The AFA thrives in the kind of 'Cold War' mentality in which it was born. Its roots are in the conservatism of late Catholic arch conservative and fundamentalist B. A. Santamaria who founded both the AFA and its political front the National Civic Council. While its origins may be local, the AFA has drawn its inspiration from the uglier side of the American Right. Nowhere is this more evident than in its journal Australian Family, where the majority of contributors are based in the bible belt of America. Just one example is Richard Wilkins of Utah who was reproduced in the Australian Family to rile against the repeal of the Texas sodomy law, equating legalising homosexuality with legalising paedophilia. Thus the AFA hopes to import and spread hatred into Australia, furthering social divides rather than fostering the kind of tolerant and harmonious society most of us would think healthier for children.

A thinly veiled racial anxiety also runs through the AFA's literature. In another edition of Australian Family Nathanson and Young warn that 'even while some countries are indeed overpopulated, others are not', reminding readers in 'Western countries' that if they do not breed, 'immigrants, presumably, will continue to have many children and require no encouragement'. So when William Bennett, another American commentator, writes that marriage is 'the keystone in the arch of civilisation' we should not be surprised if it really means White 'Judeo-Christian' civilisation. Notice of course that the other child of Abraham, Islam, makes a conspicuous no-show in definitions of 'our civilisation'.

Here it is clear that the AFA is a movement based on an irrational fear of difference, not just of gays and lesbians, or of feminists, but of anything outside their ideology. The AFA knows how to stoke racism and make prejudice look respectable under the guise of 'family values'.

Bill Muehlenberg, current AFA president quotes from a 1966 Time magazine to mouth his own outdated bigotry, that homosexuality is 'pathetic' and 'pitable', requiring 'treatment'. That this treatment would often take the form of cruel and unusual punishments and tortures is not of concern to Bill, as he riles against 'deviancy' and laments that 'the only abnormality now is to be "homophobic"'. For him, civil rights are 'vague notions'. On one hand he belittles gays and lesbians by claiming there aren't many of them, and in the next gasp he is beating the drums of fear that heterosexuals will somehow be overwhelmed by this same minority. Bill is alert to the 'Brave New World implications' of parents being prosecuted (hypothetically) for removing their children from safe sex education classes, but apparently the totalitarian 'implications' of the state regulating people's sexuality completely passed him by.

The AFA has been successful in disseminating its view because it formulates its beliefs though quasi-scientific explanations rather than purely religious doctrine. Bob Birell, Director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, was recently involved in Men and Women Apart, a report funded and published by the AFA. It contains statistical figures on marriage and employment in Australia. The conclusion derived from this data is without any sociological understanding and was used by the AFA to reaffirm its values without genuine critical engagement. Simply put, marriage is on the decline, as is the number of male wage earners, and the falling rate of fertility. Cunningly, the AFA has linked its moral code to a recent political fear dealt by our own government, the declining rate of childbirth.

The AFA does not advocate for families in any real sense. It neither connects itself to established organisations, such as Relationships Australia, nor lobbies for real issues such as preventing domestic violence - surely an issue that should be at the forefront of any group dealing with threats to family stability. And while the AFA fears that Australian children will become homosexual through watching lesbians on the ABC, child abuse in churches seems to rate a definitive zero on the AFA alarm chart.

Grounded in Christian fundamentalist roots, it is no surprise that from its inception, the AFA has used fear to support its world vision. In his centenary speech in 1980, Joe Santamaria outlined the parameters of the AFA in relation to Cold War hysteria. The family needed to be protected because it was the basis of Western society, a society he predicted would be overrun by outside forces within five years. "It is foolish to speak of advancing the cause of The Family without concerning ourselves with the prior issue of national security."

Santamaria used the dichotomy not merely of East and West, but also between the modern and the traditional. Change would not only come through a foreign invasion, but through the erosion of traditional values from such modern instruments as "excessive urbanisation and excessive industrialisation." This legacy could explain how, twenty years later, the AFA continues to attack modern advancements, most notably IVF and embryo research. In terms of race, culture, gender and science the response of the AFA has no constructive role, but prefers to whip up anxiety while offering impossible solutions based on a flawed world vision full of phobias.

For we should all think a moment of the world the AFA agenda would create. It is one of racial competition and the strife that brings, of domestic violence locked up in the private sphere, of homosexuals and even heterosexuals trapped with their children in loveless marriages.

In short, the AFA is no healthy place to bring up children and should certainly not have the kind of influence it enjoys in political, religious or social forums.

FFASA stands for Football Fans Against Sexual Assault.

The FFASA web-site is our response, as footy fans, to the recent spate of sexual assault allegations in the football codes. The denials, cover-ups, excuses and spin doctoring have severely affected our enjoyment of the game we normally love. We want the clubs, players and football administrators to take a stronger stance on this issue and face the problem head-on. With their huge following of boys and young men, we think football has the potential to do something very positive on this issue, although the reverse is happening at the moment. FFASA would like to see them say there is no place in football for the sexual assault of women, except in a united stance against it.

How did it get started?

As football fans, we felt stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do we abandon the game we love and stop our kids from watching and participating? Or do we bury our heads in the sand and just accept that a by-product of the game we love is a culture that tolerates the sexual degradation of women as a form of macho bonding and fun? Neither of these options was acceptable. So, the FFASA web-site and campaign was really born out this anxiety that we believe a lot of footy fans are feeling.

How did you get involved?

Me personally? Well, it's difficult not to be affected by this issue when you're a woman and a footy fan. When I watch my team play, I don't just admire their athletic prowess and skill. On a good day, I admire their character. So, to discover that some of these men, whose character I often admire, sexually assault women or else tolerate this behaviour in their team mates, there's a level at which it feels personal.

Are you satisfied with the results from the inquiries into the sexual assault allegations against the Bulldogs and St Kilda players?

According to the ABS, only 49% sexual assaults reported to the police ever proceed to trial. The outcomes of the Bulldogs and St Kilda cases reflect these statistics.

We feel for the women involved, wanting to pursue their charges through the courts only to have their cases dropped. Insufficient evidence does not mean that the allegations are unfounded, just that there is insufficient evidence for the purpose of obtaining a conviction in a court.

Because sexual assault is difficult to prove in the current legal system, FFASA thinks it's essential that football clubs change the way in which they deal with allegations.

Firstly, we don't think clubs should pay expensive legal teams to represent players accused of sexual assault, such as what happened in the Bulldog's case. We believe this puts them in direct conflict with assisting the police investigation and with encouraging and supporting witnesses to come forward.

Secondly, the clubs should not make statements that the accused players are innocent, just because the case does not proceed to trial. The facts and statistics do not support such statements and play into the myths surrounding rape. St Kilda showed a degree of sensitivity on this. However, we still feel their statements were too sympathetic to the accused players and therefore underplayed the seriousness of the alleged crime.

FFASA is currently looking at how a Code of Conduct may address some of the issues relating to how Clubs manage allegations.

How do you intend to keep the momentum for your campaign going now that these inquiries have ended?

It's always tricky with an on-line petition. People have to be motivated enough to sit down, log on to the internet, find the web-site and put in their details. We also have to be realistic. The levels of anger, frustration and disgust that people felt when the allegations first surfaced are difficult to sustain over a lengthy period of time, particularly as the footy season kicks along.

So our campaign's efforts are on positive action. We are focused upon the sorts of things we want to see football do in addressing the issue of sexual assault seriously.

In getting the word out, we are finding radio to be very effective. A good radio interview seems to bring in the signatories and lots of comments in our Comments section.

We're also targeting special interest groups, such as junior football, club supporter groups and local government, with an e-mail campaign. It's always great when people initiate their own word-of-mouth campaign amongst their family, friends, colleagues and social/community organisations.

Over the next month or so, we'll re-draft the FFASA proposals to reflect the comments and suggestions of FFASA signatories and then make a formal submission to the AFL and NRL clubs and executives. At this point, we'll also invite the players to wear purple armbands during a designated game before the end of season. Hopefully, these initiatives will attract some media coverage and help to keep sexual assault on football's agenda.

Does your organisation support women playing football?

Great timing for this question. Just this week, the Australian Women's Rugby League agreed to wear the FFASA campaign symbol of purple armbands during their State of Origin at SunCorp Stadium this weekend.

As this game is as a curtain raiser to a Brisbane Vs Manly game, we have also extended an invitation to the Broncos and Sea Eagles to likewise, don the purple armbands during their game on the same day.

FFASA thinks the women's decision demonstrates real leadership and commitment to their sport. We sincerely hope the Broncos and the Sea Eagles will recognise this and support the stance that the women have chosen to make. We also hope FFASA supporters going to the game will get out there early enough to take in the curtain raiser and support the women as they make football's first on-field statement against sexual assault.

As to whether FFASA supports women playing football. It really goes without saying that we do. FFASA supports an increased presence of women in football at all levels, including players, board members, executives, club administrators, coaches and other members of team player groups.

There are also all the unspoken roles of women in football that could do with improved recognition, such as the mothers who run their kids to training and games each week, the wives and girlfriends who support their football playing partners and the growing female supporter base to the game.

In fact, I think football could go further than just recognise the role of women in the sport. Football is a game of traditions. We'd like to see football explore ways of incorporating women into football's traditions in a genuine and respectful way. We think the FFASA purple armbands have potential in this regard.

What do you think about Sam Newman?

Personally, I'm not a watcher of the Footy Show. However, FFASA has received various comments from FFASA supporters stating how offensive they find some of the footy shows and in particular, Sam Newman.

Sam Newman seems to have built a media persona out of passing off shock value, controversy and offensiveness as humour and personality. He certainly doesn't do his sport any favours.

I read about the comments he apparently made last week that all women as schemers and liars, particularly when it comes to sexual assault. His comments contribute to creating a hostile environment for women who report sexual assault and run counterproductive to Andrew Demetriou's invitation earlier this year for women to come forward and report sexual assaults by footballers.

As the Footy Show is part of the broader culture of AFL, FFASA would like to see the AFL take decisive action against Newman. At minimum, we would like to see Andrew Demetriou request a retraction from Sam Newman. We also question whether any AFL officials or players should appear on the show until Newman offers an apology.