Beaurocracy of Vogonic proportions….

Yeah, so – all my frustrated ranting about Barnaby Joyce’s bigoted, unfeeling asshattery earlier has now just been transerred onto Foreign Minister Stephen Smith after his scarily blasé remarks about how easy it would be to extend security clearances so that the Oceanic Viking may remain in Indonesian waters another week. The 78 Tamil asylum seekers have now spent 25 days at sea, and the cost to the taxpayer at keeping them in limbo is spiralling out of control – not to mention the ever so teensey, iddy bit of a HUMANITARIAN CRISIS HERE?!

And the whole time Smith’s priorities seem to be making sure that no more brown people have the audacity to seek a better life for themselves without actually examining precisely why there has been such a huge increase in Sri Lankan asylum seekers lately? It pisses me off that our Government seems to be more concerned with keeping people out of our country than they are with actually assisting in reducing the need to leave. People in desperate situations will always find a way around authorities, and they will always take ridiculous risks if they think that they can find a way out – that will not stop. If our government was truly the beacon of humanitarianism that it likes to boast that it is, then maybe they would commit to actually supporting Sri Lanka rebuild after the civil war and ensure a better standard of living for the Tamil population. What is needed is something other than a bandaid solution.

Simply saying to  Sri Lanka: ‘Scooze me – but can u plz to be stoppin wif teh refugees nao? kthnxbai’ is fucking ridiculous. Until the bigger picture is recognised and something is done to properly resettle the Tamils into safe and dignified lives, trying to ‘nip the problem in the bud’ is going to be about as effective and painless as douching with sulfuric acid.

At least this John MacCarthy bloke seems to have his head screwed on a little better than Stephen Smith. I’m glad that he does recognise that  the need for humanitarian aid and resettlement  is just as important as targetting those that do profit from people smuggling and exploit the desperation of those that are trying to flee persecution and poverty.

Normally I don’t read the West Australian on account of it being a right-wing rag with severe priority issues (four page spread about the footy on the front page and then a poxy little article seven pages back about North Korea threatening to make the world go kablooey…yeah, I was confused too..) but I’m kind of addicted to the word puzzles underneath the comics. So, flipping through the paper two days ago in search of my crossword fix I made the mistake of pausing on the ‘letters to the editor’ section.

Dear lefties, fellow activists and human rights campaigners. Those of you that are not conservative, bigoted fucks living in happy,  true-blue, suburban ,white, middle-class heterosexual aussie oblivion and denial – I suggest that you avoid ever having to read this section of ANY Australian news paper (The West in particular) if you want your faith in humanity and your blood pressure to remain as they are. I will not elaborate any further – but let me just say how very dearly I would like to seal these fuckers up in vats of their own racist filth after reading some of the comments from the public. People suck..

However – in NON sucky-homicide-incuding news: The ACT has now jumped on the bandwagon with Tasmania in legalising same-sex ceremonies. Hurrah, and thank felching CHRIST it’s about effing time! It only took what – three goes to get this bill through (Both Howard and Rudd have previously blocked action by the ACT to introduce civil union schemes because of their clauses allowing ceremonies that apparently ‘mimick marriage’) and I’m very impressed and happy that at last same-sex couples in the ACT will be able to have a formally recognised ceremony. Because – why the hell should they not?  Same-sex relationships are no more or less valid,loving or committed than heterosexual ones – there is no real difference between a gay and a straight union besides the social attitudes that we have towards them. Love is love – and all relationships deserve the same respect and ability to be formally recognised  rather than being kept on the quiet and huddled away from the delicate eyes of a public who will apparently be instantly struck blind and buggered by rabid weasels at the sight of a Queer wedding.

This article is interesting though, and points out the risk of intervention by the Federal Government:

Shadow Attorney-General Vicki Dunne says the legislation will be blocked by the Commonwealth. “It is almost certain the Commonwealth will intervene,” she said.

“It still sounds like a marriage and it still feels like a marriage and therefore it probably is a marriage.”

Oh noez! Not a gay marriage! Everyone head for the hills before they start thinking they’re actually entitled to human rights!

Yeah, am I the only one thinking that maybe the Commonwealth needs to put on it’s big-boy pants and harden the fuck up over the fact that us faggots are apparently being included in their so-called ’sacred instution’? Seriously – do we not have bigger things to do than worry about than a couple of Friends of Dorothy mincing their way down the aisle?

Besides, this legislation – although definitely positive in many ways – doesn’t really do a huge amount to bridge the divide between gay and straight. In fact, and I hate to say it – but it may actually reinforce the ’seperate but equal’ jargon that has haunted GLBTI politics for so long. Unlike in Tasmania, these civil ceremonies are for same-sex couples ONLY, leaving heterosexual, trans* and intersexed couples out.

For some reason, allowing a heterosexual couple with a civil partnership and a statutory ceremony was ‘too marriage-like’ and therefore in violation of the Marriage Act.

Um. Whut?!

Under exactly the same bill, a same-sex couple can have a civil partnership and legal ceremony and – according to the lawyers that advised the Government about the specifics of this Bill – is totally constitutional. But change the sex of one of the people involved and PRESTO! It’s ‘too marriage like’ and thus contravenes the Marriage Act. IS ANYONE ELSE LOST HERE!? Am I too fucking idealistic to assume that legislation of this kind should exist to -oh, I don’t know remove discrimination instead of reinforcing it? Like – seriously, angry emoticons don’t even begin to express how much this pisses me off…

Is heterosexism that deeply entrenched into our politics that we automatically assume that any heterosexual coupling – married, de facto or whatever – is ‘marriage-like’? Like – is that seriously all that we are capable of envisioning marriage as?! To the extent that we even further isolate the GLBTI community from the rest of society?

Fuck me sideways, I just do not get it…

Rodney Croome can probably explain it a little better. I’ve spent too long on the net today,  and need to go put some pants on so I can get my laptop fixed.

But first, my frustration and vitriol needs a convenient (if slightly irrelevant) outlet.  Today’s mental punching bag: The Vatican.

It is my housemate and colleague Shane’s life dream to one day travel to the Vatican and have hot, sweaty, blasphemous man-sex there. Preferably on top of something sacred. Totally insensitive and inappropriate, but I see it as tit for tat – the Catholic Church wants to treat us like insects? Then we are well within our rights for a petty little bit of vengeful catharsis.

Fuck your misogynist, Queerphobic, greedy hypocrisy. Actually – fuck any instituion that tells me that I’m going to hell for having the audacity to speak my mind and live a free and happy life unburdened by guilt or nonsensical obligation. I will make it my personal vendetta to both literally and metaphorically urinate all over your sacred cows and petty, judgemental bullshit. Then I will steal your funny hat and dance naked on your altars while scattering condoms to the adoring crowds before scampering off to get me some hot Italian nun-action.

Until next time!

Refugee FAIL.

So, by ‘I’ll update this thing in a few days’ I evidently actually meant ‘I’ll dick about and think about making an entry for about a week before getting around to it.’ Your loins will tremble before my devastating professionalism and efficiency.

However, in the meantime I’ve been working my arse off to pay for my trip to San Francisco next January (I may have come a little bit just typing that..), pretending to study, playing naked pool with my sexfiend housemates and helping to plan the next phase of the fiendish homoseksooahl agenda. My attack womb is tired. But not tired enough – there are still people to do and outdated heteronormative insitutions to redefine!

There have been a few things that have come to my attention over the last few weeks that I think are now too outdated and done to death – the case of the Bangladeshi couple that may have to have sex in front of a tribunal to prove that they are gay is one of them. If you need me to explain precisely why this situation is so shocking and wrong, you are a truly  heartless, callous and unworthy cuntrag – and my passive-aggressive smiley face and I will hunt you down, stab you in the face and urinate into the open wound.

My language is crass and unnecessary, but frankly I think that the way that Australia treats it’s refugees as a whole is fucking shocking, and it is occasions like this that merit such colourful language. This is not just me reserving my outrage for the one esoteric ‘Queer case’ (although, I admit that it is what attracted my attention in the first place..) but simply using it as just one example of the disgusting racism that still permeates the faux-multicultural facade of the Lucky Country.

Refugee issues aren’t really ones that I’ve been heavily involved in during my time as an activist – but it’s something that I’m becoming more and more interested in. The latest fiasco surrounding the 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers aboard the Customs Vessel The Oceanic Viking has sparked off another public furor surrounding refugees – and frankly the more I hear the less faith I have in humanity.

The Indonesians want nothing to do with them, and we seem to be perpetually umming and ahhing about whether or not we should take them. To me it seems like a fairly straightforward solution – do what we are obliged to do by the UNHCR Convention and Protocol for the Status of Refugees and actually do something to ensure that these people are humanely treated and their claims for asylum are effectively and fairly processed so that maybe, just maybe they can have a hope of a better standard living. Yunno – the one that they’re entitled to as human beings.

Of course – Dear old Johnny Howard has bobbed up amid the sea of xenophobic effluence like to spout his vile diatribe. I find it amusing that he has the audacity to talk about efficient uses of funding when nearly $310 million was spent by the Office of Immigration and Citizenship (which, by the way was once known as the Department of Immigration and Multiculturalism) over a period of seven years on keeping refugees in Offshore Processing Centres where they usually ended up rotting for years on end. Not to mention the mindbogglingly stupid ‘reintegration package’ that equipped refugees with lots of shiny pennies and shipped them back home on the proviso that they rescind their application for asylum. Thus, effectively ‘removing’ the problem of lots of unwelcome brown people polluting our perfect white washed denial.

Howard’s Government had an absolutely appalling track record when it came to refugees, and I find it pretty rich indeed that he’s now clambering up on his high horse. No Johnny. You most certainly did NOT stop the boats. You just stopped their occupants from ever having a decent chance of a better life by locking them up in detention centres for years on end. That’s not an effective or a humane policy.

It’s Barnaby Joyce however that takes out the ‘Fuckhead of the Week’ award by suggesting that the 78 Sri Lankans should all just bugger off home. Yunno – the place with all the persecution, poverty and death that they were desperate to escape in the first place. So easy to be flippant when you’re a privileged white boy isn’t it? Ensuring that asylum seekers are appropriately processed and humanely treated is not, not NOT a sign of weakness you fascist wankstain…. It’s a sign of compassion and the ability to take responsibility and initiative. These  people are Tamil refugees fleeing unbelievable poverty and oppression – and you have the audacity to treat them as a means of making a political point…?! There is not enough ‘Fuck you’ in the world….

Weirdly enough, WA’s own Colin Barnett seems to actually have a fairly reasonable stance on this issue…..I’m a little taken aback; The Premier has come up with something OTHER than ignorant,self-entitled prejudiced bullshit…?! (I know, I’m scared too…:S) Of course – it would be best if they were actually processed on Australian soil in an environment that doesn’t resemble a prison – but we really can’t expect that much of a radical suggestion from Colin just yet…

Australia takes only a fraction of the world’s refugees – and we are simply not doing enough. I fail to see how anyone is genuinely threatened by their presence. They are not the ‘job-stealing, terrorist- boat-people-boogey-men’ that I have heard them described as, and the only thing that we have to lose is our atrocious reputation.

Anyway – focussing on the positives: There’s this fuckawesome fact sheet that is definitely recommended reading for anyone with a remote interest in refugee issues. Get Up are pretty much the best thing since cunnilingus, and they’re really effective organisers and campaigners.

 

Right. I think that’s satiated my uppity activist need for ranty productivity for today. I think Imma go pass out somewhere now…Tonight is my first night sober in the better part of a week, so I’m looking forward to a highly enjoyable non-hungover morning tomorrow.  Until next time – I encourage you all to fart in the general direction of Barnaby ‘Racist-Asshat’ Joyce.

 

Andrea Dworkin can suck my left one..

I LIIIVE! I return alive from the deep dark beyond! Let this day be henceforth known as Easter and proceed to fill your children up with sugar and preservatives!

Anyway. So I’m totally crap at keeping this goshdarned thing updated. Not for lack of material, but simply because me and my feminist attack-womb of immense productivity have been more than a little occupied of late. Yes Yes, Kitty. Fuck off with your excuses and give me head   get to the point….

Within the next few days I will actually make an actual blog post (Yunno – with politics and research and shit..) but, for now because I’m feeling like a self-indulgent little harpy, you will have to content yourself with this article what I done wrote for my dear friend Hannah over at her awesome new blog The Dollrag.

Anyway – without further ado, I give you: PORN!

An Obscenity Of One’s Own

My name is Kitty. I’m a feminist, and I love porn.

 It may seem that the above statement is anachronistic, an oxymoron; Pornography is exploitation and objectification of women for consumption of a male audience and profit of a patriarchal society; it is the antithesis of everything that feminism stands for. Right?

 Well. That depends on who you ask. And also what you mean by ‘Porn.’ To be a little more specific – I’d say that I love the potential of porn. I’ll explain:

 An unfortunate misconception about feminists is that they all think the same way.

Most of us soapbox-humping, article-spewing, tofu-munching activist types are wearily aware of the tired old stereotype of feminists as universally joyless, man-hating, fanatically politically correct, ball busting femme-Nazis. Great for comic-relief, but there’s not much room for diversity…

 I digress a little – but my point is that feminism and feminist philosophies are as varied and as diverse as the women (and men!) that espouse them. There is no one ‘type’ of feminism, and there is no one ‘type’ of feminist. I’d be very worried if there were..

 This is precisely why I take umbrage at the assertion that feminism and pornography are mutually exclusive concepts. In this article, I shall incorporate both my own experience from working in the sex industry as well as writings of other feminists to support my belief that it is not only possible to be a feminist and still enjoy pornography – but also for pornography itself to be a means of empowerment and liberation for women.

 I am not one to deny that pornography is a means of exploitation and objectification. I am not, for a second going to argue that the porn industry is (at present) a rich fountain of female empowerment and liberation. Because it is not – well, not for the most part. The truth is that pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide and that it is for the most part, controlled nearly exclusively by men. However – there are a few points that frequently surface within feminist critiques of pornography that I should like to refute:

 Firstly – the accusation that pornography itself encourages violence.

 The anti-pornography  feminists of the mid 1970s  were the first to write about the supposed connection between pornography and male violence (Segal, 1990). However, I have a feeling that I will ruffle a few feathers when I come out and say candidly that there is actually no conclusive evidence to prove that pornography itself causes violence towards women (Jensen, 2004). Studies undertaken in the 1970’s actually found a negative correlation between the consumption of pornography and sexualised violence (Kutchinsky ,1973) and the US Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was also unable to find any evidence of changes in behaviour following short or long-term exposure to pornographic material (Kutchinsky, 1973).

 However, some feminist theorists of the likes of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, actually go further than stating that pornography encourages violence, they maintain that pornography IS violence (Segal, 1990). In fact, according to this wacky duo, pornography lies behind not only all forms of female oppression – but is also responsible for all forms of violence, brutality and murder throughout human history (Dworkin, 1981).

To quote Dworkin directly, Pornography is apparently akin to ‘Dachau brought into the bedroom and celebrated’ (Dworkin, 1981).

Ignoring the insensitive and inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust, I’d like to point out the inherent danger in this statement: It is a generalisation of all forms of pornography, of all representations of sexual activity as abusive, exploitative and dangerous. Thankfully, much of the backlash to this outlandish statement came from feminists themselves during the early 1980s – believing that the cultural contempt for women far outdated the commercial growth of pornography, and that to blame women’s powerlessness solely upon their portrayals within sexually explicit materials is to downplay the far larger problems inherent within our society – ignoring the inherent misogyny in our political, legal, social, religious, economic and educational systems (Segal, 1990). I must say – I agree emphatically.

 In some ways I find this assertion that pornography causes rape as disturbing as genuine rape apologists – because it is taking all of the responsibility away from those that commit sexualised violence and placing it on a convenient scapegoat. ‘Pornography made me Rape’ – it’s pretty much the sexualised equivalent of the Twinkie defence.  Rapists and abusers make a choice to harm, humiliate, demean and disempower their victims – to claim that they are themselves helpless victims left powerless by the porno bogey man is to release them from any moral delinquency and thereby excuse themselves from punishment. All the while, consenting adults who have made a conscious, free choice to make or view pornography get the blame.

Can someone tell me how this is at all logical – or respectful to those that have actually experienced abuse and violence?

 Dworkin’s statement alone is an insult to the free choice made by any woman that ever happily, and without coercion or threat removed her clothing – either for the camera or for a live audience. Having both modelled for erotic photography and spent three years working as an exotic dancer myself (and known many other sex workers, porn starlets and strippers with similar experiences) I can safely say that there are indeed countless women that are quite happy to do so – and, believe it or not, actually find empowerment and liberation from such apparently abusive activities.

 Part of feminism is the notion of choice – it is the ability to make decisions for oneself about what we do with our bodies and our lives in a free and respectful environment. It’s about having our choices and our autonomy respected as the conscious decisions of intelligent and capable beings. Whether that choice involves staying home with kids, having a career or even ejaculating on camera – we really CAN have it all!

 Insulting and illogical rhetoric aside, it seems that Dworkin herself was one of the main head-kickers in the formation of something called the Minneapolis Ordinance – a piece of legislation passed in Minneapolis in 1983 that allowed for the pursuit of legal prosecution against any individual or organisation by persons claiming that they had been damaged as a result of pornography. Can anyone else see the tidal wave of trouble that this would open up?

 While it is certainly true that there have been many, many women who have suffered genuine abuse and exploitation as a result of being coerced and manipulated (either by poverty, addiction or abusive men) into participating in pornography – My problem here lies within what is defined as pornography.

 According to the Minneapolis Ordinance, the definition of pornography is as follows: ‘Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following: (i) women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or (iii) women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or (v)women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or (vi)women’s body parts—-including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks—-are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or (viii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or (ix) woman are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.’’ (Dworkin & MacKinnon, 1988)

My belief here is that Dworkin and MacKinnon are incapable of imagining that it is indeed possible for sexually explicit material to be free of abuse or exploitation. Their assertion is that there is no pornography without violence, and thus – all pornography should be looked upon as a breach of Civil Rights and a felony. Frankly – I beg to differ.

Previously I made the assertion that there is no conclusive evidence directly linking pornography itself to violence; I stand by that statement – however one thing I will concede is that pornography certainly has the power to change our attitudes towards sex and towards women (Jensen, 1994). The portrayal of women in pornography as existing for men’s pleasure, of being instantly accessible and subordinate is not uncommon and it is not something that I am comfortable with. However – there is a quote from feminist writer Ruth Wallsgrove that states: ‘I believe we should not agitate for more laws against pornography, but should rather stand up together and say what we feel about it, and what we feel about our own sexuality, and force men to re-examine their own attitudes to sex and women implicit in their consumption of porn (Wallsgrove, 1977). And I will say that I agree, and that we need to take that a step further.

Pornography itself is neither demeaning nor is it empowering. It is neither exploitative nor is it liberating. What makes the difference between abusive, misogynistic material and genuinely consensual, respectful, erotic entertainment is the people that have made it. It is how the actresses and actors are treated, it is what health and safety precautions are taken, it is how much input performers are given into the creation of the product, it is how our culture perceives what pornography should be and who views it. It is who buys the pornography, who produces it who they produce it for and why.

 At the end of the day porn is just another business – business with cumshots, dildos and rim-jobs, but business just the same. Business responds to the wants of the market, and the market is a reflection of society. At the moment our society still dictates that women shouldn’t be sexually expressive or assertive, and that the only good wank is a male wank. Bollocks to that I say!

 The assumption is that women aren’t interested in porn – but did anyone actually stop to ask? I’d hazard a guess that many women dislike porn not because they find it abusive – but because so much of it IS male dominated and the vast majority of it is tailored to what is supposedly male fantasy which, even I admit is often pretty distasteful. Women like sex too – just as much as men do. So, where’s our slice of the cake?

 Pornography is a reflection of some parts of our natures that conventionally remain hidden, but will always find an outlet somewhere where we think we are safe and unseen and anonymous. Pornography has been around since our ancestors first took a blackened stick of charcoal and scratched obscenities onto cave walls. It exists in some form or another in every culture and has done at every point in time. To ban and to censor it will not only ensure that it will crop up unregulated and dangerous in bootlegged form, but it also means that it will never have any chance to evolve into what it should or could be. Personally – I’d love to see a porno industry that was vastly populated by women – strong, gorgeous, sexy brave, smart women that wanted to make smut on their own terms. Women that love getting fucked and filmed, getting fucked and filmed because they want to – not because some slime-ball director has told them to.

 I live for the day when female producers and directors that can inject a little originality and class into the plastic fantastic wasteland. Porn with women, made by women for women. Now – if that isn’t empowerment, I don’t know what is. It is taking the power back from those that dominate and suppress – and turning it around on them. It is forcing the hitherto compliant market to re-examine what women’s sexualities are – rather than what they would like them to be. Does that make me idealistic? Of course it does – but why should that be a deterrent? The alternative is doing nothing at all…

 Porn is here to stay. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. But recognise that you can either hate it – or you can change it for the better. Grab the cameras and the towels ladies – we’ve got work to do!

Nice one Colin..

Yes I’m still alive. Shut the fuck up – it’s been a busy month. Assignments due every other week, the F4F  Picnic looming ever closer and finally being sent out on Prac.

More on that in a bit though.

Yesterday the Guild Projects and Activities officer Bridget came hurtling into the office and informed us that WA Premier Colin Barnett had struck again. Something about denying the Greens resources or something..

Turns out that he’s gone further than that – He’s actually denied them party status.

Despite the fact that they have five seats in Parliament, and are slowly gaining power in the WA Senate  – Barnett is refusing to acknowledge their status as a political party, and therefore deny them the $450,000 in funding and five extra staff members to which they are entitled.  Not only this, but has declined to actually specify a reason as to why, and is refusing to allow the Greens to talk to his lawyers.

Naturally – the Greens are not happy chappies and will be pursuing legal action.

Barnett has declined to make any comment to the media as of yet. And really – I’m wondering what planet he spends most of his time on to think that this was a reasonable or appropriate thing to do. It’s a very underhanded policy – if you can’t get rid of them outright, just starve them of funding and resources until they fade into obscurity or go bust. It’s not only undemocratic, it’s thoroughly inconsistent: When the Nationals were in the same position they were allocated the same funding.  Then again, consistency isn’t really something that we’ve come to expect of Colin is it? He seemed to conveniently forget his 2005 Family First policy when questioned about repealing the WA 2002 reforms that granted GLBTI couples equal de facto status and equalised the age of consent for gay men. But I digress.

I’m suprised at how little media there is surrounding this. Disappointed as well – I’d have thought that such a blatantly undemocratic and unethical move by our own Premier would have gotten a little bit more attention. Apparently not.

However – to balance it out here’s a little bit of good news from Tasmania:

Ever the trailblazers of GLBTI law, the lovely Taswegians have once again set the standard for the rest of us by improving their civil partnership legislation. From November 1st, same-sex couples in Tasmania will be able to have their commitment ceremonies formalised and presided over by registered marriage celebrants.

It doesn’t sound much -but this is actually pretty significant. Since the ban on same sex marriage five years ago, any attempt to pass same-sex relationship recognition/civil union/partnership etc legislation in individual states and territories has been very heavily scruntinised by the beaurocratic meanie-heads in Government who seem to have an unhealthy fixation with ‘protecting marriage’. Every time an attempt is made to recognise same-sex relationships, a huge fuss is made about whether or not it ‘mimicks marriage’.  It was why the Federal Government stepped in at the last minute during the 2006 attempt in the ACT to introduce civil unions – wasn’t because two dudes getting hitched would have signalled Armageddon, but because of a clause in the proposed bill that would have allowed same-sex couples to have formal ceremonies that were presided over by a registered celebrant – a cluase which, according to the law monkeys would have ‘mimicked marriage’ which is pretty much a first-class citizen only affair.(Yeah, they are THAT anal..)

Anyway -  I’m not sure how the clever little bastards in Tassie did it – but they did.

I supspect it had something to do with creating a new category of officials that are legally able to preside over same-sex partnership ceremonies and then instantly recognising rabbis, priests, secular celebrants, ship captains and anyone else with the legal ability to perform marriages as belonging to that new category. Very sneaky – but damned clever. And I suspect that that is what has made all the difference.

Now, instead of simply rocking up to the registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and registering your relationship like you would a dog – you can actually have a celebrant like a priest, rabbi etc formally bless your union in a public ceremony. Really, it isn’t much – but what it does mean is that same-sex couples in Tasmania now can have the full dignity that heterosexuals are automatically entitled to. They get to have a legally recognised wedding ceremony. They get to have what everyone else has. It’s one step closer to closing that gap, one less thing that makes the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ quite so distinct.

The most important thing about campaigns for GLBTI equality is the ability to change and alter definitions and institutions so that they adapt to ever evolving social climates and attitudes. Every day terms and concepts being expanded so that they are more inclusive and more relevant: Marriage, family, partner, husband, wife, man, woman…I could go on.

That’s what I see this as – it’s changing from a way for GLBTI couples to register their relationships on the books to a means by which they can be publically and formally recognised as a couple. It changes the definition of ‘wedding’ to something a little bit less exclusive.

This entry must be cut short I fear as the Shane beast and his boy are dragging me by the dreadlocks to the nearest pub to celebrate it being a day that ends with a Y. I shall return. But first – BOOZE!

Queerphobia and reason #49437 why John Howard is a bigoted wassock..

 

Fuck me sideways…I’m so goddamned tired. I may be slightly hung-over following a glass or five of red and late-night viewings of Keating: The Musical last night - and 9am meetings with the University equity staff (seriously – who the fuck schedules a meeting with a student rep so bloody early…?!) so kindly bear with me.

The fact that Johnny Howard was no friend to the GLBTI community isn’t exactly frontpage news anymore – actually, on just about anything progressive or compassionate he is definitely not a star pupil. Which is why, when I read of his opposition to an Australian Bill of Rights I wasn’t at all suprised. But – when I found out that one of his primary concerns for his opposition is that if instated – a Bill of Rights would allow for same-sex marriage. Heavens to Betsy!

Ahh. Howard.  I’d forgotton what a nasty, smug little cretin you are. As much as I feel that Rudd has betrayed his election promises of real and progressive change – it’s always nice to know that we could have done so much worse.

Oh no, we can’t have a Bill of Rights (Despite the fact that Australia is the only Westernised Nation in the World NOT to have one..) because then TEH GHEYS WOULD MARRY AND THEN THE WORLD WOULD END MMKAY?!!

Seriously? Like, are we that fucking paranoid about poofters being treated as anything other than second class citizens that we’ll deliberately block a piece of legislation that would not only bring us into line with every other westernised nation in the world – but it will also be instrumental in addressing and preventing any more of the egregious human rights abuses that our country has for been sweeping under the carpet all these years.  Think what having a Bill of Rights would mean:  A real step forward in terms of Indigenous issues – healthcare, housing, education, reinstating the anti-discrimination legislation  suspended during the NT intervention. It could mean that maybe we’ll stop locking up refugees and asylum seekers in detention centres in the middle of the desert for years on end – it could mean that we’ll stop trying to introduce laws that invade our privacy and right to self determination like Senator Conroy’s Internet Filtering Scheme… Christ I could go on and on.

But no – we can’t possibly introduce anything like that - because little Johnny Howard is a little bit squeamish about two sheilas getting hitched. God forbid that life is made easier for the disadvantaged and minorities – or that our country is seen as progressive and compassionate rather than as a bunch of  kangaroo-humping, beer-swilling, Yank-worshipping, bigoted hicks.

Also – on the subject of hateful, beaurocratic wank-stains – the two WA transmen that I was raving about a couple of posts ago are now at risk of having their landmark courtcase overturned because Christian Porter didn’t have his prozac-flakes this morning.

Having legally won the right to be legally recognised as male prior to full gender-reassignment surgery (which, in this case would mean a complete hysterectomy..)  – it may well be a little early to start chilling that champagne, because the WA Attorney General is having a hissy fit over details that – frankly, aren’t any of his fucking business.

Hysterectomies aren’t easy procedures – nor are they without adverse side effects or heavy price-tags. I’m wondering how the decision to go through with such invasive surgery should be anyone else’s decision but the individuals – and holding something as crucial as the appropriate legal recognition of gender-identity to ransom in order to satisfy one ignorant politician’s definition of what constitutes ‘male’ or ‘female’  flies directly in the face of a person’s right to self determination and their means of identity and expression.

There’s more to being male or female than the collection of squishy bits between your legs. Neither the presence of a uterus, nor my ability to bear children are what define me as a woman. It isn’t my XX chromosomes, it isn’t my sexual preferences and it sure as fuck isn’t anyone else’s affair.  So fucking what – a couple of transsexuals still have internal girlparts. Don’t we have better things to be worrying about?  Like, I don’t know…climate change, the economy, which middle eastern country to invade next…? Does Christian Porter really lie awake at night, unable to sleep because there are people running around that don’t fit into his comfortable little gender binary? What a thrilling life he must lead..

Seriously -Fuck you all and your patriarchal, heterosexist, transphobic bullshit gender binaries. Keep your goddamned laws off my body and out of my bedroom – and I promise not to staple your eyelids to the ceiling..

 

 

Seriously – what the fuck are you people afraid of?

Reason why the Greens rule your face #56678

So, I’m a filthy Greeny.  I vote for the Australian Greens because I support their policies…… No brainer right?

Actually – that’s bollocks. I support them because THEY HAVE CAT MACROS ON THEIR WEBSITE

Keep on being awesome you homo-loving,commie, tree-humping, lefty scumbags.

Faggots have no natural predators…

Sometimes something is so terrible that you just have to laugh. Sometimes – someone will say something that shocks you so much that the only option you have is to make a joke of it – because the alternative is breaking down.

Sometimes – the only option that we have is to pull the piss. Because to become angry (as we may have every right to do) won’t make a lick of difference. Sometimes – laughter, mockery and parody are all we have left to stand up to bigotry.

This is actually a conversation that I was having earlier in the pub, so it’s funny that I should find this link now. But dear god – it rings true now.

 Ladies, Gents and all those inbetween: I give you – Steven L. Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church.

There’s no point in picking apart his nonsensical tirade. It speaks for itself. The only thing I can do is to laugh. It’s just too ridiculous for me to actually credit with a response of anything other than a chorus of mocking giggles.

 

On a serious note, looks like Anna Bligh is continuing her reign of terror in Queensland, as  more  hospitals close their doors to surgical abortions – sending women as far as Sydney to have terminations that can easily be performed on the premises. Why? Because of a century old part of the criminal code that makes it illegal to Procure one’s own miscarriage, or to assist a woman in doing so.

Of course – abortion providers are not happy about it.

Legislation states that medical abortions are permitted in order to save the woman’s life in the case of severe complications, but elective surgical abortions still carry the risk of prosecution.

Every year, thousands of abortions are carried out in Queensland – but because it is technically part of the criminal code, the risk of a doctor being prosecuted for performing a surgical abortion still remains. Hence why there are now next to no centres in Queensland that will perform the procedure. Following the arrest of a young couple in Cairns for procuring their own abortion using a Ukranian version of RU-486 – doctors are shit scared of being the next in the Witch hunt. I don’t blame them – this nineteen year old woman and her partner face up to seven years in jail each.

Part of Anna Bligh’s election campaign, and the pledge she made during her first term in office was to make abortion services more accessible for women. It seems that she has done exactly opposite. She’s now happily denying the existance of a private member’s bill  to completely decriminalise abortion and seems convinced to stick her head in the sand on this issue for the time being. And the Women of Queensland will suffer for it as a result.

Yes. The case of the Cairn’s couple and Section 282 of the Brisbane Criminal Code aren’t new. But this recent spate of closures is fairly recent,  I’ve just only now gotten around to writing about it.

When I was at NOWSA the case of the Cairns couple was still fresh, and so abortion was a very hot topic at the conference. We even had a rally through the streets of Brisbane to show support for the full legalisation of elective abortion. But I never expected this to be the result.

It disgusts me that a century-old piece of legislation has not already been wiped from the books – and that women – as well as medical professionals run the risk of jail time for having the audacity to excercise their right to choose. I’m angered that women and medical practictioners are being treated as criminals over something that the government has absolutely no right to restrict.

I understand that Anna Bligh is concerned that introducing what may well be an unpopular bill into Parliament may well backfire and result in unwanted and even more restrictive amendments being added onto it. But the alternative is doing nothing about the issue and watching women that are unable to travel interstate be saddled with unwanted pregnancies – or worse, take matters into their own hands.

Women should not be condemned to return to the backyard because the Queensland Premier is afraid to get her hands dirty.

This isn’t just an issue of beaurocracy – for some women this may well be the difference between life and death.  Between being forced to pay more than they should to travel interstate for a simple procedure that hospitals in their own state are quite well equipped to provide. This may make the difference for a victim of sexual assault to terminate the result of a traumatic attack without the added stress of travel. This may make the difference between a student without the means to travel interstate being able to stay at uni and dropping out.

The difference is whether or not something constructive is being done. And so far – I’m not seeing anything remotely close to genuine care or effort on behalf of the Premier to protect the welfare of the Women of her state. Once again, I’m furious that beaurocratic, self interested politicians remain cloistered in their ivory tower at the expense of the people that they are supposed to represent and serve. So much for democracy.

Bligher Bligher, pants on fire…

Oh arse…I completely forgot to mention the whole shindig with Queensland’s Gay adoption and Anna Bligh being a clueless wankstain. I’ll make this one a quickie – since I should have been at Uni a while ago.

Bligh’s Gay Adoption stance ‘Confusing’…

Pssst…Anna…same-sex couples in WA and the ACT have been able to adopt kids for some time now – and same-sex couples in Tasmania can adopt their partner’s biological children. Just ask Kelly and Sam Pilgrim-Byrne – and their gorgeous little girl Miss C.. Also, Queensland does actually allow for lesbians to access IVF treatment. So – why not full adoption?

There are so many kids out there that need good homes, and so many people that are desperate to be parents that are more than capable of providing a loving and stable home for them.  Marriage and gender have fuck all to do with it in the big picture – family is about more than just Mum, Dad and the kids: It’s about love – it’s about having people around you that support and care for you. They’re the people that are there everyday – the ones that see you at your best and your worst. They’re the ones you come home to. Putting ridiculous limitations on family based on marital status or gender identity – it makes no sense.

And before I forget – the Families for Freedom picnic on the 16th of August unfortunately had to be rescheduled due to appalling weather. It was a little disappointing, but it was definitely for the best. Now we can find a better venue (where the Council won’t fuck us around at the eleventh hour…) in better weather – and (on a rather nasty, smug note) we can now be better prepared to deal with various student unions who will remain nameless when they attempt to gatecrash our campaign.

However, despite the freezing cold, more than 120 people turned up on Cottesloe Foreshore to sign petitions, give out information about the F4F campaign and run round in rainbow flags waving ‘Honk if you support same-sex marriage’ signs at the traffic. It was lovely really – and now we have an even larger base of support for the campaign.

So, now plans are underway for the F4F picnic mark two! The Fremantle Council have been very co-operative and very friendly towards the event – so I’m very very excited.

Beaurocratic bollocks and Bad Questions to ask a Transsexual..

Ok, so a couple of really awesome little gems I really wanted to share with you before I toddle off to uni and pretend to do my assignment..

First and foremost – in leading on from the case of the two WA transmen who won the right to be legally considered male while still having reproductive organs that I talked about in my last entry,  I found the following article that was posted by an aquaintence of mine on facebook (why yes, yes I AM highly professional STFU…).

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have changed their policies pertaining to aquiring passports so that obtaining a passport in your reassigned sex will be easier. WA Legislation states that in order to obtain a passport with your changed sex – you need to have your birth certificate changed – or a certificate of gender reassignment from the Department of Births, Deaths and Marriages  -  and to do that you need to have had surgery to alter the genitals and other gender characteristics so that you can be identified as the opposite sex.

However, nothing in the legislation states that this involves  complete gender-reassignment surgery (in the case of the two WA transmen this would mean chest surgery and a hysterectomy) – this is just the way that it has been interpreted. So, this means that  there will potentially be more freedom for trans* people to gain essential travel and identification documents in their appropriate sex without expensive  sex-change surgery that they may not actually want or be  able to complete without significant health risks..

I took the liberty of doing a little extra research and some of it’s actually pretty interesting..

There is a  clause that states that you can only change your birth certificate if you are unmarried – lest the state accidentally create a same-sex marriage…which…really – is the height of beaurocratic, irrelevant bullshit.            Actually – there is a compassionate clause that states that cases of married trans*people that wish to have their passport/documents reflect their changed sex will be considered on case-by-case basis so that they can have their sex changed on their passport without annulling the marriage. But dear god…from what I can see on the website the amount of beaurocracy to wade through in this case is astonishing..

It all starts with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages who are the ones who will determine as to whether or not you can change your birth cerficate, which will of course affect whether or not you are able to obtain a passport. All of this will vary from state to state – so all of the above applies only to WA. It’s an entirely different story in Queensland for instance, where  you not only need stat decs from two different doctors saying that you’ve had sex-change surgery, explanatory notes for the entire process plus the application to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to have your reassigned sex recognised. Plus – get this – if you are married, either a certifcate of absolute divorce or your spouses death certificate. Tasmania’s no less complicated either…

New South Wales is interesting – it’s far less complicated, but unfortunately a little vague. All it states is that you need to have undergone sex reaffirmation surgery (it doesn’t actually mention specifics here…) so that you can have your birth certificate changed. Actually – one thing that I’m quite impressed with is that there is no record made of a person having had sex-reassignment surgery;  all they do is re-issue the birth certificate with the appropriate sex on it and state that it was previously issued in another name. I quite like that…

South Australia are also pretty damned anal about the whole process too – only issuing recognition certificates needed to obtain changed birth certificates if gender-reassignment surgery was performed within South Australia, and – as before, only on unmarried people. This goes through the Magistrates Court too – whereas, in WA there is actually an independant Gender Reassignment Board (which is a deparment of the Attorney General)  set up to deal with cases like this. I imagine this would make  case-by-case issues much easier to deal with – given that those on the board will have to have at least some knowledge of trans issues..(I hope…). Actually, when I called this department up to probe them with questions I got an answerphone from the Australian Human Rights Commission which is actually pretty damned encouraging.

The ACT and Northern Territory are apparently transsexual-free zones, as there is absolutely nothing on their websites pertaining to sex-change recognition procedures…maybe it’s a state vs territory thing? I don’t know..although the Victorian website doesn’t say much on the subject of altered birth certificates either…

So, so far it looks like WA is by far the most progressive state in the country as far as trans* recognition goes by virtue of  the Gender Reassignment Board. But it’s by no means as good as it should be. I had to have my passport re-issued about a year ago and that was a giant pain in the arse – and I’m a cisgendered Australian citizen.

We often take so much of our means of identification for granted – just being IDed at a club – showing your smartrider at the train station or your drivers liscense whenever you got pulled over – but what if you couldn’t? What if the only means you had of identifying yourself was wrong – if the only means that you had to wade through legal processes was based only upon something that wasn’t you? Imagine being pulled over by the cops and showing a ‘M’ drivers liscense while appearing female, or being pulled into a sideroom at an airport because your physical appearance doesn’t match up with what your passport says you are. The ability to travel freely is a basic human right – but only if you conform to either one sex or the other.

I can’t believe it’s taken this long for such a tiny little bit of progress to happen. For something so irrelevant as to whether a person has a uterus or not. Still…I’m happy that my stupid little state has taken such steps, and I hope that it will continue.

That entry was far longer than I expected it to be…But in closing I shall share this with you. I think I may be a little in love with this woman..:D

Toodles!

Today for you…Tomorrow for me..

This morning my fellow Guild hacks and I gathered around our Operations Manager’s computer and watched live footage of Parliament House as the Senate chucked out the VSU bill.

Voting on whether the bill should be given a third reading, the floor was split 34 for and 34 against – with the chair making the deciding vote as a negative – effectively ending all debate on repealing VSU for the better part of two years.

So – yeah. Now University Guilds and Student organisations are back to square one. For another year and a half we will be stuck in the same lurch that we’ve been in since 2005 when Howard introduced VSU – scrambling for funding and desperately trying to find resources to actually run our unions, provide essential services and to support students on campus.

All it would have taken was support from Steve Fielding or Barnaby Joyce.  Unfortunately - as I mentioned previously – Joyce was dead set against the legislation unless every penny of the $250 fee went towards sport.  Fielding was adamant that it ‘took away choice’ – despite the fact that the proposed bill would not actually obligate students to become part of any union, and that fees would go towards student services that wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do with Student Guilds and certainly could not fund political ventures.

*sigh*

One a slightly more esoteric, personal note – as we were watching, who should I see addressing the Chair but Senator Ursula Stephens – the Government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Social inclusion who spoke at the revolting ‘Marriage Day Breakfast’ on the anniversary of the ban on same-sex marriage. Oh…delicious irony.

Actually, I managed to track down a copy of the speech that she gave at that breakfast.

Marriage is sacred bond between a man and a woman for life blah blah blah essential for raising children yadda yadda yadda I may vomit..

She actually very cleverly manages to cater to both sides of the argument here – making sure that marriage gets to keep it’s shiny, exclusive veneer while also portraying the government as a just defender of civil rights by mentioning the Federal Changes that went through in July that now see same-sex couples treated equally to heterosexual de-facto couples in areas like tax, superannuation etc. Conveniently sidestepping the fact that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘A LITTLE  BIT EQUAL’, FUCKERS!

*Rage*

But, in some good news – Two Transmen here in WA have won the right to be legally considered as male before having gender reassignment surgery.

This is great in that trans*people that cannot afford, or choose not to have gender reassignment surgery for whatever reason will now be able to have their appropriate gender identities displayed on legal paperwork – thus making things like travel, finance and employment much much easier. Of course – it will take more than just that to address several government’s  years of neglect of trans* issues, but it’s a step in the right direction.

What pisses me off most is the arrogance of the Attorney-General Christian Porter who has the audacity to intervene in what should be a personal matter. Especially given his obvious lack of knowledge of issues facing trans* people – I’m wondering if it’s really any of Mr. Porter’s damned business if someone has a uterus or not…identity is so personal, it bothers me that there are nasty little creeps in suits that seem to think that it’s appropriate to legislate what does and what does not constitute ‘maleness’. The commentry on this  article alternates between sickening and impressive.

Right. Now my bum is falling asleep, I’m freezing my arse off and the Shane-beast has just waved a rather lovely looking joint under my nose. Time to go watch Rent and get my weed on.

Until next time