Annoyed? Inconvenienced? Nah, just incandescent with rage ...

... and I don't even live in Sydney. However, I am gobsmacked by the latest stupidity of the bunch of thugs that calls itself the NSW government. My learned colleague the president of the NSW Bar Association obviously shares my concern:

World Youth Day regulations undermine our basic rights
The president of the New South Wales Bar Association, Anna Katzmann SC, has condemned the Iemma government’s World Youth Day regulations as a direct affront to freedom of speech and assembly.
‘To make something that causes inconvenience to people the basis for a criminal offence is both unnecessary and repugnant.
‘It is difficult to understand the need for, let alone the wisdom of, such a law’, said Ms Katzmann.
Creating a criminal offence by regulation bypasses the same level of parliamentary and public scrutiny that would be given to an Act of parliament.
‘Who required this? Why are the existing laws good enough to regulate conduct at, say, the Mardi Gras parade or the Rugby World Cup, but not on this occasion?’ Ms Katzmann said.
To make matters worse, the terms of the regulation are vague, its operation uncertain and it does not at least require the conduct to be disorderly or insulting.
In this last respect it is in stark contrast with existing laws governing crowd behaviour at Mount Panorama or the Sydney Cricket Ground.
‘The mere presence in the vicinity of a person wearing the apparel or insignia of another religion might be annoying or inconvenient to a participant in a World Youth Day event. So, too, the presence of a protestor.
‘If I were to wear a T-shirt proclaiming that “World Youth Day is a waste of public money” and refuse to remove it when an officer of the Rural Fire Service asks me to, I would commit a criminal offence. How ridiculous is that?
‘Why should participants in a World Youth Day event be the arbiters of good taste and behaviour and why should their sensitivities or those of a police officer, an SES member or a member of the Rural Fire Service dictate the behaviour of other, law abiding members of the public?’ Ms Katzmann concluded.

Here’s the relevant regulation:

7 Control of conduct within World Youth Day declared areas
(1) An authorised person may direct a person within a World Youth Day declared area to cease engaging in conduct that:
…
(b) causes annoyance or inconvenience [my emphasis] to participants in a World Youth Day event,
…
(2) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with a direction given to the person under subclause (1).
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) A person is not guilty of an offence under this clause unless it is established that the authorised person warned the person that a failure to comply with the direction is an offence.
(4) In this clause, authorised person means:
(a) a police officer, or
(b) a member of an SES unit (within the meaning of the State Emergency Service Act 1989) or a member of the NSW Rural Fire Service, but only if the member is authorised by the Authority in writing for the purposes of this clause.

So what is a World Youth Day “declared area”? See Schedule A:

Event sites [47 of them…]

Sydney Adventist College Activity Centre
Australian Museum
Barangaroo site as defined in section 3 (1) of the World Youth Day Act 2006
Hyde Park Barracks
B’naiB’rith Centre
Birrung Gallery
Customs House
St Mary’s Cathedral
Darling Harbour
The Domain
Emmanuel Synagogue
Cinema Paris
Pilgrim Walking Route (as shown on the map entitled “World Youth Day – Pilgrimage walking route” prepared by the Authority and dated 29 May 2008 and deposited in the office of the Authority)
Barangaroo Walking Route (as shown on the map entitled “World Youth Day – Main event walking routes: Tuesday to Friday 15 to 18 July 2008” prepared by the Authority and displayed on the Authority’s website)
Centennial Park
Randwick Racecourse
Royal Botanic Gardens
Royal Agricultural Society Showground
The University of Sydney
Art Gallery of New South Wales
State Sports Centre
Sydney Harbour Bridge
Sydney Olympic Park
Harbourside Amphitheatre
Hyde Park, between Elizabeth and College Streets
Legion of Mary
Loreto Kirribilli
The Mint
Maunsell Wickes at Barry Stern Galleries
Mary MacKillop Place
National Trust Centre, Observatory Hill
The University of Notre Dame Australia (Darlinghurst Campus)
Our Lady of the Rosary
Sydney Opera House
The Sydney Jewish Museum
King Street Gallery on William
St Collumcilles Woolloomooloo
St Joseph’s Catholic Church Edgecliff
St Paul’s Catholic Chapel East Sydney
St Peter’s Catholic Church Surry Hills
St Scholastica’s Chapel Glebe
St Scholastica’s Trixie Forrest Hall, Glebe
Tumbalong Park
National Council of Jewish Women of Australia
Paddington Uniting Church
Wynyard Railway Station, Barangaroo site, Sydney Opera House, Royal Botanic Gardens, The Domain, Hyde Park,
Central Station, Darling Harbour, Centennial Parklands, Randwick Racecourse and Mary MacKillop Place as shown on the map entitled “Map of key World Youth Day venues and facilities in and around Sydney City” dated Monday 23 June 2008 prepared by the Authority and displayed on the Authority’s website.

Then there are (wait for it) 584 “Accommodation and Catechesis sites” – predominantly schools (and not just Catholic ones, either), and 35 “Transport sites”, mostly railway stations, plus a few bus interchanges and terminuses.

I’m sorely tempted to visit Sydney on this ridiculous occasion, wearing the most offensive t-shirt that I can lay my hands on, and see if I can get arrested.

And – here’s a pleasant thought – just think what fun Chaser should have with this inanity.

[ category:

]

Oh no it isn't

Submitted by Scott Dunmore on July 16, 2008 - 8:32am.

Jenny, if the Catholic church is coming in for more than its share of criticism it's not "boils down to opposition to religious belief" no matter how hard some people try to put thoughts into secularists' minds, it's because the church has become a lightning rod for the justifiable resentment people feel about their tax dollars being spent on a festival for a religion that less than 10% believe in.

Add to that the disruption to their lives for a whole bloody week and the institution of anti democratic regulations, you wind up with the same situation we had with APEC.

Why do think most people would have nominated the Chaser team for knighthood for services to the long suffering public?

Tolerance?

Submitted by Richard Tonkin on July 16, 2008 - 12:25am.

Have you been reading my posts tonight, Jenny?

Pell's not coming across as tolerant at all. To the WYD pilgrims I say good luck, g'day, have fun. Their Australian spiritual leader is another matter altogether.

France cares

Submitted by Dylan Kissane on July 15, 2008 - 11:20pm.

I won't speak to all your post, Peter but on this point:

As for it being an ‘important’ event, aside from the kids families and a few catholics, who knows about it, and who cares?

...I think I can say that people in France care. They cared enough to broadcast a mass with the Archbishop of Paris and a bishop in Canberra from a church in Canberra on Sunday live to audiences here in France. The Aussie bishop spoke fine French and - apart from the religious side of things - the enitre program (mass + TV magazine) gave millions of French people a taste of Australia, potentially for the first time since the Sydney Olympics. The local channels also used the French journos in Australia to produce a couple of half-hour pieces on the history of rugby in Australia, a nice fringe benefit arising from the journos being Down Under.

Obviously not everyone in France was watching the mass on a late Sunday morning and obviously not everyone is interested in the history of Aussie rugby. Still, there will be quite a few people who will have learnt a little about Australia and cared enough to watch their regular Sunday morning service live from the other side of the world and probably a few more sports fans who benefited from the event's drawing of journos to Sydney, if to less Godly ends.

In this country, at least, a whole lot of people know about it and a whole lot of people seem to care if the 500+ news articles in French and the live TV crosses to Australia count for anything. Surely all of these articles and the international production teams of state-owned (and religion-neutral) television stations are not all family members and " a few Catholics";

Yeah but....

Submitted by F Kendall on July 15, 2008 - 9:27pm.

I wouldn't have a clue, Justin.

Ask the moderators. They like to have their say.

Fiona: We like to have our say over names, F Kendall. And, sometimes, insults - not that that's applicable in the present case.

Yeah but.....

Submitted by Justin Obodie on July 15, 2008 - 9:13pm.

Hi F Kendall, yeah all that but hey what about WYDay. Is it one day or six?

Maybe I should get them to call it World Youth Days or World Youth Week Almost; would that offend them ? Or should I just give 'em a watch and be done with it?

FYI: WYD/JMJ

Submitted by Dylan Kissane on July 15, 2008 - 9:38pm.

There is a World Youth Day - we call it JMJ over here - every year on a single day and it is celebrated in each individual diocese. For example, the WYD in 2007 was celebrated on Palm Sunday and the Pope's message on that occasion is online here; the 2006 message -again celebrated on a single day at a diocese level - is here. A WYD festival like the one in Sydney is the once every two or three year festival which lasts around a week while the youth who can't make it to Sydney will celebrate WYD on Sunday 20th of July.

(It is more than likely that this Catholic boy will celebrate WYD/JMJ in front of the TV watching the Tour de France with a cold beer in hand...but then we all worship in different ways, right?)

Condoms Clocks and Christians pt 2

Submitted by F Kendall on July 15, 2008 - 7:55pm.

Hi Justin. I don't think that the catholic church - or most of the other mainstreamers - adhere to that clock as some kind of authentic chronometer. I think that you may find they talk in aeons, eras, epochs, rather than days.

I think that you've been mixing with the wrong people, Justin, or reading naughty fundamentalist sites.

Fiona: But then, F Kendall, Justin is an albatross, so he may well have a different perspective on these matters.

Condoms Clocks & Christians

Submitted by Justin Obodie on July 15, 2008 - 7:16pm.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; in six bloody days and only six thousand years ago.

"World Youth Day (WYD) is the largest youth event in the world and will be held in Sydney from Tuesday 15 to Sunday 20 July 2008."

Christians may or may not have a problem with rubber but it is becoming obvious they do have a problem with time.

On one hand the heavens and earth were created in six days; yeah!

On the other hand we have WYD lasting not one day as, the title indicates, but six bloody days.

It would seem, as far as Christians are concerned, over a six day period just about anything and everything can happen, and it can happen quick or it can happen slow.

Anyway I was in and about Sydney today and ran into them Pilgrims all over the show. Even gave directions to one colourful and friendly group, then gave gentle reassurance to another lovely couple they were in fact travelling in the wrong direction.

Let's hope all them pilgrims have a safe and enjoyable "day" and rather than give them condoms I would suggest a chronometer would be more appropriate.

an embryo is not a sexually transmitted disease

Submitted by F Kendall on July 15, 2008 - 6:18pm.

and a condom may well prevent it.

I think that there are some/many who deplore the catholic church's attitude to birth control, and the toll it takes in the Third World.

I understand that in Oz most now simply ignore it, but I remember the brouhaha back then when this stance was endorsed ...post vatican 2? I don't remember when, but I remember some of the fallout, like:

(1) local catholic doctor saying that a woman could have a baby every year from 14 years to 40 years, and there was no reason why she shouldn't.

(2) catholic women being denied the sacraments because they used birth control, but their husbands were exempt from this: they weren't the naughty ones, were they? Some of those women walked away from catholicism at that.

(3) personal stories, like G begging single girls for the charity of having sex with him, because his wife had been advised not to have any more children, and therefore completely gave up sex with her young husband.

(4) F, father of 11 - 11! - who found the rhythmn method disgusting, in that it stopped his wife and self from a free expression of emotion, and encouraged him, in his words, to "go at it like a goat" dependent on the calendar.

I don't know what catholic women do now, or how they cope with a ban on birth control. The billings method is obviously only a technical evasion of the edict.

Plenary indulgence

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on July 15, 2008 - 5:07pm.

Fiona: "Did anyone "do" the pilgrim for littering?"

He got a Papal dispensation.

Condom lady free to harass Catholics

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on July 15, 2008 - 4:10pm.

"Two Sydney activists have won a Federal Court challenge to special World Youth Day laws that carry $5500 fines for annoying pilgrims."

"Ms Evans then walked away and handed a packet of condoms to a passing pilgrim, who took one look and dropped it on the footpath."

Fiona: Did anyone "do" the pilgrim for littering?

Evans v State of NSW - Link

Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on July 15, 2008 - 2:30pm.

In case anyone feels like stealing a march on Dr Duncan (thank you, Malcolm, for providing the link):

RACHEL EVANS and AMBER PIKE v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 1018 OF 2008

FRENCH, BRANSON AND STONE JJ
15 JULY 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY		NSD 1018 OF 2008

BETWEEN:	RACHEL EVANS First Applicant AMBER PIKE Second Applicant
AND:	STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES Respondent

JUDGES:	FRENCH, BRANSON AND STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 JULY 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. It be hereby declared that Clause 7(1)(b) of the World Youth Day Regulation 2008 is invalid, as beyond the regulation making power conferred by s 58 of the World Youth Day Act 2006 (NSW), to the extent that it purports to empower an authorised person to direct a person within a World Youth Day declared area to cease engaging in conduct that causes annoyance to participants in a World Youth Day event.

2. The application be otherwise dismissed.

3. The Respondent pay one third of the Applicants’ costs of the application provided that either party may apply by written submission, filed and served on or before 29 July 2008, to vary this costs order.

The adequacy of existing legislation

Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on July 15, 2008 - 1:04pm.

Agreed, Kathy. That particular regulation should never have been made: the existing laws were and are more than adequate for the maintenance of public order. That, by the way, was the basis of my objection - not any anti-Catholic sentiment.

Federal Court annoyed and inconvenienced

Submitted by Fiona Reynolds on July 15, 2008 - 12:48pm.

This report has been phoned in by our redoubtable legal correspondent, Malcolm B. Duncan, from the steps of the Federal Court in Sydney:

World Youth Day Regulation 7(1)(b) - annoying or inconveniencing pilgrims - has been found invalid on the basis that its scope was too broad. That is, peaceful protests could potentially be stopped. Basically, what the Federal Court said was that the regulation was intended to be a matter of public safety, but because it could be used to restrict freedom of speech it was beyond power.

I shall put up a link to the judgment as soon as it becomes available.

Evans v State of NSW

Submitted by Malcolm B Duncan on July 15, 2008 - 1:19pm.

And, as soon as the judgment is posted on the net and I have read it and digested it, I shall provide a commentary and advice as to what is now permissible.

For the moment, providing you are not breaching the Crimes Act or the Summary Offences Act (NSW) you can be as bloody annoying or inconvenient as you like but you are still at risk for obstructing a WYD event - whatever that may be.

The little condom seller

Submitted by Jenny Hume on July 15, 2008 - 2:01pm.

One asumes from this that you were representing Ms Evans, Malcolm. I hope, given your problems with the non-payers in the past, that you will be seeking a costs order against the State for your trouble. I doubt the little condom seller would be too well heeled.

I think one would have to want to live dangerously if one wanted to annoy all those happy pilgrims - what is it - 200 000 of them?

Meanwhile the greenies up at Newcastle are in much more bother. You could offer your services.

In an attempt to enlighten

Submitted by peter hindrup on July 15, 2008 - 3:57pm.

Jenny, Rachel and her friend, ‘the little condom sellers’ as you refer to them, are not selling condoms. They are in fact giving out condoms, along with pertinent and useful information in an attempt to enlighten the gullible and the uninformed.

I must hunt up her number and congratulate the lass; a nice win for her in her untiring efforts that go into attempting to shake some of the population out of its unknowing and uncaring stupor.

Condoms are not the answer.

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 15, 2008 - 4:58pm.

This from the British Medical Journal Jan 2008.

Some home truths here that many are not willing to face.

"The ongoing assertion that condoms are "the" answer to this escalating pandemic reminds me of Einstein’s words, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Are condoms the answer to rising rates of non-HIV sexually transmitted infection? No

Consistent condom use can reduce the spread of HIV, and Markus Steiner and Willard Cates believe condoms are the answer to other sexually transmitted infections. But Stephen Genuis argues that a more comprehensive approach is needed

Clinical considerations surrounding the science of sexuality and reproductive health have routinely been hijacked by philosophical perspectives, economic interests, religious bias, and sexual ideology. Rather than dialogue about evidence based outcomes and credible health policy, most talk about prevention of sexually transmitted infections involves debate over mutually exclusive perspectives on sexual morality.

Proponents of approaches encouraging safe sex (or safer sex) are accused of corrupting youth with amoral values, and opponents are perceived as zealots who disregard scientific fact in imposing their fanaticism on society. We need to look beyond vested interests to focus on clinical science and public health evidence.

A fundamental tenet of medicine is adherence to scientific fact and experiential evidence to develop treatments and programmes that maximise and sustain health. That evidence shows that effective population control of non-HIV sexually transmitted infections requires more than condom focused approaches.

Scope of protection

Firstly, condoms cannot be the definitive answer to sexually transmitted infection because they provide insufficient protection against transmission of many common diseases. "Skin to skin" and "skin to sore" infections such as human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus, syphilis, lymphomagranuloma venereum, or chancroid often transmit despite barrier protection. Although condoms prevent contact between the skin of the penis and the vaginal mucosa, intercourse generally involves skin to skin contact in the external genital area; the condom gives limited protection against pathogens found throughout the external genital tract.

…

Practical effectiveness

The main problem with condoms is that average people, particularly aroused youth, do not use them consistently, regardless of knowledge or education. Although condoms offer some protection against discharge related infections such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea, protection is usually compromised by compliance issues, incorrect use, or mechanical failure.

In theory, condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infection; practically, however, epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life.

(continues)

The truth about condoms? Certainly not from Adams and the MSM.

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 17, 2008 - 9:45am.

A letter in The Australian this morning from a doctor who should know, and who tells it how it really is.

People should do the research for themselves and stop listening to fallacious propaganda peddled by that pompous old fool Adams and his cohorts in the MSM, primarily to obscure the real truth and further their own biased agenda.

"PHILLIP Adams ("Drop your daks and show Pope you care”, Opinion, 15/7) tells us his rabid anti-Catholicism has mellowed, then in a single column of calumny he smears that gentle and brilliant man, Pope Benedict, with the brush of pedophilia and the Catholic Church with quasi-genocide of Africans.

Like Adams, I’m not a Catholic; unlike Adams, I’m African-born and know how distorted his claims are on the role of condoms in AIDS prevention.

Where condoms flood African schools and slums, with the lethal lie about safe sex, so AIDS soars. Where a systematic campaign for sexual responsibility is enacted, as in my homeland of Zambia, and more dramatically in Uganda, AIDS drops. In Uganda, dropping the prevalence from 18 per cent to 7 per cent is unmatched in any other country, and it was done by the “ABC” program: Abstain from premarital sex; Be faithful in marriage; and finally, if you lack self-control, Condom use will reduce your risk of AIDS.

The psychological root of Adams’s rant is the horror of seeing thousands of confident young people on the streets of Sydney who reject the dogmas of the sexual revolution—who, like those Ugandans, are able to say no to sex until the context is right. The answer to AIDS and human happiness is more young people like them, not smutty journalistic urgings for untrammelled promiscuity."

Dr David van Gend
Mackenzie House Medical Centre
Toowoomba

Dr van Gend certainly encapsulates my own views , and I have stated as much in my previous comments here.

When in Rome…

Submitted by Bill Avent on July 17, 2008 - 12:04pm.

Kathy, the world has always been full of doctors who should know (better).

How do you and Dr David van Gend know it is not part C, condom use, that is predominantly responsible for Uganda's reduction in AIDS infections? And since it is conceded that condom use will reduce the risk of AIDS, what is your problem with people who promote their use?

People in a free society are allowed to promote their beliefs. And people are allowed to reject them, too. The way they do it has some bearing, though. Those pilgrims from Brazil, that hellhole of social injustice, don't seem to me to have a very good way of doing it. They turned their backs on the condom profferers and chanted "Go away! Go away!"

Hey, you're in our country, Brazilios. Learn some manners. Don't tell us to go away.

The evidence

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 17, 2008 - 1:32pm.

Bill: 'the world has always been full of doctors who should know (better)"

A sweeping statement intended to belittle the doctor who has seen first hand the positive effects of the ABC campaign. Did you not read this paragraph, Bill.

"Where condoms flood African schools and slums, with the lethal lie about safe sex, so AIDS soars. Where a systematic campaign for sexual responsibility is enacted, as in my homeland of Zambia, and more dramatically in Uganda, AIDS drops. In Uganda, dropping the prevalence from 18 per cent to 7 per cent is unmatched in any other country, and it was done by the “ABC” program: Abstain from premarital sex; Be faithful in marriage; and finally, if you lack self-control, Condom use will reduce your risk of AIDS"

In African countries where the use of condoms alone is promoted, the incidence of AIDS is higher. In countries such as Uganda where the ABC program was implemented a drop from 18% to 7% is very significant.

Surely the fact that Ugandans have been educated into changing their sexual habits, thus reducing the levels of promiscuous sex, must have an effect in AIDS reduction in that country.

"A recent study of condom use in the developing world in the journal Studies in Family Planning summed up the situation with these damning words: "no clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalised epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion"16. This is most clearly seen in southern Africa. High HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use. In Botswana, says Professor Norman Hearst, of the University of California at San Francisco, condom sales rose from one million in 1993 to 3 million in 2001 while HIV prevalence amongst urban pregnant women rose from 27 per cent to 45 percent. In Cameroon condom sales rose from 6 million to 15 million while HIV prevalence rose from 3 per cent to 9 per cent."
"Reports of diminished rates of sexually transmitted infection as a result of widespread condom use in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia are reinforcing the focus on condoms as the primary strategy. Careful scrutiny of the data, however, suggests that changes in sexual behaviour (fewer partners, less casual sex, and less use of sex workers) after mass educational campaigns rather than widespread condom use by ordinary citizens was instrumental in reducing infection rates."Dr Stephen Genuis.

The evidence is certainly compelling. Condoms alone are not the answer, Bill.

As for your churlish and uncharitable observation about the pilgrims from Brazil, what were they to do, Bill? If being offered a condom offended these young pilgrims, turning their backs (basically turning the other cheek) and telling these people to go away was a reasonable and understandable response.

Do you normally smile and shake someone's hand if they are being offensive? Sheesh, if some bloody stranger in the street had the temerity to offer me a condom (and that IS what I call bad manners) I'd turn my back on them too!

Bear in mind Bill, that these pilgrims did not abuse or assault anyone, did they?

Evidence? What evidence?

Submitted by Bill Avent on July 17, 2008 - 2:01pm.

Kathy, you speak of evidence that Ugandans have been educated into changing their sexual habits, while other people in Africa have not. But the only evidence I have seen is that some guy said so. He produces no evidence that what he says is true, and nor do you.

In Brazil, the incidence of HIV Aids has dropped dramatically (I just looked it up) and, guess what, the incidence of condom use has risen dramatically. That qualifies as evidence that condoms help.

It is not I who is being churlish and uncharitable. It is those ignoramus pretenders to Christianity from Brazil. Go away, indeed. Who do they think they are, and where? This is our place, not theirs. Let them save their uncharitable go aways for the thousands of destitute homeless living on their own streets, under the gaze of their hideously hypocritical statue of Jesus.

One to the mouth

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 17, 2008 - 3:33pm.

I did provide evidence, Bill. In fact, I have provided several links such as this. Read the whole article .

Bill: "That qualifies as evidence that condoms help".

Read what I have written carefully Bill, nowhere have I said that condoms do not help. I have said, however, that they are not the answer. A comprehensive educational program that concentrates on changing sexual habits is the way to go, rather than promoting condoms alone, as some panacea (which they are not).

In the article, Stephen Genuis associate clinical professor, University of Alberta writes:

"Promoting condoms as ‘the’ answer disregards the complex nature of human sexuality and fails to tackle the underlying social and emotional needs of young people, who are often trapped in high risk sexual behaviour as a consequence of difficult life circumstances. Innumerable adolescents saturated with condom focused sex education fail to have their fundamental human needs met and end up contracting sexually transmitted infections. For some, risky sex is one component of self destructive behaviour that includes substance misuse and delinquency.'.
Political correctness and ideological interests need to be usurped by sound science. After repeated failure, the altar of safe sex needs to be dismantled in favour of credible public health policy. Although factual information about barrier protection should be included in any discussion of sexually transmitted infections, narrow condom focused initiatives should be replaced with comprehensive programmes discussed in the medical literature that have evidence-based success at reducing rates of infection."

Bill: "It is not I who is being churlish and uncharitable. It is those ignoramus pretenders to Christianity from Brazil. Go away, indeed. Who do they think they are, and where? This is our place, not theirs. Let them save their uncharitable go aways for the thousands of destitute homeless living on their own streets, under the gaze of their hideously hypocritical statue of Jesus."

Oh come on, Bill, these pilgrims are also entitled to exercise their rights. The people who were handing out the condoms were not being helpful and hospitable - they were being deliberately provocative."Go away" is rather a tame response as far as I am concerned. These Brazilian pilgrims are to be commended for their faith and control.

Certainly more controlled than I'd have been under the circumstances. I might just as easily have turned around and smacked one of those rude condom bearing buggers in the mouth. And, as I work out with weights every day, I suspect that the ignoramus would be seeing stars and I would be hauled off by the local constabulary. C'est la vie, mon chéri .

Damn good job I live in Perth then, eh Bill?

Just say no

Submitted by Bill Avent on July 17, 2008 - 4:27pm.

Kathy, now I need evidence indicating that anyone did, ever, say that condoms are a panacea. No one claims that they are the answer, do they? If you reckon they do, please feel free to name one. Here you and you professor Genuis seem to be putting forward the classic straw man argument.

What cries out for an answer is what he, and you, have against the promotion of condoms as an aid in combating the spread of HIV. The old no justo da palavra didn't work in Brazil; and I can't imagine that it was what worked in Uganda either. Some doctor something or other saying it doesn't make it so.

Punching someone in the mouth seems to me to be a pretty gross overreaction to the polite offer of a free condom. A simple "No thank you," would probably suffice. As for going to someone else's country, and telling the locals to go away, that's both rude and stupid. Deport the cheeky little blighters. And tell them to take their silly old Pope with them.

Banging one's head against a brick wall

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 17, 2008 - 5:23pm.

The evidence is there if you choose to see it. I have provided enough links, Bill. With regards to condoms being a panacea, Bill, you are splitting hairs here. There are those who promote the use of condoms exclusively as a solution to the AIDS epidemic.

"The condemnation of the condom guarantees life to millions of surplus human beings while condemning millions to death. The fact that this cheap, simple and ancient device can prevent HIV as well as pregnancy will not be taken into account”

– Phillip Adams. Of course, this statement is not backed up with any evidence.

Bill: "What cries out for an answer is what he, and you, have against the promotion of condoms as an aid in combating the spread of HIV."

I think your needle is stuck in a groove there, Bill. Now, I have provided examples of studies from professionals that address the root (pun intended) causes of this problem. Handing out condoms alone is not sufficient. My stance is clear here. Bit puzzled about yours, though. And you have provided nary a link to support your premise (whatever that may be)

"… a polite offer of a free condom …"

You of course have proof that it was a polite offer, Bill?

"Deport the cheeky little blighters. And tell them to take their silly old Pope with them." And all this, because they said "Go away", Bill?

They broke no laws, did they?

Methinks intolerance of other people's beliefs is alive and well in Oz.

Now, where did I put those red shoes...

Fiona: Nevertheless, Kathy, it is, and remains, Webdiary practice to provide a link if you are including direct quotations from other sources in your comments....

Choosing to see what you want to see

Submitted by Bill Avent on July 17, 2008 - 6:14pm.

Kathy Farrelly: "There are those who promote the use of condoms exclusively as a solution to the AIDS epidemic."

My invitation to you to name one still stands. All Phillip Adams has said is that condoms "can prevent HIV as well as pregnancy". Hundreds of people have said that. Adams needs to show no proof when he says it. It is as universally recognised as the fact that gumboots can keep your feet dry.

Likewise, I need to provide no link to justify my premise. My premise is just a challenge to your search for something to tenuously justify the view you hold. Links to the opinions of someone somewhere are not evidence of anything more than their opinions. Such links as yours are just a waste of people's time. "A doctor said it" or "a professor said it" doesn't turn opinion into gospel. Genuis's article is no more than a verbose hodge-podge of gobbledegook designed to pull the wool over his readers' eyes. He doesn't even manage to present a rational argument, let alone prove anything.

If you want proof that the offer of a condom was polite, then you need first to show some indication, however slight, that it was not polite. I would take it as a default assumption that it was. As for intolerance, who is least tolerant — the person who wants to punch promoters of condom use in the face, or the one who objects to pilgrims from another country coming here and showing rude intolerance of condom promoters?

Choosing to see what you want to see. I certainly agree.

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 17, 2008 - 9:07pm.

We are just going around in circles, Bill. Data was scrutinized and a conclusion was reached. I am not going to post the other links again. It is obvious that you have already made up your mind.

"Adams needs to show no proof when he says it. It is as universally recognised as the fact that gumboots can keep your feet dry."

I think that is a rather poor analogy .

Gum boots always keep one's feet dry; condoms, however, do not always prevent AIDS or pregnancy, especially when used incorrectly.

"Universally recognized" fact? I wasn't aware of that: can you please provide a link, Bill?

I have not said that condoms do not help at all. However, the promotion of condoms without education and change in sexual behaviour has been largely ineffectual.

Bill: "If you want proof that the offer of a condom was polite, then you need first to show some indication, however slight, that it was not polite."

No, don't think so, Bill. You were the one who stated that the offer was polite. How would you know unless you were there? You say "polite" as if it goes without saying. I could say these people tried to foist the condoms on the pilgrims.

"Protesters have prepared their own World Youth Day activities, foisting condoms on pilgrims and selling "Pope Go Homo" T-shirts." See here.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1822775,00.html

And anyway how does one offer a condom politely? The mere act itself is certainly offensive to many. It would be offensive to me too.

Finally Bill, "As for intolerance, who is least tolerant — the person who wants to punch promoters of condom use in the face, or the one who objects to pilgrims from another country coming here and showing rude intolerance of condom promoters"

Lighten up Bill, it was tongue in cheek. Again.

I used it to illustrate just how composed and calm the pilgrims were. For, had it been me, I would have told them to piss off and stop being offensive.

I wouldn't hurt a fly, though.

"Honest injun."

Anyways, found my red shoes. So, I'm clickin' my heels, and I'm outta here!

Circles? Me? Never!

Submitted by Bill Avent on July 18, 2008 - 12:15am.

Kathy Farrelly: "Universally recognized" fact? I wasn't aware of that: can you please provide a link, Bill?

You've provided a couple yourself, Kathy. Look at the Markus Steiner and Willard Cates references in the introduction to Genuis's article. And consider the title of the article itself. It is about non HIV sexually transmitted infection. That is not what Phillip Adams was talking about at all. But nevertheless they are widely, if not universally, recognised as effective prophylactics against all the most serious STDs. And against unwanted pregnancy. Sure, they can fail sometimes, but what can't?

Gumboots are a perfect analogy. They can keep your feet dry (again, only if used correctly — if you put one on your head it won't keep your feet dry. But that will only prove that you don't know what you're doing — it won't prove that gumboots don't work.)

Do you see now how silly your "condoms won't work if used incorrectly" sounds? Of course they won't. Nothing much will. So use things correctly.

Or maybe you want me to prove that condoms do work? Use your own links. Take the trouble to accurately read what they contain. Here you go, I'll do it for you. This is Genuis, confirming that they work:

"The main problem with condoms is that average people, particularly aroused youth, do not use them consistently, regardless of knowledge or education."

Here he states the "main" problem (what the minor problems are he doesn't bother to tell us) is that some people, some times, don't use them properly. The old "gumboot on your head doesn't keep your feet dry" argument.

Further down the page he says: "Only a minority of people engaging in risky sexual behaviour use condoms consistently." No kidding. They're no good because people don't use them consistently. And those people engaged in trying to persuade people to use them properly and consistently are misguided, and should stop doing that. In these clumsily self-replicating sentences of his, Genuis is conceding that condoms do work. Only not if someone doesn't use them. Well, thanks for that revelation, Prof. I never would have figured that one out by myself.

Further down the page he points out that some sexually transmitted diseases depend on skin to skin contact. This is a total red herring, as far as HIV AIDS is concerned. HIV AIDS is transmitted by bodily fluids, not skin to skin contact. And if you want a reference to prove that, you can keep on wanting. Or phone your local GP and ask him or her.

"In theory, condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infection…"

In theory, eh? Genuis is not prepared to challenge that theory; he just sleazily implies that the theory is false, hoodwinking uncritical readers into believing that he has something useful to say. And then, in conclusion, he has the audacity to say: "Political correctness and ideological interests need to be usurped by sound science." His whole article is an ideological tract, altogether devoid of respectable science, designed to support what he considers to be politically correct.

Ah ,so it's widely not universally, now, Bill.

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 18, 2008 - 10:11am.

Ah, so it's "widely" not "universally" now, is it Bill? I see...

Your gumboot analogy is a poor one, Bill. It's flawed For only a fool would put a gumboot or a condom on his head. What you seem to be implying here, Bill, is that condoms (and correct me if I am wrong) work and nothing else is needed. If so this is a rather narrow and simplistic notion.

Genuis also says:

The relentless rise of sexually transmitted infection in the face of unprecedented education about and promotion of condoms is testament to the lack of success of this approach. In numerous large studies, concerted efforts to promote use of condoms has consistently failed to control rates of sexually transmitted infection—even in countries with advanced sex education programmes such as Canada, Sweden, and Switzerland. In my home province of Alberta, rates of chlamydia and gonorrhoea have tripled since 1998 despite ubiquitous "safer sex" education. The ongoing assertion that condoms are "the" answer to this escalating pandemic reminds me of Einstein’s words, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

Bill, chlamydia IS a serious disease that can leave young women sterile. Whilst condoms can help prevent this insidious disease to a small degree, it can still be contracted even if condoms are used correctly.

Bill: "In theory, eh? Genuis is not prepared to challenge that theory; he just sleazily implies that the theory is false, hoodwinking uncritical readers into believing that he has something useful to say. And then, in conclusion, he has the audacity to say: "Political correctness and ideological interests need to be usurped by sound science." His whole article is an ideological tract, altogether devoid of respectable science, designed to support what he considers to be politically correct."

I, on the other hand, think Dr Genuis was quite honest and even-handed, Bill. He is genuinely trying find a solution.

What have you got against the ABC program, anyway? Genuis is not saying don't use condoms at all, but use them as part of a broad based approach.

If you have a better plan let's hear it. Giving out condoms to all and sundry with nothing to back it up just won't cut it. Reducing your sexual partners, staying faithful, and using a condom, will.

A C minus for an Associate Prof.

Submitted by Bill Avent on July 18, 2008 - 12:21pm.

Kathy Farrelly: "Ah, so it's "widely" not "universally" now, is it Bill? I see..."

So you have trouble with the good old widely, if not universally, description of the popular level of acceptance of an idea, now, Kathy? And need to resort to a distortion of the phrase used by your opponent in debate, in order to try to score a point? I reckon you're scraping the bottom of the barrel now…

Are condoms a more complicated apparatus than gumboots, then? I wouldn't have thought so. They seem simple enough to me. Then again, someone who thinks I said condoms work and nothing else is needed is likely to find all sorts of things confusing.

A bit of information for you — insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, while it is widely (but by no means universally) attributed to Einstein, is in fact unlikely to have originated with him. Various others have been credited with it, including Rudyard Kipling and Rita Mae Brown, and some believe it to be from a Chinese proverb.

The lowest common denominator will do for a third-rate thinker like Steven Genuis, though. Such people prefer to live in a simplified world of their own making, with scant regard for accuracy or actuality. It's called laziness. And evoking Einstein so as to subliminally lend credibility to one's own contention is called dishonesty.

The Associate Professor's article reads like some undergraduate's essay dashed off in a hurry to meet a deadline. Making little point further than that condoms are not comprehensive protection against certain venereal diseases, which no one said they were anyway, it is padded out with mind-numbingly meaningless pseudo-academic verbiage, apparently meant to impress the impressionable reader. It is the sort of thing that should be sent back with instructions to rewrite it to bring it up to standard. It should take about ten minutes. Just cutting out the meaningless nonsense which makes up its bulk would make a big improvement.

Look at the first paragraph. What does it say? Absolutely nothing. The second, likewise. Spack-filler. And the third; and so it goes. And he has the gall to say: Political correctness and ideological interests need to be usurped by sound science. And then go on to present no sound science at all, but a whole lot of ideological claptrap. His whole article could be reduced to about sixty words, and whatever insignificant little point he manages to make remain intact.

Please answer the questions Bill

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 18, 2008 - 10:14pm.

Universal: Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide

Widely: Extending over a great distance from side to side; broad

Okay Bill, make up your mind: which is it to be?

There is a difference.

If I were interested in scoring points I would have pursued further your little foray into the "polite" condom vendors foisting their wares onto the Brazilian pilgrims. I noticed no concession from you, Bill, when I provided a link, "however slight", that the condom profferers were indeed being pushy and not polite.

Bill: “Then again, someone who thinks I said condoms work and nothing else is needed is likely to find all sorts of things confusing.”

First of all, I did not say that. I said that I thought you implied such. Furthermore, I said "correct me if I am wrong"

What do you believe then Bill? All I hear is condoms, condoms, condoms from you.

Nothing else.

You provide no links to substantiate your argument (I am still not sure what that is). And disparage and denigrate those who have first hand knowledge and experience in this area.

The closest you ever got to a link was when you said:

"In Brazil, the incidence of HIV Aids has dropped dramatically (I just looked it up) and, guess what, the incidence of condom use has risen dramatically. That qualifies as evidence that condoms help."

Not without a link it doesn't.

I will ask you again Bill, for I am genuinely interested.

What have you got against the ABC program?

If you have a better plan let's hear it.

I would be grateful for a positive response.

All this negativity emanating from you, Bill, is really beginning to piss me off.

By the way I noticed you ignored my comment about Chlamydia being an insidious disease that can still be contracted when using condoms. A response would be appreciated.

Kathy - Give the doll to me

Submitted by Jenny Hume on July 20, 2008 - 6:05pm.

Kathy: I always wanted a doll as a kid but the wolf at the door had to be fed first, so take Bill up on his offer of his doll, and send it over to me.

Did finally get a doll when about seven, but on seeing one of those kids a la F Kendall's description of what constitutes a poverty stricken kid, I was moved to offer her my doll. She took it, while on a mission to our dairy for a billy of free milk for the family., and a week later came back dragging it by the leg in the dirt. I was mortified, but held my peace, while being tempted to do otherwise.

But ever since then I've been in the market for another doll. Just so long as it is not wearing a condom, mind.

As for chlamydia, the rate did increase enormously at one stage and was far more prevalent than the better well known STDs, and yes, can cause long term problems for women. I have not followed up in recent years to see whether it has now declined.

Having multiple sexual partners may have given the men of this world who have indulged in that way a fun time, but for many women it has caused all sorts of long term negative health outcomes. They don't think about that, of course.

There are few things in marriage more important than faithfulness in my opinion.

As for the use of condoms, I would be most surprised if the pushing of condoms at the young has not resulted in more promiscuous behaviour. Certainly it seems to be accepted by many parents I know that their kids will be into sex at a very early age, and they simply issue them with condoms.

Seems that parents these days often take the line of least resistance with their kids on almost anything. I am not sure that that is a good policy in the long term.

recent politics

Submitted by Paul Walter on July 17, 2008 - 5:04pm.

Bill Avent has had me thinking about how much recent politics has to answer for, as to AIDS, hunger, resource depletion and the other problems of the Third World, let alone the palpable incomprehension of these by some in the wealthy West.

At about the same time Bush and the neo cons began their trillion dollar intrusion into the Middle East, they handed out massive tax cuts to the rich in the USA, which were used to fuel the bubble that is now bursting to the tune of more trillions of dollars, wasted on virtual casino games and now threatening a comprehensive global recession.

Home in Australia, as elsewhere across the globe, milder versions of the same quack eco rationalist nostrums dreamed up by global capital and finance were employed, creating the same imbalances.

But what happened to the money needed for research into AIDS, malaria agriculture, climate change and all the other stuff that was just ignored, that needed attention, because of those deliberately – or at least irresponsibly – structured imbalances?

And some actually, even in these times, wonder why sceptics blanch at the wholesale dismissal of the concept of responsible action to remedy problems of investment, production and distribution, as some sort of transgression of sacrosanct "market forces" of free market zealots.

Nada.

Now the world over must pay, whilst a few Wall Street criminals and their political lackeys bask in the glow of their ill-gotten gains.

War crimes?

The public doesn't know what a real criminal looks like!

Inconvenience

Submitted by Malcolm B Duncan on July 17, 2008 - 12:49pm.

Well, I don't know about you, Bill Avent, but I've always found condoms quite inconvenient (not that a gentleman ever tells you understand). My grandfather used to say the ones issued by the Army to troops in Palestine during WWII were vey useful for keeping sand out of the barrel of a 303.

I suppose handing them out could be a breach of the surviving part of Clause 7 (1) (b) of the Regulation under those circumstances if some dumb Copper were stupid enough to direct Miss Evans and her cohorts to stop handing them out.

Thinking like Mother Theresa

Submitted by Ian MacDougall on July 15, 2008 - 8:34pm.

Kathy: The medical source you quoted said: "In theory, condoms offer some protection against sexually transmitted infection; practically, however, epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life."

But do they result in any safer sex choices? Yes. With what frequency, and for how long? I am not aware of developments in this field. Perhaps you could tell us.

I once attended a lecture on AIDS and its control and prevention given by Professor John Dwyer, at which, while endorsing condoms in preventing infection he none the less made the memorable statement: "I would not have sex with a woman I knew was AIDS positive, even if I was wearing ten condoms." But as he was about stopping, in its early stages, what could have become an AIDS epidemic such as rages today in some parts of Africa, he did endorse their use as a prophylactic.

The Church is against the use of condoms but finds nothing wrong with the rhythm method, (aka 'Vatican Roulette') even though the intended outcome of the use of both as contraceptive measures is exactly the same: the prevention of conception. (The rationalising behind this has always baffled me.) But condoms work as prophylactics for exactly the same reason that they work as a contraceptives. Their use once, twice, thrice... in no way guarantees 'safe sex choices', and even when used according to the makers' instructions are not 100% effective. But they are pretty close to it.

We need a double blind study of two populations, in which condoms are used in both with markedly different and known frequencies (ideally with one at 100% condom use and the other at 0%), and with both populations having known, and non-zero frequencies of AIDS (or other STD). Track both over, say, 10 years and see whether the STD frequencies diverge significantly. Perhaps one has been done. I don't know.

To say "epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life" is I suggest, to cloud the issue. The real question is: do condoms work?

The Church's principal objection to them, I suggest, is that they do. And they have played a role in preventing an AIDS epidemic in Australia. Fight them as contraceptives, and you inevitably fight them as prophylactics. A dilemma for those who would think like Mother Theresa.

"The use of a condom, even when employed to prevent the transmission of disease (my emphasis - IM) is a mortal sin, the highest grade of sin in the Catholic church." [1]

I wonder what Christ would have said on the matter.

Why is monogamy a dirty word?

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 15, 2008 - 10:07pm.

I have to say that people have gotten too caught up in attacking the Pope for his stance on condoms and have therefore avoided the crucial issue here.

Condoms alone are not the answer!

Got nothing to do with the Pope.

Methinks that many (not you, Ian) conveniently ignore the truth but rather, they are willing to put the boot in and blame Catholism for this man-made predicament.

What is wrong with promoting monogomous sex?

OMG no, say some!! (cue gnashing of teeth!) How awful. Imagine having to be faithful to one partner.

How many of you here are routinely having sex with many partners, hmm?

Handing condoms out willy nilly to all and sundry does nothing to solve the problem of sexually transmitted disease. Rather it says (especially to our youth): I can have a root whenever I want with impunity."Got me trusty condom, she'll be apples mate!"

This of course is a fallacy and only encourages promiscuity,with this feeling of a false sense of security. (Condom rate failure is about 15%.)

No, I agree with Dr Stephen Genuis.

"Reports of diminished rates of sexually transmitted infectionas a result of widespread condom use in countries such as Thailandand Cambodia are reinforcing the focus on condoms as the primarystrategy. Careful scrutiny of the data, however, suggests thatchanges in sexual behaviour (fewer partners, less casual sex,and less use of sex workers) after mass educational campaignsrather than widespread condom use by ordinary citizens was instrumentalin reducing infection rates."

Stop throwing condoms at our young people as if they were mere animalistic morons that cannot think for themselves (other than below the belt.)

Give them some credit.

Educate them . Encourage changes in attitude and sexual behaviour.

Treat them with dignity, and they will respond in kind.

After all, having sex with someone you love and deeply care about is the best sex of all.

Why not shout it from the rooftops?

Oh dear

Submitted by Scott Dunmore on July 15, 2008 - 10:39pm.

Do you know something Kathy? one of the biggest regrets I had after my first marriage ended was all the sex I knocked back when I was married. Tried to make up for lost opportunities of course but they are like time; you never can.

"having sex with someone you love and deeply care about is the best sex of all."

Couldn't agree with you more but I've never had sex I didn't enjoy (and may I suggest, the partner on each occasion felt the same?). Says it all really, as long as no one gets hurt; that's the tricky part and I had a vasectomy a long, long time ago. Best thing I ever did.

Hedonist? Possibly but I have a rule; I hurt no one if it can be avoided and I have never taken advantage of affection I could not return. That's why I've always liked whores. Horrible term; most men are whores. Homosexuals have the best of it.

In this instance Kathy I'm not trying to shock you or upset your sensibilities, I'm just telling you like it is with me and I suggest, most other men.

Women, as much as I know about them after all my involvement with literally dozens of them, are still a mystery to me but consider this; at least 20% of people don't know who their carnal father is.

Love makes all the difference.

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 15, 2008 - 10:54pm.

Hmm, Scott, maybe it's just a case of "horses for courses". When I married my husband he was 39 years old. He had been around the block a few times, unlike myself.

He said to me that the best sex he has ever had was with me.

But ... he had never been in love before. There is sex.. and there is sex!

Richard: As one who crossed the street to produce a daughter with the girl next door, I'll sit this one out, Kathy!

Tongue (firmly) in cheek

Submitted by Scott Dunmore on July 16, 2008 - 7:54am.

"best sex he has ever had was with me. Well he would say that would't he Kathy, at least if he's got half a brain. It was the same with me, sex must have just kept getting better for me with each different partner and don't think I'm knocking fidelity, I'm frequently faithful myself.

On the subject of sex with the one you love being the best, try it with two people you love and three is totally wild!

Dylan, I know a ladies' man when I read one.

All men are liars..... Not!

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 16, 2008 - 11:40am.

Dear Scott (he who wished he'd "done more"), not ALL men are liars, you know.

Besides, it was not in the heat of passion that my hubby made this revelation to me, rather in intimate conversations about life and love.

There was no need for him to lie.You know the old saying "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies." Well, I didn't ask - he just told me.

I WAS "over the moon", though, when he said that.

He is just a very honest guy. I can quite confidently say that he has never lied to me at all. (Not like my first husband did. Ha!)

Minority view

Submitted by Dylan Kissane on July 15, 2008 - 10:50pm.

Scott: "Do you know something Kathy?...I've never had sex I didn't enjoy...I've always liked whores...Homosexuals have the best of it...I'm just telling you like it is with me and I suggest, most other men"

If Scott's right then I guess I am not like "most other men", Kath.

You're a sweetie Dylan.

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 15, 2008 - 11:32pm.

You're a sweetie Dylan, but I have always thought that. Your wife is one lucky lady to have snagged you!

Hope to hear news of a little D sometime in the near future.

Little D

Submitted by Dylan Kissane on July 16, 2008 - 1:31am.

Kathy: "Hope to hear news of a little D sometime in the near future."

We're in "training" right now and hoping to move into "competition" phase shortly. Apparantly being pregnant in summer is a terible thing though - according to all the men I've asked - it's no big deal. :)

Mother Theresa

Submitted by Scott Dunmore on July 15, 2008 - 9:49pm.

Driven by her doubt in her faith, poor tormented soul.

As for condoms, ultimately they won't be necessary if experiments with rats are anything to go by. Overcrowded and stressed, they simply cease coitus.

Condoms

Submitted by Malcolm B Duncan on July 15, 2008 - 5:59pm.

Er, well, a gentleman never tells, but I've always regarded a rubber as an eraser rather than an arouser.

No, Jenny, I wasn't representing Miss Evans but I couldn't help being quietly amused that the condoms she is handing out are red.

Little red skull caps for hermunculii? A Cardinal sin indeed.

Thank you Malcolm

Submitted by Jenny Hume on July 15, 2008 - 6:18pm.

Thank you Malcolm, that will do but red condoms. That was a rather nice touch.

I suppose the action was not cheap and I expect the little condom givers have someone to help them on that score. One third costs seemed a bit mean.

Thanks for the other thread setting it all out. I can see why I never wanted to be a lawyer.

Enlightenment

Submitted by Jenny Hume on July 15, 2008 - 4:47pm.

Not selling? I know that. I did not need that bit of enlightnment Peter. It was a light hearted remark.

And Peter, I think you will find the Catholic youth are quite well informed and far from gullible, least of all those travelling half way round the world to get here. That they accept the teachings of their church is not really our business. We may not agree with such teachings but I don't think standing in the street offering condoms to them is going to change that. It could in fact be seen by them as rather rude and offensive. I doubt, however, they will react with rudeness in saying thanks but no thanks.

court decision.

Submitted by Paul Walter on July 15, 2008 - 1:19pm.

As if the Iemma government didn't know that would be the final outcome in the courts. All that time and money wasted when, in the meantime the firewall was breached from within in far more devastating fashion by Pell's ineptitude than any five army corps of satirists.

And what's this on radio about Pell and the pope disagreeing over global warming?

My god, it's become a shambles!

Common sense prevails

Submitted by Kathy Farrelly on July 15, 2008 - 12:59pm.

Common sense prevails, Fiona.

So, did you kick up your heels last night?

Coincidentally it was my Dad's birthday too, yesterday .(he was 73). So went around to the folks place for a bit of a celebration. It was (as you can imagine) a rather sedate affair.

Freddo the Frog meets Mother Theresa on William Street

Submitted by Eliot Ramsey on July 11, 2008 - 9:09am.

Driving through the City yesterday afternoon, I was stopped at the lights at the intersection of College Street and William Street outside the Cook & Phillip Park adjacent to St Mary’s Cathedral.

The entire precinct adjacent to the Cathedral is the site of much activity ahead of World Youth Day.

Walking toward the Cathedral was a group of about seven or eight nuns, Sisters of Mother Theresa’s order, the Missionaries of Charity with their distinctive white cotton chira habits trimmed with a blue border.

Walking past them in the opposite direction, a person costumed as Freddo the Frog. Moments later there followed two other persons, one dressed as an oversized prawn and the other as a blue shark.

The Sisters as one greeted them with a polite nods, and the prawn, shark and Freddo reciprocated the greetings also with nods, the frog bowing deeply from the waist and flourishing his hand.

Nobody seemed annoyed.

Navigation

The Issues

Annoyed? Inconvenienced? Nah, just incandescent with rage ...

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options

Recent Comments