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.

Julia Gillard to Press Club: "Don't write crap". News Ltd fails to listen on sex slave story.

While Julia Gillard was presenting a well-reasoned and factual case for the carbon tax, News Limited were proving again how lacklustre they are at journalism.  In response to Mark Riley's question about the press corp, her succinct advice was "don't write crap".

Olga the Russian karate hairdresser and bondage mistress hoax

Who is Olga really?

Unfortunately, while the PM was handing out this excellent advice, News Ltd weren't paying attention in class.  Today they ran with "Hairdresser karate kicks bandit, ties him up, feeds him Viagra and uses him as sex slave for three days"

It turns out that this is another one of those great "let's print a story even thought it's two years old" episodes.


According to the Courier-Mail, and most other News titles running the story, this was about a Russian hairdresser named Olga who supposedly was a karate black belt, overcome a robber named Viktor, tied him up and used him as a sex slave, feeding him Viagra for three days.

They took it from the UK's Daily Mail: Robber who broke into hair salon is beaten by its black-belt owner and kept as a sex slave for three days... fed only Viagra

The only problem is, the story is at least 2 years old! Hairdresser turns robber into sex-slave was first published in RT.com on 14 April 2009 and the Moscow Times on 15 April 2009 Hair Stylist Keeps Armed Robber as Sex Slave.


Don't you guys all learn!!

What's amazing about all this is that a simple search brings up a story two days ago on Forbes: Same Old Sex Slave, Brand New Gawker Story. So, not only didn't News do any checks, they actually missed the checks that others had done that proved it wasn't recent.

But there's more.  After ninemsn screwed up, they even posted a retraction yesterday! Correction: Salon owner kept robber as sex slave. That would be a major Australian site, guys. *sigh*

So, News Limited hack phones, copy articles and can't even plagiarise corrections properly!!

Let me know what you think

Mark S

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

Greek crisis reminds us to keep a steady ship

The crisis confronting Greece at present is a salient reminder that our country's central bank and government must do whatever is necessary to keep the economy on an even keel, over each economic cycle.

Last week, the governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, gave a speech to the Economic Society of Australia in Brisbane.  He made the important point that - although some parts of the economy had some slack, overall, the Australian economy is very strong.  As a result, monetary policy will be set to meet the needs of the whole economy.

Strong economic decisions allow us to succeed

This will always mean that there are some winners and some losers.  The alternative is to satisfy only the needs of a few small groups within the economy.  This failure to take appropriate decisions when they need to be taken is what leads to economic disasters such as those in Greece, Ireland, Iceland, and to some extent even in the United States.

When good economic decisions are taken such as movements in interest rates, careful government spending, or introduction of sensible policies like a carbon tax or mineral rent tax, these create an environment in which businesses and workers can be confident.

Ironically, the failure of the Greek economy may slow down Australia's enough to avoid an increase in interest rates until later this year.

Sensible decisions from the Reserve Bank, sensible taxes such as carbon tax and mineral resources rent tax, all assist in making Australia the world's leading western economy. 

Let me know what you think

Mark S

The law is an ass - rape is rape

Credit must go to the Herald Sun for their front page story today, Sleeping woman rape trial sparks fury.  This story details how the Victorian Court of Appeal set aside a conviction for a man, Tomas Getachew, who raped a women who was asleep, who had twice rejected his advances, before passing out drunk.

The Court ruled 2-1 that the trial judge had erred in his instructions to the jury.  The minority judge, Justice Lex Lasry got it right when he said:

"The complainant had made clear her rejection of the applicant on two occasions before this incident occurred. When penetrated by the applicant, the complainant was in a position consistent with her being asleep. There was no positive conduct by the complainant which might have led Getachew to conclude that his sexual approach was now being welcomed.''

This is what the Slut Walks are for - to stop rape

Recently, as a man, I was proud to attend the Melbourne Slut Walk, where women joined others at Slut Walks around the world and proudly chanted "Whatever we wear, wherever we go—yes means yes, and no means no!".  As a man at this very civilised protest, it struck me that this message cannot be repeated often enough.  So many men have been brought up in a misogynistic world where they believe that "women are asking for it".

The key message of the Slut Walks is that "women retain the right to say no, and to be heard".

And this is why the decision by Justices Peter Buchanan and Bernard Bongiorno is so perpelexing, and wrong.  The victim of the rape by Tomas Getachew had said "no".  She had said "no" again.  Then she had fallen asleep.  To argue - as the learned Judges have done - that there is any way that she changed her mind after she fell asleep drunk, simply defies logic.

Remember the key message of the Slut Walk - once she said no, she had the right to be heard.

Whatever we wear ... or whatever we drink ... rape is never OK

The Toronto policeman who blamed women for the way they dress could just as easily have blamed them for getting drunk.  It's certainly been an argument put to blame victims many times.  It is simply wrong.

Worryingly, a psychology study in 2006 even found that: Juries blame women for 'drunk rape'.  The study found that jurors:

- decided it was 'reasonable' to assume there was consent even if a woman was too drunk to give it".
- blamed drunk rape victims for 'bringing it on themselves'.

So, it seems that two of our learned judges, who should not be influenced by the same biases as ordinary people, have the same views on victim-blaming that the Slut Walks are trying to highlight.

Let's hope the prosecution appeals to the High Court - and wins

In the words of the wise Home Office spokesperson on learning of these study results: 'We need to tackle the myths. Rape is never the responsibility of the victim.'

The prosecution is considering appealing to the High Court.  They should do so, and should win.

Let me know what you think

Mark S