Moving house

After much preparation, most of which involved extensive procasturbation and the watching of TV, I have moved the home of this blog.

Thank you all for reading Audrey and the Bad Apples these past years. I think you'll find the layout of Howling Clementine to be very pleasing. Little Audrey Apple will always be dear to me, but it's time to retire the nom de plume once and for all and try and get some actual work.

You can find me now at www.clementineford.com.au. I do so hope you drop by for some tea and brownies, or perhaps just a vat of wine and some witty ripostes. 

Best,

Clementine

Internet Hating

I received this email from a fellow on OkCupid a couple of weeks ago. The subject line was simple 'Really?'. 

I presume he took offense to parts of my profile, because he not only apparently failed to read any of it but also surmised incorrectly that I am a hipster. This may be based on the strength of my preference for left wing men with beards and/or drinking tea. I would say that I'm not a hipster - but then, don't they all deny it? What I am is feisty, and I didn't take kindly to receiving this:

"Don't be fooled, the beardy, fixie-riding vegan novelist is every bit as vain as his Ed Hardy wearing douchebag counterpart. In fact I'd say our man-tanned friend is actually less of a hypocrite.


Look, I think hipsters are full of it more often than not, but you're smart and pretty and I do dig that. In case you don't recognise it, that's what's known as 'sincerity'."

I admit, I wasn't sure how to respond. What kind of person thinks a vague stab at insulting someone is the way to their heart? In his profile, he waxes lyrical about the careful grooming of his stubble, his attraction to noted anal pornstar Belladonna and his ability to 'get women to tell him things they don't want to'. Aha! I thought. I've got your number...

I wasn't going to respond, because frankly I involve myself in far too many internet slanging matches as it is. But I couldn't let it go because I am what my father has always referred to as 'incorrigible'. Thus, I just penned this response:

"I hate fixie bikes and find veganism highly unappealing. Don't assume I'm not interested in you because I can't recognise 'sincerity' or the winsome qualities of a scooter riding wikipedia addict with carefully tended stubble.


It's more likely due to the fact that you're an arrogant twat who thinks insulting women is a unique and clever way to pique their interest. I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and say that you own a well thumbed copy of The Game.


The beardy, fixie-riding vegan novelist may be every bit as vain as his Ed Hardy wearing douchebag counterpart, but men like you are every bit as predictable as the scores of other Neil Strauss wannabes running around the place.


Thank you very very much for finding me smart and pretty enough to set aside your disdain for 'hipsters', but I think I'll pass.


Oh, and in case you didn't recognise it, that's what's known as 'pwnage'."

ZING! Internet dating, why o why do I always return to you? For moments like these.

In other news, I know it's been a long long long long stupidly long time since updating here but I shall be moving this site in the very near future to its own domain. My theory is that if I have a professional website I may be inspired to actually do something resembling professional work. I look forward to seeing if I can fulfil my own potential, or if I shall have to fire me and employ someone else to live my life more efficiently.

The new website address shall be http://clementineford.com.au. It was meant to be a www address, but I forgot to put that in when registering so we are clearly off to a bang up start.

Veiled Sweat

Well hello there blog. It’s been sometime. You look…different. I would like to say that my absence has been due to Earning Lots Of Money While Doing Something Fabulous, but alas! that would be both a fib and a fanciful delusion.

The truth lies sadly in a wasteland so far from that reality that one would need to trek for hundreds of pages in order to find it. The person who undertook that quest would be required to battle thousands of orcs while looking dashingly handsome and masculine, and their bravery and tenacity for undertaking such a perilous but above all boring task would be rewarded with a royal crown, a hot Elven babe and the largescale manufacturing of cheap plastic ‘goblets’ to be gifted with purchase at all participating Burger King establishments.

On Tuesday, I lined up once more at Centrelink and signed on to the demoralization train. I’d forgotten how ridiculously cheap payments to the great unwashed are. As reward for being constantly rejected for jobs I’m perfectly capable of doing, I can have the pleasure of receiving the vast sum of $538 per fortnight.

As other dirty dolebludgers well know, $538 is barely enough to cover rent and foods that carry a nutritional quotient let alone the requisite cigarettes and cheap medicinal liquor that one must take in order to stave off the crushing sense of self loathing that comes from being a societal reject. I shall therefore spend the next indeterminate period of time foraging for nuts and berries in the urban undergrowth as it were, ie making my friends buy me coffee and tinned soup.

I have to say though, I’m somewhat sad that the Torrensville Centrelink seems to house less illiterate wastrels than the Free Money Place I used to patronize on Currie St. How will I keep up to date with the tumultuous goings on of Tequi’na-ia and Deryk’s relationship now, last seen debating the linguistic merits of ‘fat cunt’ as both a noun and adjective? Where will I go to appreciate the rich tapestry that comprises Australia’s births registry, and the unique minds that see superfluous apostrophes and literal phonetics as less of a literary tool and more as a lifestyle? All Torrensville offers me are old Greek gentlemen in urgent need of ear trumpets and the occasional Westside hipster. To be fair, these are two demographics not without humourous merit but sure to prove largely more annoying in the long run. Hipsters are called James and Matilda and never Donna, unless ironically. One never need guess at how a hipster’s name is spelled. Where’s the fun in that?

Speaking of Matildas, I enjoyed this quote from Tilda Swinton when asked about the possibility of becoming a Dame one day:

A dame? I'd so much rather be a knight… It would, of course, be a great honor to be asked whether one would. I don't know. But I think Sir Tilda sounds so much better.

Indeed it does. And thus, as if the world were my Marcie, I shall insist on being referred to as Sir Clementine from now on. Unfortunately, there is yet to be an option for Sirs or Ladys on official documents, but I shall probably just create my own little box and tick it.

Anyhoo, let’s talk about this article which appeared in the NT News with the byline “Nigel Adlam”:

Veiled Threat [1]

A MUSLIM woman has complained after allegedly [2] being told to remove her face veil during a job interview at a Territory hospital. 

Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission officers have launched an investigation.
Acting commissioner Lisa Coffey has refused to discuss the case - or even confirm that a complaint had been lodged.

But the Northern Territory News understands the young woman went for an administration job at Royal Darwin. A doctor asked her to remove her veil during the interview. She refused - and filed an official complaint.

The case comes at a time when several western countries are following France's lead in banning the wearing of the hijab in public. [3]

The doctor is believed to have engaged a lawyer to represent him. Discriminating against someone because of their religion is illegal. But whether insisting a Muslim woman remove her hijab is discriminatory has not been tested in the Territory. [4]

NT Islamic Society president Adil Jamil said less than 2 per cent of Territory Muslim women wore a veil. He said it was considered "offensive" to ask a woman to take off her hijab.

"It's against their religious beliefs," he said. "It can seriously hurt their inner self.

"Under traditional Islamic view, a woman cannot show her face to any man except her husband and male relatives." [5]

Mr Jamil said there were about 2000 Muslims in the NT from 23 countries. Three-quarters of them are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indonesian heritage.

Mr Jamil said a few Territory-born Muslim women wore a veil.

"They see it as reinforcing their religious beliefs and inner satisfaction," he said. [6]

1. VEILED THREAT? LOLZ! It’s funny, because those Muslims wear VEILS and are a bit THREATENING but also when something has the potential to be dangerous without our REALISING it, we might refer to it as a ‘VEILED THREAT’!! Double entendre, folks. The NT Newsroom is overflowing with mad skillz.

2. Allegedly. I mean, we can’t even be sure it happened. Even though the NT News are definitely not certain it happened, because the Acting Commissioner refused to confirm it, we will definitely go ahead and assert that one of those troublesome Muslim women who are both simultaneously oppressed and meddlesome had the temerity to complain about something that mayn’t even have happened.

There is no 362 in this hotel! Sometimes, the complaints will be false.

3. Memo to Nigel Adlam – research usually goes a long way in producing accurate journalism. France did not ban the hijab in public. It banned the wearing of the hijab in public schools. It has so far failed to extend that ban to universities, let alone the general public. And as far as “several countries” following France’s lead, Tunisia and Turkey have had a ban on the hijab in place for several years. Uzbekistan recently imposed a similar ban to France on the wearing of hijab in public schools. Belgium, as we know, passed legislation earlier this year banning the wearing of full burqa or niqab, but not the hijab and the Netherlands are considering following suit. I would hardly describe this as ‘several’.

Additionally, Adlam doesn’t even seem clear on what piece of Muslim dress he’s referring to. Is it the hijab, a modest head covering which does not veil the wearer’s face? If so, why would it be reasonable to request that the woman remove it? If it was in fact a face covering, then Adlam might at the very least have the decency to get his terminology right.

4. Discriminating against someone because of their religion IS illegal. But apparently the NT News doesn’t consider it even vaguely unethical to print a beat up story encouraging xenophobia, misinformation and racism on the front page of their newspaper – and the Herald Sun definitely doesn’t consider it irresponsible to take that story and further encourage small minded Australian bigotry by reprinting it with this teaser on their website:

5. And then there’s you Adil Jamil. Traditional Islamic law is, like most religious law, open to wide and varied interpretation. Citing ‘tradition’ in religion to excuse patriarchal oppression is unacceptable. There are plenty of Muslim women who choose not to wear a veil or head covering of any kind. Are you suggesting that their interpretation of Islam is somehow false?

6. Do Muslim women see it that way – as ‘reinforcing their religious beliefs and inner satisfaction”? I would certainly hope so, if they’re actually choosing to wear the veil, or the burqa, or the niqab, or a burlap sack.

But I guess I’ll never really know for sure – because the superior journalistic wisdom of Nigel Adlam dictated that there was no need to actually ask any of them. After all, what could veiled Muslim women be expected to bring to the discussion? They’re just the poor oppressed victims of a dogmatic, patriarchal religion and even if Nigel Adlam were allowed to speak to them he probably wouldn’t because, you know, it’s just so weird and shit to actually have to interact with a woman who makes it impossible to objectify her.

I strongly advise against reading any of the comments, lest you feel the need to make haste for greener and less ignorant pastures. But just so we all remember the kind of stupid, bigoted, moronic population that makes up Australia, here’s a sample, starting with the Hun:

mick Posted at 10:51 AM Today
And still the boats come !!
Comment 6 of 21

Yes, all Muslims are illegal immigrants, none of them have been born here etc etc.

paul Posted at 10:58 AM Today
ban the bloody stupid thing and make these Muslims conform to out way of life.....now! Or go back to Muslim-land.....
Comment 13 of 21

Does Qantas have a direct route, or must you layover in Singapore?

Nothing to do with religion of Victoria Posted at 11:00 AM Today
What a load of garbage. It sickens me to think that there are people living here who want to do nothing but abuse and exploit Australia. If she wants to wear a ridiculous repressive disguise and not show her face she shouldn't be here........Who would want to employ THAT?
Comment 15 of 21

Ewww. I know. Especially when she could be wearing make-up and earrings and maybe even get breast implants to empower her instead of wasting her time exploiting and abusing Australia. Poor Australia.

Mary of ringwood Posted at 11:01 AM Today
I do not care what the NT Islamic Society President has to say... Most Australians feel that the Hijab is offensive the Hijab is a personal thing and nothing to do with the religion... so we have to ban it in Public arears like many Countries including two Muslim Countries have done. Inner satisfaction is not a reason to come to interviews for jobs...wearing a complete covering of a face. If the Hijab wearing womenresent that, they could go to a Country that allows it.
Comment 16 of 21

Was there a poll taken? Because I certainly didn’t answer. I *would* probably argue though that most Australians don’t have a fucking clue what a hijab actually is.

And from the Darwin News:

Maybe she was a fugly and was doing everyone a favour
Posted by: Frank of Darwin 8:29pm Tuesday 
Comment 107 of 112

LOLZ! See what he did there?!

Dave of Millner an example of the Great Australian Cultural Cringe, But we don't know that Dave is
an Australian (maybe pom) for he displays no affinity what ever for the preservation of AUSTRALIAN
cultural heritage or customs. He is in fact a typical apologist, the sort that runs around
apologising for things he's not done, and generally undermining Aussie values and customs. He's the
sort that turns the other cheek, and he'll spread them as well, and have vaseline for the comfort of
others.
Posted by: The Stump of Alice Springs 10:05pm Monday 
Comment 81 of 112

Dave and his unwillingness to take up a pitchfork against the Islamic Mafia... What a fag!

If she was to be my nurse i would ask for someone else i dont want some damn covered up thing that i
cant see there face
Posted by: GRRR 1:32pm Monday 
Comment 17 of 112

Apparently doctors and nurses have stopped employing the use of surgical facemasks. Huh.

Will the madness never end? After all, you know there’s something fishy in the state of Denmark when even Miranda Devine gets it but the rest of the population remains oblivious.

But then, perhaps I’m being too sensitive? Perhaps I’m seeing oppression and bigotry where it doesn’t exist? After all:

it's not discrimation. if a non muslim had that tea towel thing on their head when they go to a job
interview they too would be asked to take it off. so it's not discriminating muslims since anybody
would be asked to take the towel off when they go interviews.
Posted by: james of darwin 12:25pm Monday 
Comment 4 of 112

*headdesk*

Preferences for a Bad Apple

I have spent the better part of this afternoon cross referencing all of the candidates' preference lists to try and determine some way to vote tomorrow. The results are below. There are some surprises, such as the fact that I didn't put Trevor Grace last, but at 72 just above the Democratic Labor Party. They are more offensive in my mind than someone who uses misleading pictures of unborn fetuses as anti-choice propaganda. So yeah. I think they're pretty bad.


I also put a few independents between Family First and Trevor Grace. Based on their appearance in numerous conservative preference lists, I assumed that they were all the kinds of people I hate. At least Family First has to answer to some kind of public - right wing independent nutjobs need to be kept as far out of power as possible.


So this is just how I'll be voting for the Upper House tomorrow, after a few hours of fairly irritating research. You are more than welcome to use my preference list if you are confused about the independent candidates.

1.       Tammy Jennings (Greens)

2.       Simon Jones (Greens)

3.       Sandy Montgomery (Greens)

4.       Chris Prior (Gamers4Croydon)

5.       Jenny Wheaton (Pro Euthanasia)

6.       Denis Haynes (Pro Euthanasia)

7.       Ian Wood (Pro Euthanasia)

8.       Craig de Vos (Pro Euthanasia)

9.       Kirsten Alexander (St Clair’s)

10.   Lynette Alice Crocker (Independent SA)

11.   Dylan Coleman Mastrosavas (Ind)

12.   Joseph Williams (Ind)

13.   Gail Gago (ALP)

14.   John Gazzola (ALP)

15.   Rita Bouras (Liberal)

16.   Jeannie Walker (Dems)

17.   Gary Mighall (Ind)

18.   David Winderlich (Ind)

19.   Paul Collier (Dignit for the Disabled)

20.   Kelly Vincent (D4D)

21.   Michele Thredgold (D4D)

22.   Ronni Wood (D4D)

23.   Sandra Kanck (Dems)

24.   Tom Salerno (Dems)

25.   Deb Munro (United Party)

26.   Darian Hiles (United Party)

27.   Paul Holloway(ALP)

28.   Bernard Finnigan (ALP)

29.   Tung Ngo (ALP)

30.   Jim Katsaros (Save the RAH)

31.   Mark Taplin (Save the RAH)

32.   Ken Rollond (Save the RAH)

33.   David McGowan (Save the RAH)

34.   Jing Lee (Lib)

35.   Sarah Jared (Lib)

36.   David Ridgway (Lib)

37.   Stephen Wade (Lib)

38.   Terry Stephens (Lib)

39.   Peter Salu (Lib)

40.   Kelly Henderson (Ind)

41.   Michelle Drummond (Ind)

42.   Corrie Vanderhoek (Ind)

43.   John Tregenza (Ind)

44.   Neil Armstrong (Ind)

45.   Paul Tippins (Ind)

46.   Frank Williams (Ind)

47.   Joe Carbone (Ind)

48.   Doug McLaren (Ind)

49.   Paul Kuhn (Free Australia)

50.   Ki Meekins (Free Australia)

51.   Michael Hudson T (Shooters Party)

52.   Deb Thiele (Nationals)

53.   Kym Webber (Nationals)

54.   George Kargiotis (Fair Land Tax)

55.   Andrew Haralampopoulos (Fair Land Tax)

56.   Barbara Pannach (One Nation)

57.   Robert George Edmonds (One Nation)

58.   Robert Brokenshire (Family First)

59.   Bob Randall (Family First)

60.   Toni Turnbull (Family First)

61.   Nathan Ashby (Ind)

62.   Joe Ienco (Ind)

63.   John Michaelmore (Ind)

64.   Frank Hunt (Ind)

65.   Brenda Bates (Ind)

66.   Peter Panagaris (Ind)

67.   Howard Frayne Coombe (Ind)

68.   Michael Daniel Noack (Ind)

69.   Stewart Glass (Ind)

70.   Helen Aldridge (Ind)

71.   Mark Aldridge (Ind)

72.   Trevor Grace (Ind)

73.   Paul Russell (DLP)

74.   David McCabe (DLP)

 I thought about putting Mark Aldridge a little higher because he's probably not AS offensive as Nathan Ashby - but the fact that he disguised his anti-choice views at the Trevor Grace protest just so he could electioneer makes me sick in my mouth a little.

Here's to another four years of mostly mediocre governance!

A Bad Apple's Partial Guide To Voting

The South Australian Election will be held on Saturday, and it’s shaping up to be a nail biter. While I would love nothing more than for the hubris of Rann’s Labor Government to be deflated like a pair of poorly constructed silicon knockers, the only other option as we all know is a Liberal Government.

Now, the Liberal Government in SA is not wholly bad – new candidate John Gardner (who, full disclosure, is a university friend of mine) is the type of social progressive that I think all our Governments need more of, regardless of political allegiance. Similarly, Michelle Lensink (Liberal Member of the Legislative Council) is someone for whom I have a lot of admiration.

But the ALP also has reasonable representatives in the form of Gail Gago, Steph Key and Jay Weatherill. 

Decisions.

This election has been fought on the fairly aggressive battlegrounds of water and health. Unbelievably, a lot of airtime has been taken up over whether or not it’s a wise decision to build a new stadium. People, surely there are more important things to worry about?

Looking through the preference lists today (which can be found here), I was disturbed by a few things. Firstly, the ALP has preferenced Family First third on their ticket, after the Greens (who I currently work for but am not a member of). Family First’s website lists, among other things, the following treatise on marriage:

“The marriage of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, is much more than a private emotional relationship - it is also a social good.


While not all marriages thrive, research confirms that married people live longer and are healthier, wealthier and more satisfied with their lives than their cohabiting or single peers. Their children also have better health, they do better at school and are less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.


At Family First we are committed to promoting and preserving marriage as the essential foundation of strong marriages and communities.”

At the recent YWCA of Adelaide Election Forum, I asked Robert Brokenshire (FF’s lead candidate for the Legislative Council) to explain how Family First could actively promote the mental health benefits of marriage while denying those same benefits to the non-heterosexual portion of the community. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t have a very clear answer except to say that it was Family First policy.

Under their ‘Life’ platform, Family First says:

“The most basic human right is the right to life.


In Australia today this fundamental right is tragically denied with more than 100,000 unborn babies being aborted each year. The right to life is also under threat for the aged, infirm and vulnerable with a growing chorus advocating euthanasia.


At Family First we passionately believe that human life is precious. Armed with this belief, we are committed to the preservation and protection of life from the womb to the grave.”

 "While I still have breath and a brain cell in my brain, I will fight for him..."

I would say that the most basic human right is the right to clean drinking water and education, but to each their own. Whichever way you look at it, Family First has a regressive agenda which includes, but is not limited to, policing the reproductive rights of women and denying equal rights to non-heterosexual Australians.

And the ALP has preferenced them third on their ticket.

The Liberal Party has gone one step further and preferenced Family First second, meaning that all of the bunk they’ve tried to spread this election about being a more progressive, modern party is just that – bunk. Family First is a divisive, anti-choice, anti-homosexual, anti-society political party whose highest representative in political office openly trumpets his views on creationism and has astoundingly denied the fact that his religious beliefs influence his politics.

If you want even more proof that Family First stand not for family values but an assault on human rights, equality and a progressive Australian society, just look at their own preference deals.

They’ve preferenced Save the RAH second (who have reciprocated the favour in what seems to be a straight deal). After Save the RAH though, Family First have preferenced the Democratic Labor Party candidates. I think this page perfectly sums up the DLP’s views on things.

I quote:

“Legislative measures that will uphold and protect the inalienable and fundamental rights of every person (1) [my emphasis] - to life, to the essential liberties of conscience, to equal treatment under the law (2) [my emphasis], to the ownership of property and to a livelihood that enhances the dignity and security of each person.

The DLP unequivocally supports legislation that will preserve and protect marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, in a commitment for life. 

Absolute opposition to legislative or administrative measures that undermine or degrade marriage by conferring on homosexual, lesbian or transsexual pairings any form of legal recognition of their relationships, per se, whether through "civil unions", "relationship registers" or other legal device. (3)

Abolition of the Family Court of Australia, exposure of its destructive ideology and its harm done to children through easy divorce and the court-instigated break-up of their families and recision of all court rulings that serve to undermine marriage or degrade it by conferring on homosexual, lesbian and transsexual pairings equivalent standing with marriage…. (4)

Statutory recognition of the principle that no child should be conceived to be borne and reared deliberately deprived of a mother or father as in the cases of single women, lesbians and homosexual couples accessing artificial reproduction technologies including IVF and surrogacy or adoption overseas or within Australia (5).

 An acknowledgement in all legislation affecting families of the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage and of the need to maintain the moral, social, legal and economic support of the traditional family unit as the most effective (including cost-effective) means to safeguard children from the harm of exploitation, violence, pornography, drugs and crime.

The DLP upholds the traditional family as the ideal for all to aspire to (6).   This is not to condemn others who may find themselves in other family models through no fault of their own (7).  We admire and support single parents for example, and recognize their particular needs and difficulties in raising children alone."

(1)   Note the word ‘every’. Not ‘some’. Not ‘most’. Every.

(2)   Equal treatment under the law. Not ‘moderately equal’. Not ‘almost equal’. Not ‘somewhat equal’. Equal.

(3)   Homosexual, lesbian and transsexual people should be denied equal access to not just marriage but legal recognition of their relationship under the law, meaning only that the DLP does not consider homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals to fall under the banner of ‘every person’…

(4)   …and in fact that the assumption that they MIGHT be equal to heterosexuals and deserving of equal rights is in fact ‘degrading’. 

(5)   Equal treatment under the law? Well, only if you are…

(6)   …a member of the kind of traditional family which we all should aspire to…

(7)   …but their sympathies are with you if you happen to find yourself in a degrading different family model ‘through no fault of your own’, ie being a godless homosexual.

The DLP’s outrageous views continue:

“The DLP proposes a permanent embargo on all tax funding for procured abortions, destructive human embryo experiments, and the artificial reproduction of human life for any utilitarian end.

We also propose a substantial increase in the allocation of funding for palliative care facilities for the terminally ill, and the active promotion of public policy in opposition to the legalisation of euthanasia (1).

We also recommend enforcement of the criminal law with respect to procured abortions and euthanasia through the prosecution of medical professionals who violate human life (2).

Establishment at Federal State and Territory levels of an office of Advocate for the Unborn Child with all the functions, powers and duties necessary to promote and protect the life of the unborn, to afford legal voice or representation in all pertinent forums, to investigate impending medical and other threats to the child's natural right to be born and to instigate prosecutions for offences under relevant laws (3).

1.      They want to use government funds to actively oppose the legislation of euthanasia.

2.      THEY WANT TO PROSECUTE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO DELIVER ABORTIONS. Unlike what Family First SAYS they won’t do, the DLP are open and honest about wanting to recriminalise abortion, and…

3.      …make it a prosecutable offence.

The Democratic Labor Party are, despite their claims to the contrary, very much in favour of denying equal rights to sections of the community. They also seem intent on reintroducing backyard abortion alleys to Australia and actively using public money to campaign against reproductive and medical rights.

They are number 3 on Family First’s ticket.

****EDIT****

I had said that right behind them, at number 4, was Trevor Grace, but I missed one. Right behind the DLP, at number 4, is One Nation.

And right behind THEM, at number 5, is Trevor Grace.

Family First is preferenced second on the Liberal ticket, and third on the ALP’s. We have to vote for one of them, but I’d advise everyone to ask some pretty searching questions of representatives at the polling booths on election day.

To help you further in some of the decision you’ll have to make if you vote below the line – which you absolutely should – are some of the results from Family Voice Australia’s (formerly the Festival of Light who famously campaigned against allowing equal recognition for same sex de facto couples under SA law) survey given to all candidates.

Most did not respond, but those who did are listed below in the order I will be preferencing them.

These were 4 of the 10 questions asked. The rest can be found here.

1. Prayers in Parliament

Christian prayers in parliament is part of our Australian heritage - reminding MPs, like all other people, that they are imperfect and need guidance. This tradition recognises that most South Australians identified themselves as adherents of Christianity in the 2006 Census. Opening each day of parliamentary proceedings with prayer is a helpful reminder that members of parliament are accountable for their actions.

Q. Would you support the continued opening of parliament each day with Christian prayers?

2. Abortion Law

Recent gold standard research in NZ and elsewhere has shown that abortion is more likely to lead to mental health problems than to alleviate them. The current South Australian law, in Section 82A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which allows for abortions to be performed on mental health grounds, may therefore be contributing to mental health problems.

Q. Would you support the removal of mental health grounds as an excuse for abortion?

3. Same sex relationship registers

In South Australia, the only couple relationship registered by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages is true marriage – between a man and a woman. Some other states have laws allowing same-sex relationships to be registered, thereby giving them equal status with marriage. Only marriage provides public benefits by creating the best environment for raising children. Its unique status should be preserved.

Q. Would you oppose any bill to allow the registration of same sex relationships?

4. Euthanasia

Euthanasia means the intentional killing of a person who is suffering pain or mental distress – instead of providing medical treatment or palliative care. It does not mean ending treatment that is futile or burdensome, since treatment can always be declined. Where euthanasia has been legalised, patients have been killed even in the absence of an explicit request for euthanasia, instead of providing treatment and care.

Q. Would you oppose any bill to legalise euthanasia?

THE WORST OFFENDERS, I'M PREFERENCING THEM LAST:

Family First and the DLP candidates all answered “DEFINITELY” as did Independent candidates Trevor Grace and Joe Enco.

Independent candidate Peter Pengaris answered DEFINITELY to everything except Mental Health and abortion, to which he answered “PROBABLY”.

Independentsr Mark Aldridge and Helen Aldridge answered DEFINITELY to introducing prayers to parliament and opposing same sex marriage, PROBABLY to mental health and abortion and UNSURE to euthanasia. I find Mark’s stance on abortion particularly interesting as he used the anti-Trevor Grace protest as a platform to talk about reproductive rights. Does this make him a political opportunist with no policies? PROBABLY.

Independent John Michaelmore answered DEFINITELY to prayers and opposing same sex marriage, and UNSURE to abortion and euthanasia.

MID RANGE AWFUL:

Robert Hudson of the Shooters Party (5^th on the Family First ticket) answered DEFINITELY to prayers in Parliament, UNSURE to abortion and PROBABLY to same sex marriage opposition and euthanasia.

GETTING BETTER, STILL WORRISOME:

Neil Armstrong (Independent) answered DEFINITELY to prayers, UNLIKELY to abortion and euthanasia and PROBABLY to same sex marriage opposition.

NO APPARENT CONVICTION BUT DON’T WANT TO BE MURDERED IN THEIR BEDS:

Liberal candidates David Ridgeway and Terry Stephens and Labor’s Bernard Finnigan and Paul Holloway answered UNSURE to everything except opposing euthanasia, to which they answered DEFINITELY.

NO APPARENT BELIEFS AT ALL:

Liberals Sarah Jared, Peter Salu, Rita Bouras and Jing Lee, and Labor’s Tung Ngo answered UNSURE to everything. Why are you running for Parliament?

SKERRICK OF BELIEF:

Liberal’s Stephen Wade and Labor’s John Gazzola are UNSURE about everything except euthanasia, which Wade would be UNLIKELY to oppose and Gazzola would be DEFINITELY NOT.

MORE PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN PARLIAMENT PLZ:

Independent Craig Devos is UNLIKELY to support prayers in Parliament, UNSURE about the gayz, and would DEFINITELY NOT seek to repeal the mental health excuse in abortions or oppose a euthanasia bill.

Labor’s Gail Gago (Minister for the Status of Women) is UNSURE on prayers in Parliament and Same Sex Marriage, but would DEFINITELY NOT repeal laws on abortion or oppose a euthanasia bill.

Independent Michael Noack would DEFINITELY NOT introduce prayers, oppose abortion or same sex marriage and would be UNLIKELY to oppose euthanasia.

******EDIT:

I had listed Chris Prior of Gamers4Croydon as replying UNSURE to everything. This was incorrect. He was given a score of 1 for all questions, translating to NO COMMENT. Kat Nicholson, Gamers4Croydon candidate for Croydon, informs me that Chris didn't reply to the survey at all. So why was he listed as giving a NO COMMENT answer (and point scores of 1) when other candidates who didn't reply were given scores of 0? Gamers4Croydon, I'd advise you to take this up with Family Voice. I have also fixed the broken link to the survey results page.*******

It can be notoriously difficult trying to figure out which independents to preference when there’s no information available (readily), so I mostly end up putting them around the middle somewhere. Now I can happily say I will be putting many of those who answered the Family Voice Australia survey favourably LAST – and, as a side note, I wish hateful, regressive organizations who would seek to discriminate against large sections of the community would stop giving themselves names like “Family Voice” and “The Australian Family Association”. I have a family and YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

Happy voting.