Clive Hamilton, the matrons of Higgins, sex, censorship, and time to make a stand ...

Since loon pond is dedicated to all that's eccentric in the land, it's time to return to that wonderful world of Toorak, at the heart of Peter Costello's old electorate of Higgins.

Before I was cast out of valhalla, I used to enjoy the cut and thrust, as Mercedes jostled for a parking space out the back of the supermarket - it was tough, like doing a reverse takeover using junk bonds - and treasured the quality of the Japanese take away store (oh Yuki Tei, why have you abandoned me, and not shifted to Sydney), and marveled at the cuts delivered by Lillian Frank, not to mention the sublimely silly and expensive matronly outfits sold in the village to the vulgar rich. And at night, with a dry sherry in hand, there was the joy of watching the steady flow of Victorian mud as it drained into the sea courtesy of the always brown Yarra.

Which makes me wonder what on earth Clive Hamilton is doing running for Higgins, and thank goodness, we're not alone in the world, as Ross Fitzgerald cogently notes today in Steamed voters may turn to Sex for relief.

In these by-elections, the Greens have been touted as the logical beneficiary of the ALP vote. But there are many greenish Labor supporters who sense a black spot within Bob Brown's flock these days. The Greens have been undergoing some radical changes during the past few years as they try to turn themselves into a mainstream party. These changes have resulted in the nomination of Hamilton as their candidate for Higgins.

Hamilton may have sound climate-change policies in his briefcase, but at heart he is a social conservative. There are many who doubt anyone's credentials on anything if they are so blind as to support Labor's deeply unpopular efforts to censor the internet.

Well count me as blind as a bat, Cyclops after Ulysses has done his work, if I fail to note Clive Hamilton's deep desire to act like a Mother Grundy.

As a result, if I were still living in Higgins, it would give me special pleasure to vote for the Liberal candidate, and deprive the censorious Hamilton of a vote. As Fitzgerald points out, recently there's been a peculiar trend in the Greens:

Hamilton represents the nanny state and an emerging new middle-class subspecies that specialises in telling other people how they should act on moral issues. Take the recently preselected Greens candidate for Victorian state seat Richmond, Kathleen Maltzahn. She is a founding director of a feminist group called Project Respect. This group claims to help women in the sex industry and those who have been trafficked. In fact, this group wants to take the regulated prostitution industry and make it illegal again, as it was in the 1950s. Maltzahn's social philosophy is similar to US uber-feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon. She would consider the Sex Party's pole-dancing human rights lawyer as someone needing protection from herself.

Hamilton and Maltzahn's social agendas would have been welcomed by former Tasmanian senator and conservative Catholic activist Brian Harradine. And they sure as hell will be extolled by Nile's and Family First's candidates for Higgins and Bradfield.

Oh there's a Sex Party standing a candidate? A pole-dancing lawyer? Well okay, great, there's a choice between voting Liberal and voting donkey and voting for sex, rather than voting for Hamilton.

So why is Brown, an openly gay man who has been fighting social conservatism on that front for decades, allowing sex-negative feminists and pro-censorship campaigners into his fold?

It's a question that press gallery journalists should be asking.

Yep, it's a bloody good question, because it's hard to know whether Hamilton is more offensive when espousing the cause of climate change with a foaming 'we're all doomed by Friday' hysteria that's a real turn off, or demanding censorship of everything within range of 'moral panic'.

Even Antony Green is a little surprised, though he cunningly calls Dr. Hamilton "an admirable participant in the Australian political debate."

In both Cunningham and Fremantle, the Greens ran candidates with local credentials who could concentrate on local issues, classic think global act local politics. Yet in Higgins the Greens have done the reverse, choosing a candidate who lives in Canberra and has no links to the electorate, and is running on a climate change agenda that can only be described as act global politics. It is the exact opposite of a previously successful Green strategy...

... So, on past voting patterns, don't expect much change in Higgins, but with Clive Hamilton as the Greens candidate, expect a Liberal campiagn with more heat than you might otherwise have seen. Rather than be afraid of losing vote, the Liberal Party might now be hoping it can improve its vote in Higgins. (here).

Apart from the votes the Sex Party might garner, the only upside I can see is the distraction of an election campaign might stop Hamilton from fulfilling his role as Crikey regular.

Sorry, spoke too soon. Not even that, as he selected that august forum to make his electoral declaration: Hamilton: Why I am standing for the Greens in Higgins.

Well his spruiking about climate change produced the usual pro and anti- frothing in the comments section, but there wasn't a word in his screed about the intertubes. For that you had to read on down into the bowels of the comments, and a note by one Jeff Waugh:

“And I’m confident that the Greens would not want to be seen to be the party that doesn’t care about children’s access to this material. Having me running in Higgins will reinforce the credentials of the Greens in the area of child protection.”
 — Clive Hamilton clarifies position on web filtering

I think the last thing the Greens need in Higgins is a candidate who supports extreme measures which resolve nothing they purport to address. In this case, the Internet filtering policy. But this is serious branding dud for the Greens.

There’s an opportunity in seats like Higgins to garner support for green issues, but those potential voters want to know that the party is capable of rising above single-issue status before putting a Greens candidate in the House of Representatives.

On that count — sadly, I might add — choosing Clive Hamilton for Higgins speaks volumes.

Well if you follow the link provided by Waugh, you'll also find this:

The Greens have previously criticised the filtering plan. Last month Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam described it as "bizarre" and "a real mistake".

Or is the real and bizarre mistake to have Clive Hamilton as a single issue candidate? Hamilton did his best to provide wriggle room, talking about government secrecy and urging transparency. As if you can somehow have an internet filtering policy which is transparent. As if censorship can be transparent when the whole point of the process is to ban things and make them untransparent.

We will ban things in an openly transparent way! What a prize gherkin.

The party's official stance is that it is waiting for the results of a trial to determine the viability of a filtering scheme, currently being undertaken by the Government.

"The Greens will make a final call once we've seen the trial results and some hint of an actual policy from the Government," Senator Ludlam said last week.

Dr Hamilton said he was also waiting for the results of the trial.

"The evidence of the impact of mandatory filtering is unclear. So I'm pleased the Government's doing some trials," he said.

"My final view will depend very much on what those trials come up with."

Oh sure, we're all waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the results of the trial, with Telstra-bashing as the piñata that keeps giving, so Conroy can avoid his trial and his folly.

Meantime, this from Hamilton:

Greens candidate Clive Hamilton this week told news.com.au he would continue to support plans to filter the web if they were found to be "practicable".

"I believe that the question of children's access to porn on the internet is a very serious one and a problem that is of great concern to parents around Australia," he said.

"I'm keen to see something done about it."

Well I'm keen to see that Hamilton doesn't get his hands on a seat in parliament, or even a fillip which suggests the voters of Higgins are at one with his desire to censor. It's happily a safe bet he won't get anywhere near the votes required for a seat, but sadly, in order to ensure that his social conservative ways are rejected, it'll also be nice to see the current Greens cynical ploy given a good thrashing.

Who'd have thought I'd be celebrating the part the matrons of Toorak play in keeping the world safe, but if they keep the intertubes a little safer from Hamilton, while voting down the trick of parachuting in a social conservative in the guise of a climate change guru, then they'll have done the world exemplary service.

You know it's serious when you get the likes of Guy Rundle trotting out optimistic nonsense in favor of Hamilton:

What if the weirdo egghead crypto-communist can break the 20% mark? In Higgins? Or the 25% mark? What then?

One thing the pundits forget is that Higgins is writers festival country. Writers festivals are their morris dancing, their corroborrees. And Hamilton is a star of the writers festivals. It’s possible, just possible that the pundits – for whom reading is the occasional Andy McNab – haven’t realised the degree to which there’s a Green base within these seats.

Which will make the Higgins contest a litmus test of the relationship between politics and culture in this country.

Go you great big Green-Brown bears. (here).

Sorry, if it's a litmus test as to censorship in this culture, then it's go Sex Party and shame Bob Brown, shame.

Go the matrons of Toorak. Go Liberals. Go anyone you like. But make a choice and do Clive Hamilton down.

(Below: Fiona Patten, candidate for Higgins).