Political porn as the sun rises

Updated

Morning television is the intellectual equivalent of having Burger Rings, smokes and an asbestos bong for breakfast (a big hello Shane Warne if you're reading).

My firm belief as a professional in the area of "What I reckon based on no evidence or qualifications whatsoever" is that AM TV turns brains into lumps of ash coloured phlegm that smell like Laurie Oakes' crack. Let's not call it a belief but a hypothesis shall we? And while you're at it you can call me Professor.

Political porn's political porn, no matter how it comes. And considering the current poor grade of it, we're all chasing for a decent hit. As a welcome distraction from Gillard verses Abbott (AKA Same Car Different Model verses Similar Features Longer Hair) the promise of a bit of girl on girl action, bit of scratching and hair pulling dragged me from my slumber this morning. My kids thought I must have been going overseas. They'd only ever seen me up pre 8am when I was going on an international flight. Or I was coming home from a night of dirty martinis.

So there I was, at 7am on the couch watching Channel Seven's Sunrise strapped in for The Great Debate between Australian Sex Party's Fiona Patten and Family First's Wendy Francis hoping my brain wouldn't break. Apparently the deal with brain synapses is 'where it fires it wires'.

I'd be lying if I didn't say I had grave fears of even limited exposure to Sunrise transforming me into a pathologically outraged tabloid reading talkback caller, mouth breathing small minded swinging voter or a chinless, neckless blog troll. Yes I was risking my neural health, for you readers. Because I love you.

So the Sex Party verses Family First. The fornicators taking on the fundamentalists. The Whore verses the Madonna. Morning glory indeed. Game on moles.

Mel (as in Kochie and Mel) was her usual 'how can you be so cheerful without pharmaceutical assistance' as the grid girl. The opponents were asked to quickly outline their positions (so many double entendres. So little time) in 30 seconds. Sex Party; Civil liberties, no internet filter, same sex marriage, euthanasia, religion out of politics, adult's rights while protecting children. Family First; fighting for G rated outdoor advertising, wanting what's best for Australia, representing mainstream Australia and Australian Families. Pro-filter. Christian values. Do we want to live in a country with no morals, no values, no sense of what's right or wrong?

So in the shallow end of the gene pool that is morning television, the least place you'd expect it, during a campaign where journalists are being accused of being hacks and the two leaders appear to be competing in a personality competition, here was a political debate. Candidates saying stuff, believing stuff, disagreeing and answering questions. Polar opposites being polar opposites. Patten's your garden-variety civil libertarian. And Francis your typical fundermentalist.

But that was what was so refreshing. As bonkers as I am sure we all think one of the parties is (I'm sure no one is tossing up whether to vote for Family First or the Australian Sex party) there was difference. Debate. I saw something I hadn't seen for a while. Passion. Not spin. Not scripted and controlled, driven by polls and informed by focus groups but a real stouch. Sure, not the best I've ever seen but with the lack of passion in the campaign any spit flying and table thumping is better than none.

Patten swung the debate off billboards suggesting something to really protect children; a royal commission into sex abuse in the church. Francis said she'd support a royal commission into sex abuse across the board. Including the sex industry. Patten had to inform Francis that no one in the sex industry had been charged with sex abuse yet thousands of church workers had.

Look out, up next, the internet filter. Francis played the 'You're either with us or with the child rapists card." Patten was forced to explain to Francis that child sex abuse is illegal, the Internet will not stop it and that anyone involved in child sex abuse should be prosecuted and sent to jail. Not allowed to continue.

Family First's take on same sex marriage? Why change something that's been around forever. That it's not about equality, but "a small minority group", "a lifestyle choice" and marriage is about "what's good for Australia." (sic) According to Francis. "There has to be a line drawn somewhere." No explanation as to why, and clearly the assumption that Family First were the only party with the moral authority to draw the line. Because God said so. Apparently "Marriage is the backbone of Australia." Seriously.

So to prove my political hypothesis 'morning television rots your brain', according to the Sunrise viewers, the party that won the debate was Family First. But I would say that. Because if I had my own political party I'd be called 'Protect Choice And Promote Diversity', 'Don't Tell Me What To Do You're Not My Mother' or 'Rack Off With Your Religion Approved Misogyny, Homophobia & Racism.'

As I watched the two go head to head, I, like anyone who has ever seen Fiona Patten advocate for the adult sex industry or represent the Australian Sex party wondered what she would look like naked. But I couldn't help thinking Family First's Wendy Francis would go off in the sack. Nothing gets me thinking about sex more than religion. Or sex. You can take the girl out of the Catholic Church but you can't take the Catholic Church out of the girl. A little bit of colour in the campaign. And that color was flesh.

Catherine Deveny is a Melbourne-based comedian, writer and mother of small boys. She no longer writes a column for The Age.

Topics: religion-and-beliefs, government-and-politics, elections

First posted