The question of “sexism” has been dragged into the public’s face yet again.

Greens Party leader, Senator Bob Brown, claims that Julia Gillard has been “getting a rough time . . . and quite a bit of the criticism is sexist . . . .”

Surely the word sexist should be abandoned.

It has no definable meaning.

Like a lot of other “isms” it is used as a term of abuse and not much more.

* * *

Senator Brown also said that there is “a big swing around from the average punter in favour of Julia Gillard.”

Is there?

If there is, J. Gillard doesn’t know about it.

In her desperation, she hosted an “informal” barbecue at the Lodge the other night and made a speech about loyalty and discipline — and how opposing her Prime-Ministership amounts to “helping the Liberals”.

* * *

Isn’t the sexism bit just another tactic to stall off the seemingly inevitable?

If JG can get her critics labelled with the unthinkably untrendy label of “sexist” — might that distract Labor MPs from their desire for a better leader?

Rightly or wrongly, average punters consider Julia Gillard a disloyal back-stabber — and a conscience-free liar.

Her atheism also makes her a liability.

Her gender is less of an item.

World Vision is believed by many to be a basically Christian organisation.

Unaware, no doubt, of an article appearing on WV’s website concerning “Improving Maternal, Newborn and Child Health in Papua New Guinea” (October 2011) — which says that, amongst other things, the provision of “safe abortion” is “very good” value for money.

The Salvation Army represents itself as a Christian group — but it’s a fence-sitter regarding the sanctity of human life.

It teaches that in cases of rape or incest “an abortion may be justified because . . . .”

Also that abortion “may also be justified where reliable diagnostic procedures determine that a foetal abnormality is present which is incompatible with life other than a brief post-natal survival . . . .”

And the YWCA (Young Women’s Christian Association) in its recent policy platform recommends “protection and promotion of reproductive health, including . . . secure access to safe, affordable, Medicare-funded abortions . . . .”

Oxfam Australia, CARE Australia and Save the Children Australia jointly published a media statement praising President Obama’s 2009 decision to “abolish the rule that denies US taxpayer dollars to international family planning clinics that provide . . . abortion to women in developing countries.”

* * *

Some well-meaning donors to the above groups might feel they’ve been recruited under false pretences if they ever learn what their agency really stands for.

Lawyer Julian Burnside, QC, is known as a “human rights advocate”.

One of his themes is how “Australia doesn’t need to be protected from asylum seekers: asylum seekers need to be protected from their persecutors”.

And he seems to get away with it.

* * *

Mr Burnside must know that the ones needing protection are those in refugee camps in (or just over the border from) countries where terrorist militias are actively wiping out villages and towns.

He knows well that Australia’s “boat people” make their perilous journeys — not from Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan etc. where deadly persecution goes on 24/7 — but from Indonesia, where they are already relatively safe.

Politicians speak about “border protection”, confident that it’s something Australians will vote for.

Mr Burnside speaks about “asylum seekers”, knowing that will appeal to his likely audiences.

Genuine at-risk refugees awaiting migration away from active war-zones — they’re the ones most needing someone to speak for them.

NSW Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, proposes that new recruits for the police force must have no tattoos.

Opposition party spokesman, John Robertson, calls the suggestion “absurd”: focussing on something trivial instead of on investigating serious crime.

The police response is that the move is about “professionalism”.

* * *

Most, or at least many, tattoos depict themes like the occult, sex, wild animals, weapons etc. – symbols of rebellion against society’s constraints.

Is it too much to require somebody wishing to make a career of upholding society’s values to avoid looking as though heshe has a hankering for a bit of the opposite?

* * *

True religion has always been suspicious of tattoos.

The Bible itself says, “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead; neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks.” (Leviticus chapter 19)

The impression is that God forbade these things because they were common amongst the surrounding tribes which followed false religions and gods.

Tattooing probably isn’t a black and white issue, but going against fashion in order to ensure that your example will not cause confusion – that sounds a good way to go.

Tennis player, Bernard Tomic, 19, driving his orange BMW last week was pulled over by police and issued traffic infringement notices for driving contrary to the conditions of his licence.

P-platers normally aren’t allowed to drive a high-performance vehicle — but Tomic has apparently been granted an exemption because of his career as a tennis player.

Tomic has hired defence lawyer, Chris Nyst, who wants a meeting with Queensland Police Commissioner, Bob Atkinson – claiming there has been a misunderstanding regarding the terms of Tomic’s exemption.

* * *

Professional athletes usually don’t work for a living.

They have all day to get wherever they want to go.

If anything, it would make sense to license them for lower-than-usual performance vehicles.

Road rules should be designed for the safety of the public.

19-year olds with P-plates are typically bigger safety risks than older drivers.

If being a celebrity gives one the right to flout the laws governing other people, it’s a serious matter.

The rule of law is important if our nation is to avoid being a rabble.

By definition, the rule of law must apply to all equally.

The occupants of Canberra’s Aboriginal “Tent Embassy” did their cause no good by terrorising our Prime Minister on Thursday.

That doesn’t mean that the Embassy should not exist.

Aboriginal culture includes the notion of their spirits belong to the land.

Not any land, but the land associated with one’s clan, totem or whatever.

Belonging to this particular land, you don’t feel the same about any other piece of land.

There’s little temptation to invade the land of the next-door tribe.

If Europeans felt that way, World War I and World War II may never have happened.

* * *

So January 26 (“Invasion Day”) is arguably a bad day.

How to make the invaders understand?

Give them a taste of their own medicine?

Invade/annexe a piece of land important to white Australian culture and see how they like it?

The choice of the “Embassy” site makes sense.

* * *

In fact both we and the land belong to God, Father of all races.

Saint Mary MacKillop said, “In the trials, annoyances and anxieties we daily experience, may we ever recognise that loving Fatherly Hand . . . .”

At present, neither Australia’s blacks nor whites seem to quite get it.

Let us pray that we soon will.