When We Rise

When you speak of heroes I don't imagine soldiers in uniform on a battlefield, even though they risk their lives. 

And I don't think of firefighters, police, doctors, or nurses who are amazing every day by saving lives. 

And I scoff at the thought of that footballer you put on a pedestal and award a medal for having the right combination of genes and training.

No. They are not my heroes. 

When I think of a hero I remember the slaves that sang their way to freedom, the women that demanded suffrage, the voices that echoed around the world against segregation and apartheid, those that rallied against war, the patrons of Stonewall and the 76ers, and those that fight for refugees today. 

When you talk of heroes I think of all those that have risen up against tyranny, oppression, discrimination, bigotry and injustice armed only with their voices, their placards, their mortal bodies. 

Those are my people. 

They are my heroes. 

Xenophon's head up his own arse!

The impossible "war against paedophilia" is turning another idiotic page.

South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon's private member's bill would make it illegal for adults to lie to children about their age. According to reports,

The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.

An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.

Clearly this is aimed at adult perpetrators posing as children - that's all well and good. What isn't clear is whether a 21 yo telling a 17yo he is only 20 is also a crime under the same offence. The ridiculousness of that situation is obvious.

Of course, the bill also fails to address those children who lie about their age in order to meet adults. Believe me, it happens a lot and some of them can get away with quite a few years!

Proposed laws like this are not only outright stupid, they are downright dangerous to the integrity of the justice system and a hindrance to the proper education and welfare of children.

What's next? Making it a crime for predators to lie about their intentions? Or will they make it a crime to lie about your weight or the size of your cock or boobs? I might support that if it applied across the board for all adults (lol - joking) :-p

Get real, Xenophon, you moron. Do something useful like allocate government funding for online awareness education for parents and children. Teach the kids how to use the Internet with respect and teach the parents about taking responsibility for their child's access!

Bruno & homophobia - let's get real people!

There has been a lot of hype about Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen's latest movie squirm-fest that is sure to leave you horrified or laughing hysterically. I was hysterically horrified, but then I found Borat to be provocatively amusing too.

Much of the media focus has been on predictable complaints about it being homophobic. Really? Yes - seriously. Some people are so far up their own activist arses that they enjoy a little tonsil hockey at the same time!

People like Colin Wilson at Socialist Worker are on the warpath by stamping their feet at any heterosexual that dares to highlight the taboo world of internalised homophobia. They claim that any fun made of anal sex must be an attack on gays around the world. Well, the last time I checked, gay men did not have the sole rights to anal sex, in fact I'm fairly certain that Eve asked Adam for it once or twice!

These infantile man-bag burners wave the banner of gay activism as if they were rampaging misandrists of a former era tarnishing the proud feminist movement.

Gay rights were born from the feminist campaigns of earlier decades, but just as we see today in the fundamentalist gay movement, there were a number feminazis that took things to the extreme and believed that every symbol of maleness was evil - even the word man, whose original meaning was all of humanity, regardless of sex or age.

Come on people - get your head out of your arse and grab a sense of humour before you die from suffocation due to an overdose of self-felching! Get a grip and focus on the real issues that plague human rights. This film is a satirical comedy that actually normalises gay sex through its confronting nakedness on all things gay.

I welcome it, I embrace it and I'll take the mind fuck completely!

Well done Sacha!

Is this my last post before the police take me away?

PUBLIC WARNING!!!
Reading this post may put you at risk of breaking the law in Australia or other nanny-state nations. Following some the the links in the post will certainly do so!

I am posting this report and the links because I think the law has gone too far and I am putting out the challenge for charges to be laid against me.

2008 is likely to be remembered for many things, but censorship is the one area that has taken the spotlight, as the Australian Government, policing agencies, the courts of law and all forms of media have attempted to create an increasingly black and white view in a very grey world.

There is a fine line between right and wrong. Often that line gets crossed through humour, silliness, accident or just plain ignorance. But does that mean that the full weight of the law should come down upon you?

We have seen the problem caused by Bill Henson's artistic perspectives (viewed via Google) and the topic has arisen through the public debate surrounding Stephen Conroy's proposal for an Internet filter, which most industry experts consider to be infeasible and a waste of effort - see www.nocleanfeeed.com.

More recently we see that the Courts are now jumping in with questionable rulings on what constitutes child abuse, and specifically that which is deemed to be child pornography.

Mark Pesce writes about two such cases on the ABC blog "Unleashed" and Greg Barnes also has a say over on OnlineOpinion.

The first is regarding the Simpsons cartoon characters represented in sexual acts. The second concerns a judgement against a man who redistributed a video online of a child being swung around in the air - deemed to be child abuse.

By the way, if you want to risk police attention, you will find many of these cartoon "porn" pics by doing a simple search on Google (e.g. Bart sex or Simpsons Sex). The suspect video is apprently freely available on the internet and in my research I've determined that it is probably this one on Youtube.

Judge for yourselves ... am I now a criminal for having viewed this material and linking to them on my blog? Are you?

What Lies Beyond the Activism?

Featured in The West Australian, Saturday 4 October 2008 pg14. This is the unedited version - italicised areas differ from the printed version.

Taking the opposing view of a high profile group, such as Pride WA, is always fraught with danger. And if, as the devil's advocate, you happen to be an out (and proud) activist for human rights, questioning the validity of Mardi Gras' poorer and impotent WA cousin is likely to inspire a gay fatwa.

Religion and ice-breaker aside, this debate is about whether the Pride Parade still offers any significant purpose in a modern society that has largely redeemed itself of a torrid, but relatively short-lived, history of fear and hatred towards non-heterosexual citizens.

During the last few decades of activism, lobbying, community consultation and legislative debate, Pride was one of a handful of necessary tools used to highlight the cause of homosexuals (bisexuals and trans-folk were forgotten for many years) and sway public opinion. To this end the successive committees achieved their purpose and the battle was won.

Today, just a few years after the first parade in 1990, we have sexual and gender equality exceeding other states and beyond what most countries could hope to achieve in a similar time frame.

Even the current Premier, who vehemently opposed the 2002 legislation that transformed our state, is unwilling to water down this advancement. What is done is done; we now move forward as a progressive and respectful society.

This year Pride has donned the tag-line of "re-invention". And it is timely that it do so, just as a teenager must eventually lose the unruliness and loutish nature of its youthful exuberance in favour of a more cultured, mature and civil interaction with a diverse society.

The question for Pride, once famed for attracting a six figure audience to witness political parody, is what lies beyond the activism?

Sydney's internationally famous Mardi Gras has grown up from its protest roots to become a unique tourist drawcard that injects millions of dollars into the economy. Perth, due to its isolation and population, is incapable of achieving the same.

The Parade is waning, the after-party has retired to a nightclub, and Northbridge Fairday attendance has dropped significantly. Homophobic crimes are no more concerning than racial or religious inspired ones and the majority of our GLBT youth enjoy the company of their straight friends across venues without question.

Pride is in the sunset of its years. It deserves our respect and thanks, not our lifeline.

Two fathers ... or even three

This is just brilliant! A young boy singing about being adopted by two gay men ...

http://superbbluewren.livejournal.com/172586.html

You can also read my personal experience about parenting and what my daughter taught me about having three fathers.

Being gay in a power-hungry world

As a country that thrives on wealth and power, and whose every breath is consumed by the who's who and the who's doing who, the USA is probably the only nation that could care less about who its top ranking homosexuals are.

But clearly, infamous queer mag "Out", believes that the punters are keen and curious and have published (outed?) the Top 50 for all to see.

Leading the dubiously formed list is one David Geffen, billionaire entertainment mogul who shares equal 50th ranking on the Forbes rich list with discount stock broker, Charles Schwab, just behind Steve Jobs of Apple fame. Geffen is the "G" in the Dreamworks SKG team, alongside Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Ellen DeGeneres may not make the Forbes Rich List, but she does outrank every other non-straight woman to make the Power 50 list at spot #3.

The list is overwhelmingly full of names from the fashion and entertainment industries. But there are also a number of names and tangible links to politics that suggest a very interesting road ahead for the coming Presidential election next year.

It brings an insightful perspective together about the roots and drivers of the historical gay rights campaign and also the contemporary same-sex marriage debate. The media is powerful and if a group can have significant sway over the media, it naturally flows that the same power is present in politics.

Some would argue that the "gay agenda" exists only in the minds of the homophobic zealots. As a gay man who understands the machinations of politics, I see every agenda as a real and credible threat to a healthy liberal democracy. Even one that seeks to serve my freedoms and self interests.

I'll wait and see, but Barack Hussein Obama might have a bit of an edge against Hilary Rodham Clinton, despite his name bearing an eerie resemblance to both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Clarke won't be stoppedr

Anyone willing to take an award from Fred Nile and his cronies can't expect anything but to be labelled as an extremist. Clarke is either very naive or he believes the public are stupid. Perhaps there's a bit of truth in both explanations.

Conservative MP vows not to be silenced
NineMSN/AAP, 15 Sep 2005

Conservative NSW powerbroker David Clarke has hit back at media criticism of his views on abortion and homosexuality, saying he is not going to be silenced by his critics.

Mr Clarke has also been accused in recent times by some members of his own party of being an extremist and a religious zealot.

On Wednesday night, he received an award for "Parliamentary Service" from Christian Democrat MP and morals crusader Fred Nile's Festival of Light Organisation.

Mr Clarke, a Liberal member of the NSW upper house, played a key role in Peter Debnam's rise to the NSW Liberal leadership following the resignation and subsequent apparent suicide bid by former leader John Brogden.

Mr Clarke, a supporter of the Catholic Opus Dei movement, attacked the media for reporting what he said were anonymous and false claims about him, including that he had said women who have abortions should be charged with murder and that homosexuality should be outlawed.

He said he would continue to argue for the values he believed in.

"I want to tell you good people that I'm not going to be cowed by these types," he told about 100 Festival of Light Members at Parliament House in Sydney.

"I came into parliament to speak out on issues and that's what I'm going to continue to do.

"I'm not going to be stopped, I'm not going to be slowed down, I'm just going to continue to keep going on."

Some members of the audience, which included Nationals leader Andrew Stoner and Liberal MP Malcolm Kerr, responded with comments such as "That's right," and "Amen".

Mr Clarke praised the Festival of Light, which has staged protests against the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in recent years.

"I'm going to try and live up to the good values for which the Festival of Light stands," he said.

Mr Clarke outlined his political philosophy, saying he was a conservative, pro-life and supports the Christian constitutional monarchy and Australia's current flag, but rejected claims he was an extremist.

"I find myself in the mainstream," he said.

"There's nothing extreme about that."

He also supported the rights of non-Christians and people who did not believe in God.

Brethren influencing politics

The following article highlights the increasing challenge we face in upholding the separation of church and state. There is a fine line between ideological-based politics and campaigning for a theocracy. We must be ever-watchful that the line is never crossed.

It is also important to note that the Exclusive Brethren mentioned in this article is NOT the same as other Brethren churches. In fact the New Zealand Open Brethren Church has been quick to distance itself from their more extreme colleagues. More information can be found at SourceWatch


Step to the right as the Brethren gather force
Sydney Morning Herald - September 14, 2005

A scandal in New Zealand over election money from a fringe group reflects a trend, writes Marion Maddox.

The women wear headscarves in public. Their religion opposes assimilation, and they educate children at home or in their own schools. Fearing the taint of the godless, they refuse to eat with unbelievers. They reject democracy, and work towards God's rule.

Yes, it is the Exclusive Brethren, a conservative Christian fringe group whose more than $NZ500,000 ($457,300) in electoral help was denied initially the by the New Zealand Opposition Leader, Don Brash. Brash's embarrassment has brought a frisson of scandal to an election campaign otherwise strictly about tax cuts.

The Brethren's glossy, professionally produced anti-Green and anti-Labour leaflets look familiar. In the weeks before John Howard's re-election in October last year, half- and full-page advertisements appeared in local and metropolitan newspapers endorsing his Government and attacking the Greens. The advertisements echoed the content and style of Liberal Party advertising, but none of the endorsers' names and addresses belonged to the party.

In the US elections, the Exclusive Brethren spent more than $US500,000 ($649,900) on newspaper advertisements supporting George Bush and the Florida Republican Senate candidate, Mel Martinez, known for opposing gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, and linked to the Republican strategy for turning Terri Schiavo's 15-year coma into a "great political issue".

The Exclusive Brethren is a branch of a British movement formed in the 1820s. Its founder, John Darby, was a developer of "premillennial dispensationalism", a set of beliefs about the end of the world made famous by the bestselling Left Behind novels. Followers expect an imminent "Rapture" of believers to heaven, heralding the return of Jesus.

Exclusive Brethren take a dim view of government by the people, traditionally eschewing politics. Since government properly belongs to God, they do not vote. But in recent years they have moved closer to the political activism of other fundamentalists and pentecostalists, including enthusiastic lobbying. According to them, God's law rules out homosexuality, single parenthood, hate speech legislation and "big government".

The restoration of Israel is crucial to Christ's return, so they endorse pro-Israel policies. Holders of such views welcome authoritarian Christian government as setting the stage for the final showdown between God and Satan. They also incline to a "prosperity gospel" in which wealth is a sign of God's favour, and the poor have only themselves to blame, so taxes and welfare subvert the divine order.

The Exclusive Brethren irruption into the New Zealand election points to a broader coalition of right-wing business, political parties and religion.

Bush relies on the votes of evangelical, pentecostalist and fundamentalist Christians, who want conservative government in the Last Days to oppose evil abroad (Iraq) and at home (by cutting taxes and welfare).

Howard's support base for his 1995 return to the Liberal leadership included the conservative Christian Lyons Forum. The religious right has become increasingly outspoken within the party, with the Treasurer, Peter Costello, arguing that Australia's problems will be solved not by legislation but a return to the Ten Commandments, and John Anderson declaring while deputy prime minister that without Jesus, "we're a mob of dirty rotten sinners and we're on the path to hell".

In New Zealand, a loose coalition is now pushing New Zealand down a right-wing path, as seen not just by the emergence of the Exclusive Brethren, but by the rise of the pentecostal church-based Destiny Party, the "family"-focused United Future (formed from a 2002 merger of the centrist United party with Future NZ, an explicitly Christian party), the largely evangelical-funded conservative Maxim Institute think-tank, and even a branch of the Christian supremacist Parliamentary Prayer Network.

With conservative politicians, business and Christian leaders finding common ground, and heartened by electoral success in the US and elsewhere, no wonder even moderately religious politicians such as Howard and avowed agnostics such as Brash, the New Zealand National Party leader, are hitching their stars to the conservative Christian comet.

Dr Marion Maddox is senior lecturer in religious studies at the Victoria University of Wellington and author of God Under Howard: the Rise of the Religious Right in Australia (Allen & Unwin, 2005).

Answer my question Mr Birney

Perth talkback radio station, 6PR, has been running with the story (Google cached version) of a WA gay couple who have been given the green light to adopt a child.

Not unexpectedly, the switchboard remained quite negative as the religious, the bigots, the ill-informed and the ignorant made all sorts of claims and accusations about the gay lobby and the best interests of the child.

I posed the following question to Matt Birney during his interview with harvey Deegan:

I am a divorced father of one child. I am also in a same-sex relationship with my partner of 7 years. In the event of some tragedy taking away the mother of my daughter, would Mr Birney and the Liberals object to my partner adopting my daughter or are they only objecting to my partner and I co-adopting a non-related child?

Mr Birney failed to directly answer the question, instead choosing to reiterate the argument that a child should have both a mother and a father. A tired argument that raises the question of whether it is better to be orphaned than to be raised without complementary gendered parents.

The crux of my question was that; in the hypothetical situation my daughter would logically be taken under my full time care. Why then, is it perfectly ok to have my partner in a co-parenting role but not be officially acknowledged as her legal guardian by way of adoption?

The fact is that current laws allow any person or two people, regardless of their relationship (eg: brother and sister, two friends, two grandmothers) or sexuality, the right to be considered for adoption. Even before the major law reforms of 2002 and before the ALP won government it was perfectly legal for single people (regardless of their sexuality) to adopt.

If it is SO important that a child has both a mother and a father then why won't the Liberals and their fellow moralisers campaign to remove the right of single people to adopt.

And while they are at it, why don't they try to legislate that widows and widowers must remarry if they are raising children.

It's not a perfect world, but in my absence I'd rather have my child loved by one good person, than remain alone as an orphan.


[+/-] show/hide this post

AOG talks GAY

Assemblies of God in gay talks
By Lyndon Barnett
Sydney Star Observer, Issue 781, Published 9/08/2005

IN A LANDMARK MOVE, HOMOSEXUALITY IS ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE PENTACOSTAL ASSEMBLIES OF GOD.

The National Executive of the Assemblies of God (AOG) has agreed to discuss homosexuality with Anthony Venn-Brown, the first openly gay member of the Australian Pentecostal church.

This unprecedented meeting could be a positive step forward for church relations with the gay and lesbian community. The AOG is the largest Pentecostal denomination in Australia containing a number of mega churches, including the high-profile Hillsong in Sydney.

The current belief within the AOG is that homosexuality is a sin, and it is impossible to be both homosexual and a Christian. Homosexuality is considered a lifestyle choice or the result of a dysfunctional childhood.

"It is my aim through intelligent and respectful dialogue to change the misconceptions within the AOG regarding homosexuality. Whilst it's rare to hear gays or lesbians castigated from the pulpit, I am challenging the traditional church doctrines," Venn-Brown said.

Venn-Brown is a former leader with the Assemblies of God who resigned very publicly in 1992. He has subsequently written his autobiography, A Life of Unlearning, detailing his 22 years living a closeted life within the Pentecostal church.

Brian Houston, National President of the AOG and senior pastor of Hillsong, commented to Venn-Brown upon accepting the invitation: "I'm sure you are aware that we are still a long way apart philosophically, but we will give you a fair hearing."

Venn-Brown believes this dialogue demonstrates that views are slowly changing.

"Such an invitation would not have happened 10 years ago," he said.

He hopes the meeting will lead to the establishment of a committee consisting of some executive members of the AOG, a psychologist, a theologian and himself.

"I believe it will be important for the committee to look at sexual orientation from a scientific, psychological as well as a theological basis. I hope to discuss the six verses from Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians which are most commonly used to justify an anti-homosexual stance," Venn-Brown said.

"These verses have an historical and cultural context that needs to be explored. Also the translation from the original ancient languages can lead to misinterpretation.

"I believe understanding and acceptance of homosexuality within the AOG will take some time. We'll know the journey is over when an openly gay man or lesbian is ordained," he said.

"But Mr Houston and the AOG should be commended for accepting my invitation to meet when other denominations such as the Catholic Church have completely closed the door to any discussion," Venn-Brown said.

Other local religious groups are also involved in dialogue with gay and lesbian members.

Rabbis from Reform synagogues meet twice a year to discuss Jewish policy. These rabbis have been discussing gay and lesbian issues throughout the past decade.

The Sydney Jewish gay and lesbian support group, Dayenu made a presentation to the rabbis in 2000 to open a debate on same-sex marriage. Judy Kell, one of the presenters, said the rabbis felt the members needed further education before the Jewish community would accept same-sex ceremonies.

Members of Dayenu believe the rabbis may soon agree to same-sex unions. The next meeting is scheduled for November this year.

Rabbi Fred Morgan of Melbourne's Temple Beth Israel told the Star he was committed to the dialogue.

"We are committed to further study and learning in this area [same-sex marriage], and we regularly revisit the issue at our biannual meetings," he said.

Although the Roman Catholic Church is known for its outspoken views on homosexuality, the United Ecumenical Catholic Church (ECC) is a contemporary Catholic church supporting the gay and lesbian community.

"We worship in the same fashion as Rome, without the restrictions that come from Rome," EEC Archbishop Ron Langham said.

There is, however, no dialogue between the ECC and traditional Catholic leaders.

"We are not interested in getting into a bun fight with other churches over their beliefs. We respect other's rights to believe," Bishop Langham said.

Gympie backlash

City’s image damaged
07.09.2005
The Gympie Times
Story: Arthur Gorrie

COOLOOLA Shire Councillors are not the only ones to take offence at Cr Owen’s claims that homosexuals are less than human and have only the right to die.

Yesterday’s weekly council meeting formally received two protest letters on what their authors called Cr Owen’s “disturbing and hateful comments” and “grubby views not welcome in this day and age”.

Meagan Probert wrote from Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley to urge Mayor Mick Venardos to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commission “on behalf of all the lesbian, gay and bisexual people within your local council area”.

Rosalie Morgan, of The Palms, said Cr Owen’s expressed opinions were “a disgrace, absolutely ignorant, dark and vile”.

Also unimpressed with the “no comment” attitude of some other councillors, Ms Morgan asked: “What right has this yokel to air his regressed views on anyone?

“Can you imagine the impression this tirade has done for Gympie’s image?

“How dare this person ignite such hate?

“We as ratepayers pay your wages and expect council to get on with the business of taking care of this region – not casting themselves as Moral Avengers, barging behind closed bedroom doors.

“Get over yourself councillor,” she wrote.

Ms Probert said Cr Owen’s comments “would be considered an act of vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act 2003.

“His comments are very hurtful and would cause great distress to any gay person, their friends or family members.

“As the Mayor, I believe you have responsibility to take leadership to stamp out homophobia within your community.

“Another step would be to write to The Gympie Times condemning the words and actions of Ron Owen and assuring the gay people of the Cooloola Shire that they are valued and equal members of the community and that it is not acceptable that an elected representative on the council holds these views and expresses them publicly.

“I also call on you to ask for the resignation of Ron Owen in response to his unlawful vilification of gay and lesbian people and ask for him to stand down from his position as there is no room in this society for such hateful people.”

Anti-gay Gympie Goon

Owen ‘on his own’ on gays
07.09.2005
The Gympie Times
Story: Arthur Gorrie

RON Owen was on his own at yesterday’s weekly council meeting, quoting ancient scripture to condemn homosexuality.

He referred to Leviticus, in the Old Testament, which rails against male homosexuality, commands the faithful to wash their hands before eating, instructs on how to make a proper sacrifice (including preparation of the burnt offering), bans all statues and recommends death by stoning for anyone who swears.

Silenced several times as he tried to expand on his views, Cr Owen also was blocked from reading a prayer in which it was claimed that legislators had “ridiculed the word of God and called it pluralism”.

Councillors backed away from a motion by Mayor Mick Venardos to refer Cr Owen’s remarks to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission, but adopted one to disassociate council from the comments.

Cr Owen made headlines last month with his claims that gays are not human and have only the right to die.

Unrepentent yesterday, he said he had been telling the truth about his views and stood by them.

He claimed the support of ancient texts underlying Christianity, saying the same
religious laws had supported Judaism for 3500 years and applied within Islam.

Supported by Cr Bill McIntyre, Mayor Mick Venardos told the meeting that Cr Owen’s remarks were so offensive they should be referred to the Anti-Discrimination Commission.

Cr Owen responded: “If you don’t stand for something, you fall for everything.

“I presume I am at liberty to complain also,” he said.

“Do we throw away the Christian philosophy that has enlightened continents from tribalism to modern civilisation?

“Do we condemn the Torah, which has sustained the Jewish religion for 3500 years?

“Do we denounce the Koran which informs the Muslim faith? “If I am to be condemned for the crime of telling the truth then I am guilty,” he said.

Accusing Cr Owen of selective quoting, Cr Ian Petersen referred to an anonymous scholar who said: “The Devil himself can quote Scripture to his advantage.”

Calling Cr Owen’s opinions “jaundiced and intolerant,” he said: “This raving brings council into disrepute.

“I’m not about to sit here and be smote about the head by scripture,” he said.

Cr Wayne Sachs short-circuited the complaint motion, persuading several councillors that this was not a necessary part of council disassociating itself from Cr Owen’s views.

“We should move on. This does not have to go anywhere,” he said.

Cr Petersen said he took that point but thought the authors of two protest letters to the council probably would make complaints.

The Fred Phelps Conspiracy

I shouldn't have let last week go by without some reference to the antics of Fred Phelps.

If you missed it in the news the "loving" pastor who launched literary creations like www.godhatesfags.com and www.godhatesamerica.com has protested at the funerals of US servicemen killed in Iraq, claiming that it is God's punishment for the nation's hedonistic support of homosexuality.

And if that wasn't enough, Phelps is off to Sweden (his land of birth) to track down the monarch, King Carl Gustaf, and give him a piece of his mind over that country's servitude to the homosexual lifestyle, even claiming that the King is gay! And .. yes! There is now a www.godhatessweden.com website too.

Spot the recurring theme? I sure wish he'd take a one way ticket to Baghdad!

Well, not to be outdone by Phelps, a slightly less certifiable Christian antagonist is now claiming that Pope Fred may actually be a gay plant whose aim is to unfairly stereotype opponents of gay rights as hateful people.

O.K. ... ummm ... right!!! ... and the Ku Klux Klan is headed by Rev Jesse Jackson in order to highlight the issues of racism in the USA. haha.

Gays can be bigots too!

It is always interesting to see bigotry alive and active within minority communities. Depending on your view it can also be ditressing if it is relevant enough to damage a good cause.



I'll admit that I wouldn't blink much at some examples. but I continue to be alarmed at the blatant vilification that exists between particular groups within the gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans* & intersex community (or communities, as some people prefer).



It is not uncommon to see great division and unrest between different interest groups, often to the point of all out war. This often leads to the breakdown of important community infrastructure, culture and resources. it happened with the old Mardi Gras and it continues to be a source of rivalry and division between the numerous state and national lobby groups.



What has got my blood boiling this week is an article in the monthly "gay/lesbian" paper in Western Australia, OutinPerth. Click below to view a scanned copy of the article.











[+/-] show/hide this picture



Without debating the dubious research to which this article refers (I'll do that in another post very soon), it is fair to say that the author, Ralph Morrow, is guilty of vilification and bigotry to the extreme. Who needs the religious right when you have brothers-in-arms like this guy?



It is completely repugnant to any decent person, especially anyone who campaigns for human rights, equality and equity for diverse sexualities.

Red Cross responds

More on the action against the Red Cross, in my reading I discovered an article stating that the Swedish Prime Minister has become the first world leader to advocate for the worldwide ban against gay/bi men to be lifted.




Meanwhile the Australian Red Cross Blood Service national manager of donor and product safety, Dr Tony Keller, has responded:

"Gay people can give blood: this policy is not directed against sexual preference but sexual activity," Dr Keller said.



"There is a risk in male-to-male sex that transmission of blood-borne diseases can occur."

And another quote from the ABC:

"For instance, if people are using condoms, there is a certain breakage rate," he said.

Clearly Dr Keller is unable to recognise that the same risk also applies to male-to-female sex!



All sex is risky, but what should be of concern is whether condoms and other precautions are used, regardless of the gender of the people involved in the sexual act. Similarly, intravenous drug use carries the same risk as getting an immunisation ... the risk lies in whether the needle and syringe are clean or not!




[+/-] show/hide this post



Note: The same testing procedures are used for organ donation, yet due to time constraints organs are not subjected to being held in storage for two weeks and retested to ensure their safety. Hypocritically, sexually active gay and bisexual men are welcome to be organ donors! Go figure!

Red Cross Discriminates

Finally someone has taken the courage to stand up for one of my own deepest peeves ... the blatant discrimination employed by the nation's blood banks against sexually active (that's active, not promiscuous) gay men!

In an article titled Challenge on gay blood-donor ban The Australian reveals that a Tasmanian man is taking legal action against the Red Cross. While the article is short on detail it is heartening for me that someone is finally making a stand.

During my time with Gay and Lesbian Equality WA (GALE) I raised this issue a handful of times but failed to rally any support for a political campaign. I even encountered several gay men daring to defend the policy!

If you want more detail on this issue check out the media release by the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group. There are additional links on that site with further reading about the blood ban and today's development.

Here is an unpublished letter I wrote to The West Australian in August 2003 after a report about a shortage at the local blood bank:

The shortage of blood comes as no surprise when archaic legislation and regulations prevent healthy potential donors from making such a gift.

Sexually active gay or bisexual men are barred from making a blood donation. It is irrelevant whether the man has been in a monogamous relationship for the last 20 years, has always practiced safer sex and is otherwise not in a high risk category.

On the other hand, a heterosexual man that frequently has several different sexual partners each week, partakes in orgies and never uses condoms is welcomed by the Red Cross with open arms. Outrageous!

I know which one is the greater risk to clean blood supply! I don't even have to emphasise the rigorous testing procedures that are used to detect and remove unsuitable blood product before it even gets approved for use.

This blatant discrimination against gay and bisexual men is based upon the unfounded fear that such people automatically carry HIV. It should be remembered that unsafe practices such as sharing needles and unprotected sex are the major cause of the spread of HIV, not the sexuality of a particular person.

Fortunately there are many caring, community-minded, healthy gay and bisexual men that choose to lie on the Red Cross forms when they regularly donate blood. Not that I am condoning this illegal act, but if they didn't care so much as to risk being charged, our national blood stocks would be at disastrous levels.

Some rules just don't follow logic. It is time for Government to pick up its act and start discriminating against the virus instead of the people!

All the best of luck to Michael Cain and the Tasmanian community. At the very least I hope you can rasie awareness of this important issue.

More on Virgin

It seems I'm not alone with thinking that the age discrimination case against Virgin Blue is a little bit deserving of a Ma Sheela style "tough titties" retort. (See Ageism is old news)




ShannonSays is clear that the market has an image of Virgin and its staff, and that the company needs to meet those expectations. See Too old to work at Virgin Blue? Get over it.


And they are having some fun with the issue over at Campong Corner.


Personally, I'd like to see a 55 year old woman try claiming discrimination when she is denied an interview for a job as a topless barmaid at a misnamed "gentleman's club" :-)



It is all a bit silly really ... but then, so is this spat from feministing.com. (I'm not going to comment on the name of the site - but I'm laughing along with gay men all around the world!)

What to write?

Honestly? I have no friggin idea! I thought about a few subjects and nothing really seems worthwhile. So here I go with just a silly rant.

The gay & lesbian lobby in WA has succeeded in raising the spectre of "rollback" after my least favourite self-described editor (think Marlon Brando in "The Godfather" meets Dr Evil from "Austin Powers") of Wackos On Weed managed to get Colin Barnett (Who? The Leader Of the Opposition Party - LOOPy) to confirm what was already common knowledge. Bully for her - what a scoop! Surely that deserves a mock Walkley! :-)

In other news, Western Australians don't give a damn!

Predictably, WA voters are more concerned about issues that matter to them. Gay age of consent, IVF access and adoption hardly equate to water restrictions, power cuts, excessive stamp duty, hospital bed shortages, waiting lists, fishing zones at Ningaloo, prison security, extended trading hours, daylight saving, school uniforms etc.

The gay lobby (namely Gay and Lesbian Equality and Pride) in WA are wasting precious resources trying to run a public smear campaign against the conservatives. Meanwhile the ALP is struggling to get any good news out through the media and seems impotent when it comes to identifying issues that can attract the spotlight in a positive way.

If the polls are anything to go by, the Gallop government is set to be a one hit wonder and the Libs will win without having to run a campaign of any substance.

So far the whole lead up to the election is like watching paint dry ... a very plain shade of beige!

Unravelling child pornography

A fellow blogger and Melbourne philospher has asked my view on child pornography. More specifically, he has questioned how it should be dealt with - zero tolerance or with a view to rehabilitate offenders?

I support both a zero tolerance approach with severe penalties for purveyors of such material, including gaol, and compulsory rehabilitation programs conducted by appropriate psychologists and sociologists for the consenting recipients (i.e. not those who accidentally download or receive such material).

That is the simple answer to the question, however the bigger issue is what constitutes child pornography. Most people do not ask themselves this question, and when they do there is often no suitably comprehensive answer. Even government agencies like the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) find it a difficult topic to define.

I'll explain further below, but don't hope to see any conclusions, except that I believe that the whole debate is frought with ambiguity, conjecture and the biased perception of the individual.

There would be very few that would argue against the typical public definition of child pornography. Something along the following lines:

"any material depicting a child or children engaging in a sexual act, posing in a sexual manner, or produced for sexual gratification of another person."

The problem with this is that there are several ambiguities to this approach. Such a definition is conditional upon a subjective opinion an what constitutes such things as "material", "child", "sexual", etc.

The Material.

Take for instance my baby photo, lovingly snapped by my parents as I lay naked in the bath at 6 months of age, my family jewels floating carefree in the shallow water for all to see. Pornography? Hardly! At least not to me or my family. But what about someone who found such material sexually arousing? To them it would have the air of pornogrphy just as a Bel Ami production would seem to me.

One person's innocent pic is another person's tool for sexual gratification.
Context is clearly important in this matter.

The Child.

No-one would doubt that a minor (less than the relevant legal age of consent) would be considered a "child" under the definition, but what of jurisdictions where an age of consent might differ from, say, 16 in Western Australia? What of jurisdictions in other nations where the age of consent may be 14 or 21? An enormous grey area lies between a mature young adult, sexually inquisitive youth and an innocent child.

It also begs the question of how we might deal with different scenarios such as:

1. a 22yo male who is yet to reach puberty and may look like a pre-pubuscent 14yo.


2. a 14yo female who is well developed and looks like a 22yo to any reasonable person.

Sexually explicit material containing either of these people would be defined as child pornography by some and legal porn by others. Now simply swap the gender of the two examples and, depending on the individual's perspective, the status of illegal porn or legal erotica may change.

Similarly, The different maturity and development of teenagers presents a problem in determining how the "reasonable person" might see a certain piece of material. The age (real and perceived) AND the gender of a child are major factors in determining whether material qualifies as criminal pornography or merely X-rated erotica.

The Sexual Behaviour.

Heralding back to the baby in the bath and comparing that with full sexual intercourse we can also see that the behaviour depicted in any material is also relevant to the context and thus the classification.

Take our pre-pubescent 22yo male (bearing in mind he looks 14) and in each of the following scenarios try and determine if it is considered criminal child pornography:

1. use his naked photograph in a medical journal.


2. in an explicit sexual act with a 16yo woman (i.e. legal age in WA).


3. in an explicit sexual act with a 22yo woman


4. in an explicit sexual act with a 48yo woman

Now, in each scenario, change the woman to a man. Does it make any difference to the classification? How about if we change him to a typically developed 22 year old who looks his age?

Finally for each of the above scenarios, change the main person to our 14yo well developed girl who looks 22yrs. Does the classification change depending on the gender and age of the people involved? Does it change if she is now 22years old instead of 14?

Throughout this exercise the majority of people will find at least one double standard due to age or gender. Clearly this highlights the ambiguous nature of sexuality and the law.

This issue is one of the most complex we have in our society today. Given that laws against child pornography are made to protect children from predation, more than stopping individual sexual gratification (no-one is legislating against imagination) perhaps the future for these people lies in technology.

In the future, with the increasing sophistication of computer graphics, we will need to determine whether computer generated material is just as offensive as the real thing. At this point it becomes a debate about an individual's unfulfilled desires, rather than protecting innocent children. At that point, where will we draw the line?

I previously mentioned the AIC site and it is well worth reading the various definitions to understand the complex nature of child pornography and the relevant laws.

On a final note, I admit to agreeing with Germaine Greer in her book, The Boy, in which she deals with the subject of the naked human form. Though she specifically wrote about young boys, I share the same enjoyment of both genders in art. Non-sexual nudity, in tasteful artistic representation, has been enjoyed by the masses throughout the ages. I do not consider such art to be pornographic, though others might. Each to his own.

Nudity can be sexualised by any individual for his/her own gratification, but such material must be judged by their context, not purely by the subject's age or gender. The context of someone caught with thousands of naked child pictures is similar, though less repulsive than someone caught with images and/or videos of children in sexual acts. The latter requires a harsher penalty than the first. Our laws need to reflect this as well as differentiate between the purveyors of child pornography and those who collect material for their personal use.

Just like drugs, the dealers are the real criminals preying on vulnerable people (children and the weak-minded), whereas some of the users often just need a helping hand to get them out of the situation.

[+/-] show/hide this post