Australian Sex Party.  This is democracy in operation.

The Australian Sex Party's media release on the new classifications can be accessed here.

Let me know what you think

Mark S