Talk It Out

Would you think there’s something wrong with this article?

Would you think it odd if you read an article which started like this: 

Heterosexuals sue over IVF twins

AN IVF doctor swore in horror after he mistakenly implanted two embryos into a heterosexual who wanted only one baby, a Canberra court was told during a landmark case yesterday.

In the first case of its kind in Australia, a straight couple is suing a prominent Canberra obstetrician, Sydney Robert Armellin, for more than $400,000 in the ACT Supreme Court for implanting two embryos. 

Looks off doesn't it? You wouldn't see an article like that in a newspaper. You wouldn't accept it as normal. However, the Age apparently thought nothing of publishing an article which started like this:

Lesbians sue over IVF twins

AN IVF doctor swore in horror after he mistakenly implanted two embryos into a lesbian who wanted only one baby, a Canberra court was told during a landmark case yesterday.

In the first case of its kind in Australia, a lesbian couple is suing a prominent Canberra obstetrician, Sydney Robert Armellin, for more than $400,000 in the ACT Supreme Court for implanting two embryos.

Why is an article like this OK? Why is it so normal that we don't think to question it? Why do we accept a newspaper defining these women by their sexuality if they happen to be lesbians, but not if they are straight?

There would be hell to pay if the women were described as "blacks" or "Asians" or by reference to any other minority status. We do not accept that it is ok to define a person's identity, to categorise them by their race or by their ethnicity, but it seems to be acceptable to define them by their sexuality.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with mentioning, in the body of the article, that the women are a couple, but that is not what the article does. The headline and the first two paragraphs define the women's identity solely as "lesbians". We know nothing else about them. The rest of their identity and their life seems to be of no import. It is their sexuality that our attention is directed to.

What a disappointing piece of journalism! 

September 19th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Media, Gays and Lesbians | one comment

A clear case of prejudice

Two days ago the Democratic Audit of Australia released a report titled "How well does the Australian democracy serve sexual and gender minorities?". The answer is not very well at all, really. While significant advances have been made at State and Territory level, little advancement in rights of sexual minorities occurred at federal level. The report found:

… significant areas in which inequality and discrimination persist, most damningly in the area of relationship recognition in the federal sphere. Here Australia lags well behind many other comparable countries, with the current federal government demonstrating considerable political hostility towards these equality claims. This persistent antagonism to claims for equality and same-sex relationship recognition suggests that reform at the federal level is unlikely to advance any further at least until a change of government. In contrast,the States and Territories have, for the most part, been responsive to demands for legislative and policy change.

This finding is entirely consistent with the findings of the HREOC Same Sex, Same Entitlements Inquiry which found 58 federal laws that discriminate against same sex couples in almost every conceivable area of life. In response to the Inquiry Howard protested "We certainly aren't a government that supports discrimination", but in the next breath declined to do anything about the discriminatory laws which, as HREOC found, could all be remedied by one simple amendment. John Anderson did one better, stating that, apart from marriage, he couldn't think of any laws that discriminated against same sex couples (obviously reading the HREOC report was out of the question)

The government's failure to do anything about the persistent and unjustifiable discrimination against gays and lesbians can only be explained by an ideological hostility to same-sex relationships. In short - the government is driven by prejudice. Whether that prejudice is described as homophobia or as something else - it is not rational, it is not just, it is a violation of human rights of a sizable minority of Australians and it has no place in the modern society.

If any more evidence was needed that the government's approach is motivated by prejudice - consider Ruddock's response to a request from Justice Michael Kirby to change the law so that his partner of 38 years can access his pension on the same basis as the heterosexual partners of the other judges. what exactly would be the harm in reviewing the law? It is not even a situation where the government could cry "think of the children" as it has done in response to other proposed changes. There can only be one reason not to do so and that is that the government is content to allow discrimination to continue because it is in line with its ideological position.

Unfortunately rights of sexual minorities are unlikely to be an election issue, precisely because they are "minorities". However, before casting our vote, the rest of us would do well to remember that prejudice and discrimination against a minority within our society devalues our society as a whole. 

July 25th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Human rights, Howard government, Gays and Lesbians | 2 comments

We don’t support discrimination, we just practice it

Last Thursday the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) released the report of the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry - a year long audit of federal laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and/or their children and the impact of these laws.

The Inquiry found that:

The discrimination covers areas as diverse as superannuation and pensions, employment entitlements, taxation, Medicare, social security and family laws.

The good news is that discriminatory laws are easy to fix - all that is needed is a change of definition to include same-sex couples within the meaning of de-facto. In recommending that changes be made, HREOC stated:

There is no need to rewrite federal tax legislation, superannuation legislation, workers’ compensation legislation, employment legislation, veterans’ entitlements legislation or any other major area of federal financial entitlements. There just needs to be some changes to a few definitions at the front of each relevant piece of legislation.

The other bit of good news is that the vast majority of Australians support equal rights for same sex couples. A survey of 1100 people, commissioned by GetUp and conducted by Galaxy found that 71% of Australians support the idea that same-sex couples should have the same rights as those in heterosexual de-facto relationships.

Now for the bad news. The Howard government is, not surprisingly, not interested in effecting any change. It does not care that 58 federal laws treat people as second-class citizens simply on the basis of who they love. Responding to the GetUp survey, Howard said "We certainly aren't a government that supports discrimination". And in the next breath "We are not in favor of discrimination, but of course our views on the nature of marriage in our community are very well-known and they won't be changing."

That's right - we don't support discrimination, but we practice it and we won't be changing that! We aren't prejudiced, we just don't think that a same-sex relationship is on par with a heterosexual relationship. It's not prejudice, is it? We believe in equality before the law for everyone, except gays and lesbians. We care about the best interests of the child, except the children of gay parents disadvantaged by discriminatory laws.

GetUp is running a campaign, gathering signatures for a petition to reform discriminatory laws. Please take a moment to sign it and tell the government that it is time for Australia to leave the 1950s and enter the 21st centry. 

Please also take a look at the great comment on this post which contains more information and an interesting campaign to inform Mr Anderson (who reportedly doesn't believe there is any discrimination against same sex couples). 

June 24th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Law, Human rights, Howard government, Gays and Lesbians | 3 comments

A bomb you’ve got to love

I can't decide whether this is offensive or funny.

Apparently, in 1994 the US military considered making a "gay bomb", containing powerful aphrodisiacs, which was supposed to turn enemy soldiers homosexual. This was supposed to somehow make them worse soldiers (they'd prefer to make love rather than war, maybe? But then shouldn't it have been called a hippie bomb?). 

The concept was abandoned (wonder if that was due to concerns that the chemical would become a popular substitute for the traditional chocolates and champaign). But is a love bomb such a bad idea? Just imagine, instead of carpet bombing each other the warring sides could just get a bit of love and go home happy hand in hand (kiss and make up?) Actually, if this wonder chemical would make people less likely to want to make war or commit violence, perhaps we should all get a "hit". For emergencies only, of course… 

Thanks for reading

June 15th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Gays and Lesbians, What in the weird? | 2 comments

Use and abuse of the rights of the child

Yesterday I wrote about the prejudiced approach of the Howard government to the question of access to assisted reproduction technology, adoption and parental recognition for same-sex couples. I'd like to look at a slightly different aspect of the debate - the use of child rights or best interests of the child rhetoric to justify one's own prejudice and hatred.

Following the release of the Law Reform Commission report, a spokeswoman for the Australian Family Association said that the report "pays lip service to the needs of children" and stated that "We hope that the State Government puts it in the bin. There's virtually nothing in the report that seriously addresses the rights of the child."

Anyone who has read the LRC report will see that the needs and interests of the child are given careful consideration. The AFA statements suggest that they have either not read the report or, which is more likely, are pursuing an agenda which has nothing to do with interests of the child. There is a disturbing practice among right-wing and religious groups to rely on the "right of the child" to justify their bigotry. Anything they don't like - be it homosexuality, childcare or working mothers, they claim it to be against the rights of the child.

Because what is and what is not in the interests of the child is never defined, there is a great deal of flexibility in when this claim can be used. There is a reason why the definition is always absent. Defining what is in the "interests of the child" would immediately reveal the underlying prejudices and enable critique of the definition. It would have to be justified, rather than merely bandied around whenever these "concerned" adults need to conceal or explain away their hatred.

Lets take a look at the AFA and ask whether their rejection of the prospect of same-sex couples or singles adopting/accessing IVF stems from the interests of the child. If it does, there should be no underlying prejudices, there should be no hatred, there should just be concern for the welfare of the children and the basis for that concern should have some foundation based on evidence or objective facts.

The fact that the AFA has misstated the contents of the report is not an encouraging start. But lets look at this organisation's principles and history.

The AFA was formed in 1980 as an off-shoot of the National Civic Council by its then president B.A. Santamaria. Santamaria was a staunch catholic and supported such "admirable" political leaders as Franco and Mussolini. He was so strongly an anti-liberal traditionalist that he broke with the Catholic church because it was too liberal for his liking (he was later reconciled with the church by none other than George Pell, who was apparently conservative enough). By the way, John Howard is reported to have had strong admiration for Santamaria.

Lets take a look at the NCC, which AFA is an affiliate of. Anyone with a strong stomach can head over to their publication website - www.newsweekly.com.au, where they will be treated to interesting articles about how contraception will give you cancer; an account of a "scientific" study which concluded that "married gays" have a 24 year shorter life span, based on overwhelming evidence of reading about 30 obituaries in a newspaper; they will be told about the ground-breaking campaigns of anti-abortion groups and will be pleased to know that climate change is a dangerous myth. Enough said.

If anyone thinks that the AFA fell far from the tree - a visit to their website (www.family.org.au) and a quick search of the internet will tell you exactly what their ideology is and what standpoints their "rights of the child" rhetoric is designed to disguise. Their homepage if filled with calls for censorship, highly "objective" articles about abortion with titles such as "we kill babies", celebrations of Howard government legislating against recognition of foreign same-sex unions under non-positional titles such as "Marriage - We won!" and warnings that "Australia is dying", presumably designed to encourage women to pop out more babies.

The top four links on their link page are Australian Christian Lobby, Endeavor Forum, Festival of Light and Focus on the Family Australia (all of them "Christian-right" organisations.)

If that is not enough, there is an excellent collection of quotes from various publications of the AFA, which very neatly illustrate its views on same-sex relationships, discrimination and, just as interestingly, child abuse. While AFA apparently does not believe that a loving same sex family is in best interests of the child, it is on record as supporting corporal punishment of children and opposing government measures to prevent child abuse! Beating kids is ok, if its done in a traditional heterosexual family.

Anyone who does not yet feel nauseous after reading these statements, consider the following few passages from an article by Bill Muehlenberg of the AFA (http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2003/challenge.htm):

"Even in purely nonreligious terms, homosexuality represents a misuse of the sexual faculty and, in the words of one…educator, of 'human construction.' It is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life. As such it deserves fairness, compassion, understanding, and, when possible, treatment. But it deserves no encouragement, no glamorization, no rationalization, no fake status as a minority martyrdom…"

"…we are "defining deviancy downwards". Deviancy has reached such huge proportions that in order to deal with the problem, we have changed the way we think about normality and abnormality. What used to be regarded as deviant behaviour is now reclassified as normal, and what we used to call normal behaviour we now call abnormal. Thus the only abnormality now is to be "homophobic". Indeed, the pressure by the gay lobby to redefine deviancy resulted in the 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the listing in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Mental Disorders (DSM-1)"

"Also, it needs to be stressed than whenever you grant special rights to homosexuals you have to take rights away from other people. If gays are granted special rights to force homeowners to rent to them, those homeowners will have lost certain rights - the right to conscientiously choose who one wishes to rent to, for example. If a homosexual is granted the right to teach sex education in schools, the parent of the child in that school loses the right to have a say in the moral calibre of the teacher.

Admittedly, morality and law is not based on numbers, but how is it fair that one and a half percent of the population should be granted special rights at the expense of the other 98.5 per cent? Why should Australia's four and a half million families be forced to concede rights to Australia's 250,000 homosexuals?"

"discrimination is both desirable and healthy. In the same way that society "discriminates" against 8-year-olds by not granting them licenses to drive, so society "discriminates" against those who choose to remain outside of the institutions of marriage and the natural family."

And my favourite one is:

"And we need to remember that all homosexuals deserve to be treated with respect, love and compassion, even though society has a legitimate right to dislike and censure homosexual behaviour and activity. Society, for example, can rightly disapprove of alcoholism, while seeking to help individual alcoholics. So too, society has a right to deem homosexual behaviour as unhealthy, a threat to the family, and not in the best interests of society, while ensuring that individual homosexuals are not vilified or roughly treated."

What does the above mass of disgusting quotes illustrate? That the AFAs position has absolutely nothing to do with children's interests. It has to do with hatred, it has to do with prejudice, it has to do with medieval, conservative religion-inspired attitudes. The claim of children's rights to mask this bigotry cheapens and devalues these rights, it makes them nothing more than a smokescreen for hatred. It is rank hypocrisy for an organisation which supports beating children and opposes laws to protect children from abuse to use children's rights in such a way. The rights and needs of children are more important than that, as are the rights of people who love a person of the same sex.

Thanks for reading. Now I need to go and scrub my monitor. 

June 10th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Human rights, Religion, Gays and Lesbians, Family | no comments

The circle of prejudice

On 7 June 2007 the Victorian Law Reform Commission released the final report into Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption.

Among other recommendations, the LRC recommended that same-sex couples not be discriminated against in access to assisted reproduction (such as IVF) and adoption and recognition of parenthood. As the law presently stands only women who are "medically infertile" may access IVF, a child can have only one mother and one father, and only heterosexual families may adopt.

The Bracks government indicated that it would consider the recommendations and make a decision about legislative changes by the end of the year. For all its other flaws, the Bracks government has had a fairly good record on gay and lesbian rights. The Howard government is another matter.

Howard government reaction

The staunchly Catholic Tony Abbott immediately indicated his opposition to the proposals, stating "if possible children should have a mother and a father, not just two mothers or two fathers. I'm not attracted to the Victorian Law Reform Commission's view."

He called the LRC recommendations "a sort of misguided political correctness" and stated "I don't, as a general rule, think that gay couples should be adopting."

Howard, having just defended Catholic church interference in politics, added a few comments of his own:

"Children should have a mother and a father … it gives children the best opportunity in life …"

"I'm not saying gay and lesbian people don't display enormous affection towards children. I think there are certain benchmarks in our society that should be respected and adhered to and practised and that's one of them."

He also called for a uniform approach to fertility treatment and adoption across the country (ie lets all do it my way) and ruled out the possibility of Medicare coverage of IVF treatment for women who were not medically infertile (social engineering is so much easier if you control the purse-strings).

The circle of prejudice

The Howard government approach is an example of self-perpetuating prejudice. That prejudice becomes apparent if one looks at the statements made by Howard and Abbott and simply asks "why".

Why is it that "children should have a mother and a father, not just two mothers or two fathers"? (note the use of the words "not just", suggesting that two mothers or two fathers is an inferior arrangement). 

Why is it that having a mother and a father "gives children the best opportunity in life"? Is there any evidence that children from same-sex families do worse in life that children from heterosexual families?

Why is it that a heterosexual family is on of the "certain benchmarks in our society that should be respected and adhered to and practiced"? Who sets those benchmark? Who decides which benchmarks should be respected and adhered to? Who decides whether a traditional heterosexual family is one of those benchmarks?

The concept of the traditional family, its "benchmarks" and the respect demanded for those benchmarks have their roots in prejudice. Prejudice against gays and lesbians, whose sexuality was traditionally condemned as criminal or perverted or both), prejudice against single parents, prejudice against families that did not fit into the religiously-defined traditional family. The nuclear family was defined by the exclusion of those families that were the victims of the prejudice.

The bigotry of the past is then used to perpetuate the prejudices of the present. The Howard government statements display this circular reasoning:

why shouldn't gays and lesbians have children? -> because children should have a mother and a father -> why? -> because it is one of the benchmarks that should be respected/adhered to -> who established it as one of the benchmarks? -> people who thought that gays and lesbians shouldn't have children.

All the government is doing is using the prejudice of the past (which it agrees with) to justify and disguise its prejudice in the present. It is not about rejection of "misguided political correctness", it is about embracing discrimination, inequality and hatred. It is about rejecting equal rights for people on the basis that the person they love is of the same sex. "This is how we've always done it" is not a good enough excuse to justify attitudes that have no place in the modern society.

June 9th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Human rights, Howard government, Health and Welfare, Gays and Lesbians, Family | 3 comments