I wrote this for The Age in 2008 and the wouldn’t publish it.

Isn’t this newspaper about varied voices, rigorous discussion and dissecting the important issues that affect us all? Isn’t Melbourne the place where we love a chat and are not afraid, indeed we relish a stoush, an argument and a heated discussion about what’s going on in our world no matter how close to home and uncomfortable it may be?

Isn’t Melbourne the culture capital, the coffee capital and the chinwag capital of Australia and weren’t we recently universally recognized as mad for words, bang up for ideas and not afraid of rigorous debate when UNESCO named Melbourne as it’s second city of literature.  Why Melbourne? Because we have more writers living in our town, more bookshops per head and because we devour more books, newspapers and magazines than anywhere else in this sunburnt country. And we’re proud of it.

Aren’t we passionate about bravely nutting out our changing world and isn’t this newspaper a crucial part of that?

The Age newspaper is an enormous part of the heart and soul of Melbourne.  It’s up there with trams, footy, potato cakes, pots of beer, Flinders Street Station, wenchy girls in black with red wine colored lips and blokes who proudly push prams. The Age sponsors, among other things, the Melbourne Comedy Festival and The Melbourne Writers Festival. Places people come for entertainment but often leave saited after being dazzled with ideas and  confronted with uncomfortable truths.

Then hang on here ladies and gents, can anyone explain to me why there have been no opinion articles published about Fairfax media cutting 550 jobs from their media business despite recording a net profit of $386.9 million for 2007-08. And no comment about Sydney Morning Herald’s Mike Carlton being sacked for refusing to cross the picket line and file his weekly column?   Fairfax promises that the cuts won’t undermine the quality of the newpapers and the CEO David Kirk suggest that it’s “mischievous” for outspoken staff to suggest otherwise. Isn’t it great we care? Isn’t that what you would want as an employer?  Employees that give a rats? Staff went on strike on Friday and the good news is that Fairfax Media has reached an agreement with the striking workers. So it’s business as usual.  For now.

Corporate anorexia is rife in these tumultuous times and Fairfax is no different to any other business.  Last year it posted a big fat healthy profit.  The job cuts are part of a predictive damage control initiative to combat the projected effects of the dramatic changes in mainstream media from print to digital. The whole media landscape is changing. We all know that.  The dissemination of information is moving online because that’s where the readers and the advertisers are heading.  But not all of them.  We’re from Melbourne.

Ben Eltham from New Matilda reported that The Age has been one of the very few newspapers anywhere in the western world to increase circulations in the past three years.  Do keep in mind that Melbourne is one of the only places in the world where Starbucks coffee and McDonald have been forced to close stores.  Yep you aren’t from round here are ya?

This paper, our paper was once run by a company with ink in it’s veins, a company passionate about newspapers.  It’s now run by a corporation.  Business people, accountants and lawyers who view news and information as a product. It’s your job, as readers, to keep an eye on them.   A newspaper is not the same as a fruit shop.  When you own a newspaper you have a corporate responsibility to contribute to and encourage national debate and to remember that you provide a community service, not just profits to the shareholders. The content of your newspaper and how it’s communicated effects the fabric of the society we live in and the culture we become. My kids want to eat ice cream for breakfast everyday.  That doesn’t mean I give it to them.

Since I have been writing for The Age I have been astonished and heartwarmed by the level of pride and passion that people have who work for this paper.  And the loyalty of the readers. Readers who are disappointed in the quality or content or feel let down by editorial direction are vocal, noisy and as wounded as a jilted lover.

Sure, Fairfax owns this newspaper.  But it belongs to us.  The readers and the people who make this paper.  Cherish it and protect it because when you start dismantling things nut-by-nut, bolt-by-bolt, screw-by-screw it can be impossible to put it back together again.  Make your voices heard about how you want to digest your news, your culture, your sport and your commentary. Because if you don’t you may end up with a newspaper outsourced to India and delivered by text to your mobile phone.  And then how will you be able to cut a Leunig cartoon out and stick it on your fridge?

This Sunday June 24 Catherine Deveny In Conversation with Stella Young 3pm North Fitzroy Star. BUY TICKETS HERE with QandA, special guest Nelly Thomas, door prizes and a musical act you’ll be talking about for weeks.

IT’S that time of year when parents begin wringing their sweaty palms about where their child should start school next year. I laughed like a drain when I heard reports of parents at primary school open days with clipboards. I didn’t believe it, of course, until a mate told me that several of her mother’s group were guilty as charged.

“With clipboards?” “Yes, with clipboards.” “To check out a school?” “No, to check out about six schools.” At this point I fell off my chair in hysterics. “So tell me, what are these mothers (and it’s always mothers stressing about this occasionally fathers jump on board in solidarity but are never (perhaps I should pur the word rarely in there to hose down the trolls) the initiators) trying to find in a school?” “Well, Dev, they are trying to find the school that is going to turn their child into a genius.” BINGO. So if they can’t be a genius maybe their kid can be the genius they might have been. Now that sounds like healthy parenting. Why would anyone want their kids to be a genius? I just want my kids to be well rounded, resilient and not in jail. All I hope is that by the time they are 25 they have survived a broken heart, a flat tyre, food poisoning and have a couple of good mates. Bad mother, me.

When my eldest started school I met a woman at the school information night. She listed off eight primary schools that she had already checked out. I said: “We haven’t seen any others we’ve just booked him into this one.” By the grave look on her face it was as if the principal was Pol Pot and the teachers were ex-military personnel from Abu Ghraib. I’d love to tell you that I turned to her and said: “Get over yourself.” But I didn’t. All we wanted was for our son to turn up on the first day of school and know a familiar face from kinder. And for it to be a fair reflection of the society he’d be living in. Because you can’t tell if a place is right for your kid simply by wandering around the corridors.

Here’s a tip. If you have checked out more that two schools it’s probably a good idea to consider getting yourself a life at some stage. If you have a good reason not to send them to the local primary school send them to the next closest. If you feel the difference is between a child who will be a Nobel Prize winner and a child who is a crack-addicted hooker you’re wrong.

Here’s a message from all of us here at Calm Down International: “If you are so tragic that you need your kids to go to a certain school to feel better about yourself may I suggest that you take a short course, do some volunteer work or try yoga.”

What is best for kids is not the idyllic  school environment as perceived by their anxious, hovering parents.  Children are better equipped in life by learning persistence and  motivation through failure, disappointment and frustration than by some  fantasy school created by their parents’ inner five-year-old. Kids just  want: a place to play chasey, some teachers who know their name and a few  mates they can laugh and swap lunches with.

Most kids don’t give a  rat’s about the improvised music workshops, organic gardens and  interpretative dance classes they do at school. But the parents, eyes  blazing, face alight, will bore people senseless about it in an attempt to  convince you of their coolness. All it actually does is convince us that  they are Wannabe Creatives; insecure dags who had friends in bands but  were never in bands themselves. Too much exposure to organised creativity  immunises children against creativity. I can guarantee you that they will  never hunger to paint like Monet, read Shakespeare or play cello like  Casals because: “Nah. I did that when I was six and I was crap at it.  Let’s go to the casino!”

As far as holding them back for an extra  year; when in doubt hold them back. If kinder has suggested that they can  do with another year, hold them back. If you are thinking that the earlier  you get a child into school the more you can stuff into them, hold them  back. If these instructions from me are pissing you off because people  around you are suggesting that you hold your kid back, hold them back. I  do not know of one parent who has held a child back and regretted it, but  know dozens of parents who sent them early who do. If your defence is that  they’ll be bored at home, trust me, kids are always bored at  home.

There have been countless studies showing that starting children early may have academic, social and psychological disadvantages, but it’s simply common sense to have kids coping as best as possible in the classroom rather than struggling, or worse still, being held back. It’s an individual decision and the Government desperately needs to increase funding to kindergartens and establish more preschool programs for four-to-five-year-olds attached to schools to make this decision easier.

I love this conversation ‘Oh (INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL DE JOUR HERE) has a great reputation.’ ‘From who? Only from the parents who send their kids there. To get over their own insecurity they keep banging on about how great their kid’s school is.

They’ll tell you they want their kids to meet the right people. Right people is just code for white people. This social engineering I find tragic and telling in more or less equal proportions.

“The heaviest burden a child carries is the unlived life of their parents” Carl Jung. 

FFS everyone, send em to the local. Stop trying to give your perfect child that perfect trajeectory into the perfect life you feel you never had.

The amount people bang on about the school their child attends is in inverse proportion to how successful they feel. Chill out, stop trying to live your life through your children and do some work on yourself. Your children are not you. Google ‘ego confusion’ for more information.

Catherine Deveny In Conversation with Stella Young! This Sunday June 24 3pm Tix $25/$22 secrets, swearing, champagne and rivetting candid chat. With q&a, door prizes, special guest Nelly Thomas and musical act BUY TICKETS HERE! 

Nicola Roxon and all involved are today’s heroes after this magnificent triumph for victims of domestic violence. 

This incredible justice has been met with tantrums from some, who I can only assume are abusers or sympathetic to abusers because they conveniently prop up many of their beliefs and prejudices. These people assert changes in the law will lead to an ‘avalanche’ of false claims by vindictive partners and that there are ‘millions’ of false rape and abuse claims. By women.

Shouldn’t these thug apologists who all seem to believe men are the hidden majority of domestic violence victims be thrilled by this news? Why are they not ecstatic  more women will be punished and justice be done for this disproportionate amount of silent male victims?

Bone up.

1. Over 75% of domestic violence cases go unreported.

2. Now we’ve added emotional, verbal, social and financial abuse to the definition of domestic violence the percentage of unreported and reported cases will increase significantly.

3. 95% of domestic violence victims are women. 

4. Domestic violence is the leading cause of death or injury for women aged 15 – 44. 

5. The most dangerous place for a woman or girl is in her own home.

6. The person most likely to injure, assault or kill a girl or woman is a man she is related to. 

7. Most women don’t report domestic violence. Most don’t even consider it violence as many are chosen as partners by bullies and creeps precisely because these women are naive, vulnerable and/or easy to manipulate and have been convinced abuse is their fault or minimized the abuser’s resposibility for their actions. Some studies suggest greater amounts of empathy could make some more susceptible to becoming victims of domestic violence than others. 

8. The amount of false claims are minuscule (and the amount of false claims that lead to charges 1000 times smaller than minuscule) in comparison to the amount that go unreported or result in no charges.

9. Misogynists will amplify the false claims and amount of female perpetrators and minimise the amount, extent and variety of abuse.

10. It is not only domestic violence if there are bruises, cuts, broken bones or blood you can see. Domestic violence is an epidemic.

This change in the law is not making the goal posts wider but a long overdue catch up. The law has been behind for centries and finally it’s beginning to catch up. Victims of domestic violence are not now ‘out in front’ , they are just a little less behind than they are and have been for years.

Let’s hope social attitudes from Neanderthals, internalized misogynists and self-hating women will follow.

It’s not okay to bully, slap, punch, stalk, hate on, scream at or hurt bitches, slags, nags or sluts either.

Even if they were ‘asking for it’.

Come and see me In Conversation With Samuel Johnson June 17 buy tickets here.

I’VE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE a dentist and my dentist has always wanted to write comedy. He’s one of the funniest people I know. I keep telling him he should do a one-man show called Dental As Anything. He wants to call it Game On Molar.

Our conversations generally begin with respectable topics such as kids, television and current affairs, then pretty rapidly disintegrate into dental erotica, nasally delivered erectile dysfunction solutions and anal ozone (don’t ask).

Dr Dentist was doing something in my mouth the other day. (I don’t know what it was but it cost the earth, I don’t look any different and the only reason I had it done was because he assured me that if I didn’t it would cost even more later, that is if I hadn’t died of teeth disease first.) Anyway, after saying “This won’t hurt a bit,” he turned to his assistant and said, “Can you turn the radio up?”

Can you believe that?

So when he said “Big mouth”, I said “Tiny penis”. That shut him up. I’m pretty sure he’s qualified. In something.

At one point he was performing some medieval torture on me and I said, “Have you ever done this before?” To which he responded “Once. On a dead guy.” I don’t know why I go either. I think it’s because he gives me a sticker.

So my number two thing I’d like to be is a blood-splatter analyst and part-time serial killer. Which is probably why I like Dexter.

People constantly buttonhole me at school functions, meetings with my parole officer and swingers’ nights and tell me that I should watch some particular television show or other. If they ever bothered to read this column, they’d know I loathe television. Most of the time I’d rather drill a hole in my head than flick on the tube. And when I’m a dentist I’ll be able to.

Dexter was one of the many shows that people kept mentioning to me, only to then find it was “on cable”. It was a bit like finding out something that I really wanted to buy in the ’80s was from “overseas”. Was on cable. Now on Network Ten. Seriously.

So Dexter (played by Michael C. Hall, or as most people refer to him, the gay funeral director fromSix Feet Under) works for the cops as a blood-splatter analyst by day and kills people as a hobby. I know what you’re thinking, sounds like Tony Abbott’s dream job.

Sure it’s got your good actoring, your fine writering and some top little stories propelling the narrative along, but what really floats my boat is the quirkiness of it. The weirdness.

Dexter is very unhingeing as a character. It’s so refreshing not to have the world evenly divided into good guys and bad guys. The world isn’t polarised. It’s messy and unpredictable.

And if we were out in the world and not glued to the couch we’d be reminded of that. Dexter is good at his job, great brother, very caring. Sure, he’s a sociopath but he’s a really sweet guy.

A bit like my dentist.

On Monday I was doing one of my favorite gigs of the year. An address to Melbourne High’s Political Interest Group.  As usual the boys and I had lunch before hand and I met Aman, who told me the story about losing the turnban and cutting his hair when he was 15. He’s 17 now.  I suggested he write the story and offered to publish it. In less than 24 hours he had. It’s a beautiful story, he’s an extraordinary boy and a gifted writer and I am honoured to host it here on my site. Enjoy! Dev x

I was born a Sikh, which means technically I’m not meant to cut my hair, and, as a male, I should have my hair tied in a bun on top of my head, covered with a turban. Growing up wearing a turban, looking different to everyone, it wasn’t easy. When you look different, you are always remembered, if not by name than by your image. You can’t just blend in with society; you are always being watched and judged by “normal” people. Everything you do is noticed and analysed more than the person next to you. For someone who hasn’t experienced it, it’s very difficult to explain the feeling of everyone’s eyes on you when you walk through a shopping centre. I think that Australia is an incredibly accepting society; I don’t really remember a time when I was actually abused directly because I looked different. The effect was far more subtle, but still very much there. It could be that, while walking in a shopping centre, someone avoids walking directly towards you, clutches their handbag a little tighter, takes a second and even third look, before continuing on. I don’t blame people for this; whenever anyone sees something new or different, we change our behaviours. I am as guilty as anyone is of fearing the different and unfamiliar.

The tradition of keeping hair dates back to 1699, but no amount of googling gave me a definitive reason as to why it was so important. The two most common reasons I came across were, firstly, it was to stand out against the Muslims invading India at the time, to make a statement of boldness. Secondly, because ‘God’ gave us our body in the way we need it, and therefore it should not be altered.

With both these reasons, I had serious concerns. With the statement of boldness, the obvious counter argument is that, well 300 odd years on, it’s kind of irrelevant. The second is slightly more complex, however in a world of 7 billion people, I highly doubt that only the 15 million or so hair-keeping Sikhs are the only ones that have got it right, especially considering how new Sikhism is relative to other religions (I doubt everyone went to hell before Sikhism…) But what stood out most to me was that I couldn’t find an argument that actually explains how, by keeping my hair, I was becoming a better person, contributing more to the world or in any way benefitting. I highly doubt that, if there is a ‘God’, he would care whether a person cuts their hair or not. In the grand scheme of things, surely he would have bigger issues to worry about?

My mum always regretted deciding not to cut my hair and my younger brother’s hair as children, she didn’t want us to miss out on any opportunities or feel held back in any way because of our hair. Both my parents were raised in England during the 60’s and 70s, when racism there was still quite prevalent, and so they experienced firsthand what growing up as “different” is like. She told us that if we wanted to cut our hair, then we could do it, and any social issues it caused we would go through together, as a family. My brother decided to do so about 6 months before I did. He was a lot more uncomfortable I think, with wearing a turban than I was. To be completely honest, until he got his hair cut, the idea that I would do the same was simply that, an idea. I had never actually considered it a reality. But seeing how much freedom it gave him, how he changed as a person, I realised that I needed to do the same.

It was about 2 ½ years ago that I decided to cut my hair and stop wearing a turban. They say that you can feel when you are being watched; the day that stopped for me, I actually felt a difference. I still remember walking through my local shopping centre later that day, and I could actually notice the difference in behaviour that people showed toward me; although subtle, the change was very clear. No one took a second glance or avoided walking towards me, for the first time I was just another person. It was quite easily the best feeling I’ve ever had. These days I walk around, just another teenage boy, blending into society. I find it interesting that so many spend their lives trying to stand out in some way, and yet I simply wanted to blend in. They do say the grass is always greener on the other side.

At this point, I simply have to thank my parents for how amazing they were when dealing with this issue. As different as wearing a turban made me in society in general, it made me completely normal in our community. Allowing us to make such a decision but my parents in the path of possible abuse and disconnection from our own people, and they were willing to take that risk for us. Thankfully, the community backlash was far less than I expected, and I think that is a sign of how times are changing.

2 years down the track – now the novelty has worn off – I feel I can fairly reflect on my decision. There is no doubting that being raised wearing a turban had its benefits. It taught me to be confident within myself, because when you are always being watched and judged, you have to be. With that confidence came the ability to simply be me and not care what anyone else thought. I also think that being so recognisable gives you a certain amount of power. People are always watching you, therefore when you say or do something, they know about it. Sometimes this can be a very useful tool as it gives you more of an audience than the average person, and people are likely to remember you and what you said because you looked different.

But when it comes down to it, I think that the benefits of life without a turban far outweigh any benefits that wearing a turban may have brought. If I could go back in time, I would make the same choice without a doubt.

At the end of the day, I don’t really know if I believe in ‘God’, but I think that if there is a ‘God’ then religion can corrupt his true message and purpose. I like to think that if we aim to live a life of kindness, love and generosity, and try to make the world a better place for having had us in it, then if I’m wrong about everything ’God’ might forgive me for something like cutting my hair.

Send Aman an email and let him know if you enjoyed his piece aman.dhingra@hotmail.com

A copy of this letter to Cardinal George Pell’s lawyers from Phil Degenhardt was sent to me last night in response to Pell trying to sue twitter and I.  I think you’ll enjoy it……

Dear lawyers for George Pell,

It was most gratifying to read your legal threats against Twitter and Catherine Deveny regarding the meme based on Archbishop George Pell and his “we were preparing some young English boys” statement on Q&A last month.

I found the treatment of this man, a man of learning and wisdom, absolutely shameful. While the words did come from the cardinal’s own mouth it was irresponsible for the ABC to broadcast them completely out of context. By inserting that long pause, when he clearly had not finished his sentence, the ABC deliberately injected a comic effect designed to lampoon his ominence. While I would like to see the ABC themselves pursued for this outrageous manipulation of the cardinal’s words, I believe it is more important that all of those present in the studio who laughed during the program need to be pursued. The ABC keep records of audience attendance, and I believe with modern techniques of audio analysis it will be possible to identify the individuals that laughed – they clearly implied that the cardinal was a paedophile. Each of them should be sued so that everyone understands that the church will spare no effort or expense to protect its own.

Most importantly, that heretic and blasphemer Richard Dawkins needs to be pursued. Not only can he be heard laughing but the footage shows him openly doing so and making no attempt to disguise his wicked thoughts. His actions clearly imply that George Pell is a paedophile. It is time that smug destroyer-of-blind-faith got his comeuppance.

On a brighter note, I believe the church, and you their legal counsel, should see this whole affair as an opportunity to diversify revenue streams and get in on the lucrative “interwebs”. The potential revenues from those lampooning George Pell are significant and could well mark the start of a new golden age for the church.  At the very least it offers an opportunity to recoup some of the losses incurred in settlements paid to the so-called “victims” of child abuse and molestation. Twitter is probably a good one to start with. However, I believe Deveny and Twitter are just bit players (pardon the nerdy telecommunications pun!) in a conspiracy to defame the cardinal and the church more broadly. Below, I have laid out a few examples of my extensive files on this matter and implore you to cast your net much wider, for the good of the cardinal and the church and for the glory of God her(/him/it)self.

Here are some screen shots from Google that may well be defamatory. I just typed in “george pell is” and Google suggested this:

Presuming that Google was getting confused with another George Pell, somewhere else on the planet, who has been conclusively shown to be an idiot, I attempted to clarify that I meant George Pell Cardinal. However, I had only typed “george pell c” when Google attempted to link his ominence with child abuse.

I then started to inquire about parishes that George Pell had worked in but only got as far as “george pell p” when Google came up with this:

Google appears to be involved in furthering the same despicable insinuations as Ms Deveny and Twitter but as part of a much broader assault on the cardinal’s reputation. However Google, being one of the most valuable companies on the planet, is a potential source of riches, unmatched by any the church has been able to plunder in recent centuries. I strongly urge you to pursue them vigorously.

I believe the authors, creators and publishers of the following material are part of this conspiracy.

• memegenerator.net which has a number of other memes impugning his ominence: http://memegenerator.net/QA-Pell. (I will not reproduce them here as I believe my moral health has been jeopardised enough by simply viewing them.)
• http://i.imgur.com/KHK1L.jpg
• http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3p5xlc/

(This is just scratching the surface – let me know if you want more material.)

The sad thing about this entire saga is that it has caused everyone to overlook the fact that that ABC program represented a turning point in the history of the church – during that program, the cardinal rewrote centuries of catholic catechism and dogma. He publicly acknowledged the mythical foundation of the bible and finally clarified that atheists are permitted to enter heaven, just to name a couple.

That last one puts the cardinal’s philosophical courage beyond doubt.  For centuries atheists were simply tortured or burned, in fulfilment of biblical prophecy. However, in recent decades, churches have taken a more liberal approach and endeavoured to lure atheists from their dark caves – caves that are lit solely by the dim and flickering flame of rational thought. They have done so with a clever technique. Churches have offered the eternal bliss of heaven but only if the atheists dropped their heretical demand of evidence for the existence of God. It was a shrewd but manufactured conundrum that has served the church profitably. The cardinal, however, has finally and courageously put such nonsense to rest forever. Of course, the non-believers can enter heaven.  He has proclaimed that belief in God is not a pre-requisite to eternal bliss. The cynical laughter broadcast on that evening must be hushed, so we may hear the true joy that began that evening: the sound of millions of atheists and agnostics joined in a chorus of “Hallelujah!”.

During that program, his ominence also made crystal clear the church’s equivocal support for the theory of evolution. After pointing out to Richard Dawkins some of the flaws in the professor’s understanding of evolutionary biology, his ominence indicated the church’s acceptance of the theory. These pronouncements will, one day, be regarded by historians as just what was needed to drag the church, kicking and screaming, into the nineteenth century.

The new doctrines spelt out by the cardinal, will surely become the foundation of the Roman Catholic faith formillennia to come.

We need to get the community’s focus onto the wise words emitted by his ominence that evening. We need to put this nonsense, about the cardinal preparing boys, behind us.

Clearly aggressive legal action is the best way to achieve this.

Good luck with your noble endeavours.

If  can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Phil Degenhardt

Fuck reading. Start writing.  Gunnas Writing Masterclass. BOOK NOW! All over Australia.