As I have said previously, I don't have much experience with the law. I did legal studies in high school but all I really remember about that class was an excursion to the High Court in Canberra and one of the guys in our group falling in the water feature that runs along the side of the path. I do, however, know a little about right and wrong. I know what is fair and I know what is unfair and I know, when it comes to these things, very often our courts let us down because of either legal loopholes or extenuating circumstances.

This has happened again this week in the awful and tragic story of the 12 year old girl who was pimped out by her mother and had to sleep with over 100 men. Let me repeat what I just said; This girl is 12 and her mother (yes, her mother!!!) pimped her out to complete strangers.     Thankfully this revolting woman and her partner have been sent to jail (however there is debate over whether or not the ten year sentence was too light) but what about the men who paid them to have sex with the child? What about their punishments?

Now to me, and many others I have spoken to, this should be a fairly straightforward case. A child is used as a prostitute, anyone and everyone involved should be held accountable and punished with the full force of the law.

Sadly, however, because of certain circumstances, the Director of Public Prosecutions made the decision not to go ahead with the charges. One of his reasons was because the men involved answered a newspaper ad that stated that her age was 18 and that he was also advised that the improbability that someone would advertise a twelve year old for prostitution, should be taken into account.

Another reason he decided against it was because the girl herself was unwilling to testify in court and to be honest, there is a very good reason for this.

She has been absolutely traumatised by the whole situation. She has already had to sit through and testify in the trials of her mother and her mother's partner and I can fully understand why she wouldn't want to go through it any more. Considering each man who faces charges would have to be tried separately, the trials could go on for years, leaving this poor child with nothing but court dates and constant reminders of her ordeal for the rest of her youth.

Also, considering the sheer number of men she was subjected to over a short period of time, it is very unlikely she would be able to absolutely identify each one properly, leading to the defence most likely calling her an unreliable witness and having the case thrown out which would, in my opinion, just add to the trauma.

I have to say though, one of the things that has really bothered me about this case (and believe me there are many things that bother me about this case) is the defence used by former Labor MP Terry Martin, the only man (apart from, of course, Gary Devine, the mother's partner) to be charged with any offences related to this situation.

Yes, he was found guilty of having sex with a young person and of producing child exploitation material, for which he was given a measly 10 month suspended sentence, however the judge, Justice Porter, decided not to charge him with indecent assault or to place his name on the sex offender register because he agreed with Martin's claim that it wasn't really his fault because the medicine he was on made him do it.

Um what? Back up a little bit here, I am confused. Your medicine?

According to his defence team Mr Martin suffers from Parkinson's Disease and the medication he was on causes a side-effect known as “hypersexuality” which basically means he was super-horny all the time and needed to release it.

Fine. I have no problem with that. However, as previously mentioned, the girl he chose to have sex with was 12 years old. Twelve! So what if she was advertised as being 18? Anyone who has ever been around, well, people, can tell the difference between a child of 12 and an adult of 18 and the minute he saw her, he should have known.

In a maybe believable defence, all the men who were found to have had sex with her claimed it was in a darkened room and they truly believed her to be 18, however Terry Martin also had the girl visit his home, where he not only had sex with her but took photos and videos as well and I really do have a hard time believing that in that situation he couldn't tell she was under-age. Even with make-up and grown-up clothes on, I'll concede she may have looked 16, but that's still illegal and it's still a stretch. Especially once she was naked.

I don't give a crap if he was suffering from the bluest balls in history, the girl was 12! It's not like sex workers are hard to come by and even if they were, the minute this obviously under-age girl stepped into his home he should have asked her to leave and then got over his “hypersexuality” with a wank.

One thing this whole case brings to the fore is the very important need for a safe, legal, regulated sex industry in Tasmania. You see, although prostitution in itself is not illegal there (if you're a single worker in a private residence or hotel), there are no legal brothels and no licensed agencies and so punters are quite often forced to break the law by answering illegal advertisements in the paper like they did in the case of this young girl. If sexual services were legal and regulated there, this whole sorry situation could well have been avoided.

I will defend to the death the right of Kevin Rudd to go to a strip club, and NSW Labor MP David Campbell's right to go to a gay bar and I fully believe the backlash they received from those indiscretions was ridiculous and overblown but they are adults, performing adult activities with other adults in a consensual manner. This is different. This girl was 12!

If Terry Martin had gone and had a scat-filled orgy with midgets and Thai lady-boys then I would also defend his right to do so, but I will never, no matter how “hypersexual” he was, believe he could not control himself around this child nor do I believe he is any kind of victim in this whole  mess.

I really do wonder what sort of precedent this is setting and what sort of message are we sending to not only sex offenders, but to the children who are their victims? “Oh, sure it's wrong... But this man was on medicine, and you're too traumatised to testify so we're going to let him off. Sorry, kid!”

It really isn't good enough. It is sad, it is tragic and it is disgusting and I just hope that this young girl, after all she has been through, will find some peace and comfort in her world and will grow up to be a strong, smart independent woman with the world at her feet. But something tells me that not only her mother but the entire legal system has let her down in a way that she may never fully recover.

Last Saturday members and supporters of the Australian Sex Party attended the Pro-choice rally which was organised in opposition to the March for the Babies (an anti-choice rally) outside the Victorian Parliament.

Our presence at this rally certainly stirred up some debate on our facebook page, with comments from both sides of the argument.  All points made were passionate and well thought through.  Please feel free to add to them.

I would like to thank everyone who came along and showed their support, particularly the wonderful and eloquent Merinda who addressed the rally.  Her speech is below, and you can read her thoughts on the day at her blog: Quietly Questioning.

I am here today as a woman, and as a student. Let me start by emphasizing that education is centrally important to achieving equality, addressing poverty, preventing unemployment, homelessness and a host of other issues which impact individuals and the whole of society. Access to education is therefore pivotal. In my primary and high school days, I sat in classrooms with boys, being told that I was the same as them, being told that I could do anything. That as a girl and as a woman, there was nothing that was impossible. As I grew older, what a surprise it was to find that equality is still being fought for.  How amazed I was that it wasn’t until 2008 that Victoria removed abortion from it’s criminal statutes – after I had graduated from high school and had begun my tertiary education. All this while some women of my generation question the need for feminism and believe that full equality was achieved some time ago.

Reproductive rights are about more than just abortion. They include access to all forms of contraception, adoption, IVF, excellent pre- and post-natal care for those who give birth, as well as sterilisation.  Abortion is part of reproductive rights as a whole and I would like to emphasise that each of these are important for men, women and trans identified people – all people should have access to reproductive justice. Later this afternoon, the March for the Babies protesters will try to separate abortion from all of these things. Abortion must stay within a reproductive rights context and every element of reproductive justice is as important as the next. Last year at this protest I was shocked to hear one anti-choice protester say that she would rather be raped than have an abortion. A strong feeling that I personally disagree with, however she illustrates my point perfectly – this is about choice and personal freedom – if you do not want an abortion, then please, do not have one.

Speaking of personal freedoms, I would also like to talk about sexual freedom. It all sounds very 1970s and free-love, but sexual freedoms are the ones which governments target first. They are hard to defend because the moralizing parts of our society attack them as being debaucherous, immoral or unwanted in the first place. They have been described as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ or the barometer which tells us when freedoms in our society are beginning to be eroded. Reproductive rights are inherently linked to sexual freedom, as we cannot achieve sexual freedom without proper access to reproductive rights.

This brings me to my next point. We must trust women, trust them to make decisions which are best and right for them. Women must be able to decide when, if and how they have children. Women, including women students, are more than incubators and we must treat them as such. Women deserve equality before the law and the respect which comes with trusting women to make reproductive decisions. We must say to women ‘you are responsible and have your own moral integrity’ and allow women to exercise that responsibility and integrity. In Victoria, we are lucky that the law largely allows women to do that. In other states, we must fight so that women are afforded the rights they are entitled to. The prosecution of a young woman and her partner in Cairns should serve as a wake up call to all of us – this issue is centrally important and although these laws very old, they are still being enforced, and we must not assume any differently. Victoria can never go back.

The Victorian government is banning the sale of bongs in the state from new years day next year. A tip if you want to buy one, they’ll only be in shops for 3 more months.

Obviously this isn’t going to stop people smoking cannabis, and the government knows this, but they say the ban will send a message to Victorians that drug use is not on.

Interestingly though, the government have decided not to ban hookah pipes.

Here at the Sex Party office, we’re wondering – is there really that much of a difference between a bong and a hookah pipe? (We have included the definition of each piece below.)  Really, wouldn’t you just add a piece of hose to a bong and voila! it’s a hookah pipe?

So in light of this observation, we’ve started this blog on the Vic bong bill. We are asking you to comment with your suggestions or send in your pictures or videos on how to turn a bong into a hookah pipe to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it (anonymously if you like).  We'll put them up here. Let's show the government how ridiculous this legislation is.

Here’s what we think: seeing as this ban isn’t going to stop people smoking cannabis, and it’s not going to stop people selling objects that are almost exactly the same as bongs, we really can’t see how there could be any point to this ban. There's no justification for banning bongs and taking away yet another one of our personal freedoms.

Cannabis water pipe means a device—
(a) capable of being used or intended to be used for the purposes of introducing into the body of a person cannabis or other drugs of dependence by the drawing of smoke or fumes resulting from heating or burning the cannabis or other drug through water or another liquid in the device, commonly known as a "bong"; or

(b) that is intended to be used as a device referred to in paragraph (a) but is not capable of being so used because it needs adjustment, modification or addition— but does not include a hookah;

Hookah means a fully assembled device—
(a) used for smoking a substance consisting of tobacco, molasses, fruit, herbs or flavouring, whether the substance contains all or any combination of them, by the drawing of smoke or fumes resulting from heating or burning the substance in the device through water or another liquid in the device; and

(b) that has one or more openings and one or more flexible hoses, each with a mouthpiece through which the smoke or fumes are drawn.

We look forward to your submissions.

There's a phrase that has become an exasperated mantra among us equal rights fighters - namely in the quest for marriage equality - and that is, “Why are we still debating this in 2011.”

I mean, according to history and almost every single science fiction writer from the past 100 years, we are now living in the future. Okay sure, we haven't got our jet-packs or our personal hover-crafts yet, and we're a long way off from eating people, but really, in terms of technology, social advancement and video game graphics we are practically one microchip away from Skynet.

Why then, in a country so advanced that we can talk face to face from our living rooms with someone in the middle of Africa, or genetically grow meat in a vat, are we so frightened of giving two people in love the basic right of marriage that every straight person has just because they are gay?

We are advanced and intelligent enough to know that homosexuality is not a “choice” or a “lifestyle option”. We know that gay people are not evil, mentally defunct or paedophiles.  We know that gay and lesbian parents raise healthy, normal kids like the rest of us, and we also know that it's not a disease or affliction that can be contagious or unhealthy. So what is it?

The bible bashers will tell you it's because God says it's bad and they have to follow His word. However, the thing that bothers me the most about these arguments is their uncanny ability to pick and choose which parts of God's words they will follow and which parts they will not. The Vatican does everything in its power (and they have a lot of it) to protect priests that rape children and squirrel away millions upon millions of dollars that could be used to make the world a better place. They are practically spitting on the surface of the Ten Commandments with the way they lie, cheat, steal and corrupt, and seem to completely ignore the ones that say “Do unto others” and “Love thy neighbour”. And they expect us to believe they are doing things in God's name?

If there's one thing I know about God from all the stuff I've ever heard, is the underlying message that God Is Love. In my understanding of true, pure love, like the one they claim God to have, is that it's supposed to be unconditional. That means no matter what you do I will love you. Pretty simple really. I can't ever remember seeing an asterisk attached to that statement: God's love is unconditional.... Oh, unless you're gay.

Our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, claims her stance against gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. She instead says it is because of the conservative way in which she was raised, and that the Marriage Act holds a special status for men and women. Sorry, Julia but that is the whole fucking point! That description alone pretty much confirms our whole argument! It is exclusive, elitist and discriminatory and basically says that straight couples have more rights than gay couples because they are straight. Now, since we've already established that gay people are born that way and have no choice in the matter, saying they are unable to be given the same status as other people because of something that is completely beyond anyone's control is just plain bigotry. Nothing else.

Her position on the matter really has made me sad that she is our voice to the world. Considering she is someone who, without the amendments of certain laws, would never have been Prime Minister. Hell, she wouldn't have even been able to go to university to study law, buy a house in her own name or live in it unwed with her de-facto lover. Why? Because she is a woman. According to the way it's “always been” throughout the majority of historical record, women can't be trusted with having a job, let alone be in charge of important matters of state. They should be pretty and demure and know how to sew. They should find a husband, settle down and have children and not worry their pretty little heads about things that men do.

I'll bet in her university union days a young Julia would have fought for equal opportunities for women. She would have tut-tutted at the big-wig men making decisions about her body, her future, her life. In fact, it is quite likely the injustices in the world are the very thing that led her to law and unions and politics.

In fact, I honestly think the only positive thing I have to say about her being in charge is that at least she isn't Tony Abbot, and if that's the best thing about her then really, I think it's time for another meeting of the “Faceless Men”.

I honestly don't know what she is worried about? Legalising gay marriage won't cause more global warming, it won't help or hinder the “stop the boats” campaign and it won't stop the mining industry from paying more tax. It won't stop straight marriages from happening or suddenly mean our children are not safe and it most certainly won't (as some of the extreme anti campaigners claim) make us think that we can all now go out and marry donkeys or desk lamps.

In all honesty it won't do anything at all other than one thing. It will show the gay and lesbian community of Australia that their government accepts them absolutely and unconditionally. It will prove once and for all that we are a tolerant nation of loving and respectful people and that their love is as equal and as valid as everyone else's.

It really is time to catch up with the time we are in; the future beyond 2000. It's time to say no to religion being the basis for our laws and yes to equal rights and opportunities for all. Is it really that much of a hard decision?

A news article came out of the UK the other day about a 12 year old boy who had just done something no other 12 year old boy has ever done before (that I am aware of). He entered, and won, a drag queen competition.

Under the guise “Naughty Nora” , Redvers Stokes wowed the judges with his Dolly Parton and Michael Jackson routine and took home the crown.

His parents were both quite chuffed with their son, his mother stating how proud she was of him and his father claiming he thought the whole thing was hilarious. Bloggers galore have jumped on this as wonderful and progressive and hailing the mother and father and “great parents” for being so supportive of their son's dream, and in some ways I do agree.

On the surface it really does seem like a bit of harmless fun, and good on the kid and his parents for being so cool. However, I really can't help but think there's something a little wrong with the whole thing overall.

Now, before you go jumping up and down at me and calling me a bigot (like was done when I mentioned these same points on a forum about the topic the other day) I want to say unequivocally that I am not “anti-gay” I am not “anti children expressing themselves” and I am also not “anti parent's supporting their kids.” Also, for what it's worth, even though it makes no difference to my argument, the kid in question isn't gay, he just finds the whole thing a bit of a laugh. Which is okay too... on the surface...

What I am anti, is the sexualisation of minors. Which, when you really think about it, and scratch beneath the surface, is what this is.

Firstly let's look at Drag Queens. The culture, the nature of the shows and the underlying sexiness of them. Have you ever been to a drag show? Not only are they usually at pubs (where a 12 year old is not allowed), they are also full of innuendo, double entendre, smut, pussy jokes and tales about big cocks. They are absolutely sex-laden and most definitely not appropriate for children.

Then we have his name “Naughty Nora”. Now, sure, to most kids naughty is what you do when you steal an extra biscuit from the barrel or paint your baby brother's head with mum's good lipstick, but to adults, especially those who work in the sex industry (which is where Drag Queens are based), “naughty” is a very sexy term and I highly doubt anyone at the show took his “naughty” moniker as being the term for a disobedient child.

His outfit consisted of a tight pink gown, a long blonde wig, make up, high heels and massive fake boobs. Funny, yes. Appropriate for a 12 year old, I just don't think so.

I suppose one way to really make my point is to swap this all around:

Take the female equivalent of Drag. What would that be? Burlesque perhaps? Maybe even a pole dance show? Now take a twelve year old girl. Dress her up in the outfits;  the make up, the padded bra and the thigh high boots, then give her a name like “Kandy Kane” and send her out to a “Miss Pole Dance” competition.

Proud mum and dad would be on the next expose on “Today Tonight” faster than you can call DOCS and we would all be yelling about how inappropriate the whole thing is and how dare we allow our children to be exposed to such highly sexualised content!

So why is this any different? Is it because it was a boy dressed as a sexual being? Is it because it is more of a parody of a sexy woman than a “real” sexy woman? Or is it because (like I discovered the other day) people are so frightened to be labelled a bigot or a hater if they disagree with something like this that they just smile and nod and say “Oh, isn't that cute”?

Like I stated earlier I am not a bigot in any way, shape or form. I love Drag. One of my best friends in the world is a lesbian (and so is her partner by the way) and many many more of my friends are gay too (there is even a drag queen in the bunch who I spoke to about this and who agrees with my sentiment). I myself am bisexual and I work in the sex industry, and I know what discrimination can feel like. I think everyone has the right to be accepted and loved regardless of their sexuality. I think schools should have gay and lesbian relationships as part of their sex education curriculum, I shout “kudos” to those young kids who have come out and live proudly as homosexuals and I am all for kids being kids and expressing themselves. However, this particular instance only serves to make me think of double standards and hypocrisy and it all just feels a little bit creepy.

But maybe that's just me...

As we all gathered, beneath a grey Melbourne sky, the energy was palpable with a feeling of ‘maybe this time’ in the air.

On Saturday, the steps of the State Library filled once again, to show the government that Australians’ are serious about the need for change, once again! With rally’s happening in other major cities on the day, Melbourne’s 1200 people seemed to be loud enough for at least twice that number. MCed by Tracy Bartram and with speakers from University, Lobby groups, and politicians who do show their support to repeal the law that was put in place by the Howard government 7 years ago this week, the crowd cheered on.

Julia Gillard was called upon to stand up and make things right. Since the marriage act was changed 7 years ago by the Howard government to include the words ‘between and man and a woman’ the LGBTIQ community and their supporters have been fighting for the right for recognition of same sex unions. It’s not about the religious aspect of ‘getting married’ for the community, it’s about the recognition of the all legal rights that go along with it that Equal Love supporters are looking for.

In an interview after the rally, Tracy Bartram was quoted as saying, if there was a law saying redheads couldn’t marry tomorrow, then the PM might have something to say about that. In fact now, with openly gay politicians (Bob Brown/Adam Bandt/Penny Wong) and one of them announcing last week that her partner was expecting their first child, well, it’s about time that the laws of this country reflected majority of the public opinion on the matter. Media outlets state that somewhere in the vicinity of 75% of Australian public would be happy to share the right to marry with same sex couples.

So why hasn’t the law changed. In his speech on Saturday Adam Bandt told the crowd of a unionist who said his ‘people’ would not be supportive of same sex unions, the fact is that that man was the head of the shopfitters union, membership includes hairdressers, and retail salespeople. This was a clear indication of the people’s voice not being represented. The greens, have secured debate time in Parliament in the coming months solely on this issue of Same sex marriage. Bandt asked all people to send a clear message to you federal parliamentarian that it’s time for change. Write a letter, send an email, it’s as easy as following this link to the AEC website putting in your postcode and sending an email to the name on the top of the page!

Under the law, a politician MUST acknowledge each and every written contact made to them, I have written to my Polie on the matter ... how about you?!

We should adopt a policy advocating reform of Question Time.

It does not serve its purpose. It does not set an example for public debate. It should be completely re-thought.

I spent a number of days in the Federal Parliament this year and it’s not pretty. What you miss on TV but understand watching the whole chamber is the animalistic nature of it.

Two packs of animals. Someone runs up to the other pack, bares their teeth, then scurries back to their pack. It is a contest of intimidation. When a weakness is detected in a pack, the voices of the opposing pack rise up in catcall and ridicule. They sniff blood; the volume of animal noises increases. It is what I imagine a stoning is like.

Almost every question from the opposition attempts to embarrass the government, not solicit information. The repetition is sickening. Questions are repeated with minor variations so as to find a weak spot and dictate the news cycle.

Questions are almost all about the past. The questioners want to find an inconsistency, a failure, a lie. They want to attack. They want the media to righteously demolish their enemy.

Almost every answer blunts the attack by speaking for as long and indirectly as possible. When the government asks a question of itself it is designed to use up time and talk positively about accomplishments. Or about the failings of the opposition in previous years. Answers are press releases. How many thousands of bureaucratic hours are wasted in this?

I watched David Cameron in the House of Commons the day he answered 138 questions from the Opposition about phone hacking. Short, direct answers. The British Parliament is not perfect; it is adversarial and backwards-looking like ours, but there is respect and debate that is a level above what happens in Australia. Find me a politician that says different.

All of Australia talks about the brattish, churlish, unproductive, attention-seeking nature of Question Time. We should petition the Parliament for change.

Photo sourced from MystifyMe Concert Photography (Troy).