Runner, yesterday you said: “One of her [Pru Goward’s] recent statement was along the lines that women wearing high heels are in similar bondage as women wearing burkhas. This kind of thinking fits well with Democrat philosophy.”

I’ve looked at the transcript of Pru Goward’s interview with Julia Baird (ABC 22 October 06). Baird asked Goward her views on the hijab. The dyed-in-the-wool Liberal (not Democrat) replied: “…I don't find the hijab confronting. I mean, I'd have to admit that the burka is very confronting - its blackness, the net over the eyes. It's hard to know how much of it is religious and how much of it is tribal or, you know, cultural and comes from the communities where it's practised.”

In order to clarify this last point – the difficulty of knowing how much is religious, or tribal or cultural practice - Goward introduced an analogy: “I mean, we wear high heels. We torture our feet. I mean, I can tell you this as a woman of a certain age with terribly painful feet who wished she hadn't. In other words, women all over the world have dress codes that, either willingly or unwilling, they impose upon themselves that are ugly and distorting and unhealthy and it's part of the oppression of women all over the world, I would say, dress codes. And sometimes I worry even about the sexualised dress code that young women practice today as another form of oppression actually.”

It is intellectually dishonest to misrepresent Goward. Even worse when you have her speaking for a political party of which she is not a member.

If you make claims like "Pru herself has always displayed feminist anti Christian views which are consistent with Democrats policy" you have a responsibility to provide the relevant evidence (for both claims - against Goward and against the Democrats). Can you? I suppose it would be too much to ask you to define what you mean by "feminist anti Christian views" that are simultaneously (according to you) held by both the Liberal Pru Goward and the Democrats at large?

I agree with King Canute on reflection: who did what and when.

I regret my bitter statements in my last post about Andrew and getting personal about the parliament incident I mentioned in my last post.

I had one of those days. We are all human I guess.

Andrew does have his good qualities and I respect him for the work that he has done. I remember in a conversation with Chesterfield-Evans once the reason why there was a mix-up in the Victorian preferences in the last Federal Election but I admit I don't fully remember the explanation.

Natasha, Andrew, and Chesterfield-Evans are people I have met and I admit they are some of the good people in our Parliaments.

In reflection, we are all human and Andrew is generally good to have around.

It is sad to see Natasha leave due to illness. I hope she recovers soon.

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Natasha Who

Oh,you mean Natasha Golden-Handshake,for doing nothing,from a party that gave us the GST.Yeah I am sad to see her leave Politics. Who was she again?

While I agree with King Canute that Andrew Bartlett has been an exceptional statsman for aboriginal Australians, I take exception to a bit of your Green bashing.

You elluded to the fact that the mayor of Palm Island, Erykah Kyle, was a member of the Greens. What you negelect to mention is that she aboriginal woman, and a respected member of the Palm Island aboriginal community. The Greens in QLD have been strong on indigenous issues in the past. I personally think that the Greens indigenous policies are very strong (up there with the Dems). Down here in Sydney, the Greens and the Dems have been the only political parties to oppose the Redfern-Waterloo redevelopement, which would see the loss of the block.

Still, I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't campaign on indigenous issues in QLD. Seems quite silly actually.

Chris,
what you say about the Mayor of Palm Island is absolutely correct. This was my point. The Greens have an enourmous political assett here that has been totally ignored, to the point that Juanita Wheeler, the national convenor of the Greens and lead state spokesperson has said several times in media interviews that the Greens have no elected representatives in Qld. Perhaps I did not explain the terra nullius myth comment well, what I meant is the Greens are blind to the Aboriginal people in their own party. They deny their existance - not just in terms of campaigning but their role in the party too including the only elected representative in Queensland, who is a woman, an Aborigine, a mayor, active in internal process and at the centre of the major Qld. Aboriginal issue during the election period -Palm Island, which you would think they would brag about.

The Queensland Greens have never been strong on indigenous issues. A few years ago I was a member of the Greens and I was the national convenor of the Indigenous issues working group. I left the party because I got sick of pushing excrement uphill.

I wrote the draft of the indigenous policy that the Greens went to the recent Qld state election with after being asked to do so by Drew Hutton. However this policy has never manifested as anything except conversations between me and Drew and a spot on the website.

I co-authored this report on Palm Island Housing http://www.kalkadoon.org/index.php/palm-island-housing-report/ which was commissioned by Drew Hutton as policy ground work for the state election. Drew issued a media release to launch the report but the Greens own website did not puublish his media release and put the report up for 3 months after the media release was issued (after lots of whinging) and then it was withdrawn a couple of weeks later when the website was upgraded for the election campaign.

For all Batletts "centrist" foibles, at least he takes the issues seriously.