Telling it like it is...

To ban or not to ban? The burqa question

2010-07-18T20:53:00.011+10:00

This week, France followed Belgium in voting to ban the burqa, the full veil worn by women from some Islamic traditions to hide their faces.

The new law, which bans the garment from being worn in public, will see anyone wearing the burqa receive a fine (approx $AUD222) or be forced to take a lesson in citizenship.

Those people caught forcing their wives or children to cover up face much stiffer penalties of up to $AUD42,000 and a one year jail term.

Already, the French debate has caused ripples in Australia, with Liberal Senator Cory Bernadi calling for a ban on the garment, with similar calls being made in Britain (where around 67% of the population are believed to support a ban) and Spain.

Whilst cultural, rather than religious, the burqa within western civilisation has become linked directly to Islam and its followers - somewhat intimidating for much of the Muslim-fearing west.

The ban in effect in Belgium, which has an estimated one million Muslim women, is estimated to affect around 30 people.

France has Europe's largest Muslim population of around 5 million, of which fewer than 2000 are expected to be affected by the new laws.

Senator Bernadi told the Herald Sun the burqa was "the most public symbol of fundamentalist Islam".

"This is a system where women are considered as second class citizens and homosexuals can be hanged."

What the Senator doesn't seem to recognise is that while in areas where the burqa is a cultural requirement, homosexuals may be hanged and women are considered as second class citizens, in Australia they are not.

When here, the wearer of a burqa still must abide by Australian laws - laws governed by equity, fairness and freedom.

In Australia, a country where we so often laud our ability to be culturally sensitive and all-inclusive, it is imperative that we do not allow the bigots and xenophobes among us to rule.

While many Australians find see the burqa a symbol of discrimination, oppression and degradation, the biggest issue in this country is a lack of understanding, acceptance and the general underlying racism that haunts the nation.

Education is surely the answer, both for those against the burqa, and those who wear it.

Yes, many Australians find Islam - and therefore (probably mistakenly) the burqa - very intimidating, especially in the post-September 11 climate.

However to link the wearer of a burqa fundamentalist Islam is simply wrong.

Prior to Taliban rule in Afghanistan, the number of women wearing of the chadri (similar to the burqa) was declining rapidly. In fact, the number of women wearing any form of full veil is diminishing at a rapid rate.

This, whilst Islam as a religion remains strong, and fundamentalist Islam continues to gain more attention.

Of course, the wearing of a burqa in Australia, and any other Christian-based nation, is going to cause discomfort for some people - we are not overly adept at accepting new things we don't properly understand.

And the wearers of the burqa must understand this.

We also need to educate the burqa-wearer.

Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, says he supports putting steps in place trying to discourage women from wearing full veils, but a law would send the wrong message.

"Rather than enacting a law barring women from expressing their malaise, we should think about what prompted them to want to cover themselves," Moussaoui said.

Not only would the banning of the burqa be a violation on the right to freedom and expression of religion, but it would simply be what so many refer to as 'unAustralian' - even if so many have argued the opposite. Anti-freedom, anti-fairness.

While, importantly, no woman in Australia should ever be forced to wear a burqa - as is unfortunately sometimes the case within some cultures - every woman should have the right to wear what she chooses, whether it is a reflection of their religion, culture or otherwise.

The burqa is not unAustralian.

But banning it would be.

Fair play or duty of care?

2010-06-29T23:00:00.012+10:00

St Kilda footballer Steven Baker will not appeal the mammoth nine match suspension handed down to him by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night.

Baker chose to contest two of the charges laid against him - initially tallying a twelve week suspension - but tribunal threw out the case, leaving him absent until the first week of the finals.

Three of the charges which were accepted were for striking - no one would argue that this is something the AFL does not want as part of the game.

However, one of the more contentious charges was that of misconduct, for intentionally making contact with the hand of Steven Johnson of Geelong, which had been injured earlier in the game.

Baker's representative, Tony Nolan argued it was unclear whether Johnson had been injured prior to, or after contact.

This, however, it a moot point.

When an AFL player takes to the field, it is assumed he is fully fit and able to take part in what is a heavy contact, physical sport.

When a player consciously remains on - or returns to - the field of play, it is again, assumed he can fully take part in the game.

The assumption that Steven Baker has some sort of duty of care to an injured player is ludicrous. As long as Baker plays within the rules, there should be no issue.

No rule states you can't intentionally tap another players hand.

The duty of care rests with the injured player himself, and the medical staff from his club.

If Johnson was injured during the game, it is his responsibility to either get it dealt with by removing himself from the field, or else face the consequences of remaining there.

The situation arising from the weekend has striking similarities to the circumstances surrounding another Saints player in Round 1 of 2005.

The then-recently anointed St Kilda captain Nick Reiwoldt, leading his premiership-favoured club for the first time, injured his shoulder in a marking contest during the tightly contested third quarter at the 'Gabba.

Reiwoldt initially received treatment from medical staff, however consciously elected to remain on the field of play.

Two Brisbane players, in Brad Scott and Mal Michael, having seen Reiwoldt returning to his position, chose to target the injured shoulder with two off-the-ball bumps.

See the footage HERE.

Reiwoldt was forced from the field and endured a lengthy spell from the game.

The media was in an uproar.

How could two opposition players deliberately target an player's injury - potentially causing far more harm than had already occurred?

The reason is simple.

Reiwoldt had made a conscious, deliberate decision to remain on the field.

Obviously, if Scott or Michael had done something reportable, such as strike Reiwoldt, then yes, punishment would have, and should have been handed out.

And, of course, if Reiwoldt had been in the hands of trainers, or making his way from the field, he would have been off limits.

But, as it was, Reiwoldt chose to stay on the park, and the Brisbane players laid simple, solid bumps to the shoulder - something that happens, unnoticed, hundred of times in each AFL game.

And the same goes for the most recent situation.

Yes, Steven Baker needed to be suspended for striking Johnson - this would have occurred any week, to any player.

But when have we ever seen anyone suspended for making 'unnecessary contact' to a hand?

The misconduct charge is farcical and is removing the blame - whether deliberately or not - from the people most responsible for keeping Johnson on the park.

The question coming from the AFL should be this: who did have a duty of care?

That's not a line - that's a solid brick wall

2010-05-23T22:37:00.008+10:00

Something is very seriously wrong with the media laws in Australia.

To allow footage to be shown - without reprimand - of an individual doing something that is not illegal, nor in the public interest, that has the potential to completely rip apart their life, is repulsive.

This week, married NSW MP David Campbell has quit his portfolio after he had the indignity of Channel 7 showing secretly filmed footage of him leaving a gay sex club.

Channel 7 crossed a serious line.

Was Mr. Campbell doing something illegal by attending the sex club?

No.

Was knowledge of Mr. Campbell attending the sex club in the public interest?

No.

Yes, Mr. Campbell was a married man and what he was doing was perhaps morally wrong.

But that does not give the media the right to splash his private life all over the screens.

Of course, we get this daily - even hourly - with celebrity news and the like, but that doesn't make it right.

Channel 7 tried to use the fact that Campbell drove a taxpayer funded vehicle to the sex club.

That doesn't wash either.

The vehicles are permitted to be used for personal use.

Something needs to be done to the weak laws that regulate Australia's media.

Perhaps if Mr. Campbell had a strong stand against homosexuality, then his activities may have been in the public interest.

In 2004, Ed Schrock, a married Republican congressman who constantly opposed gay rights was taped soliciting for gay sex.

In 2005, the Republican mayor of Spokane, Washington, Jim West, - who had previously supported a bill barring homosexuals from working in schools and child-care centres amongst other agencies, was caught having an affair with an 18 year old boy.

In these situations, yes, the politicians private life - where it conflicts particularly with their stance on an issue - is in the public interest.

This situation with David Campbell, is not.

In a week where potential public reaction to homosexuality has been a controversial topic - with an column published in theHerald Sun by Jason Akermanis about homosexual footballers, the voters in Mr. Campbell's seat of Kiera have roundly defended their former MP.

Former High Court Judge Michael Kirby, who once had allegations of sex with underage boys thrown at him, has accused Channel 7 of being 'serial homophobes.'

The network was forced to settle with former president of the Law Society of New South Wales the late John Marsden after it accused Marsden of having sex with minors.

Crikey has accused the reporter who broke the story, Adam Walters, to have been taking a revenge shot at Campbell.

Walters, a former NSW Labor staffed, was sacked after his unit was disbanded after Morris Iemma was forced out of the NSW Leadership.

Campbell was part of the group that had moved against Iemma.

If this is the case - and revenge is the reason for the story being broadcast - then it is even more repugnant.

After 11 years, Mr. Campbell has been forced out of his job because the media were looking for a cheap, scandalous story.

Channel 7 found one.

And it is in Australia's best interests to use this example as the impetus for new, stronger regulations that will hopefully prevent our media from falling further into the hole its digging itself.

Don't shoot the messenger

2010-05-20T15:16:00.004+10:00

Jason Akermanis is right to suggest if a homosexual AFL player were to come out of the closet, it would make other players uncomfortable.

In his regular column for Melbourne's Herald Sun, the outspoken Western Bulldogs forward said the AFL community was 'not ready' for a player to 'out' themselves.

And Akermanis makes valid points.

The nudity in the change rooms.

The supposed bravado and masculinity associated with being an AFL player.

In this sort of environment, having a gay teammate would undoubtedly make some other players on the team very uncomfortable. Daniel Kerr of the West Coast has agreed, saying having a gay teammate would be 'weird'.

Senthorun Raj, policy and development coordinator for the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby told news.com.au the idea that gay players are “somehow undisciplined, anti-masculine and unsportsmanlike” promoted sexual shame and invisibility.

“People’s sexual orientation shouldn’t be considered a meaningful indicator of someone’s ability to play sport,” he said.

This is absolutely true, but it doesn't change the facts - and regardless of the protestations of many in the AFL community - they are facts.

Of course, this doesn't mean a player should stay 'in the closet' - to ensure his fellow teammates remain 'comfortable'. And this is where Akermanis has erred

Former Olympian Daniel Kowalski - who recently himself came out as a homosexual - has slammed Akermanis's column, saying it would tarnish the good work done by the AFL Players Association.

"I'm disappointed, I'm mad, I'm angry, I'm sad," Kowalski told Triple M radio.

"A lot of work has been done by Pippa Grange and the AFL Players' Association and there is support and it's continuing to gather.

"I didn't have the balls to do it. I worried what people would think," he said.

"You're brought up in this culture that it's wrong to be gay, especially in sport."

While Daniel was attempting to oppose Akermanis's views, all he really did was prove his point.

Kowalski was never willing to come out during his swimming career because of the potential abuse and vitriol he would receive.

Nothing has changed.

Olympic gold medalist Matthew Mitcham was the only openly gay Olympian at the 2010 games.

But diving and swimming are one thing.

All male team sports are a different - and surely more daunting - matter.

When NRL player Ian Roberts became the first NRL player to come out, he was abused and received death threats.

This would be mirrored, almost undoubtedly, in the AFL.

While, Kowalski's points that the AFLPA have been working hard to try to quash these types of perceptions are correct, Akermanis's article, and Daniel Kerr's comments are simply evidence that more needs to be done.

But again, we come to the point where Akermanis was not correct.

Perhaps having a player come out would help to educate the AFL community.

Perhaps.

There have been rumours about for the past few weeks that an AFL player was on the brink of 'outing' himself within the media - and some media organisations have been throwing up large dollar figures to try to lure them in for the exclusive.

It will happen. A player will be willing to face the media, or someone will slip up in public and be 'outed'.

There ARE gay sports people.

There ARE gay AFL players.

Things will change. Perceptions will change.

But right now, the media attention would be extreme. The reaction from fans would be - to a degree - predictably neanderthal-like. People forget how many bigoted, uneducated, and disgusting humans are around.

And, as Daniel Kerr says, for the players, it would just be weird.

Deveny gets lesson in decency

2010-05-04T21:04:00.008+10:00

Catherine Deveny has today been sacked by Fairfax Media as a result of "Tweets" she published during Sunday night's Logies ceremony.

Deveny - who is a former writer for the Logies ceremony and a well-known serial tweeter - made profanity-ridden remarks about the Logies themselves, as well as guests.

A vile woman in all intents of the word, Deveny(before today) had a regular column in Melbourne's The Age, within which she ripped into anything and everything which she felt is beneath here - this blog mentioned her comments on Melbourne's new radio station MTR last week.

"I do so hope Bindi Irwin gets laid," she wrote.

Now, don't for a second think this blog is suggesting Bindi Irwin is exempt from media criticism. Bindi Irwin is a scary, scary little child.

What this blog is suggesting is that, as an 11 year old, Bindi Irwin should not be the subject of sexually-based garbage - even in the name of so-called comedy.

It is disgusting.

"Rove and Tasma look so cute!" She wrote. "I hope she doesn't die too."

Seriously?

What a repulsive, unfunny, offensive thing to comment.

Regardless of what you think of Rove, Tasma Walton, or even Belinda Emmett - its just not appropriate.

Wil Anderson has copped some criticism for his tweets - but they are simply tame when compared to Deveny's.

"Matt Preston won logie," Anderson wrote. "Deep fried it in batter and ate it."

The Herald Sun called that a 'toxic tweet'.

No, Matt Preston is a host on a cooking show who recently admitted he was overweight.

No offense there.

The closest Anderson came to offensive on the night was when he suggested Molly Meldrum was on drugs.

"Molly says he has only been drinking water. Pills must be strong".

Offensive to Molly? Perhaps.

But suggesting 11 year old's should get laid, and paying out on a dead woman it ain't.

Catherine Deveny claims her comments on Twitter were taken 'out of context'.

The whole point of Twitter, Catherine, is that in 140 characters, you CAN'T be taken out of context.

The context is the short statement.

And her comment on Rove?

She stands by it.

"I meant every single word," Deveny told her former paper today.

"I love Rove. I worked for Rove for five years. I've publicly said and printed I would take a bullet for him. He endorsed my first book on the front cover.

"They looked really sweet. I do hope that Tasma doesn't die and I hope that Rove doesn't die ... I absolutely meant it."

Deveny needs to find a better way of professing her appreciation for people.

And you can absolutely guarantee Rove McManus isn't going to be endorsing any more of Deveny's books.

McManus' manager, Kevin Whyte, told the Herald Sun Rove had decided not to dignify Deveny's comments with a response.

Rather classy.

That's a word Deveny knows little about.

The Herald Sun today quoted this writer in its article about the issue.

So happily, I'll leave this blog with a quote from.... me.

"[Catherine Deveny] is vulgar, bitter and essentially, unsuccessful."

And more so now, it seems.

Fitzroy's fight to claw back history

2010-05-03T19:47:00.005+10:00

The Fitzroy Football Club today won a ruling that will see it face its biggest battle since effectively leaving the AFL in 1996.

Fitzroy, who now play in the VAFA competition, will take on its merged-partner Brisbane in a fight over the club's recently changed logo, which today gained passage to mediation on May 19, and potentially the Supreme Court.

Fans of the original Lions of the AFL are fuming after the betrayal of its effective "parent" club, who have changed the traditional "lion, paw on football" logo of Fitzroy to a moniker that has been labeled the "Paddlepop" Lion.

The Roy boys argument is that, in the contract struck before the merger in 1996, the Brisbane Bears (as they were known) agreed to use the Fitzroy Lion "in perpetuity".

Brisbane Lion's lawyers claim the club is not obliged to use the Fitzroy Lion forever, and that the costs associated with a change back would be astronomical.

They have accused the Fitzroy Football Club of trying to stymie the financial success of Brisbane - the cost of wasted merchandise if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Fitzroy would rise into the millions.

What an absurd decision by Brisbane.

What did they suspect to gain by changing the logo? Why would the club almost deliberately and knowingly try to put Victorian supporters of the Brisbane Lion offside?

Reportedly, around 7000 members of the Brisbane Football Club's 28,000 are based in Melbourne - a small, but dedicated (and vital) part of the former-Fitzroy-now-Brisbane fabric.

First, these Roys supporters saw their club ripped from their state after a much more palatable merger with North Melbourne was shelved after pressure from other Victorian clubs, nervous of a potential super club.

Then they watch as Brisbane slowly but surely shifted away from the Roy boys traditions of old, playing fewer games in Victoria, and ditching the traditional Fitzroy jumper which used to be donned in Victorian fixtures.

And now, the final straw. The ditching of the Fitzroy Lion altogether.
Brisbane officials will argue that historically, the Lion means little.

Prior to 1957 of course, Fitzroy were known as the Gorillas.

Fitzroy, many will argue, having been now out of the AFL for 14 years is a dead club. Why are Fitzroy supporters so determined to hold on to something that, for all intents and purposes, died in 1996. And for those who stuck with the Lions after the merger - surely a triple premiership was reward enough?

But from a Fitzroy supporters perspective - it is a battle worth fighting, and they intend to - even if it risks the club's long term survival if it ultimately loses.

This is the history of a once-great football club. The Fitzroy Football Club won 8 VFL premierships - that's more than South Melbourne/Sydney, North Melbourne, St Kilda, the Western Bulldogs/Footscray (in fact - more than the last three put together).

Yes, in an AFL sense, the Fitzroy Football Club no longer exists.

The Brisbane Lions Football Club does.

The Brisbane Lions, created and based around the heritage, support and players of Fitzroy.

This amalgamated club has nothing to gain by spitting on the history of a great club of this great game.

Show some respect Brisbane.

Give Fitzroy back its Lion.

NRL stand on Storm proves AFL is soft

2010-04-22T20:16:00.009+10:00

The Melbourne Storm were today stripped of their 2007 and 2009 NRL Premierships in what is Australia's biggest ever sporting penalty.

After being proved of $1.7 million worth of salary cap breaches over five years through an effective dual-contract system, the Storm have been stripped of minor premierships, prize money and every premiership point won in the 2010 season.

The Storm were caught cheating.

The NRL have remonstrated in the only way possible.

Andrew Demetriou, the CEO of the AFL, has come out in praise of the NRL's decision, however sadly, the stance of the NRL simply shows just how weak the Demetriou's code has been in dealing with the multiple salary cap breaches which have occurred over the last 20 years.

The Essendon Football Club were caught having breached the salary cap by over half a million dollar between 1991 and 1996.

In 1993, the Bombers won the flag.

That's right - during the season which the Essendon Football Club won the Premiership, they were cheating.

And they were caught.

They were fined $388,500, and banned for a large portion of the three drafts leading into the following year.

Essendon won a Premiership cheating - and were allowed to keep it.

Almost every club in the AFL has been punished for salary cap breaches - with Carlton and Melbourne being the hardest hit in terms of fines and draft-related punishments.

However, while neither of those clubs won a Premiership during the time they were breaching the cap, and were penalised only financially - even though the likelihood is, the players which were made available to the club through the cheating resulted in victories - which the club (even retrospectively) were allowed to keep. .

The NRL have laid down the law - if you win a Premiership cheating, and you are caught, you will be forced to hand back those medals.

Sadly, its not the club that have owned the medals - they belong to the players.

Not only do they have to hand back their own Premiership medals - which for many would be their highest achievement - they are forced to play the 2010 knowing that, regardless of the score on the board, they can't win.

It is a sorry state of affairs for Rugby League in Melbourne. A city where the NRL has been attempting for years to create a stronghold in competition with the AFL.

It will be a massive effort for the code to recover after this.

Leaving it to the boys

2010-04-19T19:31:00.010+10:00

Melbourne has a new player in its radio game, with MTR 1377 presenting its first day of air time on the AM band.

But before the first voice was heard on the station, the critics were ringing loud, with punters complaining about the practically all-male line up (one woman, Deborah Thomas, will co-host a Sunday afternoon slot), and the seemingly right-wing leanings of the list of presenters.

Labelled "Knob fm" (as well as a number of other choice names) by The Age's serial tweeter/pest, Catherine Deveny, the station line up includes names like Steve Price, Andrew Bolt and Steve Vizard.

Deveny (who works for Fairfax - which owns MTR's main competitor, 3AW) takes issue with the lack of women involved in the station. In fact, she claims to have put a list together of women she'd prefer to hear on radio.

The list of over 40 women includes names such as Wendy Harmer, Myf Warhurst, Tracy Bartram, Denise Scott, Jill Singer, and Judith Lucy.

What did this list have in common?

That's right, each of these women have had a crack at Melbourne media.

And failed - in some cases, epically so.

In fact, if we look at the radio stations with the strongest ratings, all will have men in the prime time slots.

That's right. 3AW, ABC, SEN, Triple M (if you discount the token female who doesn't get a word in), and Fox (to name just a few).

So, clearly, as a business, MTR seem to be just utilising a tried and true method of attracting listeners.

Keep the women away from the microphone.

And as for those complaining about the supposedly horrendous right-wing leanings, we haven't heard too many complaints about the political bias of the ABC, or The Age.

In fact, once again if we see the radio station as a business, look at the Herald Sun.

For years criticised for its right-leaning bias, and for years Australia's highest selling paper.

That'd be MTR just keeping the stakeholders happy.

Whether or not MTR works is a complete other story - it has been notoriously difficult for new radio stations to make it in the very competitive market that is Melbourne talk radio.

However it is the ludicrous huffing and puffing from the political left that reeks of hypocrisy.

They have, of course, been benefiting from left-leaning media (especially television and radio for years), and cannot handle the idea of a little balance in the Melbourne market.

The Age - a Fairfax-owned publication - has (predictably and typically) discussed today's opening performance in a patronising, sarcastic article - which has luckily been noted by some readers.

"...you're so paranoid! Are you worried that Fairfax and the ABC now have a competitor?" Wrote Will.

"Conservatives make up 50% of the vote and it is about time we had a voice. I am sick of listening to the panacea of the left, which sounds great but never works." Wrote Jay.

And they're right.

Well, "right", and right, it seems.

Dummy day off demeans them

2010-04-13T20:46:00.003+10:00

On April 25th this year, as they do every year, Victorians will pause and reflect on the sacrifices made by those men and women who have protected and defended our shores over our 200 plus year history.

What makes this year different, however, is that Victorians will be receiving a 'gift' public holiday, on Monday 26th of April, to make up for the fact ANZAC Day falls on a Sunday in 2010.

This is a disgraceful decision from the Victorian government.

While, when ANZAC Day falls on a weekday, Victorians should get the day off as a day to reflect on our heroes of war, when the April 25th comes on a Saturday or Sunday, that should be our day of reflection.

Not some pseudo-public holiday which makes up for the fact that we might miss out on one of our beloved four-day working weeks.

It sends the wrong message to Australians.

Major General David McLachlan, Victoria's RSL chief agrees.

"I think people have begun to look at it as the Anzac Day holiday weekend rather than Anzac Day,'' Mr McLachlan told the Herald Sun.

He is precisely correct.

Why is the Victorian government demeaning our veterans and currently serving members of our armed forces by effectively telling us that ANZAC Day is about getting a day off work - not about remembering our war heroes?

Only NSW and Victoria have brought in the measure to introduce the artificial holiday, which Albury's Deputy Major Henk van de Ven has said "belittles" ANZAC Day.

“What are we going to have? Are we going to have a dawn service on Monday are we? Are we going to have a march on Monday? No, it’s all done on Sunday so what’s the public holiday for? It’s a disgrace.”

But Vietnam War veteran, and Victoria Cross winner Keith Payne told the Herald Sun he was fine with the additional day off, provided it was used to complement commemorations had on the Sunday.

"As long as it's in tune with Anzac Day, that it enhances the commemoration then I can't see any problem with it,'' Mr Payne said.

Sadly, Mr. Payne must be out of tune with the reality of Australia's youth.

While many young people will manage to watch what they see as the most important event on Sunday, April 25th - the Collingwood, Essendon clash at the MCG (which, mind you, is an event which has hugely increased the younger populations understanding and respect for ANZAC Day), the dummy day off the following day will be seen as an opportunity to drink, party and sleep in.

It is a huge shame that Victoria's government is so willing to show show much disdain to our fallen heroes simply to get themselves another day on the couch.

Back on the course, back in the press

2010-04-08T21:43:00.005+10:00

So good ol' Tiger is back on the cart.

The golf cart, obviously.

And just days before he hits off for one of the most anticipated rounds of golf in history at the 74th US Masters at St. Augusta, another one of his 'supposed' extra-marital lovers has revealed herself to the media.

What perfect timing... For her of course.

She'll be able to make the most of her 15 minutes of fame. The world's media attention is focused squarely on the man in question.

Raychel Coudriet didn't make the mistake of being one of the dozens of (mainly nameless) women who came out when the scandal first erupted.

She has waited around, biding her time, waiting for the perfect time to cause the most scandal, to get the most media attention, and - of course - the most money she possibly could out of the situation.

Now - don't for one second think Tiger Woods is in the right here. Of course he isn't. But why is it that these women feel the need to whore themselves out to the media at every given opportunity?

Obviously, Tiger seemed to select women for their penchant for media and status. Porn stars, PR people, celebrity hangers-on. And from reports, this girl of a much higher class.

Not particularly wise.

A 22 year old who had known (and had a crush on) Woods since she had 14. What an odd choice to let her story leak to the media.

Why would she be intent on having her name splashed around the papers?

Its not going to get her a career - there are 14 plus other probably more media-qualified Tiger mistresses already in line for those careers.

And its not, at this late stage, going to get her any sympathy.

The media can't really be criticised. While they are being their repulsively intrusive selves, the public are absolutely craving any scandalous information regarding Tiger Woods.

It is, of course, an indictment on society as a whole that this is the kind of news that sells papers - but that's another story.

This particular scandal too - being so very close to home - is surely going to put a marriage already heavily on the rocks to beyond breaking point.

Raychel Coudriet claims she was violated. That she felt dirty, because she felt that Tiger had only used her for casual sex - a one night stand.

Of course Raychel. You've never had a one night stand previously? Never gone out for casual sex.

The quintessential Daddy's little angel?

No - you walked quite deliberately and purposefully into Tiger's den.

You, having known the family for eight years prior, knew Tiger was married, and the destruction you were potentially causing

You are no more than an attention grabbing "other woman". One of many, it must be added.

It can only be prayed that is all you ever become out of this situation.

Hysteria burning hotter than ever

2010-04-07T21:38:00.004+10:00

Dear bushfire victims,

This is a note to inform you that whether or not Christine Nixon was at the emergency control centre on the night of the 2009 Victorian bushfires, you still would have lost your houses.

As sad as it is, you still would have lost your family members and friends.

Your communities would still have been shattered.

Yes, Christine Nixon perhaps made an error of judgment by leaving to dine with friends, but the facts are, she left more qualified people than her at the centre.

In fact, in order for her to deal with the potentially catastrophic effects of the bushfires, surely it was best she got a good meal and a decent sleep before having to head out to bushfire affected areas the following day - to deal with the affected people first hand.

Christine Nixon has dedicated her life over the past 13 months to assisting people who lost homes and loved ones during the bushfires, both as a panel member of the Victorian Bushfire Appeal Fund, and the chairperson of the Victorian Bushfire Rebuilding and Recovery Authority.

For people to be calling for her sacking is ludicrous, and, surely to Ms. Nixon, offensive.

Unfortunately, the repulsive threats from bushfire victims (the very same people, of course, that Ms. Nixon has been working tirelessly to assist) - such as that the VBRRA Chairperson would be 'shunned' when she made visits to the community - may make her position with the authority untenable.

She doesn't deserve this kind of treatment.

And it seems some of the media - particularly the Herald Sun - are siding with the seemingly irrational bushfire victims, and to a lesser extent, Opposition leader Tedd Baillieu (whose publicised opinions are surely no more than a desperate attempt for media attention - and to look 'different' from the Government).

The press coverage over what should be a trivial issue has been enormous - to the extent that they have reported precisely what Ms. Nixon ate on the evening

It is not the Police Commissioner's job to ensure fire warnings had reached towns and residents in potentially fire affected areas. That would be the fire authorities role.

There was no way for Ms. Nixon to know the magnitude of the disaster that would unfold - she left it to the more qualified people to deal with. And its not as if the police had no presence - an assistant commissioner, as well as the state's Deputy Commissioner Kieran Walshe were on hand during the evening to handle the situation as best they could.

The 2009 Victorian bushfires were the worst natural disaster in the state's history.

It was devastating.

It was 14 months ago.

Why do we allow hysteria to control our media - why are we allowing irrational, ill-informed, overly emotional people to make comments?

And are the public really so stupid to allow the media to be so manipulative?

Hopefully someone soon stands up, and lauds Christine Nixon for the effort she has put into the recovery effort, rather than punish her for some ludicrously trivial mistake.

Keep up the "nannying", Victoria

2010-04-06T20:52:00.007+10:00

Mark Webber may have lost himself a lot of hometown fans.

And also may have learnt the importance of a good PR manager.

The Australian public doesn't take even warranted criticism particularly well, however in this case, I happen to agree with the public disappointment in Webber's comments - calling Victoria a "Nanny state".

To make these comments after Lewis Hamilton was caught acting like a hoon, having his car impounded on an evening after qualifying during the 2010 Australian Formula 1 GP, was completely an utterly ridiculous.

What Hamilton was doing was illegal (in most countries - not just this one), dangerous, and hugely irresponsible.

Yes, Australia has some of the most regulated roads in the world.

We also have one of the lowest fatality rates per capita in the world.

Webber and his family have criticised Australia's penchant for law making, claiming "you have to be responsibly for your own actions".

Time and time again, sadly, Australians and citizens of other nations around the world, have proved that no, they simply cannot be left to be responsible for their own actions.

Since the introduction of speed cameras, drink driving laws, and anti-hoon laws, Australia has seen dramatic decreases in road accidents. In 1982, with fewer cars on the road and a smaller population, around 3,200 people were killed on Australia's roads. In 2008 it had decreased to 1,463 - around seven deaths per 100,000 people compared to around 22 in 1982.

I am thankful for Australia's "nanny-like" road rules. It keeps me safer when I'm on the road, when my friends are on the road, and when my family are on the road.

I am glad when Lewis Hamilton was caught doing burn outs in public streets, he had his car impounded.

I hope it taught some other potential hoon a lesson. Although I doubt it.

When Mark Webber is on his formula one track, he can drive as fast, or as carelessly as he likes.

Hell, he can head over to Europe and gain access to the many seemingly rule-less Autobahns (all of which have significant death tolls).

But when he's in Australia, he can shut up and abide by our rules.

And he should be encouraging others to do the same.

As Victoria's top traffic cop, Deputy Commissioner Ken Lay said, "there's probably quite a few Mark Webber fans still alive today because of the work [police] do".

Perhaps fewer of those people are Webber fans today.

Grubby hands from afar stealing our Australian dream

2010-04-06T19:19:00.001+10:00

Across the street from me, in Doncaster, a 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house last week sold for $804,500.

Not six months earlier, a very similar (perhaps more run-down) house in this same street sold for almost $50,000 more.

In Doncaster.

This is a suburb with no direct access to trains, poorly serviced by buses, and a decent drive from the city (although the Eastern Freeway makes it considerably easier these days, and access to the refurbished Westfield Doncaster Shoppingtown has improved house prices).

It is absurd.

The sale of this property at that price simply serves as another warning.

People within the ages of 20-25, without the backing of family money, are quite simply not going to be able to afford to purchase a home.

There are a number of reasons for the seemingly never ending increase in house prices. Primarily however, the reasons are our ever-expanding population, and lax foreign property investment laws.

Australia does have laws which govern the purchase of land by foreigners, however as documented recently by the ABC, there are major concerns over how well these laws are being instituted.

Foreign property investment shot up a staggering $7 billion from 2007 to 2008, and it continues to rise.

This comes as a result of the Rudd Government loosening significantly the rules regarding property ownership by temporary residents.

The Government removed a $300,000 cap on the purchase of properties by temporary visa holders and international students, and also allowed these foreigners to purchase established homes, rather than new developments, which was the case in the past.

The Australian Government needs to explain to its constituents just why it has permitted this to occur, and how they are going to rectify it.

It is costing the current generation of young people the ability to purchase their own home - the so called 'Australian Dream'.

Of course many - including Opposition leader Tony Abbott - have argued that foreign ownership, whilst placing some Australian's out of the property market, is good for Australia because it allows current home owners to get best possible price for their property.

But surely the Australian Government's primary concern should be ensuring the future financial stability of our younger generations - those younger generations that are already here - rather than making it easier for the grubby hands of foreign investors to go snatching our potential homes from under our noses.

As the Australian population continues to grow (the migration rates under the Rudd Government have increased to around 300,000 people compared to approximately 126,000 during the years of John Howard), the pressure on young Australians to perform financially is greater and greater.

Why is the Rudd Government determined to take the Australian dream further and further from our grasp?

What this blog is about

2010-04-06T19:14:00.001+10:00

This blog will be about telling it how it is, no holds barred.

All posts are written by Michael O'Donnell B.Comm (Journalism), unless otherwise noted.

Please feel free to make comments, disagree or make arguments for my posts, but please note, any deliberately offensive material will be removed immediately.

Please feel free to follow me on twitter - click HERE to find my feed. I will post updates there.

Regards,

M. O'Donnell