I am a big fan of cake – but it has to be great cake…nothing out of a packet or covered in artificially coloured icing for me, oh no! It must be artisan-made or home-baked to sate my tastebuds. I’m fussy about cake, OK?

I am baking a cake tonight, actually. It’s in the oven as I type. And, it’s not just any cake – it’s Chocolate Mousse Cake! This is a cake that conjures up scenes from Like Water for Chocolate and Chocolat (not uncoincidentally!). It is a luscious, rich, seductive cake made with tonnes of Lindt chocolate, nearly a whole carton of eggs, a slab of butter, a whack of sugar and vanilla. It’s baked in a water bath and emerges from the oven with a crusty, sunken top and a molten, moist centre. It is mousse merged with cake and it’s to die for. In fact, I’ve watched people queue at parties for my Chocolate Mousse Cake and one man even told me he believed it was “better than sex”. Anyone who’s ever met a man will realise the superlative nature of that compliment!

This is indeed a very sexy cake. It comes from a Nigella Lawson cookbook – a woman whose lusty baking techniques require no further mention - and I always feel best making it while belting out ‘chick tunes’ to my ipod. Aretha Franklin’s “Respect”; the Dixie Chick’s “Earl”; Carole King’s “You Make Me Feel Like a Nat-U-ral Wom-An”; India Arie’s “Brown Skin" and "Video" - get the picture?

From sex to love. I realised tonight while baking this cake - with its edible batter and a mixing spoon that demands licking – that I must truly love the people I’m making it for. Why? Because I’m on a health kick – I’ve given up sugar and chocolate and wine and pretty much everything I love in the interests of cleansing and reviving this battered body. No, I’m not insane (well maybe a little) but I have gone 'cold turkey' after having had one of those conversion to healthy living moments in the doctor’s surgery that demanded an immediate and wholehearted response. And sure, I feel physically better for all the healthy living but how I miss cake and chocolate and…

So, my point is, I just tenderly melted and mixed and blended my way through this recipe but I couldn’t lick the spoon or scrape the bowl and now I can smell its heady scent wafting through the kitchen, as I blog at the dining table and watch the timer. But when it emerges it will be out of bounds. And tomorrow, when I serve it to my lunch guests, I’ll be denied a mouthful. That’s a definition of selfless love if ever I heard one!

I’m familiar with this definition. I had a Nanna who was a consummate cook but her complicated health problems meant she could never eat anything she baked for us. And she had a way with Melting Moments, Cream Puffs, Strawberry Patch Cheesecake, myriad Italian delicacies... (I could go on but it’s making me miss her and my stomach is protesting). She would sit there and soak up our praise, watching us devour her efforts with a satisfied smile on her face, while she munched on a dry cracker. I know now how much she loved us.

Ooh, there goes the buzzer!

Aftermath: I overcooked the cake. Misjudged the timing. It must have been the impact of denial. So now cake is more more mudcake than mousse. Oh well, that'll teach me to be smug about my baking skills! Maybe it was some subconscious attempt to curtail my lunch guests' enjoyment of the delight I'm denied?

A week later: So, here I am again, late on a Friday night with the Chocolate Mousse Cake in the oven, having yet again sacrificed licking the spoon and scraping the bowl in the interests of aforementioned health kick. This "kick" is really starting to hurt! I just hope tomorrow's lucky lunch guests appreciate my self-sacrifice! Next week's guests can bring their own bloody dessert! :)

Confession: I succumbed to temptation. I had a slice of my cake and I wish I could say I feel guilty and remorseful...but I don't! I savoured every morsel and it was more delicious than I remembered!! How am I going to resist that second piece?    [read more]

I don’t understand the Liberal Party.

Arrogance, backward social policy and a record characterised by lies, deceit and spin did the Howard Government in - in spectacular style - less than a week ago. So, when Peter Costello made the surprise announcement that he wouldn’t contest the party leadership and would soon retire from politics, Alexander Downer indicated he’d spare us another turn as Opposition Leader and Tony Abbott failed to get his campaign off the ground, I expected the party room to install Malcom Turnbull in the top job.

Turnbull is an eloquent, erudite, self-made millionaire with a social conscious. He possesses environmental awareness, republican tendencies and an accessible appeal – just what the doctor ordered for a fractured, out of touch, roundly defeated party, right? Well you’d think so. But instead of getting what the doctor ordered, the Liberal Party ordered a doctor – Dr Brendan Nelson to be precise.

Dr Nelson was a media pin-up boy in the 80’s and early 90’s when he was a doctors' advocate and rose to become president of the Australian Medical Association. In that guise, he sported a trendy hairdo, an earring and credentials as a solid Labor man. He grew up in a staunch Labor family - his dad was a trade unionist, his granfather a Communist - he’d been a Labor Party member and was even captured on film screaming into a loudspeaker at a rally “I’ve never voted Liberal in my life!!” That was 1993. The following year, he joined the Liberal Party. He was a turncoat then and, as his ascendancy to the Liberal Party leadership along with his manufactured conservatism in his first days in the job show us, nothing’s changed.

Dr Nelson defeated Mr Turnbull – the richest man in the Australian Parliament - by only two votes and his win was the product of a backroom deal which required him to sell out on social issues. He’s believed to have won the backing of a block of West Australian conservatives brought to the party by newly elected Deputy Leader, Julie Bishop. The price for his victory? A more conservative line on social issues and industrial relations. He's now publicly rejected the notion of a national apology to Indigenous Australians which Mr Turnbull had embraced as part of his pitch for a socially progressive new Liberal Party. He’s also hardened his stance on the new Labor Government’s plan to roll back ‘Workchoices’,indicating there may be trouble ahead in the Senate. This is stupid politics. The vast bulk of Australians forcefully repudiated Howard’s failed Industrial Revolution at last week’s poll but before the gloss has even begun to wear off the victory, Nelson’s lot are challenging Labor’s mandate for reform. It reeks of arrogance and is a major first misstep for the new Opposition.

Malcom Turnbull would have invigorated the Liberal Party leadership with life, freshness and new direction towards a more progressive conservative party. He’d have been a neat foil to Kevin Rudd’s moral high ground. Instead, the Party room elected a man who won the job on the back of a deal which denies his conscience. Not a good path to redemption for a party perceived by the electorate to be morally bankrupt and disingenuous. His discomfort with the deal he’d done was palpable during his first appearance on the 730 Report last night.

With a complete lack of conviction, he claimed a national apology to Indigenous people wasn’t necessary, arguing the Howard line – that the current generation of Australians has no responsibility for the “largely well intentioned” policies of the past. He later acknowledged that he’s shed tears about the violent history of white-black relations in Australia and spoke of his deep respect for and empathy with Aboriginal Australians. Incongruous. He looked and sounded like the formerly progressive Howard Minister, Phillip Ruddock, used to when trying to justify the government’s handling of issues like Tampa, Children Overboard and discriminatory immigration policies – grey and hollow, like he’d sold his soul.

The doctor has swallowed a bitter pill. His locum is waiting in the next wing – only two votes away and ready to prescribe Dr Nelson some of his own medicine.

Update: Nelson's already on notice from Turnbull. Read Sam Maiden's article here    [read more]

Evidence of the manifestation of a new national springtime triggered by the passing of Howard’s 11 year winter (shades of Narnia):

Early Sunday morning: Walking 10 blocks home in inner-city Sydney with a friend and not noticing the time pass or fearing dark alleys. People milling outside pubs -laughing, hugging, smiling and waving at random passers by. People looking at the sky instead of the footpath...

Monday morning in peak hour traffic: A cab driver, overcome by my enthusiastic political commentary, asked me to marry him as he drove me to a seminar on media coverage of multiculturalism. “You’re wonderful…are you married? I’m serious!” I politely declined the generous offer but the mood and appealing flattery made me reassess the stories I’d heard of the marriage of total strangers on VE Day at the end of WW2.

Tuesday afternoon after a delayed flight out of Sydney, mechanical problems with our aircraft and the usual Qantas rudeness: A fellow passenger at the Canberra airport baggage claim belt beamed at me and yelped "isn't it wonderful?"

Today: When the gloss should be wearing off, friends are emailing messages about their politically triggered depression lifting and adjusting their Facebook status to reflect their sanguine moods.

I know the wedding night euphoria won't last but geez it's a good honeymoon!    [read more]

Dear Kevin,

OK, I’m just going to come right out and say it: I think I love you! I feel very vulnerable admitting that. You say you love me too but I don’t know whether to believe you. My heart’s been broken before and I’m scared to trust you.

I’ve just ended a very damaging relationship, you see. He was a bully and he stole my heart – kept it locked up for 11 years. It felt like the longest winter. But I finally got the courage to lop off the dead wood and the promise of a second springtime is really tempting. I’m ready to bloom again.

But before I can commit to you long term, I need you to be honest with me. I need you to tell me what you really believe…what you really think…how you really feel about me and life and the world. Can you do that?

And please don’t use your lines on me…they were appealing in the beginning but I’m already growing tired of them. I don’t want a revolutionary or a mandarin. I need a man who’s not afraid to think with his heart; who speaks freely and turns his words into action.

I want a brave, compassionate, empathetic man who’s strong enough to stand up for what’s right and carry me against the tide when I falter under the weight of others’ expectations. I need a man who tolerates difference and treats me as his equal. Can you be that man?

Will you promise to keep the channels of communication open and listen to me when I talk? Will you comfort me when I cry and laugh at my jokes? Will you admit your mistakes, take responsibility for your decisions and apologise when you’re wrong?

And will you help me to become a better woman? I know I’ve got faults – I need to be more tolerant and take better care of my garden for a start. You tell me I’m charismatic, beautiful and cultured and that's really flattering but I can also be complicated and I’ll probably be a burden at times too. Are you willing to embrace me warts and all? Will you go the long haul in this relationship?

I’ve taken a leap of faith and exposed my heart to you. I’m begging you not to stomp on it or discard it. And I’m pleading with you not to lie and cheat your way through this relationship.

Finally, a word of warning: I’ve rediscovered how brave I am and I won’t hesitate to throw you out if you don’t pull your weight in this partnership.

Yours (for at least the next three years)

Australia

PS Can you please lose that Kevin 07 t-shirt. It's a shade of overkill
   [read more]

Canberra
24/11/07

Dear John,

There’s only one way to say this: you’re dropped.

You’ve humiliated me; degraded me; disrespected me; denied me my rights; depleted my resources. I've had enough!

You promised to protect me and nurture me and make me comfortable in my own skin. Instead, you exposed me to threats, abandoned me when I was low and made me embarrassed to be in the world.

You never listened to me. I stood up to your bullying at work and I protested against your decision to annexe our neighbour’s garden and make enemies of people who meant no harm to us. But you are like one of those abusive men who believe no sometimes means yes.

And your biggest failing is your refusal to say sorry when you’re wrong. I can’t have a relationship with a man who won’t acknowledge his mistakes and apologise from the heart.

Speaking of heart…I’ve come to realise yours isn’t big enough to love those who are different from you and if there’s one thing that really turns me off, it’s a racist.

You didn’t like people visiting from overseas but I loved having international house guests. I spoke to you in many languages but you just replied with a forked tongue. Donald Bradman is your hero. Bernie Banton is mine. It was never going to work out. I don’t know what I was thinking.

When I look back, you never really did it for me. But in the past year, you actually started to repulse me. I guess I stayed with you for 11 years because you seemed strong and kept telling me I could trust you. I wanted to feel safe and secure. But I’ve finally woken up to your tricks and your unfaithfulness and I’m standing on my own two feet at last…brave enough to dump you.

I wish I could say I’ll miss you. Maybe if you’d made an effort to change and paid more attention to me. But I’ve already moved on and now I just can’t wait for you to move out.

Australia

(Acknowledgement: This satirical post was inspired by a letter carried on the Clarence Environment Centre website)    [read more]

I’m betting Rupert Murdoch had money invested in a Kevin Rudd victory. The new PM is a headline writer’s dream.

Watching the election coverage at a party full of journalists in Sydney on Sunday night, the 'punny' headlines were coming thick and fast under the influence of vast quantities of champagne.

And, it’s with amusement I note that the (hopefully) soberer sub-editors on the nation’s newspapers have already employed some of our suggestions.

From the list of slightly drunken party-goers’ contributions:

“It’s a Rudd-Slide”; “Ruddy Hell, We Won!”; “It’s a Kev-olution”; “The Libs are Rudd-erless”; “The Kev-inator”.

How about we start a repository of ‘punny’ headlines here to ease the burden of the inevitable corniness on our comrades at the subs desks? Come on, have a go!    [read more]

So, where were you the night of Howard’s ignominious end?

I celebrated the end of his era at a party in Sydney’s west in a way the former PM would have characterised as ‘un-Australian’. It was a night that summed up my national identity and gave me hope for my country’s heart.

Thrown by an SBS journalist, the party played host to the multicultural network’s multilingual broadcasters, who cheered Howard’s demise in five languages, while we ate the food of myriad nationalities who now call Australia home. “You’ve come to a party at the home of an Italian woman – did you really think you’d go hungry?” quipped the host, as she unveiled a plate of donated empinadas which she placed between veal scaloppini and dolmades.

The demise of the architect of the military incursion into Aboriginal communities euphemistically termed the ‘Northern Territory Intervention’, Mal Brough, brought chanting from party-goers crowded around TV's. The news Howard looked likely to lose his own blue ribbon seat to a fellow broadcaster (former ABC journalist, Maxine McKew) brought the house down! The Prime Minister's seat of Bennelong has become more multicultural since its boundaries were re-drawn and the electorate was home, this election, to an organised revolt led by the Indian community in the wake of the Dr Haneef scandal. There was payback in this result for perceived Howard Government racism.

In this colourful lounge room, where social demarcations writ large under Howard – sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity – had no place, strangers laughed, embraced and cheered together. Tears of relief and joy were also shed. This was a night where hope for a national future which tolerates difference, celebrates diversity and embraces alternative experiences was reborn.

This was not just a vote about change for the sake of change. Voters were saying they were fed up with the fear, fed up with the intolerance, fed up with the lies and deceptions that fuelled racist, divisive events like the Cronulla Riots.

It’s time for a new beginning. It’s time to reclaim Australian culture and national identity for all Australians. It’s time to demand real change…in every tongue spoken in this drought stricken land where the rain has finally started to fall.    [read more]

Voters will not just be casting their ballots as a judgement on economic management today; they should also be judging the Howard Government’s performance on social justice – that is, if they vote with their hearts and their consciences and not just with their hip pockets.

Tampa, Children Overboard, Rao, Solon, Haneef, Tran, the Iraq War…these familiar names and events are the consequences of Howard Government intolerance and injustice which should affect the Australian conscience enough to influence the election outcome. But these issues have barely rated a mention in the Opposition’s campaign, or in media coverage of the election. Where is the heart in this race?

It’s the absence of heart in Howard’s Australia that frightens me more than terrorism, more than rising interest rates, and much more than the prospect of a Labor front bench with several members who were once union officials!

This used to be a country that confidently defined itself through identification with equity, fairness and multiculturalism. Now our identity is characterised by greed and bland, monocultural representations of a faded, inglorious past. To refer back to my first j-scribe post: we all suffer from Howard's socio-cultural 'retro-form'. We suffer because the ostracism of minority groups further entrenches feelings of isolation and resentment within the communities affected. And, we suffer because we are collectively diminished by our tacit acceptance of new, narrow definitions of what it means to be Australian – definitions that make us more insular and culturally bland. We suffer because our government divides us rather than unites us.

I hope Australians listen to their hearts, not just their hip pockets in the polling booth today - for the sake of our collective soul.    [read more]

I’m not big on cultural icons and nationalistic hero-worship, but I count one man as a genuine Aussie hero: Bernie Banton who today settled a landmark compensation case with just days to live.

Here is a man who lies dying in a hospital bed from a terminal lung disease he contracted at the hands of his negligent former employer who, even as he strained to catch his last breaths, continued to fight for justice and workers rights. And it is not in death that Bernie will be remembered, but in life.

Bernie Banton has stuggled for years with an asbestos related lung disease caused by his exposure to the deadly dust when he worked at a James Hardie insulation plant in the 60’s and 70’s. But Bernie is a natural born fighter – not just for survival, but for justice. After a long battle for compensation for his original diagnosis, he led the campaign against the recalcitrant company which embarked on offshore assets shifting and myriad other ploys to avoid its obligations to thousands of asbestos victims. That battle was finally won last year when James Hardie was forced to agree to pay billions of dollars in compensation to future victims of the asbestos it knowingly exposed them to.

But the long road to victory took a big toll on Bernie Banton’s health. Earlier this year he was diagnosed with a terminal form of Mesothelioma, a disease known to be caused exclusively by exposure to asbestos. He had watched his brother and countless friends die long, agonising deaths after receiving the same diagnosis. However, he refused to just lie down and die quietly. Just three weeks ago, he entered the Federal Election campaign after being thwarted by the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to whom he was trying to present a petition for the registration of a drug believed to assist sufferers of asbestosis. Abbott attacked Bernie as a trade union stooge but was later forced to apologise. As his defenders indicated at the time, Bernie Banton is the human face of the need for trade union membership and presence in the Australian workplace. It wasn’t the government or corporate Australia who came to the rescue of dying workers, but one of their own backed by the union.

Then, in an effort to pave the way for other victims, Bernie Banton filed a civil action against James Hardie for his secondary diagnosis, including punitive damages. Despicably, after it was revealed that Bernie had only a few days to live, the company tried to drag out proceedings, which are required to be concluded within a claimant's lifetime. Then, when that ploy was thwarted by the Dust Diseases Tribunal, they continued to fight the case, challenging his very diagnosis. Bernie gave evidence in the case from his hospital bed earlier this week and it looked like the corporation would literally fight him to the death.

But this afternoon, as his wife, his tireless co-campaigner, Karen Banton, and former ACTU chief, now Labor Party candidate, Greg Combet waited to give evidence, settlement negotiations began between the parties. The deal was quickly sealed and although the terms are confidential, Karen Banton told a press conference held in the aftermath that it was an acceptable settlement. Fighting back tears, she, Bernie Banton’s lawyer, Tanya Segelov and Mr Combet fronted the media together to explain that this was not about money but justice.

The settlement is Bernie’s dying gift to other victims – it is an important precedent for them which should make it easier to claim secondary and exemplary damages. No, it won’t cure their disease, but it will recognise their pain, secure their families’ futures and serve as a warning to other recalcitrant employers. That’s an extraordinary gift from an amazing man who has led an exemplary life.

You’re an inspiration Bernie and your star will never die.    [read more]

The Howard Government has played the Race Card in the last desperate days of the federal election campaign as predicted – but this time, it’s backfired spectacularly.

When 16 Indonesian asylum seekers were stranded in a sinking boat off Australia this week I held my breath – here we go, I thought, they’ll try another Tampa. But the Howard Government hardly bit. Now we know why – at Liberal Party headquarters, where they’ve been trying to bail their way out of their own sinking ship, the strategists were working overtime in preparation for a race scandal about to hit the government.

The growing storm surrounding a racist, deceitful letter box drop in Western Sydney by senior Liberal Party officials - including the husbands of both the outgoing MP Jackie Kelly and her pre-selected replacement - will not be quieted by the Howard ‘quickstep’ two days out from polling day as he discovered this afternoon following his National Press Club address.

The scandal revolves around the distribution of a leaflet to householders in the seat of Lindsay being vacated by Ms Kelly, the frivolous Liberal MP whose praises John Howard has sung through four terms in office. The leaflet was a despicable piece of racist propaganda designed to capitalise on Islamophobia. It purported to be the work of a non-existent Muslim organisation called the ‘Islamic Australia Federation’ and urged Muslim voters to support Labor at the poll because “we gratefully acknowledge Labors (sic) support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings”. The leaflet also carried the picture of controversial Sydney Sheik al-Hilaly and claims Labor supports the construction of a (bogus) mosque in the electorate. This is the stuff of Neo Nazi/National Action style propaganda campaigns. And what’s extraordinary is that it wasn’t perpetrated by conspiracy theorists but senior ranking officials within the Prime Minister’s own state party apparatus.

The guilty parties exposed to date include Jackie Kelly’s husband, Gary Clark, the husband of her pre-selected replacement, Greg Chijoff and the biggest scalp to date –Jeff Egan, a senior member of the NSW Liberal Party executive who’s been accused of masterminding the plan. The three have been dumped from the Liberal Party and while John Howard is refusing to apologise to voters about the scandal (typical response from a man who can’t say sorry) he’s condemned the act in the most strident terms, telling the Press Club audience in exasperated tones : "What more can I do? I've condemned it, I've dissociated myself from it, I think it is stupid, it's offensive, it's wrong, it's untrue, I mean for heaven's sake get a sense of proportion.'' That was like a red rag to a bull – the Press Gallery journalists, finally jack of Howard’s racist two-step, kept firing question after question even as they were heckled by Liberal Party supporters in the audience.

The reporters were righteously angry. Howard used his speech to declare his belief in traditional Australian values and hammered the validity of Australia’s involvement in Iraq while mentioning terrorism several times and congratulating himself on his achievements vis a vis sending the military into Aboriginal communities and winding back ‘political correctness’. He may have openly distanced himself from the scandal in Lindsay but here he was blowing the dog whistle again - in between claims of fiscal responsibility.

To make matters worse, earlier in the day, Jackie Kelly told the ABC it was all just a big joke – a drunken ‘Chaser-style prank’ gone awry. She insisted the episode was really rather funny and there was nothing ill-intentioned about the ‘prank’. Legitimate Muslim groups failed to see the funny side. Family members of the victims of the Bali bombings were appalled. John Howard wasn’t laughing either. And, for their part, the Chaser responded on Radio National with Julian Morrow saying that while he didn’t enjoy the gag he thought Jackie Kelly may like to audition for the Chaser now that her political career is officially dead-in-the-water.

What is funny, though, is that it was a Liberal Party insider who, disgusted with the plan, tipped off Labor about the letter-box-drop and Labor Party workers caught the guilty ones on camera, leaflets in hand, before delivering the story to the Prime Minister’s favourite newspaper, the popular tabloid, The Daily Telegraph.

More pertinently, Jeff Egan has retained a defamation lawyer and issued the following statement: “"I have been falsely accused of distributing unauthorised material. I categorically deny distributing any unauthorised material. I intend to clear my name.'' Now, he’s not denying his involvement in the fiasco, his point is that the material WAS authorised by the Liberal Party despite the Prime Minister’s assertions to the contrary.

And, the Liberal Party has form on this. As reported by the The World Today (TWT) minutes before the PM took to the podium. Ken Higgs, worked on Jackie Kelly’s election campaign in 2001 and he claims he was instructed to distribute fake ‘how to vote cards’ by Liberal Party officials at polling booths in the tight electorate. The cards, he says were designed to trick supporters of a resident’s action group campaigning for the retention of the Australian Defence Industries (ADI)site into voting for Jackie Kelly. According to Mr Higgs, Liberal booth workers were also instructed to change out of their ‘Vote Liberal’ t-shirts and into ‘Save ADI’ t-shirts while distributing the fake how to vote cards which told ADI supporters to ‘vote 1’ Jackie Kelly. Mr Higgs claims the plan to distribute the false cards was cooked up at a meeting he attended where a member of the NSW Liberal Party Executive and members of Ms Kelly’s campaign team were also present. Asked why he was going public at this point about the issue, Mr Higgs told TWT “I thought it was over but I see today that they’re still up to their same manipulative little tricks…it’s just wrong; totally over the top!”

At the very least, the pamphlets constitute another breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the matter has been referred to the Australian Federal Police by the Australian Electoral Commission for further investigation.

Meanwhile, John Howard told the Press Club inquisitors he was satisfied with a statement from one of the exposed pamphleteers that the Liberal Party candidate in Lyndsay, Karen Chijoff, was not aware of the plan and therefore would not be disendorsed. And, to think he disendorsed Pauline Hanson in 1996 for uttering anti-Aboriginal sentiments he later adopted as policy? Ironically, given the Prime Minister's anti-feminist stance on women in the workforce and his 1950's world view of marriage, he chastised reporters for suggesting Ms Chijoff should be judged by her husband's behaviour because to do so would be to undermine her independence. Mr Howard also failed to specifically respond to questions about just who knew what and when at Liberal Party headquarters.

Lies. Deception. Broken non-core promises. Racist propaganda. Who do you trust?    [read more]

Illegal Facebook ads designed to win Liberal Party votes have been pulled and other political advertisements on the popular social networking site have now been properly authorised in the wake of j-scribe reports about the breaches.

The ads – which the Commonwealth Electoral Act requires to carry the name and address of the authorising person/s – could constitute a federal offence. This is a fact acknowledged by Phil Diak, spokesman for the Australian Electoral Commission, who told the Sydney Morning Herald "There is a penalty of 10 penalty units and, if a paid electoral advertisement on the internet is not authorised then that would appear to be something that is not in accord with the Commonwealth Electoral Act."

The Liberal Party seems to have adopted one of J-Scribe’s foreshadowed defences: the “We didn’t pay for the ads” defence. Liberal party spokesman Jim Bonner told the SMH the ads were unofficial and paid for by someone else. However, the Party may still be in breach if it is found to have authorised, permitted or caused the ads to be placed. Nevertheless, the pro-Howard Government ads have now disappeared altogether from Facebook.

The Greens, on the other hand, have taken appropriate action and re-written their Facebook ads to include proper authorisation.

The AEC says it will only take action over the breaches if a written complaint it received: mine is winging its way to the Commissioner as I type and I will await the investigation with interest.

Meantime, further questions need to be asked about political advertising on the Internet. I believe it’s time the AEC extended the blackout affecting the broadcast media, which takes effect the Wednesday night before polling day, to the Internet. Today, online editions of news publications are being bombarded with high rotation political ads which would thoroughly breach the Electoral Act if they appeared on TV or Radio. The Internet is just as influential as these traditional electronic mediums. Why is it still exempt form this law?    [read more]

The Liberal Party has been caught out apparently breaching Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) rules on political advertising.

Facebook – the Web 2.0 social networking phenomenon (see earlier posts) – is the latest battleground for voters’ hearts and minds and it’s also the site of a political advertisement for the Liberal Party which appears to be in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

According to the AEC, “Section 328 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CEA) requires all electoral advertisements to include the name and address of the person who authorised the advertisement”. But the ad you see below, which appeared when I navigated to the homepage of one of my Facebook friends this evening, provides no such attribution – just the carriage of the word ‘sponsored’. Given its obvious pro-Howard government spin and appreciating the laws of political advertising, this ad piqued my interest. When I clicked on the image I was redirected to the homepage of the Liberal Party of Australia (http://www.liberal.org.au/). Mystery solved. This is a Liberal Party advertisement, sans mandatory acknowledgement of authorisation. Twenty minutes later when I randomly visited another FB friend’s page the ad appeared again – it's presumably on high rotation.

The ‘Seinfeldian’ bent of the ad and its subtlety were no doubt designed to appeal almost subliminally to the youth market – the demographic where the Coalition is fighting its biggest losing battle. But it is clearly still a political advertisement and there is no loophole for social networking sites in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Perhaps the Liberal Party will deny they placed the advertisement – maybe some well intentioned Facebook-savvy sponsor linked the ad to the Liberal Party website without informing the boss? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps the Coalition is hoping Facebook users aren’t politically savvy enough to notice such breaches? Big mistake – I have Canberra Press Gallery journalists and a host of other reporters in my FB network…the media cottoned on to the power of social networking sites long before the politicians did. And, it’s a stupid politician who underestimates the intelligence of young voters. Perhaps the Liberal Party will argue that the fact the link, if clicked on (not that there's any invitation to click on the image), identifies the government’s handiwork. Spurious argument: do TV advertisements rely on viewers investigating the source of advertisements? No. The Act is explicit – it REQUIRES ALL such advertising to carry details of the person/s authorising the plug.

In fact, the Howard Government actually ensured the Internet was captured by the Act by legislating in July 2005 for its specific inclusion. At the time, the Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz told the technology news website, Zdnet Australia, "the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has adopted a policy of recommending to all political parties and the public who contemplate electoral advertising on the Internet that electoral matter conforms with the provisions of the Electoral Act.” Ironically, it was a website exposing Howard government 'lies', which failed to acknowledge political affiliations, that was the trigger for the legislative action clarifying the powers of the Act in relation to the Internet. It would appear the boot is now on the other foot.

Complaints about political advertising make up the bulk of matters referred to the AEC during an election campaign and the Liberal Party is probably counting on the fact that a written complaint is required to trigger an investigation. Four days out from an election, perhaps they’re willing to take their chances. But my next move after signing off here will be to write to the AEC. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The Greens are also running political advertisements without official attribution on Facebook but the ads witnessed tonight are at least clearly identifiable as promotional material for the their party.

FURTHER UPDATE: Crikey is now running this story (read it here)and two Facebook groups have been started to mobilise against the abuse of political advertising on FB. They are "“Libs and Greens are Running Illegal Facebook Ads” and “Don't Put Liberal Party Ads on My Profile” – they have about 160 members between them so far. There have been no sitings of any unauthorised political advertisements since the story was run nationally this afternoon (20/11).    [read more]

I live in a quirky little village called Bungendore on the outskirts of the National Capital and at times I feel like I’ve been transported onto the set of one of those bucolic BBC comedy/dramas.

The arrival of a genuine French chef in this little town has set the scene nicely. Christophe Gregoire and his lovely Australian-Italian wife called - wait for it – Josephine, have fled Canberra’s fine dining district and settled in ‘Bungers’ (as we locals like to refer to the town). Their new venture, ‘Le Tres Bon’, is indeed ‘very good’. It’s also a source of enormous amusement for villagers like me seeking a spicier country life.

‘Chef Christophe’ (yes, ladies, he does have a French accent and he is a little dishy ;) was France’s 1986 apprentice chef of the year and whatever you do, don’t call him a cook! He produces the most delectable classics. One of my favourites is a melt-in-your-mouth venison casserole with porcini mushrooms in a sauce laced with dark chocolate. The aromas are like foreplay – they arrest your senses and leave you desperate for a taste. And the good news is, you won’t be disappointed by the flavour! Then there are the desserts…I’m very partial to the passionfruit crème brulee. It’s the stuff of culinary fantasies - toothsome caramelized crust, velvety smooth on inside, just the right balance between sweetness and sharpness. Tongue-tingling yumminess!!!

Christophe was inspired to make food his profession by his grandmother - a traditional cook from Lorraine who did everything the long, hard way. He and his partner are members of the Slow Food Movement – the worldwide collective pushing for a return to traditional methods of growing and preparing food with dividends in flavour and nutritional value. This passion manifests in Christophe’s cuisine and the way he and his partner talk about food. I had a wonderful discussion with Josephine recently about films that celebrate food as the stuff of life…we talked wistfully about Babette’s Feast and Like Water for Chocolate during the first of their new cooking school classes, while Christophe mesmerized his students with his recipes for Quiche Provencal and Tarte au Fraises. (Strawberry tart for those of you without Alexander Downer's mastery of the French language).

This class was a great experience, I refined my tart-baking technique while commentating on the process and quaffing French champagne – I was like a pig in mud! When it was time to cook, Chef Christophe donned his enormous white hat, with ceremony, and I shocked him by asking "Is it true - the bigger the hat, the better the chef?" But I was serious – I read that somewhere – French chefs have a hat hierarchy!

When we'd finished baking, we ate together as a class and Christophe took the floor. He's been trying to grow his own vegetables but the possums, cockatoos and other wildlife are frustrating his efforts: "Zey joost mow my vegies down!" And his attempt to use eggs hand-collected from his chickens have also been thwarted – by a 2m long King Brown snake (Australia's deadliest and a local nasty we have to contend with) which took up residence in his chook shed. He described killing it like this: "Zis snek was sooo big and eet ad my schicken in eez belly and I joost tuk my shuvel and swung like zis and zat and zis (he was gesticulating wildly) and cut im in 'alf but ee was still moving…I only killed 'alf of eem ".

The fun continued this week when I went to a French wine appreciation class hosted at Le Tres Bon. I really didn’t need a class to learn to appreciate the fruits of the appellations but I learnt a lot of interesting stuff about French agrarian politics and got to sample close to a dozen spectacular examples, drinking my way from the Loire to Bergerac, accompanied by Christophe’s fine food - which came out in dish after dish as fresh wine was poured. And Christophe wasn’t the only Frenchman in the room…it turns out there’s another French resident of Bungendore – a scientist called Xavier who’s almost as passionate about food and wine as Christophe. Xavier had me in stitches as he ranted about an article in one of the local newspapers (yes, we have two rags in a town of 5000!) which he believed to be an assault on French culture equivalent to English occupation. The offending article contained a recipe from another local ‘chef’ “ee is not a chef…ee is joost a cook!!!”. But the real travesty was the recipe itself, according to Xavier. Purporting to be for crème brulee, the method required only that whipped cream be baked in the oven before being topped with sugar and grilled. Apparently this is actually a recipe for mortification. Xavier’s voice became shrill, he shook his head, pointed his finger and let out exasperated French-accented yelps. All I could do was laugh despite the fact he was righteously angry – a brulee is an egg-based dish that in no way resembles the ‘dessert’ featured in the article. Look out for the Letter to the Editor in the Bungendore Mirror he’s threatening to pen – it will likely leave you with a taste for authentic brulee!

But Bungendore’s French connections don’t end there. One of the reasons I moved here from inner Canberra eight years ago was the allure of a little French Bistro which previously occupied the site of Le Tres Bon. Run by a woman known to her customers only as ‘Madame’ and her husband. 'Madame' informed us she was once a "famous Parisienne ‘airdresser" and she had the certificate on the wall to prove it. Her husband was equally engaging. One night she flitted about the restaurant (which back then sported the requisite red and white checked tablecloths and wine-bottle candles) wearing her ubiquitous hairnet, exclaiming “it’s a busy service and my ‘usband ‘as only one arm!!”. My partner and I looked at each other in disbelief: “Did she say her husband has only one arm?” I asked him. Moments later, Madame’s husband emerged from the kitchen with my partner’s Steak au Poivre in pan – and sure enough, he was missing an arm! Yes, here was a one-armed chef about to flambé a steak. He pulled it off with panache and I wondered whether this could be a new Paralympic sport – ‘one-armed chefing’.

So, don’t let anyone tell you Australian country towns lack amusement and sophistication – Bungendore alone has enough laughs and culture to keep me engaged for decades to come!    [read more]

Regulars to this blog will already be aware of two things: 1) I’m a hopeless romantic and 2) I’m a big fan of ABC TV’s ‘The Chaser's War on Everything’ – the satire that plugs the gaps in enterprising journalism.

But this week I had a conflict of interest. The Chaser’s endlessly talented Andrew Hansen – renowned for his witty musical skits – had the temerity to lampoon Julie Andrews! I know! And not just in any old role…as Maria Von Trapp in the Sound of Music!! And not just in any scene…in one of my favourite scenes!!! Yes, I’m a tragic SOM fan…seen the movie umpteen times, recently sat in the second row of the Palladium performance in London, own the DVD…even went on an SOM tour in Salzburg way before it was popular to be a daggy fan of 60’s musicals.

So, back to the scene in question. Surely you know it: “These are a few of my favourite things – when the dog bites, when the bee stings, when I’m feeling sad…I simply remember my favourite things and then I don’t feel sooooo bad” Julie/Maria sings to the Von Trapp children as they crowd onto her four poster bed to seek comfort in the middle of a thunderstorm. It’s a thing of celluloid beauty, that scene…a memory of childhood innocence. Stop it, I’m serious! Which is why I was so appalled by that Hansen bloke I almost couldn’t laugh at his skit.

Dressed as Julie/Maria, he impersonated her vocals (rather well, I have to say) and inverted the lyrics – it was like listening to back-masking…twisted, perverted man. Then he danced around the set strangling the kids one by one before fantasizing about his favourite thing…exploding Julie/Maria on the top of that green Austrian hill just as she’s about to launch into “The hills are alive…” Sacrilege!

Don’t you get it, Andrew? Against her will, rebellious novice Julie/Maria is turfed out of the convent to care for the emotionally neglected Von Trapp children, but discovers it’s their father – the damaged, withdrawn Captain Von Trapp – not God, she wants to marry. She awakens the children’s sense of fun, wins their love and then wins the heart of the Captain who’s impervious shell she’s unintentionally cracked – what’s not to love!?!?! Oh, and how could I forget? There are Nazis! Everyone loves to hate a Nazi…even when they sing. Then there's the escape from the Nazis over the Alps in the dead of night! Romance, high drama, Austrian hills, happy songs, a fight against injustice - this film's got it all!

So, I say hands off Julie Andrews ‘Chasers’ or I may just have to move you down my list of favourite things.    [read more]

It’s been revealed that the Howard Government is breaching Caretaker Government protocols. These protocols allow opposition parties equal access to bureaucrats and state information during election campaigns and they’ve been properly extended to every department this election apart from – you guessed it – Immigration and Citizenship.

Labor’s Immigration spokesman, Tony Burke, has told Lateline he’s been denied access to the file on Tony Tran, the man at the centre of Australia’s latest Immigration scandal who was wrongfully locked up in an immigration detention centre for five years and denied access to his son.

Labor was slow to react to the story after it broke but Mr Burke now says Mr Tran seems worthy of an apology and is likely to be entitled to compensation. However, he says he can’t make any definitive comments on the case because he’s been denied access to files on the matter despite formal requests for briefings from the Minister, Kevin Andrews, the department and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Departmental Secretary has advised the Labor Party that they must direct their inquiries through the minister. According to Tony Burke, “Kevin Andrews, through his use of or abuse of what everyone else regards as standard protocols during an election campaign, has shut us down.”

Meantime, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, has told Lateline Mr Tran’s case is just one of more than 200 he’s reviewed involving wrongful detention or deportation since the Rao and Solon scandals erupted in 2005. So, there are at least 200 reasons why the Minister would want to block the Federal Opposition’s access to Immigration Department files. But Mr Burke says he’ll take immediate action to deal appropriately with the cases if he’s in the minister’s chair in a fortnight and he’s still entertaining the idea of a Royal Commission into the multitude of cases of Departmental bungling which have destroyed the lives of innocent, unlawfully detained and deported people – some of them Australian citizens like Cornelia Rao and Vivian Solon. He highlights the systemic, politically driven problems within the Department under the Howard Government: “Where the nature of the leadership that was given by successive ministers for that department drove a particular culture which resulted in a culture of assumption, a culture of denial - finally - a culture of cover-up, all of which has been reported in the Palmer and Comrie reports of a couple of years ago.”

The Australian Democrats – a party of conscience facing political annihilation at this election – have gone further. Democrats leader, Senator Andrew Bartlett, has reiterated his call for the abolition of mandatory detention laws saying that’s the only way to end the bungling. He told Lateline “it is not just wrongfully getting a speeding ticket and being able to get it repealed down the track. You can't un-jail someone. You can't undo the damage which is done. That is why mandatory detention is such an abomination and that is why whoever forms government after the election, the Democrats will continue to pressure through the Senate to get that reform to the Migration Act.”

And, what’s the Federal Government itself had to say about this story? Nothing. A spokesperson for Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, says a brief on the matter should be on the Minister’s desk by early next week. That would be just a few days out from the election. How convenient. With a little more procrastination once the file ‘officially’ reaches his desk he should be able to drag out his non-response 'till November 24th - the day the polls say he’ll lose his job.

Finally, coverage of the story itself is worthy of comment. Unfortunately, it’s been under-reported by the Australian media which is in pack-mode on the election campaign trail. It’s barely rated a mention amidst the economic analysis and set-piece policy launches. But ABC TV's Lateline, in typical strident, authoritative, investigative fashion is continuing the campaign for ground breaking, values-conscious journalism. And, as always, Bill Leak, the Australian’s brilliant cartoonist with a sharp wit and a social conscience has summed the story up beautifully. He depicts the recognizable victims of the Howard Government’s immigration scandals – members of the ‘Department of Immigration Survivor’s Club’ - being interviewed by a journalist about the economy.You can see his handiwork here    [read more]

Warning: I’m ‘blogging’ mad!!!!

Every now and then I check my rage levels against the Howard Government to ensure I’m not reacting disproportionately by drawing comparisons with Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa and Northern Ireland during ‘The Troubles’. But today, I’m left in no doubt that these labels are apt: this is a government that perpetrates and perpetuates injustice.

The reason for my surety is the heartbreaking, gut-wrenching story of Tony Tran, broken by ABCTV’s, Lateline, last night. Mr Tran and his family now stand with Vivian Solon, Cornelia Rao and Mohamad Haneef as victims of the Howard Government’s xenophobic, unjust and abusive immigration policies and the incompetent department which administers them.

Tony Tran was a Vietnam War refugee who grew up in America before making his home in Australia with his Korean wife. Having settled in Brisbane, he was an ambitious man with plans for higher education and business. But his dreams morphed into a horrible nightmare the morning in December, 1999 when he went to the Department of Immigration to inquire about obtaining a visa for his wife. A computer check mistakenly indicated Mr Tran did not himself have a valid visa and he was immediately handcuffed and carted off into detention without an opportunity to talk to his wife or say goodbye to his young son. He remained behind bars for five and a half years – being transferred between facilities in four states - until a review of detainees, in the wake of the Rao and Solon scandals, revealed he’d been the victim of a bureaucratic bungle.

But during those five years in detention he lost everything. His wife. His child. His health. Tony Tran’s wife, also threatened with detention along with their then two year old son Hai, succumbed to Immigration Department pressure and agreed to be deported to Korea. In order to convince the Korean government to take their child as well, the Australian Government changed the little boy’s name from Tran to a Korean family name. This was done without the knowledge or consent of Mr Tran. He was told he’d lost his family by an Immigration Department official when they’d already left the country.

Not surprisingly, the impact of that news was devastating: “When they taken my child, that's when everything just collapsed for me mentally and physically. I thought I lost them. I thought I'd never see him again. Because I don't even know how my life is going to end.” Mr Tran told Lateline. He said he was medicated in detention from that day on as his mental health deteriorated. Meanwhile, his wife wasn’t coping and she returned to Australia, abandoning their son. He was placed in foster care and when the child welfare agency responsible for the boy requested he be allowed to join his father in detention in the Immigration Department refused. The child was placed in foster care and the Department refused to facilitate Mr Tran's attendance at Children’s Court hearings involving the boy. Meantime, in an attempt to secure Hai's deportation to Korea, Immigration officials lied to an immigration agent, telling her Tony Tran didn’t care about his son. They then left the five year old boy with Korean welfare workers and sought to have him declared an orphan as revealed in this excerpt from a letter obtained by Lateline: “My purpose in writing to you is to request that, as the child is a Korean national, the Korean Consulate arrange for the return of the child to Korea in coordination with the Health and Welfare Agency in Seoul”

Again, Tony Tran’s legal rights regarding his child’s welfare were over-ridden by the Australian Government. He managed to maintain phone contact with his son but he threatened suicide when the Department refused to allow him to send a photograph of himself to the little boy. They finally agreed to send the picture to Hai when his father stood on the roof of the Baxter detention centre and threatened to jump.

But in June 2005, after five and a half years in prison, Mr Tran was suddenly released without explanation. The reason? The department had discovered, courtesy of the system-wide case review triggered by the Solon and Rao incidents, that he had indeed held a valid visa all along. By now his wife had returned to Korea and her whereabouts remain unknown. But, Tony Tran was finally reunited with Hai, who had been severely traumatized by the long separation from his father and had nightmares that he’d be abandoned again. “That's very heartbreaking actually. Even when I got him back, every night he will have nightmare. Even when he's asleep, his hand will twirl around just to feel if I was there and he'll wake up and pinch my skin whether to see it's real or not. And then after that he'll go back to sleep again. Everyday I told him that I will always be here,” Tony Tran told Lateline. He is also battling his own nightmares – he emerged from prison with depression, a heart condition, asthma and injuries from being brutally bashed and stabbed by another inmate.

I’d like to tell you that, recognizing their mistake, the Government immediately apologized to the Trans and compensated them accordingly. But you should know by now that the Howard government doesn’t say sorry and it fights just compensation cases tooth and nail. So Tony Tran – rendered stateless by the Immigration Department bungle – is still fighting for the right to stay in Australia and he hasn’t seen a cent from the government. Instead, he’s surviving on charity in Melbourne. But he’s not giving up – amazingly, inspiringly, he’s studying for a radiology degree while caring for Hai, now aged 8. “When you ask me how do I feel, I don't really know what to feel. I just want to, most of the time, just want to be secluded, just want to be myself for now. For me my main focus is, like, my son. To hope that he can grow up and lead a normal life. For me, I'm trying as well. It's not easy but I'm trying as well.”

As Tran continues his remarkable struggle to survive this nightmare, his lawyers have begun civil proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court for compensation after two years of failed negotiations with the Federal Government. If the case is successful, it’s likely to involve the biggest immigration-related payout in history and another action will be launched on behalf of Hai. Tran’s lawyers are hoping going public with the story in the middle of the Federal Election campaign will result in a pre-Christmas settlement. But this is a heartless government with an obscene track record on immigration and refugee issues - Tampa…Children Overboard…Rao…Solon…Haneef…Tran. I could go on and on. And, sadly, Howard’s racist and inhumane immigration and refugee policies have proved to be vote winners in the past. That may explain the government’s failure to respond to the story and the Labor Opposition’s disappointing silence on the matter, but it is no excuse for populism on either side of politics.

To quote barrister and human rights advocate, Julian Burnside QC, “Can we afford to watch complacently as unpopular minorities are mistreated, or does our indifference identify who we are? This election is not just an opportunity to hold the present government to account for ignoring justice. It is an opportunity to take a stand and say: We are better than this. Australia is not just an economy.” Indeed, it used to be a country that defined itself through identification with equity, fairness and multiculturalism. Australians must take a stand for justice – at the polling booth and in the community - for the sake of our collective soul.

Note: You can vodcast the Lateline story about Tony Tran here and you can podcast Julian Burnside’s Perspective monologue on justice from ABC Radio National here.    [read more]

Surprise, surprise...John Howard told Australia he was “sorry” for rising interest rates this week but took back the apology almost immediately. The Prime Minister, who’s heading to election-day as the nag bringing up the rear, back-tracked almost immediately upon uttering the 'S' word, insisting he wasn't actually apologizing. Sound familiar Aboriginal Australia?

Yes, the man who’s still asking the electorate “who do you trust?” after promising last election that interest rates would always stay low under a Coalition government (despite the fact that the 90 day cash rate hit a record high of 21% when Howard himself was Treasurer in the early 80’s!) is now sorry he said sorry when official interest rates rose this week for the 10th time since 2001, to 6.25%.

It was the first time the Reserve bank had ever moved on official interest rates in a Federal election and the hurt will be felt acutely in marginal seats full of ‘Howard Battlers’ who can no longer afford the repayments on their massive mortgages acquired in the booming economic conditions for which Howard claims credit. His first reaction to the news was to say "sorry" to voters. But within hours he was explaining that he was only "sorry" in the sense that he felt bad for people who would suffer as a result of the interest rate rise but not "sorry" in the sense that he was apologising on behalf of his government for failing to keep interest rates low as promised. So, he wants kudos for economic boom-times but won’t apologize for the rising interest rates caused by said unchecked booming.

So, who do you trust? Not a man who plays such legalistic word games, surely. And surely not the sort of man who’d apologize one minute and retract it the next in a fit of spin-related re-programming. He could give a pernicious QC a run for his money with the semantic games he plays. Although he told reporters he didn’t want another argument about the definition of the word sorry – insensitively referring to the debate over a national apology to Aboriginal Australia he refuses to utter, saying “Haven’t we been here before on another issue”. Yes, Mr Howard, we have and your track record on apologies proves you’re disingenuous and untrustworthy.

This whole debate reminds me of that other long-forgotten pattern of deceit he practiced in his first term in office way back in 1996. Do you remember his explanation for broken election promises? It went like this “There were core promises and non-core promises…we can break the non-core ones”. I remember at the time using the analogy of parents employing such an approach when trying to inspire honesty and integrity in their children. “If you promise Daddy you’ll eat all your veggies but then refuse, you’ll be breaking a core promise but if you promise Mummy you’ll brush your teeth before bed and then go to sleep without doing so, you haven’t really deceived her because that wasn’t a core promise.” What twisted logic!

Not quite as twisted, though, as teaching your children that you don’t have to apologize for your mistakes or take responsibility for them. Not as bad, either, as teaching them to pretend to say sorry if it wins you points with people you need to exploit for personal or professional gain or that it’s OK to take an apology back as soon as you’ve issued one: “I didn’t really mean it!”. It’s the stuff of juvenile playground conflict.

Grow up Mr Howard and grow a conscience! Sorry, shouldn’t have said that. ;)

Postscript: For a satirical take on this story see Nicholson's witty animation "Sorry"    [read more]

I am about to out myself here as a hopeless romantic. Yes, I may have had a reputation as an interviewer for "going for the jugular" of slippery, evasive politicians live to air; yes, I’m a feminist academic with a rational brain and I’ve got inner strength by the bucket-load, I’m told. But tell me a tale of high romance and I turn to mush.

So, this week when a story about love at first sight on the New York subway made headlines, I followed the yarn as though it was a piece of explosive investigative journalism.

The story goes like this: Patrick Moburg, a 21 year old Brooklyn web designer was riding home on the subway last Sunday night when he spied the 'girl of his dreams' sitting nearby. Camille Hayton, a 22 year old Melbourne woman on an internship at a New York magazine, was wearing a red flower in her hair and wrote in her journal as the packed train headed towards its destination. Moburg was instantly smitten but he lost her in the crowd of commuters before he plucked up the courage to approach her.

He was not to be dissuaded, though…he believed the instant connection he felt with this stranger was destiny’s hand at play and he decided to give fate a nudge. He went home and created a website – nygirlofmydreams.com - on which he posted a hand-drawn picture of the beautiful woman with the rosy cheeks standing alongside him. He included his mobile number, email address, details of the journey and this message: “I saw the girl of my dreams on the subway tonight. Please help me find her”. And, help they did!

This story of love at first sight mobilized the online world and he was inundated with sightings and offers of love from complete strangers who (like me) thought “what an adorable man!” and urged him to “pick me instead”. But within 48 hours, he managed to find that needle in the NY haystack – one of Hayton’s friend’s sent him a photo of her and Moburg posted this message on his site: “Found Her! Seriously!". The girl with the flower in her hair agreed to meet the ‘smitten one’ and they hit it off. A flurry of interviews and international media attention followed the pair but Moburg says they’re now pulling down the shutters and we'll have to make up our own ending to the story.

My ending goes like this: And they fell in love and lived - in material poverty but rich in desire - in a bohemian NY apartment, thriving on passion and care for the rest of their long lives. The man I live with, on the otherhand, is determined to burst my romantic bubble. He responded to my reiteration of this tale thus (tongue partly in cheek): “He’s a web designer – this was probably some scam to boost his profile…look at all the hits his site is getting!” And I can hear other romance-deniers saying “Yeah and she’s a journalist in training – probably trying to take a shortcut to fame and fortune”. Cynics, all of you!

Maybe I’m a female cliché but I love romance, damn it! Spontaneity, poetry, flowers, risk-taking behaviour, making love on the river bank under the full moon – bring it on, baby! So, I choose to believe my ending to the story. What ending would you write?

UPDATE: Attention cynics - it's not just me! The world's gone nuts for this story. See The Age article on the blogosphere reaction.
   [read more]

There are disturbing developments unfolding in South Africa (SA) – the 13 year old democracy birthed in no small way by dissident journalism. Freedom of speech is under threat from an increasingly arrogant and power-drunk ANC government which is seeking to silence its media critics.

Ethical questions raised about the methods of investigative reporters who exposed the South African Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, as an abusive alcoholic and a "kleptomaniac", are being used to justify a clamp down on free speech under the guise of privacy protection and respect for culture.

Following a five month investigation, leading SA newspaper, the Sunday Times, recently reported that the minister got drunk and abused nursing staff during her hospitalisation in Cape Town in 2005. A week later, the paper revealed that Manto was an alcoholic who bullied medical staff into fast-tracking a liver transplant she underwent earlier this year and covering up the diagnosis that led to it - alcoholic liver cirrhosis. And, they have alleged she's continuing to drink post-surgery. The paper also exposed her as a convicted thief. She was found guilty of stealing from patients when she was a hospital administrator in Botswana in the mid 70’s.

But it’s not Manto the government is accusing of theft and impropriety – it’s the reporters on the story and the paper’s editor who are under police investigation and face possible jail sentences if prosecuted. Confidential hospital records obtained by the Sunday Times were relied upon for substantiation and there’s an inference they may have been stolen (by persons unknown) from a Cape Town private clinic. SA law prohibits the release of personal medical information on privacy grounds and while there are legitimate questions to be asked about the ethics of publishing such material and the manner in which it was obtained, the government's reaction to a story clearly in the public interest is out of all proportion. Again, debate over the ethics of investigative techniques employed by journalists is always warranted as are clearly stated reasons justifying publication when the ethical territory is murky – it’s healthy professional practice and the public has a right to know if spurious methods are used. But the reaction of the ANC government to this story underlines the very tenuous nature of freedom of speech and free media in the ‘new’ South Africa, despite its enshrinement in the country’s vaunted Constitution. (See SA journalism Professor, Guy Berger's, blog posts on this aspect of the story here and here)

In the shadow of this saga, SA president, Thabo Mbeki, and his political apparatchiks have publicly condemned journalists and media outlets critical of the ANC, arguing such coverage is inconsistent with being ‘proudly South African’. And the ANC is considering replacing self-regulation with a Media Tribunal. Their argument is that journalists have a responsibility (or should be forced?) to uphold culture and assist development – an approach that represents a serious threat to independent journalism and freedom of speech. But it’s an approach which has apparently already been adopted by the cowed South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) which sounds increasingly like a state broadcaster, rather than a public one. SABC News Editor, Snuki Zikalala recently told an SA Human Rights Commission seminar on free speech and privacy that the SABC would not have run the story about the Health Minister because it only carries stories that help develop the country. “We are guided by the Constitution not to incite violence or hatred in our reporting. Publishing such a story is disrespectful.” He has a point – racial dignity is invoked in the South African Constitution but there’s also very strong protection for free speech and free media within, and the two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One could argue, for example, that the Minister’s behaviour amounted to self-inflicted indignity worthy of exposure in the public interest. It really is hard to understand the argument that Manto’s rights to privacy and dignity would have outweighed public interest in this story – particularly in light of her apparent abuse of the health system she heads, for her own medical benefit. Indeed, the Freedom of Expression Institute’s, Jane Duncan, told the Mail & Guardian such stories should be published: "There was an abuse of power here so one can't have a reasonable expectation to privacy."

Even more disturbing is a scandal reminiscent of apartheid-era politics and propaganda erupting around the ANC President. It’s been revealed that a company (Koni Media Holdings) owned by Mbeki’s political advisor, the government’s foreign affairs spokesman and the former Chief of State Protocol, was mounting a takeover bid for a newspaper group (Johncom) which happens to own the Sunday Times (the originator of the Manto story) along with other titles regularly critical of the ANC. This sort of state interference in the independent media is reminiscent of the darkest days of apartheid censorship. In 1978 a newspaper critical of the apartheid regime revealed the government had funded another newspaper, which purported to be independent (The Citizen), for propaganda purposes. The parallels to the takeover bid of Johncom by ‘The President’s Men’ are obvious. And, there’s fear being expressed in some quarters that SA's liberators are at risk of becoming the oppressors – a controversial perspective but one which does resonate. One SA media commentator, Ivo Vetger, has blogged about “worrying similarities between the socio-economic policies of this government and the apartheid regime — both practicing a form of national socialism or state corporatism.”

The fact that this ANC clampdown on the media coincides with the 30th anniversary of what’s known as Black Wednesday – the day the apartheid government permanently banned key anti-racist newspapers along with all Black Conciousness organisations – highlights the amnesic danger of the ANC government’s strategy to suppress independent, critical journalism. The fact that so many courageous South African journalists risked so much and suffered so greatly – with Steve Biko and others like him paying the highest price with their lives – just for the right to speak freely and write what was right makes this dangerous political manoeuvre all the more distasteful. (See Guy Berger’s blog post on his own transformation inspired by Black Wednesday).

This is a complex and disturbing story about the right to tell stories in a country with one of the most heart-breaking tales in history. And it’s one we need to watch. But we also need to be cogniscant of the diminishing rights to free speech here, in Australia. A study released this week by the Right to Know Coalition, “should ring alarm bells for those who value free speech” according to the chief investigator, former NSW ombudsman, Irene Moss. Moss admitted she was initially sceptical about the concerns being expressed by journalists over oppressive Freedom of Information (FoI) regulations but the report found “free speech and media freedom are being whittled away” in Australia. It lists more than 500 separate legal provisions in 335 different state and federal acts of Parliament as evidence that freedom of speech is being eroded. Secrecy provisions in a range of acts are being blamed for suppressing information which should be in the public domain. The study also confirms the FoI laws are a significant impediment to journalists attempting to report on government and identifies more than 1000 suppression orders issued by Australian courts.

Among examples of the curtailment of information availability cited by the report are opinion poll results on the first round of advertisements for the Federal Government’s controversial 'Workchoices' legislation and state government statistics on poker machine revenues. Calling for greater accountability and transparency upon the release of the report, media outlets said they would continue to campaign for reform to FoI and suppression laws while lobbying for the protection of whistleblowers. "We are not living in a dictatorship, but we are not living in a gold standard democracy. We are paying lip service to the principle of open government," Fairfax Media Chief Executive, David Kirk, said.

Journalists, and journalism academics have a responsibility to do more than pay lip service to the concerns raised here: on both sides of the Indian Ocean.

Update: The SA parliament is also considering a bill which could, in effect, act as a form of pre-publication censorship for the print media. Read about this 8/11/07 Mail & Guardian article by Guy Berger about what's at stake    [read more]

No, I’m not talking about the Melbourne Cup, I’m alluding to the rising tide of Islamophobia in Australia.

The latest targets of xenophobes and racists are Muslim school children in Sydney’s far South West.

Plans by the Qu’ranic Society to construct an Islamic primary and secondary college in the town of Camden have sparked a vicious community backlash based on ignorance and fear. The school, designed to accommodate 600 students, is awaiting approval from Camden Council but it’s facing furious opposition from many locals.

A public meeting held in Camden last night to discuss the proposal revealed the ugly side of Australian culture: intolerance. In a town of just over 3000, more than 2000 people attended the meeting and only a few hands were raised in support of the school. The views held by its opponents have been echoed on the local newspaper’s blogspot (Camden Advertiser) which has carried comments like this: "The thought of our beautiful Camden accommodating to this religion is a disgrace ... This Islamic school will change the town forever.” Another contributor argued that the council risked bringing crime and corruption to Camden if they approved the school which would turn it into a “dirty looking town like Lakemba.” And ‘Hadenough’ began, predictably, with “I’m not a racist…” and then proceeded to rail against Islam thus: “How will Camden benefit from a school that teaches its pupils how to be devote (sic) Muslims, not how to assimilate into the Australian society or show others respect? This is a religion that promotes violence against anyone who is not Muslim, I personally have had enough, let the Muslim religion return to the countries they fled.” S/he may escape the racist tag by strict definition but s/he’s clearly an ill-informed bigot and xenophobe. ‘Worried’ also complained about being labeled racist, arguing, incongruously, “I just would like to know, if Islam is so good, why are they here and why not go back?”

What these comments reveal is the extreme ignorance that’s fuelling racial vilification and religious bigotry against Middle Eastern and Muslim Australians in the post September 11th world we inhabit. This sort of emotive, fear-driven opposition is scarily reminiscent of the prejudices used to justify anti-Semitic policies in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa and – closer to home – the White Australia policy. Claims that Islam is a religion that disrespects others and promotes violence are no more justifiable than the suggestion that all Christians agreed with the Crusades or the methods of the Spanish Inquisitors. Similar arguments can be mounted in reference to Judaism, Hinduism and so on. All religions have extremists among their adherents. That’s what Islamic fundamentalism is: a movement of extremists motivated by hatred which, ironically, is fanned by Western imperialism and the sort of racism and bigotry I’m highlighting here. Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and respect at its core and the vast majority of Muslims in this country are law abiding, harmonious citizens.

Fear – fear of difference, fear of the ‘other’, fear of the unknown and fear of terrorism – is the real driver behind this campaign of opposition to an Islamic school in Camden. Would plans for a Catholic school (overseen by nuns who cover their heads) or a private fundamentalist Christian School be so opposed? I doubt it. There is, undeniably, a strain of religious bigotry, racism and xenophobia underpinning this fear.

This story is a microcosm of the greater battle in this land for hearts and minds. It is a fierce battle: a battle between tolerance and intolerance; a battle between education and ignorance; a battle between fairness and prejudice. And, it’s a battle that’s re-entered national politics in the person of that infamous xenophobe Pauline Hanson. The wannabe Senator has this week reiterated her call for a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia and the right wing fundamentalist Christian party ‘Family First’ has done a deal with Hanson to preference her ahead of Labor and the Green’s on the ballot, increasing her chances of being elected.

Meantime, the Camden opponents of the Islamic school have embarked on a text message campaign in an effort to pressure the council to disapprove the development application. There are some moderate voices in that community debate, though, and I think I’ll end this post with the thought-provoking voice of one of the Camden Advertiser’s blog contributors calling himself ‘anti-bigot’: “Who's to say that the children of these Muslim people are to be any worse than us, the grandchildren/great grandchildren of criminals and low-lives?”    [read more]

It was a very funny week on the Australian federal election campaign trail.

Light relief from Labor’s ‘me too-ism’, and all the predictable sniping and carping from the Coalition, came in the form of political satire – scripted by the politicians themselves!

I’ve been gnashing my teeth about the Religious Right’s attempt to embed conservative Christian values in national politics. The movement is led by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), which bills itself as a united, non-partisan promoter of traditional Christianity in national life but which speaks with a right-wing tongue and has been described as un-representative of diverse Christianity by the Greens. The values espoused by ACL are clearly pro-traditional family and anti-gay rather than inspired by the politics of the radical social justice campaigner, the friend of prostitutes and the ‘unclean’, in whose name they preach – Jesus. The political party most closely aligned with ACL is the one-policy ‘Family First’ party which campaigns hard against homosexuality and pornography and is currently in preference-swapping negotiations with the xenophobic Senate candidate, Pauline Hanson. But any reading of the statements issued by ACL puts Howard’s Liberal National Coalition at a close second.

Relief from my frustration with this culturally and politically conservative model of Christian values in national politics has arrived, though - in the form of a Tory-style sex scandal…naturally! On the day ACL launched their campaign, one of ‘Family First’s’ endorsed candidates, Andrew Quah, turned up naked on a swag of gay websites via a series of self-portraits in which he is seen topless and pulling his penis out of his pants for assessment. He defended the photos like this: "I might have been drunk off my face or my political enemies might have drugged me." Yeah, good one Andrew, your political enemies drugged you into flashing your 'bits' in a mirror and taking a self-portrait! He also claimed: "that's not my penis...it might have been photo-shopped." Witty scribes are referring to him as 'Australia's Smallest Loser'. Too funny! To top it off, later in the day he admitted to being a regular visitor to pornography websites. Suffice it to say he's been dis-endorsed and expelled from the party.

Meanwhile, the engineer of Howard's much maligned industrial revolution, 'Workchoices', Tony Abbott, had a shocker on Wednesday. He began the day with a mea culpa to the legendary workers' rights campaigner, Bernie Banton. Bernie has three months to live – he's a victim of the James Hardie asbestos scandal and the man who forced that recalcitrant multinational to their knees in the fight for compensation for thousands of asbestosis victims. But he's a thorn in the side of this government's anti-union campaign and Abbott took a swipe at him on the campaign trail. Big mistake. Then, the Health Minister (a former seminarian and another morals campaigner) arrived half an hour late to a nationally televised debate with his Labor opponent, Nicola Roxon. She won over the tough National Press Club audience by debating herself and offering to impersonate the minister. Abbott apologised profusely for his lateness - when he eventually did arrive - but then, at the end of the debate, he was sprung on tape swearing at Roxon and accusing her of taking advantage of his predicament…further apologies will no doubt follow.

Then, the Prime Minister was hounded by satirists targeting ‘yesterday’s man’. Howard was chased on his morning walk (during which he always looks ridiculous dressed in some national team's training tracksuit) by four women wearing vintage 50's gear (hats, gloves, the works!), carrying tins labelled 'Xenophobia in a Can' and a big card with the word 'race' emblazoned on it. They called themselves the 'John Howard Ladies' Auxiliary' and kept urging him to "Play the race card, Mr Howard." Howard is getting increasingly tetchy about the attention of humourists on his daily walk – the 'Chaser' boys are always hot on his heels. They’ve ‘chased’ him with a giant worm – mocking the PM’s refusal to allow the audience meter known as the ‘worm’ to track reaction to his performance during his controversial first debate with Kevin Rudd (and, if he gets his way, it will be the only debate we’ll see this election). They also tailed him in a De Lorean – the classic 80’s car used to transport Michael J Fox ‘Back to the Future’ – driven by a man in white lab coat and a grey wig impersonating the film’s eccentric inventor of time travel. Satire is the real star of this campaign.

Labor didn’t escape the week untainted by comedy either. Kevin Rudd was publicly humiliated by his taste for ear wax. Old footage of him picking wax from his ear and eating it (eewwwwww!) during a House of Representatives debate surfaced and was broadcast on CNN and, of course, it was run on a loop on Australian TV. But at least he managed a self-deprecating laugh at the expose.

Less funny for Labor was the ‘jocular’ gaffe of the former Midnight Oil front-man and Opposition Environment spokesman (critics would supplant ‘spokesman’ with ‘sellout’) Peter Garrett. ‘Big Pete’, let the cat out of the bag during an airport exchange with a shock-jock who took a swipe at him over Labor’s ‘me-tooism’ (i.e. the perception that Labor is campaigning as a Coalition clone with a younger face). Garrett’s naively unguarded response was to declare that the copycat routine was designed to win votes: "once we get in we'll just change it all" he reportedly said. Garrett dismissed the conversation as a case of ‘jocularity’ and then added the spin that of course things would be different under Labor – new leader, new vision, abolition of ‘Workchoices’ blah, blah, blah. He sounded like a broken record in the ‘setting-the-record-straight’ press conference which followed and was broadcast nationally by ABC radio. The sound of pedals in reverse, full speed, is really quite grinding.

Ah, what sport the pollies make for us! Who said politics wasn’t entertaining?    [read more]