Rise of the Gingers..

Christ on a stick…

It’s 7.20 am and I’m watching the sun come up over the hills through the window of the Perth Domestic Airport. I’m on my way to Sydney for a couple of conferences, and the free internet booth here at Gate 16 tells me that we may shortly be witness to a fairly major piece of Australian history.

Last night the media was literally falling over itself to cover the controversy that was the outbreak of mutiny within the ranks of the ALP – with Julia Gillard finally openly challenging Kevin Rudd for the leadership. When I saw the breaking news last night I at first dismissed it as sensationalist journalism – the media’s been gushing about Julia Gillard (who, until now has been vehement in her support for KRudd and denying that she ought to take the top job).

The ALP went to the polls twenty minutes ago in Canberra, and now I’m feverishly reloading ABC news to see if there have been any developments. Because, if things are going the way that the Sydney Morning Herald says they are – it looks like Gillard is thrashing Rudd 70 votes to 30. Within the next hour or so, it looks as though Australia will have it’s first female Prime Minister.

I had thought that she might take over after the election, despite her protestations to the contrary until now – but never thought that this would happen. It seemed to be political suicide for the ALP to have a change of leadership so close to an election, and it would not have been unreasonable to assume that the ALP would limp over the finish line at the election before considering giving the top job to the second in command (after all, for all the flogging that Rudd has been getting in the media lately, he was still polling higher than Abbott).

But, it all happened within a few hours – it was marvellous to watch it unfold. Unfortunately the computer I’m on at the moment won’t let me copy and paste – otherwise I’d be getting pretty link happy right about now. I’m sure there are some very sleep deprived journos at Parliament House right now that will be providing us with all the juicy details shortly..

All snide comments about souless rangas aside – I’m actually really excited. Sure, I still trust the ALP as far as I can throw them and will always be a Greenie scumbag, but to have a leftist, migrant female Prime Minister after the dark years of Howard and then the disappointment and betrayal of Rudd – to me is a welcome change.

I’m just happy that I was awake and aware enough to witness this. It’s a great day to be an Austalian woman – even if it is only symbolic.  So – good luck Julia. You’re inheriting a great burden, and I hope that you do us girls proud.

Well, my flight has started boarding. The sun’s up. It’s a new day.

Oh what a circus, oh what a show…

So what do you get when you combine four assignments all due in one week, two exams, pending conferences, two committees to chair, an NDA to help organise and a lobby group with a publication launch to organise and promote?

You get a neglected fucking blog. That’s what. And as luck would have it, it was precisely then that the most amount of relevant stories hit the headlines – most notably Jason Akermanis’  comments about homosexual footy players and the godawful debacle concerning the now former NSW Minister for Roads and Transport David Campbell .

But in some ways – I’m rather pleased that I’ve been away for the resultant media circuses that have followed because it means that I’ve had time to watch the situations unfold and actually take the time to make a decent judgement that wasn’t based upon a knee-jerk reaction. After all, I’m a blogger, not a journalist; it’s my job to comment on the news, not to report it. If you want timely and up to date information then I suggest you head over to the ABC or to the Sydney Morning Herald or to SBS for your news. This also provides a perfect excuse for me to be slack with my entries…but you wouldn’t believe such a thing of me would you my dear readers? *crickets chirp*

Anyway, I’ll begin with the David Campbell situation.  Above all things I think this situation is less shocking or scandalous than it is genuinely sad. There have been endless debates surrounding the invasion of Campbell’s privacy, whether or not his use of his ministerial car to visit a gay sauna was a misuse of government resources (which it wasn’t,  given that the car was for personal use as well as official duties despite what NSW Premiere Kristina Keneally may have stated) and the obvious (and quite rightful to my mind) condemnation of Channel Seven who informed Campbell  that  they were  going public with the affair two hours before the story was aired. But – at the end of the day, all I see is a man who dedicated twenty years of his life to politics and will now have his entire life’s work overlooked because his private life was wrongfully exposed. I feel sorry for his family who have been dragged through the mud, and I’m deeply saddened that once again, the media feel that it is necessary to destroy people’s careers and families in order to get a catchy headline.

Personally, I find that as a GLBTI rights advocate, I find that the crux of the argument goes to two things: Firstly, the  concern that Channel seven was using homophobia and crass shock tactics as a means to boost their ratings, which has inevitably backfired, and secondly is the whole brouhaha over Campbell’s public image as a quote unquote ‘family man.’  According to Channel Seven scumbag Peter Meakin, the fact that Campbell had been promoting himself to his electorate as a happily married father of two is partly justification for the network’s forced outing of the Minister, as his ‘double life’ (have I mentioned that I fucking HATE that term? It makes the whole situation sound even more like a trashy pulp novella) constitutes presenting a misleading image to the public.

To this statement, I would simply ask ‘how?’ Seriously – how is David Campbell’s family any less relevant? He is still a husband and father – whether or not he is a particularly good one is questionable, but that’s an issue for him, his wife and his children to discuss, not the media. We know nothing of the inner workings of his family – and nor should we.  A minister’s capacity to fulfill their roles are not dependent upon the inner workings of their home-lives, if this were the case – cabinet reshuffles would be a weekly occurrence.

Now, I could better appreciate the media’s blatantly transparent attempts at moral superiority if the target of their bile was someone like Ted Haggard, who, in his highly influential position as a celebrity pastor had actively campaigned against gay rights and referred to homosexuality as sinful and deviant. I still felt sorry for Haggard when the scandal hit the headlines a few years ago – like Campbell he still must have struggled for years with the burden of his sexuality in what was certainly an extremely hostile and queerphobic environment – but I still felt that he got what he deserved. Unlike Campbell, Haggard was actually preaching and advocating the kind of bigotry that still results in the suffering and oppression same-sex attracted and gender diverse people, and was in a position of extreme power as a spiritual advisor to George W Bush himself. Campbell has done no such thing, and one might ask what, besides higher ratings could Channel Seven possibly have hoped to achieve by outing him? Haggard’s rhetoric and influence had great potential to do enormous risk to vulnerable people – whereas in this circumstance David Campbell should arguably have been answerable only to his family.

Thankfully, it seems that the slimebags responsible for this piece of tabloid filth are being adequately raked across the coals, and that not only do the public seem to be showing an overwhelming distaste for the way that the situation was handled, but it looks as though there is a groundswell of sympathy and support for him.

That said – to completely throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder if there is a kernel of truth in the assertion that the reason for this is because Campbell, being a closeted homosexual for so many years – has the ability to play the victim card and thus generate not only the public outrage at the shoddy media standards that outed him, but also bolster up support for him in a sympathy vote. Indeed, it seems that despite his resignation he is still able to keep his seat in Keira ( which, granted is a Labor stronghold..). Personally I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and state that because he already had a good support base there based upon his performance as the member for that electorate – but how much weight does the ‘victim card’ theory have? I did an interview with the RTR fm show ‘All things Queer’ last monday (which is linked below) and at the time the consensus seemed to be that had he been exposed in having a heterosexual affair, the scandal would barely have gotten airtime, which is a fairly reasonable assumption. However, this article has admittedly made me have second thoughts on that.

Here I must say that I do not agree completely with Scott Stephens;  I find that his description of the public attitude towards homosexuals to be overly simplistic and borderline insulting – partly because it insinuates that the public (and the GLBTI community themselves) view same-sex attracted people as a whole as being little more than simpering, vulnerable and one-dimensional underdogs who are incapable of helping themselves, rather than a diverse and multifaceted community of individuals with differing politics, lifestyles and behaviors with intelligence, integrity and strength to boot. It also does much to completely disregard the fact that while Queer people have fought bravely and hard for their rights to be treated equally – we are still treated as second-class citizens by our own Government and are still subjected to bigotry and intolerance, even if it is at a blessedly reduced rate.  In addition, his comment about the ‘deleterious effect of anonymous sex on civil society itself’ in particular I find to be infuriatingly prudish and judgemental.

But despite this – Stephens still has an irritatingly relevant point… Maybe it was sympathy for Campbell’s forced outing and ‘double life’ that added to the support that have seen Campbell fare better in the public eye than people like heterosexual John Della Bosca? I don’t think that this is completely true, especially given that the circumstances here are different, and that much of the public outrage and sympathy may well have been directed at the invasion of Campbell’s privacy and poor decisions made by Channel Seven rather than the Minister’s sexuality. I guess we’ll never know.

The bottom line is this:  Campbell made a mistake, but it was not the place of the media to make his private business the centre of a media circus, especially given the tawdry way that it was presented to the public. It should be irrelevant as to whether or not his extra-marital affairs were gay or straight, because his infidelity is a matter for his family to deal with and is none of the public’s concern.

Anyway – moving on to yet another ongoing media circus:  Blah blah blah Jason Akermanis rhubarb rhubarb snore….

AFL player makes some inappropriate comments and everyone is clutching their pearls like homophobia in sport is a completely new phenomenon. Well my darlings, I’ll tell you – It fucking well isn’t.

I’ve waxed lyrical about AFL, sport and Aussie bloke culture before –  so here’s the recording of the interview that I did for RTR fm’s ‘All things Queer‘ a week ago that I believe sums up my views on this whole shindig. Pay particular attention to my last minute attempt to get some shameless GALE promotion in at the last minute, and how my accent seems to take an around the world trip throughout the interview… I are gud at teh raidyo intarvoos…:D

But seriously – GALE is having an event to launch the publication of  ‘At the Crossroads‘ which you guys should totally all come to on the 13th of June….all the cool kids will be there, and you might even get the chance to watch me mumble awkwardly into a microphone after my third glass of house red…

Will you just look at these breasts..!

Wow.  As soon as I decide to get up off my arse to update this thing it seems like I’ve got a bajillion things that I want to write about, and for once I’m not whinging on about gay marriage.

So – where do we start? Well, I guess the cancelling of Sri Lankan and Afghani refugee visas had me mentally eviscerating Chris Evans for a bit, but I have only just recently recovered from writing a 2,800 word essay about Australia’s mandatory detention policy, so I just do not have the patience or the inclination to elaborate on that.

It’s old news, and if you haven’t taken the time to figure out precisely why it’s a fucking irresponsible and inhumane thing to do then I guess you never will.  I wish that I’d had the time to respond properly to it when it was recent.  The dark Howard days of Temporary Protection Visas and locking up children in prison-like conditions may be over, but that does not mean that we have emerged squeaky clean. The excision of any of the islands and territories off our northern coast (ie: Cocos Islands, Cartier Island, Ashmore Reef and Christmas Island) from our migration zone is still Government policy, thus blocking any undocumented arrivals from applying for a refugee visa  (Except at the discretion of the Minister responsible).  We still excuse our wrongs by claiming that harsh laws discourage boat people and are intended on cracking down on people smuggling, and yet we do nothing to actually assist the human rights crises overseas that actually creates a market for the exploitation of desperate people by people smugglers.  Just because there is no longer bloodshed and fighting in the streets does not mean that conflict is over, or that ethnic Tamils or displaced Afghanis will not be subject to a life of misery and persecution if they return to their home countries.  Bandaid solutions like the aforementioned cancelling of visas will not stop the boats and it will not prevent Afghani or Sri Lankan refugees from seeking asylum in Australia.

Anyway – it is with disappointment that I report that the Government today announced their decision not to introduce a Human Rights act. I’m not convinced about this talk of a ‘framework’  - actually, the Attorney-General’s comments ‘We want to focus on what unites people, rather than divides them’ is setting alarm bells of in my head.  While I totally support legislation that treats everyone with equal rights, respect and opportunities, what I am concerned about is the fact that so often I’ve heard this statement used as an excuse to  ignore existing problems. Sometimes, in order to address inequality, one does need to single out individual groups in order to identify problems within their communities that arise from prejudice and discrimination – not as a means of tokenism or special treatment, but as a means of adequately addressing them. Because – well, there are many differences between human beings, and while we may all be made of the same flesh and blood – it is unfortunately the smallest and most insignificant distinctions between us that will determine our lifestyles, health, opportunities and the way that we are treated by our peers.

I do understand that the proposed model for a Human Rights Act was not perfect – the ability for policy makers to chop and change legislation as they feel suits their needs (Northern Territory Intervention, anyone?) as well as the power that would subsequently be given to judges to decide what does and what does not constitute Human Rights is a little undemocratic. However – despite these problems it would have meant a good deal of progress for Australia. Personally I would prefer a Bill of Rights (which would mean amending our Constitution to change and would affect ALL of our current laws and would establish a mandatory framework around which new laws would have to abide) but I still support this measure. The silver lining in this is that $12 million will go towards human rights education initiatives – so, yay for that at least.

In any case – can someone PLEASE bitchslap George Brandis? Like, seriously – he got me testy when he used Julia Gillard’s parental status as a litmus test for her eligibility to comment on Abbott’s infamous virginity comments, but now I just really really want to inflict great amounts of highly comedic discomfort and humiliation upon him. According to Brandis, K Rudd has been ‘wasting’ taxpayer’s money on something as  silly and frivolous as Human Rights. Yunno George – if you really wanted to call Rudd out on ridiculous and unnecessary government spending, then you might want to give a quick mention to the odd $40 million that they plan to spend on implementing and maintaining the totally unethical and ineffective internet filtering scheme rather than bitching about attempting to protect and respect human rights. Just a little perspective there…

I’m also wondering where he got his stats from, given that an overwhelming majority of the public support the introduction of a Bill or Charter of Human Rights. But then again, Georgie Porgie doesn’t really strike me as being particularly considerate of other people’s experiences or beliefs.  Douchebag.

Speaking of which – I’m wondering whether Tony Abbot is doing this whole Opposition Leadership thing as a Chaser-style dare. Because – from where I’m standing, he’s not really doing much in the way of the whole ‘winning the hearts and minds of the voters’ type thing. Yes, I realise that as a filthy feminist, pro-choice, pro-queer/refugee/indigenous/women’s rights student activist toerag my vote – and those of the majority of my peer group are not ones that he is ever likely to get and he knows that – so he’s focussing more on the older, more conservative electorates. I get that. But – when he comes out with gems like ‘your virginity is a gift‘ and ‘I feel threatened by homosexuality‘ and now ‘No dole for the under 30′s‘  I am actually starting to wonder if he’s just having us on…because with all his anti-choice, catholic, speedo-wearing shenanigens, I’m really having trouble believing that he is actually expecting people to vote for him and is just in the whole thing because he gets his jollies by riling people up. It’s not so much that he’s conservative, I mean hell – we’ve still got doddering old bigots like Bill Heffernen in the Senate, but it’s more the fact that he  seems to be totally incapable from restraining himself from making totally stupid comments in public – like he’s got political tourettes or something. Clever ploy to enrage the lefties and thus further engage the religious right? Likely. A hardline antidote to the public fatigue of KRudd’s policy of all-talk no action? Maybe.  All I know is that he’s got buckleys in the next election, and sadly it’s not because of the outstanding merits of his opponent.

In the spirit of public figures making general asses of themselves, it was with great mirth that I read that a senior Iranian cleric has asserted that immodestly dressed and promiscuous women cause earthquakes. Ya. For real realz. So,it is with a non-too unfamiliar feeling of feminist indignation and great amusement that I am promoting ‘Boobquake.’

Sedighi claims that not dressing modestly causes earthquakes. If so, we should be able to test this claim scientifically….On Monday, April 26th, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. Yes, the one usually reserved for a night on the town. I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that’s your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I’m sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn’t rumble. And if we really get through to him, maybe it’ll be one involving plate tectonics.

So. Ladies – come April 26th – get the twins out. FOR SCIENCE!

Yes. Yes, I know – it’s frivolous and it’s nothing more than symbolic. But hey – it’s a bit of fun, and  it has spread like wildfire which, to my mind is a good thing. It’s a reminder that not every woman has the privilege of being able to express herself or enjoy bodily autonomy, and for that I am all the more grateful for having been born where I was. It’s also a very strong statement disguised in humor and playfulness: Women’s bodies are no more obscenities than they are earthquake hazard……( Also – boobs are totally awesome. )

Until next time chickees.

Happy International Women’s Day!

Just a short update to wish you all a Happy International Women’s Day (shut up. I know it’s a day late. It was five minutes to midnight when I started typing this..)

Take a moment to appreciate how much we have to be thankful for, and what this day represents. Remember the women (and men!) who came before us and how hard they worked to achieve what is sadly often taken for granted now. Treasure what you have – if you are educated, well fed, housed, clothed, equally employed, have access to relevant, affordable and accessible healthcare; given opportunities, choice and respect – then you are better off than most other women in the world.  Remember that, and take time to appreciate it.

If you fit the above criteria – then it is your responsibility to ensure that your position of privilege does not remain so indefinitely.  Do something – volunteer at a women’s shelter, organise a fundraiser, make a donation to organisations that help women in developing nations (I suggest Amnesty International or Women For Women) or just simply talk. Talk to people about what you think and why, ask questions – LOTS of questions, encourage debate around the dinner table or at the pub. Do your research, read books, browse the internet. Get informed and get vocal. Keep it local or set your sites on International aid – every little helps.

To conclude -I will leave you with this article.  I love this one, because it explains – without anger or aggression – precisely why there is no International Man’s Day.

Leaving aside the fact that there actually IS an International Man’s Day I do understand what the author is getting at.  I am tired of people whining about the very existence of IWD because (the logic goes) if men and women are equal – why do women get the big shiny parade? Completely ignoring the last couple of centuries of marginalisation, abuse and exclusion of women throughout the vast majority of cultures on earth and the ongoing effects that are still felt even in westernised countries (To say nothing of the extent and effects of extreme misogyny in developing nations). To feel threatened by IWD is to deny the existence of male privilege which, to my mind constitutes appalling arrogance.

I am really tired of having to explain that the minority of cases in which women are advantaged over men does not nullify the fact that even here in the lucky country – our culture is still one of sexism and discrimination against women.

However, this should not insinuate that I am opposed to International Men’s Day. Of course not – there are issues that affect men either exclusively or more frequently than women, and a lot of that is due to social attitudes that often prevent men from seeking help for mental health or for physical illness. There’s a reason why there is a higher suicide rate amongst men - the amount of accessible and visible  mental health and support services for men is far less than those for women and when it comes to family court disputes I know that courts are usually far more in favor of granting custody of children to women – unfit parents or not, purely on the fact that they are women. The only beef that I have with International Men’s Day is that blue-ribbon winning conservative, queerphobic tosser Warwick Marsh is one of the co-ordinators.

What this does come down to – I think – is recognition of privilege, wherever you have it. Despite my whining, I am hesitant to turn the whole IWD debate into a longwinded game of ‘Who’s more oppressed’ – and so what is important is to recognize the nature of  gender-based privilege and discrimination and to have the humility and grace to consider another person’s background and experience before going tilting at windmills.

Personally speaking that’s been a hard lesson to learn, but after a period of unease and indignant pouting – I do not feel threatened by International Men’s Day. One person’s liberation does not automatically insinuate another’s subordination. Giving equal rights and consideration to one person does not mean that another is automatically stripped of theirs. Compassion, respect and opportunity are not a bucket of water – they will not run out if everyone gets a fair share.

Right. I have a politics class in just over seven hours and I have not yet slept. Just watch the pretty Youtube video and let me sleep.

Until next time.

Definition of Irony: Censorship at a free-speech rally.

So, today my housemate and I went to the Perth Rally against the Government’s Proposed Filtering Scheme. The event itself was fairly low-key, nothing out of the ordinary. Some of the speakers were a little vague and repetitive, but overall it was worth going to. While Senator Scott Ludlam was speaking, a group of people lowered a banner off the balcony above that read ‘Save Water, Cut Immigration’. Cue ripples of disgust throughout the crowd.

To his credit, Scott handled it well, continuing to speak about the filter and what needs to be done – until someone stepped in and attempted to rip the banner down, starting a shouting match that nearly escalated into a fight.  Eventually the banner was completely removed after one of the activists began shouting through a loudspeaker about racism – totally drowning Scott out and whipping the crowd up into a self-righteous frenzy.  Eventually the ones responsible for the banner left and the rally resumed (sort of). The crowd were cheering louder as they exited than they ever had in response to what was being said about Internet censorship and freedom of speech.

I was actually pretty appalled.  Shane and I left to go get sushi. I didn’t want to be a part of this event anymore. Why? Because we’d just spent a good hour out in the hot sun listening to people talk about the human right of self expression, democracy and freedom of speech, ruffling our feathers up into a fit of (quite rightful) indignation that our Government planned to tell us that what we could and couldn’t view online. And then, the minute someone said something that other people didn’t like – it was torn down, shouted over and trodden into the dust, so that the only voices that could be heard were the ones deemed appropriate and right by the majority assembled.

Anyone else see a big problem with this?

Having genuine free speech means that everyone has and equal opportunity to express themselves and to share their beliefs. As long as you are not advocating or encouraging direct violence against individuals or groups, people still have a right to speak their minds. However disgustingly racist it may be.

Besides – it’s actually quite likely that by providing these nationalist groups with equal ability to spout their bilge to the public, then they’ll end up shooting themselves in the foot by displaying their true colours. The public aren’t delicate, wilting flowers that will shrivel up and die upon being exposed to controversial or unpopular viewpoints – nor are they completely mindless sheep who will automatically take one loony fringe group at their word (despite what I may be inclined to believe in my more misanthropic moods). By supplying people with a wide range of rhetoric and ideologies that are all equally accessible, you empower them to make a genuinely informed choice about what they believe. Removing public access to ideas that you find distasteful restricts people’s ability to decide for themselves what to think about a certain situation. That is not only an assault on freedom of speech – but also on the ability to exercise genuine freedom of thought.  I think we can all appreciate just how appalling that prospect is – please don’t make me quote Orwell..

And no – advocating for genuine freedom of speech does not mean I am condoning what is being said.  I’m sick of people assuming that when I say that the right to freedom of expression should be extended to ALL people (racist/sexist/queerphobic bigots included..) that I am automatically siding with people like the ones mentioned above.  What’s that old expression? “I loathe what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.” Damn straight. How the hell can I expect to be given the right to jump up and down and demand my lefty-scumbag agenda be respected, if I won’t extend that to everyone else?

At the event, the frontwoman of the band that came on after Scott was finished stated:  ’This isn’t censorship – it’s about human rights’  which, to me was an incredibly hypocritical thing to say.

Freedom of Speech IS a human right, and by disallowing people to express themselves, you have denied them a human right. There is no fine print stating that only people who hold certain viewpoints will be given this amenity. There is a reason why it is called the ‘UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights’ – because it applies to EVERYBODY. Free speech is not free speech if you pick and choose who has it. It is all or nothing – that’s the beauty of democracy – everyone has the right to be heard.

The worst thing was that this whole debacle totally detracted from the actual issue at hand: The Government’s proposal to implement an internet filter that would censor information deemed to be ‘inappropriate’ without any kind of public input as to what constitutes ‘inappropriate’. A filter that will cost thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to implement, despite the fact that tests conducted early last year prove that it will not actually effectively block abusive or illegal material but will incorrectly block hundreds of perfectly legitimate sites. The ‘blacklist’ of banned sites will not be made available to the public, and sites that list those that have been blacklisted end up on the blacklist themselves. The main minister responsible for this sham legislation has bullied and belittled anyone who argued against the filter, and Kevin Rudd remains frighteningly unperturbed by this. Australia may well soon be joining  North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and China as a country that censors the net – and yet, people seemed to be more concerned with stifling the presence of three scruffy racists with a poorly painted banner.

I can only hope that there wasn’t any mainstream media there. The last thing this campaign needs is for the public to perceive free-speech activists as petty, violent hypocrites. Shane makes an excellent point on his blog when he points out that in order for campaigns to be successful, we need to be very very careful about how we are perceived by the public; because ultimately they are the ones whose respect you need to earn. Otherwise, you’re little more than a petulant, whining child.

On the importance of independence.

Aaaaand as expected, the Marriage Equality Amendment bill went arse up and KRudd and Abbott can go back to their happy little heteronormative worlds where the ETS is effective and there is no such thing as being a ‘second-class citizen’. Hugs and puppies for all!

I didn’t really expect it to get through at all. But that doesn’t make it any less disappointing. The most frustrating thing about it is that if it had been a conscience vote as it should have been – it would have stood a decent chance of passing. Instead – the vote was along party lines and was defeated 45 to 5. The much quoted Galaxy poll conducted in 2008 tells us that 60% of Australians believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry.  Surely, it makes sense that the votes in Senate should be roughly proportional to this figure – give or take a few?

What this has come down to, is a handful of people deciding that members of their own parties were not allowed vote according to their beliefs – rather, at risk of reprimand, they must kowtow to outdated party policy (which I know is not a wholly accurate portrayal of the opinions of each and every single Senator in the Upper House) . Both Rudd and Abbott are against same-sex marriage – this was the easiest way to ensure that it wasn’t granted.

This isn’t what we voted them in for. Two men, in positions of power and privilege to decide whether or not thousands of Australians will be treated as equals, and then obliging their fellow members to vote the way that they want them to. Can someone please explain to me how this is supposed to be democratic? How is this adequate representation if our elected members are forced to vote a certain way according to the whims of their leader.

I have always had massive problems with the concept of voting along party lines – whether it be within the pimply factions of the National Union of Students or within the lofty ranks of the Senate.  No party is ever unified. I’d be worried if they were, because that would insinuate that everyone thought the same, which is a prospect that genuinely frightens me. Dissent – even within a party is healthy, normal – NEEDED if there is to be any kind of progress made.  It brings debate down to a black or white situation, and I think that we can all appreciate the need for a grey area, for an alternative to the ‘one or other’ type of argument that we see when we have a system of two massively powerful major parties that like nothing more than to contradict and undermine each other rather than actually getting things done.

What’s the point of voting for someone, if the reasons that you vote for them will be made null and void by their inability to vote according to their own conscience? I hate that casting a ballot seems to be less of an act of democracy and personal choice, and more of an obligation to choose the one that will fuck things up less than the other bloke.

As long as major parties continue to vote along policy lines rather than trusting their members to do the right thing, then we lose that valuable grey area. We lose the ability to have genuine representation of ideologies and beliefs – and a situation of choosing ‘the lesser of two evils’ rather than genuine choice. Minor parties and Independents may seem like single-issue candidates or fringe-dwellers, but they are invaluable, because they offer an alternative to Liberal or Labor. I loathe Family First and the Christian Democratic Party – but I’m glad they exist. Why? Because they are an alternative.  Because, as much as I dislike them – they do represent a portion of the Australian public. They have as much right to sit in Senate and represent the people that voted them in as do the tree-hugging, homo-loving commies in the Greens that I support. I am grateful that we do have a system that is more supportive of minor parties  than places like the US where a vote for anyone other than the Democrats or Republicans is usually a wasted vote, but that needs to be extended so that at every opportunity, elected members are able to actually perform their function and give genuine representation to the people that put them in their positions. Otherwise, what’s the point in voting for them?

Anyway,  on the subject of independence, I recently stumbled across a blog that really made me think:

Feminisnt is an absolutely brilliant blog written by pornographer and sexworker Furrygirl. Furry Girl makes it explicitly clear at several points that she is not a feminist, not because she does not support women’s right to equal respect, safety, bodily autonomy and opportunity – but because she is tired not only of having to fit her life around a feminist analysis as well as the attitudes towards sex work that she has encountered from some feminists themselves.

Now, it’s never easy to be confronted with something that blatantly contradicts everything that you believe in. And that’s what I was fully expecting. But after about five minutes of reading I realised something odd: For the most part, I totally agree with FurryGirl. While I don’t consider myself a sex worker, I do work in the Sex Industry. Having spent nearly four years as an exotic dancer – I realise that I share her frustrations at having other women tell me what I can and can’t do with my body, of women who believe that only their brand of feminism is truly liberating, women who believe it is appropriate to speak on behalf of other groups of people they do not know or care to know beyond their own theorising or individual experience. I am tired of being told that my means of sexual expression is wrong by women who supposedly fight for sexual liberation.

I’ve made my opinions regarding pornography and sex work quite clearly in the past so I’ll not open up that can of worms again. What I want to ask is: What IS a feminist anyway?

Personally – I’ve always believed that a feminist was a person (not necessarily a woman) who believes in the right of all female or female identifying people to be respected, to be safe, to have the equal opportunities and the ability to make her own decisions, be they about her  lifestyle, sexuality, reproduction, expression etc. A feminist is a person who respects the choices and autonomy of others.  It has nothing to do with reading Germaine Greer (transphobic twat that she is…) or burning your bra. You don’t have to be an activist or an academic to be a feminist – you just need to be aware, respectful and ready to listen and learn.

By my standards (which I don’t think are particularly esoteric or farfetched) Furrygirl IS a feminist. She meets the criteria of everything I have described above. However – these are my standards, and not hers, and it is her right to be considered however she wishes. Personally – think that her statements are actually pretty brave, because the phrase ‘I’m not a feminist’ is uttered, one opens up the floodgates for a whole load of accusations and guilt trips from self-righteous, holier-than-thou women who are butthurt that someone disagrees with them. I feel more kinship with this woman than I ever have with the likes of Germaine Greer or Andrea Dworkin.

Furrygirl raises a really important issue for me:  How much of our lives do we attempt to mould and manipulate solely to fit into a philosophy? Why is it not the other way around, why not let our own life experiences and personal beliefs shape our world views rather than a convenient catagory that we think is ‘close enough?’ What if our actions didn’t have to be constrained by the labels that we assign ourselves, and we simply live according to our own limitations and experience? Why should I make decisions based on ‘What is/is not feminist’ rather than ‘What is best for me?’.  I’ve always maintained that as long as no one is being hurt or coerced, as long as your actions are made with consideration and respect for others then it is no one else’s place to tell you what to do.

That said, personally speaking I’ve never had any trouble in reconciling my feminism with anything that I do – because I don’t see feminism as being about having to adhere to rules or regulations. That’s the difference between an idea and dogma. But that’s just me.

A rose by any other name would empower us as much I guess. For the meantime, I’m happy to still call myself a feminist – even if I do cringe occasionally when I see who I share the label with.

Babysteps babysteps…

Tomorrow is a really really big day in terms of Marriage Equality. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s Private Member’s Bill is set to be debated in Parliament.

If you will remember, the Senate Inquiry into Equal Marriage actually recommended that the bill NOT be passed on extremely shaky grounds and with illogical conclusions thanks to enormous lobbying from the religious right.

This bill was submitted about eight months ago, and it goes without saying that there is a lot riding on it – if this passes, everything changes.  It will reverse the 2004 Amendment to the 1961 Marriage Act which now defines marriage as existing between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

The thought of how important this is is actually making my heart race as I type. I should have written this days ago, but I only found out myself within the last few days.

To be honest I have no idea how this will turn out. The pessimist in me is thinking that the bill will go the same way as the Senate Inquiry – but I am still hopeful. The Greens and Nationals I’m fairly sure will support it (since equal relationship recognition is actually a part of their party policies), there is significant support from a good deal of Labor, and there’s even a few Libs that I feel will support Equal Marriage. It’s those pesky kids in Family First and the Christian Democratic Party and their pals from so called ‘Family’ lobby groups.

It looks as though we’ll have a far greater chance of getting this Bill through if both Abbott and Rudd call for a conscience vote, rather than voting by party line. So – that’s where you lot come in.

Call/Email KevinRudd (02)62777700 & Tony Abbott (02)62774022 asking for
a conscience vote on Equal Marriage Bill to be debated on Thursday.

If you’re a big politics/GLBTI activist nerd like me – you can watch the Parliament debate live here

Please guys. Take five minutes to make your thoughts known to our policy makers. This is so important. Thanks.

On a side note – Yay for New South Wales! Now along with the ACT, Tasmania and Victoria – they will be implementing relationship registers for same-sex couples. They’ve taken pains to point out that these are not civil unions (So this means that they won’t be allowing things like public ceremonies  and certainly won’t be recognised outside NSW) so it’s still very basic – but it’s definitely a start, and I can’t help feeling that within the next year or so, we’ll be seeing New South go the same way as ACT and Tasmania in allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally formalise their partnerships with public ceremonies instead of just registering their relationship like you would a dog.

Of course – if this Private Member’s Bill gets passed then all if it will be totally redundant. And I will be cracking open that bottle of fine single malt scotch and throwing the biggest fucking party that Perth has ever seen. So get moving kids!

Queensland Surrogacy Bill passes! (Up yours Springborg!)

Queensland introduces surrogacy for single and same-sex parents.

I figured that this should be a separate entry to the rant below, as this is a pretty significant step forward – not just for Queensland, but also for the rest of the country.  It reflects the changing attitudes towards what the nature of family is – more and more we are becoming more aware that there are and always have been families that do not fit the nuclear cookie cutter image and that significant changes in both legislation and community attitudes are needed in order to facilitate a more respectful and fair environment.

Lawrence Springborg? I fart in your general direction!

Of course, the religious right are getting their knickers thoroughly twisted over the outcome of the vote:

In an interview with ABC news, Dr David van Gend from the Queensland Family Council stated:

People have no idea the cultural implications of the state decreeing that a man and another man or just a man on his own is identical in law to a mother and father from a child’s perspective.

You’re right David. This does have enormous social and cultural implications – the creation of a fairer, more accepting society and an end to discrimination based upon sexuality or marital status.  There is no credible evidence to prove that children raised by same-sex or unmarried parents are any worse off. A child has the right to a stable, nurturing and loving family environment – the specifics relating to gender, structure or the presence of a wedding ring are actually no one else’s damned business.

Dr. Van Gend’s later implication that this bill was not a means of removing discrimination – they were about furthering some demented social agenda:

When people realise the depth of, you know, social reconstruction that has gone on in this bill and they know that the Government has seen fit to repeal nature, repeal biology in favour of some curious social agenda that says a mum and a dad just don’t matter to a child, I don’t think they’ll be impressed with that.

Apparently it’s not about the fundamental human right of all people to start a family or any of that nonsense. This is all about us filthy queers checking another item off of the homosexual agenda and merrily continuing on our mad bender of rampant societal destruction, sodomy and fabulous outfits… As if we care about anything else. Like community respect and equal rights…

Also – as for the accusation that this was a totally new and unexpected measure on behalf of the Queensland Government, this has actually been on the cards for nearly a year now. Get with the times and quit whining.

One thing I do find rather puzzling is the fact that a recent Galaxy poll actually indicates as Van Gend says that the majority of Queenslanders do not support same-sex surrogacy. However, weirdly enough – they DO support the introduction of further reforms to remove discrimination against same-sex couples including same-sex marriage, civil unions AND that children of same-sex couples should have both parents recognised by law.

Am I the only one who is a little bit lost here? If the majority of Queenslanders support children being raised by a mother and a father, then why does a poll previously undertaken by the same company reflect something that appears to contradict this?

So, where’s the big difference between surrogacy and IVF? For gay and lesbian families, both result in a child in the care of same-sex parents – either way only one of them can be a biological parent, and there isn’t a guarantee that the other biological parent (be they a donor or a surrogate) will be in the picture once the child is born as that is up  to the individual family.  Surely, if you support the lawful recognition of same-sex parents, doesn’t that contradict the conviction that a child should be raised by a mother and father?

What is the issue here – the fact that one bio parent may not play a role in the child’s life, or that there needs to be both male and female parents? Or both? In the case of the former issue, surely by the same logic it would follow that divorce between married couples with children should be illegal – as it would potentially mean that the child would then be cut off from one of their parents, who may be replaced if either partner remarries.

If it is due to the fact that same-sex families are an unhealthy environment for a child due to the lack of one sex – well, I will repeat again that there is absolutely no reliable evidence to prove this, and one need only look at the scores of happy, healthy and stable children of same-sex couples to disprove this theory. I cannot more emphatically state that there is absolutely no reliable evidence to prove that same-sex parenting is harmful in anyway for children.

And what about the case of heterosexual surrogates? Altruistic surrogacy was legalised in Queensland last year between heterosexual couples. Is this only legal if the surrogate is not a bio parent of the child she is carrying for someone else? What if the child that she is legally giving up is biologically hers? Surely this would present the same issue of a child being separated from one of it’s bio-parents that same-sex surrogacy potentially raises.

There is infinitely more to family than blood ties, gender or a wedding ring. Provided that a child is safe, provided for and loved – I see no reason why this is anyone else’s business.

Now, if only Anna Bligh would do something about making good on her abortion reform promises, all will be well.

Well. This makes two entries in one day. I think I’ve reached my activist quota for the day. Time to go tackle the mountain of dishes in the sink – this place looks like Dresden.

Eddie McGuire makes lame jokes. Must be Friday…

Oh my stars and garters – the Queer army has it’s hackles raised. Apparently Channel nine’s Eddie McGuire is making a bit of a pigs ear of the Winter Olympics Commentary, with a spot of thinly-veiled homophobic comments thrown in for good measure.

I’ve been following some of the coverage and the reaction is mixed. As expected, there’s a fair few in the GLBTI community who aren’t overly chuffed, then there’s those of all sexual persuasions who don’t actually give a stuff – and then there’s those who are calling out any of McGuire and Molloy’s critics as being ‘over PC’.

Personally – I think McGuire is a bit of a charmless pillock, but mostly I don’t really care that much about him personally. I don’t watch TV, so it really doesn’t affect me.

What pisses me off is this:   McGuire (being a former host of the Footy Show) has enormous popularity and power – being something of a channel Nine staple for years. Even from the little that I have watched of him, he seems to have been so successful because of his ‘everyman’ persona – he does embody a good deal of the laid-back, take-the-piss swagger that is so admired in Aussie culture.  It’s what people identify as being Aussie and it’s what makes them feel comfortable. No particular problem with that – but a criticism that I have made before about Aussie culture is that it is often so laid back that it brushes over issues of privilege (be they due to race, sexuality, gender-identity, socio-economic status etc) so that it often becomes difficult for those at the top of the heap (white, heterosexual, middle-class able-bodied, cissexual males) to understand when suddenly a hilarious joke becomes hurtful or perpetuates oppressive stereotypes.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m totally all up for self-deprecating humor, and believe it or not I agree that there is an element of preciousness and overt political correctness in this. If the GLBTI community wants to be considered as equals, then we need to be able to take a bit of parody every now and then.

But the thing about humour is context.  In this situation I really don’t believe that McGuire and Molloy’s statements were affectionate jests as some critics of the situation would have it. I don’t think that they were deliberately malicious either – but I do think that they were thoughtless.  They were made without consideration of the fact that their rhetoric has the ability to reach and influence an enormous audience thereby both potentially  increasing the isolation felt by GLBTI people and those that don’t conform to gendered norms – as well as sending out a negative message to the population about people that don’t fit in with a heteronormative, gendered society.

As I have mentioned before – in the male-dominated world of professional sport, homosexuality is almost exclusively treated as either taboo – or more commonly a joke.  For this young man, the hours of training, years of hard work, perseverance and talent mean nothing because he exists only as a comedic figure for the amusement of what the presenters presume is a exclusively heterosexual, cigendered audience. Even though the figure skater in question Johnny Weir has not stated anything about his sexuality – McGuire and Molloy chose to eschew  commentary on the actual performance of the athlete in favor of crass jokes about something as irrelevant as his perceived sexuality and the fact that his costume was flamboyant.

Dude. It’s figure skating. OF COURSE the costumes are going to be flamboyant – you’re really not much of a sports commentator if you haven’t gotten past that already. Can we focus on the fact that this young man is actually an extraordinarily talented performer and has worked hard to get where he is?

So – in short; Eddie, it takes more than crass pub-humour and lowest-common demoninator rhetoric to be a man. It’s about more than wearing trousers instead of a leotard. So far, I see more strength, talent and guts in this effeminate, flamboyant figure skater than I’ve ever seen from Eddie or his ilk. When they can show me anything matching this level of skill, maybe then their opinions will have some degree of relevance.

Exhibit A:

…Yeah. Hot. And totally fucking awesome.

Not invisible on Valentines Day.

Well now that we’ve got the silly season over with, one would hope that we would now be able to move on from the garish shop-fronts and the cloyingly sentimental ads for overpriced trash bombarding our TVs and radios. Apparently not. As soon as we’re done packing away the Christmas tinsel and cleaning up the wreckage from the New Years party, Valentines Day is upon us in all its sickly, sappy glory – shoving diamond rings and red roses down our throats in order to remind us that it’s impossible to show someone that you love them without being forced into credit-card debt.

Being newly single I will be spending much of the holiday injecting heart-shaped candies with powerful laxatives and cutting the heads off red roses, however I suspect that you smug coupled motherfuckers will likely be off doing something revoltingly romantic that will make the rest of us wish much pain and awkward sex upon your oblivious, love-blinded selves.

Forgive me, but what Scrooge was to Christmas – I am to Valentines Day. And not because I am becoming increasingly more reminiscent of Miss Havisham (Whoo! Two Dickens references in one paragraph. Fear my literary snob skills..) – All crass commercialisation of formerly religious festivals aside – if there was ever a holiday where GLBTI people were made to feel even more invisible, this is it. Endless portrayals of happy heteronormativity amid an orgy of tacky jewelry and revolting poetry. This is love. This is what a normal couple look like. No diamond rings for you dirty poofter deviants.

However, just because I’m a bitter and twisted old activist spinster – that doesn’t mean that February 14^th has to remain resented and for everyone else. After all – don’t like something? Change it. Reinvent it.

It’s Valentines Day for same-sex and gender-diverse couples too – and why should we not get to publicly celebrate our loving relationships?

2010 has been declared as the National Year of Action for Equal Marriage. Throughout the year, us uppity activist types will be organising events to put pressure on the Federal and State Governments to remove the 2004 ban on same-sex marriage, to invite the public to make a stand for equality and otherwise continuing to spread the homosexual agenda (which includes buying milk, spending time with family and being treated as something other than second class citizens).

This Valentines Day, Families for Freedom will be hosting a special Action for Marriage Equality – beginning with a rally and march through the Perth CBD and ending with a community festival featuring local musicians, stand-up comedians as well as a couple of drag-artists. Everyone is welcome to attend, and encouraged to wear red, white and pink to show support for all loving relationships.

So, therefore all you bastards that bother to read my psychobabble need to get your collective arses to Stirling Gardens at Noon on Sunday February 14^th .

For more info, check out our official website: www.families4freedom.info , track us down on Facebook or email us on families4freedom@gmail

We’ve been hamming up the promotion like whoa lately, and so far it looks as though after years of organising stuff like this we’re finally learning how actually make things work. We’re expecting around 600 people, but I’d love to see the better part of one thousand Perthites showing up in all their revolting Valentines glory.  We spent a coupla days filming our promotional YouTube video and it was finally uploaded today.

Yeah. That’s me. In all my shiny faced English glory. Shut the fuck up.

I really really want to see the blooper reel from this – because apparently just about everyone that was interviewed for this was totally incapable of reading their lines in a coherent fashion.

Anyway. This did the rounds of Facebook for all of two hours before some fucker decided to flag it as offensive. Actually, the entire FB event page for this action has been flagged as offensive, and therefore it can’t be shared between groups. Facebook are doing dick all to rectify it. Bastards.

Still – we’ll have the last laugh on the 14^th when we have an amazing event planned. That’s the best victory I can think of. (Although, horrific acts of comedy violence against Facebook homophobes is pretty awesome too…but I’ll keep that one to myself..)

So. Copy. Paste. Send! Forward this video to every carbon-based life form you have ever met, and encourage people to come along and show their support. Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Myspace, word of mouth, carrier pigeon, interpretive dance…what the fuck ever. Just talk to people – get them interested. Because as awesome as we activists are – we can’t do this without you guys.

Thanks – you guys make me happier than a dingo in a maternity ward.