Dear Boaz

I suspect that we will continue to fundamentally disagree on this issue, but I respect your sincerity.

You may have detected that, inter alia, I’m an unashamed heterosexual who likes to discuss sexual issues.

Many of the issues we are discussing are mentioned on the Eros Foundation website http://www.eros.org.au/slapolitics.php .

I see political correctness as bowing to the “communal values” of the dominant political grouping in a given area.

I do not share many of the communal values of the area of country Queensland that I live in. This area strongly supported (and relied on) Joh Bjelke Peterson. People here are of “good” Anglo-German stock. Many still revere (Sir) Joh’s memory and consider “the South” and even Brisbane, to be somewhere between Sodom and the old Kremlin. Down the road the Assembly of God, at Hattonvale, is so powerful it fills a cathedral sized “church” in what is still a county town. Barnaby Joyce, Hanson and FF are very popular. The liberals and mainstream Nationals are usually considered a bit leftie.

What the successful farmers and other pillars of the community believe is pretty much accepted. So given that backdrop I do not accept that I must adhere to the communities political values on many issues, but I have a right to live here.

Regarding the States banning XXX porn for 'no reason'. State laws and approaches to XXX are longer established and difficult politically to repeal while the ACT enjoyed a Commonwealth spoon-fed legal environment until 1988 http://www.parliament.curriculum.edu.au/act.php3. On self government the ACT received a relatively fresh start. The laws made recognised that XXX and brothels were the types of industry that a small Territory could have an economic jump over the States on. The States were/are, by comparison legally and politically conservative.

Enforcing a ban on possession is what Joh believed – this was part of his authoritarian style.

Its pretty hard to tackle the “demand end” when a supply will always exist. Check all mail with printed matter, both international and interstate? Filter international sites on the internet?

COMMENTS ON XXX FREEDOMS - PART 2

You would realize that most XXX material these days is available on the internet. This (non static) dynamic change, may be making our debate on this issue less relevant.

As a practicing heterosexual I am not “thick” enough to have to go out and buy XXX. I have a real woman and, in any case, plenty of clean XXX is available on the web.

You walk through a red light district in a big city. There will be much seen that is abhorrent, disgusting, and degrading, but that is human nature. The relative absence of such sights (as in Joh’s Queensland) hid a much more insidious system of hidden pornography and illegal brothels legitimised by payouts to police, pimps and, of course, politicians etc. Its better to have XXX (and brothels) out in the open so they can at least be regulated and not suppressed for profit.

You itemise the darkside of XXX (bestiality etc). All of these things are much more available on the internet. I’d agree with you (of course) that supplying and downloading child pornographic photos should (continue to) be cracked down on. But going beyond that requires a policing apparatus that impinges on freedoms.

The community has had access to XXX for the last 15 years or so. Its readily available on the internet and most available in the ACT, which by many measures is a safe and happy environment. Its up to people to choose to be “immoral” or “decadent”. They’ll find a way even in the best of all worlds.

All the best David. May we argue over the next sexual issue that OLO conjures up.

Regards

Peter

The freedom of speech is always protected, but many on the left draw a parallel of absolute Orwellian proportions.
Freedom of speech is the order if indeed the speech is relevant and disciplined, and not just a compilation of opposite’s as we experience now from the Pathological left and acquaintances.
It was never under threat with the new Laws, only those that inject venom in Universal righteousness and antitheist intent, Their Laws are to be feared and their intention, Vilification laws are a taste of their capability, along with the Orwellian Human rights. King Leftie Adorno certainly messed up some minds, followed closely by Chomsky. They are the pathological liars for a purpose and confusion is their intent.
The Laws in comparison to the Community threat are Spongy, Personally those on the left that made these Laws necessary be presented in a new form of Nuremberg trial type scenario, for we as a Nation would never be in this predicament if not for the traitorous behavior of our Enemies that enguaged in political and Academic Fraud. They draw the same Egocentric Motive as do the terrorists and Islam. Strange how Psychological traits draw the same parallels ! Not just a coincidence ether.

We have been bombarded with advertisements about how great the IR legislation will be. However, the devil is in the detail, there are huge fines that can apply. Employees are locked into situations where they have little redress under the you beaut new law. In today's news there was a story about how the Court Government had an experiment with the you beaut IR legislation. Many workers were burnt by the experiment. Simarly, New Zealand has also had a bad experience with IR type legislation.

The point being, the new IR law is not friendly towards workers despite the assurances of the Coalition. In other words, you trust statements from the Coalition at your own peril.

It is a sad state of affairs when many people who in the past would have believed Coalition politicians, now are skeptical of whatever the Coalition might propose. The issue of Interest Rates at the last election being an example of how we were lied too. There was no mention of Anti Terrorist laws and IR did not feature as part of the platform of the Coalition at the last election. These laws have been introduced with much stealth and little decorum. It is pretty stupid to trust politicians who are very secretive about the laws they wish to introduce. We are obligated to the Chief Minister of the ACT in relation to the Anti Terrorist laws.

Phillip

With your appauling track record of denying basic human rights that consequently saw you kicked out of Amnesty International your not one to be trusted with new anti-terrorism legislation that further denies basic civil liberties.

Boaz

Its sad that your preoccupied with XXX porn, but on that note:

Useing your rational oral sex, premarital sex, any and all sexual positions other than the missionary position, should be outlawed to save australia from becomeing a nation of sadanistic kangaroo f@#%ers, that deficate and urinate on one another, when yesterdays 'yeah yeah' gets boreing.

Each time Mr. Howard has been elected he has promised to Govern on behalf of all Australians. What that seems to translate to after this election is he will govern for anybody involved in business interests. The rest of us are commodities that can be bought and sold through AWAs. That may be an explanation for the behaviour of the Coalition Government in relation to this promise; the alternative being that we have been lied to.
Parliament has been used in a most contemptible way by the Coalition ever since they have gained the balance of power, just a further indication that they cannot be trusted.

So when Mr. Ruddock says trust me; the best option is to have a good laugh at his joke.