There’s a saying I like: “You have a right to be offended, but you have no right not to be offended.”

So, when I drive past those church signs with perky little sayings that take not-so-subtle pot-shots at we non-believers, I tend to just clutch the steering wheel a little tighter, clench my teeth and mutter, “Fuckwits” under my breath.

Generally, the moment passes and the next day I’d be hard-pressed to remember what the sign actually said. Life goes on and church signs are the least of my worries.

But, recently, I drove past a sign that riled me more than usual. I’ve tried to ignore it, but it’s been bubbling around in my brain for a few weeks now and I think it’s time to let rip.

The sign was on the Glass House Country Uniting Church and visible from the Steve Irwin Way in SE Queensland. It read:

As I continued down the highway, I could feel my blood boiling and spitting like a billy, left too long on the fire.

No point? No fucking point?

My grandfather was an atheist. When he married my grandmother, he didn’t just take on his new bride – he also housed her widowed mother, her sister and her daughter and the baby left motherless when another sister died in childbirth. And did he moan and bitch about having all these family strays in his home? No! He accepted it with astounding generosity and an abundance of good humour.

He was not a well man. He fought and was gassed in the First World War and ultimately died prematurely from the damage caused to his lungs.

He was the first young man in his district to sign up. In recognition of his courage, the locals banded together and bought him a pocket watch – which my cousin, Doug, carries in his pocket with pride, to this day.

Jack kept his family afloat during the depression. He was a good husband and father. He was a hard worker – helping to establish the iconic Barnes Auto in Brisbane during the 1920s.

He had a wicked sense of humour which has been passed on, genetically, to my cousin and me.

And, having come from a ‘good family’ he instilled in his son and daughter (my mother) the manners and values of a more genteel age; a commitment to living with integrity and finesse which has been passed down through succeeding generations.

But, according to the supercilious sign on the highway, Jack Webster’s life had ‘no point’ because while his family trotted off to church on a Sunday, he stayed at home to mow the lawn. The legacy he left – the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren – all law-abiding, contributing members of society whose happy lives, happy marriages and ingrained values are inevitably influenced by his – count for nothing to the smarmy shallow-thinking churchman or woman who thought displaying this sign was a good idea.

And I’d like to say, it was not a good idea. It was rude. It was insensitive. It was offensive. It was inaccurate. It was pompous. It was hurtful. It was, in the very worst sense, uncharitable and un-Christian.

How dare this nameless minister boast publicly that my grandfather’s life – lived with courage, generosity, integrity and humour – had no point.

How dare they suggest that my father’s life – also an atheist as well as a veteran, a selfless giver, and a formidable family man – had no point?

How dare they suggest that my life and my mother’s life have no point?

I would defend to the death their right to display that mindless, offensive piece of religious pap. But, I will call it out for what it is – religious imperialism, cultural vandalism and blatant disrespect for the lives and beliefs of other Australians and their families.

Chrys Stevenson

Yesterday (8 August 2013), Ron Williams and his crack legal team (Claude Bilinsky solicitor, Bret Walker SC and Gerald Ng) announced that a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim had been issued out of the High Court of Australia between Ronald Williams (Plaintiff ) and the Commonwealth of Australia (First Defendant), the Minister for Education (Second Defendant) and Scripture Union Queensland (Third Defendant). The complaint centres upon continued Federal funding for the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program; funding that was ruled unconstitutional by the full bench of the High Court of Australia in 2012.

In 2011, I accompanied Ron, his legal team and his supporters to the High Court of Australia. Here, it was argued that Federal funding for the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program was unconstitutional.

In the months leading up to the case, I become its unofficial scribe; a role that evolved from being a close friend of Ron Williams, his colleague, Hugh Wilson and their joint endeavour, the Australian Secular Lobby.

On 3 August, 2011, I wrote a Pre-hearing Summary for ABC’s The Drum; an attempt to dispel some of the many myths and propaganda circulating in respect to the case.

In that article I explained that, despite attempts to dismiss him, Williams and his team were no hapless band of inept malcontents. I pointed out that Williams’ barrister, Bret Walker SC, was (and is):

“… one of Australia’s leading barristers. A former president of the Law Council of Australia and currently the director of the Australian Academy of Law, Walker is no legal lightweight.”

In this second case, as with the first, Walker will be instructed and assisted by Sydney law firm Horowitz and Bilinsky with partner, Claude Bilinsky, taking a close, personal interest in the proceedings.

In the lead-up to the 2011 challenge,  Williams was branded “the man who sued God”. It was assumed his case would centre upon Section 116, the clause in our constitution which deals with the relationship between religion and the state.

It is true, that Section 116 formed a part of the argument presented to the court, but it was never the central argument, nor was it ever assumed by Williams or his team to be the point which would win them the case.

We have stated this repeatedly, but the misconception that Williams ‘lost’ his case because the court would not consider the section of it relating to Section 116 persists.

The strength of the case was always in Williams’ argument that the Commonwealth and its officers (then, Penny Wong and Peter Garrett) had breached the constitution by entering into a contract with Scripture Union Queensland to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program.

Such funding, Williams claimed, was beyond the executive powers of the Federal government.

According to Williams, spending for the National School Chaplaincy Program – huge amounts approaching half a billion dollars – had been ‘hidden’ in the Education Budget and simply  ‘appropriated’ (rubber-stamped) as an ‘on-going expense’ without ever being formally approved by specific legislation.

According to Williams’ team, a proper reading of the Constitution suggests that a Bill should have been drafted, setting out the details of the proposed NSCP program and that Bill should have been scrutinised fully by both houses before funding was approved.

Once we went to Court, however, the case become curiouser and curiouser.

According to the Australian Constitution, state governments are allowed to ‘intervene’ in High Court Cases. In the case of Williams vs The Commonwealth and Others, all six states chose to intervene and, surprisingly (although all support chaplaincy) they largely intervened in favour of Williams’ argument.

The states have a vested interest in reining in the power of the Federal government. Increasingly, over the last twenty years or so, the Federal government has wrested more and more power from the states, gaining ever more control over areas which were once ‘state matters’. Williams provided the states with an opportunity to claw back some power. And, of course, in politics, power and money – particularly the power over the disbursement of taxpayers’ dollars – is everything.

Williams’ case was always strong. But, once the states’ legal teams got together they took the case in a direction which no-one had foreseen. Taking Williams’ position even further, the states, in an argument articulated by Queensland’s (then) solicitor-general, Walter Sofronoff, suggested that a long-standing assumption about Federal funding,  dating back to 1902, erroneously allowed the Federal government more power than the Constitution, technically, permits. Sofronoff argued that the High Court must recognise that error and rule accordingly.

As I wrote in an article for ABC’s Religion and Ethics portal, the “orthodox assumption” was that, as long as something falls within its Constitutional powers, the executive doesn’t have to seek legislative approval in order to spend; sufficient ratification being provided through the process of appropriation.

The states, however, were now suggesting that the power of the executive to act without legislation was far more narrowly confined to matters pertaining directly to the maintenance of the laws of the Commonwealth or the Constitution; this did not extend to funding school chaplaincy or a host of other programs beyond this remit.

I used the analogy of the executive powers of the Commonwealth being “corralled within a Constitutional ‘home paddock’, with the gate to the ‘big paddock’ of spending only able to be unlocked by legislation.

Extending the analogy, I suggested that:

“the lock can no longer be picked by clearing expenditure through appropriation” because “a ruling in Pape v the Commissioner of Taxation (2009) closed the loophole which allowed appropriation to be passed off as a kind of de facto legislation.”

As Justice Gummow stated during the High Court hearing:

“This is one of the structural problems. We do not have legislation. You simply have the executive producing these vast documents with somewhat loose expressions which have never been subject to legislative scrutiny and any attempt at legislative precision.”

It took nearly eleven months for the court to rule in Williams’ favour. I remember holding my hand against my mouth in stunned disbelief as ABC radio announced the court’s finding. We won!

But the victory was shortlived.

As I wrote (again on ABC’s Religion and Ethics portal), (then) attorney-general, Nicola Roxon vowed to find a way to allow the funding to continue.

Then, I thought the most likely strategy would be to provide tied funding to the states, but in retrospect, it now seems the Federal government had a contingency plan in place – a plan which the Australian Christian Lobby appeared to be in on given their nonchalant response to the High Court verdict.

On 26 June last year, the ALP government rushed through legislation aimed at circumventing the Williams’ ruling. Even shadow attorney-general, George Brandis (LNP) admitted it was a ‘bandaid solution’ and doubted it would satisfy what the High Court had stipulated. Nevertheless, even knowing the legislation was dodgy, the LNP supported it as did the Greens, to their eternal shame.

In that act, the entire Australian parliament raised a single finger salute to the full bench of the High Court, then turned and bared their collective arses to the Australian taxpayers.

“We will not be accountable,” they said effectively. “We will not abide by a ruling of the High Court. Fuck the Constitution. Fuck the states.”

Williams and his legal team immediately began plans to defend their position and the High Court Ruling. It has taken until now to bring a new case together and issue the writ, but Williams is now on track to make Australian Constitutional history, twice.

Contrary to his public reputation as an ‘angry atheist’ Ron Williams is a twinkly-eyed delight of a man with a voice filled with energy, humour and humility. He is not a rich man. In many respects, except for his steely commitment to stand up for a secular education for his children, he is your ‘average Joe’. And the ‘average Joe’ needs our help.

Williams vs The Commonwealth and Others: The Sequel must not just be about Williams taking on the government. It is a chance for ‘we the people’ to tell the government that they were wrong in trying to weasle their way out of a High Court ruling. That, in doing so, (whether or not you agree with chaplains in schools), they have set a dangerous precedent which must be brought into check by the High Court.

Williams now has the standing to fight this case but he needs the moral and financial support of the public. He also needs the support of the media to explain his case and its importance to the public. Where are you responsible political journalists????

Please, visit the High Court Challenge website and, whether you can spare $500 or only $5, please consider donating (using the “Donate” button in the right hand side-bar). It’s your chance to become a part of making Australian constitutional history. Where else can you do that for the price of a lunch?

Williams deserves your support. Australians deserve Williams to win his case. And whichever party wins the 7 September election – Australia deserves better.

Chrys Stevenson

Note: Donations made to the Williams legal fund via the High Court Challenge Website are not tax deductible. If you wish to claim a deduction, the Secular Party of Australia notes that donations made to it and marked clearly HCC will be donated on to the Williams campaign.

I’m just a middle-aged lady, sitting on top of a little mountain in regional Queensland, tap-tap-tapping away at a keyboard. I’m not famous, I’m not a celebrity and if I venture beyond the village post office, it’s almost certain no-one on the street will tap me on the shoulder and say, “Hey! Aren’t you Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear???”

Still, I’ve never been one to be star-struck. Even when I met Cat Stevens when I was just 15 years old (oops, was that a name I just dropped?) I approached him calmly, complimented him on his previous night’s concert, and engaged in a discussion with him about how his music reflected his philosophy on life. Sure, he bought me an ice cream and I kept the cone in a jar for over 20 years before my mother threw ‘the dirty thing’ out, but I think, one on one with Cat, I handled things pretty well.

This weekend I had the rather surreal experience of meeting someone else I admire: comedian, columnist, writer, novelist and television personality, Catherine Deveny. We had met once before. I approached Catherine at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention and she branded my arm with a ‘black ink’ ATHEIST stamp. We chatted briefly, but at that time I imagine if she gave me any thought at all it was to think, “Who the fuck was that?”

Later, I wrote an article, Defending Deveny, about the Twitter storm that erupted after Deveny’s appearance on Q&A with Archbishop Peter Jensen.

We became Facebook and Twitter friends.

In preliminary discussions about the 2013 Reality Bites Non-Fiction Literary Festival I mentioned that it would be great to get someone like Catherine Deveny to attend. Festival director, Melanie Myers responded enthusiastically. I passed on Dev’s details and voila, this weekend at the Reality Bites festival, Catherine performed at the historic Majestic Theatre at Pomona and spoke about “Destroying the Joint” on a panel including Anne Summers and pornography writer, Krissy Kneen.

During the weekend I got to spend quite a bit of time observing Catherine. And, when her festival obligations were finished, we spent two hours in the car together as I drove her back to Brisbane to catch her plane.

In “Defending Deveny” I included a list of the names Catherine was called on Twitter following her Q&A appearance. Here’s an edited version:

“Ugly, extremist, stupid, unintelligent, idiotic, thoughtless, self-righteous, self-centred, self-absorbed, nasty, confused, frustrated, bitter, twisted, humourless, un-funny, unreasonable, unrespectable, disrespectful, sarcastic, mocking, catty, hateful, boorish, blustering, bullying bitch.”

I think, after spending a considerable amount of time with Catherine over the weekend I can strike out every one of those criticisms as uninformed bullshit.

Here’s what I found.

On occasions when Catherine was given the opportunity to comment about someone she didn’t particularly like, she was honest, but never put the boot in. In fact, on one occasion in particular, she showed a remarkable insight into why the person being discussed was rather difficult to deal with. Sure, there was dislike, but it was offset by compassion.

In person, when she could have been rude, she found a way to be honest without hurting the person’s feelings.

Catherine Deveny with Brendan McMahon, Anne and
me.

At a party, held in her honour, Catherine didn’t ‘work the room’ or ensure she was talking to ‘the cool people’. Instead, all night, she stood quietly, at the side of the room, and spoke quite happily and at length, to some of my friends who – although delightful – are far from famous.

I have met some celebrities (Bob Ansett, Kamahl and Prince Philip take a bow) who on meeting you, will shake your hand limply, quickly register that you’re a ‘nobody’, then look frantically over your shoulder, trying to catch the eye of someone more important to speak to.

Catherine didn’t do that. What’s more, she was genuinely interested in people’s stories. She looked them straight in the eye and asked questions – and she listened, really listened, to the answers. She didn’t always agree with what people said, and she said so when she didn’t, but she certainly didn’t do it in a self-righteous, self-centred, bullying way.

In the panel discussion, Deveny was passionate and talkative, but very conscious of the need to give equal time to the lesser-known Krissy Kneen. When Krissy spoke, Deveny listened attentively. When the moderator called a halt to the session before I could ask a question, Deveny (having seen my hand raised) asked specifically if I could be given a go (on which I passed, the session having run well over time). She also made sure to mention my work from the stage – although she could quite easily have focused exclusively on her own considerable contribution to the “Destroy the Joint” debate.

In the car, Catherine chatted away about life, the universe and everything – just like a normal person, which is what she is. She wanted to meet my mum, because I talk about her sometimes on Facebook, so we detoured via our little mountain abode and found Daphne pottering about in the garden. Catherine was charming, kind and genuinely interested in this 89 year old lady with Alzheimer’s.

Later, Daph said, puzzled, “She was lovely, but why did Catherine Deveny want to meet me?”

On our way to Brisbane we talked about my writing, my career and my life, not hers. She offered inspiration, tips and good advice.

In person, Catherine was warm, generous, witty and, surprisingly, NOT LOUD.

She was far more interested in the people she met than in pushing her own considerable celebrity.

She was professional, well-prepared and provided an energy to the event that continued long after she left the stage.

And when Catherine did talk about herself, she talked about the people she wanted to help, not about how she could land her next big celebrity gig.

It’s funny. The Catherine Deveny described on Twitter during the Q&A Twitter-storm simply didn’t show up at the Reality Bites Festival.

I have a feeling that, just like God, THAT Catherine Deveny doesn’t exist.

Chrys Stevenson

Last year I wrote an article on gender bias in the Australian media. Conceived and commissioned by Jane Gilmore of The King’s Tribune, “The Blokeyness Index” looks at the representation of women (as journalists and as subjects) on the front pages of Australia’s mainstream newspapers.

The results, although disappointing, were no surprise. In broad terms the ratio of men to women on the front pages of our print media is consistently around 70 per cent to 30 per cent. That ratio is repeated in studies conducted throughout the Western world.

Recently, Tara Moss was struck by this very same bias on the front page of The Age. She blogged about it and, today, her article has been published by Mamamia.

I’m very chuffed that the research I did for “The Blokeyness Index” receives a mention.

Tara Moss: On Feminism and the Age of Invisibility – Mamamia

It’s so hard to raise consciousness about these kinds of issues and it’s great that someone with Tara’s profile is using Mamamia to spread the word.

Chrys Stevenson

Round, like a circle in a spiral Like a wheel within a wheel. Never ending or beginning, On an ever spinning wheel Like a snowball down a mountain Or a carnival balloon Like a carousel that’s turning Running rings around the moon

Like a clock whose hands are sweeping Past the minutes on its face And the world is like an apple Whirling silently in space Like the circles that you find In the windmills of your mind

Like a tunnel that you follow To a tunnel of its own Down a hollow to a cavern Where the sun has never shone Like a door that keeps revolving In a half forgotten dream Or the ripples from a pebble Someone tosses in a stream.

Like a clock whose hands are sweeping Past the minutes on its face And the world is like an apple Whirling silently in space Like the circles that you find In the windmills of your mind.

Windmills of Your Mind – artist Blake McArthur

The Windmills of Your Mind is one of those songs, like MacArthur Park that makes no sense at all, until you think about Tony Abbott’s mind and consider that it may, actually make perfect sense. Who knows what goes on in Abbott’s mind? No wonder he’s been dubbed, “The Mad Monk”. Deputy Prime Minister, Tony Albanese, once famously said of the Leader of the Opposition, “In your guts, you know he’s nuts.” And then there was that bizarre non-interview with Mark Riley which seemed to confirm there is something very, very strange going on under those product-enhanced tufts of hair. How does one explain Abbott’s gymnastic backflip on maternity leave? How can he stand up in Parliament and rail against Julia Gillard’s carbon tax as if it is some kind of demon-inspired communist plot,  when it was exactly the solution he advocated in 2011? It’s not just the ‘windmills of Tony’s mind’ that are spinning; his political pirouettes leave the rest of the dizzied population thinking WTF just happened? But now, an explanation has been advanced into what exactly is going on in Tony Abbott’s mind. While it’s hardly reassuring, it came as quite a revelation to me and I’m excited to share it. Here’s how I came across it. It was around  around 10pm and I’d long since gone to bed when my phone ‘tringed’ on the night-stand next to me. If it had ‘pinged’ I would have ignored it, but the ‘tring’ suggested an email from a close friend, so I rolled over and blearily swiped and stabbed at the phone until the message was displayed. It was from my friend Matthew Addams. “Chrys, I’ll call you to discuss this,” read the cryptic message. Discuss what? Ah, there was an attachment. I thumped the night stand until my hand fell on my glasses. I opened the attachment and started reading an absolutely brilliant article speculating on what it is that guides Tony Abbott’s thought processes. Clearly argued and hugely insightful, the author suggests that  three, often-conflicting, core beliefs underpin Abbott’s worldview:

– Catholic morality – Neoconservative politics – and the firm belief that he is destined for greatness.

“The conflicts inherent in the first two are exposed only when you think carefully and deeply about the impacts of policy in the real world,” the author notes. But, he argues, “Abbott’s pedigree and training for maintaining internal contradictions without resolution … is first rate.” According to the author, Abbott is a simplistic thinker. He attempts no synthesis of these core beliefs. Instead, like some kind of demented butterfly flitting from hibiscus to dahlia to stinking roger, he settles upon a policy based upon one of these political plant-species, until that position becomes uncomfortable or unprofitable. Then, he rapidly takes flight, his thoughts landing on another, often completely contradictory view, from the core belief du jour. “He holds paradoxical ideologies and just doesn’t feel compelled to think through or resolve this. That’s not what motivates him,” explains the author of this revelatory view of the mechanics of Tony’s maize-grinder. “Wow!!!” I emailed Matthew. I felt like someone had just unzipped Tony Abbott’s head and let me peer inside. Suddenly, everything made sense.

Artist: Shungi-Lion

Tony Abbott’s mental windmill, it seems, has three sails named, “God says …”, “Show me the money and bugger the proletariat”, and “I just can’t wait to be king”. By now I was wide awake and stabbing at my phone in a vain attempt to send a link to the article to my social networks. But it wouldn’t link. Why? Because, d’oh, I realised it was a Word document. The brain ticked over a bit more. It was an original Word document. It wasn’t a published article. It was a draft article written by my friend Matthew. “Matthew wrote this???? Matthew????” Now I was so excited I was jumping up and down in my bed. (It’s a very long time since my bedsprings have had such a great workout!) “Did you write this???? It’s brilliant!!!!” I emailed Matthew. As it turned out, he had indeed produced this incredible piece of political insight. Matthew pinged me on Facebook. His intent in sending it to me, he said, was that maybe I’d think it was good enough to put it up on Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear. “It’s too good to be hidden in a blog!” I declared. “It has to be published where it will get a huge audience!” Fortuitously, I remembered that a friend of mine mentioned he had a contact at Independent Australia. (Be warned! Leisurely curry lunches on lazy Saturday afternoons are not just for idle chit-chat – my networking radar is on 24/7!) “Perfect!” I thought. With Matthew’s permission, I imposed on my friend for an email address and permission to drop his name and shamelessly flogged Matthew’s article to the editor of IA. Fortunately, he agreed with me that the article was ‘brilliant’ and agreed to publish it. So here it is, the first ever published article by my dear friend Matthew Addams and how very proud I am of him – and it.

What really goes on in Tony Abbott’s mind? – Matthew Addams

I highly recommend that you read it. I haven’t been this excited about discovering a new writer since I found Jane Douglas at Putting her Oar In! Go on! Head over to IA and have a read – and then share it with your friends.

Chrys Stevenson

I vowed some time ago that I would not vote for a party which opposes same-sex marriage or, for a party led by someone who doesn’t embrace marriage equality. It’s not that I’m a ‘single issue’ voter – far from it. But, to me, a belief in the fundamental equality of all citizens is a foundation principle of democracy. I simply can’t trust a party or politician whose policy decisions do not flow from this simple, but crucially important, understanding of human rights.

Kevin Rudd’s last minute ‘revelation’ in favour of equal marriage, prior to his recent return to the Prime Ministership, had me breathing a sigh of relief. The Greens in my electorate, Fairfax, have self-destructed by ousting a good candidate (my dear friend) Dr Jim McDonald. I don’t know the newly recruited candidate but I know the shenanigans that have gone on behind the scenes and I won’t endorse the local Greens with my vote (although I will vote Greens in the Senate).

For obvious reasons (I’m looking at you, Tony Abbott) – equal marriage among them – the LNP candidate won’t get my vote no matter how many smiley people stand outside our local library, manically waving blue signs at passing motorists.

The other option is Clive Palmer of the Palmer United Party. Now, Clive is an interesting candidate who I expected to despise. But, having seen him in a couple of extended interviews, I have to say I’m seriously impressed at his stance on social justice issues and his plain speaking common-sense. On the other hand, while he hasn’t declared his party’s stance on these matters, I don’t expect Palmer, a conservative Catholic, to support reproductive choice and LGBTI rights – so, if I’m to keep my promise to myself, I probably won’t be scrawling a blunt-pencilled “1” against Palmer’s name on election day, either.

It seems my only real option is to vote Labor. But, standing on principle, that wasn’t possible while Joe de Bruyn … er, I mean Julia Gillard … headed the party.

Rudd’s succession to the Prime Minister’s role was enough to convince me that my vote in Fairfax should go to the ALP candidate, Elaine Hughes. Hughes comes highly recommended by my friend, Ray Marx, president of the ALP’s Labor Unity faction. It’s a recommendation that I rate highly given my respect for Ray and his views on the issues I care most about. It seems Labor was the salve for my election day woes, after all.

But, this week, a rather nasty fly flew into my polling-day ointment. For some insanely ridiculous reason which defies all human understanding (unless one factors in another fucking stupid back-room deal with ALP destroyer Joe de Bruyn and his bat-shit crazy Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association [Union]), Rudd appointed conservative Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-marriage equality, anti-LGBTI equality, anti-stem-cell research Jacinta Collins as Minister for Mental Health and Ageing.

Look! I’m not saying that practising Catholics should be barred from public office (although it’s a tantalising thought to toy with). There’s no reason why Ms Collins couldn’t have been appointed to a ministry where she could do the least harm – Agriculture, Industrial Affairs, or Silly Walks, for instance. But no! Rudd appointed Ms Collins to the position where she could do the most harm and piss off the very people he was, presumably, trying to win back to Labor – left-wing voters, the LGBTI community and their supporters and women.

It was, quite simply, incomprehensibly dumb.

I’m having to review my decision to vote Labor in the forthcoming election and I’ll bet I’m not the only one.

Bernard Keane was the first to raise alarm bells with an article on Crikey: Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage … and the new mental health minister (paywalled, unfortunately). Keane (revealing why the appointment of this eminently unsuitable candidate to the Mental Health portfolio is still stupid but not incomprehensible after all) says:

“Collins is from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association and holds the social views one expects of a Shoppie: she is stridently anti-abortion and a diehard opponent of same-s-x marriage; ‘stable, biological parenting’ should be fostered ‘as a social norm’ she said in reference to the same-s-x marriage bill last year. Less than a fortnight ago, Collins helped vote down a bill recognising overseas same-s-x marriages. During her time out of the Senate, Collins was a director of the anti-choice Caroline Chisholm Society, which is currently run by former Shoppie and Collins adviser Helen Cooney. Collins was at the society when it was controversially funded by then-health minister Tony Abbott to establish a pregnancy counselling service. Collins was a winner last year of an award for ‘Christian Values’ from the ‘Christian Values Institute’.”

This might be incidental if Collins had been appointed to another portfolio says Keane, but Mental Health brings Collins’ religious views into sharp relief.

There are many in the anti-abortion lobby, Keane reminds us, who “claim without any evidence that abortion causes mental health problems for women, including, ‘post-abortion syndrome‘, a condition invented by anti-abortionists.”

Also, given her dismissive views (at best) on LGBTI issues, how will Ms Collins engage with and support the many excellent pro-LGBTI initiatives introduced by her predecessor, Mark Butler?

Doug Pollard was quick to spread the bad news amongst the LGBTI community and supporters through his blog, The Stirrer. In his post, Rudd’s New Cabinet – Thank God It’s Only Till the Election, Pollard points out that Ms Collins is “not fond of what she calls ‘the self-appointed enlightened university educated inner city professionals’ in the party.”

Could that be the people who call for policy decisions to be based on evidence rather than religious propaganda? That ghastly intelligentsia which actually reads and responds honestly to academic and medical research rather than ignoring or distorting it to mesh with their own pre-conceived religious prejudices? God forbid!

And, while Ms Collins tut-tuts about we elitist intellectuals it seems she has a few high-falutin’ ideas of her own. In 2009, Gerald McManus at the Herald Sun reported on Ms Collins throwing a tantrum when the temporarily over-stretched Commcar service couldn’t supply a limousine to collect her at Melbourne Airport. It was, apparently, unthinkable that Ms Collins should deign to join the hoi polloi in the taxi queue! Instead, she was put to the shocking inconvenience of having to find another politician who would share their limo and moved to raise the distressing incident in Parliament. Oh! The hardships our politicians suffer to serve us!

Today, the Herald Sun has, again, stepped into the Jacinta Collins fray, with Susie O’Brien writing: Senator Jacinta Collins must tell us where she stands on abortion and gay marriage.

Well, unless Ms Collins has had a ‘road to Damascus ‘revelation à le Rudd, I expect she stands where she has always stood – in total solidarity with the Vatican.

According to O’Brien:

• In 2000, Ms Collins was one of three senators who threatened to refuse to oppose legislation that would stop single women and lesbians accessing IVF.
• In 2002, Collins called stem cell research the “unprecedented sanctioning of destructive research on human life”.
• In 2005 Collins was part of a group of conservative business and church leaders trying to put abortion back on the national agenda under the “pro-women, pro-life” banner. She has also been a member of the ‘pro-life’ Caroline Chisholm society.

• In 2008 Collins wondered if there would be “blood on the Medicare card” if there was public funding for abortion. She also hinted that she endorsed the Catholic/pro-life propaganda which links abortion to negative mental-health outcomes for women; a claim which has been widely and definitively debunked by mainstream researchers.

  
  

• In 2009 Collins expressed concern about Victoria’s abortion laws, worrying about clauses that force doctors to refer women for terminations even if their personal beliefs oppose abortion.
• In 2010, she called on the ALP to embrace ‘traditional values’ and reject same-sex marriage, or ‘risk losing touch with its political base’.
• Collins is, according to Susie O’Brien, also anti-voluntary euthanasia, which gives people with terminal illnesses right to choose to die with dignity. Quelle surprise!

These kinds of views are, as O’Brien points out, “dangerous and antithetical to a just and fair society. And they are totally at odds with the mental health portfolio.”

As an interesting adjunct to this story, as I was writing it, I got a Facebook message from a friend, Annie Chant (a pseudonym) – a former Catholic*, now an atheist. Annie told me she had recently received an invitation and booked to attend a screening of the documentary, “It’s a Girl!” (ostensibly a ‘balanced’ report on how, “in India, China and many other parts of the world today, girls are killed, aborted and abandoned simply because they are girls”.)

It’s a subject that any woman (or man) would be concerned about. If one is ‘pro-choice’ one is obviously going to be opposed to forced abortions! If one is a feminist, one obviously doesn’t want to see fetuses aborted for no reason other than for being female (or male for that matter!).

Annie, however, was astounded to be contacted by phone and ‘uninvited’ to the event this morning by an angry organiser who had checked her Facebook page and found a post questioning the wisdom of Jacinta Collins’ appointment to the Mental Health Ministry. The woman became so ‘vile’ and ‘shouty’ says Annie that she had to hang up on her.

Now, this was clearly not at Ms Collins instigation nor within her control. But I think it speaks to the rabidity of the kinds of views Ms Collins espouses that her supporters would not even countenance allowing a pro-choice atheist to attend a screening which is presumably not about abortion per se but about the wider, humanitarian issue of how women and girls are so poorly valued in too many countries. (Curiously, I discovered, the film is almost certainly, secretly funded by a pro-life ministry).

Like the anti-euthanasia movement, the anti-abortion movement is a labyrinth of grubby propaganda, outright lies, Trojan Horse and astro-turf organisations, and a slew of pseudo-academic and political backers who swear blind that their views are not influenced one iota by their poorly-concealed links to various forms of fundamentalist religion – most often, Catholicism.

These people, of course, have every right to their views. They have every right to ignore the academic and medical literature which shows that abortion is an overwhelmingly safe procedure and does not, under normal circumstances, negatively impact the mental or physical well-being of women. (See, for example, the attached 2011 meta-analysis on “Induced Abortion and Mental Health” from the UK’s National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health.)

Pro-lifers have every right to hold a religious view on abortion and to choose not to have an abortion themselves. I will even concede they have a right to try to persuade others to their view (although not to physically and/or verbally intimidate women as they enter abortion clinics).

What I, and an increasing number of other concerned commentators, am questioning, is the wisdom of appointing someone with these views as Minister for Mental Health!

If Rudd is to lead the Labor government to victory he will need every vote he can muster. This ham-fisted attempt to get in good with the Shoppies and the ALP’s faceless fundies is very likely to lose my vote. How about yours?

You can contact the Prime Minister on Twitter at @KRuddPM or send an email via his Contact Page.

Chrys Stevenson

* The original edition of this post referred to ‘Annie Chant’ as a former Pentecostal youth leader. I had the histories of two friends confused and have corrected it to ‘former Catholic’. Apologies to ‘Annie Chant’ and thanks to her for drawing the inaccuracy to my attention.

Related Post

“Collins’ views ‘at odds with portfolio'” – Patricia Karvelas, The Australian

Last night, a Twitter critic accused me of consistently undermining Julia Gillard when I should have showed solidarity.

My first response was that he was overestimating my power to bring down a Prime Minister with my modest blog.

But, his criticism raises some interesting points.

I am a woman – a feminist. Does that necessarily mean that I am required to support a Prime Minister who happens to be a woman? What if the woman was Julie Bishop? Should I throw my support behind she-of-the-death-stare in order to keep my membership of ‘the sisterhood’?

Like many other people, I was delighted to see our first female Prime Minister come to power.  I even wrote her a letter.

While many were outraged by the method in which Ms Gillard despatched the  incumbent PM, I was less perturbed than most. Politics is a dirty game. Rudd obviously had serious flaws and had lost the confidence of his party.  There was probably no ideal way for Gillard to succeed Rudd, and, if her party thought she could do a better job, who I was I to argue? Perhaps I spent too much time in the corporate world to be surprised or even offended by political skullduggery.

I will admit to a little frisson of excitement that, in addition to being a woman, Gillard was also open about her atheism.

Let me set the record straight here. I did not expect, or even want, Ms Gillard to be an ‘atheist Prime Minister’ – any more than I want Tony Abbott to be a ‘Catholic Prime Minister’. I did hope, though, that she would be a secular Prime Minister, making decisions based on utilitarian considerations, evidence and rational argument.

And yet, with almost indecent haste, our new PM fronted up to the Australian Christian Lobby to insist that, despite her atheism, her morals sprang from her Baptist upbringing. The implication was that atheist morality was, somehow, inferior. Further, selling out the mental health of Australia’s most important asset – our children – the new PM pledged her continued support (and millions of dollars in tax-payers’ funds) to the National School Chaplaincy Program.

Equal marriage? We soon learned that, despite living in a defacto relationship with her partner, Ms Gillard did not support same-sex marriage because of her ‘traditional values’. WTF????  It was an oft repeated mantra that just never rang true.

More believable, was the hypothesis that her Prime Ministership had been secured at the cost of a deal with fundamentalist Christians within the Labor Party – notably Joe de Bruyn and Don Farrell. In other words, she had sold out her principles for power.

In August 2012, Ron Williams took the government to the High Court of Australia to challenge the funding of the National School Chaplaincy Program. He was successful. The High Court ruled the Federal government’s funding of the scheme unconstitutional. But, instead of accepting the authority of the High Court, Gillard’s government rushed through dodgy legislation to allow its continued funding and keep the Christian right happy. It was a cynical, dishonest move which thumbed its nose at the authority of the High Court and will necessitate Williams – an ordinary citizen – going back to court in another action to insist that the Commonwealth abide by the original decision.

Earlier this year, Ms Gillard’s government cut welfare to single parents in a Quixotic attempt to balance her government’s budget. Ignoring warnings from no less an authority than the UN that the cuts potentially violated several human rights conventions to which Australia is a signatory – including the elimination of discrimination against women – Ms Gillard defended the move which has brought incredible hardship to many women who are doing it tough and simply trying to do best they can for their families.

And then there is the Gillard government’s lurch to the right on asylum seekers. The ‘Pacific solution’ is no solution at all.

Women like me who have faced misogyny all our lives were buoyed by Ms Gillard’s now famous tirade against Mr Abbott, but, in the context of her refusal to fight for equal rights for gay women, the human rights of female asylum seekers and their families, and her insistence on making life inestimably harder for single mothers, her conviction lost much of its shine.

It’s true. Julia Gillard is a strong, intelligent, hard-working woman who has probably been as good a Prime Minister as any. Under incredibly difficult circumstances she implemented some extremely important policies – the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Gonski education reforms, and a price on carbon, among them. She deserves credit for that and has earned her place in history.

But, should this, and the fact that she is a woman, exempt her from criticism? I don’t believe so.

I am quite willing to admit that Julia Gillard was dealt with more harshly in the press because she is a woman. She certainly did not deserve the shocking, personal, misogynistic crap that was dealt to her by various dinosaurs of the rat-bag right and I spoke out against that, too.

This is a blog. I am an opinion writer, not a journalist. It is, I think, very clear that the opinions stated here reflect my own particular interests. On  the issues that really mattered to me, personally, Gillard did not deliver.

I never criticised Ms Gillard for ‘knifing Rudd’. I never criticised her because she is a woman – why would I? But, neither did I give her a free pass because she is a woman. Frankly, I don’t think she would have wanted that kind of patronising concession from anyone.

Some people have criticised me for attacking Ms Gillard, arguing that commentaries like mine will make it easier for Tony Abbott’s party to win at the next election. I think they massively over-estimate my influence!

But, even so, should Gillard really be exempt from criticism because Abbott is worse? Should we ‘keep mum’ over important issues like equal marriage, gay youth suicide, professional mental health support for school students, separation of church and state, respect for the High Court and more than a subsistence income for single mums because Gillard performed well in other areas? I don’t think so.

This month, it became increasingly clear that the ‘Gillard brand’ was irrevocably damaged. She was, for all intents and purposes, unelectable.

Perhaps if she had not sold her soul to the likes of de Bruyn and Farrell we might have seen the ‘real Julia’ and things might have been different. Sure, the mainstream media can take some of the credit – perhaps most of the credit – for her political demise. But, Julia had a hand in it too. We do no credit to strong, female leaders if we depict them, one-dimensionally,  as the hapless victims of a predatory male-dominated press-gallery.

And now, Rudd has returned the favour and mercilessly manoeuvred to remove an incumbent PM from office. Ms Gillard has no basis on which to complain about that. She gave that strategy her imprimatur when she did the same thing to Rudd. That’s politics.

Am I ‘ecstatic’ that Rudd has won the long game? Not particularly. I readily accept the possibility that he is a grumpy, irascible, foul-mouthed individual with a charismatic veneer and a chaotic management style. It may be that Rudd’s only saving grace is that he can charm the electorate out of a landslide victory for Abbott. If he wins the election and then gets knifed by Bill Shorten, it may be the best outcome all round.

I’m sorry if my pragmatism sounds shocking. But, ultimately, the ALP’s only goal must be to win the forthcoming Federal election or, at least,  not to lose it in a landslide.  For a variety of complex reasons – including ‘the misogyny factor’ – Gillard was simply not capable of achieving either of those goals in the short time before the election.  Whether or not that’s her fault is, frankly, academic. As far as I can see, installing Rudd was the only viable option.

That doesn’t mean that Rudd will be a good PM. It doesn’t mean a Rudd-led ALP will be a good government. But, hopefully, there is enough talent behind the scenes in the ALP to keep Rudd in check and keep the Australian boat afloat.

To give credit where it’s due, Abbott and his team, no doubt, would be good economic managers. But the ALP has also done a good job under extremely difficult circumstances. And, on the issues that matter to me – separation of church and state, equality, social justice, asylum seekers, human rights, reproductive rights, et cetera – Abbott, frankly, scares the shit out of me.

Let’s be honest. A Rudd government won’t be perfect on any of those issues either. But I have more confidence that the ALP will deliver kinder, more just, social policies than the Coalition. If the Greens gain the balance of power in the Senate, that provides an extra safe-guard.

After Gillard refused to back equal marriage I swore that I would not vote for any party whose leader did not support marriage equality. To me, a Prime Minister who does not believe in the basic human right of all citizens to equality under the law does not deserve the highest position in our nation. I would not have voted for a Gillard-led Labor government for that reason – regardless of any other policies. Equality is the bedrock upon which a democracy is built. A Prime Minister who would sell that out for power is not one I could respect nor cast a vote for.

Rudd is a late-comer in his support of marriage equality and, while I may doubt his motives and sincerity, while I may cringe at the theological gymnastics he performed to reconcile his new position with his faith, he has stuck his rainbow flag in the sand and that’s good enough for me.

I am not a ‘Labor voter’ or a ‘Greens voter’ or even a ‘Liberal hater’.  I am an advocate for equal rights, social justice,  human dignity and a secular state. Ultimately, I will vote for the party or parties that support the foundations upon which my political beliefs are constructed.

I don’t presume to tell anyone else how to vote. My role as a writer and blogger is simply to call the shots as I see them and let my readers make their own choices. I try to do that responsibly and fairly.

I refute the allegation that I had any hand in ending Ms Gillard’s Prime Ministership but, I couldn’t say, honestly, that I’m sad to see her go.

Chrys Stevenson

Bernard Gaynor is not a popular boy. He reminds me of that poor kid at school. You know the one! The kid who, when it came time for picking sporting teams, would hop up and down as if dying for a pee, thrust his hand in the air and shout with increasing desperation, “Pick me! Pick me!”. But, despite his puppy-like enthusiasm, he was always the last to be reluctantly chosen under the greatest duress. It’s the mental image that springs to mind when I think of Gaynor’s not-so-spectacular political career.

Known for referring to the Gay Mardi Gras as “the prancing pansy parade”, Gaynor’s personal blog (the only place which will publish his increasingly lunatic rants) today suggests that the phrase “good people” should be redefined to refer exclusively to heterosexual couples “in a lifelong commitment to each other that is open to procreation and children”.

Apart from being just plain silly, Gaynor’s definition of “good people” apparently includes de-facto couples (providing they’re fecund) but excludes heterosexual couples who have no interest in reproducing and “couples who cannot have children due to their bits being the same”.

It’s all a bit of a mystery, really, because somehow, despite their squidgy bits being the same, there are a hell of a lot of lesbian and homosexual couples who do have children. Perhaps if Mr Gaynor’s church was more inclusive of Rainbow Families he wouldn’t be so gosh-darned ignorant.

So who is this Bernard Gaynor? His name might be vaguely familiar if you live in Queensland but, for the rest of you, the short-answer to the question is, “Nobody, really”.

The longer answer is that Gaynor is yet another pro-life Catholic whose wacky religious zealotry situates him outside the furthest reaches of polite society, alongside the fundamentalist Muslims he so militantly opposes but, with delicious irony, so closely resembles.

By his own admission, Gaynor cast his first-ever vote for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. Sadly, his political judgement doesn’t seem to have improved since. Little did he know then, with one stroke of a blunt HB pencil, he had just begun a decades-long losing streak in which he would back a string of crash-and-burn, clapped-out political nags – none of them stayers.

It would be fair to say that, in the last couple of years, young Bernie’s Charlestoned his way through more fringe-filled parties than the flappers in Baz Lurhrmann’s Gatsby.

Gaynor started his chaotic political career as state secretary of the newly-minted Queensland Party – founded by his equally barmy army buddy Aidan McLindon.

In late 2011, spooked, some say, by the spectre of Katter’s new Australian Party, McLindon and Gaynor divided the Queensland Party when they decided to merge with Katter’s mob, thereby gaining a couple of cushy jobs for themselves and royally pissing off those they left behind.

A small group of Queensland Party die-hards opposed the merger and attempted to keep the party operating, but ultimately, an investigation by the Queensland Electoral Commission found the McLindon/Gaynor-led exodus to Katter’s party had left the Queensland Party with insufficient members to maintain its registration. Oh, the lure of that Golden Calf of political power.

The defection left Queensland Party chairman, Jim Nicholls spitting chips. He accused McLindon, the party’s only sitting member, of jumping ship without consulting the state executive. The ‘merger’, said Nicholls, was not only illegitimate, but illegal. According to one report, the Queensland Party stayers accused McLindon and Gaynor of being untrustworthy, incompent, saboteurs. And these were their political allies talking!

But Gaynor’s defection to Katter’s Australian Party was short-lived. In January last year, he was suspended after tweeting that he didn’t want gay people teaching his children. Bob Katter is not known for his love of the ‘friends of Dorothy’ but, it seems, Gaynor was even too homophobic for him!

A month of rising tensions between Gaynor and Katter led to Gaynor’s resignation in late February 2012 – ostensibly because the party refused to take a public position against abortion.

As Rohan Williams observes, even Katter’s uber-conservative party was not conservative enough for Gaynor.

Not yet discouraged, Gaynor hinted strongly that his next political port o’ call would be the DLP – once the political holy land of Australian conservative Catholicism. (Take a bow B A Santamaria).

Prior to his ill-advised political foray, Gaynor served with the Australian Defence Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. Returning to Australia, he continued to serve as an intelligence officer in the Army Reserve. In April this year, the ADF joined the growing cavalcade of public institutions scrambling to distance themselves from Gaynor’s excrementally extremist views. According to Gaynor himself, the ADF charged him with seven counts of bringing the ADF into disrepute by discussing links between Islam and terrorist activity on his blog.

Having been decorated as a soldier, Gaynor was now rapidly accruing a mass of less laudable distinctions. Found too homophobic for one of Australia’s best known homophobes, he was now outed as an intelligence officer of very little intelligence.

By early June, the Democratic Labor Party, in which Gaynor had hoped to find a haven for his homophobia, issued a statement distancing itself from the would-be politician.

“Bernard Gaynor was never an endorsed DLP candidate” the DLP was anxious to clarify.

Apparently, Mr Gaynor had breached an agreement with the DLP and the Federal Executive (probably with a huge sigh of relief) voted unanimously to revoke his membership.

As Sal Piracha at “Only the Depth Varies” observes, “Bernard Gaynor will go down in history as having one of the shortest, stupidest political careers in Australia’s history”.

Indeed! Surely only a highly trained military marksman like Gaynor could so accurately shoot himself in the foot so many times during such a very short political career.

Recently, having run out of parties who’d have ‘im, Gaynor accepted defeat and said he was giving up politics. It would, of course, have been more honest to note that politics had given up on him.

But Bernie didn’t leave us wondering what kind of political leader he might have been, given the opportunity.

While Gillard draws her political inspiration from her father, Keating and Obama, while Rudd looks to Bonhoeffer as a guide to negotiating the rocky path between faith and politics, Gaynor’s inspiration is … well … slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.

With his ill-advised ejaculations forcing his premature political withdrawal, Gaynor hopes that a divine intervention might plant the seed that will produce an Australian messiah to save us from “the empty, atheistic and crumbling secularist society that is killing Western civilisation.”

Writing on his blog earlier this month, Gaynor said:

“I …pray that God raise[s] up a national hero who can save Australia in the same mould as Garcia Moreno, who dedicated his country to Christ the King and achieved great things for Ecuador, before being assassinated for his Catholic faith.”

You may not have heard of Garcia Moreno. I hadn’t. Fortuitously, Encyclopaedia Britannica comes to our aid:

“Gabriel García Moreno, (born December 24, 1821, Guayaquil, Ecuador—died August 6, 1875, Quito), initiator of a church-oriented dictatorship in Ecuador (1861–75). His rule, oppressive but often effective in its reformist aims, eventually cost him his life.”

Moreno, I learned, is condemned by liberal historians as Ecuador’s worst ever tyrant – and they’ve had a few! According to one report, he executed more people than any other 19^th century Ecuadorian president, bar one.

In 1861 Moreno implemented Catholicism as the exclusive religion of Ecuador and, in 1863 negotiated Ecuador’s first concordat with the Vatican, investing the Ecuadorian Roman Catholic Church with vast power over the country’s education system. Imagine the National School Chaplaincy Program on steroids.

Even the local clergy accused Moreno of being a religious fanatic.

But, to give Moreno his due, like Hitler, he did marvellous things for the transport system.

While Catholics do like to cast Moreno as a religious martyr, it’s rather a stretch to say he was killed because of his Catholicism.

It seems Moreno was killed by a Colombian, a former friend, who held a personal grudge against the President. All of the conspirators involved in his murder were Catholics.

Sadly, Bernie is no better at history than he is at politics.

Without the likes of merciless Catholic dictators like Moreno to defend us, Gaynor fears:

“… we will see soldiers beheaded on our streets and the Islamic population will continue to grow rapidly. In ten years, it will be so much harder to address this difficult issue than it is today. It will probably be too late.”

There is no doubt, says Gaynor, that Islam will eventually prevail in Australia.

Hmmm. Jihad on one hand, the Spanish Inquisition on the other. Godless atheism is looking better all the time.

Bernard Gaynor, whose only political mark seems to be the kind of stain one occasionally finds in one’s undergarments , is now desperately seeking to extend his Warholian 15 minutes of fame by making increasingly outrageous remarks.

I hesitate to give this kind of fringe-dwelling fanatic oxygen but I decided there was probably some value in shining the Cross-Eyed Bear’s klieg light on him.

A religious fanatic, a political outcast, and a disgrace to the Australian Defence Force, Gaynor has spectacularly failed to gain any traction for his Crusade against Muslims and homosexuals.

(I’m sorry, I can’t resist the temptation to suggest he’s suffering from a Middle Ages crisis.)

In 21^st century Australia, Gaynor is an embarrassing anachronism. Applying none of the ‘intelligence’ the ADF apparently credited him with, he looks at religion, homosexuals and an entire race of people with the same one-eyed, two-dimensional, intellectually bankrupt zealotry as the suicide bombers and jihadist hijackers he so ardently seeks to protect us from.

It seems the only job Gaynor is now fit for is as Brigadier Jim Wallace’s replacement over at the Australian Christian Lobby. They do like their staff to come with military credentials!

If only Gaynor could see, he is the mirror image of those he fears most. He is the monster he is fighting.

It is not Muslims or Christians or even atheists who will destroy this country; it is fanatics, ideological zealots and those who seek to dehumanize those whom they don’t and won’t understand.

I advocate an inclusive society. But, if we must redefine the phrase “good people” let’s redefine it to exclude people like Bernard Gaynor.

Chrys Stevenson

A letter to the editor of the local newspaper caught my attention this week. Written by one, “RG”, astrologer, clairvoyant, feng shui aficionado and crop-circle observer, the letter warned of the dangers of adding fluoride to our drinking supply.  And, there is indisputable scientific evidence to prove his claim, RG informed us; a recent Harvard study ‘concluded’ that high amounts of fluoride in the water impacts negatively on children’s IQs.

“Where do Australian dental groups and politicians get their science?” wrote this clearly exasperated defender of public health.

I happened to mention this letter to my cousin, Doug, when he was visiting last week. Doug and I appear to be genetically predisposed to eye-rolling at hippies quoting scientific papers. There also appears to be some genetic predisposition for writing scathing letters to the editor. But, not fond of the idea of having our house picketed by a heard of disgruntled hippies,  bearing rainbow placards and brandishing twirling fire batons, I have studiously avoided responding to RG’s letters to the editor for 11 long years. I will admit though, to taking some delight in consigning them to the fire.

“I think I have to answer this one,” I said, feeling rather like the proverbial overloaded dromedary.

The week moved on and  I never did get around to checking out this Harvard paper which, apparently, proved just how dangerous fluoride is for children’s neurological development.  Then, I received an email from Doug.  RG’s letter had been gnawing at him too and he’d taken pen to paper – or fingers to keyboard – in reply.

Doug wrote:

As anyone with even a basic understanding of science and scientific process would understand, when quoting from scientific research it is imperative to name the author, the journal the study was published in and a date. Correct referencing of articles is necessary so people can check facts and make sure the information being quoted is not being taken out of context or manipulated from the author’s intention.

A scientific research paper usually covers many thousands of words and can rarely be accurately condensed into one sentence.

If  “RG” understood anything about science, he would know this. Alas, I fear he may be one of those classic examples of a little education being a dangerous thing.

“RG” seems to be someone who does not bother to check the original source documents or take the time to understand them in all their complexity. Instead, relying on simplistic summaries from those with a very unscientific bias, he makes wild and dangerous claims which don’t accord with scientific consensus on this issue.

Doug Steley

“RG”  falsely states that Ms Choi’s study ‘concludes’ that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have ‘significantly lower’ IQ scores.

In fact, Choi’s study found a ‘possible’ correlation between a slightly reduced (although possibly significant) IQ level and exposure to exceptionally high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water – in China. But, Ms Choi also concedes that, despite her subjects’ exposure to very high levels of fluoride, “the estimated decrease in average IQ scores” is sufficiently small that it “may be within the measurement of error for IQ testing.”

So, a possible correlation warranting further research, but not at all proven. Certainly not ‘concluded’ as RG suggests.

Funny that RG neglects to mention that Ms Choi’s analysis is based on data from rural and regional areas of China.

Why China? It’s simple really. Ms Choi explains that the levels of fluoride exposure needed for her study “are difficult to find in many industrialized countries.”

There’s a good reason for that. As in many industrialized nations, the level of fluoride in Australia’s town water supplies is closely monitored and controlled within demonstrably safe limits. Australian children simply aren’t exposed to the ‘highly fluoridated water’ that features in Choi’s study – even when fluoride is added to the water supply.

Most of Australia’s natural water supplies are low in fluoride. Fluoride is added to bring our water up to relatively normal, safe levels of around .7-1mg per litre; a concentration which is low, safe and protects against dental decay.

Conversely, Choi’s study focuses on regional and rural areas in China with unmonitored, uncontrolled, abnormally high rates of fluoride in water sources such as springs, wells and streams. It’s simply not comparable with the water supplied to Australian families.

Like many chemical substances, the toxicity of fluoride depends upon the dose. You can die from drinking too much water or inhaling too much oxygen, but I haven’t noticed Mr Giles writing to the Range News to suggest we should stop breathing and drinking! Just so, fluoride, a naturally occurring substance in drinking water, is certainly toxic in high concentrations but has been proven safe and beneficial in lower doses.

So let’s be clear. Ms Choi’s research on fluoride and IQ levels does not ‘conclude’ anything.  Nor should her research raise any alarms for Australian parents whose children are not and will never be exposed to the unmonitored, high fluoride levels which exist in the wells, springs and streams of some regional areas of China.

RG should be more responsible when reporting on scientific studies. He should at least, read them. He has badly misrepresented this one.”

Chrys Stevenson

Like climate science deniers and anti-vaxxers, our friend, “RG”,  has set himself up as the font of all knowledge on issues about which he knows fuck-all. One can only stand in amazement at the level of self-delusion required to imagine that his little bit google research provides him with the equivalent of a PhD in chemistry!

But google research does have its place. Indeed, a little bit of google research reveals that the key paragraph of RG’s letter to the editor was plagiarised, complete and unattributed, from an article by über woo-meister, Dr Joseph Mercola’s:

“A recently-published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.”

If “RG” even bothered to read the study I’ll run down to Maleny, buy a hand-woven, organic hemp hat from the Co-op and consume it for my vegan, locally sourced, non-fluoridated dinner.

Sadly, the editor of our local rag didn’t see fit to publish our letters. OK, maybe they were just a tad ranty. But, hey – that’s why I have a blog.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Post:  Water fluoridation – the 47 millionth blog on the issue by Skeptical Raptor

I’ve written two blog posts on anti-vax campaigner, Judy Wilyman (aka Roslyn Judith Wilyman) and, kindly, in return, she’s written a malevolent little missive  about me which I found hugely entertaining.

Not too long ago, Ms Wiley’s shenanigans were featured in a front page article in the Illawarra Mercury. I can’t imagine who might have tipped them off!

My first blog post about this rogue researcher  – Judy Wilyman, PhD candidate, Wollongong University ‘false, dangerous, misleading and disrespectful’, castigates Wilyman for a callous attack on the parents of a baby girl who died of pertussis (whooping cough).

The second, Why Wollongong’s abdication of responsibility for Wilyman won’t wash, criticises Wollongong University for their failure to censure Wilyman for unethical actions.

Ms Wilyman is yet another example of a person whose academic integrity is diluted (or, perhaps, more accurately, drowned) by an ideological agenda. (See my previous articles on Dr Catherine Lennon who suffers from the same affliction.)

My mantra is that the best defence against this kind of thing is to shine a light on it. That’s what I did with Dr Lennon last week and, this week, Christine Bayne has done a fine job in pulling together a detailed ‘biography’ of Ms Wilyman and her nefarious activities as an anti-vaccination activist.

Thanks to a link in Christine’s blog post, I was able to read a review of one of Wilyman’s ‘academic articles’ by Dr David Hawkes from the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health. Dr Hawkes, is an experienced reviewer with expertise in molecular virology and pharmacology. According to Dr Hawkes, Ms Wilyman’s paper is flawed by errors in grammar, spelling, referencing and structure, has an unacceptably low rate of references, misrepresents research data, makes sweeping statements with no supporting references, and her overall approach to the data  is to try to frame it in a way that will support her philosophy. This is not an honest or acceptable approach to academic research.

If Wollongong University gives Judy Wilyman a PhD, it will reveal its academic standards to be no better than a US diploma mill.

That said,  I’ll refer you to Christine Bayne’s blog – Diluted Thinking in Australian Healthcare – and her article, Campaigner: Judy Wilyman. It’s worth a read although it will make your stomach turn.

Chrys Stevenson

See also:  

Grieving mother Toni McCaffery was villified by anti-vaccination bullies – Daily Telegraph 26/5/13

Grieving parents speak out against anti-vaccine venom – Daily Telegraph 26/5/13